Murray fan here and i have no problem with him saying this. Not sure why Federer fans would be annoyed by this either. It's very clearly Nadal and has always been Nadal. They have produced some great matches over the years and have denied each other some very big titles so i'm not entirely sure anyone would treat this statement as anything other than a truthful assessment.
If anything, this is a concession speech.
Imagine declaring that the thorn in his side has six years on him!
30-something Fed has taken it to Djoker nine times. Probably not something he'd like to highlight.
Firstly, welcome, "New User."
You've been busy.
As for the beatings that prime Djoker absorbed at the hands of old Federer... if the shoe were on the other foot, RF would not be the GOAT for me.
I am not saying Djokovic is the GOAT. However most greats lose matches to an older great occasionaly. Prime Navratilova lost matches on grass and carpet to 36 year old King 6-2, 6-1 and 6-3, 6-1. Laver even the year and 2 years after his Grand Slam lost in the WTC both times to a 36 and 37 year old Rosewall. And Laver at his peak lost a ton of times to an extremely old Gonzales (into his 40s).
I would only care if the younger player was losing the majority of matches which never happened.
I am not saying Djokovic is the GOAT. However most greats lose matches to an older great occasionaly. Prime Navratilova lost matches on grass and carpet to 36 year old King 6-2, 6-1 and 6-3, 6-1. Laver even the year and 2 years after his Grand Slam lost in the WTC both times to a 36 and 37 year old Rosewall. And Laver at his peak lost a ton of times to an extremely old Gonzales (into his 40s).
I would only care if the younger player was losing the majority of matches which never happened.
Greatest rivalry’s?
Sampras vs agassi
Federer vs nadal
McEnroe vs borg
Has Federer ever commented on who'm he conciders to be the best player overall between Novak and Nadal?
2012 can also be argued....Federer did reach no 1, so you can't say he wasn't at his prime.
30-something hardly means much when nearly 32 year old Djokovic himself is currently the dominant #1.
Even Murray has a better record against Djokovic off-clay.
Against Djokovic,
Murray is 10-20 on grass/HC
30-something hardly means much when nearly 32 year old Djokovic himself is currently the dominant #1.
Taken in context it seems Novak infers one’s greatest rival is determined by how many times you’ve played another.
What are 6 years when careers last 20 years now?It's completely delusional to consider anyone as rivals who are separated by 6 years. Fed's generational rivals were Roddick, Safin, Roddick, Gonzo, Blake, Nalby, Hewitt etc. and all are long since retired.
What are 6 years when careers last 20 years now?
But honestly, a rivalry has nothing to do with age, but with similar abilities during the same time. From the players you mentioned only Nalbandian could make things interesting against Roger, but still they never met in a Slam final, so not a huge rivalry either. Also Roger more or less had his number after 2003.
Federer was head and shoulders above all players who were exactly or closely around his age, so he had his rivalries with others (mainly with the Big 4). The terms "Rivalry" and "Generation" have nothing to do with each other in general. Of course the age factor can be an argument in discussion why a certain rivalry went this way or another, but that’s all. And of course there are other factors as well, like surfaces etc.
What are 6 years when careers last 20 years now?
But honestly, a rivalry has nothing to do with age, but with similar abilities during the same time. From the players you mentioned only Nalbandian could make things interesting against Roger, but still they never met in a Slam final, so not a huge rivalry either. Also Roger more or less had his number after 2003.
Federer was head and shoulders above all players who were exactly or closely around his age, so he had his rivalries with others (mainly with the Big 4). The terms "Rivalry" and "Generation" have nothing to do with each other in general. Of course the age factor can be an argument in discussion why a certain rivalry went this way or another, but that’s all. And of course there are other factors as well, like surfaces etc.
Who says this? A great rivalry is a H2H which is close and inludes many matches on the biggest stages (which means the last 2-3 rounds of Grand Slams, Masters finals etc.)Rivalry is naturally defined by peak play.
Who says this? A great rivalry is a H2H which is close and inludes many matches on the biggest stages (which means the last 2-3 rounds of Grand Slams, Masters finals etc.)
I accept that MOSTLY this overlaps with the peak of both players, but it can also be the case that one extremely superior player only has that kind of rivalries when he is NOT at his peak, because otherwise he is too good.
Federer was too much better than the kinds of Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Gonzalez etc., so despite them having many matches, I cannot call this a "rivalry" only because they are a similar age. No, Federer had to "search" for his rivalries elsewhere.
Don’t get we wrong though, your post is good and interesting IMO and doesn’t even really contradict what I said (because Federer is an extreme anomaly).
As for the lack of new serious competitors: I think this is merely because of the Big 3 being extremely good, and not the other way around. The most decisive factor that they are not pushed away IMO is that we are now for the first time in an era without revolutionary new racquet technology for about 2 decades. If new players would start with superior material, I don’t think the Big 3 could make the switch in their mid-30s and still stop them.
Honestly, tennis in the 80s was almost a different sport than in the 70s, and then the same occurs for the 90s and early 00s. That's why the former greats were pushed out so easily. Age couldn't have been the most decisive factor since mostly it happened before they turned 30 or shortly after at the latest.
For example, surely Hewitt with 20 wasn't the better tennis player by overall skills than Sampras with 30, but he had the technology and the style for beating him. He started playing that way while Sampras would've had to make a switch and refused to do so. So as strangely as it sounds, the 20-yer-old guy beat the 30-year-old by experience. Now without new technology, experience works in the normal way again (despite the Big 3 are way more skilled players on top of that).
Imagine your best rival not being the player you played the most at your first, second and third best Majors (and sometimes behind two other players).
Imagine not needing to imagine that at all.
Taken in context it seems Novak infers one’s greatest rival is determined by how many times you’ve played another.
Not really.. He never really dipped alarmingly in form through 2010 and 2011 and was still in the top 3 whilst playing a full schedule . 2017-18 was a different case where he too advantage of a relatively weak field with an injured Djokovic, Murray and WawrinkaYou can certainly make the argument that 2012 was still part of his prime. But I don't really agree with your logic, because otherwise we could call 2018 part of his prime as well.
Not really.. He never really dipped alarmingly in form through 2010 and 2011 and was still in the top 3 whilst playing a full schedule . 2017-18 was a different case where he too advantage of a relatively weak field with an injured Djokovic, Murray and Wawrinka
Even Murray has a better record against Djokovic off-clay.
Against Djokovic,
Murray is 10-20 on grass/HC
Nadal is 9-21 on grass/HC
But I can understand why he said that-Nadal denied him loads of French Open of trophies.
While I again agree with the most points you made, I have a different opinion on the impact certain players had on Federer, especially Roddick. You are right that he played two great Wimbledon finals against Federer (2004 and 2009), but during the 5 years in between he had absolutely no hope to be considered a threat to Federer. He ran to the net helplessly and was passed left and right. I bet Federer didn’t have one sleepless night because of Roddick in his life.As great (much greater than Roddick obviously) Djokovic is, his impact on post peak Federer is nothing like the impact of the players you mentioned in Federer's peak.
Hmmmm 54 matches played V 36. No wonder Murray hasn't lost as much to Djokovic than Nadal has
While I again agree with the most points you made, I have a different opinion on the impact certain players had on Federer, especially Roddick. You are right that he played two great Wimbledon finals against Federer (2004 and 2009), but during the 5 years in between he had absolutely no hope to be considered a threat to Federer. He ran to the net helplessly and was passed left and right. I bet Federer didn’t have one sleepless night because of Roddick in his life.
Djokovic on the other hand had a huge impact on him. Without him Federer would have won Slams at will, even many years after his so-called prime (the difference is a bit overrated IMO). And we don’t have to talk about Nadal, he was there almost all the time. Roddick on the other didnt win one match at a Slam against Federer, that is nothing I could call having an impact.
I have witnessed all those years as a Federer fan, and I must say even in 2007 a match against Djokovic had something special for me, while I honestly laughed when I saw Roddick as next opponent, especially after AO 2007.
Roddick had his serve, and that’s why he could stay in some sets, but once Federer got his break, the set was usually over. I think you won’t call Federer’s matches with Karlovic "close" only because Karlovic could reach tiebreaks. (That’s just the most extreme example, there is no doubt that Roddick is a much better tennis player than Karlovic of course).I think that you forget the SF that Federer and Roddick had at Wimbledon the first time they met there. Also, except for their very last match all matches between them were from QFs onwards with 7 finals, including 4 Majors all won by Federer. Federer literally destroyed single-handedly Roddick's prospective career of an ATG.
As for threat, they had 16! TBs in their matches, with Federer winning 14 of them. Their matches featured another 8 7-5 scores, and another 15 6-4 score sets, and, of course, the 16-14 set. So, in 24 matches they had 40 sets where they had a score of 6-4 or closer.
To give you an idea. In the Djokovic - Federer rivalry there were 24 sets with TB, 22 7-5 sets, and 25 6-4 sets, so in 47 matches they had 71 such sets.
Bear in mind, in his peak Federer played on a higher lever and was more clutch, so all credit goes to Roddick for making it that close so many times.
Maybe you underestimated Roddick a little, if you really laughed. While the final H2H hugely favours Federer his matches with Roddick were almost always close affairs.
Federer beating Roddick was much more a foregone conclusion than Nadal beating Federer on clay.
21-3 vs 13-2. Quite equal, but not quite.Roddick had his serve, and that’s why he could stay in some sets, but once Federer got his break, the set was usually over. I think you won’t call Federer’s matches with Karlovic "close" only because Karlovic could reach tiebreaks. (That’s just the most extreme example, there is no doubt that Roddick is a much better tennis player than Karlovic of course).
Federer beating Roddick was much more a foregone conclusion than Nadal beating Federer on clay. And I think even Roddick himself knew it, at least regarding some of his statements.
Unless you're under 20, I can't believe you could make such a goofy statement.Another great match in the greatest rivalry in history.
Nadal and Djokovic are the greatest players of all time and privately they will know that so its no surprise they have a mutual admiration society.
Best rivalries for this decade. probably.I do think the best rivalries go in this order:
1. Djokovic-Nadal
2. Federer-Nadal (#1 and #2 can be debated)
3. Djokovic-Murray (I put this over Djokovic-Federer only since they are much more contemporaries)
4. Federer-Djokovic (#3 vs #4 can be debated too)
5. Federer- Roddick (underrated rivalry due to the lopsided H2H, they played in many big matches, and high quality and very close)
6. Murray-Wawrinka
Those are probably my top 6 unless anyone else has some suggestions.