A 38-year old player is the world no 3. Weak era?

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
Isn't that exactly what I said above and the reason why Nadal couldn't have developed that sort of muscles only from playing tennis?
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...

Sounds like you are not the person to make that judgement.
I'm not the only one ;)

He isn't "running like a jack rabbit". In fact, he is demonstrably slower than even his prime years, which is why his FH side often remains vulnerable (he has problems moving to that side).
Rubbish. He is moving just as well as he ever did, even after knee surgery...

The argument is also quite hollow without some comparison. For example, I heard exactly the same argument, after he beat Nadal in the AO final, and your brethren couldn't stop implying what you now imply. Unfortunately for them, there was a statistic that showed that Federer has spend on the court a little over 13 hours vs a little over 18 for Nadal. Yeah, that put a stop on that BS.
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.
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
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...
What I know is that it is easier to built muscles that way, which also means that any physical activity will help amplify the effect if "juice" is presented.

I'm not the only one ;)
Yes, you are not the only one who has no idea.

Rubbish. He is moving just as well as he ever did, even after knee surgery...
Jeebus. Time to start packing.

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.
The ridiculousness of these statements even after the huge disparity in context as was already shown, means that you don't have any capacity to lead a meaningful conversation. It won't be the first (and I am sure won't be the last) time you demonstrate that, so as far as I am concerned your chance of useful participation is over.

:cool:
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
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.
He’s way slower than he was at 25 and tired in the 5th set of the final.

If he was moving like he was 25 (2006) then the final would’ve been over in straights. Djokovic didn’t play amazing, just kept the ball in play pretty well and was clutch on big points.
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
What I know is that it is easier to built muscles that way, which also means that any physical activity will help amplify the effect if "juice" is presented.
Hahahaha any physical activity. Confirms you don't have a clue.


Yes, you are not the only one who has no idea.
Not what I said... But go ahead and make things up you're good at that.

Jeebus. Time to start packing.
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...

The ridiculousness of these statements even after the huge disparity in context as was already shown, means that you don't have any capacity to lead a meaningful conversation. It won't be the first (and I am sure won't be the last) time you demonstrate that, so as far as I am concerned your chance of useful participation is over.
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 :D
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
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 :D
Yawn.

:cool:
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
He’s way slower than he was at 25 and tired in the 5th set of the final.

If he was moving like he was 25 (2006) then the final would’ve been over in straights. Djokovic didn’t play amazing, just kept the ball in play pretty well and was clutch on big points.
He's not way slower lol.

Djokovic isn't Jonas Bjorkman mate...

I do agree that Novak wasn't playing well though...

But I also recall Nadal in 2006 final won the 3rd set and should have won the 2nd set too... So don't act like Fed was invincible...
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
He's not way slower lol.

Djokovic isn't Jonas Bjorkman mate...

I do agree that Novak wasn't playing well though...

But I also recall Nadal in 2006 final won the 3rd set and should have won the 2nd set too... So don't act like Fed was invincible...
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.

If he takes that set he probably wins the match. That’s where he lost it imo it shouldn’t have even gone to 5.
 

Lew II

Legend
Federer had the age advantage in 2004-2007 (2 slam meetings, 2-0) 4 years

2008-2010 are neutral years (2-2)

Djokovic had the advantage since 2011 (8-2 lead) 9 years.

9 years advantage vs 4.
So Djokovic is penalized for having an over 2 time longer peak than Fed? o_O
 

The_Order

G.O.A.T.
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.

If he takes that set he probably wins the match. That’s where he lost it imo it shouldn’t have even gone to 5.
He missed many fh from 2003-2007 too. Only his opponents were the likes of Jonas Bjorkman, Hewitt and Roddick who couldn't capitalise on anything. 20 year old Nadal was his biggest challenge including on grass.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
He missed many fh from 2003-2007 too. Only his opponents were the likes of Jonas Bjorkman, Hewitt and Roddick who couldn't capitalise on anything. 20 year old Nadal was his biggest challenge including on grass.
Only match I can recall his FH costing him is 2006 Rome final.

Djokovic probably would be sitting on 1-2 Wimbledon titles at most if he had to face mid 20s Fed or even young Nadal who is better than anyone he’s faced since 2014. He’s undoubtedly had the easiest ride at slams since Fedal both declined post 2013. Fair play to him for capitalising on it
 

Lew II

Legend
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.

:cool:
The peak of a player is usually in the middle of his career.

In the first years he develops his game and his body. In the last years his game and his body get old.

That's why I don't think the younger have an age advantage through a career. If anything, the younger are usually more talented and better trained.
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
Only match I can recall his FH costing him is 2006 Rome final.

Djokovic probably would be sitting on 1-2 Wimbledon titles at most if he had to face mid 20s Fed or even young Nadal who is better than anyone he’s faced since 2014. He’s undoubtedly had the easiest ride at slams since Fedal both declined post 2013. Fair play to him for capitalising on it
And Fed had the easiest ride at slams before Djokodal both arrived. Fair play to him for capitalizing on it.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Some eras are weak at the top but have a high-quality middle field, whereas some eras have a strong 5-6 top players (or just 3) and a useless middle field. So the issue of weak/strong eras is more complex than just "is there one dominator or three of them". In 2002-2004 the mid-field was better than it is now, but the top 5 players were pretty lousy overall, relatively speaking.

RF had no real competition during 2002-2004, which allowed him the luxury of winning his 1st slam title beating exactly ZERO slam champs. Then went on to win 3 more in 2004 with nobody to challange him. Because fortunately for him, Novak and Rafa were born 5-6 years after he was.
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
Some eras are weak at the top but have a high-quality middle field, whereas some eras have a strong 5-6 top players (or just 3) and a useless middle field. So the issue of weak/strong eras is more complex than just "is there one dominator or three of them". In 2002-2004 the mid-field was better than it is now, but the top 5 players were pretty lousy overall, relatively speaking.

RF had no real competition during 2002-2004, which allowed him the luxury of winning his 1st slam title beating exactly ZERO slam champs. Then went on to win 3 more in 2004 with nobody to challange him. Because fortunately for him, Novak and Rafa were born 5-6 years after he was.
He won his first 12 slams playing against nothings or teenage/barely 20 something Nadal/Djokovic.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Only match I can recall his FH costing him is 2006 Rome final.

Djokovic probably would be sitting on 1-2 Wimbledon titles at most if he had to face mid 20s Fed or even young Nadal who is better than anyone he’s faced since 2014. He’s undoubtedly had the easiest ride at slams since Fedal both declined post 2013. Fair play to him for capitalising on it
Yeah, Novak had it so easy, coming into a dual domination, whereas RF came into a vacuum in 2002-2003.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
He won his first 12 slams playing against nothings or teenage/barely 20 something Nadal/Djokovic.
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.

RF's cockiness in 2004 was unbelievable. The guy acted like he was a divinity. Then his demenour started becoming more humble, as Nadal started humiliating him already as a teenager. Some tennis fans are too young to know this.
 

Noleberic123

G.O.A.T.
Only match I can recall his FH costing him is 2006 Rome final.

Djokovic probably would be sitting on 1-2 Wimbledon titles at most if he had to face mid 20s Fed or even young Nadal who is better than anyone he’s faced since 2014. He’s undoubtedly had the easiest ride at slams since Fedal both declined post 2013. Fair play to him for capitalising on it
Federer has had the easiest slam wins out of the big 3. Get over it.
 

SaintPetros

Hall of Fame
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.

RF's cockiness in 2004 was unbelievable. The guy acted like he was a divinity. Then his demenour started becoming more humble, as Nadal started humiliating him already as a teenager. Some tennis fans are too young to know this.
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).
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
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.

To this day journalists (all of them RF fanatics) make up excuses for his defeats. It's become a whole science: how do we make excuses for GOAT not being GOAT? "He is not in his prime... surface changes favour Nadal... clay doesn't count..." Very amusing.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Federer has had the easiest slam wins out of the big 3. Get over it.
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.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
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.

To this day journalists (all of them RF fanatics) make up excuses for his defeats. It's become a whole science: how do we make excuses for GOAT not being GOAT? "He is not in his prime... surface changes favour Nadal... clay doesn't count..." Very amusing.
Fed’s dominance has yet to be replicated.

Djokovic had the chance to do it in 2011-2016 but lost too many finals to likes of Murray and Wawrinka.
 

Noleberic123

G.O.A.T.
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.
Fed won 12 of his 20 winning slams against nobodies off of clay.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Nah.

Since 1903.

What you're saying is, Rafa is GOAT? He won most of his slams between 2005-2013. Or was that era weak too?
Weak clay era. Some great wins over Fed in 2008-2009 and Djokovic in 2013 sure.

What is GOAT? Most accomplished? Probably end up Djokovic as he further pads his stats in the non existent era. Fed had the highest sustained peak and dominance and is best player I’ve seen.

By the numbers probably end up as Djokovic due to longevity.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Actually 5. He won 3 when Novak had a bad elbow.
RF and Rafa seized on the opportunity with an injured Novak. Then he came back and dominates again.

A pretty clear-cut case of the pecking order re-affirming itself. All three are in form and who's once again on top? Novak.

Tennis can be so simple sometimes...
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
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.
2003-2006 is similar to 2014-2016 except Fed had ATG competition and Nole didn’t.

2017- present is career inflation era. All big 3 have benefited but Nole the most.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Fed had mono in 2008 so now 5-5.
Oh yeah, the legendary Mono Theory, right up there with the Faked Moon Landing conspiracy.

A disease that allows a player to win slams and reach semis and finales? Can I have that affliction too? At what pharmacy can I buy this mono? I wanna be no 2 or 3 too.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
RF and Rafa seized on the opportunity with an injured Novak. Then he came back and dominates again.

A pretty clear-cut case of the pecking order re-affirming itself. All three are in form and who's once again on top? Novak.

Tennis can be so simple sometimes...
Yeah Nole is a better player than 32-38 year old Federer agreed.

Unless you’re one of these morons who thinks he’s playing “better than ever” when he doesn’t even have his signature shot anymore.
 

Noleberic123

G.O.A.T.
Winning against Murray/Tsonga/Wawrinka/DelPotro/Anderson/Old-erer/Oldal are equally considered winning against nobodies. Whats that? 13/16. :-D
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.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Yeah Nole is a better player than 32-38 year old Federer agreed.

Unless you’re one of these morons who thinks he’s playing “better than ever” when he doesn’t even have his signature shot anymore.
Morons?

You must be an admin here, being allowed to vent off your anger with child-like "insults"... But I guess when arguments all fail then...
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
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.
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)
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
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)
You are right. Novak failed to win Wimbledon in 2003-2006. It's his fault he was only 16-19 at the time...
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Do you not get bored of trolling?

Fed’s nowhere near the player he used to be and he took Novak to double MP.
I guess we all have different definitions of trolling... I consider all your recent posts as trolling. They make zero sense.

RF is playing amazing tennis. You are glamourizing his Weak Era matches.
 
Top