Originally Posted by The_Order
So then the grass h2h is also misleading since Rafa was a school boy when Fed beat him in 2006.
I like how you conveniently leave out the fact that 17 year old Rafa was beating PEAK Fed on HC, but you don't fail to mention Federer's age as the reason he lost to Nadal at AO which is complete bs based on what I just mentioned. In AO09 Federer was in top form he demolished Del Potro and Roddick on his way to the final. Yes he didn't serve very well, but the fact that Nadal was fatigued from his semi evened it up. Their ground game was quite good with many exciting rallies. In the end Rafa beat him and it wasn't because of his age.
And let me ask you this, if Federer was too old at AO12, how did he all of a sudden have the ability to belt Rafa at IW? Did he drink from his fountain of youth or something? How did he go on to win Wimbledon if he was too old? He beat both Novak and Murray up there so tell me how all of a sudden he wasn't too old? His 2012 season was better than 2010 and 2011, despite being older.
With a 5 year age difference and a number of other factors there isn't a really fair balance of meetings across surfaces/primes etc. Nadal and Federer were never really prime at the same time, but at least on grass they played a slam in Fed's prime and in Nadal's too. Even if they don't match up. On HC is slams that never happened.
Sorry but you're saying Nadal was too young at Wimbledon (2 years before he won it) but Federer is not too old at the AO 2012 2 years after he last won that? Do you also not get that IW is a best of 3? Or that Federer can still play well but not as consistantly (lost the next event to his pigeon Roddick) and certainly not on slow HC over best of 5? Also Wimbledon is on grass. If surfaces don't matter then how comes Nadal was too young in 2006 when he won RG a year earlier? Wimbledon is still a better surface for Federer than the AO especially when facing Djokovic. Murray hadn't even beaten Federer in a slam up til this year so Murray is no Nadal. Federer did play better in parts of 2012 than he had for a few years but that doesn't mean his level was as consistantly high as his best days.
Nadal was only 17 at Miami 2005 yes. And old Fed beat peak Nadal at IW. So "quite even" But neither were slams and I'm talking about their HC slam H2H. In best of 5 like a slam Miami 2005 Federer won. Btw if Nadal was such a schoolboy in 2006 How comes he beat Federer at Miami 2004? Since he was a good enough schoolboy to beat him in 2004 all your "schoolboy" excuses for losing wimby 2006 don't fly. Either he was good enough to beat him or he wasn't. Unless best of 3 and best of 5 are somehow different??
And I agree Federer's ground game was very good in 2009 AO, I'm not actually saying he was too old but he was slightly past his best. It doesn't really matter even if he lost in his prime, but the point is that was the FIRST time they ever played in a HC slam. It wasn't like RG where they played several times from 2005, or Wimbledon where they played from 2006. 2009 was probably Federer's last realistic chance to beat Nadal in a slam as he was still playing pretty well. If they played from 2005-2012 Federer wouldn't have 0 wins in HC slams. But he got shot number 1 in 2009. If you honestly think 2012 Federer hadn't lost anything there's not even any point talking to you anymore. He hasn't been a contender for the AO for a few years now (even in 2010 i was surprised he won)