Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by McEnroeisanartist, Jan 6, 2014.
Then Nadal fans should agree with the right side, so we won't have any arguments.
They will eventually, Fed has too much and as far as records he's miles ahead, not close.
Whether they are considered important or not, Fed has them and they do count for something as no one else has them.
What :shock: :shock: :shock:
Since when 13 = 18???????
Why are you counting the chicken that are not hatched yet. It that a new trend among Nadal fnas here to assume NAdal has won something that he didn't?
The fact is Nadal will never get to 18, so your post makes no sense at all.
Agassi went away because he was in pain, not really because of Federer's play. Novak went away because of Nadal's play. There's the difference.
And don't even go anywhere near comparing Agassi in that 2005 final to Novak of 2013. Novak 13 was clearly a much tougher opponent than Agassi 05.
Gasquet was playing very well too, until he ran into an in form Nadal. Hewitt doesn't have the weapons to beat Fed, Nadal and Novak when they're in their prime and playing well in a major.
Novak was owning Nadal in that final, will Hewitt or 35 year old Agassi do that? Not in their wildest dreams.
Did I ever say 2010 was a strong year? Please point it out to me if so.
2005 WIM was rubbish and USO was also a foregone conclusion. Roddick and Hewitt were surpassed on the rankings by a teenage Nadal who even back then when his HC game was nowhere near developed still managed to win HC masters titles.
Don't talk crap and say 2005 was tough it wasn't.
Whoever has the most slams will be considered the GOAT in the eyes of 90% of the tennis and sports following public.
That's why people always talk about the slam record.
Other records are not as important.
I use my eyeballs and common sense. It's plain obvious that a 35 year old cripple is not anywhere near as tough as a 26 year old player who dominates the tour and is in his prime.
That was just dumb. Gonzo would not beat Rafa at AO12 just like Kafelnikov would not beat Fed at WIM05. If you want to disagree that's your busniess, but obviously there's no way to prove it.
Where's your proof that 25 year old Nadal wouldn't dominate Hewitt, Safin and Fed in 2006? And why throw Safin in there? In 2006 he wasn't a threat in any major. In fact even Hewitt flew off the mark in 2006 dropping from #4 to #20.
Nadal's game owns Fed's, that is a FACT. If Nadal is making it to HC and WIM final in 2006 then that is BIG trouble for Federer. AO06 Fed wasn't playing great, I'd take Nadal at 25 years of age over that version of Fed any day. RG we know Nadal would win. WIM is not as clear cut, but most likely Fed would still win that and the USO is 50-50.
From 2004-2007 Fed didn't have to deal with another dominant tour player like Rafa and Novak have had to.
2008: Nadal -> Federer with Novak rising up there as well and Murray emerging.
2009: Federer -> Nadal, someone else beat him at RG doing Fed's dirty work. Then Nadal not playing Wimbledon made it easier for him.
2010: Nadal -> easy year the rest of the top 4 weren't at their best
2011: Nadal -> Novak
2012: Nadal -> Novak -> Federer -> Murray all playing their best in certain stages of the season made it a tough year
2013: Nadal -> Novak
2004: Federer -> Who? Hewitt? LMAO. Roddick played very well in WIM final though he wasn't consistently facing Fed in majors that year.
2005: Federer -> Again Who? Teenage Nadal? LOL
2006: Federer -> Again teenage Nadal who turned 20. Not in his prime yet.
2007: Federer -> This is when it started getting tough, Nadal's grass game was a lot better and Novak began to emerge.
You clearly don't know the definition of the word "fact".....
Never said Fed wasn't legit. He is a top tier legend of the sport and he hasn't even retired yet.
But his life was made a lot easier than Nadal and Novak's.
He is not the untouchable God that many try and make him out to be and try and place him so far above Nadal when he can't even beat him in majors for nearly 7 years now.
Yes, they're in the same era, but that doesn't mean that the decade from 2000-2009 is that era. It also doesn't mean that Fed's era begins exactly when Nadal's begins and ends exactly when Nadal's ends. They just have a huge overlap.
Fed's era: 2003-mid 2013? (depends on if he finds some good form again)
Nadal's era: 2005-2014 (not over yet)
You can't say Fed reached No. 1 (in 2012) outside of his era, lol. Era does not equal prime. Your era is the time period in which you are relevant.
Look at it this way, the 2 players Federer has faced the most are Nadal and Djokovic (more than Roddick and Hewitt). If they're not from the same era then how is this possible? Time travel?
Hewitt could arguably take Djokovic at the US Open and Wimbledon prime for prime, same thing with Roddick. Nadal is a different story as when he hit his prime/peak, he was not as vulnerable as Djokovic is/was.
Nadal also overtook Hewitt and Roddick because Hewitt was injured for most of the year and Roddick was playing like utter garbage.
I think Hewitt could even take Djokovic at Roland Garros. Djokovic struggled against Seppi of all people.
I don't think it's important to talk about if Hewitt could beat Djokovic at Roland Garros in 1 match. I mean, Melzer beat Djokovic at Roland Garros..... The question is whether he could challenge him consistently. And I think the answer to that is no.
I think he could challenge him consistently at Wimbledon at the US Open, moreso Wimbledon. Even at the Australian Open he could give Djokovic a fight or two. He took a set off him in 2012, at least 7 years past his prime.
how do you know he won't. he's pretty close to 17 and who the hell is going to stop him, djokovic? what if he breaks his legs? anything can happen. djokovic could end up quitting tennis and become an astronaut for all you know brah
Are you sure it is a fact or just your own imagination? :shock:
And what has Hewitt done consistently against anyone at Wimbledon?? He's only made it to the semis or farther twice in his career....
The word consistent doesn't really describe Hewitt.
He has made the quarters three times as well, one in 2004 where he ran into peak Federer, one in 2006 when he was beaten by an on fire Baghdatis and once in 2009 when he was beaten by Roddick in 5 sets who went onto push Federer in the final. Remember the match in 2009 could have gone either way.
I'm just pointing out that nothing indicates he can challenge another top player consistently at Wimbledon.
The fact that he lost to a player remarkably similar to Hewitt last year in the final indicates just that, in straights at that.
Roddick would have to play at 2004 or 2009 final level to take out post 2010 Novak at Wimbledon.
US Open Hewitt would not beat Novak post 2009 form either. Novak has been very tough and consistent at the US Open losing only to the likes of Federer, Murray and Nadal since 2007. And all those matches were tough. 2007 final he should've won the first 2 sets. Prime Novak would never cop a double bagel against Fed in a USO final like Hewitt did.
Nadal would've overtaken Hewitt even if he stayed fit. No way Hewitt would've won more titles than Nadal in 2005 to pass his ranking points.
Roddick playing like utter garbage is a reflection on him as a player. Can't be used to excuse him for his poor performances.
That remarkably similar to Hewitt player has never had a negative h2h against Federer whereas Hewitt was getting owned throughout the same period.
Teenage Murray played better against peak Fed than peak Hewitt.
Murray and Hewitt are two different players.
You can't cherry pick one match and base your point around it.
peak Hewitt lost to a qualifier in the first round of Wimbledon, does that mean that Raonic would beat peak Hewitt consistently at Wimbledon? Roddick had his struggles against Hewitt on grass.
Yes, thank you.
i have never said that.
Federer's had a negative H2H against Hewitt, preprime or not. Murray's H2H with Federer is close, despite most of his wins coming when Federer was already declining. Murray's first win in 2006 over Federer was great, but so is Hewitt's win over Federer in 2003 after he'd already won Wimbledon.
It means that Karlovic is an underrated player who can beat the best players when he's on. Seppi isn't anywhere near even Karlovic's level.
when have i EVER claimed that nadal and federer are in the same era? find me the evidence. i have never said that. NEVER.
find me the evidence that i have ever claimed that rafa and fed are in the same era. where is it?
and in the first place, how is this about rafa to begin with?
Nadal might not have won those titles had he run into Hewitt. He was good on hardcourt, but nothing like he is now. I think he could have beaten him a couple of times, but lost to Nadal more often than not.
Djokovic is overrated at the US Open. Djokovic struggled to get past Federer in 2010 and 2011, and Hewitt who had been injured on and off all year had beaten him on grass in Halle.
Pre-prime h2h lead doesn't have much value to it though, come on. Rafter lead 3-0 does that have any meaning that he'd beat prime Fed?
Hewitt's Davis Cup win was very impressive, his best win for the whole season for sure.
But Murray is a different player compared to Hewitt. There are some similarities, but that's not enough to use Murray's success as a gauge on how Hewitt would've performed if his peak coincided with Novak's like Murray's does.
But they are in the same era.....
Seppi didn't win in 4 sets.
And Novak wasn't the defending French Open champion.
Possibly, but I doubt Hewitt would've stopped him from winning the clay titles along with Masters Monte Carlo & Rome and the French Open. That alone would be more than enough to stop Hewitt from passing him in the rankings.
Don't forget Hewitt was VERY close to losing to Nadal at the AO so I'd take Nadal's chances to get by fit Hewitt at least once on HC in 2005 to take another Masters title.
I don't think Novak is overrated at the US Open. Far from it, if anything he's underrated because of all the lost finals.
What about Hewitt's match against Novak at the Olympics last year? After many surgeries he still pushed him relatively hard and took a set off him.
i don't care whether they are in the same era or not. i just hate being maligned and falsely accused of saying things i have never said. these are malicious, evil people. they really are.
I don't think Hewitt would have beaten Nadal on clay, but if he was fit he would have made it deeper into the tournaments adding more points. Novak did lose to Safin on grass in 2008, on his worst surface. He wasn't the defending champion but he was a semifinalist the year before.
It means Hewitt played well, he's not a mug and Novak didn't start so well.
I don't see how this proves peak Hewitt would've beat post 2009 Novak at the US Open?
Hewitt was also terrible at the AO, only making it to the final once in his best year. Nadal pushing him on a surface that doesn't suit him does not mean he will beat him 75% of the time on hardcourt in 2005.
Because Hewitt was just as good if not better at the US Open during his prime years. Novak has been vulnerable. Even last year he dropped two sets to Wawrinka, someone I am almost positive Hewitt would have beaten in 4 sets at his peak.
I didn't say 75% of the time. I said at least once. Don't forget, Nadal wasn't great at AO until about 2008-09.
Once I would agree with, but I feel the year end ranking would be close between them.
I'm not sure how you can say Hewitt was just as good, post 2009, Novak has made it to every USO final.
Hewitt was pretty good at the US Open, don't get me wrong, but he's no Novak Djokovic.
If my life was on the line and I had to choose between peak Hewitt and peak Novak to win a US Open title, I'd be picking Novak.
Novak's 2011 form is a level that Hewitt never reached at any major not just US Open. Federer played very well in that 2011 SF and still wasn't enough to win. If Federer plays very well against Hewitt that usually results in bakery products.
basically, you like attacking players. period. so your definition of the greatest game is basically the "best" attacking game you have seen.
that's fine. i just want to establish that its a pure subjective supposition of yours, not some objective measurement.
personally i am agnostic between attacking or defensive styles. i think federer is the greatest player ever statistically career-wise. but nadal is a better player h2h against him. and i won't ever claim things like "greatest game". because its a purely subjective conjecture.
Nadal earned 4765 points in 2005. Hewitt earned 3590 in 2004. In fact Hewitt's best year was 2002 where he earned a total of 4485 points and that's without emerging Nadal and peak Federer around.
It may have been close, but still I don't see how Hewitt would've won enough to pass Nadal.
If Hewitt was not injured I think he could have surpassed his points tally in 2002 even without a major title. He was far more consistent and had a higher level of play in 2004-2005. Hewitt also ran into peak Federer more often than not in the early stages of slams in 2004, and when he did meet Federer in the final he was demolished because Federer was playing at a level close to that of his best.
Hewitt after 2003 was a great matchup for Federer, just because Djokovic beat Federer in a very tight match doesn't mean Hewitt couldn't push him as hard as Federer did.
Nadal started winning slam in 2005 right in the beginning of Federer's peak. They have played each other 10 times in slams, most of which are in the finals. Nadal is as much of a rival to Federer as Agassi is to Sampras, no matter how much Fed*ards try to deny.
Is it a new trend among Djokovic fans to claim Djokovic was the best player of 2013 when he did not earn the distinction?
You are in position to post this--other than your usual hatred of Nadal.
Tennis is more than just who has the best backhand, forehand, serve or volley. Being a great tennis player is a combination of:
* great tennis strokes
* great footwork
* mental toughness
* reading your opponent's game, tactics and his/her body language
* reading the state of play during a match
* having a Plan B if Plan A is not working out
* defensive capabilities when things aren't going great (hanging tough)
* offensive capabilities when things are going great (pummelling your opponent)
* tactical nause.
What you are suggesting makes Federer the tennis textbook GOAT, but do his great strokes stand up in the heat of battle against someone who is just as capable? To me the tennis GOAT must have all or most of the points highlighted above. I'm not arguing either way who would be GOAT between Federer and Nadal, both will go down as greats. I'm just pointing out that tennis strokes alone may make you a junior champion but you need all those other x-factors to make you a professional champion. Obviously Federer is a professional champion but his game has been known to break down against Nadal.
It's irrelevent why they went away. The fact is they both went away, Federer raised his level in the tiebreak also. Novak was a mental mess in that match even in the first set. And no Novak clearly wasn't a much tougher opponent. I doubt you can substantiate that...
Hewitt was playing much better than Gasquet was lol. Hewitt has plenty of weapons. He's given Nadal problems on clay of all places past his best and has frequently taken sets of Djokovic. I don't doubt that Hewitt would give them problems. He gave Federer lots of problems in the semi's, a significantly better USO player than either Nadal of Djokovic.
I've seen you refer to it as 'stronger' than Federer's dominant years IIRC.
So was 2006 harder competition because Nadal didn't win any hardcourt masters titles? Plenty of teenagers have had break out years where they achieve incredible things. Doesn't make a weak year. Nadal's game was different but he was still a great player. Hewitt and Roddick had the misfortune of having to contend with eachother and Federer at their best slams.
Funny how you say nothing of the FO, I guess that was a strong slam right? In 2005 you had Hewitt playing well in the big events, Roddick was patchy especially at the end of the year but up till Cincinnati he had some good results. Safin had his last good runs at the AO and then later at Halle. The AO 2005 was an extremely strong tournament.
Agassi was still good, much better than most of the guys in the top 10 today. He met Federer alot on hardcourts when he was in good form. Nadal and Coria battled on clay, producing one of the greatest matches I've ever seen at Rome. Nadal also played well at the AO taking Hewitt to 5 and he was excellent in the masters series, albeit his draws weren't particularly tough on hardcourts.
This year you have 30+ Ferrer at #3 with a fraction of the results Nadal achieved, so if you crying about age this year hardly comes off much better.
roddick 2003 would have a pretty good chance as well
and even roddick 2005 would've easily taken out the djokovic who showed up vs murray in wim 13 final
LOL @ post 2009. 2010 finals and 2013 finals were the worst matches he's played vs the trio of federer/murray/nadal there.
2007 final - he blew the first, but not the 2nd set.
yeah, considering nadal's clay dominance and federer cutting deeply into hewitt's tally off clay, fully fit hewitt would probably not pass nadal in 05
but take federer out of the scenario and hewitt passes nadal in the rankings in 2005.
Separate names with a comma.