Federer at 25 FAR superior than Murray now

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by McEnborg, Jan 25, 2013.

  1. THE FIGHTER

    THE FIGHTER Professional

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2013
    Messages:
    1,452
    It's def the *******s who are the problem. insecure bunch they are. justifying everything from federer's abysmal davis cup results to his abysmal taste in women.
     
    #51
  2. *Sparkle*

    *Sparkle* Professional

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    826
    They look pretty stupid too IMO.

    I do worry for the hard-core Fed fans who have spent that last however many years quoting just how many slams he's won compared to any and everyone else, whenever he faces any hint of criticism for anything, and even when he's not. It's going to be a tough few years for them and the rest of us if they can't take any enjoyment from anything less than total domination.
     
    #52
  3. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,224
    Murray isn't even that great now. Hes a really good player dont get me wrong.. But there has been FAR more competent 25 years old in tennis history then Murray. ROFLMAO
     
    #53
  4. ctoth666

    ctoth666 Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    827
    Location:
    Woodstock, CT
    Flimsy Argument. Let's get statistical. Since 2004...

    Federer vs Djokovic, Murray, and Nadal

    Overall: 35-42
    Majors: 11-14

    Federer vs Everyone Else

    Overall: 612-47
    Majors: 218-7
     
    #54
  5. Bartelby

    Bartelby G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2005
    Messages:
    12,311
    You have to compare peaks with peaks not head to head as Fed is not of the same generation as D and M, but is with Nadal due to the latter's early start.

    Fed's four years from 2004 to 2007 are still unmatched by anything anyone else has done.
     
    #55
  6. Raz11

    Raz11 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2011
    Messages:
    702
    Statistics are useless out of context. Before 2008...

    Overall:12-10
    Majors: 4-3

    Federer Post Prime v Djokovic Pre Prime (2008 -2010)
    Overall: 8 - 5
    Majors:2 - 1

    Federer Post Prime v Murray Pre Prime (2008 - 2011)
    Overall: 5-7
    Majors: 2-0
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2013
    #56
  7. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,039
    It's pointless in trying to reason with Thundervolley. According to him a GS is the be-all and end-all. A player win 100 slams still can't be a goat, but single GS alone is. :shock:

    Don Budge is the GOAT.
     
    #57
  8. ctoth666

    ctoth666 Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    827
    Location:
    Woodstock, CT
    Yes, but also no. Regardless, those statistics matter, although you can choose to ignore them if it's convenient for you. Not only are the 2/3 of his losses in majors all from the same three guys, but approx. half of all of his losses are from the same three guys. Federer did get back to number one last year, which means that he is still very much dominant over the rest of the field. In fact, if you look at the differential of his losses between 2004-2007 and 2008-2013, the difference is completely accounted for by Murray, Djokovic, and Nadal. Of course Federer isn't at his peak right now, but that doesn't change the fact that he has a losing record against these guys. If anyone wants to suggest that if Federer, Murray, Nadal, and Djokovic were all playing at their absolute best at the same time that Federer would still have dominated like he did from 2004-07, that's completely BS. I bet he doesn't pass Sampras on the all-time list.
     
    #58
  9. Breaker

    Breaker Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2005
    Messages:
    7,720
    Baghdatis? guy was top 10 for 5 minutes after 2 decent slam runs, he's not a top player of any generation.

    Worst argument I've ever seen on these boards and that's saying something, by your logic Mardy Fish making top 10 recently when he could barely sniff the top 20 back in Fed's prime means this era is twice as bad - Hewitt and Safin beating Sampras like a drum in major finals means that prime Pete would have 10% of his success in that era

    Fact is Federer in '04 and '05 faced every number 1 from the past 5 years in slams (Safin/Hewitt/Guga/Agassi/Roddick/Ferrero), 5 in slam finals and won 5/8 majors and 2/2 YECs under those conditions which is ridiculously difficult to do (Djokovic and Nadal couldn't back up their multi slam years with another multi slam year for example).

    '06/'07 are weaker due to those top players all falling by the wayside at the same time mainly due to injury (Ferrero/Hewitt/Safin/Guga, and Coria/Gaudio disappeared as well giving easier clay draws), only Davydenko and Nalbandian were still at the top of their games and they choke too much in majors to do anything, because of this it could be argued that it became very easy for very good players who started to succeed in majors ("baby" Murray and Djokovic) had a relatively easier time breaking into top 5 with Fed/Nadal and staying there as the an entire generation of the previous top players bar Fed/Roddick (occasionally) fell off due to injuries.

    In short, prime Murray/Djokovic (particularly Djokovic at RG/AO) probably could've taken a match here or there even in Fed's prime just as the previous top players were able to in '04/'05, but to say he'd have less than half as much success just with those two in there is poor form lacking logic and horribly disrespectful to the top players of the previous generation who gave Fed huge challenges.
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2013
    #59
  10. ctoth666

    ctoth666 Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    827
    Location:
    Woodstock, CT
    Statistics are also useless when you create context for them.

    Federer Prime vs Kuerten Post-Prime

    Majors: 0-1

    Seriously. The top guys are better now than they were. In 2006, James Blake and Davydenko finished the year in the top four. Since 2008, the top four has been gridlocked by the same four guys...and these are also Federer's post-prime years. Interesting.
     
    #60
  11. Raz11

    Raz11 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2011
    Messages:
    702
    What makes Federer an all time great is longevity, to be able to play at a high level over a decade. Sure Federer might have lost 5 slams during 04-07 if he had this kind of competition but Federer might have also won 5 more slams during his post prime years. Djokovic, Murray and especially Nadal has yet to show us that they can play at a high level during their late 20s and it won't be enough to stop Federer from winning during his late years.
     
    #61
  12. Raz11

    Raz11 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2011
    Messages:
    702
    So what we both have is useless statistics. What still stands is that Federer has 17 slams and those three have a combine count of 17.
     
    #62
  13. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,039
    You don't know that, and no one does except all speculation. Hewitt/Roddick/Safin/Gonzo/Ferrero/Ljubicic/Davydenko/Coria, etc. and early bloomer Nadal have faced a better version of Federer.

    Nole/Nadal/Murray are face a deteriorating Federer. When a player is 5 or 6 years apart the H2H doesn't say much because their prime years aren't overlapped. That's not a good comparison. Fed should be compare to players at around his age, like the players I've listed above. Why? because they all met each other at their prime years.
     
    #63
  14. Raz11

    Raz11 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2011
    Messages:
    702
    While the top 4 are great players and deserve to be at the top, the slowing down and homogenizing of the courts have made it much easier to dominate. If the courts were faster, upsets would have been much more frequent since it is easier to get hot and remain at that level for 5 sets on faster courts.
     
    #64
  15. ctoth666

    ctoth666 Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    827
    Location:
    Woodstock, CT
    Yes it certainly has. No argument there. Again, for the record, I think Federer is the greatest player in the history of the Open Era. He is brilliant, and perhaps his best form is better than anyone else's. But winning majors and being ranked number one etc. are not so much about the overall level of competition but rather the level at the very top, because these are the men who are really competing for major titles. The rest is filler. I'm trying to look at this as objectively as possible, and my conclusion is that Federer is facing stiffer competition than he did in the mid 2000's. I suppose it's the natural ebb and flow of competition. Another important observation for me is that there is not a single player from Federer's generation, with the exception of maybe Ferrer (and he's not really even a contender) who is relevant today. This could mean several different things, but regardless, they've been phased out. Federer is still competing for majors, but now he has company.
     
    #65
  16. rajah84

    rajah84 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    528
    And your point is?

    Federer really does attract insecure people.
     
    #66
  17. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,224
    .. And their main mission in life is trying to convert everyone they possibly can. Its worse then Jonestown. Always trying to push their "Hands down greatest ever' rhetoric on to people and when people don't agree with their premise, they gang up like a pack of wild swiss wolves

    "oh dont insult my federer". "please love Roger"

    If hes the hands down GOAT, he shouldnt have been so pathetic vs. his main rival on the big stage.

    Fed is in discussion for GOAT. But to say he's "hands down" the greatest, is pure bunk. Since GOAT represents "all time" and tennis existed before the Open Era
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2013
    #67
  18. McEnborg

    McEnborg Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2010
    Messages:
    244
    I'm not insecure nitwit. I get irritated with uninformed people like you.
     
    #68
  19. McEnborg

    McEnborg Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2010
    Messages:
    244
    If hes the hands down GOAT, he shouldnt have been so pathetic vs. his main rival on the big stage.

    Fed is in discussion for GOAT. But to say he's "hands down" the greatest, is pure bunk. Since GOAT represents "all time" and tennis existed before the Open Era[/QUOTE]


    Nadal has beaten Federer mainly at the French. No one has argued he's the best clay courter ever. But, overall, Federer could do more in his prime than any player ever. Just ask Pete Sampras, McEnroe and Rod Laver. They have ALL been on record saying Fed is the best ever.
     
    #69
  20. THUNDERVOLLEY

    THUNDERVOLLEY G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    10,300
    Well, that is the revealing part of their outlook: if they were so confident about Federer's status, they would not need to flood this board with attacks on Djokovic, Murray, or re-post meaningless stats, while trying to ignore history Federer did not make.
     
    #70
  21. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    25,781
    Location:
    Weak era
    Eh? This has nothing to do with what I posted.

    The points I raised:

    -Fed certainly wasn't in ominous form in 2009 AO, a good form but nothing special for his (high)standards.

    -Nadal wasn't less than 100% as evidenced by the fact that that was the only time he won AO.

    -Gonzo wasn't as weak of an opponent in AO as you made him out to be given that he demolished Nadal there in his run to the final.


    Now go back to your fantasy land in which Fed doesn't have 17 slams or something, that has nothing to do with the argument I made.
     
    #71
  22. smoledman

    smoledman Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,114
    Looking how Fed utterly and easily dominated 2006, this rings true.
     
    #72
  23. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,041
    Nadal doesn't need to be 100% to beat Federer.
     
    #73
  24. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,705
    Location:
    U.S
    on clay, he doesn't ...

    outside of clay, he does vs a federer playing atleast decent tennis ...

    funny how when trying to 'degrade' federer, *******s like you are disrespecting the efforts of rafa himself ; when in reality rafa turned up close to his very best on majority of the occasions when he met fed ...
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2013
    #74
  25. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,705
    Location:
    U.S
    at the thread , lol, there isn't any need to create a thread like this ... fed at 25 was the probably the best player of all time, let alone a player like murray, who isn't close to an ATG .....
     
    #75
  26. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,041
    Funny, weren't you the one saying Rafa played better quality in the 07 final than 08 WIM?

    Rafa clearly wasn't 100% at AO09 after that gruelling semi he had his knees taped up all tournament.
     
    #76
  27. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,705
    Location:
    U.S
    eh, no ... I said that rafa played better from the baseline in the 2007 final, but served better in the 2008 final ... a bit better overall in 2008, giving the benefit of doubt to rafa's better serving over federer's worse returning in wim 08 ... but close , very close in both ...

    he played darn well in the finals; in how many matches has he played better by a distance at the AO vs a decent opponent ? yeah, right ..no match ...

    djoker didn't have a problem slugging it out for longer vs rafa in AO 2012 after having played a long 5-setter vs murray ...
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2013
    #77
  28. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,041
    ok so Rafa wasn't at his best level in WIM07 thank you for finally admitting that.

    But Nadal doesn't have a CVAC egg...

    Oh and now decent opponents matter do they? weren't you cacking on about the level the players play at mattering more than rankings....

    Verdy played the match of his life just like Wawrinka did against Novak.

    And Nadal played better in 2012 AO semi v Fed.
     
    #78
  29. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    25,781
    Location:
    Weak era
    It's not just about beating Fed but winning the whole tourney.

    If Nadal was less than 100% in the year he won the actual tourney what was he in all those years in which he got spanked in straight sets against Gonzo, Tsonga, Murray, Ferrer? 20%?
     
    #79
  30. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,705
    Location:
    U.S
    he was ... just because he was a bit better in 2008, doesn't mean he wasn't at his best in the 2007 final... best doesn't include only 'one' match .. it includes a bunch of matches where a player played at a very high level, where there isn't a significant gap in the playing level

    let's not get into the CVAC egg or any other similar controversial topics regarding recovery .....

    when I say decent opponents, I mean players who were playing well .... that includes verdasco in AO 2009

    better by how much in any of those 2 matches - AO 2009 SF or AO 2012 SF ? not much of a difference at all .... IMO, in fact he played a bit better in the AO 2009 F than in the AO 2012 SF ... federer was plainly worse in AO 2012 ...

    AO 2009 SF vs verdasco, nadal was at his defensive best, but he wasn't making many of those amazing offensive shots as he did vs fed in the finals ... different methods, but very similar level IMO ...
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2013
    #80
  31. Fedex

    Fedex Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,635
    Location:
    Dundee
    FFS!!!
    This is like a spreading cancer.
     
    #81
  32. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,041
    2007 semi he lost a set to Novak who isn't the best mover on grass and was most certainly not in 2011 form. He also almost lost to Sod and Youzhny IIRC. NOt really an indicator of being in his best form...


    But it's true. Novak had an advanced LEGAL it must be said recovery machine which no doubt aided his recovery, you would be blind to think otherwise.

    Careful saying amazing shots, according to Mandy that's the way a fangirl describes matches...

    BTW wasn't much better in those 2 matches but was better than that final. He was outplayed in the second set, for most of the third set and the fourth set.
     
    #82
  33. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,705
    Location:
    U.S
    was talking about his form/play in the final only ...


    and rafa could've been using something else for 'recovery' ...fact is his level in the final was close to the best he's capable of on HC ...


    yeah, because federer was playing well off the ground ...how is it that tough for you to accept that arguably the best HC player ever playing well could outplay your boy rafa on HC for a stretch? :roll:

    again, finally, nothing significant that separated rafa's level in the finals when compared to those 2 matches .....
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2013
    #83
  34. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,041
    But he played better in 08. Clearly. So therefore 2008 was his best level. LOL why you want to keep going around in circles? You'd have to have a brick in your head to think Rafa was better in 07 final.

    Could've? So your another ******* that thinks Nadal is a doper? LOL the CVAC egg is a FACT it isn't speculation like the useless dribble you're coming up with. Are you really that stupid to think Rafa knew he was going to play a 5 hour semi and 4 and a half hour final back to back so he decided to dope? What an idiot.

    Must really burn to the core that Rafa came along and put Fed in his place hahahaha

    He's nowhere near it on plexicushion. 0-2 v Rafa 0-2 v Novak and 3 sets won to 12 sets lost. Absolutely nowhere near it.

    And serving isn't significant LMAO.
     
    #84
  35. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,705
    Location:
    U.S
    clueless , my stance has remained the same, nadal's level in the 07 final and 2008 final were very similar, very slightly better in 2008 .... both were amongst his best matches on grass court, i.e. his best level ..if it doesn't get into that thick head of yours, not my problem ...


    eh, I didn't say doping ... there are other legal ways of recovering too ... I'm not going in to research deep into that and put in links ...fact is nadal played darn well in the finals



    yeah, only plexi came into the picture after his peak ... he's still doing ok on it considering that ....

    yeah, of course serving isn't significant >> we all saw murray's serving yesterday didn't make much difference at all ...

    tsonga's huge serving didn't play a huge part in his demolition of nadal in AO 2008

    murray's clutch serving in the AO 2010 QF didn't play a part in his convincing win over nadal in AO 2010 QF

    clueless hypocrite !
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2013
    #85
  36. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,041
    2008 was his best level on grass. He won Queens in impressive fashion getting through a tough final against Novak. If he played at that level in 07 he would've won Wimbledon. Truth is, his whole 07 WIM tournament wasn't that great, he had major scares on his way to the final, had trouble against Novak who at the time was not accomplished on grass and nowhere near 2011 form before he quit the match. He didn't just magically pick up form in the final. Same deal with Fed. In 2008 they were both playing a much better Wimbledon and hence the final was better quality. THey were both at their best on grass and Rafa won. Deal with it.

    No don't try and spin your crap we both know full well what you were implying, but go ahead keep back pedalling...

    LOL as if Novak was anywhere near his peak when he thumped Fed in 08. And Fed played very well in 09 final, ground game was every bit as good as his peak years, just that Nadal was still too good for him even though he was exhausted and had his knees taped lol.

    I was being sarcastic. Sorry you're not intelligent enough to pick that up. You said there was nothing significant to separate the 09 final from the 12 semi after I already said Nadal served a lot better in 2012, hence the sarcastic comment about serving not being significant. LOL and you think you're an intelligent *******, I guess comprehension is not your strong point? fwhahahaha!
     
    #86
  37. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,654
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Sounds like nostalgic sour grapes to me. (And it certainly appears that you are debating, so I guess there is a debate.)

    Fed must be washed up, if you're already wishing for the grand ole days of 2006.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2013
    #87
  38. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,705
    Location:
    U.S
    yes, nadal's level was significantly better in the 2007 final than in the previous matches ...he wouldn't have come close to challenging fed otherwise ....

    fact is federer played worse by quite a bit in 2008 , though well, somewhat below his best tennis ... nadal played his best tennis in 2007 and lost ....


    novak's 2008 AO was easily his best slam before 2011 began .. he played quite a bit better there than he did in AO 2012 and so far has in AO 2013 ( especially considering his scare vs wawrinka )

    except you are totally hopeless when it comes to observation ... rafa's serving was on a similar level in both their AO matches ...
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2013
    #88
  39. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,041
    No, Nadal played better in 2008 and even though Fed was at his absolute best Rafa won.

    Yeah he played really bad against Berdych and especially Ferrer. Fact is Novak and Rafa own Fed on plexicushion, he can't do a thing about it. Even an exhausted Rafa destroyed him.

    Absolute hogwash. He served less DF, got 77% first serves in, winning 69% and won 63% of second serve points compared to 64% in, winning 66% and second serve points won was only 48% and the speeds were very similar so it's not like he pushed them in in 2012.

    FAR from similar.
     
    #89
  40. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,705
    Location:
    U.S
    lol, ha ha ha , try another track ...



    yeah, he destroyed ferrer and played well vs berdych ... but he was even better at AO 2008 - only lost a set to on-fire tsonga and tsonga in the final was playing better than stan did here ....


    wrong and clueless again , average speeds ...

    AO 2009 F :

    1st serve : 179 kmh
    2nd serve : 143 kmh

    AO 2012 SF:

    1st serve :172 kmh
    2nd serve : 137 kmh

    yes, that's a considerable difference on both first and second serve in terms of speed ....

    but then again, if your observation skills were good enough , you'd have noticed that there wasn't that much of a difference in the level of serving ...

    rafa's success level being considerably lesser on the second serve in 2009 was because fed was quite a bit better from the ground in the AO 2009 final than in the AO 2012 semi ...
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2013
    #90
  41. NadalDramaQueen

    NadalDramaQueen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,561
    You would know, hoodjem. :cool:
     
    #91
  42. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,041
    Nah, I like it, it's a winning tune.


    So? He's playing MUCH better than Fed ever did on plexi.


    LOL 7 and 6 kmh isn't much of a difference on avg at all. Not so much to the point that he would get 13% more first serves in.

    And there were same amount of aces and 3 less DF. He served a lot better and there is nothing that you have to deny that. Arrboomk.
     
    #92
  43. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,705
    Location:
    U.S
    its just your deluded tune ..... fact is both matches were played at a very high level, fed was 'quite a bit' better in 2007 than he was in 2008; nadal was only a bit better in 2008 than he was in 2007 , the difference wasn't even that much ...


    overall yes, but fed was clearly better than novak on plexi in 2009, 2010 ... and fed at his peak would've done clearly better than what he has done post-peak ....


    LOL, ha ha ha , 7 kmh and 6kmh respectively on an average is a very significant difference ............. the speeds are not very similar , clueless ....... I'm just LOLing here at you trying to deny that :lol:

    yes, 7 kmh is quite enough for a 13% decrease in first serve %..... 6 kmh more on the 2nd serve on an average is also a significant difference ....

    only the disordered one can think/say otherwise ... :lol:
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2013
    #93
  44. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    11,528
    Location:
    Australia
    Roddick was in the top 10 from 2002 to 2010/2011, basically. He is a landmark player for consistency.

    Hewitt had a streaky career because he was dealt with a few injuries, Murray and Nadal both have, too, and have faced ranking slips because of it.

    Baghdatis was never top 4 material, Davydenko held on a long time and he's within the same period as Federer, as did a few other players.
     
    #94
  45. beast of mallorca

    beast of mallorca Legend

    Joined:
    May 19, 2010
    Messages:
    7,741
    I just love it when sour puss and insecure *******s make pathetic threads like this. Sore losers are sore. :)
     
    #95
  46. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,041
    So Nadal was better in 08 and Fed was quite a bit worse, yet it was very close. And in 2007 Nadal was only slightly worse and Fed was quite a bit better yet it was still pretty close. Hmmmm. Something just doesn't add up here. It is contradiction at its finest. Especially when you factor in 07 having two very one sided sets and 08 all sets were relatively competitive. SO quite a bit better Roger lost a set 6-2, but quite a bit worse Roger lost sets 6-4 against an even better Nadal. LOL.

    Nadal played MUCH cleaner in 08 only 3 more UE than 07 even though 08 went longer. Nadal gave Fed less free points which was causing Fed to get frustrated and therefore put pressure on his ground strokes which in turn caused more errors from Fed.

    So there was a big difference. Not to mention their form heading into the final was far better than 07.


    Nonsense. post-peak Fed has beaten Novak at every major, but at the AO he hasn't even got a set off him. Novak would thump him as usual.

    Dude, you don't even play. I'm telling you the reaction times to a 172k and 179k serve is negligent. You are talking (or typing whichever way you put it) through your arse.
     
    #96
  47. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,705
    Location:
    U.S
    how thick are you ? do you even look at all the stats properly , analyzing them in their context

    didn't I already say nadal had equal no of winners in both the finals - 50 ...... he made 3 more UEs in the 2007 final ....... duh, big difference ...

    regarding the 6-2 set that fed lost, it probably would not have been if not for hawkeye screwing it up ... nadal would've won the set, but it wouldn't have been 6-2 ...

    funny how you bring up nadal's thumpings at the hands of nalbandian a year and half ago as a possible reason for nadal being outplayed for better part of two sets in IW 2009, yet you don't give credence to the possibility that the RG 2008 F drubbing just about a month ago , had quite a bit of effect on federer mentally - that showed quite a bit in the first two sets ..... after losing those 2 sets, he just dug deeper and raised his level of play for the other 3 sets

    you are clueless .... novak in 2008 faced a clearly better version of tsonga in 2008 than he did in 2010, yet he beat tsonga in 4 sets in 2008 and lost in 5 sets to tsonga in 2010 .. quite a bit of difference in form

    fed thumped tsonga in the semis ( yeah, a bit exhausted from the 5-setters, but it was an absolute thumping ) ...

    hell, tsonga was playing even better this year than he did vs nole in the AO 2010 QF, yet fed beat him ... and fed was playing quite a bit better in 2009 and 2010 AO

    2009 , nole retired when he was getting outplayed and out-matched fitness wise by roddick in the heat and fed of course thumped roddick in the semis ... he'd have beaten nole there as well ...

    At the AO, in 2009 & 2010, nole wasn't near his 2012 form, let alone his 2011 or 2008 form ...and fed was quite a bit better in 2009 and 2010 than he was in 2008 or 2011 ...

    again, you are downright thick .... the difference b/w a 172 k and 179 k serve on its own isn't that much ... but when you are talking about average over a match, the difference is significant ... that's why I underlined the words , on an average, but you are thick enough not to notice that as well .....
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2013
    #97
  48. TheNatural

    TheNatural Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,854
    Agassi says Fed is better now than he has ever been:

    quote:

    Agassi, the sport's oldest-ever world No.1, says he has long given up being surprised about anything Federer achieves and believes even at almost 32 he is at the top of his game.

    'I was ranked No.1 possibly even at 33,' Agassi said.

    'When I was ranked No.1 at that age, I felt better than when I was 25. I felt like I was a better player.

    'Given that, I would assume that Roger probably feels like a better player because he's smarter.

    'He's dealing with tougher competition. He might not win like he used to. But he himself (now) would beat himself (from back then).

    'That would be a fair assumption.'
     
    #98
  49. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,290
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Agassi also said he thinks he was better at 33 than 25, do you agree with that?
     
    #99
  50. The_Order

    The_Order Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    7,041
    It's good to see that another tennis great agrees with me when it comes to Fed's competition and playing abilities at his current age.

    BUT Arrrrrboooooomk seems to know something Agassi doesn't because Arrrrrboooooomk is smarter and knows more than legends like Agassi and Hewitt who continuously admit that the reason Fed doesn't win as much is because they weren't as tough a competetion as the current gen. LOL.
     

Share This Page