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

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Jamin2112, May 31, 2012.

  1. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    12,133
    Location:
    Australia
    The only people who could beat Hewitt in his prime today are Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, and maybe Roger Federer if he's on a hot streak.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2012
  2. tlm

    tlm Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2004
    Messages:
    7,516


    Exactly right these guys claiming that it was tougher in feds heyday are totally delusional and hilarious.
     
  3. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    If Nadal hadn't suffered knee injuries in 2009, he might already be clearly considered the greatest ever. He was upset in the French Open that year -- the only time he hasn't won it in the last eight years. That was the year Federer won his only French Open title. And he pulled out of Wimbledon and didn't even play, the only defending champion in decades to not play at Wimbledon. Federer won his last Wimbledon title that year, but Nadal came back to win the next year. It's very reasonable to assume that if Nadal had been healthy, he would have won both of those tournaments, giving him a string of 5 Grand Slam titles in 6 events. He would then have 13 career titles to Federer's 14.
     
  4. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,240
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    Actually, I don't dismiss him. Don't put words in my mouth.
     
  5. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,240
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    If's, And's, and But's don't count. That didn't happen, Nadal lost in 4R of RG in 2009, Fed won it. End of story. Get over it.
     
  6. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,240
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    The only thing pathetically bad is your argument. None of this is anything except uneducated opinion, and shows that you literally didn't watch tennis before this year.
     
  7. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,553
    First, let's dismiss the fact that trolls know how to count...

    So tell me, DRII, are you among those who consider that a player level never changes and Federer is as good as he was in his so-called heyday and that the others are now better than him?

    Think carefully, there's a whole house of cards just hanging over your head, and I'm waiting to give it a tiny little push depending on what you say... ;)
     
  8. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,553
    Let it go, guys. Chances are, he isn't watching tennis even now. He's just looking for a way to rile you up and must be doing the same on tons of other boards about soccer, bungee-jumping, skinny-dipping, or what have you...
     
  9. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Nadal as beating Federer in his hey day.

    Pre nadal federerer dominated .

    When nadal skipped Wimbledon due to a knee injury and wasn't in the FO final Federer won Wimbledon and the FO.....because nadal
    Was not there .

    Nadals Level has not Changed he has changed. He used to be Joker more but now joker has been beating nadal . So it's safe to say Joker has improved .

    So you now have three competitive players.

    Competition with Nadal> c
     
  10. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Oops....

    .
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2012
  11. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Nadal as beating Federer in his hey day.

    Pre nadal federerer dominated .

    When nadal skipped Wimbledon due to a knee injury and wasn't in the FO final Federer won Wimbledon and the FO.....because nadal
    Was not there .

    Nadals Level has not Changed he has changed. He used to be Joker more but now joker has been beating nadal . So it's safe to say Joker has improved .

    So you now have three competitive players.

    Competition with Nadal> competition without Nadal

    Competition with Nadal & gluten free Joker > than without them.
     
  12. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    It's coming ....wait for it. Pure poetry :
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2012
  13. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Now he's won five more. And Federer zero more. Now only Federer and Pete Sampras (14) have won more than Nadal's 11 Grand Slam titles. Yet talk of Nadal being the best ever has died down.

    Novak Djokovic is why.

    It may be hard to sort that trio out right now, but together their greatness is unquestioned. Between the three of them, they have won 28 of the last 29 Grand Slam titles, interrupted only by Juan Martin del Potro in the 2009 U.S. Open.

    But Federer's time seems past. He got an extra year of greatness when Nadal battled injuries, but can't keep up with Nadal or Djokovic when they are healthy. (In the meantime, he still whips everyone else, which argues more for the greatness of Nadal and Djokovic than for himself, because it makes it seem as if the only difference between Federer now and Federer seven and eight years ago is the addition of two all-time great players.

    It's now Nadal and Djokovic. They have combined to win nine consecutive Grand Slam titles, five by Nadal and four by Djokovic. But just as Nadal has dominated Federer, Djokovic has gotten the best of Nadal head-to-head.

    No one ever met in more Grand Slam finals than Nadal and Federer.

    And now no one has ever met in more Grand Slam finals in a row than Nadal and Djokovic, who have been in the last four. Djokovic won at Wimbledon, the U.S. Open and the Australian Open before Nadal won at the French to snap Djokovic's run of 27 consecutive wins in Grand Slam matches.

    Djokovic had beaten Nadal seven times in a row before Nadal won the last two, both on clay. Nadal holds an 19-14 all-time lead on Djokovic, but Djokovic is closing fast, just as Nadal is on Federer.

    Rafael Nadal is 26.

    Novak Djokovic is 25.

    Roger Federer is 31.

    Nadal has plenty of time to win five more Grand Slam titles and catch Federer's record. If he catches Federer, he will undoubtedly be considered greater than Federer, just as Federer took the Greatest of All-Time mantle away when he passed Pete Sampras.

    Djokovic doesn't have to get to 16 Grand Slams to become the greatest. He just has to continue to beat Nadal. He could win only 10 or 12 slams and be considered the best if he finishes his career with dominant edges over both Nadal and Federer in Grand Slam events.

    Right now, I say the edge goes to Nadal.

    Roger Federer dominated tennis when Nadal was just getting started (and before he started) and Djokovic has dominated the last year, but Nadal was the one player who could stand up to both. Three times now, Nadal has stopped another player from matching Laver's 43-year-old feat of winning four majors in a row, twice stopping Federer from doing so and Monday stopping Djokovic.

    The qualifer there is that all three strings stopped at the French Open, Nadal's specialty.

    Nadal needs to beat Djokovic (and Federer if he can still get to a few more finals) at least a couple of more times at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open.

    But then Djokovic also has to win more titles.

    And Federer has to win one or two more or see Nadal slow down to stay ahead.

    That's what makes this such an exciting time for men's tennis.

    One of these three men will eventually be crowned as the Greatest of All-Time.

    But which one?

    Rafael Nadal took a big step Monday toward saying it will be him. It was a giant step, but many more steps remain to be taken.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2012
  14. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Nadal is 8-2 head-to-head vs. Federer in Grand Slam tournaments (18-10 overall), including 6-2 in Grand Slam finals. Nadal had to beat Federer en route to his first six titles, five times in the final and once in the semifinals. Even when Federer had the most dominant four-year peak in tennis history, going 315-24 from 2004 until 2007, he had a losing record vs. Nadal. When a guy goes 309-16 against everyone else and 6-8 vs. Nadal, it diminishes the four Grand Slams that Federer won before Nadal came around. Advantage Nadal.
     
  15. Raz11

    Raz11 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2011
    Messages:
    702
    Matt Trowbridge? Either you are Matt or you are just quoting some blogger's opinion to support yours. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that it is still just an opinion.
     
  16. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    True ..but .It's actually Mcenroes opinion as well.....a well thought out very logical opinion. Full article here:


    Rockford Register Star : Djokovic loses chance at instant immortality; who is greatest in tennis?

    Roger Federer has won 16 Grand Slam tennis titles. Novak Djokovic has won only five. But if he could have pulled off the Djokovic Slam, fans could have argued he was the equal of Federer. This is even better; Monday's French Open loss to Rafael Nadal leaves a three-way fight to claim the title of greatest tennis player ever.

    Rod Laver held that title for decades. Djokovic could have been the first men's player since Laver 43 years ago to win four consecutive Grand Slams, but lost in four sets to Nadal, who now owns 11 Grand Slam titles.

    Since 2005, Federer has won 12 Grand Slam titles to Nadal's 11, a virtual tie. But Federer has won six Wimbledon titles and five U.S. Open crowns to Nadal's two Wimbledon's and one U.S. Open. Advantage Federer. A little too much of Nadal's prestige is tied up in the red clay of Roland Garros, where he has won a record seven French Open titles.

    But Nadal is 8-2 head-to-head vs. Federer in Grand Slam tournaments (18-10 overall), including 6-2 in Grand Slam finals. Nadal had to beat Federer en route to his first six titles, five times in the final and once in the semifinals. Even when Federer had the most dominant four-year peak in tennis history, going 315-24 from 2004 until 2007, he had a losing record vs. Nadal. When a guy goes 309-16 against everyone else and 6-8 vs. Nadal, it diminishes the four Grand Slams that Federer won before Nadal came around. Advantage Nadal.

    If Nadal hadn't suffered knee injuries in 2009, he might already be clearly considered the greatest ever. He was upset in the French Open that year -- the only time he hasn't won it in the last eight years. That was the year Federer won his only French Open title. And he pulled out of Wimbledon and didn't even play, the only defending champion in decades to not play at Wimbledon. Federer won his last Wimbledon title that year, but Nadal came back to win the next year. It's very reasonable to assume that if Nadal had been healthy, he would have won both of those tournaments, giving him a string of 5 Grand Slam titles in 6 events. He would then have 13 career titles to Federer's 14.

    But he doesn't. Federer has 16. Nadal has 11.

    But not for long.

    Two years ago, it was 16-6.

    And even then, some were talking as if Nadal might already be the greatest ever (even though Nadal always demurred). John McEnroe said Nadal might be the best back when his Grand Slam count stood at nine:

    "There is definitely an argument for him not only being the best player at the moment, but the greatest of all time. Rafa has won things like the Davis Cup and an Olympic gold medal that Roger Federer hasn't and he is right on his tail in terms of Grand Slam titles, too."

    ~John McEnroe

    Now he's won five more. And Federer zero more. Now only Federer and Pete Sampras (14) have won more than Nadal's 11 Grand Slam titles. Yet talk of Nadal being the best ever has died down.

    Novak Djokovic is why.

    It may be hard to sort that trio out right now, but together their greatness is unquestioned. Between the three of them, they have won 28 of the last 29 Grand Slam titles, interrupted only by Juan Martin del Potro in the 2009 U.S. Open.

    But Federer's time seems past. He got an extra year of greatness when Nadal battled injuries, but can't keep up with Nadal or Djokovic when they are healthy. (In the meantime, he still whips everyone else, which argues more for the greatness of Nadal and Djokovic than for himself, because it makes it seem as if the only difference between Federer now and Federer seven and eight years ago is the addition of two all-time great players.

    It's now Nadal and Djokovic. They have combined to win nine consecutive Grand Slam titles, five by Nadal and four by Djokovic. But just as Nadal has dominated Federer, Djokovic has gotten the best of Nadal head-to-head.

    No one ever met in more Grand Slam finals than Nadal and Federer.

    And now no one has ever met in more Grand Slam finals in a row than Nadal and Djokovic, who have been in the last four. Djokovic won at Wimbledon, the U.S. Open and the Australian Open before Nadal won at the French to snap Djokovic's run of 27 consecutive wins in Grand Slam matches.

    Djokovic had beaten Nadal seven times in a row before Nadal won the last two, both on clay. Nadal holds an 19-14 all-time lead on Djokovic, but Djokovic is closing fast, just as Nadal is on Federer.

    Rafael Nadal is 26.

    Novak Djokovic is 25.

    Roger Federer is 31.

    Nadal has plenty of time to win five more Grand Slam titles and catch Federer's record. If he catches Federer, he will undoubtedly be considered greater than Federer, just as Federer took the Greatest of All-Time mantle away when he passed Pete Sampras.

    Djokovic doesn't have to get to 16 Grand Slams to become the greatest. He just has to continue to beat Nadal. He could win only 10 or 12 slams and be considered the best if he finishes his career with dominant edges over both Nadal and Federer in Grand Slam events.

    Right now, I say the edge goes to Nadal (and not just because I've always liked Nadal).

    Roger Federer dominated tennis when Nadal was just getting started (and before he started) and Djokovic has dominated the last year, but Nadal was the one player who could stand up to both. Three times now, Nadal has stopped another player from matching Laver's 43-year-old feat of winning four majors in a row, twice stopping Federer from doing so and Monday stopping Djokovic.

    The qualifer there is that all three strings stopped at the French Open, Nadal's specialty.

    Nadal needs to beat Djokovic (and Federer if he can still get to a few more finals) at least a couple of more times at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open.

    But then Djokovic also has to win more titles.

    And Federer has to win one or two more or see Nadal slow down to stay ahead.

    That's what makes this such an exciting time for men's tennis.

    One of these three men will eventually be crowned as the Greatest of All-Time.

    But which one?

    Rafael Nadal took a big step Monday toward saying it will be him. It was a giant step, but many more steps remain to be taken.
     
  17. fps

    fps Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Messages:
    5,432
    Location:
    Brighton, England
    Logically you're not being correct actually. Federer I would agree has to be at his absolute best to beat Nadal, and in his prime hit his peak so many more times in matches. Rafa has a higher average level of play though.
     
  18. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Even when Federer had the most dominant four-year peak in tennis history, going 315-24 from 2004 until 2007, he had a losing record vs. Nadal. When a guy goes 309-16 against everyone else and 6-8 vs. Nadal, it diminishes the four Grand Slams that Federer won before Nadal came around. Advantage Nadal.
     
  19. sunny_cali

    sunny_cali Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2009
    Messages:
    689
    Why is it that inspite of having a winning record against Fed, Nadal was unable to usurp the no. 1 ranking for 160 weeks ? Since he was already spanking Fed, he should have crazy good on all surfaces. Interesting that he never went to no. 1.
     
  20. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,446
    You can leave your condescending tone at the door; Tinkerbell!

    I suggest you read any number of my previous posts to answer your redundant question! As I've said before (countless times) Federer has slightly lost some foot-speed and a little explosiveness in his movement. But, he is also a smarter and less stubborn player (employing tactics that he once felt was beneath him like the drop shot) with a more aggressive return.

    You and other Fedephants are just digging your hole deeper with these delusional hypotheticals, statistical postulates, or flaming attempts to rewrite history. Its like digging a moat around a house of cards (to use your analogy) -- a whole lot of work that in the end only weakens your foundation...

    Read my lips: Federer won many of his slams during a relatively weak and transitional time period (2004-2007) of his era, which we are still in BTW. It has been shown over and over again. Of course it can't be proved because it is a qualitative assessment; but if any of you were given truth serum, I'm certain you would agree (assuming you have some sense of discernment).
    This doesn't change anything. Federer was good enough to take advantage (and good on him), but once he got some sustained excellence in competition, winning slams became much more difficult for him.
     
  21. sunny_cali

    sunny_cali Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2009
    Messages:
    689
    Good. Then why don't you just say that weak transitional period was between 2000-till date ?
     
  22. fps

    fps Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Messages:
    5,432
    Location:
    Brighton, England
    I think you may have posted this to the wrong quote, as it has nothing to do with what I was saying.

    2009 was an interesting year wasn't it? It's a funny one because IMO Federer won the two slams he shouldn't have won, wouldn't have won if Nadal had been there, should have lost to Roddick anyway but for his iron willpower, and yet he lost the two hard court slams in matches where he really should have won.

    Then again, there are no *should haves* in top level sport, just the results. Which is why so much of the juvenile conjecture thrown around in this thread means so little.
     
  23. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,446

    Good post, yet admittedly there is some extrapulating going on.

    Also, another major stat IMO: is that Nadal has a winning head to head record over all the others in the Big 4! None of the others can claim this...
     
  24. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,446
    Because since 2008, two other open era greats (Nadal, Nole) have been added to the conversation...
     
  25. sunny_cali

    sunny_cali Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2009
    Messages:
    689
    But Nadal was great from 2005-2008 as well, no ?. And Fed beat Nole till 2009 comfortably.

    Are you willing to say that the clay era from 2003-till date was the worst ever in history, and therefore all of Nadal's 7 RG titles have an asterisk to them ?
     
  26. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,446
    Nadal was a great clay courter from 2005-2008, but not an open era great.

    As far as the clay era, I think it is pretty strong considering it has Federer in it as well but not the strongest...
     
  27. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    I think it's been well established everywhere except TW that Nadal is the goat of clay .

    In a battle of the world vs biased TW .......I'm going with the world.
     
  28. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    3 goats > 1 goat.
     
  29. Djokodal Fan

    Djokodal Fan Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,284
    people can't be babies forever. If you turn the clock a bit Federer started losing to Nadal when he was 26. 26 years according to you is 'peak' federer or 'starting to get old' Federer? Whenever people bring this up, Fed is old argument comes up for no reason

    FYI Nadal is 26 now and still looks solid.

    All Fed could do was win when he hadn't had to face Nadal even at his peak. Like Dark Knight said, 2009 FO & Wimbly 2009 was a clear example of how weak his opponents were during 2003-2007 time frame.

    As I said over achiever. Nothing more! Simply thrived by beating Roddick, Nalb, Hewitt, Safin, Old agassi time and time again and fans were going Gaga. When his real test came to overcome Nadal he failed downright. He could never do it. So Fail!

    This will be equivalent to Djokovic Facing only Tsonga, Berdych, Delpo, Ferrer, Tipsarvic for next next 3 years(2012-2015) and yeah.....he sure would take 3 GRANDSLAMS literally to take his count to 17.
     
  30. Sabratha

    Sabratha G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    12,133
    Location:
    Australia
    If Federer thrived over beating a weak era of tennis players, why is he still in the top 3?
     
  31. Djokodal Fan

    Djokodal Fan Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,284

    Exactly my thoughts. Hewitt, Roddick,Ferrero and Safin clearly won slams during the transitional period. But Fed Fans would argue that Fed faced Slam winners.

    Laughable!!!!

    this will be equivalent to consider current gen without the top 3. Sure Murray, Ferrer, Tsonga, Berbych can easily take a slam without the top 3 and occasional streakers like Soderling can sneak one.
     
  32. Djokodal Fan

    Djokodal Fan Professional

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,284
    Because he is still that good. But not good enough. Fed was was still that good between 2003-2007 but nobody was to challenge him like now.This is the argument of this whole thread!

    So he simply thrived in weak era and raked up his slam count.
     
  33. SystemicAnomaly

    SystemicAnomaly G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    Messages:
    11,059
    Location:
    Stuck in the Matrix somewhere in Santa Clara CA
    In total agreement with this. Could not have said this any better (even tho' I had attempted to do so earlier).




    Sound like you've been drinking some of TDK's and DF's Kool-Aid. Those of us who were following tennis during that period saw a lot of depth in the field. Most of TDK's arguments are not convincing.
    .
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2012
  34. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,446
    Because there are two other open era greats that now join him. The rest of the field lacks depth compared to these 3 besides maybe Murray. The same lack of depth has remained consistent since 2004 -07 and 2008 to present.

    Thats the whole argument; and why some of you all's premise that Federer has dramatically declined does not hold water...


    Sorry, i just basically repeated what Djokadal said...

    Although i've been saying this for quite a long time; to the ire of Federer devotees. Now others are finally agreeing. I had very little help at first!
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2012
  35. sunny_cali

    sunny_cali Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2009
    Messages:
    689
    Good. Likewise it has been established everywhere except in your tiny brain that Fed is the HC GOAT and in the top two on grass.

    We'll go with the world rather than your infantile biases.
     
  36. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    I think the problem is that when debating you have to allow your opponent to save face or a way out .

    There really is no counter for 3 goats > 1 goat......because its just a fact.

    I guess the only counter argument for honest fed fans is "it ain't over till its over ".


    In other words of Fed pulls off a win at wimbledon , us open or the AO he will shut a lot of people up.

    All Fed needs is one more grand slam.....the odds of that are very good. He can beat Nadal and Joker....

    The race is on between these three players for the title of goat ......it's a very special time right now.

    The last man standing will be the goat. Enjoy !

    .
     
  37. sunny_cali

    sunny_cali Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2009
    Messages:
    689
    Oh ? So, the clay era is "pretty strong", but not the HC era where Fed won most of his Slams. Double standards much ? because it inflates Rafa's so called Clay goatness ? If you have spend most of your posting life worrying about Fed's weak era, then for the sake of objectivity and fairness you should also state that Rafa won most of his Clay Slams in the worst Clay era of all time. If you think that any Clay era from 1960 was worse I'd like to hear about it.

    And no, Fed is not necessarily a clay great. He's comfortably outside the top 5 on the all-time list, whereas he's definitely top-3 on all other surfaces.
     
  38. sunny_cali

    sunny_cali Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2009
    Messages:
    689
    Joker is nowhere yet in the GOAT discussion, sorry.

    Only you and your various multiple personalities, DRII and a few others worry about silly things such as GOAT anyway. Most objective Fed fans are very happy with what he's achieved and don't have any more expectations out of him. If he wins another Slam, well and good, but that's the icing on what has already been a fabulous career. And most true fans of Fed love the way he plays and not necessarily the number of titles he's won.
     
  39. connico

    connico Rookie

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    277
    Sick of this talk... caution this post is full of sarcasm...

    So.... all players during the "Fed era" were crap... Every single player that includes a winning Nadal (French), a young djoker, a fit Safin etc... (plenty more but this post doesn't deserve a whole list, since most of your won't agree)

    All players have three periods, rise, peak and decline. Clearly Federer is in his decline; an all by graceful decline, but still a decline.

    But to say he thrived in a weak era basically says all those players playing at the same time were crap, weak and unable to put up much of a challenge is total nonsense.

    Following this same track, than the only reason why Nadal has won 7 French Open's is because he is playing in a weak clay era. It would mean that weak era nonsense has undermined all that Nadal has accomplished and will accomplish, simply because no one can beat the guy on clay at the French open.

    Edit; also Djoker only won the last 3 grand slams before the French because everyone else was crap. Lol, he dominated a declining Federer, unhealthy Murray, a crappy Roddick (fed era), A Nadal that cant play on any surface but clay... lol sure he did and pigs can fly.

    Ever player that has won a title, a championship and made it to professional tennis deserves respect and no idiot on a forum sitting behind a keyboard can undermining their achievements. Still it matters not because we all know, none of your opinions matter... Records and published words from their peers are all the matters in the end.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2012
  40. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Many believe that Federer is the second greatest clay court player of all time.

    In fact until recently every fed fan here thought so.

    I bet you if you did a poll of the second greatest clay court player of all time Fed would win that poll?

    Don't believe it? Well I just did a poll a week ago as to who this board picked to win the FO . The majority of TW voters picked Federer to win the FO 2012.

    .
     
  41. sunny_cali

    sunny_cali Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2009
    Messages:
    689
    It does not have to be a dramatic decline. The difference between the top 2 and the rest is not much. A bit more consistency, more mental toughness is about it. Federer was on the way to losing 2 sets to Goffin, heck, he managed to lose to his perennial pigeon, Roddick on a HC -- whichever way you wing it, he's definitely declined. The only thing that's improved is the topspin BH, but he's lost all the flicks and crazy angled passing shots that he used to routinely generate on that wing.

    We have only 2 great players at the top atm, which is pretty much the way it was when Fed was dominating.
     
  42. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    It's really quite simple .....

    3 goats > 1 goat.

    How can you possibly disagree with that?
     
  43. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Not true ,

    Roger Federer dominated tennis when Nadal was just getting started (and before he started) and Djokovic has dominated the last year, but Nadal was the one player who could stand up to both. Three times now, Nadal has stopped another player from matching Laver's 43-year-old feat of winning four majors in a row, twice stopping Federer from doing so and Monday stopping Djokovic.
     
  44. sunny_cali

    sunny_cali Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2009
    Messages:
    689
    Why should you or I care what TW thinks ? And those who voted "hoped" that Fed would win, or would have "liked" him to win, because he happens to be more popular than the other two. There is no objective way Fed is in the top-5 on clay, sorry.

    And most of TW thinks that Fed is GOAT, and might think so even if Rafa reaches 16. I am surprised you do not chose believe this, but conveniently believe that Fed is in the top-2 on clay.
     
  45. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,446
    Fine, Nadal's clay court era lacks depth; but that's the same on every surface in this era (lack of depth)...

    I don't think its the worst of all time (it does include Federer, Nole, and the decent clay courters of recent times: Fererr, Almagro, Verdasco ... Robredo, Ferrero a little less recently, etc)
     
  46. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    Djokovic doesn't have to get to 16 Grand Slams to become the greatest. He just has to continue to beat Nadal. He could win only 10 or 12 slams and be considered the best if he finishes his career with dominant edges over both Nadal and Federer in Grand Slam events.

    But right now nadal has the edge.

    .
     
  47. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,446
    Federer just made it to #2 a few weeks ago and won like 7 out of 9 tournaments :confused:

    I agree he has declined, but only slightly...
     
  48. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,340
    I actually agree with TW here.....Federer is the second greatest clay courter of all time . I think he would beat anyone on clay except Nadal.

    I don't think Borg, wilander , kuerten stand a chance against Fed.....in fact just last year Fed beat Joker and he even beat soderling.

    I don't think that you give enough credit to Fed on clay.

    .
     
  49. fed_rulz

    fed_rulz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,621
    by ability, YES
    by achievements, NO
     
  50. sunny_cali

    sunny_cali Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2009
    Messages:
    689
    Good for Rafa, but how does it change that Fed is a wheezing geriatric when it comes to tennis ? Or the fact that this is a poor era, and a disgustingly ****-poor Clay era and Grass era ? The only reason he's in the top-3 is that we have mugs in the ATP after the top 2. Berdych should have beaten him at Madrid, but he choked, Delpo should have thrashed him in straights at FO, but he decided to return the 2009 US open favor.
     

Share This Page