Pablo1989
Hall of Fame
You always find excuses no matter what. Clay doesn't count, Roger was ill...ok.
Big3 post-prime/ in their early 30s - Federer had it the toughest?
- Thread starter wang07
- Start date
Yeah, I know, Roger's peak finished in 2005
Miami 2004, a 17 year old Rafa destroyed Roger in HARD in one of his best seasons. Check out 2006 Dubai too, in Roger's best season...
2007. Off clay Roger won the majority of matches against Nadal from 05-07. Before like an idiot you ask but why not count clay? Because it is conceded Nadal is clay GOAT, thence simplifying matters.
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
From 04-09, Nadal destroyed peak 20s Federer 6-2 in slams
Prime Federer couldn't even beat teenage and pre-prime Nadal! So a prime unconquerable Federer is just a fantasy!
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Ummm, or maybe he was ill and you just have an agenda to push.
He barely beat Davydenko the previous match. Acting like he was at his best is ridiculous.
Heck, your original post itself was ridiculous, since Nadal did not destroy Federer.
Pablo1989
Hall of Fame
23-10 before 2015 (when he was younger than current Nadal or Djokovic).
Roger is the grass GOAT, isn't he? don't count those Wimbledon matches then
mike danny
Bionic Poster
23-10 because Nadal vultured wins over a terrible Fed in 2013-early 201423-10 before 2015 (when he was younger than current Nadal or Djokovic).
Roger is the grass GOAT, isn't he? don't count those Wimbledon matches then
And of course Nadal didn't return the favor in 2015 like the dodger that he is 
Why are you changing the subject again? You said when he was young and now you're cherry picking the overall H2H before 2015.
Pablo1989
Hall of Fame
LOL, they only played one match in 2014 (in hardcourt and Rafa won in straight sets). From 2004 to 2013, Roger was young and he lost 2/3 matches with Rafa, including Wimbledon and AO finals, while Roger didn't even win more than one set in RG finals.23-10 because Nadal vultured wins over a terrible Fed in 2013-early 2014
Why are you changing the subject again? You said when he was young and now you're cherry picking the overall H2H before 2015.
ForehandRF
Legend
Who cares, as long as Federer won 14 slams in that period ? It always matters who does better against the field.Oh and I almost forgot, from Wimbledon 2006 till TMC 2007 Federer went 5-2 vs Nadal and won 5 out of 6 slams in that period so you should change your biased narrative next time.From 04-09, Nadal destroyed peak 20s Federer 6-2 in slams
Last edited:
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Nah, man, sorry, 2014 counts as a vultured win. Prime Rafa up against Fed after his worst season ever.
So what if he lost a Wimb and AO final? Rafa was an ATG at the peak of his abilities. And those matches were as close as they could get, Roger wasn't destroyed.
Roger wasn't young in 2011-2013, don't know where you got that idea. He was 30-32 up against peak Rafa. At the same age, Rafa was getting beaten by a 36 year old Fed.
Why are you cherry picking until 2015? Just to hide that Fed is 6-1 against Rafa since 2014?
You're just changing the subject now. You first talked about Rafa when he was young and now you're bringing the entire cherry picked H2H into the equation. Stay on topic.
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
True he did, but that was over baby developing Nadal, and is a cherry picked short time frame.
If we look at the whole of Federer’s 20s, he went 8-17 vs Nadal, including 2-7 at slams
ForehandRF
Legend
I like how everytime you contextualize the H2H in slams between Djokovic and Nadal, using the clay skew argument, but you are quick to just throw the numbers in the Fedal slam h2h in 2004-2009 because it just looks good for your argument.True he did, but that was over baby developing Nadal, and is a cherry picked short time frame.
If we look at the whole of Federer’s 20s, he went 8-17 vs Nadal, including 2-7 at slams
You better get morally prepared for an eventual 11-6 h2h for Nadal after RG.Yep, your beloved slam h2h and also don't forget the excuses
Pablo1989
Hall of Fame
It is you who cherry picks. From 2004 to 2013 Roger was so young (it's a little bit ridiculous to insinuate Roger is old since 2009) and he still lost 2/3 matches against his main rival. Therefore, it's simply pathetic saying that if Roger, Rafa and Nole were all the same age, Roger would destroy the Serbian and the Spaniard.
ForehandRF
Legend
You cannot extrapolate what would have happened had all been the same age based on what has actually happened when Federer is the older one.That's ridiculous.Had all been the same age, they would have evolved into different players.For instance, 1981 born Djokovic and Nadal would have evolved starting in the serve and volley era.A different kettle of fish so think better next time.
Another example would be that in the actual timeline, Federer was the measuring stick because he set the bar while in that hypothetical scenario, the bar would have been set by the 1990s players, therefore another kettle of fish again.
Last edited:
mike danny
Bionic Poster
The bolded is ridiculous true.
But to say that Fed was young in 2013 when he was old and injured is a whole matter of ridiculousness.
Speaking of cherry picking, why did you stop at 2015? Why include Roger's worst season and then not include anything after 2014?
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Pretty much, yeah. No one is destroying anyone if all the Big 3 are of the same age.
And it would actually be better for Federer if they were the same age, IMO.
Hypothetically, if all 3 are of the same age, then Nadal might be the first to blossom and Fed the last. The entire dynamic changes if Fed is the chaser instead of the one being chased.
Huh? Federer defeated teenage Nadal plenty of times. What are you smoking?
23-10 before 2015 (when he was younger than current Nadal or Djokovic).
Roger is the grass GOAT, isn't he? don't count those Wimbledon matches then
That's fine, then Federer still leads on HC during that period.
. QED.
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
If big 3 are the same age then Federer loses the most. He won first 12 gimme slams without facing any peak ATGs. Now imagine peak Djokodal there??
He will still win 10-12 slams I think. Too good and consistent.
He will still win 10-12 slams I think. Too good and consistent.
From 04-09, Nadal destroyed peak 20s Federer 6-2 in slams
08 was not peak Federer. He had a very bad year in 08 losing to a lot of nobodies.
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
So he went from 3 slam season (defeated Djokovic and Nadal 3 times) + YEC + 2 masters, to non peak within months age 26?
So he went from 3 slam season (defeated Djokovic and Nadal 3 times) + YEC + 2 masters, to non peak within months age 26?
So you agree Istomin defeat peak Djokovic in 2017 and you can't have elbow excuses, sorry.
They started competing in '14, when Nadal was 17. The teenager was 6-1 in their first 7 matches! The teenager dominated prime Federer! That's the only way to read it!
Federer was supposed to be a HC specialist; Nadal a clay specialist! And yet Federer lost their first 3 encounters at AO! It wasn't until '17 that he won his first non-grass Slam match with Nadal!
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
Being injured is an excuse?
The definition of peak around here is that someone won multiple Grand Slams, so if you end up losing then fans of that player get to claim that they weren't peaking. How many times I've seen the argument that 'Well he wasn't peak at that point because he lost' kills me. In general I agree there are ups and downs in careers but I hate the excuses amongst the Big 3, everyone knows that all 3 players can beat the others on any given day and they all give their all. It shows a lack of respect to the other player to say 'he only won because Fed/Nadal/Djoko wasn't peak'So he went from 3 slam season (defeated Djokovic and Nadal 3 times) + YEC + 2 masters, to non peak within months age 26?
(To be fair to Federer he did have mono in 08 and it affected his preparation and fitness - but he was still really fcking good as evidenced by Wimbledon '08 level)
You know they're out of reasonable arguments, when they have to use Istomin and Chung as crutches!
ForehandRF
Legend
And then went 2-5 in the following 7 matches.
ForehandRF
Legend
I never understood why TTW has an obsession with revisionism on Fed's career @mike danny.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
That's always bern their MO. Fed was never great, just a weak era beneficiary who is way beneath Djokodal and if they were of the same age, Fed would win just 8 slams.
He is also mentally weak, age is just an excuse for him, was exposed by real competition the moment he couldn't win 3 slams in a year anymore and Djokodal had to battle through titans of the game, never once having it easy.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Fed had recovered in 2008 by the clay season and was playing peak tennis again at Wimb/USO.
Why are you only considering the first 7 matches which were mostly on clay?
Exactly, Fed was injured from mono in 2008.
Sorry, I didn't want to repeat the long painful story! Up to 2015, Federer was 10-23! Satisfied now, or is it too painful for you!
Most of us know Fed started turning around the rivalry in '15; most of us think it was because Nadal lost the speed he had in his youth!
As I said, Federer was supposed to be the HC specialist of the 2, and yet Nadal won their first 3 AO encounters, proving he could dominate Federer outside of clay!
What was the record off clay between 04-07? Can you answer that simple question or will you try to avoid the truth?
Most of us? lol, don't speak for most, you are anything but the most.
Nadal dominated at AO, winning the first 3 contests! I don't think it was ever on clay!
They were the most important HC matches the 2 had, because they were Slams, and the 2 never played at USO. And Nadal won all 3 of them! That should tell you something!
All of the world, not most of it, knows Nadal dominated Federer right from the beginning up to '15! The H2H record shows that!
They were the most important HC matches the 2 had, because they were Slams, and the 2 never played at USO. And Nadal won all 3 of them! That should tell you something!
All of the world, not most of it, knows Nadal dominated Federer right from the beginning up to '15! The H2H record shows that!
Last edited:
JaoSousa
Hall of Fame
2007 Hamburg, 2009 Madrid, 2006 and 2007 WTF, 2005 Miami.
Pretty misleading statement if you ask me.
This is true. I stand corrected
I was making the point that there's no way you could say Djokovic/Nadal would be in single digit slams if they were all the same age. Nadal was easily the best 18-22 yr old, Federer's 23-27 stretch is probably the best ever, and Djokovic's 24-28 stretch is probably 2nd best. So saying something like Federer would easily dominate, especially with the familiarity that each would have with each other's game, is a really disrespectful statement to both players. Just as people say Agassi was unlucky to be born in the fast court era and with a rival in Sampras who seemed to be built for that surface, I think the Big 3 were unlucky to be born in such close proximity to one another as it is.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Of course either was going at least a dozen slams in any fathomable scenario lol. If Fed was as much younger than the other two as he is older, I reckon he'd have fared much more favourably though.
I think there's no doubt an aging Federer would have found a way to win more matches given the realities of having to play one of Djokodal nearly every big tournament for 10 years straight. And both Djokovic/Nadal faltered with injuries near the age of 30 which would have allowed him to clean up (he basically did anyways in 2017 at age 36). I also think 18-21 Federer is a question mark considering he played on different HC/grass surfaces and didn't win a slam until 03, both Djokovic and Nadal won earlier in their careers. We could go on and on.
I try not to dip my feet too far into the hypothetical realm though, just try and keep things reasonable when I see something ridiculous. There's so many assumptions you have to make, starting with surface and time period. Federer's game and strengths could be looked at as a direct result of his age group and being raised on the fast court style - so who's to say he may play differently if he entered the tour in 2009 instead of 1999. And there's no doubt Djokovic with his 80s uncured gluten allergies and lack of an offensive style would look out of place vs. Connors or McEnroe, but then, maybe he would be a completely different player then as well. The Big 3 at least have the control element of playing on largely the same surfaces at similar ages against similar competition.
Fed was not peak in those matches. After switching racquets and getting used to it Fed started destroying Nadal everywhere on HCs. The only victory Nadal really had was AO09 and Fed had a bad back in that match which affected his serving.
From 04-07 in Fed's peak, Fed lead the H2H off clay.
Federer and Nadal only played 4 HC Slam matches in their careers, all at AO: '09, 12 ,14 and 17. Nadal is 3-1.
Obviously they are the most important HC matches in their rivalry. So when it really matters, Nadal usually comes out on top!
A common refrain from Federer's rivalries with Djokovic and Nadal: he always does better in regular tournaments than in Slams!
Obviously they are the most important HC matches in their rivalry. So when it really matters, Nadal usually comes out on top!
A common refrain from Federer's rivalries with Djokovic and Nadal: he always does better in regular tournaments than in Slams!
InsideOut900
Legend
It's kind of sad that the guy who leads the H2H 3-1 only has 1 title, but the vulture Fed has 6 titles.
I wonder what went wrong there.
So you agree Djokovic beat peak Nadal at FO2015.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Most meaningless H2H ever really.
ForehandRF
Legend
They are 1-1 in the finals but, at the end of the day, the H2H doesn't matter as long as you don't have the titles to show for it and the one who does better against the field, brings the trophies home
mike danny
Bionic Poster
And they played only once on the faster surface anywayThey are 1-1 in the finals but, at the end of the day, the H2H doesn't matter as long as you don't have the titles to show for it and the one who does better against the field, brings the trophies home
And 0 times on Rebound Ace.
Pablo1989
Hall of Fame
Because we are talking about a young Fed and the 2 out of 3 loses to Rafa. It's amazing that you Fed Fans consider Roger a grandpa since he is 28 years old justifying his losses "because of the age" when since 2015 Roger is 5-1 against Nadal. He's like Benjamin Button I guess.The bolded is ridiculous true.
But to say that Fed was young in 2013 when he was old and injured is a whole matter of ridiculousness.
Speaking of cherry picking, why did you stop at 2015? Why include Roger's worst season and then not include anything after 2014?
mike danny
Bionic Poster
But Roger according to you is a young man at 32
His prime left him after early 2010. It is what it is.
Similar threads
