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

Chivito550 wrote: »

There’s no doubt the courts have been slowed down at Wimbledon over the years. Genuine question, how would people see Federer, Nadal and Djokovic fare on the 1990s grass against big serve and volley players like Sampras and Goran? I don’t think Federer would have won 8? But would have bagged a few (Court was faster in 03 when he won his first than later years) but I struggle to see how Nadal would win against those guys in that environment. Djokovic would likely be more of a threat and bag one like Agassi did.

That’s just my opinion though.

That's another reason why this "GOAT" argument Federer fans always try to push is nonsense. Not only are different players better on different surfaces, different players are also better on courts at different speeds. On a slower to moderate court, I'd have Nadal beating Federer everyday, while Federer might shade Nadal on courts that are alot quicker, but by the same reckoning the quicker the court the bigger the advantage someone like Sampras has over Federer. So I don't really see what surface or speed Federer is the GOAT on. Nadal certainly wouldn't be the player he is today in the 90's, but I don't think he'd struggle as much as some people make out either. His shot making and passes from deep are the best I've ever seen

Chivito550 wrote: »

I’d bet on near 50/50 scenarios across the board on hard court, peak v peak v peak. Nadal slight over Feder, Fed to have the advantage over Djokovic, and Novak to take Nadal as we have seen as their peaks aligned for a bit. Different players match up against other players differently.

Head to head is just one factor though. Novak struggled against Wawrinka in big matches at his peak, while Federer has owned Wawrinka. It’s silly to get bogged down in head to head.

You can't dismiss hth either though. If you simply can't beat someone, then you can't conclusively say you're better, regardless of what else you achieve against other players (taking into account a decent sample size of course)

As for Wawrinka, my take on it is that the stakes are much higher against Federer than Djokovic. He has no fear against Djokovic and regularly played him before Djokovic became the player he did. Against Federer, he has lived in a country where he is a near god like deity, who completely dominated the game while he was coming up through the ranks. The nerves and psychological barrier to overcome Federer would be much greater for Wawrinka I would imagine

walshb wrote: »

The strength and depth and overall improvement from the 90s to today and recently is staggering. I love the Edberg’s and Becker’s and Agassi’s and Sampras’s as much as the next guy, but Fed, Nole and Nadal on their day would be far too strong on any surface...they are on a different level..

Sampras generally seen as the best. But really, his ground strokes would not match up with the three greats. Not intense or strong enough off either wing, and that very weak BH would be brutalized...

Great serve, but he would need more than this..

Standard improves in every sport due to external factors, talent doesn't. If Sampras grew up in today's era and the courts were quicker, I don't see any reason why he couldn't dominate in a similar fashion on hardcourts and grass

Chivito550 wrote: »

Eh Wawrinka played Djokovic in 3 consecutive Australian Open 5 setters from 2013-2015, winning one, played a US Open 5 setter during that time, and beat him in 2015 RG to deny Novak the grand slam and again at US Open 2016, winning both those finals pretty convincingly.

Before Djokovic became the player he is? Come on now.

I never said he didn't. I gave suggestions as to why this was the case if you read my post properly. I assume he is not constraint by the same psychological barriers to overcoming Djokovic as he would be to Federer, particularly due to the fact he was used to playing Djokovic when Novk played at a lesser level

Claygreen wrote: »

In that case is Davydenko better than Nadal or Brown or whoever else that has a winning record against him?

In the last couple years Nadal is losing 5-0 head to head against a mid thirties Federer.

Did you miss the part when I said once you take into account a decent sample size. You're right though, Davydenko beating Nadal coming off the end of a lay-off is pretty conclusive stuff. I wouldn't give peak Nadal any chance against Davydenko in a grandslam final on hardcourt. How silly of me to even suggest it.

Who said Nadal was any good of late either? He's benefited just as much as Federer has due to the drop off in standard at the top. Nadal is quite a way off to being the player he was

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Ah would ye come off it, the last 3 meetings on hardcourts were off the back of injuries where Nadal clearly wasn't fully fit and struggling with his knees. Sure he had to pull out of the Aus Open after one of the meetings and two victories came after a long lay off. A 4th win for Davydenko was a retirement. It seems more like fortuitous timing that Davydenko played Nadal when he did, rather than him being a bad match up for Nadal

I think if you run around like a rabbit on hardcourts you are asking for trouble.

Chivito550 wrote: »

It’s ok to make excuses for Nadal but not for Federer. Good to know.

Funny, two off those Davydenko wins came off the back of Nadals layoff that allowed Federer to win the French and Wimbledon. But I guess it was nothing serious like Glandular fever that we're only told about after the fact funnily enough.

Nadal regularly suffers with injuries, it's not an excuse, just the way it is. Federer has stayed relatively fit. Believe me, I'm not a Nadal fanboy who will make excuses for his defeats as I could not care less if he loses. Infact, in 2011, Novak bested him because he was just better. Imagine you admitted someone beat Federer because they were just better!

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 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

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

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.