FEDERER v NADAL V DJOKOVIC (etc) - MOD NOTE 1ST POST

dominatinMC · 30-01-2018 4:17pm

WickIow Brave wrote: »

What is so unreasonable about RN and ND not being at their peaks when they were teenagers? Federer wasn't.

Federer peak was 2004-2012 aged 23-31. He is a far more consistent player than Nadal. We are not arguing about consistency and longevity.

Nadal's peak was 2008-2014 aged 22-28 and Djokovic’s was 2011-2016 aged 24-29.

Federer's peak was 8 years
Nadal: 6
Djokovic: 5

Federer's longevity is one reason why he is the GOAT. Again, that is not what we are arguing. We are debating them at their peak!

The issue is that we are dealing with some die-hard Fed fans here, who can't deal with reason, logic and rationale! But only see their deity that is Federer!

They cannot comprehend how this godlike figure could possibly be usurped by Nadal and Djokovic. It is simply not enough that he is universally acclaimed the GOAT, no, they also believe that neither of Nadal or Djokovic could possibly beat Fed at his peak, which is contrary to what the actual facts and stats tell us. Don't you know that there was always some mitigating circumstance whenever Nadal or Djokovic did indeed beat Fed...:pac:

walshb · 30-01-2018 4:17pm

ballyargus wrote: »

His peak finished in 09. His consistency in hitting the final of slams ended that year.

His OZ 2017 finals performance was arguably as good as he has ever been. It's why he is the GOAT. His longevity and brilliance...

Anyway his H2H with Nadal up until end of 2009 is 13-7 for Nadal. Most matches you could argue where when RF was closer to his prime.

Nadal a clear lead here

Post 2009 it's 10-8 Nadal.....he leads during the whole span...

RF vs. Nole up until end of 2009 was 9-5 Federer. Again, could be argued that Federer was much more close to prime than Nole.

Post 2009 and it's 19-13 for Nole....that's a clear lead when Nole was in his prime, and Federer was close to prime, if not juts as brilliant as any of the preceding years.

Think I am one match out here.....must be 18-13....anyway, Nole really took over from 2010 onwards...

RF did not win as many slams post 2012 because he was facing a beast in Nole and a beast in Nadal. It was nothing to do with him past it. He was simply playing players that matched him and bested him with their games. The prettiest doesn't always mean the best.

He is my favorite ever player but as a betting man I would have to place him 3rd if all where meeting each other on their strongest day. Very very close between all.

walshb · 30-01-2018 4:33pm

WickIow Brave wrote: »

I don't believe that at all. He won the Australian Open in 2010 destroying Murray in the final. Beat by Djokovic in the USO SF and AO SF. Made the final of FO in 2011 playing insanely well against Djokovic in the SF. Beat by Djokovic again in the USO 2011, Nadal AO 2012, Djokovic FO 2012 and he won Wimbledon in 2012. Federer was awful in 2013, he was solid in 2014, I would argue he was nearly close to his best again at 2015 Wimbledon and USO even.

But these facts and stats don't suit the Fed narrative. Always trying to explain away these losses to two other brilliant players...

The Golden Miller · 30-01-2018 4:35pm

dominatinMC wrote: »

The issue is that we are dealing with some die-hard Fed fans here, who can't deal with reason, logic and rationale! But only see their deity that is Federer! They cannot comprehend how this godlike figure could possibly be usurped by Nadal and Djokovic. It is simply not enough that he is universally acclaimed the GOAT, no, they also believe that neither of Nadal or Djokovic could possibly beat Fed at his peak, which is contrary to what the actual facts and stats tell us. Don't you know that there was always some mitigating circumstance whenever Nadal or Djokovic did indeed beat Fed...:pac:

walshb wrote: »

But these facts and stats don't suit the Fed narrative. Always trying to explain away these losses to two other brilliant players...

Sums it up

WickIow Brave · 30-01-2018 4:55pm

Chivito550 wrote: »

Where was he at US 2009? Crushed by Del Potro, who needed 5 sets to defeat Federer.

He was hardly an up and coming player during those.

We can pick as many holes in Nadal’s career as we can Federer’s.

Sure where was Federer at USO 2017? Beat by del Potro who was then dismantled by Nadal. (Even though that is totally irrelevant to the argument but this has basically been your entire argument).

We are not picking holes in Federer's career, we are looking at the bigger picture and stating facts. Nadal has more holes than Federer for sure getting beat in early rounds and such but *again*, not the argument!

Ardillaun · 30-01-2018 5:27pm

Federer wins in the artistic merit stakes, a beautiful mover, but those splits that Djokovic used to do on a regular basis were quite extraordinary. He was everywhere on the court.

walshb · 30-01-2018 5:35pm

Ardillaun wrote: »

Federer wins in the artistic merit stakes, a beautiful mover, but those splits that Djokovic used to do on a regular basis were quite extraordinary. He was everywhere on the court.

I think that is what sways a lot of people in these debates. RF just does it so more beautifully. He's so graceful and easy and effortless. Then two aggressive hard hitting relentless machines come along and start beating him in kind of ugly fashion and it doesn't sit well with hardened Fed fans.....I can see why.

But sometimes ugly beats pretty, and in this case ugly beats pretty more....

If it was a pretty contest then Nadal and Nole don't even get a sniff....

lostcat · 30-01-2018 10:20pm

how about a thread cilic v stan v murray v berdych?

walshb · 30-01-2018 10:29pm

lostcat wrote: »

how about a thread cilic v stan v murray v berdych?

Eh, no!

mickmackey1 · 30-01-2018 10:30pm

walshb wrote: »

I think that is what sways a lot of people in these debates. RF just does it so more beautifully. He's so graceful and easy and effortless. Then two aggressive hard hitting relentless machines come along and start beating him in kind of ugly fashion and it doesn't sit well with hardened Fed fans.....I can see why.

But sometimes ugly beats pretty, and in this case ugly beats pretty more....

If it was a pretty contest then Nadal and Nole don't even get a sniff....

Fair points. It just goes to show that Fed afficionados see the bigger picture whereas fans of the other two are only interested in trophies.

lostcat · 30-01-2018 10:31pm

ok I haven't read the full 8 pages, but, in mid 2016, one would be hard pressed to say that Djokovic wasn't the best of the three of them, even though Nadal and Federer had more slams at the time.

At present, in terms of overall legacy (and I really, really didn't see it happening at the time) the fact that they have each won multiple slams since then and Djokovic has won none pushes them ahead.
I thank the Lord for Djokovic, if he didn't exist (or if he had quit after 2008, which he seriously considered doing) , we would be looking at Federer on 25+ slams and Nadal on 22/23+. That would be unpalatable, as great as they both are.

I think the point is that three comparable protagonists (with Murray as an honourable mention, esp against Djokovic) has been infinitely more interesting that just two.

lostcat · 30-01-2018 10:32pm

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Fair points. It just goes to show that Fed afficionados see the bigger picture whereas fans of the other two are only interested in trophies.

this is nonsense in fairness theres more than one valid way to play any sport (except maybe darts)

mickmackey1 · 30-01-2018 10:40pm

lostcat wrote: »

this is nonsense in fairness theres more than one valid way to play any sport (except maybe darts)

Sorry but you've just mentioned Mandy in the same breath as The Big 3. Your credibility is shot.

mickmackey1 · 30-01-2018 10:52pm

Vertigous_ wrote: »

His peak ended in 2008, it was 2004-2007, you only have to look at his winning percentage and defeats to relatively weak players in 2008 such as James Blake and Stepanek.

Nadal's overall peak was prob 2008-2013, his clay peak goes from 2005-2013.

Djokovic had two peak years, 2011 and 2015.

Spot on. Also his '09 USO defeat to 20yo Delpo from 2 sets to 1; he would never have lost that in '06.

ballyargus · 30-01-2018 10:59pm

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Spot on. Also his '09 USO defeat to 20yo Delpo from 2 sets to 1; he would never have lost that in '06.

Tbh Delpo hadn't covered himself in glory up to that point in the match and had blown all comers off the court within previous matches in the tournament. He had also won four ATP events on the trot not long before and was seen as the most prodigious talent since Novak.

His is a career of unfulfilled potential. Federer was not at his best but Delpo was simply knocking people out of the court with that forehand in that tournament. It was more like a serve than a groundstroke

mickmackey1 · 30-01-2018 11:10pm

Vertigous_ wrote: »

The only time peaks overlapped was probably Djokovic and Nadal in 2011. 2006 Fed and 2006 Clay Nadal peaked together on clay and produced some stunning clay court tennis that year. The Rome five set final standing out amongst the bunch where Fed had a number of match points but ultimately lost.

I'm one of the few who believes Fed had the ability to beat Nadal at RG. Check out that 6-1 1st set in '06 where Nadal could do nothing. But he didn't have the mental belief to see it through, for which of course you have to give credit to Nadal.

dominatinMC · 30-01-2018 11:21pm

mickmackey1 wrote:

I'm one of the few who believes Fed had the ability to beat Nadal at RG. Check out that 6-1 1st set in '06 where Nadal could do nothing. But he didn't have the mental belief to see it through, for which of course you have to give credit to Nadal.

That's a nice fantasy to indulge in. Unfortunately, for Fed fans, that's the closest he ever really came to doing so. A peak Fed (if we are conveniently choosing '06 as one of his prime/peak years) couldn't even take Nadal to 5 at RG.

mickmackey1 · 30-01-2018 11:29pm

dominatinMC wrote: »

That's a nice fantasy to indulge in. Unfortunately, for Fed fans, that's the closest he ever really came to doing so. A peak Fed (if we are conveniently choosing '06 as one of his prime/peak years) couldn't even take Nadal to 5 at RG.

He was (and is) a beast on clay, no doubt about it. But from his 38 slams off clay, he's lost 32 of them. Nowhere near GOAT standard.

ballyargus · 30-01-2018 11:33pm

So which of the two has "feet of clay"?

- a much better debate!

lostcat · 31-01-2018 12:08am

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Sorry but you've just mentioned Mandy in the same breath as The Big 3. Your credibility is shot.

yeah, not wanting to bring murray into this, however it is a fact that he is as good as Federer or Nadal at playing Djokovic most of the time, however tedious their matches tend to be.

Federers biggest question mark for me over the years has been his mental fortitude against Nadal and Djokovic. They could generally dog-it-out against him until he cracked.

I think he has actually improved in this regard in the past couple of years, even while his general level of play has understandably dropped slightly.

ballyargus · 31-01-2018 12:15am

lostcat wrote: »

yeah, not wanting to bring murray into this, however it is a fact that he is as good as Federer or Nadal at playing Djokovic most of the time, however tedious their matches tend to be.

Federers biggest question mark for me over the years has been his mental fortitude against Nadal and Djokovic. They could generally dog-it-out against him until he cracked.

I think he has actually improved in this regard in the past couple of years, even while his general level of play has understandably dropped slightly.

Federer is a more aggressive player than Nadal and Djokovic and far more so than Murray. Murray plays a dull flat game, long points not looking to go for anything himself - hoping for the opponent to fcuk up. Murrays record is nowhere near Federer and Nadal's against Djoker

WickIow Brave · 31-01-2018 12:20am

Interestingly Brad Gilbert tweeted that he asked Federer after he won on the weekend who would win between 26 yo Fed and 36 yo Fed and Fed answered the 36 yo version. Said his serve and backhand are way better. Now I personally don't believe that he'd get near Federer from 2006 but interesting nonetheless. Some very good points made by Vertiginous here, finally someone able to defend Federer's honour LOL and make a good argument for Federer at his peak and not bang on about Nadal getting beat by whoever haha.

WickIow Brave · 31-01-2018 12:25am

lostcat wrote: »

yeah, not wanting to bring murray into this, however it is a fact that he is as good as Federer or Nadal at playing Djokovic most of the time, however tedious their matches tend to be.

Yeah this is a great point about Murray. He was well able to put it up to Djokovic but could never really beat Nadal or Fed while they both had torrid times against Nole. I wonder why that is.

Chivito550 · 31-01-2018 12:37am

WickIow Brave wrote: »

Yeah this is a great point about Murray. He was well able to put it up to Djokovic but could never really beat Nadal or Fed while they both had torrid times against Nole. I wonder why that is.

Murray 11-25 Djokovic
Federer 22-23 Djokovic
Nadal 24-26 Djokovic

Yep, Murray sure was better against Djokovic than Nadal and Federer were!

WickIow Brave · 31-01-2018 12:43am

Chivito550 wrote: »

Murray 11-25 Djokovic
Federer 22-23 Djokovic
Nadal 24-26 Djokovic

Yep, Murray sure was better against Djokovic than Nadal and Federer were!

Jesus, funny the way I remembered it LOL. I just had 2012 USO final and 2013 Wimbledon final on my brain! And the 2012 AO SF which Murray probably should have won. Honestly didn't think it was that screwed in Djokovic's favour haha.

The Golden Miller · 31-01-2018 12:56am

More disingenuous nonsense from Chivito. Once again presenting a whole host of pre-2011 victories Federer had over Novak to paint a different picture to what actually happened post 2011. You expected Novak to beat Federer everytime they played, Murray was actually a serious threat.

Again, people going back to this peak RF GOAT stuff when you look at him pre-2009. Now winning percentages are the argument. Of course when there's no competition and your full of confidence, everything will be easy. Nadal rattled Federer and made him doubt himself. It's par for the course, all players have to deal with actual competition at some point. By the same metric, surely Borg pre-McEnroe is the GOAT if we look at his winning percentages? But no doubt Federer fans will be the first ones on talking about poor quality opposition. How can Federer mid-00's form be GOAT material when he had no serious competition to prove himself against? Ye, he looked amazing against cannon fodder for the most part

Chivito550 · 31-01-2018 1:08am

The Golden Miller wrote: »

More disingenuous nonsense from Chivito. Once again presenting a whole host of pre-2011 victories Federer had over Novak to paint a different picture to what actually happened post 2011. You expected Novak to beat Federer everytime they played, Murray was actually a serious threat.

Again, people going back to this peak RF GOAT stuff when you look at him pre-2009. Now winning percentages are the argument. Of course when there's no competition and your full of confidence, everything will be easy. Nadal rattled Federer and made him doubt himself. It's par for the course, all players have to deal with actual competition at some point. By the same metric, surely Borg pre-McEnroe is the GOAT if we look at his winning percentages? But no doubt Federer fans will be the first ones on talking about poor quality opposition. How can Federer mid-00's form be GOAT material when he had no serious competition to prove himself against? Ye, he looked amazing against cannon fodder for the most part

More nonsense out of you.

So from January 2011 onwards the H2H's are as follows:

Murray 8-20 Djokovic
Federer 9-17 Djokovic
Nadal 8-19 Djokovic

Federer is actually the one who has the best record against him!

Dig up!

The Golden Miller · 31-01-2018 1:08am

Vertigous_ wrote: »

I think his biggest weakness during those peak years was his stubborness and his ego. He didn't want to admit to himself in my opinion that he needed to change tactics against Nadal, back then I think he was even reluctant to make drop shot even though he could do it, if I recall correctly. As it wasn't the "right way to play".

Well that's that sorted. Explain away history saying that had Federer changed A and B, then he most certainly had the measure of Nadal. Surely we could apply this logic to any player?

Vertigous_ wrote: »

His maturity now is what allows him to beat Nadal imo, he is willing to adapt with the bigger Racquet and new techniques such as sabr and changed backhand.

No, the fact that Nadal has diminished into quite an average hardcourt player allows Federer to beat him.

Chivito550 · 31-01-2018 1:10am

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Well that's that sorted. Explain away history saying that had Federer changed A and B, then he most certainly had the measure of Nadal. Surely we could apply this logic to any player?

No, the fact that Nadal has diminished into quite an average hardcourt player allows Federer to beat him.

I just love the way you like to explain Federer's wins because Nadal is in decline, but not the other way around.

The Golden Miller · 31-01-2018 1:12am

Chivito550 wrote: »

More nonsense out of you.

So from January 2011 onwards the H2H's are as follows:

Murray 8-20 Djokovic
Federer 9-17 Djokovic
Nadal 8-19 Djokovic

Federer is actually the one who has the best record against him!

Dig up!

Novak has picked up many of his victories in the recent past, against a Murray dogged with injuries on and off . From 11-14, Murray gave as good as he got against a peak Novak, and was a serious threat. Federer was an afterthought during this period, with any victory over Novak being a surprise. But go ahead, nitpick how you present stats to try and distort what actually happened to suit the Federer narrative

The Golden Miller · 31-01-2018 1:13am

Chivito550 wrote: »

I just love the way you like to explain Federer's wins because Nadal is in decline, but not the other way around.

Because it is hugely evident to even the dogs on the street that Nadal became absolute dirt. First round exits etc. Ye, Federer diminished to that level alright. Any more disingenuous nonsense you want to present? And what's with your logic that if X applies to Federer, X must also apply to Nadal or Novaks career? Life isn't black and white.

And I didn't explain away Federer's hardcourt wins over Nadal from 08-14, did I? Federer simply beat Nadal on those occasions because he was better. See, not so hard to accept for anyone with any impartiality

Urindanger · 31-01-2018 1:16am

Number of titles shouldn't be too influential imo, both have boat loads. Ronnie O Sullivan is almost unanimously considered the GOAT but Hendry still has more ranking titles.

Never thought I'd say it but I think there's a parallel between tennis and darts. Phil Taylor is largely renowned as the GOAT but Michael Van Gerwen is the best darts player a lot of people have ever seen. I'd agree. Think it's the same here a little. Federer probably goes down as the GOAT but I'd have Nadal over him in terms of best player. There are valid arguments for either, it's much closer than Messi vs Ronaldo for example.

Chivito550 · 31-01-2018 1:23am

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Novak has picked up many of his victories in the recent past, against a Murray dogged with injuries on and off . From 11-14, Murray gave as good as he got against a peak Novak, and was a serious threat. Federer was an afterthought during this period, with any victory over Novak being a surprise. But go ahead, nitpick how you present stats to try and distort what actually happened to suit the Federer narrative

Between 2011-2014:

Murray 5-11 Djokovic
Federer 6-11 Djokovic
Nadal 7-12 Djokovic

You'll have to try harder than that pal!

dominatinMC · 31-01-2018 1:29am

It's clear that us impartial folk on here will never be able to reason with the, at times excruciatingly painful, Fed fanboys. It really is like some sort of cult following.

Anyway, I just thought I'd test this debate in completely neural waters, by asking my housemates (all of whom are fans of sport in general, but just casual tennis observers) who they would put their money on in a Fed Vs. Nadal match. All 3 of them said Nadal. Now Fed fans will accuse me of that being a small sample size, and that I didn't specify a court, but I just thought it was interesting that even casual tennis observers recognise something that real tennis fans are unwilling to admit. I was actually surprised with their response, as I thought recency bias (i.e. Fed winning the AO) would play a part, but they all recognise that Nadal has dominated Fed, more or less, for the majority of their careers. Again, let me reiterate and be clear, I am not trying to suggest that Fed isn't the GOAT, but that Nadal (and Djokovic) have had the better of Fed for a long time.

The Golden Miller · 31-01-2018 1:29am

Chivito550 wrote: »

Between 2011-2014:

Murray 5-11 Djokovic
Federer 6-11 Djokovic
Nadal 7-12 Djokovic

You'll have to try harder than that pal!

I was counting from the start of 2011 to the start of 14. I thought this much was obvious, seeing as Murray had been hampered with injuries in 2014. So the hth is 7-5, with 3 of Murrays wins coming in grand slams. Now you and I both know that Murray gave as good as he got over this period against a peak Djokovic, particularly on the big occasions, so why are you trying to distort reality to paint a different Federer orientated narrative?

Chivito550 · 31-01-2018 1:39am

The Golden Miller wrote: »

I was counting from the start of 2011 to the start of 14. I thought this much was obvious, seeing as Murray had been hampered with injuries in 2014. So the hth is 7-5, with 3 of Murrays wins coming in grand slams. Now you and I both know that Murray gave as good as he got over this period against a peak Djokovic, particularly on the big occasions, so why are you trying to distort reality to paint a different Federer orientated narrative?

So you can pick and choose your date range but I can’t?

Djokovic wasn’t at the top of his game in 2012-13 relatively speaking.

The constant losses to Djokovic in Australia speak volumes of the one sided nature of their head to head. Not that head to head is a major factor in determining who a better player is anyway.

WickIow Brave · 31-01-2018 1:39am

When I brought up Murray v Djokovic it was actually a compliment to Federer (& Nadal)! As in, Murray found it easier against Djokovic than he did against Fed...

WickIow Brave · 31-01-2018 1:51am

dominatinMC wrote: »

It's clear that us impartial folk on here will never be able to reason with the, at times excruciatingly painful, Fed fanboys. It really is like some sort of cult following.

Anyway, I just thought I'd test this debate in completely neural waters, by asking my housemates (all of whom are fans of sport in general, but just casual tennis observers) who they would put their money on in a Fed Vs. Nadal match. All 3 of them said Nadal. Now Fed fans will accuse me of that being a small sample size, and that I didn't specify a court, but I just thought it was interesting that even casual tennis observers recognise something that real tennis fans are unwilling to admit. I was actually surprised with their response, as I thought recency bias (i.e. Fed winning the AO) would play a part, but they all recognise that Nadal has dominated Fed, more or less, for the majority of their careers. Again, let me reiterate and be clear, I am not trying to suggest that Fed isn't the GOAT, but that Nadal (and Djokovic) have had the better of Fed for a long time.

I was chatting about the AO to a fella at work the other day and he said to me 'where's Murray these days?' and I was like 'ah his hips shagged, won't be back for awhile' and his exact response was 'Yeah I don't think Federer would be winning if Djokovic and Murray weren't injured' like he even included Murray haha, harsh enough on Roger I thought!

Chivito550 · 31-01-2018 8:48am

WickIow Brave wrote: »

I was chatting about the AO to a fella at work the other day and he said to me 'where's Murray these days?' and I was like 'ah his hips shagged, won't be back for awhile' and his exact response was 'Yeah I don't think Federer would be winning if Djokovic and Murray weren't injured' like he even included Murray haha, harsh enough on Roger I thought!

Djokovic wasn’t injured at last years AO. His motivation has dropped and there’s rumours about his personal life. He has not been injured the entire time since he won 2016 RG.

ballyargus · 31-01-2018 8:51am

Nadal won the Us open in emphatic style last year. Hardly the Hallmark of an "average hardcourt player"

ballyargus · 31-01-2018 10:18am

What is he meant to say? "No, I was better back then?" Come on

WickIow Brave · 31-01-2018 10:49am

Chivito550 wrote: »

Djokovic wasn’t injured at last years AO. His motivation has dropped and there’s rumours about his personal life. He has not been injured the entire time since he won 2016 RG.

Eh, yeah I know that ffs, I'm just repeating what a random at work said.

The Golden Miller · 31-01-2018 10:58am

Vertigous_ wrote: »

Federer said the same thing in previous years, it's just something he says, like past it boxers who say they feel better than ever, only for reality to contradict them.

If we want to be tedious the way Federer fans have been on this thread, we could just as easily query to why we're not supposed to believe Federer if he says he feels better now than ever, but we are supposed to believe his say so that he had the measure of Nadal in years previous if he changed one or two things. Picking and choosing when to believe his word. I actually do agree with you on this point, he isn't a better player now, but these are the kind of tedious lows Federer fans have to drag these threads down to to dispute any tiny perceived slight on Federer

The Golden Miller · 31-01-2018 10:59am

WickIow Brave wrote: »

Eh, yeah I know that ffs, I'm just repeating what a random at work said.

Everything must be disputed to show Federer is the besty best ever

The Golden Miller · 31-01-2018 11:02am

Chivito550 wrote: »

So you can pick and choose your date range but I can’t?

Djokovic wasn’t at the top of his game in 2012-13 relatively speaking.

The constant losses to Djokovic in Australia speak volumes of the one sided nature of their head to head. Not that head to head is a major factor in determining who a better player is anyway.

Im not picking and choosing anything. It was a response to another poster referring to a point when Murray was a serious threat to Novak, which he was, which you have once again tried to distort to make out your diety was a bigger threat. More pathetic fanboyism

Chivito550 · 31-01-2018 2:07pm

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Im not picking and choosing anything. It was a response to another poster referring to a point when Murray was a serious threat to Novak, which he was, which you have once again tried to distort to make out your diety was a bigger threat. More pathetic fanboyism

Every date range you’ve mentioned I’ve shown you facts that Federer had a better H2H with Djokovic than Murray had. Don’t let facts get in the way of your rants. Quit the use of the terms “fanboys” and “Federer fans”. It’s a bit weird.

There’s just as much fanboys as you call it for Nadal. I read some nonsense the other day on Men’s Tennis Forums where some lad started a thread discounting all Australian Open wins because the AO wasn’t all that important 30-40 years ago, so that Nadal could be ahead of Federer in grand slams.

Nadal was an awful match up for Federer, and he had no chance on clay. Away from clay it was generally very tight. Away from head to head the career achievements are overwhelmingly in Federer’s favour.

mickmackey1 · 31-01-2018 3:05pm

Nadal fans bitterness is due to the fact that the one weapon in their armour, H2H, is now being eroded. Nadal is the computer No 1 but now cannot even take a set from Federer. It would be way better for them if Nadal was No 20 and they could claim he was in decline, but the opposite is the case and this leaves them up sh1t creek without a paddle! Sad really.

The Golden Miller · 31-01-2018 3:08pm

Chivito550 wrote: »

Every date range you’ve mentioned I’ve shown you facts that Federer had a better H2H with Djokovic than Murray had. Don’t let facts get in the way of your rants. Quit the use of the terms “fanboys” and “Federer fans”. It’s a bit weird.

Facts? What facts are these? That from the start of 2011 to the start of 2014, Murray and Novak's hth was 7-5, and it was something like 9-3 v Federer? By the end of 2013, many people and pundits were questioning whether Murray had even surpassed Djokovic as the best player in the world. You couldn't call their matches over this period, and anytime Federer beat Novak it was considered a surprise. Your trying to confound numbers from before Novak was a top player, and numbers after Murray started suffering with injuries, to imply Federer was just as much of a threat from 2011 to the start of 2014. He wasn't, disingenuous nonsense. Yet, you're sick telling us how Federer had declined after 2009. You seem to want it everyway. So yes, this is fanboyism, trying to rewrite history to favour your hero as the best in every situation, yet simultaneously telling us how he had declined. Utter nonsense

Chivito550 wrote: »

There’s just as much fanboys as you call it for Nadal. I read some nonsense the other day on Men’s Tennis Forums where some lad started a thread discounting all Australian Open wins because the AO wasn’t all that important 30-40 years ago, so that Nadal could be ahead of Federer in grand slams.

Yes, there is to a lesser extent, but moreso with an "anyone but Federer" attitude, as he was the one who could beat Federer and shut his fanboys up. Not close to the same level of hysterical nonsense as the insecure Federer fans, who have to shove this "GOAT" stuff down everyone's throat every 2 minutes.

Chivito550 wrote: »

Nadal was an awful match up for Federer, and he had no chance on clay. Away from clay it was generally very tight. Away from head to head the career achievements are overwhelmingly in Federer’s favour.

Except between 08-14, Nadal was reguarly beating Federer on hardcourt also, more often than not. Not only did he roundly beat him on clay, he had Federers number on hardcourts too. If Federer was the "GOAT" you make him out to be, he should have been able to find a way to overcome Nadal, he couldn't, hence this "bad match-up" guff. Djokovic found a way....

The Golden Miller · 31-01-2018 3:11pm

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Nadal fans bitterness is due to the fact that the one weapon in their armour, H2H, is now being eroded. Nadal is the computer No 1 but now cannot even take a set from Federer. It would be way better for them if Nadal was No 20 and they could claim he was in decline, but the opposite is the case and this leaves them up sh1t creek without a paddle! Sad really.

Except no one here is a Nadal fan, and no one cares if Federer is beating him or not, nor is anyone afraid to admit that right now Federer is just much better. It's the Federer fans who have the insecurity complex of being able to accept at times, Federer was simply beaten by a better man. Always an excuse

Chivito550 · 31-01-2018 3:29pm

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Except no one here is a Nadal fan, and no one cares if Federer is beating him or not, nor is anyone afraid to admit that right now Federer is just much better. It's the Federer fans who have the insecurity complex of being able to accept at times, Federer was simply beaten by a better man. Always an excuse

Explain why Nadal has lost early in many slams while Federer hit at least the semi finals for 23 consecutive slams and the quarter finals for 36 consecutive slams. Federer would generally only lose to Nadal and Djokovic with the occasional other loss. Nadal would lose to guys Federer always beat. Explain how Nadal is the better man when he falls to guys Federer beats, or why he struggles past nobodies in early rounds at Wimbledon in 5 sets?

FEDERER v NADAL V DJOKOVIC (etc) - MOD NOTE 1ST POST

Comments