If Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic Were all the same age.

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by Biscuitmcgriddleson

That assumes Federer would even meet Nadal. Doubt he would given his results. But hey let's keep brushing over the fact Nadal's style is dependent upon fitness and athletic ability and Federer's is an attacking game which takes more time to develop.

This was my point. Federer's rise to being a regular tournament winner was actually a fairly sudden thing. Before that his performances were patchy. On clay after some initial promise with a good run in RG (first slam he reached quarters of) he became pretty dire until after he had won a few slams and reached number one (except for Hamburg where he seemed to do well) On hardcourt he was patchy but so was Nadal so given how for years and even now Nadal and Federer hardly ever meet in a hardcourt tournament (it got to a point where if both were in seperate semi and the first semi resulted in one of them winning, you could put money on the other guy losing) they might not have met very often. And when Federer get's into the top 8 then he needs to make quarters to play anyone in the top 5.

[tennis_pro]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

Between the age of 18 and 22, Nadal would have been head and shoulders ahead of Fed. So you're right, there wouldn't have been any 5 setters because Rafa would have swept Fed off the court in straights. After that Fed would have got better but he would have lacked confidence against Rafa, that's why I think at best Fed would have managed a 5th set (Rafa has enough talent and stamina not to go away easily vs Fed) and in a 5th the stats say Fed would have lost more often than not.

Federer would lack confidence? What a joke. Remember Federer being once 2-7 in the h2h against Hewitt or 0-5 against Nalbandian? Or 1-6 against Henman? Or....?

[zagor]

Originally Posted by Benhur

I don’t know what you mean by isolated examples, when it is clear we are talking about the very top players in each period, the great ones, because they are the only ones whose game was great enough that when they are able to recall it at a later age, they can still beat anyone with it. If a 30 year old player who never made it to the top 10 happens to play some matches as well as he did in his prime, that's unlikely to draw much notice.

You pick 1969 as the last time these things happened. Well, the big dominant names in tennis since 1969 up until the arrival of Federer -- the great ones -- could be listed as: Laver, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras, Agassi, Federer.

Borg and Mac burned out for various reasons around the age of 25. Fine. How about the others?

If you are going to argue that today’s appallingly slow conditions create an endurance problem for 30 year old players, you must not dismiss as “crap” indications that stamina/endurance is not a problem at that age, even if they come from outside of tennis.

Sometimes player’s comments also help. Lendl retired at 34 with back problems. In an interview a few years ago, he explained the aging process in tennis, and what he says makes a lot of sense:



Now, basic common sense suggests that agility becomes more important on faster surfaces. And stamina becomes more important on slower surfaces. But maybe for you it is the opposite.

So the Big Modern Slow Down, if true, should favor stamina over agility. Therefore, the Big Modern Slow Down should not be invoked as a recent physical impediment to players in their late 20s early 30s.

I repeat, there is no significant decrease in stamina at 30, and there is evidence it may be higher than in the early 20s.

I didn't mention stamina specifically, I said they(all time tennis greats) have a hard time sustaining their highest level of play which is why they cease to be a dominant force in the first place, of course the field catches up but I was never the one to buy the constant evolution of the game, when they reach a certain age tennis greats begin to decline in various areas of their game and no amount of "experience" (which has grossly exaggarted importance when it comes to tennis) can make up for a decline of phyiscal skills.

It's not about stamina, or fitness or just about being 30(although I do think a 30 year old player is gonna have a harder time recovering from a tough match than a 25 year old) but rather what it's really about is mileage. Most tennis greats start to have their success relatively early and by the time they're 30 the wear and tear is very significant and more so than ever before in the modern slow era as you have to engage in gruelling rallies on every surface there is, even with advances in modern nutrition and medicine I predict that if they continue with this slowing down and homogenization of the game we'll see fewer and fewer 27-28 year old slam winners let alone 30 year old ones.

Originally Posted by Benhur

Definitely, if someone did say that, it is indeed far beyond stupid; in fact I would consider it obvious trolling not even worth responding to. (For the record, I think 24 year old Federer would win at least 60% of his matches against 24 year old Djokovic.)

But what prompted me to respond to you earlier was the pretty sweeping claim you yourself made that 2005 Federer would "clean the court", or some such words, with his current version, which is in fact the same as saying that current Federer wouldn't stand a chance against his old self. That statement I strongly disagree with. In my mind, current Federer still stands a clear, realistic chance against any player who ever played the game, including any older version of himself. He is still a threat in every major, not only because he is Federer but also because he is only 30, and I don't mean the only sarcastically at all. I mean it seriously. He is not a grandpa in any sense as you call him. Maybe by the time he is 35 or 40 I would agree with your statement. But not quite yet.

I can agree that I over-exaggerated on that one, however Fed is reduced from being a dominant force in tennis to having a slamless year and being merely a "threat" and "outside contender", a number of people on this forum want to contribute that entirely to the current field and act like 24-25 year old Fed wouldn't have his chances against 24 year old Novak and 24-25 year old Nadal(aside from FO obviously), I happen to have a much higher opinion on Fed playing at the peak of his powers.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by zagor

I definitely also agree with this, however there's one issue I'd like to adress that I think no one did here. Most of Nadal's wins over Fed on HC came in Miami and it's such a specific surface that I'd even go as far as to say that it might even be worse for Fed to play Nadal than clay.

I know you might consider it to be a stretch but let's look at their matches there, two of Nadal wins in Miami over Fed were beatdowns and third one was supposed to be one before a miraculous come back from the dead for Roger. Let's imagine for a moment that 2005 Miami final wasn't a best of five(like it isn't today), that would be 3 straight set beatdowns Nadal gave Fed there out of 3 matches played.

I mean even this year look at how Fed faired against Nadal in Miami compared to Madrid(I know not the best example considering you could make a similar argument for it) and RG(better example).

Of course that has no relation to Dubai match (reasonably fast HC) which was a big win for Nadal considering all the circumstances.

I would agree with this but for one problem. If Miami is such a good surface for Nadal, why has Nadal never won it.

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I would agree with this but for one problem. If Miami is such a good surface for Nadal, why has Nadal never won it.

That's what I was thinking. The only reason I can think of is the same reason Djokovic has never won Cinci - bad luck. I'm sure Djokovic could win cinci but it's always eluded him, the US Open would have been the same if he had lost again this year. Maybe Nadal has just had the wrong guy at the wrong time when he's been in a Miami final. Plus looking at who he's had - Federer, Davydenko (who has a big advantage on hardcourts against Nadal) and Djokovic who also has had the beating of Nadal on a hardcourt, and this year had the beating of him everywhere. If he got Murray in a Miami final he might win it.

[jackson vile]

Originally Posted by Towser83

That's what I was thinking. The only reason I can think of is the same reason Djokovic has never won Cinci - bad luck. I'm sure Djokovic could win cinci but it's always eluded him, the US Open would have been the same if he had lost again this year. Maybe Nadal has just had the wrong guy at the wrong time when he's been in a Miami final. Plus looking at who he's had - Federer, Davydenko (who has a big advantage on hardcourts against Nadal) and Djokovic who also has had the beating of Nadal on a hardcourt, and this year had the beating of him everywhere. If he got Murray in a Miami final he might win it.

This is another good point, just like you brought up Hamburg where Federer does really well and has even defeated Nadal on clay, but has yet to do so at the French.

Tennis gets a little strange at times for sure.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

I'm not arguing that. Once again, it's the specific Fed-Nadal match up we're discussing and in that specific match up it is highly unlikely Fed would have ever won most matches in straights.

you do realise

a) there is something known as winning in 4 sets ? fed winning in 4 would probably be the most common result in a fed-rafa 5-set match on hard/grass ...if both were at their peaks IMO

b) fed-nadal are 2-3 in matches that went to 5 sets ?

( fed won miami 2005, wimbledon 2007 and nadal won rome 2006, wimbledon 2008 and AO 2009 )

could 'easily' have been 3-2 if fed had not squandered those MPs in rome !

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by jackson vile

This is another good point, just like you brought up Hamburg where Federer does really well and has even defeated Nadal on clay, but has yet to do so at the French.

Tennis gets a little strange at times for sure.

Thanks. Yeah sometimes it's all about when you peak and sometimes there are some tournaments certain players are never quite right at.

Originally Posted by abmk

you do realise

a) there is something known as winning in 4 sets ? fed winning in 4 would probably be the most common result in a fed-rafa 5-set match on hard/grass ...if both were at their peaks IMO

b) fed-nadal are 2-3 in matches that went to 5 sets ?

( fed won miami 2005, wimbledon 2007 and nadal won rome 2006, wimbledon 2008 and AO 2009 )

could 'easily' have been 3-2 if fed had not squandered those MPs in rome !

Federer should have won AO in 4 sets really, a couple of years earlier maybe he would have. I do think he played very well (apart from his serving) but wasn't quite as consistant and didn't have as much killer instinct as even in 2007. Also he started off a bit badly where even on clay in RG 2006 he started off great - side effect of Nadal getting to him mentally, as well as age.

3-2 in 5 sets matches is close. Miami 2005 Federer was huge favourite for, but Rome 2006 was against a very good Nadal on clay, and he might have even won that if it wasn't a tiebreak, who knows? Wimbledon 2007 nadal was close to his best on grass, don't think he played that much better in 2008, and not as well in 2010.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I would agree with this but for one problem. If Miami is such a good surface for Nadal, why has Nadal never won it.

Well maybe it's not such a good surface in general for Nadal but a good one in his specific match-up with Fed? Similar as Cincy is the best surface possible for him to play Nadal despite the fact that he never won Cincy either.

It is strange to me however, looking at Nadal's succes on clay and his playing style in general you'd expect Miami would be the first masters tourney he'd win aside from CC masters. I mean no way would I predict Nadal would have won an indoor HC masters like Madrid so early in his career but still not to this day bag a Miami title.

[Povl Carstensen]

Look at the poll result. What are people really discussing?

[Set Sampras]

ROFL... Look at that poll result.. Yea Im sure Fed would just swat Djokovic and Nadal away like flies and they would have no shot at #1 in the world.

Afterall, We all just this by Fed's domination of inferiority of 2004-2007 and not his domination over Djokovic and Nadal which are light years ahead of anyone at that time. Nevermind the fact, this Djokovic is having arguably the greatest season ever and greater then any season Fed produced against LESSER competition.. Nevermind the fact, Fed can't handle Nadal and now he would have to deal with nadal everywheres not just clay ROFL!!! Yep.. Fed would EASILY be #1 and Djokovic and Nadal wouldn't stand a chance.

That has to be the most ludicrous thing I've seen. -this place should be renamed to Federer-Warehouse.com. I guess it must have been Federer's domination over Roddick that sealed the deal in the poll results.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Set Sampras

ROFL... Look at that poll result.. Yea Im sure Fed would just swat Djokovic and Nadal away like flies and they would have no shot at #1 in the world.

Afterall, We all just this by Fed's domination of inferiority of 2004-2007 and not his domination over Djokovic and Nadal which are light years ahead of anyone at that time. Nevermind the fact, this Djokovic is having arguably the greatest season ever and greater then any season Fed produced against LESSER competition.. Nevermind the fact, Fed can't handle Nadal and now he would have to deal with nadal everywheres not just clay ROFL!!! Yep.. Fed would EASILY be #1 and Djokovic and Nadal wouldn't stand a chance.

That has to be the most ludicrous thing I've seen. -this place should be renamed to Federer-Warehouse.com. I guess it must have been Federer's domination over Roddick that sealed the deal in the poll results.

Yes new ideas of names for this forum:

Federer-Warehouse.com
FedererPalace.com
NadalSucks.com
FedererBandianPotrooverrated.com
SamprasSucks.com

[ultradr]

There is no question that Federer is the best player among these 3 BUT
1. Nadal dominates over Federer
2. Djokovic dominates over Nadal.

It's just Federer overall best among three in general.

[jackson vile]

Originally Posted by Set Sampras

ROFL... Look at that poll result.. Yea Im sure Fed would just swat Djokovic and Nadal away like flies and they would have no shot at #1 in the world.

Afterall, We all just this by Fed's domination of inferiority of 2004-2007 and not his domination over Djokovic and Nadal which are light years ahead of anyone at that time. Nevermind the fact, this Djokovic is having arguably the greatest season ever and greater then any season Fed produced against LESSER competition.. Nevermind the fact, Fed can't handle Nadal and now he would have to deal with nadal everywheres not just clay ROFL!!! Yep.. Fed would EASILY be #1 and Djokovic and Nadal wouldn't stand a chance.

That has to be the most ludicrous thing I've seen. -this place should be renamed to Federer-Warehouse.com. I guess it must have been Federer's domination over Roddick that sealed the deal in the poll results.

Just more of the same delusion around here. They think Federer would have better odds when it took him so late to even become formidable compared to Nadal. Oh, and we know Novak is no good compared to Roddick, Safin, Hewitt LOL

[DragonBlaze]

Originally Posted by Set Sampras

ROFL... Look at that poll result.. Yea Im sure Fed would just swat Djokovic and Nadal away like flies and they would have no shot at #1 in the world.

Afterall, We all just this by Fed's domination of inferiority of 2004-2007 and not his domination over Djokovic and Nadal which are light years ahead of anyone at that time. Nevermind the fact, this Djokovic is having arguably the greatest season ever and greater then any season Fed produced against LESSER competition.. Nevermind the fact, Fed can't handle Nadal and now he would have to deal with nadal everywheres not just clay ROFL!!! Yep.. Fed would EASILY be #1 and Djokovic and Nadal wouldn't stand a chance.

That has to be the most ludicrous thing I've seen. -this place should be renamed to Federer-Warehouse.com. I guess it must have been Federer's domination over Roddick that sealed the deal in the poll results.

Oh how I wish SetSampras AKA GameSampras was still around......oh wait

Sorry for the shameless bump for the normal fans, but I couldn't resist , that's my trolling for the day done. As well as this topic I would say

[primetennis]

Originally Posted by jackson vile

Federer would have two top players (Novak, Nadal) that he would be losing to.

Novak could only lose to Nadal.

Nadal coudl only lose to Novak.

But somehow everyone convince themselves that Roger would be #1?

what a senseless post !! lolzz..novak just lost to even 30 yr old fed..he wud definitely lose to 24 yr old fed..and when a 30 yr old fed is the no.1 now having nadal at 26 and novak at 25,a 24 yr old fed wud definitely be no.1

[NamRanger]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I would agree with this but for one problem. If Miami is such a good surface for Nadal, why has Nadal never won it.

To answer an age old question.


That particular surface is really bad for Federer when he is playing against Nadal. Not only is it high bouncing, it is dreadfully slow which means Federer cannot hit through the court on it. Federer doesn't have the consistent power that the other big hitters have. This lets Nadal just run balls down all day and frustrate Federer to no end.

However, the times Nadal has lost at Miami are really mostly due to bad luck. He ran into an absolutely on fire Djokovic, Roddick, and Davydenko in the years he was set to win Miami. And the thing is that those three guys both have more firepower than Federer does in his game (when Roddick is playing the correct version of his game), and can penetrate the court easier. Nadal being a guy that doesn't hit all that hard really can't hit through the court, so the ball just sits up for these guys to just whail on all day.


Which is why I always find it so amazing Nadal has been able to do so well on the Plexicushion at the AO. Because really, that's not a surface he really likes at all, mainly because he can't penetrate the court well enough since it is slow as molasses, and the ball doesn't bounce high enough so his shots are mostly sitters on the court. He wins really mainly on just pure determination and athleticism here, unlike at Wimbledon and RG.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by jackson vile

Federer would have two top players (Novak, Nadal) that he would be losing to.

Novak could only lose to Nadal.

Nadal coudl only lose to Novak.

But somehow everyone convince themselves that Roger would be #1?

Yet he got to #1 as a 31 year old .

LOLville, this is just getting beyond hilarious.

[DragonBlaze]

Originally Posted by zagor

Yet he got to #1 as a 31 year old .

LOLville, this is just getting beyond hilarious.

Your trolling is endlessly entertaining. Please continue

So glad I remembered this specific thread, lots of crow being served/egg on face.