Let's disspel the myth that Federer thrived against a "weak field"

no nadal is not greater than fed. 11 is less than 16.

11 is also less than 14 which sampras has done. and it is also less than laver has done who won 11 despite not competing for several years and winning the slam twice. laver would have easily won 20 GS had he not turned pro.

so nadal should overtake laver and sampras first before we talk about roger. It is true that nadal had slightly better comp than roger. but who cares? titles count and not whom or how you beat them. a title against mark phillipouissis or fernando gonzalez is not worth more than a title against novak

dominikk1985 said:

a title against mark phillipouissis or fernando gonzalez is not worth more than a title against novak

Click to expand...

Totally agree with you! And speaking about titles, does anyone knows that Nadal hasn't won a title off clay since october 2010? That is 20 MONTHS :shock: 2010-2012 are his peak years considering all those slams finals he's made in that periode (if Ralph can make 2 straight hc slam finals you can be sure he's at his peak)... It is pretty embarrasing really that in the heart of his prime, he wasn't able to win a non clay tournament in almost 2 years. Djokovic doesn't win and play all the hc tourn, so really what's up with that?
And to think some believe he's the big favorite for W and OG,. USO... lol

Steffi-forever said:

Totally agree with you! And speaking about titles, does anyone knows that Nadal hasn't won a title off clay since october 2010? That is 20 MONTHS :shock: 2010-2012 are his peak years considering all those slams finals he's made in that periode (if Ralph can make 2 straight hc slam finals you can be sure he's at his peak)... It is pretty embarrasing really that in the heart of his prime, he wasn't able to win a non clay tournament in almost 2 years. Djokovic doesn't win and play all the hc tourn, so really what's up with that?
And to think some believe he's the big favorite for W and OG,. USO... lol

Click to expand...

It's a bad match up.....um no its mono.....shadows.....post prime .....er.....


It's simply because Joker has always dominated Nadal on hard courts .....ALWAYS.

HC is not his surface bit he is learning and improving .....he was 6 points away from a win at the AO.

Nadal will work on it . He is not stubborn and set in his ways.

BigServer1 said:

Yes, you're correct. Because my view of a strong or "golden" era goes beyond the top 3 players. For me, that won't change.

Click to expand...

So we actually sort of agree. The top three are tougher now.

Wouldn't that mean that 2003-2006 is weaker?

The Dark Knight said:

So we actually sort of agree. The top three are tougher now.

Wouldn't that mean that 2003-2006 is weaker?

Click to expand...

I said it goes beyond just the top three. So no, we don't agree, and no it doesn't mean that 2003-2006 was weaker.

BigServer1 said:

I said it goes beyond just the top three. So no, we don't agree, and no it doesn't mean that 2003-2006 was weaker.

Click to expand...

Why not?

We both agree that the top three are tougher now .

So why does the rest of the field matter?

Let's say there was no Federer or Nadal. Let's instead put Djokovic In current form back to 2003......what do you think he would do to Roddick and Ferrer?

Or put Nadal in current form and take away Federer and Djokovkc . Do you think he would beat Fererrr and Roddick.

Hell lets do it in 2012.....imagine there was no Djokovic or Nadal .....do you think that Federer would be #1 in the world today?

Or take away Nadal and Federer .....do you think Joker would have the calendar slam now ?

Or take away Federer and Joker.....do you think Nadal would be #1 in 2012?


But the fact is these three guys are all competing at the same time on every surface . Has that ever happened in the history of tennis before?

Why is is so hard to recognize that this is a special period in time ....a golden era?

The Dark Knight said:

Why not?

We both agree that the top three are tougher now .

So why does the rest of the field matter?

Let's say there was no Federer or Nadal. Let's instead put Djokovic I'm current form back to 2003......what do you think he would do to Roddick and Ferrer?

Or put Nadal in current form and take away Federer and Djokovkc . Do you think he would beat Fererrr and Roddick.

Hell lets do it in 2012.....imagine there was no Djokovic or Nadal .....do you think that Federer would be #1 in the world today?

Or take away Nadal and Federer .....do you think Joker would have the calendar slam now ?

Or take away Federer and Joker.....do you think Nadal would be #1 in 2012?


But the fact is these three guys are all competing at the same time on every surface . Has that ever happened in the history of tennis before?

Why is is so hard to recognize that this is a special period in time ....a golden era?

Click to expand...

Roddick would actually probably give Novak a solid run for his money. Roddick was, and is, no slouch against Roddick..

But, back to your original question: If depth was just about the top 3, why even bother making Major draws as big as they are (128 man field)? The answer is that the rest of the field matters too.Seppi had Djokovic down by two sets.. that's why the field matters.

Sure, I'll immediately agree that today, the top 3 are stronger than say, 2006. But I'll contend also that from 4 down, the field today is weaker than in 2006, because there aren't really any veteran major winners left, and there doesn't seem to be any new up and comers either. Essentially, beyond the top 3, the field has stagnated, and so we're seeing guys like Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic reach later rounds more consistently than the top 3 did in 2006. I mean granted, this tournament both Federer and Djokovic were in trouble at times, but that was more due to bad play from them than their opponents really stepping up (though Seppi was extremely impressive).

In the past, there were people who werent necessarily afraid to play the top players, and as a result, they were more easy to be knocked out in the past. That's why, to you, it appears 2006 is weaker; the top 3 were more likely to lose than now, because there were sleeper players in the draws much more so than today.

Nadal Federer and Joker have virtually been in every final since about 2008
.....with slight interruptions like del Potro etc.....

But no the rest of the field doesn't really matter all that much because these three are so much better.

And I don't think Roddick stands a chance against Joker.......and don't think anyone would give you the odds on that one .

Joker has the greatest return of serve of all time. He would demolish Roddick.

The Dark Knight said:

Why not?

We both agree that the top three are tougher now .

So why does the rest of the field matter?

Click to expand...

The rest of the field matters because they make up the first 5 rounds of a Major.

The Dark Knight said:

Let's say there was no Federer or Nadal. Let's instead put Djokovic I'm current form back to 2003......what do you think he would do to Roddick and Ferrer?

Click to expand...

Seeing that Roddick leads the head to head with Djokovic 5-3, I'd say prime Roddick would fare OK against Djokovic. Why you're bringing up Ferrer, I don't know. If you mean Ferrero, I think he'd hold his own on clay, but I'd favor Djokovic on fast surfaces.

The Dark Knight said:

Or put Nadal in current form and take away Federer and Djokovkc . Do you think he would beat Fererrr and Roddick.

Click to expand...

Again, considering Roddick has recorded wins against Nadal in his prime, I think Roddick would be competitive against Nadal on fast surfaces. I don't really know why you keep bringing up Ferrero when you could bring up Hewitt, Safin or Nalby. Any of those three I think would be competitive prime versus prime (except clay, obviously)

The Dark Knight said:

Hell lets do it in 2012.....imagine there was no Djokovic or Nadal .....do you think that Federer would be #1 in the world today?

Click to expand...

Yes, because the rest of the field is borderline atrocious today.

The Dark Knight said:

Or take away Nadal and Federer .....do you think Joker would have the calendar slam now ?

Click to expand...

Yes. See above.

The Dark Knight said:

Or take away Federer and Joker.....do you think Nadal would be #1 in 2012?

Click to expand...

Yes. Again, see above.

The Dark Knight said:

But the fact is these three guys are all competing at the same time on every surface . Has that ever happened in the history of tennis before?

Why is is so hard to recognize that this is a special period in time ....a golden era?

Click to expand...

They are indeed playing at the same time, but they're not in their primes at the same time. The surfaces have also become more similar, which makes this all possible. I don't think Rafa OR Djokovic would be equipped to be very successful on the Wimbledon grass from the 90s.

You think this is a special period of time, that's fine. I think it was cool to watch Nadal and then Djokovic raise their levels, but in no way do I think that we're in a golden era, because of what I mentioned above: The first 5 rounds of Majors are largely noncompetitive, and there's no depth to challenge the players above.

The Dark Knight said:

Nadal Federer and Joker have virtually been in every final since about 2008
.....with slight interruptions like del Potro etc.....

But no the rest of the field doesn't really matter all that much because these three are so much better.

And I don't think Roddick stands a chance against Joker.......and don't think anyone would give you the odds on that one .

Joker has the greatest return of serve of all time. He would demolish Roddick.

Click to expand...

Roddick - Djokovic head to head: 5-3 in favor of Roddick. You continue to be clueless.

Cup8489 said:

Roddick would actually probably give Novak a solid run for his money. Roddick was, and is, no slouch against Roddick..

But, back to your original question: If depth was just about the top 3, why even bother making Major draws as big as they are (128 man field)? The answer is that the rest of the field matters too.Seppi had Djokovic down by two sets.. that's why the field matters.

Sure, I'll immediately agree that today, the top 3 are stronger than say, 2006. But I'll contend also that from 4 down, the field today is weaker than in 2006, because there aren't really any veteran major winners left, and there doesn't seem to be any new up and comers either. Essentially, beyond the top 3, the field has stagnated, and so we're seeing guys like Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic reach later rounds more consistently than the top 3 did in 2006. I mean granted, this tournament both Federer and Djokovic were in trouble at times, but that was more due to bad play from them than their opponents really stepping up (though Seppi was extremely impressive).

In the past, there were people who werent necessarily afraid to play the top players, and as a result, they were more easy to be knocked out in the past. That's why, to you, it appears 2006 is weaker; the top 3 were more likely to lose than now, because there were sleeper players in the draws much more so than today.

Click to expand...

Agree with all of this.

The Dark Knight said:

Nadal Federer and Joker have virtually been in every final since about 2008
.....with slight interruptions like del Potro etc.....

But no the rest of the field doesn't really matter all that much because these three are so much better.

And I don't think Roddick stands a chance against Joker.......and don't think anyone would give you the odds on that one .

Joker has the greatest return of serve of all time. He would demolish Roddick.

Click to expand...

This may or may not be true. You're assuming the top 3 are just that much better, and that could be true.. but it could ALSO be true that the rest of the field is that much worse in comparison to 2006. Both scenarios are possible, and there's simply no way to decide on it.

For the record, Roddick leads Djokovic in the head to head, 5-3, including 3 of the last 4. http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=D643&oId=R485

Roddick would definitely trouble Nadal and Djokovic moreso than he did Federer, because these two engage in baseline rallies; Federer beat roddick with variety, not consistency. Same with Hewitt and Nalbandian. Both men are more than capable of beating Djokodal, and while I've come to the conclusion that you haven't watched tennis very long, I know this is true regardless. Would they necessarily beat them every time? No way, Djokodal are great players. But they wouldn't have it as easy against this group as you think.

TBH, I'd love to see prime roddick against prime Djokovic.. their matches have never been lousy, and I think Roddick's sheer power vs. Novak's consistency, return and speed would be a fun spectacle.

The Dark Knight said:

Why not?

We both agree that the top three are tougher now .

So why does the rest of the field matter?

Let's say there was no Federer or Nadal. Let's instead put Djokovic In current form back to 2003......what do you think he would do to Roddick and Ferrer?

Or put Nadal in current form and take away Federer and Djokovkc . Do you think he would beat Fererrr and Roddick.

Hell lets do it in 2012.....imagine there was no Djokovic or Nadal .....do you think that Federer would be #1 in the world today?

Or take away Nadal and Federer .....do you think Joker would have the calendar slam now ?

Or take away Federer and Joker.....do you think Nadal would be #1 in 2012?


But the fact is these three guys are all competing at the same time on every surface . Has that ever happened in the history of tennis before?

Why is is so hard to recognize that this is a special period in time ....a golden era?

Click to expand...

If Djokovic and Nadal weren't around, Federer would be #1 in the world again. The field is that weak at the moment.

There is a way to decide it.

Nadal has been beating Federer since 2006.

Nadal is even better today but Joker beats him .

The only thing that's changed is first that Nadal came on the Scene to stop Federer.....and now Joker has increased his level of play.

Even if you say Federer has declined ( which I don't agree with) nadal has not diminished .....and yet Joker beats him.

Therefore if we follow that line of logic

3 goats > 1 Goat or 2 goats > 1 goat .

It's just tougher now. Everyone outside of TW see it from McEnroe to Federer himself who says this is the golden age.....Federer himself says it !!!

But that's still not enough here at good ole TW .....why ?? Itsbthe same reason that Fed wins every poll....

We are talking about a bulletin board where Fed was picked to win the 2012 FO a board where Fed was voted the second greatest clay courter of all time By a large percentage and at least the third ....only behind Borg.....better than Kuerten, Lendl , Vilas.

It's complete and utter bias .....but I think this is a new record even for TW.....

Ok disagree with McEnroe Borg Graf and label them as haters.....
But Roger Federer himself call this the Golden era and you disagree with him as well?

I mean Jesus Christ ......how biased can this board possibly be?

The Dark Knight said:

There is a way to decide it.

Nadal has been beating Federer since 2006.

Nadal is even better today but Joker beats him .

The only thing that's changed is first that Nadal came on the Scene to stop Federer.....and now Joker has increased his level of play.

Even if you say Federer has declined ( which I don't agree with) nadal has not diminished .....and yet Joker beats him.

Therefore if we follow that line of logic

3 goats > 1 Goat or 2 goats > 1 goat .

It's just tougher now. Everyone outside of TW see it from McEnroe to Federer himself who says this is the golden age.....Federer himself says it !!!

But that's still not enough here at good ole TW .....why ?? Itsbthe same reason that Fed wins every poll....

We are talking about a bulletin board where Fed was picked to win the 2012 FO a board where Fed was voted the second greatest clay courter of all time By a large percentage and at least the third ....only behind Borg.....better than Kuerten, Lendl , Vilas.

It's complete and utter bias .....but I think this is a new record even for TW.....

Ok disagree with McEnroe Borg Graf and label them as haters.....
But Roger Federer himself call this the Golden era and you disagree with him as well?

I mean Jesus Christ ......how biased can this board possibly be?

Click to expand...

You must believe Hewitt is at his peak then, since his and Federer's generation aren't declining yet.

Sabratha said:

If Djokovic and Nadal weren't around, Federer would be #1 in the world again. The field is that weak at the moment.

Click to expand...

And I still believe Roddick would dismantle Djokovic, while Nadal would do the same thing to Roddick. It'd be a bit like this.

Nadal >/ Federer >> Hewitt >> Roddick >> Djokovic.

ROGER FEDERER HIMSELF SAYS THIS IS A GOLDEN ERA



.

The Dark Knight said:

ROGER FEDERER HIMSELF SAYS THIS IS A GOLDEN ERA



.

Click to expand...

Someone's mad. LOL.

Can't handle the truth of the matter?

This is why no one likes you here. You can't even accept the possibility that you're not right, whereas I've conceded that I could be wrong several times.

Learn to have an intelligent discussion, bud. You're failing miserably right now.

This forum is more and more reduced to: Weak field, Poly strings, GOAT, Novak 2.0., Nadal=butt-picker , Fed=mother Teresa, blue clay, slow grass. As such it can be reduced to just a threads.

ViscaB said:

This forum is more and more reduced to: Weak field, Poly strings, GOAT, Novak 2.0., Nadal=butt-picker , Fed=mother Teresa, blue clay, slow grass. As such it can be reduced to just a threads.

Click to expand...

Meh, I've been around here for 6 years, it's always been filled with crap. It goes in waves though and we seem to be in a golden era of crappy, repetitive topics.

The Dark Knight said:

ROGER FEDERER HIMSELF SAYS THIS IS A GOLDEN ERA



.

Click to expand...

That doesn't make it correct.

The Dark Knight said:

But that's still not enough here at good ole TW .....why ?? Its the same reason that Fed wins every poll....

We are talking about a bulletin board where Fed was picked to win the 2012 FO, a board where Fed was voted the second greatest clay courter of all time by a large percentage and at least the third ....only behind Borg.....better than Kuerten, Lendl, Vilas.

Click to expand...

That just proves how wacko, naive, or prejudiced posters on TW TT are.

Cup8489 said:

Roddick would actually probably give Novak a solid run for his money. Roddick was, and is, no slouch against Roddick..

But, back to your original question: If depth was just about the top 3, why even bother making Major draws as big as they are (128 man field)? The answer is that the rest of the field matters too.Seppi had Djokovic down by two sets.. that's why the field matters.

Sure, I'll immediately agree that today, the top 3 are stronger than say, 2006. But I'll contend also that from 4 down, the field today is weaker than in 2006, because there aren't really any veteran major winners left, and there doesn't seem to be any new up and comers either. Essentially, beyond the top 3, the field has stagnated, and so we're seeing guys like Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic reach later rounds more consistently than the top 3 did in 2006. I mean granted, this tournament both Federer and Djokovic were in trouble at times, but that was more due to bad play from them than their opponents really stepping up (though Seppi was extremely impressive).

In the past, there were people who werent necessarily afraid to play the top players, and as a result, they were more easy to be knocked out in the past. That's why, to you, it appears 2006 is weaker; the top 3 were more likely to lose than now, because there were sleeper players in the draws much more so than today.

Click to expand...

Thats kind of ridiculous...

There are none left mainly because they were dominated by Federer and Nadal or because they are old and retired... You can't have former champions if only two players are winning the slams! Essentially, Nole is the only one to have bust through the glass ceiling of Federer/Nadal.

Who were these former champions of 2003-06 that you speak so highly of?

Safin: had the talent and physical abilities to compete with Federer (and Nadal and Nole) at his best, but was not consistent or mentally focused for long enough period of time, and also suffered many injuries (particularly his knees).

Hewitt: first off Hewitt is still active now. Second, his heyday was before 2003 (he had already began to lose foot speed by then and his domination by Federer had already begun).

Roddick: again he is still active now. His game was always too one dimensional to truly compete with the likes of Federer, Nadal, and today's Nole. He has been very lucky to never have faced Nole 2.0, if he did he would be demolished! And I'm sure Nole is salivating at the chance to humiliate Roddick on the court, after the disparaging statements Roddick has made about him!

Nalby: again still active now. Extremely talented but never developed the fitness to become a slam champion in these very physical times.

Agassi: yes, Agassi is not active now, but please do not pretend that 2003-06 was his prime! He did win the Aussie in 03, but he was far from his physical best after that...


And you may not see any newcomers (I guess you're excluding Delpo and Murray), mostly because they are competing against 3 of the best players in the open era and have very little chance to break thru, but I certainly do...

Tsonga and Berdych (and Soderling before his illness) are all capable of winning slams! And in their current form, probably would have in 2003-06 sans Federer and Nadal...

DRII said:

Who were these former champions of 2003-06 that you speak so highly of?

Safin: had the talent and physical abilities to compete with Federer (and Nadal and Nole) at his best, but was not consistent or mentally focused for long enough period of time, and also suffered many injuries (particularly his knees).

Click to expand...

still played better tennis than any one apart from the top 3 in tourneys like AO 2004, AO 2005, indoor season 2004 ( Madrid, Paris,TMC etc ) .... beating almost everyone of note in that time-frame ... federer, agassi, roddick, hewitt, nalbandian ...

DRII said:

Hewitt: first off Hewitt is still active now. Second, his heyday was before 2003 (he had already began to lose foot speed by then and his domination by Federer had already begun).

Click to expand...

really ? hewitt's footspeed problems mostly started from 2006 onwards.

His performance in slams in 2004-2005:

AO 2004 :lost to federer in 4R
FO 2004: lost to gaudio in QF
wim 2004: lost to federer in QF
USO 2004 : lost to federer in F ( reached final without losing a set )
AO 2005 : lost to safin in F
wim 2005: lost to federer in SF
USO 2005: lost to federer in QF

no bad losses there ...

in contrast in 2001,2002, he had early/bad losses in AO 2001 ( moya ranked 42), wim 2001 ( escude ), AO 2002(alberto martin), FO 2002 ( canas )

His winning %s are identical in the time-frames 2001-2002 and 2004-2005

he was a bit sharper at returning/passing in 2001/2002 and very slightly faster , but his groundstrokes were by some distance better in 2004-05 and he was still pretty fast ...

DRII said:

Roddick: again he is still active now. His game was always too one dimensional to truly compete with the likes of Federer, Nadal, and today's Nole. He has been very lucky to never have faced Nole 2.0, if he did he would be demolished! And I'm sure Nole is salivating at the chance to humiliate Roddick on the court, after the disparaging statements Roddick has made about him!

Click to expand...

Lulz, what ? is that why he is fairly even with nadal off clay ( beating him in dubai 2008 and again in miami 2010 ) ?

Is that why he's 5-3 vs djoker ( most of these matches were in the 2008-2010 time-frame that you are seeking to glorify ) ...

Nole 2011 is different, but then nole 2008-2010 was NOT nole 2011 ...

DRII said:

Nalby: again still active now. Extremely talented but never developed the fitness to become a slam champion in these very physical times.

Click to expand...

so what if he still active now. He was MUCH better back then

DRII said:

Agassi: yes, Agassi is not active now, but please do not pretend that 2003-06 was his prime! He did win the Aussie in 03, but he was far from his physical best after that...

Click to expand...

agassi 2003-2005 was still better than the likes of ferrer/berdych etc ...who make up the top 10 now. I'd say when playing well he was better than murray at the highest level, i.e. slams ...

DRII said:

Tsonga and Berdych (and Soderling before his illness) are all capable of winning slams! And in their current form, probably would have in 2003-06 sans Federer and Nadal...

Click to expand...

tsonga, yes ... berdych probably not ...

Cup8489 said:

Someone's mad. LOL.

Can't handle the truth of the matter?

This is why no one likes you here. You can't even accept the possibility that you're not right, whereas I've conceded that I could be wrong several times.

Learn to have an intelligent discussion, bud. You're failing miserably right now.

Click to expand...

Not mad at all.....shocked frustrated disbelief, hopelessness ....


Your God believes its the golden era ....Roger feeder the man himself.....and even that doesn't work,.


It's completely utterly hopeless now.

Your God believes its the golden era ....Roger feeder the man himself.....and even that doesn't work,.

Click to expand...

First of all, tennis players, tennis commentator, any person involved in tennis BUSINESS has an INTEREST to say so, as it can help to draw attention (and thus sponsor, advertisers and MONEY) to their sport-business.

Second, all tennis player, especially those who are so ravenous of fame have an interest to repeat again and again than their opponent are the best players ever. When Fed and Nadal were constantly praising each other, they were also praising themselves because winning and even loosing against so good player increased their own merit.

Third, all these guy probably believe genuinely what they say but it is not enough to make it true.

Fourth (can we say that?), why do you translate automatically "golden era" in "strongest era"? Golden era doens't necessary mean that. It could mean that we are blessed with an era which feature great story because it feature great rivalry, and I agree, a very high level of tennis. But I'm certain that the level of tennis will continue to improve, as we observe this tendancy in every single sport!

It's completely utterly hopeless now.

Click to expand...

Oh yes you are.

DRII said:

Roddick: again he is still active now. His game was always too one dimensional to truly compete with the likes of Federer, Nadal, and today's Nole. He has been very lucky to never have faced Nole 2.0, if he did he would be demolished! And I'm sure Nole is salivating at the chance to humiliate Roddick on the court, after the disparaging statements Roddick has made about him!

Click to expand...

Head to Head between Roddick and Djokovic:

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=R485&oId=D643

Roddick lead 5-3. All of their encounter happened since the middle of 2007, when Djokovic was already a master winner. It's absolutely clear that Djokovic 2007-2010, while a fabulous player, was far from Nole 2.0. It is even clearer that Roddick 2007-2010, nothing more than a consistent top-10 player, was nowhere near his level of play pre-2006.

The game of Roddick may be one dimensional, it doesn't make it non-efficient for all that.

abmk said:

still played better tennis than any one apart from the top 3 in tourneys like AO 2004, AO 2005, indoor season 2004 ( Madrid, Paris,TMC etc ) .... beating almost everyone of note in that time-frame ... federer, agassi, roddick, hewitt, nalbandian ...

Click to expand...

Do you mean from 2004-2005 AO Safin was beating almost everyone? Where was Federer :shock:

thb Safin was very tough BUT wasn't consistent enough to be considered a constant slam threat, it was always a question of whether he'd catch fire or not and unfortunately for us tennis fans, Safin could not bring his best the majority of the time.

abmk said:

really ? hewitt's footspeed problems mostly started from 2006 onwards.

His performance in slams in 2004-2005:

AO 2004 :lost to federer in 4R
FO 2004: lost to gaudio in QF
wim 2004: lost to federer in QF
USO 2004 : lost to federer in F ( reached final without losing a set )
AO 2005 : lost to safin in F
wim 2005: lost to federer in SF
USO 2005: lost to federer in QF

no bad losses there ...

Click to expand...

Hewitt was a great fighter but he had no weapons to trouble Fed once he reached his potential from 2004 onwards. Of all those losses you mention, I don't recall him taking any of those matches to 5 sets.

abmk said:

in contrast in 2001,2002, he had early/bad losses in AO 2001 ( moya ranked 42), wim 2001 ( escude ), AO 2002(alberto martin), FO 2002 ( canas )

His winning %s are identical in the time-frames 2001-2002 and 2004-2005

he was a bit sharper at returning/passing in 2001/2002 and very slightly faster , but his groundstrokes were by some distance better in 2004-05 and he was still pretty fast ...

Click to expand...

Hewitt was a great player, but early on in his career his serve was horrible, he used to struggle getting it to around the 175k mark IIRC. He was a guy who had a game designed to destroy the serve and volley type players. He could get balls back and force them to play one more shot and he could hit lobs that land just on the baseline consistently. Unfortnately for him, the game evolved and we started seeing power baseliners and none better than Fed at the time who just destroyed him with that fh. Hewitt just had no answer to Fed once he hit his prime/peak.

The things Hewitt couldn't do were dictate play consistenly, he used to go into his shell whenever he got ahead on the score board and just wait for his opponent to lose. He rarely hit his bh dtl and became predictable and secondly he did not have the ability to turn defense into offense like Rafa and Novak can.

abmk said:

Lulz, what ? is that why he is fairly even with nadal off clay ( beating him in dubai 2008 and again in miami 2010 ) ?

Is that why he's 5-3 vs djoker ( most of these matches were in the 2008-2010 time-frame that you are seeking to glorify ) ...

Nole 2011 is different, but then nole 2008-2010 was NOT nole 2011 ...

Click to expand...

Roddick's only ever played Nadal at the USO in terms of majors. It's interesting how in 2004 a prime Roddick beat 18 y/old Rafa by losing just 7 games and then in 2011 a prime Rafa beat a 28 y/old Roddick by losing only 6 games at the same slam.

But anyway I doubt Roddick would've been able to beat today's Rafa and Novak even if he was still in his prime. simple reason, he stopped going for that fh, it used to be a weapon, but then he tried to take power away to keep rallies going and became predictable with his playing patterns.

abmk said:

so what if he still active now. He was MUCH better back then

Click to expand...

Agreed, but Nalby didn't make anywhere near enough slam semi's/finals he should've made it to more, I agree with the other guy that he never developed his fitness to be a slam contender.

abmk said:

agassi 2003-2005 was still better than the likes of ferrer/berdych etc ...who make up the top 10 now. I'd say when playing well he was better than murray at the highest level, i.e. slams ...

Click to expand...

I don't think it matters if Agassi from 2003-2005 was better than guys like Berdych, Murray or Ferrer. He was still never really going to challenge Roger back then. It was always a question of whether Roger would win in straights or if Agassi could sneak a set or two. Let's not forget Berdych beat Fed in 2004 at the Olympics, I don't recall Agassi beating Fed after 2002.

abmk said:

tsonga, yes ... berdych probably not ...

Click to expand...

Could've won WIM in 2010 if it wasn't for Rafa, let's not forget he beat Fed and Djoker to get there, I think Rafa would've been the only guy at the time who would've beat him.

The_Order said:

But anyway I doubt Roddick would've been able to beat today's Rafa and Novak even if he was still in his prime. simple reason, he stopped going for that fh, it used to be a weapon, but then he tried to take power away to keep rallies going and became predictable with his playing patterns.

Click to expand...

There is a contradiction here. Roddick in his prime did go for his fh, and he did use it as a weapon. The main definition of past-prime Roddick is that he doesn't do that anymore.

But regarding the results he had against a strong Djokovic with his passive past-prime game, one can assume he would have fared very well in his prime, i.e when he knew how to smack forehand winners.

Flash O'Groove said:

There is a contradiction here. Roddick in his prime did go for his fh, and he did use it as a weapon. The main definition of past-prime Roddick is that he doesn't do that anymore.

But regarding the results he had against a strong Djokovic with his passive past-prime game, one can assume he would have fared very well in his prime, i.e when he knew how to smack forehand winners.

Click to expand...

His prime was from 2003 - 2009. Roddick stopped going for the fh long before he was past his prime. It started to happen in 2005 he was nowhere near as aggressive as he was on the fh side and instead tried to hang with Fed in rallies and just got belted almost everytime.

Roddick would not beat today's Rafa or Novak no matter what stage of his career you look at. Think about it, he couldn't beat Fed could he? In fact in majors, he only got close a few times, with the level of play we see from Rafa and Novak today and their incredible defensive and offensive skills, I just don't see him beating them at the majors. He might push them a bit, but I don't think he'd beat them.

The_Order said:

Do you mean from 2004-2005 AO Safin was beating almost everyone? Where was Federer :shock:

thb Safin was very tough BUT wasn't consistent enough to be considered a constant slam threat, it was always a question of whether he'd catch fire or not and unfortunately for us tennis fans, Safin could not bring his best the majority of the time.

Click to expand...

and when he did , he was better than anyone right now, apart from the top 3 ...... he was the only one who actually beat federer at a non-clay major at his peak

The_Order said:

Hewitt was a great fighter but he had no weapons to trouble Fed once he reached his potential from 2004 onwards. Of all those losses you mention, I don't recall him taking any of those matches to 5 sets.



Hewitt was a great player, but early on in his career his serve was horrible, he used to struggle getting it to around the 175k mark IIRC. He was a guy who had a game designed to destroy the serve and volley type players. He could get balls back and force them to play one more shot and he could hit lobs that land just on the baseline consistently. Unfortnately for him, the game evolved and we started seeing power baseliners and none better than Fed at the time who just destroyed him with that fh. Hewitt just had no answer to Fed once he hit his prime/peak.

The things Hewitt couldn't do were dictate play consistenly, he used to go into his shell whenever he got ahead on the score board and just wait for his opponent to lose. He rarely hit his bh dtl and became predictable and secondly he did not have the ability to turn defense into offense like Rafa and Novak can.

Click to expand...

he didn't have that much weaponry to trouble fed, but his game was/would be more effective vs the other greats ....

The_Order said:

Roddick's only ever played Nadal at the USO in terms of majors. It's interesting how in 2004 a prime Roddick beat 18 y/old Rafa by losing just 7 games and then in 2011 a prime Rafa beat a 28 y/old Roddick by losing only 6 games at the same slam.

But anyway I doubt Roddick would've been able to beat today's Rafa and Novak even if he was still in his prime. simple reason, he stopped going for that fh, it used to be a weapon, but then he tried to take power away to keep rallies going and became predictable with his playing patterns.

Click to expand...

inherent contradiction. Prime/peak roddick is the one who could hit that proper FH .... I can EASILY, and I repeat EASILY, roddick of wimbledon 2004 final, wimbledon 2009 final, USO 2007 QF etc. defeat djoker/nadal at wimbledon or USO ....

roddick blew away rafa with his serve at dubai in 2008 and then outsmarted him in miami 2010 ... how is there any doubt that roddick 'could' win against today's rafa on HC or grass ?

and of course pusher roddick was winning against novak 2009-2010 multiple times ... a better roddick would not challenge Novak ( he's better now obviously ) on fast HC or grass ? really ?

The_Order said:

Agreed, but Nalby didn't make anywhere near enough slam semi's/finals he should've made it to more, I agree with the other guy that he never developed his fitness to be a slam contender.

Click to expand...

yes, nalby underachieved, but doesn't mean he wasn't a threat ....he definitely was, more so than the likes of ferrer, almagro, ( rafa's QF and SF opponents at this RG ) , tipsy, fish etc etc ...

The_Order said:

I don't think it matters if Agassi from 2003-2005 was better than guys like Berdych, Murray or Ferrer. He was still never really going to challenge Roger back then. It was always a question of whether Roger would win in straights or if Agassi could sneak a set or two. Let's not forget Berdych beat Fed in 2004 at the Olympics, I don't recall Agassi beating Fed after 2002.

Click to expand...

yes, of course it matters. agassi was floating in the #4 to #10 region in that time period . That is where berdych, murray, ferrer are these days ...

Agassi was good enough to defeat anyone else apart from federer . He was at a similar level as Novak was in 2009-2010, maybe even better at times. Just because federer at that time was better than him , doesn't mean agassi was weak at that time ...

The_Order said:

Could've won WIM in 2010 if it wasn't for Rafa, let's not forget he beat Fed and Djoker to get there, I think Rafa would've been the only guy at the time who would've beat him.

Click to expand...

both fed and djoker played horribly tbh. and berdych choked at all the crucial moments in the final. He might have done the same vs murray/soderling ... Tsonga has shown he could beat the top players even when they were playing decent tennis. Berdych less so ...

The_Order said:

His prime was from 2003 - 2009. Roddick stopped going for the fh long before he was past his prime. It started to happen in 2005 he was nowhere near as aggressive as he was on the fh side and instead tried to hang with Fed in rallies and just got belted almost everytime.

Roddick would not beat today's Rafa or Novak no matter what stage of his career you look at. Think about it, he couldn't beat Fed could he? In fact in majors, he only got close a few times, with the level of play we see from Rafa and Novak today and their incredible defensive and offensive skills, I just don't see him beating them at the majors. He might push them a bit, but I don't think he'd beat them.

Click to expand...

jeez, what a dumb line of argument ...... federer returns roddick's serve MUCH better than anyone else including rafa, novak ...

Rafa in 2010 couldn't handle roddick's serve on a slow HC, miami ..... He'd easily beat him on fast HC or grass if roddick were playing well ? LOL !

as far as djoker is concerned, in 2009-2010 , he couldn't handle pusher roddick ... he doesn't handle roddick's serve that well either ... he'd win on clay obv, more times on slow HC, but it'd be very close on fast HC and I'd favour roddick on grass ...

LOl @ mentioning the incredible offensive skills of novak and rafa when the indirect comparison is with federer who's miles better at offensive tennis than either of them ....

The_Order said:

His prime was from 2003 - 2009. Roddick stopped going for the fh long before he was past his prime. It started to happen in 2005 he was nowhere near as aggressive as he was on the fh side and instead tried to hang with Fed in rallies and just got belted almost everytime.

Click to expand...

I don't get why you think Roddick's prime was form 2003-2009 when you acknowledge yourself that he lost his aggressive forehand since 2005? Doesn't prime mean peak of form?

The_Order said:

Roddick would not beat today's Rafa or Novak no matter what stage of his career you look at. Think about it, he couldn't beat Fed could he? In fact in majors, he only got close a few times, with the level of play we see from Rafa and Novak today and their incredible defensive and offensive skills, I just don't see him beating them at the majors. He might push them a bit, but I don't think he'd beat them.

Click to expand...

Totally irrelevant. There is match-up issue in tennis. Roddick had a bad match-up with Fed, obviously a better one against Nole has show their h2h.
Following you argument, the very defavorable h2h Nadal has against Davydenko, especially outside clay (he is 1-6 on hard court), should mean that Nadal has no chance against Fed (who has a very favorable h2h against old Kolya)?

The failure of Roddick against Fed doesn't mean that he couldn't arm Nole or Nadale.

abmk said:

and when he did , he was better than anyone right now, apart from the top 3 ...... he was the only one who actually beat federer at a non-clay major at his peak

Click to expand...

So what? Is that one win your proof that he is better than anyone other than the top 3 right now? If he was so good why wasn't he able to get to the top 2? Was a baby Rafa stopping him from getting the points to reach that position?

Safin only played his best in a few majors in his whole career, the US open where he beat Sampras and the AO's in 04-05. That's it, the rest of the times he didn't have a huge impact.

abmk said:

he didn't have that much weaponry to trouble fed, but his game was/would be more effective vs the other greats ....

Click to expand...

He struggled against Rafa on the faster rebound ace when Rafa was only 18 and he was playing his best, made it to the final in that Aus Open. Yet he would trouble him today? lol ok.

abmk said:

inherent contradiction. Prime/peak roddick is the one who could hit that proper FH .... I can EASILY, and I repeat EASILY, roddick of wimbledon 2004 final, wimbledon 2009 final, USO 2007 QF etc. defeat djoker/nadal at wimbledon or USO ....

Click to expand...

The Wim 09 final was Roddicks serve saving his hide, Fed's level was not the same as the past against Roddick and that's why he had a very bad day at the office, yet still won.

abmk said:

roddick blew away rafa with his serve at dubai in 2008 and then outsmarted him in miami 2010 ... how is there any doubt that roddick 'could' win against today's rafa on HC or grass ?

Click to expand...

Did you not watch USO last year? Roddick wasn't at his best, but neither was Rafa and look how the match turned out. He could win, but it is doubtful in majors.

abmk said:

and of course pusher roddick was winning against novak 2009-2010 multiple times ... a better roddick would not challenge Novak ( he's better now obviously ) on fast HC or grass ? really ?

Click to expand...

You make it sound like Roddick was an unstoppable machine when at his best, just like you make Safin sound the same. They had their moments but there's a reason why Roddick has only 1 major to his name and yes you could say because of Fed, absolutely but Rafa and Novak are no slam slouches these days and they are both mentally stronger than Fed ever was.

Roddick's not crap so don't take it like I'm saying this, just not as good as Fed, Rafa and Djoker, they all have too much game for him. Sure he "could" beat them here and there but as I said in majors that is very doubtful.

abmk said:

yes, nalby underachieved, but doesn't mean he wasn't a threat ....he definitely was, more so than the likes of ferrer, almagro, ( rafa's QF and SF opponents at this RG ) , tipsy, fish etc etc ...

Click to expand...

So where was he in 06 AO? Oh that's right choked a 2-0 set lead against Baghdatis. lol. Ferrer's more of a threat than Kiefer and Baghdatis who were Roger's SF and F opponents in that tourney. At least Rafa had to beat one extremely tough opponent to win RG this year, who did Fed beat to win 06AO? clowns.

abmk said:

yes, of course it matters. agassi was floating in the #4 to #10 region in that time period . That is where berdych, murray, ferrer are these days ...

Agassi was good enough to defeat anyone else apart from federer . He was at a similar level as Novak was in 2009-2010, maybe even better at times. Just because federer at that time was better than him , doesn't mean agassi was weak at that time ...

Click to expand...

So why did he only make one major final from 2004 onwards? I mean if he could beat ANYONE apart from Fed, why didn't he? Also, if an old Agassi is able to beat all of the upcoming/current top players from the 2003-2006 era doesn't that already tell you how weak that era was? Agassi is a legend but in his mid 30's for him to even be considered a slam threat is enough indication of the point that 2003-2006 was weak.

Let me ask you this, if a mid 30's Agassi was around now would he be a slam threat? If your answer is not no, then you have NFI what you're on about.

abmk said:

both fed and djoker played horribly tbh. and berdych choked at all the crucial moments in the final. He might have done the same vs murray/soderling ... Tsonga has shown he could beat the top players even when they were playing decent tennis. Berdych less so ...

Click to expand...

No, disagree there Rafa outplayed him, he didn't choke anything IIRC he wasn't in position to choke because he was behind most of the time. Choking means you are about to win a set or the match but don't through your own stupid errors. This didn't happen at WIM 2010 against Rafa.

Can't call it choking when he didn't even take a set off Rafa for years. What did he choke in all those matches too? Berdych had a very good chance to win WIM 2010 and had he met Murray he almost certainly would've won it Murray would've most likely been the choker in his home final not Berdych.

abmk said:

jeez, what a dumb line of argument ...... federer returns roddick's serve MUCH better than anyone else including rafa, novak ...

Click to expand...

lol Novak is the best returner of serve I have ever seen and I've seen quite a few. Rafa also has a pretty good return, broke Federer many more times than anyone else I believe. I'd say they would handle him just fine.

abmk said:

Rafa in 2010 couldn't handle roddick's serve on a slow HC, miami ..... He'd easily beat him on fast HC or grass if roddick were playing well ? LOL !

Click to expand...

You like to use one match as a basis for your argument don't you? Let's delve deeper into that Miami match and remember Rafa's form prior to the 2010 clay season wasn't good at all. He had doubt on himself and his ability at the time which is why Roddick was able to capitalize on Rafa's low confidence, he lost the week before to Ljubicic as well which further proves my point.

abmk said:

as far as djoker is concerned, in 2009-2010 , he couldn't handle pusher roddick ... he doesn't handle roddick's serve that well either ... he'd win on clay obv, more times on slow HC, but it'd be very close on fast HC and I'd favour roddick on grass ...

Click to expand...

abmk said:

LOl @ mentioning the incredible offensive skills of novak and rafa when the indirect comparison is with federer who's miles better at offensive tennis than either of them ....

Click to expand...

He is better, but no he is not miles better offensively. You don't just judge offensive tennis based on winners statistics, you need to base it on how they can dictate play and Rafa and Novak have elite skills when it comes to dictating rallies. Fed cannot hit a decent offensive bh consistently in any slam against these 2.

If Fed has to defend off the bh side the point is almost guaranteed over for him. This is not the case for Rafa and Djoker who can smash the bh either cc or dtl for a winner on a consistent basis and if it isn't a winner it puts their opponent in an awkward position effectively turning defense into offense. You don't have a clue about this sport if you think Fed can be offensive of the bh side like Nole or Rafa.

Flash O'Groove said:

I don't get why you think Roddick's prime was form 2003-2009 when you acknowledge yourself that he lost his aggressive forehand since 2005? Doesn't prime mean peak of form?

Click to expand...

No peak and prime are 2 separate things. Peak is when that player was at his best and prime covers a longer period where the player still plays very well, well enough to be a slam contender or threat but not necessarily at their best. Roddick's peak was from mid 2003 through to around early 2005. That was his best period of tennis in his career.

Flash O'Groove said:

Totally irrelevant. There is match-up issue in tennis. Roddick had a bad match-up with Fed, obviously a better one against Nole has show their h2h.
Following you argument, the very defavorable h2h Nadal has against Davydenko, especially outside clay (he is 1-6 on hard court), should mean that Nadal has no chance against Fed (who has a very favorable h2h against old Kolya)?

The failure of Roddick against Fed doesn't mean that he couldn't arm Nole or Nadale.

Click to expand...

Yeah I agree with that match ups certainly do play a part in it, but I just think Rafa and Novak's ground game these days would be too much for Roddick. Sure he could beat them here and there in masters or other events, but in majors where 3 sets are required, I seriously doubt it.

Order has been established...

LOL

The_Order said:

You make it sound like Roddick was an unstoppable machine when at his best, just like you make Safin sound the same. They had their moments but there's a reason why Roddick has only 1 major to his name and yes you could say because of Fed, absolutely but Rafa and Novak are no slam slouches these days and they are both mentally stronger than Fed ever was.

Click to expand...

Your post is generally full of a LOT of misrepresentations and its sad that Nadal fans at large or Fed-haters in particular feel the need to put forth such dishonest arguments all the time. Abmk NEVER said Roddick was an unstoppable machine. This is one of the most illogical conclusions one could possibly draw. He only presented a set of facts which includes Roddick beating Djokovic a handful times. You assigned it a meaning that never came through Abmk's posts. Please, if you're going to argue, go about it in a logical, rational way.
Further, you go on to state that Nadal and Novak (!) are mentally stronger than Roger EVER was as a fact. Based on what? No reason. I am amazed at this amateurish level of argumentation *******s routinely come up with.

DRII said:

Order has been established...

LOL

Click to expand...

No, it hasn't. Even a remotely rational individual could literally rip through those arguments.

The word according to TW

1- Federer is the GOAT and his head to head against Nadal shouldn't count .

2- Nadal is a boring moonball we

3- Nadal cheats

4- Federer is a gracious when he loses never offering an excuse

5- Federer is the true #1 his game has diminished so low but in his prime Nadal would have no chamce,

6- if Federer loses its because eithe he was in his pre prime or post prime or the wind wasn't just right .

7- opponents like Bghdatis  and 35 year  old Agassi were some I the greatest rivals of all time.

8- Federer is the second greatest clay court player of all time

9  nadal has never really beaten Federer . Please pick the following. Reasons : pre prime , post prime , mono , not playing well, bad courts , shadows, blisters, lack of sleep or some other reason .....but roger is simply better .

10  2003-2006 was the golden era of tennis . This era is pathetically weak . Roger Federer , Borg, Agassi , McEnroe ,wilander , cash  and the entire media are all just fed haters . They are all wrong

The_Order said:

He is better, but no he is not miles better offensively. You don't just judge offensive tennis based on winners statistics, you need to base it on how they can dictate play and Rafa and Novak have elite skills when it comes to dictating rallies. Fed cannot hit a decent offensive bh consistently in any slam against these 2.

Click to expand...

Then you have NOT watched Federer play at any point in his career. Well, thanks for letting us know. We'll know not to take you seriously henceforth.

If Fed has to defend off the bh side the point is almost guaranteed over for him.

Click to expand...

You either didn't watch tennis prior to 2010 or only watch Fed's losses and Nadal's derriere

This is not the case for Rafa and Djoker who can smash the bh either cc or dtl for a winner on a consistent basis

Click to expand...

Nadal hardly uses his BH DTL. Again, you have no CLUE what you're talking about. Forcing Nadal to go DTL on the bh side is one of the tactics players, including Djokovic use because he's not comfortable using the shot. Federer is infact a LOT more efficient using his BH DTL. Much more so than his CC because on a high-bouncing surface especially his cross-court shots open him up for attack particularly by Nadal who has enough time to reach for them.

and if it isn't a winner it puts their opponent in an awkward position effectively turning defense into offense.

Click to expand...

That is only true of Djokovic not Nadal

You don't have a clue about this sport if you think Fed can be offensive of the bh side like Nole or Rafa.

Click to expand...

Au contraire, it is YOU who doesn't have clue here.

mandy01 said:

Your post is generally full of a LOT of misrepresentations and its sad that Nadal fans at large or Fed-haters in particular feel the need to put forth such dishonest arguments all the time. Abmk NEVER said Roddick was an unstoppable machine. This is one of the most illogical conclusions one could possibly draw. He only presented a set of facts which includes Roddick beating Djokovic a handful times. You assigned it a meaning that never came through Abmk's posts. Please, if you're going to argue, go about it in a logical, rational way.
Further, you go on to state that Nadal and Novak (!) are mentally stronger than Roger EVER was as a fact. Based on what? No reason. I am amazed at this amateurish level of argumentation *******s routinely come up with.

Click to expand...

I think there definitely is an argument that Nadal and Nole since 2011 are mentally tougher than Federer ever was!

Peak Federer has more natural talent than either, but when he is actually challenged by someone he can become somewhat fragile. We've seen this time and time again when facing Nadal and two prime examples facing Nole (USO semis 2010, 2011) where Federer had match points but still lost.

Its a mindset thing. Nadal (the toughest mental player in recent times) and Nole go in and are expecting a grunge match if neccessary. Especially Nadal -- he's like Spartacus, he always feels he's an underdog and therefore fights that much harder with an intensity of a slave fighting for his freedom. Nole to a lesser extent...

Federer, given his acumen, fully expects he will beat anyone using his god given talent and will do so with elegance and pedigree. He's not a fighter at heart. Its like Lions vs tigers. Nadal and Nole are lions -- brawlers; Federer is more like a tiger -- a clean, efficent killer...

A tiger will walk away from a fight if its not worth risking injury, a lion will fight just for the hell of it...

Of course all of this is relative.

mandy01 said:

Your post is generally full of a LOT of misrepresentations and its sad that Nadal fans at large or Fed-haters in particular feel the need to put forth such dishonest arguments all the time. Abmk NEVER said Roddick was an unstoppable machine. This is one of the most illogical conclusions one could possibly draw. He only presented a set of facts which includes Roddick beating Djokovic a handful times. You assigned it a meaning that never came through Abmk's posts. Please, if you're going to argue, go about it in a logical, rational way.
Further, you go on to state that Nadal and Novak (!) are mentally stronger than Roger EVER was as a fact. Based on what? No reason. I am amazed at this amateurish level of argumentation *******s routinely come up with.

Click to expand...

Lol talk about misrepresentations, where did I say I was a Nadal fan?

Is it automatic that whoever says anything bad about Roger or the lapdogs he beat from 2004-07 are Nadal fans? lol what a hypocrite you are.

mandy01 said:

Then you have NOT watched Federer play at any point in his career. Well, thanks for letting us know. We'll know not to take you seriously henceforth.

You either didn't watch tennis prior to 2010 or only watch Fed's losses and Nadal's derriere

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it is you who has not watched Roger play at any point in his career. Either that or you know nothing about how the sport is played. Please show me ONE match against Djoker or Nadal where Fed's bh was offensively destroying them or where he was able to turn offense into defense when in trouble on the bh wing.

mandy01 said:

Nadal hardly uses his BH DTL. Again, you have no CLUE what you're talking about. Forcing Nadal to go DTL on the bh side is one of the tactics players, including Djokovic use because he's not comfortable using the shot. Federer is infact a LOT more efficient using his BH DTL. Much more so than his CC because on a high-bouncing surface especially his cross-court shots open him up for attack particularly by Nadal who has enough time to reach for them.

Click to expand...

You obviously haven't watched Nadal play. He uses his bh dtl when he needs to and is capable of smashing it down there when he is pushed behind the baseline. Federer CANNOT do this with his one handed bh.

And the main tactic players use against Nadal is attack his fh side and take time away from him so he can't dictate with it, but since you don't watch tennis it's easy to understand why you didn't know that.

mandy01 said:

That is only true of Djokovic not Nadal

Click to expand...

Yep keep confirming your hatred of a tennis player and letting it blind you. Truth is Rafa has done it so many times now, go watch Wimbledon finals vs Fed and realise how stupid your comments are.

mandy01 said:

Au contraire, it is YOU who doesn't have clue here.

Click to expand...

Why because I don't want to lick Federer's sweaty feet like you do?

The word according to TW

1- Federer is the GOAT and his head to head against Nadal shouldn't count .

2- Nadal is a boring moonballer
 
3- Federer will win the 2012 FO

4- Federer is a gracious when he loses never offering an excuse

5- Federer is the true #1 his game has diminished so low but in his prime Nadal would have no chamce,

6- if Federer loses its because eithe he was in his pre prime or post prime , or mono or the wind wasn't just right .

7- opponents like Bghdatis  and 35 year  old Agassi were some I the greatest rivals of all time.

8- Federer is the second greatest clay court player of all time

9  nadal has never really beaten Federer . Please pick the following. Reasons : pre prime , post prime , mono , not playing well, bad courts , shadows, blisters, lack of sleep or some other reason .....but roger is simply better .
 
10  2003-2006 was the golden era of tennis . This era is pathetically weak . Roger Federer , Borg, Agassi , McEnroe ,wilander , cash  and the entire media are all just fed haters . They are all wrong

The_Order said:

Lol talk about misrepresentations, where did I say I was a Nadal fan?

Is it automatic that whoever says anything bad about Roger or the lapdogs he beat from 2004-07 are Nadal fans? lol what a hypocrite you are.

Click to expand...

I said a Nadal fan or a Fed-hater. Learn to read.

Unfortunately, it is you who has not watched Roger play at any point in his career. Either that or you know nothing about how the sport is played. Please show me ONE match against Djoker or Nadal where Fed's bh was offensively destroying them or where he was able to turn offense into defense when in trouble on the bh wing.

Click to expand...

GOSH, so many. Just watch the FO 2011. The WHOLE tournament. Infact Nadal/Djokovic don't even attack the Federer backhand as much as they used to. They now use the play some of the big hitters are using by exposing Roger's loss of footspeed when defending on his right i.e. his forehand side.

You obviously haven't watched Nadal play. He uses his bh dtl when he needs to and is capable of smashing it down there when he is pushed behind the baseline. Federer CANNOT do this with his one handed bh.

Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? BH DTL is absolutely NOT Nadal's preferred play at all. His CC is his strength particularly when he's able to hit it on the flatter side. You really demonstrate you know nothing.

And the main tactic players use against Nadal is attack his fh side and take time away from him so he can't dictate with it, but since you don't watch tennis it's easy to understand why you didn't know that.

Click to expand...

Atleast read my post before you talk nonsense. Anyway, Nadal's FH side is a LOT less attackable than his backhand which he's prone to hitting short very often even when he's playing his best tennis. Get a clue. True, players like Djokovic attempt to take time away from that side but that is NOT a regular pattern of play against him. And you need to be supremely confident to be able to employ it. Federer doesn't do it unless they're playing on a low-bouncing surface.

Yep keep confirming your hatred of a tennis player and letting it blind you. Truth is Rafa has done it so many times now, go watch Wimbledon finals vs Fed and realise how stupid your comments are.

Click to expand...

You seem to be projecting your behaviour unto others. I have not attacked or denigrated Nadal at any level. You on the other hand...

Why because I don't want to lick Federer's sweaty feet like you do?

Click to expand...

No, because you're adamant and irrational in your posts about him. Or wait, you seem to be like that all the time.

mandy01 said:

I said a Nadal fan or a Fed-hater. Learn to read.

Click to expand...

How am I a Fed hater when I made comments about Roddick, Safin, Hewitt and Agassi?

Do I hate Fed because I said he can't attack off his bh wing like Rafa and Novak?

mandy01 said:

GOSH, so many. Just watch the FO 2011. The WHOLE tournament. Infact Nadal/Djokovic don't even attack the Federer backhand as much as they used to. They now use the play some of the big hitters are using to exposing Roger's loss of footspeed when defending on his right i.e. his forehand side.

Click to expand...

What a load of crap, even other Fed fans will tell you Rafa attacks his bh. It is a play that has worked in the past and continues to work so what reason would Rafa have to change it?

mandy01 said:

Are you kidding me? BH DTL is absolutely NOT Nadal's preferred play at all. His CC is his strength particularly when he's able to hit it on the flatter side. You really demonstrate you know nothing.

Click to expand...

Where did I say preferred play was bh dtl? You can't put words into my mouth because this is a forum so everyone can see what people are saying and refer to it. I said he is CAPABLE of smashing it dtl when in a bad position and uses it when he needs to.

mandy01 said:

Atleast read my post before you talk nonsense. Anyway, Nadal's FH side is a LOT less attackable than his backhand which he's prone to hitting short very often even when he's playing his best tennis. Get a clue. True, players like Djokovic attempt to take time away from that side but that is NOT a regular pattern of play against him. And you need to be supremely confident to be able to employ it. Federer doesn't do it unless they're playing on a low-bouncing surface.

Click to expand...

BS the attack on Rafa's fh is the main play against him. Players know he tends to lean toward the bh side and that's what makes it easier for them to attack the fh because he can be caught out of position. Djokovic especially found success with this tactic because his bh is one of the few that CAN hold up against Rafa's fh in rally exchanges.

mandy01 said:

You seem to be projecting your behaviour unto others. I have not attacked or denigrated Nadal at any level. You on the other hand...

Click to expand...

But you hate him.

mandy01;6633860 No said:

I've only said his bh side is not as strong and mentally he is not as tough as Djoker and Rafa are. That's not irrational, that's fact.

Click to expand...

The_Order said:

How am I a Fed hater when I made comments about Roddick, Safin, Hewitt and Agassi?

Click to expand...

Yes, you did that in order to denigrate him.

Do I hate Fed because I said he can't attack off his bh wing like Rafa and Novak?

Click to expand...

Yes, that and the other 'proclamation' of yours.

What a load of crap, even other Fed fans will tell you Rafa attacks his bh. It is a play that has worked in the past and continues to work so what reason would Rafa have to change it?

Click to expand...

Because Federer has been a LOT more offensive off his BH side since AO '09 than he used to in the past. He has altogether ditched his short slice against Nadal because it never worked against him. Roger's BH side is still easier to attack for Nadal because it is one-hander and because he takes it early. But not because it's a weak shot by and of it itself.

Where did I say preferred play was bh dtl? You can't put words into my mouth because this is a forum so everyone can see what people are saying and refer to it. I said he is CAPABLE of smashing it dtl when in a bad position and uses it when he needs to.

Click to expand...

If it is NOT his preferred play why did you bring it up in the first place? And no, he's not capable of 'smashing' his BH DTL as often and as effectively and Djokovic and Federer do but like I said, his BH CC, unlike Roger's, when hit on the flatter side especially, does a lot of damage. Please watch some tennis.

BS the attack on Rafa's fh is the main play against him. Players know he tends to lean toward the bh side and that's what makes it easier for them to attack the fh because he can be caught out of position. Djokovic especially found success with this tactic because his bh is one of the few that CAN hold up against Rafa's fh in rally exchanges.

Click to expand...

Just because DJOKOVIC can attack Nadal's forehand doesn't mean it is the main play for players who want to beat him. It's true Nadal anticipates shots to his backhand, but against most players, that doesn't matter. Against Djokovic it presents a problem because Djokovic is supremely confident in his BH CC and uses to it as a attacking weapon to pull Nadal wide and draw weak/short replies. But this sort of play is NOT the norm unless you're very confident using you BH CC and FH DTL down to Nadal's forehand.

But you hate him.

Click to expand...

No. i don't find him particularly appealing but a large part of that is down more to his gamesmanship than his game.

I've only said his bh side is not as strong and mentally he is not as tough as Djoker and Rafa are. That's not irrational, that's fact.

Click to expand...

It is irrational infact and you have done nothing to support your claims thus far.

DRII said:

I think there definitely is an argument that Nadal and Nole since 2011 are mentally tougher than Federer ever was!

Click to expand...

But you did not present an argument. You stated your opinion as an irrefutable fact without supporting it.

Peak Federer has more natural talent than either, but when he is actually challenged by someone he can become somewhat fragile.

Click to expand...

Based on what?

We've seen this time and time again when facing Nadal and two prime examples facing Nole (USO semis 2010, 2011) where Federer had match points but still lost.

Click to expand...

For a 30 year old, Federer's mental strength is extremely admirable. Against, Nadal, yes, he has faltered but that itself has a host of other reasons. Against Djokovic, this is definitely NOT the norm. For Federer to push Djokovic as much as he does when Djokovic is 6 years younger to him says a lot about Federer's calibre and his strength as a player.

Its a mindset thing. Nadal (the toughest mental player in recent times) and Nole go in and are expecting a grunge match if neccessary.

Click to expand...

That is largely a function of the play style more than anything else. If Nadal was such a Spartan why did he lose seven straight finals against Djokovic?

Especially Nadal -- he's like Spartacus, he always feels he's an underdog and therefore fights that much harder with an intensity of a slave fighting for his freedom. Nole to a lesser extent...

Click to expand...

Answer the question above. Anyway, going as the underdog is hardly relevant when discussing mental strength. I doubt Sampras for instance ever went thinking he was the 'underdog' at Wimbledon. Didn't stop him from banging down second serve aces when down breakpoints.

Federer, given his acumen, fully expects he will beat anyone using his god given talent and will do so with elegance and pedigree. He's not a fighter at heart. Its like Lions vs tigers. Nadal and Nole are lions -- brawlers; Federer is more like a tiger -- a clean, efficent killer...

A tiger will walk away from a fight if its not worth risking injury, a lion will fight just for the hell of it...

Of course all of this is relative

Click to expand...

This is a purely opinion based argument. Not a fact. I highly doubt Federer expects to beat anyone simply by the virtue of his talent. There is plenty of hard-work and preparation behind it.

mandy01 said:

But you did not present an argument. You stated your opinion as an irrefutable fact without supporting it.


Based on what?

For a 30 year old, Federer's mental strength is extremely admirable. Against, Nadal, yes, he has faltered but that itself has a host of other reasons. Against Djokovic, this is definitely NOT the norm. For Federer to push Djokovic as much as he does when Djokovic is 6 years younger to him says a lot about Federer's calibre and his strength as a player.

That is largely a function of the play style more than anything else. If Nadal was such a Spartan why did he lose seven straight finals against Djokovic?

Answer the question above. Anyway, going as the underdog is hardly relevant when discussing mental strength. I doubt Sampras for instance ever went thinking he was the 'underdog' at Wimbledon. Didn't stop him from banging down second serve aces when down breakpoints.

This is a purely opinion based argument. Not a fact. I highly doubt Federer expects to beat anyone simply by the virtue of his talent. There is plenty of hard-work and preparation behind it.

Click to expand...

If you weren't so keen on being cantankerous, you might actually learn something!

Which player goes out and practices for hours in preparation for matches, its Nadal! While Federer comes out for relatively brief hit. These stories are constantly told by commentators and reporters. Federer does not need alot of repetitive drills and runs, unlike Nadal.

And yes Nole, did beat Nadal 7 times in a row; and look what happened: Nadal changed his game (or re-found it), augmented his racquet, and fought back until he got his win! Federer on the other hand has been very stubborn throughout his career, refusing to make changes or perform shots that he considered beneath him.

This all alludes to Nadal's mental toughness forged by his intensity and work ethic and underdog mentality!

Has Nadal ever lost a slam match where he was match point up? I seriously doubt it!

And your comparison of Sampras and Federer is lacking. Sampras was mentally strong and thus would never allow any of his main rivals to relatively dominate him in big matches or occasions - like Nadal has Federer...

Federer is an amazing front runner and can freely dominate, but if challenged (which has not happened often) he is not the mentally toughest competitor!

DRII said:

Which player goes out and practices for hours in preparation for matches, its Nadal! While Federer comes out for relatively brief hit. These stories are constantly told by commentators and reporters. Federer does not need alot of repetitive drills and runs, unlike Nadal.

Click to expand...

Federer's preparation pattern is very different to Nadal's. He also has a few private practice sessions during a given tournament. So his public practice sessions alone are not enough to give the full picture.

And yes Nole, did beat Nadal 7 times in a row; and look what happened: Nadal changed his game (or re-found it), augmented his racquet, and fought back until he got his win!

Click to expand...

That's your version. The Nadal I saw, especially in the RG final was still playing a very nervous set of tennis. It's just that Djokovic was playing even worse throughout the tournament.

Federer on the other hand has been very stubborn throughout his career, refusing to make changes or perform shots that he considered beneath him.

Click to expand...

Then you have not watched him.

This all alludes to Nadal's mental toughness forged by his intensity and work ethic and underdog mentality!

Click to expand...

Nadal has fantastic work ethic and mentality but I'm sure Federer does too.

Has Nadal ever lost a slam match where he was match point up? I seriously doubt it!

Click to expand...

Federer's losses when up MPs aren't exactly frequent. And most of them have come at a time when a player's focus typically starts to decline.

DRII said:

And your comparison of Sampras and Federer is lacking. Sampras was mentally strong and thus would never allow any of his main rivals to relatively dominate him in big matches or occasions - like Nadal has Federer...

Federer is an amazing front runner and can freely dominate, but if challenged (which has not happened often) he is not the mentally toughest competitor!

Click to expand...

Read my post again. I did not compare Sampras and Federer at any point.