Nadal faced the very best of Federer at Wimbledon than Djokovic ever did

mike danny · May 21, 2023

That is undeniable LOL.

First Wimb match from Nadal: against a 25 year old Fed.

First from Djok: against a 31 year old Fed.

Unseeded Player · May 21, 2023

duaneeo said:
Okay, I see what I'm dealing with here.

Just accept the fact that Roddick and the others around Fed age were weak competiton and they were only able to go sub-top because Nadal, Novak and Murray were still kids in that period.

mike danny · May 21, 2023

ActualTennisPlayer said:
Nadal beat prime Fed at Wimbledon (65 match winning streak).
But then Djokovic beats prime Nadal at Wimbledon (20 match winning streak).

Therefore, by law of transitivity Djokovic beats prime Fed.
(And note 2011 djokovic wasn’t even peak Djokovic has his serve wasn’t the best)

Yep, like we saw in 2012.

Unseeded Player · May 21, 2023

nachiket nolefam said:
Yes but he would be better at 3 of 4 slams. Nole is here to destroy Fed's aura. Whatever fed can do Novak can do.

No, he wouldn't...The only win that Fed has against Nadal outside WB is at AO in 2017.. They never met at US but considering results in 2010's I highly doubt Fed would have advantage there.

nolefam_2024 · May 21, 2023

Unseeded Player said:
No, he wouldn't...The only win that Fed has against Nadal outside WB is at AO in 2017.. They never met at US but considering results in 2010's I highly doubt Fed would have advantage there.

Possible.

ND-13 · May 21, 2023

Razer said:
I accepted RN's injuries and Pete's handicap too, if Pete had Great age shift (this is said by Kuerten and Lendl) then he would enjoy 6-8 years of extra career into his 30s, so that puts his career at RN level, he would be done and dusted at minimum 36-37 instead of 31.

This is what great age shift is all about. If we don't accept great age shift then we are arguing in bad faith.

11 of the 17 oldest ATP top 10s are born in the 1980s, so this proves it, Roger's longevity was not out of the blue, even Pete would have played till late 30s at the highest level if he was of this era.

I am confused. Pete didn't play until 36-37 because of what was prevalent in his era or thalaseemia ? If former, he could have been like a Federer or Agassi. If you think thalaseemia was the reason, then are we ok to say Nadal is the GOAT because he has 22 majors playing lesser number of majors when he was fully healthy ?

metsman · May 21, 2023

I am sensing a trend here

Razer · May 21, 2023

ND-13 said:
I am confused. Pete didn't play until 36-37 because of what was prevalent in his era or thalaseemia ? If former, he could have been like a Federer or Agassi. If you think thalaseemia was the reason, then are we ok to say Nadal is the GOAT because he has 22 majors playing lesser number of majors when he was fully healthy ?

Bit of both, majorly due to lack of great age shift + thalassemia + baseline era beginning which would require him to change his racquet, improvise, he lacked motivation as he was already GOAT by a distance ....so it took many things to bring down Pete.

ND-13 · May 21, 2023

Razer said:
Bit of both, majorly due to lack of great age shift + thalassemia + baseline era beginning which would require him to change his racquet, improvise, he lacked motivation as he was already GOAT by a distance ....so it took many things to bring down Pete.

So, if we give Pete all this benefit.. same should be accorded to Nadal. Novak, even when healthy for longer period, weaker competition, more number of attempts at majors still has not crossed Nadal. So, Nadal should be the Greatest ?

Razer · May 21, 2023

ND-13 said:
So, if we give Pete all this benefit.. same should be accorded to Nadal. Novak, even when healthy for longer period, weaker competition, more number of attempts at majors still has not crossed Nadal. So, Nadal should be the Greatest ?

Nadal gets no credit, he had an advantage of being 8 slams ahead of Novak (9 vs 1) at the end of 2010. Yet he ended up tied today and if not for Scott Morrison then he would be 2 slams behind (a double count since novak wins it). So no, Nadal doesn't get any credit, his discredit is despite dethroning Roger he himself got dethroned by Novak quickly and could not dominate later on, which is why Novak caught up. Lets face it, winning slams quick is always an advantage, it is like real life in your career, if you advance quick then you have an edge, the further you lag the more you have to win later on, so Bull or Fed getting their headstart cut down is on them.

Incognito · May 21, 2023

Unseeded Player said:
Just accept the fact that Roddick and the others around Fed age were weak competiton and they were only able to go sub-top because Nadal, Novak and Murray were still kids in that period.

Don’t include Nadal there. Nadal’s career cannot be compared to djokovic or Murray. Where were those two when teenage Nadal was preventing Federer from winning 10-12 majors in a row? Both Murray and djoke were teen prodigies as well.

ND-13 · May 21, 2023

Razer said:
Nadal gets no credit, he had an advantage of being 8 slams ahead of Novak (9 vs 1) at the end of 2010. Yet he ended up tied today and if not for Scott Morrison then he would be 2 slams behind (a double count since novak wins it). So no, Nadal doesn't get any credit, his discredit is despite dethroning Roger he himself got dethroned by Novak quickly and could not dominate later on, which is why Novak caught up. Lets face it, winning slams quick is always an advantage, it is like real life in your career, if you advance quick then you have an edge, the further you lag the more you have to win later on, so Bull or Fed getting their headstart cut down is on them.

I am sorry I dont follow the logic at all. Pete did "all he could" even though his contemporary Agassi played high level till 36. Pete gets a pass because he had thalassemia. But Nadal who has a by birth foot issues, but still leads the major count is not the greatest and cannot get the same benefits that Pete gets , even though he has had tougher competition and not much weak era to feast on , relative to RN and ND?

Razer · May 21, 2023

ND-13 said:
I am sorry I dont follow the logic at all. Pete did "all he could" even though his contemporary Agassi played high level till 36. Pete gets a pass because he had thalassemia. But Nadal who has a by birth foot issues, but still leads the major count is not the greatest and cannot get the same benefits that Pete gets , even though he has had tougher competition and not much weak era to feast on , relative to RN and ND?

No Pete doesn't get a pass for thalassemia, I just gave one of the reasons for career end at 31. He gets a pass for GAS (great age shift) lacking in his era, as do becker or Agassi or Lendl before them, all of them. We have good reason to believe that these people did not play under the same benefits as modern day players and so we have to do some adjustment to compare them, otherwise it as a fool's errand to call Novak or Federer the GOAT when Pete, Borg could have won 20 slams if they were born in this era or in early 90s, some time like that. So Pete doesn't get a pass for his handicap genetically but he gets a pass for the era based handicap which not just him, even player had. Even Agassi had, Andre in modern era would be playing til 40-41 instead of being finished at 35-36. GAS theory applies uniformly to everyone whose are born in mid 70s or before.

RS · May 21, 2023

Threads about Wimbledon are the most repetitive threads in the history

ND-13 · May 21, 2023

Razer said:
No Pete doesn't get a pass for thalassemia, I just gave one of the reasons for caree end at 31. He gets a pass for GAS (great age shift) lacking in his era, as do becker or Agassi or Lendl before them, all of them. We have good reason to believe that these people did not play under the same benefits as modern day players and so we have to do some adjustment to compare them, otherwise it as a fool's errand to call Novak or Federer the GOAT when Pete, Borg could have won 20 slams if they were born in this era or in early 90s, some time like that. So Pete doesn't get a pass for his handicap genetically but he gets a pass for the era based handicap which not just him, even player had. Even Agassi had, Andre in modern era would be playing til 40-41 instead of being finished at 35-36. GAS theory applies uniformly to everyone whose are born in mid 70s or before.

So, the modern day genetic benefits exactly coincided with RF's career arc ?

When folks say RF should be credited for showing RN/ND and the rest of the tennis world that high level tennis and wins can be accomplished beyond age 30 the retort is 'Rosewall and Agassi did before and RF was not the front runner'.

So, if Agassi did it , why couldn't Pete retool himself ? Why does he get the benefit of he did "all he could" ??

BTW, I do believe what RF did was special to extend career until 40 in this kind of physical game with that kind of success and it remains to be seen if ND can achieve it and cross what RF did.

Unseeded Player · May 21, 2023

Incognito said:
Don’t include Nadal there. Nadal’s career cannot be compared to djokovic or Murray. Where were those two when teenage Nadal was preventing Federer from winning 10-12 majors in a row? Both Murray and djoke were teen prodigies as well.

They were teenagers still going to their prime. Nadal peaked and entered his prime earlier.

Razer · May 21, 2023

ND-13 said:
So, the modern day genetic benefits exactly coincided with RF's career arc ?

When folks say RF should be credited for showing RN/ND and the rest of the tennis world the retort is 'Rosewall and Agassi did before and RF was not the front runner'.

So, if Agassi did it , why couldn't Pete retool himself and be credited for "all he could" ??

BTW, I do believe what RF did was special to extend career until 40 in this kind of physical game with that kind of success and it remains to be seen if ND can achieve it and cross what RF did.

RF did extend his career till 38.5 but then Ferrer, Monfils, Stan, Lopez all extended their career a lot into 30s as well. You would say Roger played at the highest level in 30s while these guys were either journeymen or guys who visited second week without impact, but I would say they've all extended their careers relative to whatever level they played in their 20s. They've declined but they've stayed relevant, look at William Sisters, I would say they are the original pioneers of longevity in this era even if you assume Roger led the path, I could argue Serena and Venus inspired Roger, why not? Roger playing at a high level at 35, 36 and close to 38 is exceptional for his standards but Djokodal are also matching it, so wouldn't Pete also at least do what Nadal did at 35-36? Wouldn't Boris also extend his career till 35 ? We should give these legends the benefit of doubt. Boris has 10.5 years between his 1st slam and last slam, thats the same as Agassi, put him in Roger's era and he too could match Nadal's longevity.

Kralingen · May 21, 2023

duaneeo said:
Big titles won in BO5 finals:

Federer - 31
Nadal - 28
Djokovic - 23

Couldn’t this be slanted towards players who got to play their primes with Masters having Bo5 finals?

RS · May 21, 2023

duaneeo said:
Big titles won in BO5 finals:

Federer - 31
Nadal - 28
Djokovic - 23

This is a new metric

RF-18 · May 21, 2023

Didn't Nadal face allegedly the ''worst'' Federer ever in 2019 yet still lost in 4 sets convincingly? Spare me the ''but this wasn't their prime''. If Federer is ancient when facing Djokovic and the worst ever, why doesn't the same apply to when he played Nadal who is about the same age as Djokovic? This isn't towards the OP, but just asking in general cause people seem to like the idea of the OP. It's like these instances that happened doesn't exist in this place. It seems certain rules only apply to Djokovic and not others. It's Djokovic who takes ''advantage'', but at the same time Nadal got taken to the cleaners by the same Federer that Djokovic beat. How does this work? Is it maybe possible that Djokovic actually is a more capable grass court player?

Why is it Djokovic that gets punished for winning his matches, while others who loses them were unlucky?

RF-18 · May 21, 2023

Can we also prove that Nadal would beat the versions of 12, 14, 15 Federer? I would like to think that this needs to be taken into consideration. Or is it just ''obvious'' according to the eye test just cause Nadal pushed Federer so hard and eventually beat him 08 so that automatically means he would obviously win these matches in the 10s. On one hand, we have evidence that Djokovic beat Federer 3/4 times in real time matches, other piece of evidence is that Nadal beat him in 1/4. What about the very crucial evidence that makes the whole premise of this thread, that we need some sort of foundation or basis on Nadal winning these finals that Djokovic won in real time (except 12) in 12, 14, 15 and even 19?

RS · May 21, 2023

RF-18 said:
Can we also prove that Nadal would beat the versions of 12, 14, 15 Federer? I would like to think that this needs to be taken into consideration. Or is it just ''obvious'' according to the eye test just cause Nadal pushed Federer so hard and eventually beat him 08 so that automatically means he would obviously win these matches in the 10s. On one hand, we have evidence that Djokovic beat Federer 3/4 times in real time matches, other piece of evidence is that Nadal beat him in 1/4. What about the very crucial evidence that makes the whole premise of this thread, that we need some sort of foundation or basis on Nadal winning these finals in 12, 14, 15 and even 19?

Hewitt 02/04/05 outlasts Fed 14/15/17 and loses to 12 but in 5. Nadal beats all the first 6 in 4 so there is that

RF-18 · May 21, 2023

RS said:
Hewitt 02/04/05 outlasts Fed 14/15/17 and loses to 12 but it 5

I mean we are not talking about Hewitt here.

But outlasts is your evidence here? I would think that isn't enough.

This is why we can't talk about time travel tennis and take things for granted. The whole premise of this thread is Djokovic won so many titles cause Djokovic played a past prime Federer and Nadal had to play a prime one. But we totally ignore the very crucial part that how can we prove that Nadal would win these matches that Djokovic won? So with not being able to know this, how can we knock down Djokovic for winning his matches when we don't even know that Nadal would? it doesn't make sense.

MichaelNadal · May 21, 2023

mike danny said:
That is undeniable LOL.

First Wimb match from Nadal: against a 25 year old Fed.

First from Djok: against a 31 year old Fed.

RS · May 21, 2023

RF-18 said:
I mean we are not talking about Hewitt here.

But outlasts is your evidence here? I would think that isn't enough.

This is why we can't talk about time travel tennis and take things for granted. The whole premise of this thread is Djokovic won so many titles cause Djokovic played a past prime Federer and Nadal had to play a prime one. But we totally ignore the very crucial part that how can we prove that Nadal would win these matches that Djokovic won?

Well Hewitt did face Fed roughly just before Nadal did. It all links into these hypotheicals.

abmk · May 21, 2023

RF-18 said:
Didn't Nadal face allegedly the ''worst'' Federer ever in 2019 yet still lost in 4 sets convincingly? Spare me the ''but this wasn't their prime''. If Federer is ancient when facing Djokovic and the worst ever, why doesn't the same apply to when he played Nadal who is about the same age as Djokovic? This isn't towards the OP, but just asking in general cause people seem to like the idea of the OP. It's like these instances that happened doesn't exist in this place. It seems certain rules only apply to Djokovic and not others. It's Djokovic who takes ''advantage'', but at the same time Nadal got taken to the cleaners by the same Federer that Djokovic beat. How does this work? Is it maybe possible that Djokovic actually is a more capable grass court player?

Why is it Djokovic that gets punished for winning his matches, while others who loses them were unlucky?

obviously Djoko is the better GC player for career, but he was barely better than nadal in Wim 19.
if fed had not messed up both TBs and won 1 of the 2, final would've ended in 4 sets just like the semi. that was hangover effect of 14 Wim-AO 16 slam matches and maybe Paris 18. not djoko's level in Wim 19 per se.

how does that change that nadal faced prime fed thrice, djoko 0 times? it doesn't. hence nadal being clearly unluckier in this regard. Lets see if you have basic decency to admit that.

abmk · May 21, 2023

RF-18 said:
Can we also prove that Nadal would beat the versions of 12, 14, 15 Federer? I would like to think that this needs to be taken into consideration. Or is it just ''obvious'' according to the eye test just cause Nadal pushed Federer so hard and eventually beat him 08 so that automatically means he would obviously win these matches in the 10s. On one hand, we have evidence that Djokovic beat Federer 3/4 times in real time matches, other piece of evidence is that Nadal beat him in 1/4. What about the very crucial evidence that makes the whole premise of this thread, that we need some sort of foundation or basis on Nadal winning these finals that Djokovic won in real time (except 12) in 12, 14, 15 and even 19?

which versions of Nadal? if you mean best versions of nadal (07/08/10), well because he beat a clearly better fed in Wim 08 (and had pushed an even better fed harder in Wim 07)

its a joke to think those versions of nadal wouldn't beat Wim 14/15 fed. absolute joke.
Wim 12 fed would also lose, but atleast that one would be close.

RS · May 21, 2023

RF-18 said:
Can we also prove that Nadal would beat the versions of 12, 14, 15 Federer? I would like to think that this needs to be taken into consideration. Or is it just ''obvious'' according to the eye test just cause Nadal pushed Federer so hard and eventually beat him 08 so that automatically means he would obviously win these matches in the 10s. On one hand, we have evidence that Djokovic beat Federer 3/4 times in real time matches, other piece of evidence is that Nadal beat him in 1/4. What about the very crucial evidence that makes the whole premise of this thread, that we need some sort of foundation or basis on Nadal winning these finals that Djokovic won in real time (except 12) in 12, 14, 15 and even 19?

It can't be proven but if it isn't Nadal on clay who was miles ahead of anyone anywhere it's often that way. But most people think Fed was better in the 00s so hardly a bad take.

It isn't like Djokovic fans don't push back and hold the opposite narrative. Yeah anyway Fed did lose IRL that's undeniable and no excuse can be used for 2019 (this match needs to let go lol) when you have MP's and you don't take them it's kinda on you.

mike danny · May 21, 2023

RS said:
It can't be proven but if it isn't Nadal on clay who was miles ahead of anyone anywhere it's often that way. But most people think Fed was better in the 00s so hardly a bad take.

It isn't like Djokovic fans don't push back and hold the opposite narrative. Yeah anyway Fed did lose IRL that's undeniable and no excuse can be used for 2019 (this match needs to let go lol) when you have MP's and you don't take them it's kinda on you.

Fed fcked up way before the MPs.

RF-18 · May 21, 2023

abmk said:
which versions of Nadal? if you mean best version of nadal (07/08/10), well because he beat a clearly better fed in Wim 08 (and had pushed an even better fed harder in Wim 07)

its a joke to think those versions of nadal wouldn't beat Wim 14/15 fed. absolute joke.
Wim 12 fed would also lose, but atleast that one would be close.

Sorry, but I don't stand by that logic, never have and never will.

We can't have threads like these knocking down on Djokovic for winning his matches and assume someone else would have done the same and it's just that this someone was unlucky he played this player in another period. we need to come to terms with that assumptions is not evidence.

mike danny · May 21, 2023

Djokovic fans as insecure as ever, I see. Trying to create fantasies to feed their narrative.

abmk · May 21, 2023

RF-18 said:
Sorry, but I don't stand by that logic, never have and never will.

We can't have threads like these knocking down on Djokovic for winning his matches and assume someone else would have done the same and it's just that this someone was unlucky he played this player in another period. we need to come to terms with that assumptions is not evidence.

evidence is put there:

if you mean best version of nadal (07/08/10), well because he beat a clearly better fed in Wim 08 (and had pushed an even better fed hard in Wim 07)

both things can be true: djokovic is better on grass overall than nadal and that he got significantly luckier with the competition.
But you denying obvious things like the above only makes you a shi*ty poster.

RF-18 · May 21, 2023

abmk said:
evidence is put there:

if you mean best version of nadal (07/08/10), well because he beat a clearly better fed in Wim 08 (and had pushed an even better fed hard in Wim 07)

That's not evidence, you are making assumptions. You can't prove Nadal wins those matches if Djokovic and Nadal swap positions. So the premise of this thread is totally BS. The only aim is to knock down Djokovic.

abmk said:
both things can be true: djokovic is better on grass overall than nadal and that he got significantly luckier with the competition.

Wrong. He wasn't lucky. It's called winning and beating your opponent. I'm sure you think Djokovic was so lucky he didn't face Rosol, Darcis, Muller and Brown, and Nadal was so unlucky.

abmk said:
But you denying obvious things like the above only makes you a shi*ty poster.

I'm not denying anything. The whole premise of this thread is based on a hypothetical where a narrative has been created to punish Djokovic for being able to win and at the same time assume Nadal would do the same. Show me those versions of Nadal wins these matches that Djokovic was capable of winning. Logic player A beat player B so that means player A beats player C who lost to B ain't gonna cut it.

abmk · May 21, 2023

RF-18 said:
That's not evidence, you are making assumptions. You can't prove Nadal wins those matches if Djokovic and Nadal swap positions.

Wrong. He wasn't lucky. It's called winning and beating your opponent. I'm sure you think Djokovic was so lucky he didn't face Rosol, Darcis, Muller and Brown, and Nadal was so unlucky.

I'm not denying anything. The whole premise of this thread is based on a hypothetical where a narrative has been created to punish Djokovic for being able to win and at the same time assume Nadal would do the same. Show me those versions of Nadal wins these matches that Djokovic was capable of winning. Logic player A beat player B so that means player A beats player C who lost to B ain't gonna cut it.

yes, that is evidence.
if A beats B, then same A beats a significantly worse version of B.
you are blindly denying 5+4 = 9.

I'm done with you.
I have given you a very long rope.
Off to the ignore list, you go ND-shameless propaganda.
You are so full of lies and propaganda that you seem to have lost any moral conscience you ever had previously. Good luck facing your own karma.

RS · May 21, 2023

abmk said:
yes, that is evidence.
if A beats B, then same A beats a significantly worse version of B.
you are blindly denying 5+4 = 9.

I'm done with you.
I have given you a very long rope.
Off to the ignore list, you go ND-shameless propaganda.
You are so full of lies and propaganda that you seem to have lost any moral conscience you ever had previously. Good luck facing your own karma.

Bit far man.

abmk · May 21, 2023

RS said:
Bit far man.

Its his own karma. What he sows, he will reap (good or bad).
its the law of nature.
What is going far about that?

RS · May 21, 2023

abmk said:
Its his own karma. What he sows, he will reap (good or bad).
its the law of nature.
What is going far about that?

Bit personal lol

BeatlesFan · May 21, 2023

duaneeo said:
2012 Wimbledon was Federer's 17th slam title. Perhaps you became a tennis fans in the 2010s and are unaware, but in Normal Order tennis, newer generations took over the reins from the older generations.

Don't you wonder what these people are going to do when Djokovic retires? I guess suicide will be an option.... "there's nothing left to live for without Nole!"

DSH · May 21, 2023

mike danny said:
That is undeniable LOL.

First Wimb match from Nadal: against a 25 year old Fed.

First from Djok: against a 31 year old Fed.

'Mono' Federer would finish off peak Djokovic in 4 sets at Wimbledon.
The other two versions of the Swiss player would take down Joker in straight sets with breadstick included.

abmk · May 21, 2023

RS said:
Bit personal lol

Since he isn't interested in discussing anything in good faith, going on with lies/propaganda/denial of basic stuff, what else do you expect me to do?
And I did say I'm going to put him on the ignore list. He got way too much of a rope from my end. He is on ignore now.

Deleted member 779124 · May 21, 2023

IMHO this true but Djokovic is significantly better on grass anyway.

SonnyT · May 21, 2023

Julius Caesar said:
Djokovic won’t surpass FEDAL no matter how many meaninglessness titles he vultures from now on.

Djokovic has defeated T10, T5 more than Federer, and much more than Nadal. He defeated 60 times more T10 than Nadal.

Nadal was owned by 5-year-older Federer at the end, couldn't get a win. That was why Nadal avoided Djokovic at all slam sites save RG, he couldn't defeat Federer, so why would he challenge Djokovic?

And the only post-'11 time that Federer won a slam with a healthy Djokovic was Wim '13. Let me count the finals and SF's that Djokovic beat Federer post-'11: AO(2), Wim(3) and UO(2). So the final score was 7-1.

NeutralFan · May 21, 2023

RS said:
Threads about Wimbledon are the most repetitive threads in the history

Son, We all know who is responsible for such threads

ActualTennisPlayer · May 21, 2023

mike danny said:
Yep, like we saw in 2012.

Fed 2012 Wimbledon vs Djokovic:
Unreturned Serve Percentage (44/101) 44%

Yes, if Federer serves in God mode he can beat djokovic. luckily, this God mode serving Federer can only show up every once in a while. If Fed has a normal serving day than it’s game over for Fed.

(And this only relates to pre-Prime djokovic: after Djokovic developed his serve even an insane serving Fed won’t beat djokovic).

Dominic & Andrey · May 22, 2023

********** exposed one more time by cold blooded irrefutable facts.

fedfan24 · May 22, 2023

ActualTennisPlayer said:
Fed 2012 Wimbledon:
Unreturned Serve Percentage (44/101) 44%

Yes, if Federer serves in God mode he can beat djokovic. luckily, this God mode serving Federer can only show up every once in a while. If Fed has a normal serving day than it’s game over for Fed.

(And this only relates to pre-Prime djokovic: after Djokovic developed his serve even an insane serving Fed won’t beat djokovic).

did you watch that match? Compare it 2014/2015. The dynamic when the ball is in play is completely different. 2012 fed the FH, speed,and game to dictate a lot of the rallies.. 14/15 was more like a servebot who relied on tricks and was mostly being run ragged from the back

RF-18 · May 22, 2023

abmk said:
yes, that is evidence.
if A beats B, then same A beats a significantly worse version of B.
you are blindly denying 5+4 = 9.

I'm done with you.
I have given you a very long rope.
Off to the ignore list, you go ND-shameless propaganda.
You are so full of lies and propaganda that you seem to have lost any moral conscience you ever had previously. Good luck facing your own karma.

Again your eye test is the evidence here and everything according to that becomes obvious. I'm just challenging that view cause Sports isn't as easy as 1+1 equals 2. We need a bit of nuance.

Federer in the 2014 final as an example, was +41 in W/UE ratio, one of the highest he has posted in a Wimbledon final, if not the highest bar 2009 final I think. Higher than his 2007 final. Higher than 2006. Higher than 2005 etcetera. Yet you wanna claim to me he was "significantly worse" player as oppose to the player that faced Nadal without no evidence at all other than your subjective view. I don’t accept that and surely I will challenge the premise of this thread when it is made to view Djokovic as being a lucky player based on literally no evidence at all. This is the problem with trying to denigrate someones achievements and make it look like they should have less titles than what they have. Yet you expect everyone to bend over for your views.

RS · May 22, 2023

abmk said:
Since he isn't interested in discussing anything in good faith, going on with lies/propaganda/denial of basic stuff, what else do you expect me to do?
And I did say I'm going to put him on the ignore list. He got way too much of a rope from my end. He is on ignore now.

Think that part was getting personal life but whatever since you put him ignore

RS · May 22, 2023

RF-18 said:
Again your eye test is the evidence here and everything according to that becomes obvious. I'm just challenging that view cause Sports isn't as easy as 1+1 equals 2. We need a bit of nuance.

Federer in the 2014 final as an example, was +41 in W/UE ratio, one of the highest he has posted in a Wimbledon final, if not the highest bar 2009 final I think. Higher than his 2007 final. Higher than 2006. Higher than 2005 etcetera. Yet you wanna claim to me he was "significantly worse" player as oppose to the player that faced Nadal without no evidence at all other than your subjective view. I don’t accept that and surely I will challenge the premise of this thread when it is made to view Djokovic as being a lucky player based on literally no evidence at all. This is the problem with trying to denigrate someones achievements and make it look like they should have less titles than what they have. Yet you expect everyone to bend over for your views.

Do you like the winner to error metric?

RS · May 22, 2023

fedfan24 said:
did you watch that match? Compare it 2014/2015. The dynamic when the ball is in play is completely different. 2012 fed the FH, speed,and game to dictate a lot of the rallies.. 14/15 was more like a servebot who relied on tricks and was mostly being run ragged from the back

If Murray went 2-0 up in the 2012 F would you have same view?

Nadal faced the very best of Federer at Wimbledon than Djokovic ever did

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Hall of Fame

Legend

Legend

Hall of Fame

Legend

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Deleted member 779124

Guest

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Semi-Pro

Legend

Hall of Fame

Talk Tennis Guru

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Similar threads