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

WickIow Brave · 29-01-2018 9:33pm

I'd have my life savings on peak Nole to beat any player on any surface, man was a complete freak. Maybe Nadal at the 2010 USO aswell. Both were just like machines at their best. Earlier post was spot on, put Fed under pressure and the UEs will come. Federer is the undisputed GOAT though, there is no debate. Nole and Nadal just bad match ups. It's like when West Germany beat Cruijff's Netherlands in the World Cup. Netherlands were twice the team.

The Golden Miller · 29-01-2018 10:03pm

Chivito550 wrote: »

Nadal IS better.....on clay.

Away from clay it’s 19-6. How can anybody sane argue against this?

So he's the GOAT at half a sport then? Thing about it is, Novak and Nadal generally had actual competition on their level when they entered slams

Chivito550 · 29-01-2018 10:07pm

The Golden Miller wrote: »

So he's the GOAT at half a sport then? Thing about it is, Novak and Nadal generally had actual competition on their level when they entered slams

Well 3/4 of the slams are not clay and 6/9 of the masters are not clay, and the ATP finals are not clay. That’s 10 out of 14 that are not clay. So considerably more than half of the sport.

For Nadal’s first 6 RG’s Federer was his only competitor (other than a juiced up Puerta in 2005) so not sure what your point is.

Chivito550 · 29-01-2018 10:11pm

WickIow Brave wrote: »

I'd have my life savings on peak Nole to beat any player on any surface, man was a complete freak. Maybe Nadal at the 2010 USO aswell. Both were just like machines at their best. Earlier post was spot on, put Fed under pressure and the UEs will come. Federer is the undisputed GOAT though, there is no debate. Nole and Nadal just bad match ups. It's like when West Germany beat Cruijff's Netherlands in the World Cup. Netherlands were twice the team.

Nadal was a terrible match up but he seems to have him figured out now. Federer said last year that the losses on clay early in the rivalry got into his head and affected how he played him on other surfaces and that the win at Swiss Indoors in 2015 along with the gap before and after that match to the previous and next matches with him, helped him a lot. He’s won the last 5 against him now.

Was Nole really such a bad match up though. 22-23 record against him is hardly dominant.

The Golden Miller · 29-01-2018 10:16pm

Chivito550 wrote: »

Well 3/4 of the slams are not clay and 6/9 of the masters are not clay, and the ATP finals are not clay. That’s 10 out of 14 that are not clay. So considerably more than half of the sport.

For Nadal’s first 6 RG’s Federer was his only competitor (other than a juiced up Puerta in 2005) so not sure what your point is.

Yes, because all the surfaces are supposed to be different to give variety, but 3 of them play as one surface really. Grass is only still there due to the prestige of Wimbledon. The two main surfaces are Clay and Hardcourt, so ye, Federer can only claim to be better at half a sport really, considering Nadal would be stronger on slow Hardcourt in particular.

What do you mean his "only" competition? That's still one more person at his level than Federer had to face for his Slams up until circa 09, and since then has been opportunistically picking up slams when his main competitors are injured

WickIow Brave · 29-01-2018 10:17pm

Chivito550 wrote: »

Nadal was a terrible match up but he seems to have him figured out now. Federer said last year that the losses on clay got into his head and affected him on other surfaces and that the win at Swiss Indoors in 2015 along with the gap before and after that match to the previous and next matches with him, helped him a lot. He’s won the last 5 against him now.

Was Nole really such a bad match up though. 22-23 record against him is hardly dominant.

Federer fans shouldn't be so insecure about this. His place in history is not in dispute. Federer was in phenomal form at Wimbledon and the USO in 2015 and Djokovic just dismantled him in both finals. A big help to Federer's recent success playing Nadal is Nadal is a shadow of the player he was.

The Golden Miller · 29-01-2018 10:21pm

Chivito550 wrote: »

Nadal was a terrible match up but he seems to have him figured out now. Federer said last year that the losses on clay early in the rivalry got into his head and affected how he played him on other surfaces and that the win at Swiss Indoors in 2015 along with the gap before and after that match to the previous and next matches with him, helped him a lot. He’s won the last 5 against him now.

Was Nole really such a bad match up though. 22-23 record against him is hardly dominant.

Well if you can't handle the psychological side of the game then maybe you just aren't as good as you think you are? And we only have Federer's word for that, he's hardly going to come out and say someone better beat him. And ye he has beaten Nadal 5 on the bounce, but then again Nadal has been a shadow of the player he was for a long time, with a slight resurgence due to the competition falling away at the top.

Yes, once Novak took the step up to the next level, at the point by which most people compare them, he has soundly beaten Federer repeatedly

walshb · 29-01-2018 10:30pm

Chivito550 wrote: »

Was Nole really such a bad match up though. 22-23 record against him is hardly dominant.

Yes, but look at GS matches and GS finals. Nole bested Fed in these matches...

Even on grass in consecutive finals..

Chivito550 · 29-01-2018 10:47pm

WickIow Brave wrote: »

Federer fans shouldn't be so insecure about this. His place in history is not in dispute. Federer was in phenomal form at Wimbledon and the USO in 2015 and Djokovic just dismantled him in both finals. A big help to Federer's recent success playing Nadal is Nadal is a shadow of the player he was.

Bit bizarre that people say Nadal is now a shadow of his former self but Federer now is as good as his former self. Makes no sense.

mickmackey1 · 29-01-2018 10:52pm

WickIow Brave wrote: »

Federer fans shouldn't be so insecure about this. His place in history is not in dispute. Federer was in phenomal form at Wimbledon and the USO in 2015 and Djokovic just dismantled him in both finals. A big help to Federer's recent success playing Nadal is Nadal is a shadow of the player he was.

I don't think Federer fans are insecure at all, quite the opposite in fact. If anything, the Nole/Nadal fans want to invent a debate where none actually exists. They were both great players, just don't belong in the same discussion as Federer.

Chivito550 · 29-01-2018 10:52pm

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Yes, once Novak took the step up to the next level, at the point by which most people compare them, he has soundly beaten Federer repeatedly

In the last 19 matches between the two of them it is 11-8 to Djokovic. That is hardly beating him repeatedly.

WickIow Brave · 29-01-2018 11:10pm

Chivito550 wrote: »

Bit bizarre that people say Nadal is now a shadow of his former self but Federer now is as good as his former self. Makes no sense.

Why would that make no sense? I don't think Federer is at his peak but he's a lot nearer to it than Nadal is to his.

WickIow Brave · 29-01-2018 11:15pm

mickmackey1 wrote: »

I don't think Federer fans are insecure at all, quite the opposite in fact. If anything, the Nole/Nadal fans want to invent a debate where none actually exists. They were both great players, just don't belong in the same discussion as Federer.

Federer fans are very insecure. If they weren't insecure they wouldn't say things like Nadal/Nole 'don't belong in the same discussion'. Of course they belong in the same discussion! Federer is the GOAT but there is definitely a discussion at least! I am not a Nadal or Nole fan and The Golden Miller has stated the same. I am completely genuine when I say that Federer is the GOAT but I would far sooner have my life savings on Nole/Nadal to beat Fed while they were all at the peak.

walshb · 29-01-2018 11:16pm

Claygreen wrote: »

2011 French semi open when Djokovic was in Ultron mode, Old man Fed with his tiny Racquet beat him. 2012 Wimbledon semi final, Old man Fed beats him with his tiny Racquet. 2007 US Open final, Fed beat him in straight sets.

Yes. And overall it’s 9/6 Nole in slams...

3-1 in finals.

And still the silly add on excuses about old man and Tiny racquets...

30/31 is not old at all. But seeing as you mentioned 2007. Will I discount that and make excuses, like you have for RF? Nole was only a baby, whilst RF was in his prime...

Btw, 2011 Fed lost 5 times to Nole. But yes, beat him at RG. A win I savored.

mickmackey1 · 29-01-2018 11:27pm

WickIow Brave wrote: »

Federer fans are very insecure. If they weren't insecure they wouldn't say things like Nadal/Nole 'don't belong in the same discussion'. Of course they belong in the same discussion! Federer is the GOAT but there is definitely a discussion at least! I am not a Nadal or Nole fan and The Golden Miller has stated the same. I am completely genuine when I say that Federer is the GOAT but I would far sooner have my life savings on Nole/Nadal to beat Fed while they were all at the peak.

And I am a tennis fan who doesn't know Federer nor the sky over him. If Nole/Nadal deserved to be remembered in the same breath, I would say so. The 'peak' debate is purely emotional because very rarely do great players peak at the same time. All we can go on are the facts, and the facts state that Fed's career puts the other 2 in the shade.

WickIow Brave · 29-01-2018 11:29pm

mickmackey1 wrote: »

I don't think Federer fans are insecure at all, quite the opposite in fact. If anything, the Nole/Nadal fans want to invent a debate where none actually exists. They were both great players, just don't belong in the same discussion as Federer.

What debate are we inventing? This isn't a GOAT debate. We are discussing their head to heads of which both RN and ND enjoy a superior h2h over RF. Federer is like 9-18 or something against them in Grand Slams.

WickIow Brave · 29-01-2018 11:31pm

mickmackey1 wrote: »

And I am a tennis fan who doesn't know Federer nor the sky over him. If Nole/Nadal deserved to be remembered in the same breath, I would say so. The 'peak' debate is purely emotional because very rarely do great players peak at the same time. All we can go on are the facts, and the facts state that Fed's career puts the other 2 in the shade.

And the facts state Federer is 9-18 against them in Grand Slams.

mickmackey1 · 29-01-2018 11:39pm

WickIow Brave wrote: »

What debate are we inventing? This isn't a GOAT debate. We are discussing their head to heads of which both RN and ND enjoy a superior h2h over RF. Federer is like 9-18 or something against them in Grand Slams.

Federer has played in 25 non-clay slam finals, Nadal only 13. Nadal kept getting beaten by lesser players but Federer always kept his side of the bargain. We've just seen another example with Nadal getting dumped out by a player who then crumbles against Federer.

WickIow Brave · 29-01-2018 11:44pm

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Federer has played in 25 non-clay slam finals, Nadal only 13. Nadal kept getting beaten by lesser players but Federer always kept his side of the bargain. We've just seen another example with Nadal getting dumped out by a player who then crumbles against Federer.

Jesus, how many times do I have to spell it out for you? I don't care how many finals they've been in! I'm taking purely Federer v Nadal. Not Nadal v Cilic, not Federer v Cilic. Federer diehards should be gutted Nadal got injured against Cilic because had he won, Federer would have destroyed him in the final and added a bit more respectability to the h2h.

mickmackey1 · 29-01-2018 11:48pm

WickIow Brave wrote: »

Nadal got injured against Cilic

Of course, of course... Nadal is still unbeaten when healthy :pac::pac: Away with your nonsense

WickIow Brave · 29-01-2018 11:52pm

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Of course, of course... Nadal is still unbeaten when healthy :pac::pac: Away with your nonsense

I couldn't care less about the injury tbh. Federer has his fair share of excuses too. And I've literally said that Federer would have destroyed Nadal had he got over Cilic?

Rikand · 30-01-2018 12:20am

I love all 3 of them

WickIow Brave · 30-01-2018 12:39am

Rikand wrote: »

I love all 3 of them

So do I!

The Golden Miller · 30-01-2018 1:31am

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Federer has played in 25 non-clay slam finals, Nadal only 13. Nadal kept getting beaten by lesser players but Federer always kept his side of the bargain. We've just seen another example with Nadal getting dumped out by a player who then crumbles against Federer.

And why do you assume Federer would have been able to beat Nadal, particularly from 08-14? Imo, as a Federer fan you should be lucky they didn't meet on hardcourts more, because I don't think it would make for pretty reading for Federer fans. Isn't it something like 7-3 to Nadal on hardcourts over this period, and 3-0 in slams on hardcourt? It's no good saying what Federer could have done if they met more, when he continually failed to do the business when he did get to meet Nadal on hardcourts (and that is excluding Wimbledon 08)

Ardillaun · 30-01-2018 6:16am

I think Federer would have been more vulnerable to Nadal. For starters, Nadal would not be unnerved by an appearance in the finals. He is also excellent at adjusting during a match and finding the other guy’s current weak points. Once Roger won the first set, I was convinced he would win, a conclusion I certainly would not have reached had he faced Rafa.

Ardillaun · 30-01-2018 6:25am

For peak performance, I would go with Federer or Djokovic, probably Federer. Djokovic looked unbeatable on hard courts just a few years ago.

jr86 · 30-01-2018 10:16am

Absolute peak has to be Djokovic for me. 2011 and 2015 he looked basically unbeatable on hard courts

Longevity, career, versatility, consistency on all surfaces and it's naturally Fed

Nadal is a bit of a curious case. Obviously he's the Clay GOAT but while Fed has been a good match up for him I'd still have him a bit behind Fed and ND on hard/grass.

However in USO 2010 and 2013 (plus Cincinatti, Rogers Cup 2013) he was unplayable for the most part. But on the other side of that he's never been a world beater indoors or on proper grass courts. I'd have Nadal behind even Murray on grass at this stage

30-01-2018 11:52am

Nadal should drop Wimbledon at this stage like Fed did the French last year and prob this year?

Fed won most grand slams over the longest period so takes the goat title. Also he relies more on skill than physicality than the other two and is definitely the purer tennis player overall.

Of the 3 though Djokovic at his very peak was the best imo (taking clay out of the equation!).

walshb · 30-01-2018 12:14pm

glasso wrote: »

Nadal should drop Wimbledon at this stage like Fed did the French last year and prob this year?

Fed won most grand slams over the longest period so takes the goat title. Also he relies more on skill than physicality than the other two and is definitely the purer tennis player overall.

Of the 3 though Djokovic at his very peak was the best imo (taking clay out of the equation!).

This is well balanced..

Overall the GOAT is Fed due to all the categories....

All three have been in a heap of slam finals.....

Fed in more, but he has been around longer.....credit to him.

2-3 wins/losses here and there for any of them could see them closer in overall numbers, or farther away from Federer....

One thing to note is that from 2004-2006 or so Nadal and Nole were not at peak, which may have allowed Fed to bag a few slams from them.....

All at peak in the same era, injury free I honestly think Nole ends up with the most slams, then Nadal and then RF..

Nole and Nadal had the better of RF more than not in the big matches through the years..I don't think that changes if we could magically put them all at their best during the same time span.

30-01-2018 12:18pm

I think that Federer will retire in 2019. Getting to 20 was a goal but only became a goal after winning the AO last year as he probably thought after going on 5 years without a slam he wouldn't have a chance of that.

Now he wants at least one more record, to set the age for oldest world number 1, which he should get.

30-01-2018 1:03pm

Actually for the top 3 at peak it really is probably down to surface

Grass and fast hard-court
- Federer

Slow hard-court (e.g. Australia)
- Djokovic

Clay
- Nadal

walshb · 30-01-2018 1:21pm

glasso wrote: »

Actually for the top 3 at peak it really is probably down to surface

Grass and fast hard-court
- Federer

Slow hard-court (e.g. Australia)
- Djokovic

Clay
- Nadal

And of all three it is Nole who can beat the other two more "comfortably" on their surfaces...

Chivito550 · 30-01-2018 1:56pm

walshb wrote: »

And of all three it is Nole who can beat the other two more "comfortably" on their surfaces...

Nole beat Nadal once at RG, when Nole was at peak and Nadal was in poor form. I don’t see him beating 2005-2008 Nadal at RG. Sure he couldn’t beat him from 2012-2014, though he did come mighty close.

Federer in 2005 Wimbledon is still the best I’ve ever seen on grass. I don’t see Nole beating that Fed.

If only there was a way we could prove this stuff. Maybe we could devise a video game with just the 3 players with 5 versions of each player in it. Who’s in?

walshb · 30-01-2018 2:06pm

Chivito550 wrote: »

Nole beat Nadal once at RG, when Nole was at peak and Nadal was in poor form. I don’t see him beating 2005-2008 Nadal at RG. Sure he couldn’t beat him from 2012-2014, though he did come mighty close.

Federer in 2005 Wimbledon is still the best I’ve ever seen on grass. I don’t see Nole beating that Fed.

If only there was a way we could prove this stuff. Maybe we could devise a video game with just the 3 players with 5 versions of each player in it. Who’s in?

2004-2009 Fed was on fire at SW19.

I still think a 2011/14 and 15 Nole matches up very well here. He was a monster in those finals.. Fed played brilliantly in 2014 and he just met a stronger man. 2015 Nole stamped home his superiority.

I'll go with the 2007 or 2009 Fed as the best we have seen on grass.....I would make him and Nole from the three years above 50-50 on that one.

Chivito550 · 30-01-2018 2:25pm

I’m not convinced Federer was at his best in 2008. He fought incredibly well and Nadal got the jitters a bit closing in on his first Wimbledon a break up in the third. But if you look at Federer’s performances against Nadal in RG he’d always take Nadal to 4 sets and it would be a competitive match. Yet in 2008 he absolutely annihalated Roger. Something was a bit amiss with Roger that year. There was definitely a dip. Some might say that Rafa improved on grass which is probably true, but did he really improve that much on clay to go from tight victories over Federer to a massacre? I don’t think so.

dominatinMC · 30-01-2018 2:57pm

walshb wrote: »

That is not true.....his performance in SW19 2008 indicate nothing but him being in very good shape and form.....

Nadal was in beast mode, and RF matched him all the way....Yes, 2 sets up was Nadal, but so what. That is slam tennis. RF fought his way back by playing brilliantly.

The level of play in that final was sublime. Speed, power, intensity, shot selection, court coverage and mental pressure.....both men as cloe to their grass court peaks as possible...

100% agree here, look back at my previous posts and I refer to this Wimbledon match as a yardstick by which to measure peak Fed (on his favorite surface, no less) vs. peak Nadal. Federer was beaten that day fair and square. I think this is the biggest bone of contention for Fed fans, and the bitterest of all pills to swallow - that Rafa "only good on clay" Nadal could actually beat Federer on his favourite surface. Try actually crediting Nadal for all the work he must have done to achieve this.

WickIow Brave · 30-01-2018 3:22pm

The 2008 Wimbledon final must absolutely kill Federer fans. Federer was definitely at his best that day, it's nonsense to suggest otherwise. And Nadal pushed him very close in 2007 aswell. Also remember Nadal was only in his late teens/early 20s in 2005-2008. If Federer and Nadal had met at Wimbledon in 2010 and 2011 I couldn't see anything other than a Nadal victory.

I'll tell you what though, I don't think Nadal will beat Federer ever again. Federer should play the French Open, I reckon he'd have a very good chance. Might be to the detriment of Wimbledon but I reckon it might be worth the risk. A second French Open would be insane.

walshb · 30-01-2018 3:28pm

Oh, but fellas, don't forget glandular fever.....had it the whole year, did he? Or just SW19 finals day?

Chivito550 · 30-01-2018 3:33pm

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Really? Or maybe Nadal just played well and didn't give Federer an inch. You know, sometimes Barcelona will beat Deportivo 8-0, sometimes they'll only beat them 1-0. Anything can happen on any given day, I don't see any indication that Federer's general standard fell other than the say so of Federer fans trying to excuse him being bested.

Even if his standard did fall slightly after 08, surely that's down to being beaten by a quality opposition, feeding doubt into his mind. Naturally the more you lose, the less confident you'll be. That goes with the territory of having actual competition, not Federer becoming a weaker player. It's part and parcel of the game. So what you're really trying to tell us, is that a pre-08 untested Federer who had no real competition is the best ever, and the correlation of him losing more subsequently had nothing to do with better competition but Federer conveniently passing his peak. So we'll ignore the fact he carried on winning slams the minute Nadal was injured. I've never heard such desperate excuses from whining fanboys

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.

WickIow Brave · 30-01-2018 3:40pm

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.

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.

Chivito550 · 30-01-2018 3:46pm

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.

Chivito550 · 30-01-2018 3:48pm

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.

WickIow Brave · 30-01-2018 3:51pm

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.

The Golden Miller · 30-01-2018 3:52pm

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?

ballyargus · 30-01-2018 3:52pm

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.

The Golden Miller · 30-01-2018 3:55pm

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

WickIow Brave · 30-01-2018 4:01pm

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!

ballyargus · 30-01-2018 4:04pm

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.

WickIow Brave · 30-01-2018 4:11pm

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.

The Golden Miller · 30-01-2018 4:14pm

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

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

Comments