Originally Posted by veroniquem
I'm saying he would not have become the 31 year old Fed you know. He would not have had a chance to establish a crushing domination. He would never have been anything else than one top player among others. Can't you see the difference between his head to head vs Roddick, Davy, Blake and his head to head vs Nadal, Murray and Djoko? In one case: absolute domination, in the other case: win some, lose some.
That's because most of Federer's losses to Djokovic and Murray have come post-prime and he is still playing and competing on Hards (Djokovic and Murray best surface) and on Clay (Nadal's best surface). Don't you find it weird that Federer and Murray have never played on Clay (Murray's worst surface, where Federer is definitely much better) and Federer and Djokovic have only played once on Grass (Djokovic's worst surface and Federer's best)? And don't even get me started on the number of matches Federer and Nadal have played on Clay (Federer's worst surface and Nadal's best). All things considered, Federer's record is incredibly good against Djokovic AND Nadal (yes, Nadal too). He could've done better against Murray but he still won the all-important matches. Considering the match-up advantage Nadal has against Federer, him being 5 years younger, half their matches being on Clay, and Nadal being one of the 5 greatest players of all time, a 10-18 record is something to be proud of.
Pre-2008, Federer was 5-1 against Djokovic and 1-1 against Murray.