PDA

View Full Version : It's funny, Federer is the finalist in 3/4 slams and the title holder in 1/4...


Docalex007
04-21-2009, 11:37 AM
It's crazy when you think about it like this. We all see Federer's level of play being very uninspiring these days with many saying he's on a massive downhill slope and playing like crap all the time... yet he is the current finalist or Slam holder in ALL of the Grand Slams at present.

How the heck does he do it? How does he get away with over a year's worth of bad form and unmotivated play yet still come away with A FEW POINTS or GAMES from having 3/4 slams right now?

Is Roger Federer just an entirely different beast when it comes to Grand Slam play?

He's of course got the Grand Slam semi-finals streak still going as of now and to be honest could not see him not at least reaching the semis of a Grand Slam. Federer is a contender for a Slam at EVERY Slam for years and years. It's truly incredible. Even when poor form sets in and slower footwork... he's still a contender EVERY TIME. Hope he gets Wimby and US Open this year... I don't see why not. He's proven that when the Slams come around, he's up for headhunting.

The-Champ
04-21-2009, 11:44 AM
It's called greatness! I don't really care that he's got a losing record against Rafa or the wanabees (Djoker, Murray). I mean Rafa has a losing record against Blake who is a much lesser player than Federer. Would that put rafa at the 20th tier of the GOAT-list?

P_Agony
04-21-2009, 11:45 AM
It's crazy when you think about it like this. We all see Federer's level of play being very uninspiring these days with many saying he's on a massive downhill slope and playing like crap all the time... yet he is the current finalist or Slam holder in ALL of the Grand Slams at present.

How the heck does he do it? How does he get away with over a year's worth of bad form and unmotivated play yet still come away with A FEW POINTS or GAMES from having 3/4 slams right now?

Is Roger Federer just an entirely different beast when it comes to Grand Slam play?

He's of course got the Grand Slam semi-finals streak still going as of now and to be honest could not see him not at least reaching the semis of a Grand Slam. Federer is a contender for a Slam at EVERY Slam for years and years. It's truly incredible. Even when poor form sets in and slower footwork... he's still a contender EVERY TIME. Hope he gets Wimby and US Open this year... I don't see why not. He's proven that when the Slams come around, he's up for headhunting.

You just opened the gate for GameSampras and Nadal's Freak who will now come and say Federer dominated in a weak era, ignoring the facts that even if that was true (which it isn't) Federer still spanked Djokovic and Murray in the recent US Open.

DarthFed
04-21-2009, 11:45 AM
Slams are a different animal he said it himself...and yes people do forget...i mean he's the AO runner up..not the ousted Former champ or the one who was supposed to win it but got ousted by Verdasco

But we all know...Federer's accomplishments don't mean anything...we all know his competition was weak and he seduced the Goddess of Luck into giving him 13 Slams, but he's been ticking her off recently...

You see he ****ed her off during wimbledon by making it to the final without dropping a set so she punished him by making him lose 9-7 in the 5th, she also wouldn't let him win the AO because he double Bageled DP and Managed to come back from two sets against Berdych

vndesu
04-21-2009, 11:53 AM
Slams are a different animal he said it himself...and yes people do forget...i mean he's the AO runner up..not the ousted Former champ or the one who was supposed to win it but got ousted by Verdasco

But we all know...Federer's accomplishments don't mean anything...we all know his competition was weak and he seduced the Goddess of Luck into giving him 13 Slams, but he's been ticking her off recently...

You see he ****ed her off during wimbledon by making it to the final without dropping a set so she punished him by making him lose 9-7 in the 5th, she also wouldn't let him win the AO because he double Bageled DP and Managed to come back from two sets against Berdych

so would that npot be nadal as well?
even if he had no competition he is still considerered one of the greatest.

DarthFed
04-21-2009, 11:56 AM
so would that npot be nadal as well?
even if he had no competition he is still considerered one of the greatest.

Dude....look at my username...:(

The last two "paragraphs" (can't really call em that) were obviously a joke with some satire mixed in

i thought this gave it away

You see he ****ed her off during wimbledon by making it to the final without dropping a set so she punished him by making him lose 9-7 in the 5th

GameSampras
04-21-2009, 11:57 AM
You just opened the gate for GameSampras and Nadal's Freak who will now come and say Federer dominated in a weak era, ignoring the facts that even if that was true (which it isn't) Federer still spanked Djokovic and Murray in the recent US Open.

Fed's spanking at the hands of Nadal at multiple slams is much worse than Fed spanking Murray and Djoker at the USO. LOL.


When I look at Fed's results I dont look at a player passed his prime and on the downslope. I look at it and say one player has caught up and Fed cant do anything about it.

thejoe
04-21-2009, 11:58 AM
^You see what you want to see. It's rather amusing.

The-Champ
04-21-2009, 12:00 PM
Federer and Nadal had both equally good competition. It's only Sampras fans that bash roger's competition because Federer is a threat to Sampras legacy. I don't know what the rest of the world think but here in Sweden, and as I have observed from Swedish forums, federer is greater than both Sampras and Björn.

GameSampras
04-21-2009, 12:01 PM
^You see what you want to see. It's rather amusing.

Do u call a player reaching every slam final there is a player past his prime? When Lendl was reaching every slam final did you consider him past his prime? How Borg or Laver?


Its more conveninient for Fed's fans to say Fed isnt in his prime anymore. They have to rationalize Nadal's dominance over Fed somehow. They need a crux to fall back on. But Fed's slam results do not say that he is past his prime. The results show Fed just cant beat Nadal when it matters most. Yet Fed beats everyone else at the slams.

GameSampras
04-21-2009, 12:04 PM
Federer and Nadal had both equally good competition. It's only Sampras fans that bash roger's competition because Federer is a threat to Sampras legacy. I don't know what the rest of the world think but here in Sweden, and as I have observed from Swedish forums, federer is greater than both Sampras and Björn.

Fed is no threat to Pete's legacy IMO anymore. Nadal put an end to that. If anyone is going to be threat it will probably be Nadal if he continues on his dominant path. He will be a threat to Borg, Pete, Tilden, Pancho, Laver etc. Nadal has ruined Fed's legacy and unless Fed can solve this issue, his GOAT legacy will be forever ruined. The h2h against Nadal will forever taint Fed's legacy. If you cant beat your rival you should never be considered even considered to a GOAT candidate. 6-13 is inexcusable against your rival along with losing 3 of the last 4 slam finals to him

vtmike
04-21-2009, 12:05 PM
Federer and Nadal had both equally good competition. It's only Sampras fans that bash roger's competition because Federer is a threat to Sampras legacy. I don't know what the rest of the world think but here in Sweden, and as I have observed from Swedish forums, federer is greater than both Sampras and Björn.

People in USA agree with you too except a few ***********s ;)

seffina
04-21-2009, 12:19 PM
I would think Murray would give away all of his victories against Federer for that one loss at the USO. Or that Rafa would rather have the win against Tsonga at the AO than the three wins he has against him.

There's nothing like the slams.

The-Champ
04-21-2009, 12:19 PM
Fed is no threat to Pete's legacy IMO anymore. Nadal put an end to that. If anyone is going to be threat it will probably be Nadal if he continues on his dominant path. He will be a threat to Borg, Pete, Tilden, Pancho, Laver etc. Nadal has ruined Fed's legacy and unless Fed can solve this issue, his GOAT legacy will be forever ruined. The h2h against Nadal will forever taint Fed's legacy. If you cant beat your rival you should never be considered even considered to a GOAT candidate. 6-13 is inexcusable against your rival along with losing 3 of the last 4 slam finals to him


Rafa is merely prolonging the inevitable, roger WILL break Pete's record whether you like it or not. Rafa's H2H doen't mean ***** on roger's career. If you are going to include H2H in your GOAT criteria then it should include all your contemporaries, not just your main rival. You've invented this new criteria just for Federer.

DarthFed
04-21-2009, 12:20 PM
You know what some people on this forum lack? common sense

There are these magical things called differences...you see they prevent all of us from being the same..isn't it neat ^_^

Bottom line..Fed isn't sampras, fed isn't laver, fed isn't borg...he's Roger Federer expecting certain things from him because others have done it is so ****ing stupid i can't get past it

It's obvious the guy is not at his peak anymore...but hey...anything to make ***********s feel better...pete isn't losing any sleep over this..i don't see why his stalkers are

The-Champ
04-21-2009, 12:24 PM
I would think Murray would give away all of his victories against Federer for that one loss at the USO. Or that Rafa would rather have the win against Tsonga at the AO than the three wins he has against him.

There's nothing like the slams.


Very sensible post.

vtmike
04-21-2009, 12:32 PM
Rafa is merely prolonging the inevitable, roger WILL break Pete's record whether you like it or not. Rafa's H2H doen't mean ***** on roger's career. If you are going to include H2H in your GOAT criteria then it should include all your contemporaries, not just your main rival. You've invented this new criteria just for Federer.

You know what some people on this forum lack? common sense

There are these magical things called differences...you see they prevent all of us from being the same..isn't it neat ^_^

Bottom line..Fed isn't sampras, fed is laver, fed isn't borg...he's Roger Federer expecting certain things from him because others have done it is so ****ing stupid i can't get past it

It's obvious the guy is not at his peak anymore...but hey...anything to make ***********s feel better...pete isn't losing any sleep over this..i don't see why his stalkers are

https://clients.bannerview.com/%7Erexbean/applause.gif

P_Agony
04-21-2009, 12:38 PM
Do u call a player reaching every slam final there is a player past his prime? When Lendl was reaching every slam final did you consider him past his prime? How Borg or Laver?


Its more conveninient for Fed's fans to say Fed isnt in his prime anymore. They have to rationalize Nadal's dominance over Fed somehow. They need a crux to fall back on. But Fed's slam results do not say that he is past his prime. The results show Fed just cant beat Nadal when it matters most. Yet Fed beats everyone else at the slams.

So you really think Fed plays like before? Really? Ask yourself that question. Can he hit the ace when he needs to or are those just double faults on break points now? Can he hit countless winners from his forehand or is it simply an unforced errors machine? Can he really run to his right side like he used to and hit a CC winner or is he just hitting it short, too long, or to the middle of the net now?

Federer is a shadow of his former self. It's not an excuse, it's the truth. Why is he reaching final after final? Because he's that good, that even when he plays like crap, he's still better than anyone else, aside of a few people who have figured him out.

ksbh
04-21-2009, 12:38 PM
IMO, it's not just Federer's overall H2H against Nadal that is runing his legacy. Many great players have had losing H2Hs. I think it's a combination of 2 things that has made a serious blemish on his GOAT claim-

1. Nadal isn't just another player such as say Wayne Ferrera who had a winning H2h (?) against Sampras. Nadal is Federer's peer & main rival and such a record indicates that it's perhaps Nadal that's the better player.

2. Federer's record in grand slam finals against Nadal is 2-5, which included loses on his supposedly 'favorite' surfaces- grass & hard courts.

I have to agree with GameSampras on this one.

Rafa is merely prolonging the inevitable, roger WILL break Pete's record whether you like it or not. Rafa's H2H doen't mean ***** on roger's career. If you are going to include H2H in your GOAT criteria then it should include all your contemporaries, not just your main rival. You've invented this new criteria just for Federer.

veroniquem
04-21-2009, 12:41 PM
It's called greatness! I don't really care that he's got a losing record against Rafa or the wanabees (Djoker, Murray). I mean Rafa has a losing record against Blake who is a much lesser player than Federer. Would that put rafa at the 20th tier of the GOAT-list?
Blake is 3-2 against Nadal with Nadal winning the last 2. I really have no idea how you can compare that with a head to head of 13-6. Obviously those numbers are not telling the same story.

veroniquem
04-21-2009, 12:46 PM
Federer and Nadal had both equally good competition. It's only Sampras fans that bash roger's competition because Federer is a threat to Sampras legacy. I don't know what the rest of the world think but here in Sweden, and as I have observed from Swedish forums, federer is greater than both Sampras and Björn.
I don't find the comparison between Federer and Borg relevant at all. Federer may be great but he doesn't have 6 RG titles or 30 titles on clay or several RG-W back to back. I disagree that Fed is greater than Borg, it's just that their achievements are so different, it doesn't seem fair at all to compare them.

P_Agony
04-21-2009, 12:50 PM
IMO, it's not just Federer's overall H2H against Nadal that is runing his legacy. Many great players have had losing H2Hs. I think it's a combination of 2 things that has made a serious blemish on his GOAT claim-

1. Nadal isn't just another player such as say Wayne Ferrera who had a winning H2h (?) against Sampras. Nadal is Federer's peer & main rival and such a record indicates that it's perhaps Nadal that's the better player.

2. Federer's record in grand slam finals against Nadal is 2-5, which included loses on his supposedly 'favorite' surfaces- grass & hard courts.

I have to agree with GameSampras on this one.

I think it's more of a matchup thing than Nadal being the better player. Monfils and Del Potro, for example, both have wins over Rafa in 2009. Both have never beaten Federer, and Del Potro actually had a match with Federer this year. Nadal has winning records against the likes of Ferrer, Gonzales, Roddick, Davydenko, but they're hardly dominating records. Federer has much more dominating records against those guys.
Now, guys like Nalbandian, Hewitt, Blake - all have winning records over Nadal. Federer has a winning record over all of them.

My point is, Federer dominates the tour more than Nadal IMO, but it's Nadal himself who's the tough matchup for Federer. So it doesn't make Nadal the better player. I wouldn't define any player of being better (that's why I hate the GOAT discussions - you can't really say Sampras is better than Fed or vice versa). I think Nadal is the better mental player while Federer is the more talented player.

icedevil0289
04-21-2009, 12:52 PM
I don't find the comparison between Federer and Borg relevant at all. Federer may be great but he doesn't have 6 RG titles or 30 titles on clay or several RG-W back to back. I disagree that Fed is greater than Borg, it's just that their achievements are so different, it doesn't seem fair at all to compare them.

no but had several W/USO back to back, even though it might have been easier because both are fast surfaces, its still great.

veroniquem
04-21-2009, 12:52 PM
Rafa is merely prolonging the inevitable, roger WILL break Pete's record whether you like it or not. Rafa's H2H doen't mean ***** on roger's career. If you are going to include H2H in your GOAT criteria then it should include all your contemporaries, not just your main rival. You've invented this new criteria just for Federer.
Fed is not only 6-13 vs Rafa, he's also 2-6 vs Murray. While I agree it doesn't tarnish his legacy on the whole (slams won, etc), it doesn't mean one can completely ignore it either. Fed is being largely dominated by 2 of his main rivals, not just 1.

icedevil0289
04-21-2009, 12:54 PM
Fed is not only 6-13 vs Rafa, he's also 2-6 vs Murray. While I agree it doesn't tarnish his legacy on the whole (slams won, etc), it doesn't mean one can completely ignore it either. Fed is being largely dominated by 2 of his main rivals, not just 1.

ofcourse it does have some effect, but I feel like 13-6 doesn't tell the whole story because many of those wins for rafa was on clay where rafa is far superior to roger. Its definitely not an excuse and I'm trying to make it like it is, but just pointing it out.

DarthFed
04-21-2009, 12:55 PM
Fed is not only 6-13 vs Rafa, he's also 2-6 vs Murray. While I agree it doesn't tarnish his legacy on the whole (slams won, etc), it doesn't mean one can completely ignore it either. Fed is being largely dominated by 2 of his main rivals, not just 1.

Oh...quiet will you? :roll:

DarthFed
04-21-2009, 12:56 PM
ofcourse it does have some effect, but I feel like 13-6 doesn't tell the whole story because many of those wins for rafa was on clay where rafa is far superior to roger. Its definitely not an excuse and I'm trying to make it like it is, but just pointing it out.

He isn't superior on Clay

He's not even human on clay..or maybe he is...That 2-6,6-2,6-0 is a pretty convincing win...SOMETHING must have clicked that day

The-Champ
04-21-2009, 12:57 PM
Blake is 3-2 against Nadal with Nadal winning the last 2. I really have no idea how you can compare that with a head to head of 13-6. Obviously those numbers are not telling the same story.



losing record is a losing record. one could argue that Blake is not in his prime anymore, otherwise it would've been 5-0?



i

veroniquem
04-21-2009, 12:58 PM
no but had several W/USO back to back, even though it might have been easier because both are fast surfaces, its still great.
It's great but it's similar to what Sampras achieved, it has nothing to do with what Borg did. Also to me RG-W is the only true back to back in slams. W and USO are 2 months apart and have masters in between, so they're not really close in time. Also W and USO are both fast surfaces. There is a bigger contrast between RG and W, which is why lots of players have done well in the double W- USO (McEnroe, Connors...) whereas only Borg has managed the RG-W feat several times.

icedevil0289
04-21-2009, 01:00 PM
It's great but it's similsr to what Sampras achieved, it has nothing to do with what Borg did. Also to me RG-W is the only true back to back in slams. W and USO are 2 months apart and have masters in between, so they're not really close in time. Also W and USO are both fast surfaces. There is a bigger contrast between RG and W, which is why lots of players have done well in the double W- USO (McEnroe, Connors...) whereas only Borg has managed the RG-W feat several times.

true, it is amazing. Plus it was much harder back then because the surfaces were vastly different compared to what they are now. Still fed has created his own records that are very significant as well.

veroniquem
04-21-2009, 01:01 PM
ofcourse it does have some effect, but I feel like 13-6 doesn't tell the whole story because many of those wins for rafa was on clay where rafa is far superior to roger. Its definitely not an excuse and I'm trying to make it like it is, but just pointing it out.
Sure but that's Federer's flaw (in his legacy) because his main rival managed to defeat him on grass and hard (slams) while Fed couldn't find any way on clay. That is exactly where Fed appears as the weaker one in the rivalry.

JediMindTrick
04-21-2009, 01:02 PM
It's crazy when you think about it like this. We all see Federer's level of play being very uninspiring these days with many saying he's on a massive downhill slope and playing like crap all the time... yet he is the current finalist or Slam holder in ALL of the Grand Slams at present.

How the heck does he do it? How does he get away with over a year's worth of bad form and unmotivated play yet still come away with A FEW POINTS or GAMES from having 3/4 slams right now?

Is Roger Federer just an entirely different beast when it comes to Grand Slam play?

He's of course got the Grand Slam semi-finals streak still going as of now and to be honest could not see him not at least reaching the semis of a Grand Slam. Federer is a contender for a Slam at EVERY Slam for years and years. It's truly incredible. Even when poor form sets in and slower footwork... he's still a contender EVERY TIME. Hope he gets Wimby and US Open this year... I don't see why not. He's proven that when the Slams come around, he's up for headhunting.

Federer is the god of tennis, so reaching the final in all the slams and winning just one is frankly a weak result.

icedevil0289
04-21-2009, 01:02 PM
Sure but that's Federer's flaw (in his legacy) because his main rival managed to defeat him on grass and hard (slams) while Fed couldn't find any way on clay. That is exactly where Fed appears as the weaker one in the rivalry.

I wish I had something to counter that, but sadly I don't. You're right.:(

The-Champ
04-21-2009, 01:03 PM
I don't find the comparison between Federer and Borg relevant at all. Federer may be great but he doesn't have 6 RG titles or 30 titles on clay or several RG-W back to back. I disagree that Fed is greater than Borg, it's just that their achievements are so different, it doesn't seem fair at all to compare them.



Where's Björns HC titles? He was a mental midget at the USO.

icedevil0289
04-21-2009, 01:05 PM
Where's Björns HC titles? He was a mental midget at the USO.

one could compare borg's run at the USO similar to fed's run at the french. I believe borg had a some final appearances there, but never managed to clinch it.

DarthFed
04-21-2009, 01:06 PM
I wish I had something to counter that, but sadly I don't. You're right.:(

HC is up in the air but he's they've beaten each other once and only once on their respective "surfaces"

Sure one was a slam and one was a masters but they have both stopped each others records

No need to succumb

veroniquem
04-21-2009, 01:07 PM
true, it is amazing. Plus it was much harder back then because the surfaces were vastly different compared to what they are now. Still fed has created his own records that are very significant as well.
Yes he has and I think his records are very similar to Sampras's: longevity at #1, a very high number of slams won, best results being at W and USO, no RG title.
There are also differences of course, Sampras won his first slam at 19, he was more precocious, he was less good on clay and he was never quite as dominant as Federer during his prime years but his career at the top was exceptionally long. Sampras had completely dominant head to heads with his main rivals (Agassi, Courier...)
However despite their differences, I find the similarities in achievements and general profile are striking.

GameSampras
04-21-2009, 01:09 PM
So you really think Fed plays like before? Really? Ask yourself that question. Can he hit the ace when he needs to or are those just double faults on break points now? Can he hit countless winners from his forehand or is it simply an unforced errors machine? Can he really run to his right side like he used to and hit a CC winner or is he just hitting it short, too long, or to the middle of the net now?

Federer is a shadow of his former self. It's not an excuse, it's the truth. Why is he reaching final after final? Because he's that good, that even when he plays like crap, he's still better than anyone else, aside of a few people who have figured him out.

Fed a shadow of his former self? Gimme a damn break. He beats 98 percent of the freakin field today. And he is reaching every slam final that comes around. I didnt say Fed was at his peak. But he certainly isnt passed his prime. Look at his slam results before you start this Fed is a shell of his former self garbage. Players who are shells of themselves dont reach multiple grand slam finals. It just doesnt happen Im sorry

DarthFed
04-21-2009, 01:14 PM
Fed a shadow of his former self? Gimme a damn break. He beats 98 percent of the freakin field today. And he is reaching every slam final that comes around. I didnt say Fed was at his peak. But he certainly isnt passed his prime. Look at his slam results before you start this Fed is a shell of his former self garbage. Players who are shells of themselves dont reach multiple grand slam finals. It just doesnt happen Im sorry

Are you god in disguise? It's wonderful to meet you ^_^

Seriously..Fed hasn't been in his prime since late 07

It just doesn't happen? well it is..as i said earlier

Bottom line..Fed isn't sampras, fed isn't laver, fed isn't borg...he's Roger Federer expecting certain things from him because others have done it is

Every player is unique there's no universal law saying that out of form players consistently make Slam finals

veroniquem
04-21-2009, 01:14 PM
one could compare borg's run at the USO similar to fed's run at the french. I believe borg had a some final appearances there, but never managed to clinch it.
Borg had 4 finals at the USO! He was quite competent on hard court and carpet actually but sadly that USO title escaped him until the end.

seffina
04-21-2009, 01:15 PM
I wish I had something to counter that, but sadly I don't. You're right.:(
But the fact that Rafa had those chances to defeat Roger on clay are because Roger has been good enough to meet Rafa in the finals (and one semi) of these events for the last four years. If some such as Sampras or others current players like Blake who have a winning record against Nadal had been good enough on clay, they might have had losing records against the top clay players as well. That's one counter argument.

I'll disagree with P_Agony when he says that Nadal isn't as dominant against his opponents as Roger. I think they both are quite dominant. You say Rafa has lost to Del Potro and Monfils, but that doesn't mean anything because he has also beaten them countless times and almost as bad as Roger has as well (Nadal's 4-1 against both). That would be like saying Roger isn't as dominant against Stan because he lost to him once when Rafa has never lost to him. Their strengths are different and Rafa wins in a different manner than Roger. Rafa has a winning record against everyone in the top ten and lopsided (dominant) record against the number two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, and ten ranked players. Davy's the only one that is within a match of him. I would say that's pretty dominant. Federer was equally dominant during his heyday.

ksbh
04-21-2009, 01:16 PM
Overall, I agree except for the bold part. Nadal is the more talented player, IMO. He's a 'thinking' player on the court, always scheming about the next shot. Exceptional points craftsman. The best I've seen since Pete Sampras.

I must add though that for whatever reason, it''s only against Federer that we get to see Nadal's absolute tennis briliance.

I think it's more of a matchup thing than Nadal being the better player. Monfils and Del Potro, for example, both have wins over Rafa in 2009. Both have never beaten Federer, and Del Potro actually had a match with Federer this year. Nadal has winning records against the likes of Ferrer, Gonzales, Roddick, Davydenko, but they're hardly dominating records. Federer has much more dominating records against those guys.
Now, guys like Nalbandian, Hewitt, Blake - all have winning records over Nadal. Federer has a winning record over all of them.

My point is, Federer dominates the tour more than Nadal IMO, but it's Nadal himself who's the tough matchup for Federer. So it doesn't make Nadal the better player. I wouldn't define any player of being better (that's why I hate the GOAT discussions - you can't really say Sampras is better than Fed or vice versa). I think Nadal is the better mental player while Federer is the more talented player.

veroniquem
04-21-2009, 01:17 PM
Where's Björns HC titles? He was a mental midget at the USO.
I don't kow if he was a midget but he made 4 USO finals. I guess you could draw a comparison with Federer's 3 RG finals. Does that make a midget out of him too?

veroniquem
04-21-2009, 01:30 PM
But the fact that Rafa had those chances to defeat Roger on clay are because Roger has been good enough to meet Rafa in the finals (and one semi) of these events for the last four years. If some such as Sampras or others current players like Blake who have a winning record against Nadal had been good enough on clay, they might have had losing records against the top clay players as well. That's one counter argument.

I'll disagree with P_Agony when he says that Nadal isn't as dominant against his opponents as Roger. I think they both are quite dominant. You say Rafa has lost to Del Potro and Monfils, but that doesn't mean anything because he has also beaten them countless times and almost as bad as Roger has as well (Nadal's 4-1 against both). That would be like saying Roger isn't as dominant against Stan because he lost to him once when Rafa has never lost to him. Their strengths are different and Rafa wins in a different manner than Roger. Rafa has a winning record against everyone in the top ten and lopsided (dominant) record against the number two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, and ten ranked players. Davy's the only one that is within a match of him. I would say that's pretty dominant. Federer was equally dominant during his heyday.
Great post from you as usual! I would like to qualify your remarks though by pointing out that Federer has had several lopsided head to heads against him in his career. At some point (around 2003 and 2004), Federer was 2-7 vs Hewitt, 1-5 vs Henman and 1-5 vs Nalbandian. Of course he overturned those head to heads during his prime but now he is 6-13 vs Rafa and 2-6 vs Murray. Nadal has never had a lopsided losing head to head vs anybody, nobody has ever led Nadal by 5 or 6 or more matches, so at this point and I totally agree that things could change later but at this point Nadal has been more consistently dominant over the rest of the field than Federer has been over the course of his career.

Tennis_Bum
04-21-2009, 01:35 PM
Do u call a player reaching every slam final there is a player past his prime? When Lendl was reaching every slam final did you consider him past his prime? How Borg or Laver?


Its more conveninient for Fed's fans to say Fed isnt in his prime anymore. They have to rationalize Nadal's dominance over Fed somehow. They need a crux to fall back on. But Fed's slam results do not say that he is past his prime. The results show Fed just cant beat Nadal when it matters most. Yet Fed beats everyone else at the slams.

You know Fed is past his prime, as far as tennis age is concerned. Sampras got to slam finals 200US, 2001US and 2002US. I would consider him past his prime then too. In 2000 he lost Safin, 2001 lost to Hewitt and 2002, his familiarity with Agassi, he won. Had it been Hewitt in the final 2002 as opposed to Agassi, I am not so sure the result would be a win for Sampras in 2002. Then again, there is no way to prove it either. My hunch is that Hewitt was returning so well in 2001 and won the match rather easily against Sampras, so had Hewitt met Sampras in the final I would guess Hewitt would win. But it's only a guess.

So back to Fed, yes, I think he's past his prime but that doesn't mean he can't occasionally pull out some amazing tennis to get to final at slam. Of course, one final at 2009AO doesn't make a trend and he has played really some crappy tennis lately. I would not be surprised if Fed would not make any slam final this year.

It wouldn't shock me a bit if Fed decided to retire considering the way he's been playing. He lacks so much commitment and passion that he displayed in the past. Of course, I could be wrong the way I see Fed right now. I hope he proves me wrong but I think the way that he looks right now, I would chalk him in as done. Sad but he doesn't give tennis any hints that he has any life left to fight anymore.

Could I be wrong about Fed? Hope so.

The-Champ
04-21-2009, 01:37 PM
I don't kow if he was a midget but he made 4 USO finals. I guess you could draw a comparison with Federer's 3 RG finals. Does that make a midget out of him too?


Well, everyone claims that Björn was one of the mentally strongest player ever but couldn't win the USO. Federer however is criticized for being a mental midget because he couldn't beat rafa at the French. I'm just pointing out the double standards.


neither is a mental midget. You don't win that many slams by being mentally weak.

Tennis_Bum
04-21-2009, 01:39 PM
Great post from you as usual! I would like to qualify your remarks though by pointing out that Federer has had several lopsided head to heads against him in his career. At some point (around 2003 and 2004), Federer was 2-7 vs Hewitt, 1-5 vs Henman and 1-5 vs Nalbandian. Of course he overturned those head to heads during his prime but now he is 6-13 vs Rafa and 2-6 vs Murray. Nadal has never had a lopsided losing head to head vs anybody, nobody has ever led Nadal by 5 or 6 or more matches, so at this point and I totally agree that things could change later but at this point Nadal has been more consistently dominant over the rest of the field than Federer has been over the course of his career.

Again, if you factor out the clay matches, I know it's not fair but if you do, then Fed's record against Nadal is not very lopsided.

Who has not had lopsided record against Nadal on clay. Fed played well enough to get to finals on clay and lost all matches except for one that he played out of his mind in Hamburg to win in 3, he clubbed Nadal 6-0 on clay. Of course, he forgot how he did and hasn't played like that on clay since.

veroniquem
04-21-2009, 01:39 PM
losing record is a losing record. one could argue that Blake is not in his prime anymore, otherwise it would've been 5-0?



i
Not true, a 2-3 losing record is NOT the same as a 2-7 losing record. In 1 case, a lot of encounters have happened and the results were lopsided in the favor of 1 clearly dominating the other, in the other case it's a close head to head (with only a few encounters) and a 1 match difference.
Sorry but the implication of those about the rivalry is not the same at all, not even remotely.

Tennis_Bum
04-21-2009, 01:43 PM
Well, everyone claims that Björn was one of the mentally strongest player ever but couldn't win the USO. Federer however is criticized for being a mental midget because he couldn't beat rafa at the French. I'm just pointing out the double standards.


neither is a mental midget. You don't win that many slams by being mentally weak.

Fair statement about Fed's mental, but what's going on with the guy lately? Where is the drive, the passion, the commitment and the will to grind as long as it takes to win just a point?

If he can't play like that then might as well retire unless he is just doing it for the money, which I understand. But if he wants to win slams, then he has to really put in the sweat and blood on the court. He's not doing that, well at least, I am not seeing that lately.

veroniquem
04-21-2009, 01:48 PM
Well, everyone claims that Björn was one of the mentally strongest player ever but couldn't win the USO. Federer however is criticized for being a mental midget because he couldn't beat rafa at the French. I'm just pointing out the double standards.


neither is a mental midget. You don't win that many slams by being mentally weak.
There are many big differences between Borg's situation and Federer's situation. Borg didn't have one opponent that beat him 13 times and completely overwhelmed him. In the case of Federer, it's not just losing the RG finals that attracted the derogatory remarks about his mental, it's the fact that there was 1 opponent against whom he was helpless: first he had no answer for clay, then grass was taken from him, then hard. He lost his last 5 matches against Nadal, all crucial, all big finals on 3 different surfaces, he hasn't beaten Rafa since 2007. That has got to hurt.
Very different from Borg who just happened to be less efficient in one particuliar slam, regardless of who the opponent was.

vtmike
04-21-2009, 01:48 PM
Fair statement about Fed's mental, but what's going on with the guy lately? Where is the drive, the passion, the commitment and the will to grind as long as it takes to win just a point?

If he can't play like that then might as well retire unless he is just doing it for the money, which I understand. But if he wants to win slams, then he has to really put in the sweat and blood on the court. He's not doing that, well at least, I am not seeing that lately.

He was in the FINALS of the last GS played!! and lost to a player at his peak in a close five set match! Wonder if you would be saying the same if he would've won the AO...

tudwell
04-21-2009, 01:50 PM
IMO, it's not just Federer's overall H2H against Nadal that is runing his legacy. Many great players have had losing H2Hs. I think it's a combination of 2 things that has made a serious blemish on his GOAT claim-

1. Nadal isn't just another player such as say Wayne Ferrera who had a winning H2h (?) against Sampras. Nadal is Federer's peer & main rival and such a record indicates that it's perhaps Nadal that's the better player.

2. Federer's record in grand slam finals against Nadal is 2-5, which included loses on his supposedly 'favorite' surfaces- grass & hard courts.

I have to agree with GameSampras on this one.
No matter how many times Federer loses to Nadal, he'll still have 13 grand slams. His lack of a French Open doesn't in any way diminish his other achievements. "Greatest of All Time" doesn't mean perfect, just better than everyone else. If Federer achieves more than any man in history (which I doubt will happen) then he'll be the GOAT, even if he has a 6-30 head-to-head with Nadal.

Docalex007
04-21-2009, 01:53 PM
Well well, so much for my original topic. Jeez, didn't take long at all before this thread turned into chatter regarding Fed vs Nadal vs Borg vs Sampras greatness and superiority.

Look, I was simply pointing out that Fed is past his prime, we all know it, yet he's still making slam finals left and right. In his prime he would have won the recent AO and Wimby!!!

It's a load of crap to suggest that because he's still making finals at slams that he MUST still be in his prime. That's just ridiculous as anyone who has followed his career closely would know he's not the same player he was even back in 2007.

tennis-hero
04-21-2009, 02:07 PM
damn you *******s

Fed is well past his prime

in 2007 (when he was already past his prime)

it was 6-8

most of nadals wins were on clay

Fed still bagled him

on clay
on grass

Nalbandian is such a great match up versus Nadal

in fact Nalby should hgave beaten rafa again

doesn't mean a well past his prime nalby is better then Rafa

bottom line

04-06 fed

ten levels above prime nadal

veroniquem
04-21-2009, 02:08 PM
Again, if you factor out the clay matches, I know it's not fair but if you do, then Fed's record against Nadal is not very lopsided.

Who has not had lopsided record against Nadal on clay. Fed played well enough to get to finals on clay and lost all matches except for one that he played out of his mind in Hamburg to win in 3, he clubbed Nadal 6-0 on clay. Of course, he forgot how he did and hasn't played like that on clay since.
Maybe you didn't understand my post. Nadal hasn't had any lopsided record against ANYBODY on all surfaces. He has a very strong surface and he is not weak on the others as well. His strong surface is not a flaw, it is a strength. If Fed didn't have a surface that was strong enough to avoid lopsided records, it is a handicap, not an asset or an excuse. At the end of the day, Federer has a lopsided record vs Murray for instance even though all their encounters happened on hard which is supposed to be one of Fed's strong surfaces. His lopsided record vs Henman or Hewitt in the past were not because of clay either! Nadal leads Monfils 4-1 even though 3 of their encounters happened on hard. He leads Djoko 12-4 even though 9 of their encounters were on hard and he leads Tsonga 3-1 even though all of their encounters were on hard. And even if you took Fed-Nadal without clay, it wouldn't give a lopsided record, it would give a close one (4-5) which is as much because of Nadal struggling at USO as because of Federer being too bad for the last 2 years to make a single final in a master on hard court. So your excuse is a very bad one and the bottom line is Nadal hasn't had lopsided head to heads on the tour, Federer has.

vtmike
04-21-2009, 02:11 PM
Maybe you didn't understand my post. Nadal hasn't had any lopsided record against ANYBODY on all surfaces. He has a very strong surface and he is not weak on the others as well. His strong surface is not a flaw, it is a strength. If Fed didn't have a surface that was strong enough to avoid lopsided records, it is a handicap, not an asset or an excuse. At the end of the day, Federer has a lopsided record vs Murray for instance even though all their encounters happened on hard which is supposed to be one of Fed's strong surfaces. His lopsided record vs Henman or Hewitt in the past were not because of clay either! Nadal leads Monfils 4-1 even though 3 of their encounters happened on hard. He leads Djoko 12-4 even though 9 of their encounters were on hard and he leads Tsonga 3-1 even though all of their encounters were on hard. And even if you took Fed-Nadal without clay, it wouldn't give a lopsided record, it would give a close one (4-5) which is as much because of Nadal struggling at USO as because of Federer being too bad for the last 2 years to make a single final in a master on hard court. So your excuse is a very bad one and the bottom line is Nadal hasn't had lopsided head to heads on the tour, Federer has.

That's just because Nadal is playing in a weak era!

veroniquem
04-21-2009, 02:12 PM
No matter how many times Federer loses to Nadal, he'll still have 13 grand slams. His lack of a French Open doesn't in any way diminish his other achievements. "Greatest of All Time" doesn't mean perfect, just better than everyone else. If Federer achieves more than any man in history (which I doubt will happen) then he'll be the GOAT, even if he has a 6-30 head-to-head with Nadal.
Agassi disagrees with you. He said in a recent TV interview that Federer cannot be the greatest of his era (let alone all time) if he doesn't find a way to catch up in his HtoH vs his main rival. Great? Absolutely, the greatest? Not as things stand.

maximo
04-21-2009, 02:14 PM
That's just because Nadal is playing in a weak era!

Any excuse to make Fed sound better.

veroniquem
04-21-2009, 02:21 PM
Well well, so much for my original topic. Jeez, didn't take long at all before this thread turned into chatter regarding Fed vs Nadal vs Borg vs Sampras greatness and superiority.

Look, I was simply pointing out that Fed is past his prime, we all know it, yet he's still making slam finals left and right. In his prime he would have won the recent AO and Wimby!!!

It's a load of crap to suggest that because he's still making finals at slams that he MUST still be in his prime. That's just ridiculous as anyone who has followed his career closely would know he's not the same player he was even back in 2007.
Maybe it's because the masters were the first thing that went "off" and the slams will eventually follow. I know making finals is prodigious but let's not forget Federer has won 1 out of the last 5 slams he played (And he has lost the others to 2 different opponents). For a #5 in the world it would be super but for a guy like Fed, you have to admit it is a setback (he was winning 2 or 3 out of 4 slams in his prime!). Whether the setback is temporary or the next step in the decline will be not making it to slam finals anymore (or a little bit of both), we'll just have to wait and see.

GameSampras
04-21-2009, 02:39 PM
You know Fed is past his prime, as far as tennis age is concerned. Sampras got to slam finals 200US, 2001US and 2002US. I would consider him past his prime then too. In 2000 he lost Safin, 2001 lost to Hewitt and 2002, his familiarity with Agassi, he won. Had it been Hewitt in the final 2002 as opposed to Agassi, I am not so sure the result would be a win for Sampras in 2002. Then again, there is no way to prove it either. My hunch is that Hewitt was returning so well in 2001 and won the match rather easily against Sampras, so had Hewitt met Sampras in the final I would guess Hewitt would win. But it's only a guess.

So back to Fed, yes, I think he's past his prime but that doesn't mean he can't occasionally pull out some amazing tennis to get to final at slam. Of course, one final at 2009AO doesn't make a trend and he has played really some crappy tennis lately. I would not be surprised if Fed would not make any slam final this year.

It wouldn't shock me a bit if Fed decided to retire considering the way he's been playing. He lacks so much commitment and passion that he displayed in the past. Of course, I could be wrong the way I see Fed right now. I hope he proves me wrong but I think the way that he looks right now, I would chalk him in as done. Sad but he doesn't give tennis any hints that he has any life left to fight anymore.

Could I be wrong about Fed? Hope so.


I would consider Sampras passed his prime by 2000 as well. But certainly not at 27 or 28 years old. in 1998 he was injured for a portion there but was playing good tennis and 98 still highly regarded as Pete's prime. In 99 he was injured as well for a good portion of the season but Pete was playing some lights out tennis. Look at his 99 wimby performance or his 99 YEC performance.

But even Roger is doing something Sampras then wasnt doing due to injuries or whatever. Roger has consistently been making slam finals and only losing to one player. Every slam that comes, Fed makes the final. I dont consider this a player past his prime when he is doing this. A players "peak" usually doesnt last long but his prime can last for quite a few years. Fed has been fortunate to have no serious injuries as Pete did such as a torn hip flexor and herniated disc. Roger is nearing the end of his prime, but is no doubt still in it.

I honestly dont look too much into these losses Fed is having at the smaller tourneys because when the slams he switches gears into that next level like the USO. He is at the point in his career where winning smaller tourneys and playing week in week out tennis shouldnt be that big of a deal to Fed. He is chasing history and the slam record

Rickson
04-21-2009, 02:42 PM
I don't see how he wouldn't win Wimbledon. Federer can even win the French if he meets Nadal in the finals and it's their next meeting.

The-Champ
04-21-2009, 03:22 PM
There are many big differences between Borg's situation and Federer's situation. Borg didn't have one opponent that beat him 13 times and completely overwhelmed him. In the case of Federer, it's not just losing the RG finals that attracted the derogatory remarks about his mental, it's the fact that there was 1 opponent against whom he was helpless: first he had no answer for clay, then grass was taken from him, then hard. He lost his last 5 matches against Nadal, all crucial, all big finals on 3 different surfaces, he hasn't beaten Rafa since 2007. That has got to hurt.
Very different from Borg who just happened to be less efficient in one particuliar slam, regardless of who the opponent was.


Well that's very convenient of him to quit while losing. Scared much?


But Federer has beaten Rafa twice on YEC, where Rafa didn't have any answers. One could argue that in all those years Federer was dominating winning 8 slams on HC, Rafa was nowhere to be found.


I'm a Nadal fan, but Federer is clearly not the player he once was. Of course Rafa will always have a chance even against a prime fed, but no way Federer would lose to nobodies like Djokovic and Murray.

GameSampras
04-21-2009, 03:27 PM
If Borg would have kept playing his h2h against Johnny Mac prolly would have gotten uglier. Again.. Borg took his ball and went home by 25 or 26. At least Fed is still plugging away

The-Champ
04-21-2009, 03:27 PM
Agassi disagrees with you. He said in a recent TV interview that Federer cannot be the greatest of his era (let alone all time) if he doesn't find a way to catch up in his HtoH vs his main rival. Great? Absolutely, the greatest? Not as things stand.


Agassi has also said, federer is the best he has ever played against. So there you go!

GameSampras
04-21-2009, 03:31 PM
Agassi has also said, federer is the best he has ever played against. So there you go!

And recently Andre said, Fed cant really be the GOAT if he cant overcome Nadal:)

veroniquem
04-21-2009, 03:40 PM
Well that's very convenient of him to quit while losing. Scared much?


But Federer has beaten Rafa twice on YEC, where Rafa didn't have any answers. One could argue that in all those years Federer was dominating winning 8 slams on HC, Rafa was nowhere to be found.


I'm a Nadal fan, but Federer is clearly not the player he once was. Of course Rafa will always have a chance even against a prime fed, but no way Federer would lose to nobodies like Djokovic and Murray.
It so happens that Federer lost to Murray in 2006 (Fed's best year) and he lost to Djokovic in Canada master final in 2007 (a beautiful match). Federer lost to Rafa every single year of his prime, and no, not just on clay, on hard too. (Murray and Nadal are the only players who beat Federer on hard court in 2006).
I don't know why you underestimate Djoko and Murray so much, they're both very talented, Djoko has won a slam, the master cup and Murray has won several masters. Djokovic is one of the few players to have beaten Fed in a slam and Murray is the guy who stopped Fed on his way to a 5th Master Cup title.
Those guys are much better players than you give them credit for.

veroniquem
04-21-2009, 03:41 PM
Agassi has also said, federer is the best he has ever played against. So there you go!
That was a long time ago, before Federer folded against Nadal. My quote is a very recent one.

P_Agony
04-21-2009, 03:53 PM
Overall, I agree except for the bold part. Nadal is the more talented player, IMO. He's a 'thinking' player on the court, always scheming about the next shot. Exceptional points craftsman. The best I've seen since Pete Sampras.

I must add though that for whatever reason, it''s only against Federer that we get to see Nadal's absolute tennis briliance.

I don't think Nadal has a lot of natural talent compared to many other players. I've stated that time and time again. I think his other qualities make up for the "little" (not little, but compared to others yes) talent he has. We'll agree to disagree.

tudwell
04-21-2009, 03:54 PM
Agassi disagrees with you. He said in a recent TV interview that Federer cannot be the greatest of his era (let alone all time) if he doesn't find a way to catch up in his HtoH vs his main rival. Great? Absolutely, the greatest? Not as things stand.

Let's say Federer retires with 25 slams, 9 years at number 1, Olympic Gold, Davis Cup, everything. Except a 6-20 head-to-head with Nadal. That one person who happened to be a bad match-up for him keeps him from being the greatest? In a close comparison, like (current) Federer and Borg or Sampras, perhaps a head-to-head like that would become significant. But if Federer manages to otherwise break all kinds of records such that there's no one who even compares, a poor head-to-head against one or two players is not going to matter.

Not that I think Federer will achieve anything close to what I listed above. But I think people overinflate the importance of Federer's head-to-head with Nadal.

P_Agony
04-21-2009, 03:57 PM
Fed a shadow of his former self? Gimme a damn break. He beats 98 percent of the freakin field today. And he is reaching every slam final that comes around. I didnt say Fed was at his peak. But he certainly isnt passed his prime. Look at his slam results before you start this Fed is a shell of his former self garbage. Players who are shells of themselves dont reach multiple grand slam finals. It just doesnt happen Im sorry

Yes, of course. The shot that used to be the best forehand in the world shanking a billion times per match. Prime Fed, for sure.

P_Agony
04-21-2009, 04:00 PM
I don't see how he wouldn't win Wimbledon. Federer can even win the French if he meets Nadal in the finals and it's their next meeting.

I truly envy your faith.

veroniquem
04-21-2009, 04:08 PM
I don't think Nadal has a lot of natural talent compared to many other players. I've stated that time and time again. I think his other qualities make up for the "little" (not little, but compared to others yes) talent he has. We'll agree to disagree.
Yes you keep repeating it as if the single fact of repeating it again and again was going to make it true somehow (hey that's how propaganda works!). There is no way any player can achieve what Nadal has without an exceptional talent. There is no "other qualities" that is gonna give you 6 slams on 3 surfaces at 22, 14 master shields, the longest streak on 1 surface and the only RG-Queen's-W back to back in the history of tennis. Nothing my friend. I don't care how hard you work, how strong you are or how tough you are, talent is the first thing you're gonna need for that and Nadal has talent galore.

Rickson
04-21-2009, 04:10 PM
It's just a numbers game, agony. Nadal has the curse of 13 working against him and Federer is the favorite to win Wimbledon.

luckyboy1300
04-21-2009, 04:13 PM
There are many big differences between Borg's situation and Federer's situation. Borg didn't have one opponent that beat him 13 times and completely overwhelmed him. In the case of Federer, it's not just losing the RG finals that attracted the derogatory remarks about his mental, it's the fact that there was 1 opponent against whom he was helpless: first he had no answer for clay, then grass was taken from him, then hard. He lost his last 5 matches against Nadal, all crucial, all big finals on 3 different surfaces, he hasn't beaten Rafa since 2007. That has got to hurt.
Very different from Borg who just happened to be less efficient in one particuliar slam, regardless of who the opponent was.

yup he didn't. but from what i know the main reason why he retired is because he couldn't stand losing to mcenroe. not a mental giant for me, especially since he only lost a couple.

veroniquem
04-21-2009, 04:19 PM
yup he didn't. but from what i know the main reason why he retired is because he couldn't stand losing to mcenroe. not a mental giant for me, especially since he only lost a couple.
And I think that's just a rumor. I'm sure there were other reasons.

GameSampras
04-21-2009, 04:21 PM
And I think that's just a rumor. I'm sure there were other reasons.

I thought Borg also had drug issues and a pending divorce. I dunno its what I heard. Im sure it was a multitude of things

timnz
04-21-2009, 04:23 PM
Where's Björns HC titles? He was a mental midget at the USO.

Borg won 9 Hard Court titles plus was the finalist about 7 other Hard Court tournaments at a time where hard courts were not a very common surface. With regard to the US Open I just think he ran out of luck. In 1979 he came across a blinding serving display by Tanner. In 1980 he got extremely close but had a injured figure which didn't help. Not excuses - Mac deserved those tournaments but his record showed that he could play extremely well on hard courts.

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-21-2009, 04:54 PM
Fed a shadow of his former self? Gimme a damn break. He beats 98 percent of the freakin field today. And he is reaching every slam final that comes around. I didnt say Fed was at his peak. But he certainly isnt passed his prime. Look at his slam results before you start this Fed is a shell of his former self garbage. Players who are shells of themselves dont reach multiple grand slam finals. It just doesnt happen Im sorry You have to be joking. Fed is well past his prime. Has it occured to you that he is getting better results at the GS and other events because the field is weaker? He is playing his worse ever (since his prime years) and is still getting all these good results (not good by his standards but...). Go on youtube if you still believe he is playing the same as he was in his prime years then tell me you think the same.

GameSampras
04-21-2009, 05:13 PM
You have to be joking. Fed is well past his prime. Has it occured to you that he is getting better results at the GS and other events because the field is weaker? He is playing his worse ever (since his prime years) and is still getting all these good results (not good by his standards but...). Go on youtube if you still believe he is playing the same as he was in his prime years then tell me you think the same.

It hasnt occured to me Fed is getting to GS finals because the field is NOT WEAKER. Certainly not weaker than it was back in 04-07. Did you see Fed's level of play at the USO? That was vintage Fed there. Fed is still Fed when it matters most at the slams. Only difference is Nadal has gotten better.

icedevil0289
04-21-2009, 05:20 PM
It hasnt occured to me Fed is getting to GS finals because the field is NOT WEAKER. Certainly not weaker than it was back in 04-07. Did you see Fed's level of play at the USO? That was vintage Fed there. Fed is still Fed when it matters most at the slams. Only difference is Nadal has gotten better.

That is true but I think its pretty ridiculous to say fed is still in his prime and playing the same way he was during 04-07. He's not and his losses certainly have to do with other players getting better, but at the same time he is also declining. Like someone mentioned before, just because someone is past there prime, does not mean they cannot come up with great performances from times to time.

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-21-2009, 05:22 PM
It hasnt occured to me Fed is getting to GS finals because the field is NOT WEAKER. Certainly not weaker than it was back in 04-07. Did you see Fed's level of play at the USO? That was vintage Fed there. Fed is still Fed when it matters most at the slams. Only difference is Nadal has gotten better. That USO was the only real "prime Fed we have seen since the start of 2008. The field is weaker, all finals are dominated by Fed and Nadal mostly. Back in 04-06 it was pretty much random out of about 6-7 players who would play Fed in the final. That is competitive not the current situation. I admit he plays alot different at the slams but even there his performances have decreased yet he still makes the finals.

JoshDragon
04-21-2009, 05:22 PM
It hasnt occured to me Fed is getting to GS finals because the field is NOT WEAKER. Certainly not weaker than it was back in 04-07. Did you see Fed's level of play at the USO? That was vintage Fed there. Fed is still Fed when it matters most at the slams. Only difference is Nadal has gotten better.

There's some truth to what you say about Nadal getting better but Federer has not played at his peak level since about 2007. Federer, has had some great matches since then (Australian Open, and US Open finals) but he has not been the same player since the end of 2007.

AprilFool
04-21-2009, 05:44 PM
The fact remains that Nadal was not in his prime when Fed was in his. NAdal simply was not present in as many slam finals as Fed was during the same period.
The head to head number will always have an asterisk next to it in Fed's favour.

GameSampras
04-21-2009, 05:59 PM
That USO was the only real "prime Fed we have seen since the start of 2008. The field is weaker, all finals are dominated by Fed and Nadal mostly. Back in 04-06 it was pretty much random out of about 6-7 players who would play Fed in the final. That is competitive not the current situation. I admit he plays alot different at the slams but even there his performances have decreased yet he still makes the finals.

Nadal was not yet an all surface player back then.


You dont think 04-07 wouldnt be dominated by two players if Nadal had the tweaked his game properly and had primed even back then? Sure it would have. Nadal 08-09 couldnt defeat Roddick on Hardcourt or grass? He couldnt defeat Nalbandian or Hewitt? Couldnt defeat Blake on HC or grass? Couldnt defeat Davydenko or Gonzales or Baghaditis?



Nadal was dominant on clay back then. Grass he was just becoming a major player.. But hardcourts he was losing to the likes of Youzhny and Ferrer. You think Prime-Peak Nadal would be losing to such medocrity on HC had he primed Peaked back then? Heck no.


Wimbeldon and RG would be a two man show and prolly even the AO. Nadal still has yet to reach the finals of a USO though. But I think he definitely would have back then since I think Murray is tougher competiton than Youzhny, Roddick, Ferrer, Blake etc at the USO as he showed with his play up until the finals of the USO last year.

Thats the major difference IMO. Its not how much people want to think how Fed has totally "lost it" since he still reaching every slam final. Its how much better Nadal has become on all surfaces. He just keeps improving

GameSampras
04-21-2009, 06:06 PM
Just for a second.. Take Nadal out of the equation in 2008.. What happens? Federer wins 3 of the 4 slams. He takes RG, Wimbeldon, and the USO without a doubt. The year where everyone wants to say how Fed began to turn to crap. Well if you take Nadal out of that equation, Fed still continues on pace with his 3 slams a year just as he did at his peak


And prolly takes the AO this year also since he would have only had to deal with Verdasco which I doubt Fed would have trouble with . So if not for Nadal, Fed would have broken the slam record last year at the very least and would be extending the slam count even more this year. Not bad for a player "past his prime" wouldnt u say?

The-Champ
04-21-2009, 07:14 PM
Borg won 9 Hard Court titles plus was the finalist about 7 other Hard Court tournaments at a time where hard courts were not a very common surface. With regard to the US Open I just think he ran out of luck. In 1979 he came across a blinding serving display by Tanner. In 1980 he got extremely close but had a injured figure which didn't help. Not excuses - Mac deserved those tournaments but his record showed that he could play extremely well on hard courts.


Where's the HC slam?

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-21-2009, 09:18 PM
Just for a second.. Take Nadal out of the equation in 2008.. What happens? Federer wins 3 of the 4 slams. He takes RG, Wimbeldon, and the USO without a doubt. The year where everyone wants to say how Fed began to turn to crap. Well if you take Nadal out of that equation, Fed still continues on pace with his 3 slams a year just as he did at his peak


And prolly takes the AO this year also since he would have only had to deal with Verdasco which I doubt Fed would have trouble with . So if not for Nadal, Fed would have broken the slam record last year at the very least and would be extending the slam count even more this year. Not bad for a player "past his prime" wouldnt u say? Thanks for reinforcing my point that the field is weaker now.

gj011
04-21-2009, 09:26 PM
Just for a second.. Take Nadal out of the equation in 2008.. What happens? Federer wins 3 of the 4 slams. He takes RG, Wimbeldon, and the USO without a doubt. The year where everyone wants to say how Fed began to turn to crap. Well if you take Nadal out of that equation, Fed still continues on pace with his 3 slams a year just as he did at his peak


And prolly takes the AO this year also since he would have only had to deal with Verdasco which I doubt Fed would have trouble with . So if not for Nadal, Fed would have broken the slam record last year at the very least and would be extending the slam count even more this year. Not bad for a player "past his prime" wouldnt u say?

Federer would not win FO 2008 if you take Nadal out of equation. Or at least it is not given. Djokovic was playing better tennis and was more convincing there and would have a pretty good chance in that final.

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-21-2009, 09:29 PM
Federer would not win FO 2008 if you take Nadal out of equation. Or at least it is not given. Djokovic was playing better tennis and was more convincing there and would have a pretty good chance in that final. Well you are probably right though Fed may of won it because of better experience in FO finals, and he has only ever lost a GS final to Nadal IIRC.

GameSampras it is obvious you never watched a Fed game between 2004-2006 so stop commenting on how he played when it is obvious you have no idea what you are talking about.

Blinkism
04-21-2009, 09:36 PM
Ok I don't know how related this, but I'm tired of people talking about Nadal also being in Fed's "weak era". Regardless of whether there ever was a weak era or not, Nadal has never had a losing record to Federer ever, ever, ever.

So even if Nadal was in the weak era, he should not be grouped in with all the other "weak players" that Federer swept aside. Nadal was able to keep up with Federer in the 2003-2006 "weak era". That was pre-prime Nadal, mind you. Unlike prime players such as Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Blake, Ferrero, etc.

ksbh
04-22-2009, 06:25 AM
Please consult Breakpoint for a reason.

I don't see how he wouldn't win Wimbledon. Federer can even win the French if he meets Nadal in the finals and it's their next meeting.

ksbh
04-22-2009, 06:26 AM
That makes Nadal a better player than Federer! Needless to say, I take Agassi's remarks over anyone on this forum, LOL!

Agassi has also said, federer is the best he has ever played against. So there you go!

King of Aces
04-22-2009, 07:09 AM
Would that put rafa at the 20th tier of the GOAT-list?


well he also has 6 grandslams an olympic gold Medal and the world record for most consecutibe clay court wins, a grand slam win on all surfaces (I think only three others have done that).....and he is only 22.

I think that puts him in the "20th tier of the GOAT list"

colonelforbin
04-22-2009, 07:28 AM
Borg had 4 finals at the USO! He was quite competent on hard court and carpet actually but sadly that USO title escaped him until the end.

Federer had 3 finals at RG! He was quite competent on clay actually but sadly that RG title escaped him until the end.

GameSampras
04-22-2009, 07:45 AM
Thanks for reinforcing my point that the field is weaker now.

How is it weaker? Fed was getting 3 slams a year even way back in what you think was a "stronger" era? Murray and DJoker pose more problems for Fed throughout the course of the seasons than Hewitt, Roddick, Blake, Davydenko etc ever did 2-5 years ago.

Did HEwitt ever even beat Fed again when Fed entered his prime? Hell even today, Roddick cant even take Fed. He is what 1-41241241 against Fed at this point? What did Davy do? These guys did NOTHING to hurt Fed. Djoker and Murray are at least hurting Fed. And DJoker took an AO away from Fed. Murray is taking smaller tourneys away and most likely wil start getting his slams shortly within the next season or two

King of Aces
04-22-2009, 07:59 AM
Bottom line: Nadal has ALWAYS had a winning record againgst Roger .

Prime or not prime....Mono or not Mono.....Weak era or strong era....bla bla bla.....Nadal has ALWAYS had a winning record against Federer.

Tennis_Bum
04-22-2009, 10:01 AM
Maybe you didn't understand my post. Nadal hasn't had any lopsided record against ANYBODY on all surfaces. He has a very strong surface and he is not weak on the others as well. His strong surface is not a flaw, it is a strength. If Fed didn't have a surface that was strong enough to avoid lopsided records, it is a handicap, not an asset or an excuse. At the end of the day, Federer has a lopsided record vs Murray for instance even though all their encounters happened on hard which is supposed to be one of Fed's strong surfaces. His lopsided record vs Henman or Hewitt in the past were not because of clay either! Nadal leads Monfils 4-1 even though 3 of their encounters happened on hard. He leads Djoko 12-4 even though 9 of their encounters were on hard and he leads Tsonga 3-1 even though all of their encounters were on hard. And even if you took Fed-Nadal without clay, it wouldn't give a lopsided record, it would give a close one (4-5) which is as much because of Nadal struggling at USO as because of Federer being too bad for the last 2 years to make a single final in a master on hard court. So your excuse is a very bad one and the bottom line is Nadal hasn't had lopsided head to heads on the tour, Federer has.

Again, your post is too lengthy for me to read but I understand your lack of depth in tennis. You keep posting h2h records. I am not making an excuse, I said if you factor out the clay record, then it's not so bad. Again, look hard in you small little head, does anyone has a winning record against Nadal on clay? Fed has such terrible record because he was good enough to get to the finals and lost to Nadal on clay. But on other surfaces, Nadal didn't manage to get to the finals as expected so Fed didn't have chances to balance the h2h record. I am not saying he would win all encounters that are not on clay, but at least he would have a chance to balance the h2h record.


Look it up, Fed had winning records against Nadal on other surfaces besides clay. Those two must have played about 9 matches on clay or so, I am going from memory and it will not be exact, but the only match that Fed won was from Hamburg. Igor was the last to beat Nadal on clay in 2005 besides Fed in 2007 at Hamburg.

Do you understand what I mean? All players have lopsided record against Nadal on clay. And yes, that includes Fed. Fed lost to Murray because Murray is such a pusher that Fed lost to him in smaller tourneys. Say what you will. Everyone knows that Fed wants to win every tourney he goes to, but it is unrealistic and impossible. When you go to a small tourneys and meet pushers like Murray and Simon and lose to them. There's a whole lot you can do.

The h2h record is important but it's not as important when it comes to slam. Fed beat Murray easily at the USO2008. So much for the h2h record. And that was supposedly his worst year since becoming #1. Just recently Fed has lost to Murray after the USO win, including big matches at masters. Granted those were big matches and I agree that those were important matches as well.

I don't know if you know anything about playing tennis, but if you play a true pusher like Murray or Nadal, you have to really play incredible tennis to win because the unforced errors will kill you if you have slightly an off day. Murray is a true pusher, he will use his excellent footwork and fitness to wear out his opponent. All pushers can put the ball back deep and can hit 50-rally shots. Murray is not different, he's just an ultimate pusher like Nadal was.

Don't believe me, watch the match that Djoko vs. Nadal again to see if he pushed the ball when Djoko was pressing him in the 2nd and 3rd set. Anyway, Fed is not playing well now but it's not a sure bet that Nadal will win FO this year. A lot of things can happen. No, I am not picking Fed to win FO this year at all. So calm down, don't hyperventilate. But Nadal is not a sure bet. For sure, he's the favorite but it's not a guarantee.

Believe it there are many elements in Nadal's game that I would like to teach my son, he's also a lefty. And no, I don't want him to turn pro because I don't want to ruin my son's life unless that's what his aspiration to be a pro tennis player. But tennis is such a fun sport that you can play for a life time and get excellent physical and mental exercises. Perhaps, you should try it then you would know how difficult it is to play against an ultimate pusher like Murray or Nadal then you can have some perspective on the things that you vehemently and so frequently talk about.

Cyan
04-22-2009, 12:37 PM
Fed's spanking at the hands of Nadal at multiple slams is much worse than Fed spanking Murray and Djoker at the USO. LOL.


When I look at Fed's results I dont look at a player passed his prime and on the downslope. I look at it and say one player has caught up and Fed cant do anything about it.

Exactly....