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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

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

Options
12467…20

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Chivito550
    Registered Users Posts: 7,694 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    WickIow Brave wrote: »
    When Nadal was in his late teens/early twenties and a long way off his peak on grass and HC. What is pathetic is your complete inability to look at this argument impartially.

    Where was Nadal in the following:

    Australia 2007
    Australia 2010
    US 2007
    US 2008
    Wimbledon 2012

    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.


  • Options
    #93
    Chivito550
    Registered Users Posts: 7,694 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    WickIow Brave wrote: »
    When Nadal was in his late teens/early twenties and a long way off his peak on grass and HC. What is pathetic is your complete inability to look at this argument impartially.

    I love the way you use the excuse of Nadal not being at peak during Federer’s peak, but Federer being at peak during Nadal and Djokovic’s peak. Having your cake and eating it too.

    If what you say is true then Federer was at peak for about 8 years.


  • Options
    #94
    WickIow Brave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 620 ✭✭✭WickIow Brave


    Federer fans always say 'Federer was at his peak in 2003-2007 and it's not his fault Nadal couldn't make GS finals because Federer would have beaten him if he did', completely ignoring the fact that Nadal was a *teenager*! Nadal was nowhere near his best on grass and HC during that period. By the same token, Federer couldn't get far enough to meet Nadal at both Wimbledon and the USO in 2010 and 2011 that would have resulted in 4 wins for Nadal had they met. As we saw in the Australian Open in 2012. Both Federer and Nadal were at their peak during that period.


  • Options
    #95
    The Golden Miller
    Registered Users Posts: 5,044 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    Chivito550 wrote: »
    I love the way you use the excuse of Nadal not being at peak during Federer’s peak, but Federer being at peak during Nadal and Djokovic’s peak. Having your cake and eating it too.

    If what you say is true then Federer was at peak for about 8 years.

    You've yet to impartially show us how Federer had declined by 09. So because Nadal and Novak weren't at peak in the early stages of Federer's career, that means Federer could in no possible way be at his peak or close to it after 09? So every athlete must peak and decline at exactly the same age?


  • Options
    #96
    ballyargus
    Registered Users Posts: 1,003 ✭✭✭ballyargus


    Traditional peaks for tennis players historically have been from 21-26. That includes our current Golden Trio. Most of the greats have tapered off significantly after that. There are outliers, but they are the exception rather than the rule.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    The Golden Miller
    Registered Users Posts: 5,044 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    Chivito550 wrote: »
    Nadal was in the field for 17 of Federer’s grand slams. The only ones he missed were Wimbledon 04, Australian 2006 and Wimbledon 2009. The first 2 of those Nadal wasn’t getting near Federer. So one of his slams came from Federer not being in the field. You make it sound like Federer only wins because Nadal is injured. Pathetic really.


    Once again no argument to what I posted, and just going on a tangent full of nonsense, trying to equate a teenager to a fully developed Nadal. It's getting embarrassing by this stage


  • Options
    #98
    WickIow Brave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 620 ✭✭✭WickIow Brave


    Chivito550 wrote: »
    I love the way you use the excuse of Nadal not being at peak during Federer’s peak, but Federer being at peak during Nadal and Djokovic’s peak. Having your cake and eating it too.

    If what you say is true then Federer was at peak for about 8 years.

    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!


  • Options
    #99
    ballyargus
    Registered Users Posts: 1,003 ✭✭✭ballyargus


    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 debating them at their peak!

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


  • Options
    #100
    WickIow Brave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 620 ✭✭✭WickIow Brave


    ballyargus wrote: »
    His peak finished in 09. His consistency in hitting the final of slams ended that year.

    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.


  • Options
    #101
    The Golden Miller
    Registered Users Posts: 5,044 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    ballyargus wrote: »
    His peak finished in 09. His consistency in hitting the final of slams ended that year.

    Well his consistency seemed to pick up again the minute Nadal got injured. Nadal had just taken over completely by 10. Federer was rattled, real competition hurt his confidence. Welcome to the real world, his free ride was over


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    dominatinMC
    Registered Users Posts: 2,853 ✭✭✭dominatinMC


    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! :D 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:


  • Options
    #103
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,584 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    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.


  • Options
    #104
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,584 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    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...


  • Options
    #105
    The Golden Miller
    Registered Users Posts: 5,044 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    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! :D 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


  • Options
    #106
    WickIow Brave
    Closed Accounts Posts: 620 ✭✭✭WickIow Brave


    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!


  • Options
    #107
    Ardillaun
    Registered Users Posts: 2,535 ✭✭✭Ardillaun


    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.


  • Options
    #108
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,584 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    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....


  • Options
    #109
    lostcat
    Registered Users Posts: 695 ✭✭✭lostcat


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


  • Options
    #110
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,584 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    lostcat wrote: »
    how about a thread cilic v stan v murray v berdych?

    Eh, no!


  • Options
    #111
    mickmackey1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,288 ✭✭✭mickmackey1


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    lostcat
    Registered Users Posts: 695 ✭✭✭lostcat


    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.


  • Options
    #113
    lostcat
    Registered Users Posts: 695 ✭✭✭lostcat


    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)


  • Options
    #114
    mickmackey1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,288 ✭✭✭mickmackey1


    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.


  • Options
    #115
    mickmackey1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,288 ✭✭✭mickmackey1


    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.


  • Options
    #116
    ballyargus
    Registered Users Posts: 1,003 ✭✭✭ballyargus


    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


  • Options
    #117
    mickmackey1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,288 ✭✭✭mickmackey1


    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.


  • Options
    #118
    dominatinMC
    Registered Users Posts: 2,853 ✭✭✭dominatinMC


    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.


  • Options
    #119
    mickmackey1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,288 ✭✭✭mickmackey1


    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.


  • Options
    #120
    ballyargus
    Registered Users Posts: 1,003 ✭✭✭ballyargus


    So which of the two has "feet of clay"? :D - a much better debate!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    lostcat
    Registered Users Posts: 695 ✭✭✭lostcat


    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.


Advertisement