YellowBall77
Banned
prime fed?
Wimby FEd
USO Fed
RG even
AO 2/3 fed
The dumbest thing said by ******* in this thread. And that's saying more than a whole lot.
prime fed?
Wimby FEd
USO Fed
RG even
AO 2/3 fed
Key point. What you're saying is Fed is sort of a jack of all trades all-court style but not particularly suited to specialized surface play? If so, I think you're right. Of course he'd still be great no matter what, but perhaps not so great with super fast and super slow courts as the norm?
[/B]
Hypothesis can't be proven. You have yours, and I have mine. I already provided the reasons to back them up.
My point precisely is that Nadal would have only won at FO in the old era. Fed would still have been the most accomplished fast court player. But he would be far from his current tally. Because the S/V ecosystem would have been far less forgiving for Fed. We know Fed is a great all court player, very complete. The problem is pure S/V doesn't really reward that type of game as much as baseline play.
The dumbest thing said by ******* in this thread. And that's saying more than a whole lot.
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.well results in faster tournaments beg to differ.
let me ask u this, what weakness would be exploited on a faster surface that isnt being exploited now ??
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?
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.
Far from my intent. RoFed has won what he has won fair and square. Props to him, as he is the most accomplished player ever (for the moment anyway).
Technically, there were S/V'ers (who specialized in fast surfaces) and baseliners (who specialized in clay tournaments). Since the game has moved to all baseline play, it means Nadal has had more competition now than he would have ever had in the old era. It's simple logic. If more people perform that type of game, you will have more competition. It seems there are no clay specialist besides Nadal because he's just so dominating that all others pale in comparison. He's basically owned clay for such a long time he probably has destroyed a generation of aspiring clay court specialists (with Fed first in line probably). But notice that saying "clay court specialist" in this era is just a fallacy, and not meant literally.
Yes, Fed is the most complete player of our era. But that wouldn't necessarily translate well to an era where radical specialization was key.
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.
prime fed?
Wimby FEd
USO Fed
RG even
AO 2/3 fed
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.Key point. What you're saying is Fed is sort of a jack of all trades all-court style but not particularly suited to specialized surface play? If so, I think you're right. Of course he'd still be great no matter what, but perhaps not so great with super fast and super slow courts as the norm?
[/B]
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.
Yes, and since the Earth looks flat it must be flat. Sorry, I don't have a satisfactory obvious explanation for you. I have a curse called brain that causes me to think and elaborate thoughts, construct explanations, and link phenomena to build complex models and hypothesis. I hope this is not to offensive for you. If it is, I sincerely apologize for rocking your world.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Prove it with facts.
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.
fair enough, but I will take my chances with 2006 fed.
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.
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.
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.
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.When you use your brain to mop the floor all day long it isn't of much use, is it?
who said it didnt count? didnt u see where I wrote 2011 USO?
what was their head to head entering to the 2011 season?
this is funny. your last sentence contradicts the first.
let me put it this way.
in a slam final, who do u think djoker would prefer to play, rafa or fed?
fair enough.
what of 2006 fed vs 2011 djoker at FO?
ummm, what?
oh u mean slam. yes, because at 30, fed should be racking them up left and right.
meanwhile prime rafa hasnt won a title off of clay in nearly 2 years.
Sampras was the 4 time defending champion.The grass was faster back then. Federer is not Sampras either. Sampras was a very effective S/V'er, one of the best ever obviously. That Fed managed to win their only meeting in 5 sets with Sampras on the way to the old folks home means little.
S/V has been effectively dead for a long time, but Tim Henman dominated Federer using S/V quite easily. If I remember correctly he had at some point a 6-1 H2H over Fed before becoming too old (their last encounters are with Henman 31 and 32 years old). Henman also is not one of the most accomplished S/V'ers within the context of tennis history.
I have no idea. I'm offering a theory with some background and some logical support. My point is that the type of play, the technology, the surfaces, etc, have a huge effect on what players come to prominence. The map would be completely different, I assure you.
That's fine. I don't care that you don't care that I'm not convinced. I'm still not convinced.
AO- Djoker
RG- even
Wimby -Fed
USO- even
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.
2006 Fed would win for sure. Why are we talking about Novak now though?
And Federer was the 5 time defending champion in 2008 when Nadal defeated him. What's your first point?Sampras was the 4 time defending champion.
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?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.
I'm not sure you are even trying to make a point.Tell me, YOU aren't serious?
You are like those players that can't applaud their opponent when they make an impressive winner.Ah, trying to be smart.
Hint: "Trying" is the key word in that sentence.
The only relevant thing about you is your user name.
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?
And Federer was the 5 time defending champion in 2008 when Nadal defeated him. What's your first point?
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.......
Are you saying that Nadal was peaking at 17? Or what are you exactly saying?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.
Are you saying that Nadal was peaking at 17? Or what are you exactly saying?
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).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.
Irrelevant like the price of crude oil, or irrelevant like the H2H?I'm not saying that. I'm saying that match is irrelevant to this discussion.
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.
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.