Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1235720

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 993 ✭✭✭ballyargus


    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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 620 ✭✭✭WickIow Brave


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 620 ✭✭✭WickIow Brave


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,694 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    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!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 620 ✭✭✭WickIow Brave


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,995 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,694 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    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!


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,995 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,694 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,995 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,995 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 246 ✭✭Urindanger


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,694 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    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!


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,843 ✭✭✭dominatinMC


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,995 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,694 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 620 ✭✭✭WickIow Brave


    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...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 620 ✭✭✭WickIow Brave


    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!


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,694 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 993 ✭✭✭ballyargus


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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 993 ✭✭✭ballyargus


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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 620 ✭✭✭WickIow Brave


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,995 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,995 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,995 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,694 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,288 ✭✭✭mickmackey1


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,995 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    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....


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,995 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,694 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    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?


Advertisement