I'm not the only one
He’s way slower than he was at 25 and tired in the 5th set of the final.Who said he only played tennis to develop his muscles? You do realise that taking steroids alone will not build muscle, you still need to lift weights as @Hitman will tell you...
I'm not the only one
Rubbish. He is moving just as well as he ever did, even after knee surgery...
It's not hollow at all. He is 38 and running around like a 25 year old. At AO17 he played consecutive 5 set matches and showed no signs of slowing down.
Hahahaha any physical activity. Confirms you don't have a clue.
Not what I said... But go ahead and make things up you're good at that.
It's time you start packing old man. Movement is critical in grass court tennis. It's quite obvious he's not struggling in that area...
Your chance of useful participation/contribution across this whole forum has been over for a long time. Your only purpose is to troll Nadal on here and pump up your idol who's soon to lose most of his meaningful records to Djokovic. Just wait a couple more years pal
37.9 year old Fed had double MP and literally blew the 1st set with missed routine FHs. Those same FHs would’ve been nailed in the corner by any version of Fed from 2003-2007, mate 08,09,12 versions too.
Yes, 26-22 is a slim advantage. Considering he needed until he was 34 to overtake him H2H
Djokovic - 13/16 slams won vs 30+ Federer.
So Djokovic is penalized for having an over 2 time longer peak than Fed?
Don't try to make sense of it. You'll only frustrate yourself.So Djokovic is penalized for having a more than 2 time longer peak?
NoSo Djokovic is penalized for having an over 2 time longer peak than Fed?
Only match I can recall his FH costing him is 2006 Rome final.
The peak of a player is usually in the middle of his career.The time when the older has it "easier" first is significantly shorter than the time that the younger has it "easier" later and that situation only gets more pronounced the more the older player stays on the tour.
There is logic, and also there are facts that support that logic. Look at Connors's career and you will be immediately shown that that is the case. Even the exceptions confirm the rule and they are more or less established why they happened.
And Fed had the easiest ride at slams before Djokodal both arrived. Fair play to him for capitalizing on it.
He won his first 12 slams playing against nothings or teenage/barely 20 something Nadal/Djokovic.
Yeah, Novak had it so easy, coming into a dual domination, whereas RF came into a vacuum in 2002-2003.
Well yeah he had 0 ATG competition for 3 years. Fed had nadal on clay at least from 2005. Nole is the weak era king.
Which is why he was 7-0 in slam finales at the beginning, but now that peRFect score has dropped to 20-11, i.e. since then he's been 13-11 in slam finales. Back in the Weak Era he could not lose a slam finale. Things changed drastically once Nadal and Djokovic got better, started bullying him, shaking his confidence and turning the boring monopoly into a thrilling triumvirate.
Federer has had the easiest slam wins out of the big 3. Get over it.
Lol yeah. His strokes were pretty, but that was it. He had no right to assume he was one of the GOATs at that point (nor did his fans).
Yet that was happening already in 2004. The media started hyping him as the new Christ of tennis, the articles were ridiculous, adulatory and absurd. Sports journalists then had to revising their story just a year later once Nadal started beating him aged 17/18/19, they didn't know how to explain why a new tennis messiah was being beaten regularly by a clay-hopping teenager.
Djokovic has had a cakewalk since 2014 where he won 10/16 slams. How many tough SF/F? I can think of the past 2 Wimbledon SF vs nadal and F vs Fed that’s it. Most boring and weak era in history.
Nah.
Fed won 12 of his 20 winning slams against nobodies off of clay.
Actually 5. He won 3 when Novak had a bad elbow.
I don't understand how some people can possibly argue that 2003-2006 wasn't a weak era - but 2013 onward is. That's like saying Kubrick is a lousy director - but hey, Michael Bay is a genius.
Weak clay era. Some great wins over Fed in 2008-2009 and Djokovic in 2013 sure.
Apparently half of tennis history is weak.
RF and Rafa seized on the opportunity with an injured Novak. Then he came back and dominates again.
Fed had mono in 2008 so now 5-5.
I agree. That's no coincidence.
Nadal was crap in 2009. 5 > 3
2003-2006 is similar to 2014-2016 except Fed had ATG competition and Nole didn’t.
Oh yeah, the legendary Mono Theory, right up there with the Faked Moon Landing conspiracy.
Yeah Nole is a better player than 32-38 year old Federer agreed.
Come to think of it. Fed's Wimby 2012 is his only impressive win. Nah Djokovic wasn't yet peak on grass and Murray is a mug. Fed has 0 slams.Winning against Murray/Tsonga/Wawrinka/DelPotro/Anderson/Old-erer/Oldal are equally considered winning against nobodies. Whats that? 13/16.
What conspiracy? His form dropped dramatically from 2007 to 2008.
Morons?
Nole has 0 Wimbledon titles then as he didn’t beat 2003-2009 version of Fed (prime version with old 90 inch racket who could hit accurate and deep FHs)
He beat prime Nadal and 2018 Nadal was prime form. So that's two.
Do you not get bored of trolling?
You are right. Novak failed to win Wimbledon in 2003-2006. It's his fault he was only 16-19 at the time...
I guess we all have different definitions of trolling... I consider all your recent posts as trolling. They make zero sense.
