This kind of argument can really go back and forth, ya know? Someone else might bring up Rafter or Kafelnikov’s h2h against Federer, then you’ll mention Hewitt and Safin, and then they’ll mention someone else. It’s one of the reasons why I’ve always despised the h2h argument. Just a big rabbit hole.
I don't care about Rafter beating baby Fed on clay at RG during Feds first year on tour. It was before Fed had even won a title. Agassi also schooled Federer back then. We all know how that turned out for Agassi after Fed hit his peak.
They would have just become Tim Henmans to Federer once he hit his peak.
Yeah, which is yet another reason I call h2h a big rabbit hole argument.
But they're from different eras, they played just 1 final or semifinal.
Yeah, and Fed's movement also improved over the years with all the wear and tear after playing more than 1000 matches no ? Logic dude, logic.2015 Federer would have never been able to play close to 100 matches in a season like he did back in 2006 and never recover as quick between the matches.You conveniently omit physical decline and only look at technical improvements.
Because you bring into discussion this things time and time again just to prove your convictions that older Federer was better than younger Federer.
There is no need to argue with Federer or anything like it.I just understand the context behind what he said in those pressers.
At no point of his career even at his absolute peak did Federer really have a positive slam head to head against Nadal and Djokovic combined. He was 4-3 at the end of 2007 but in 2008 this ended and he has a negative score since then.
I don't think it's good to combine the h2h between them anyway.Fed lead the h2h with Djokovic up until 2015, but he never lead the h2h with Nadal.The closest he has been to Nadal was at the end of 2007, 8-6 for Rafa at that point.
I agree. I was just responding to the poster who insinuated that Feds negative combined H2H was only due to age. In reality, if we break it down, the only one who really posed problems to Federer is Nadal. With Djokovic their rivalry follows the general path in rivalries between ATGs, with the older dominating tja younger at the beginning until the younger one grows mature (and the older one leaves his prime) and catches up. The only reason Djokovic leads the H2H is that Fed stayed around until 38 so they played more matches peak/prime Djokovic vs Post prime Fed than peak/prime Federer vs pre prime Djokovic.
Good points.
Also have to admit that Nadal benefitted from the circumstances of mainly slow courts. In the 90s with old Wimbledon grass, fast US Open courts and lot of carpet around he would have found difficulties to even reach Federer. I think the H2H would have been way more even.
That maybe not then. Because if he barely reaches him off-clay, his H2H advantage would be even higher. If anything it would be another proof of how meaningless H2H is in the big picture.
More showing of how much more talent there is these days!
I think the USO was slowed down 2 times in the last 20 years.First time at the beginning of the century and then in the 2010s.Either it's because of balls or courts or even both, the USO looks slower and the bounce is higher.Take a look at Fed-Davydenko back in USO 2006 for example to see differences compared to today.That's why Federer now uses more top spin on the forehand compared to his flatter one back then.
Federer would not reach him so often on clay either, the 90s were a different time. I agree Nadal wouldn’t reach him often at Wimbledon, but in the end who knows. Without his success off clay it could happen that Nadal wouldn’t be ranked as high as he is today and meet Federer already in some quarters or something. Anyways, if they met on 90s grass there is no chance in hell Rafa beats him. I would give him the same chances as I give Roger on clay.
I agree that it was slowed down. But it was always MUCH slower than grass and carpet. It was a completely different game on the 2 latter surfaces. Something like the 1987/88 US Open finals between Lendl and Wilander wouldn’t have happened on grass/carpet for example.
So much talk about numbers which are soooooo WRONG...
I must have missed the part where Sampras actually had a Rafa or a Novak or both.That simply means Federer's level is matched by Rafa and Novak everywhere while in Pete's case, nobody was able to match him on grass. On other surfaces, Pete was beat plenty of times
No, that would work only if Courier and Agassi hung around slam QFs and SFs at a regular basis like Rafa and Novak, and they weren't even remotely close. Courier literally just had a window of two years in the top 5, Agassi was on and off. Is Rafa on and off? Not a chance. Sampras had a variety of rivals to beat on the way to winning slams, it wasn't two guys challenging him every year from 1993-2002.That simply means Federer's level is matched by Rafa and Novak everywhere while in Pete's case, nobody was able to match him on grass. On other surfaces, Pete was beat plenty of times
Yes.
Premise is nonsensical at first because OP faked numbers that he used as argument in first post...
True, you should point these insights of yours out to Federer, as I'm sure he is unaware of the effect of wear and tear on his playing level. After all, what does Federer know.
lol...Fed played/plays in an era with the three greatest players of all time....Sampras was the only ATG of his era and couldn't even win one Freanch. Weak.
Nice avatar.
You've spread the Riya Sen gospel to me and made a believer of me as well.Otha Petros ... where do I start? I knew nothing about the lady in my pic until in a discussion with @Raul_SJ, he convinced me to replace Sunny Deol in my avatar with this lady and he proceeded to tell me about her. Her name is Riya Sen and I'm now one of her biggest fans!
Fed couldn't even accrue winning records against his rivals despite accruing wins over them for five years before they exited puberty, and has been thoroughly bumped down to bronze status since. Weeeeeaaakkkk
No, I was just explained this things to ABCD because he repeats himself with these posts.Nice try with your sarcasm though.
Again, I missed the part where he had a Rafa or Novak on any surface.Otha Mike ... Sampras was hardly unbeatable. He lost plenty of times on hard and clay courts and to many different players. It was only on the grass of Wimbledon that he was virtually untouchable in his prime. There's a word for that ... peerless! The grass King was alone on that summit
You don't know much about tennis, do you?
No.
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
The weak era talk didn't come from Federer fans, so your prejudice was unwaranted.
