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.
What are you on about about? What has his previous domination got anything to do with him reaching no. 1 NOW? Out of the top guys (the so-called stronger generation), Federer was the only guy who managed to beat Djokovic in 2011 and that too on his worst surface, in a major. Get over your crap. Federer is too good of a player to be simply phased out by bunch of backboarders. He struggles against Nadal but he has NEVER struggled like that against either Djokovic or Murray. At any point. Bar of course, a few losses. You have nothing to show for the kind of argument you're trying to make. Not to mention, previously dominant or not, Djokovic-Murray, with their youth should've been able to keep him at bay. They have an inherent advantage too, with courts slowing down all over the place. They haven't been able to do it. Instead, Federer's the guy Djokovic struggled with the most in his dominant year. His game is the one that gives Djokovic fits more than anyone else's even at his very best.
Next time, do try for a cogent argument.