YellowBall77
Banned
The dumbest thing said by ******* in this thread. And that's saying more than a whole lot.
Federer USO 04 final V Nadal USO 10 final - Who wins?
The dumbest thing said by ******* in this thread. And that's saying more than a whole lot.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
no, he is saying he is great at all facets of the game and can choose styles as the situation merits.
you know, he can serve volley, rush the net, bang from the baseline, use finesse and touch. use variety of spin, hit hard and flat. play defense, transition.
you know, a complete game.
were he in a faster era, no doubt he would adapt his style and weapons to be the most effective for the conditions of that era. like he had to adapt his game for slower conditions in this era.
So more s/v in the tour would decrease his slam tally count by 9 slams? The only slam which would have a huge effect would be Wimbledon and Federer would still win a lot of them. At most Federer might lose 2 wimbledons, 1 USO,1 AO and 1 FO if there was a more diverse tour.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
prime fed with his movement wouldnt be able to beat djoker in australia, even on slow court?
you do realize djoker doesnt hit loopy fhs to fed;s bh right?
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
It's not about the surface as much as it is about the playing style imposed by the surface (S/V in this case) and about the type of specialists which would have arisen under so conditions. In other words, is not as much about Fed as it is about Fed vs. the conditions and players in a S/V era.
YellowBall77
Banned
Peak Djoker is by FAR better than Peak Fed at AO ...whatever you want to say about Fed in 08, he was still playing damn well at AO 08 and then bowed out in straights to Djoker. 2008 Djoker AO was way below his '11 and '12 level.
Djoker may go down as the best AO player ever.
AO is Djokers best surface by a large margin.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
if as you say fed has a complete game and master proficiency ...then doesnt it stand to reason he would adapt and mold his game to be the most effective in fast conditions.? so he'd improve his return, most certainly his approach shots and volleying, lob, baseline game may not be *as* great, but still good.
eh, *head scratch*
zagor
Bionic Poster
He's one of the all-time tennis greats, accomplishments are hard to compare across different era anyway.
No, it's clearly you don't know what a term CC specialist means, a completely different type of baseline is required to succeed on different surfaces, in this era the biggest depth is on HC, definitely not on clay. The vast majority of today's baseliners (especially the top 10 players) play their best tennis on HC, they grew up on it and that's where they're most comfortable. If CC specialist simply meant baseliner than Agassi for example would have been the greatest CC player of all time yet his best surface is HC.
A CC specialist is someone like Bruguera, Muster, Coria, Medvedev, Guga etc. players who completely geared their game towards clay, who eat and breath CC tennis.
Who knows? However playing well on an array of different surfaces increases his chances regardless.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
yes yes it is. but fed is a bad match up for djoker. he cant exploit fed's bh like nadal, and fed's variety and mix of slices and paces can wreak havoc with djoker's game.
and the question wasnt 08 or 11 roger, you said 2006 roger
i will take my chances.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Have to disagree about AO, I'd favour 2011 Novak there, on plexicushion atleast, they didn't play enough matches on rebound ace.
Regardless, Novak's 2011 is one year, Fed held up his highest level for 4 years.
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
Yes, that's basically it. But the main point also has to do with the competition he would have to face. Radical specialization creates different types of players.
That's why I think Borg >>>>>>> Federer. Despite Borg's lack of HC slams.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
fair enough, but I will take my chances with 2006 fed.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
When you use your brain to mop the floor all day long it isn't of much use, is it?
This quote is making it to my list of hilarious posts from this forum. Along with the gems of the *************.
I noticed, that recently the new (old under new user names) ******* are changing the tactic. Before, they were straightforward mocking Federer for not being able to get another Major win, let alone being number one. They were quite openly declaring their idedntity as *******s and were proud of it.
Nowadays it is all about posters with no obvious relation (read no Nadalwon230000SlAmS) to Nadal, who are throwing wild theories all over the place. Accidentally those theories are dissing Fed in all sorts of snarky ways, just like that, as a side note. Again, accidentally, those players are relying on "hunches", "inner thoughts" and other mental phenomenons, that are indeed a sign of mental trauma.
Last edited:
YellowBall77
Banned
I don't get this Djoker-Nadal-Fed Rock Paper Scissors that people try to put out there. Djoker has figured out how to match up well vs Nadal for the most part off clay (and even on clay in 2011), but just because he doesn't dominate Fed the way Nadal does doesn't mean that therefore Fed dominates him. He's 6-2 in their last 8 matches vs Fed. He's mentally stronger than Fed (look at past 2 years USO's. I've always seen them as an even matchup in terms of intangibles/style (i.e. it's down to who plays best) with the better player usually coming out on top.
The FYB guys who are *******s were tying to hawk this in 2011. Subtly praising Fed because of one victory at RG like all of a sudden he dominates Novak the way Novak owned Nadal all of 2011.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
thats because you cant or wont understand the concept of matchups.
u know,the reason why nadal is owned by davydenko on HC but not on clay
the reason ferrer owns murray on clay, but not on HC or grass.
match ups exist.
nadal is a bad match up for fed- we all know why
fed is a bad match up for djoker- variety, mix of spins and slices disrupt timing,, first strike attacking hard to defend all day.
djoker is a bad match up for rafa.-rafa predictable game makes it easy for djoker to counter punch and attack, not to mention his bh is his strengh and some of those loopy fhs sit up to get crushed.
you dont have to understand it for it to be true.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
I don't get it either. Everybody plays against the field (of course, that makes your agenda also irrelevant, since you cannot rely on the h2h BS).
However, I see you hold in high esteem the latest matches played between two players. I have to ask you. Did you watch Wimbledon 2012?
YellowBall77
Banned
Prove it with facts.
So Borg had to deal with a more diverse competition whereas Federer had to deal with a more homogenized competition. Winning against either competition is still equally as impressive since while the diverse competition would have strong contenders across the different surfaces, the homogenized compeition would have more contenders on one specific surface. So Borg dominating clay and grass with diverse contenders = Federer dominating Hard with more contenders.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
wimbly 2012 USO 2011, 2010. Yeah fed lost both those matches, but neither was he blown out. FO 2011.
their head 2 head entering the 2011 season.
and before you say babydjoker
let me remind you , you are the same person quick to point out Rafa beating fed in miami 2004.
the fact that old fed still gives prime djoker fits
watch that wimbly 2012 semi again and see the damage fed's slice did to djoker.
Last edited:
YellowBall77
Banned
so 2011 doesn't count anymore? I don't see Fed as a particularly poor matchup for Djoker...the results between the 2 have been roughly in line with their general level of play against the field throughout the years.
zagor
Bionic Poster
2006 Fed didn't play that great at AO, he was still wearing ankle bracelet from his injury in 2005 and was overall very up and down.
Regarding AO, 2004, 2005 and 2007 Fed are much better choices.
Regardless, Fed won all but one of his AO titles on rebound ace, I never really thought he was all that great on plexicushion while it's Novak's best surface.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
who said it didnt count? didnt u see where I wrote 2011 USO?
what was their head to head entering to the 2011 season?
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Federer was destined for another era, but due to problems with the space-time continuum (caused by Laver, in fear of being overshadowed) he ended up in this era, where players do not know how to play on different surfaces, because they do not come from the same place as Federer.
In that way everybody is happy. *******s have their satisfactory explanation (lately they use a lot the phrases "I don't know" and "I can't explain"), finally we know hoe Federer gains his unfair advantage against the current competition and Laver becomes the title God Allmighty.
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
Probably somebody else should have told you, but: Shouldn't you be using a mop for that? Your brain doesn't strike me as being particularly absorbent. I suspect it is better suited for cracking walnuts. But then again, this is just another of my crazy hypothesis.
YellowBall77
Banned
this is funny. your last sentence contradicts the first.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
let me put it this way.
in a slam final, who do u think djoker would prefer to play, rafa or fed?
YellowBall77
Banned
Rafa. Because he matches up better vs Rafa doesn't mean he matches up poorly against Fed.
firepanda
Professional
Nadal beats Federer just as a matter of principle, especially at the slams. However, a lot of that is mental which doesn't apply to '04 Federer. As much as it pains me to say so, Federer would probably beat Nadal.
Unless Rafa sits down with Roger and explains that it is, in fact, traditional to lose...
Unless Rafa sits down with Roger and explains that it is, in fact, traditional to lose...
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
2006 Fed would win for sure. Why are we talking about Novak now though?
And he's never defended a title off clay, ever!
Sampras was the 4 time defending champion.
And I love how you disregard Federer winning the last 7 matches against Henman very decisively, but prop up the 6-1 lead Henman had against Baby Fed, as if THAT means anything.
Tell me, YOU aren't serious?
Hahahaha, I like how US Open is "even".
Sorry, but 2006 Fed is favored against Djokovic everywhere but AO. And even that's debatable if it's played on rebound ace and not plexicushion.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Ah, trying to be smart.
Hint: "Trying" is the key word in that sentence.
The only relevant thing about you is your user name.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
Start da Game
Hall of Fame
why 700 odd posts for a foregone conclusion? there is really nothing to discuss in this.......nadal owns federer in grandslams.......it is a fact.......
they faced twice in hardcourt slams and nadal took both the matches.......it would be easier at the us open where the surface has more bounce than AO and nadal would win it more easily.......
they faced twice in hardcourt slams and nadal took both the matches.......it would be easier at the us open where the surface has more bounce than AO and nadal would win it more easily.......
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
And Federer was the 5 time defending champion in 2008 when Nadal defeated him. What's your first point?
Apparently being a baby didn't prevent Nadal from winning against Fed in their first encounter (in hard court, to boot). What's your second point?
I'm not sure you are even trying to make a point.
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
You are like those players that can't applaud their opponent when they make an impressive winner.
Some players mature sooner than others and decline earlier (as is the case with Federer and Nadal). We don't live in a vacuum where everyone peaks at the same age.
Nadal was WELL in his prime in 2008. That was his third straight Wimbledon finals. However Fed was only 19 in 2001 with no experience on grass, facing Sampras who was a 4 times defending champions. Big difference.
lmfao
First, both matches past Federer's prime.
Secondly, both matches on plexicushion which bounces higher than the US Open and is miles slower.
04 finals Federer wouldn't lose a set to any Nadal on a fast hard court. This is reality.
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
Are you saying that Nadal was peaking at 17? Or what are you exactly saying?
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that match is irrelevant to this discussion.
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
You conveniently leave out other factors: Nadal is not a grass specialist; Fed defeated Sampras in the 4R (not the Final); Sampras was way out of his prime in 2001; and Sampras and Fed only played that one time, so statistically it matters little what the outcome was (it was very close, by the way).
In order to have a balanced view you need to consider all factors and ask yourself how they influence the outcome.
Rosol just defeated a 2-time champion playing an incredible 5th Set in Wimbledon. So what? If Fed hadn't achieved what he later achieved his defeat of Sampras would be just a Rosol-type achievement.
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
Irrelevant like the price of crude oil, or irrelevant like the H2H?
except, Rosol is in his prime, and Fed wasn't when he beat Sampras.
i think he means to say that Federer would pwn Sampras the same way Nadal pwns Federer.
