Djokovic versus Federer on clay?

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
If it's delusional to think that 2007-2010 Nadal is better than present time Nadal, then I'm guilty of it.

Nadal was one of my favorites during that time, and I can tell you honestly he was playing better then than every recent year besides 2012. And he shut Djokovic out in 4 sets then, the same as against Federer..

In your opinion of course.
 

TommyA8X

Hall of Fame
In fairness Djokovic was pre-peak at the time.

He had already won a slam (and WTF), was ranked No.3 for 2 years and had some serious success on clay that year (and the year before).
He may not have been the peakest of all peaks Djokovic of 2011, but he was definitely in his prime years.
Also, Federer wasn't exactly in top form in the first few months of 2009 (outside of AO and a couple of matches in Madrid and FO)
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
You are seriously going over the top if you think post 2010 Nadal is better than pre 2010 (barring HCs). It's not about opinions, it is a fact for anybody who's got the least of clues about this sport and Nadal's career.

2011 Nadal was atleast as good if not better. I don't see anything wrong with 2013 Nadal either.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Only on hardcourts.

The difference between 2011 and 2010 - was that peak djokovic emerged. Nadal had 7 finals in 2011, 4 masters and three slams. Djokovic picked up all of them.

I'm not trying to convince you guys, but come on. He was killing it just like in 2010 if not better just as I said above - one player was the difference.
 

vanioMan

Legend
The difference between 2011 and 2010 - was that peak djokovic emerged. Nadal had 7 finals in 2011, 4 masters and three slams. Djokovic picked up all of them.

I'm not trying to concconvince you guys, but come on. He was killing it just like in 2010 if not better jut as I saod, one player was the difference.

Have you watched Nadal during 2005-2010 on clay and grass? And I don't mean a few matches here and there, but follow most of the matches/tournaments he played?
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Have you watched Nadal during 2005-2010 on clay and grass? And I don't mean a few matches here and there, but follow most of the matches/tournaments he played?

Yea I have seen him plenty of times and I know how good he was on grass. but in 2011 he was till 25 years old, he was in a wimbledon final. You telling me Nadal got so mich worse in a couple of months after 2010, but still made it to 7 finals?

If Nadal won majority of those 7 finals you would be here talking about what a season he had. Don't say you wouldn't. What you can't admit is that peak djokovic beat a nadal in his prime. and thats why you and most of Nadals fans is talking down nadal in 2011. You guys are never fair and can't give cred where it's due. Djokovic beat him 7 times in a row in 4 masters and 3 slam finals. thats as good as any season nadal has had - BUT - the difference is he lost all finals! And it was not because he was a worse player.
 

vanioMan

Legend
Yea I have seen him plenty of times and I know how good he was on grass. but in 2011 he was till 25 years old, he was in a wimbledon final. You telling me Nadal got so mich worse in a couple of months after 2010, but still made it to 7 finals?

If Nadal won majority of those 7 finals you would be here talking about what a season he had. Don't say you wouldn't. What you can't admit is that peak djokovic beat a nadal in his prime. and thats why you and most of Nadals fans is talking down nadal in 2011. You guys are never fair and can't give cred where it's due. Djokovic beat him 7 times in a row in 4 masters and 3 slam finals. thats as good as any season nadal has had - BUT - the difference is he lost all finals! And it was not because he was a worse player.

If my grandma had balls, she'd be my grandpa.

Second of all, once again you fail to read my posts or you create your own interpretation. I never said a word about Djokovic. Yes, he beat prime, but not peak Nadal. So don't tell me I can't admit this and can't give Djokovic credit. You do know not every single post has got to resolve around somebody giving Djokovic credit and admitting how good he is, right? I was talking about Nadal here, so don't start drifting away from the discussion once again, like you did yesterday.

It is a well known fact among the tennis world that Nadal produced his best level on clay during the 2005-2010 period and also 2012. It is also a well known fact Nadal's best level on grass was during 2007-2008, with 2010/2011 being second best. Yeah, if he won 3 slams in 2011, but he didn't.

Sometimes posts by you or Djokovic2011 make me wonder if you ever read other people's responses and try to contribute meaningfully to a certain discussion or you just post your own stuff without even looking.
 
Last edited:

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
If my grandma had balls, she'd be my grandpa.

Second of all, once again you fail to read my posts or you create your own interpretation. I never said a word about Djokovic. Yes, he beat prime, but not peak Nadal. So don't tell me I can't admit this and can't give Djokovic credit. You do know not every single post has got to resolve around somebody giving Djokovic credit and admitting how good he is, right? I was talking about Nadal here, so don't start drifting away from the discussion once again, like you did yesterday.

It is a well known fact among the tennis world that Nadal produced his best level on clay during the 2005-2010 period and also 2012. It is also a well known fact Nadal's best level on grass was during 2007-2008, with 2010/2011 being second best. Yeah, if he won 3 slams in 2011, but he didn't.

Sometimes posts by you or Djokovic2011 make me wonder if you ever read other people's responses and try to contribute meaningfully to a certain discussion or you just post your own stuff without even looking.

This is the comment I responded to you:

[/QUOTE]You are seriously going over the top if you think post 2010 Nadal is better than pre 2010 (barring HCs). It's not about opinions, it is a fact for anybody who's got the least of clues about this sport and Nadal's career
You are getting defensive about Nadal not being as good in 2011. My point is if Nadal racked up 3 slams in 2010 (the only season he has taken the most slams) ended the year as number one, and then makes 7 finals again the following year, he is still as good. You don't win 3 slams if you are not peak.

And that IF thing,I'm showing what an hypocrit you are. Just because Nadal lost all those finals you are talking his form down. If he won them, we would be having a different conversation here and Nadal would instead be PEAK1#"!)#)"!.
 

vanioMan

Legend
This is the comment I responded to you:
You are seriously going over the top if you think post 2010 Nadal is better than pre 2010 (barring HCs). It's not about opinions, it is a fact for anybody who's got the least of clues about this sport and Nadal's career
You are getting defensive about Nadal not being as good in 2011. My point is if Nadal racked up 3 slams in 2010 (the only season he has taken the most slams) ended the year as number one, and then makes 7 finals again the following year, he is still as good. You don't win 3 slams if you are not peak.

And that IF thing,I'm showing what an hypocrit you are. Just because Nadal lost all those finals you are talking his form down. If he won them, we would be having a different conversation here and Nadal would instead be PEAK1#"!)#)"!.

He won 3 Slams in 2010. Did he win 3 Slams in 2011? No, he reached 6 finals (GS+Masters) in 2011 but lost them. Lost, not won. And it's not just because he lost them, it was also about his level of play during those finals. And of course Djokovic.

And a big LOL at me being a hypocrite. You're saying that Nadal was as good in 2011 as he was in 2010 despite losing all those finals and winning less titles. I love it when Novak fans claim Nadal 2010 = Nadal 2011. I also love it when I ask them to provide facts to prove it - like titles won, GS/Masters won and they start twisting things around. Can you provide some real facts? Or is 1 GS > 3 GS, 1 MS > 3 MS and 3 titles > 7 titles?

With that "if" you are showing what's the level of your IQ, because you certainly don't know what would I have said if Nadal won 3 Slams in 2011. If you don't know, don't throw false accusations at me , okay?
 
Last edited:

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
You are seriously going over the top if you think post 2010 Nadal is better than pre 2010 (barring HCs). It's not about opinions, it is a fact for anybody who's got the least of clues about this sport and Nadal's career

He won 3 Slams in 2010. Did he win 3 Slams in 2011? No, he reached 6 finals (GS+Masters) in 2011 but lost them. Lost, not won. And it's not just because he lost them, it was also about his level of play during those finals. And of course Djokovic.

And a big LOL at me being a hypocrite. You're saying that Nadal was as good in 2011 as he was in 2010 despite losing all those finals and winning less titles. I love it when Novak fans claim Nadal 2010 = Nadal 2011. I also love it when I ask them to provide facts to prove it - like titles won, GS/Masters won and they start twisting things around. Can you provide some real facts? Or is 1 GS > 3 GS, 1 MS > 3 MS and 3 titles > 7 titles?

With that "if" you are showing what's the level of your IQ, because you certainly don't know what would I have said if Nadal won 3 Slams in 2011. If you don't know, don't throw false accusations at me , okay?

So if he didn't win them? Reaching all those finals is an achievement too and shows how good a player is during that period. I don't think it's a coincidence he reached all those finals again after that 2010 season. In 2011 the competition was a bit better also. And thats were = Djokovic comes in wich I have been telling you. Difference was him because Djokovic peaked in 2011. And Djokovic at his best is a better player than Nadal at his best, just ask Uncle Toni. Nadal is only 11 months older than Djokovic.

You wouldn't claim Nadal was as good in 2010 if he won majority of those finals in 2011? Hahaha!

Sorry Vanio, I don't buy your talk.
 
Last edited:

Jaitock1991

Hall of Fame
Kind of funny. If not for Nadal, Fed would have almost certainly held at least 5 RG titles, and possibly have been clay court GOAT. It's really mind boggling how Fed's redicilous career numbers could so easilly have been far greater. Just sick!
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
There were people here stating that even Nadal with six RGs was not Borg's equal.

I'd imagine Djokovic with 0 RGs shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence as Borg in terms of clay prowess.

Even in 2011, in Djokovic's best year on clay to date, he was beaten by Federer who, according to you, is inferior to Djokovic despite actually winning a title on Chatrier.

So my answer is this: close thread, ban OP.
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
Kind of funny. If not for Nadal, Fed would have almost certainly held at least 5 RG titles, and possibly have been clay court GOAT. It's really mind boggling how Fed's redicilous career numbers could so easilly have been far greater. Just sick!

So true.

The amount of very close matches he has lost is astounding.
He could easily have 5-6 more slams.
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
You mentioned all these giys, but no mentioned for Robin friggin SODERLING.ONLY player in history who defeat Nadal in best of 5 match. For now. He makes top 5 easily.


Thing is, having a peak high enough to defeat Nadal at RG in itself doesn't make you a ATG on clay.

True, he did in a way repeat the feat by beating Federer the next year, but then again having notable scalps at one tournament you didn't even win once just doesn't cut it. Otherwise we should say that Stakhovsky is a grass ATG for beating Federer at Wimbledon.

There are plenty of more accomplished clay players who deserve to be in the top five more than Söderling. Beating Nadal at RG is a notable achievement, but that just serves to illustrate Nadal's clay prowess more than anything else.
 

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
Let's think about this… Federer has won the French Open and has 4 finals which he lost only to Nadal.

Djokovic has 2 finals (lost both to Nadal), 0 titles and only in 2013 was he one of the main favorites and he lost to Nadal.

Djokovic does not have a matchup issue against Nadal, Federer on the other hand does (so their respective matchup against Nadal matters not). Federer leads the H2H on clay by 4-3, despite over half of their meetings being after 2010.

Things seem to be pointing towards the swiss, no?
 
Last edited:

mike danny

Bionic Poster
In 2009 Nadal and Novak destroyed each other at that Madrid SF, that's the real reason for federers RG along with Madrid masters ,but God forbid that his worshipers would admit that.
What???? The FO took place one week after that match and they were still tired? Then how did they get past the first 2 and 3 round then? Shouldn't they have lost in the 1st round if they had been so tired?
 

Bender

G.O.A.T.
What???? The FO took place one week after that match and they were still tired? Then how did they get past the first 2 and 3 round then? Shouldn't they have lost in the 1st round if they had been so tired?


Yeah, doesn't make sense.

Madrid, you could make a case for.

RG, no excuse.
 

mightyrick

Legend
There were people here stating that even Nadal with six RGs was not Borg's equal.

I'd imagine Djokovic with 0 RGs shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence as Borg in terms of clay prowess.

Even in 2011, in Djokovic's best year on clay to date, he was beaten by Federer who, according to you, is inferior to Djokovic despite actually winning a title on Chatrier.

Djokovic is a very good clay court player, but the reality is that he is very beatable in best-of-five on clay. Someone said it far earlier in this thread, but an in-form Wawrinka, Nishikori, and Federer can definitely take out Djokovic. And it is definitely a matchup issue.

Djokovic's playing style gives opponents on clay a lot of time to get to the ball and prepare for a shot.

If you give aggressive players like Wawrinka/Nishikori/Federer time to set up their shots... you are in for a long day. Federer took out a blazing-hot Djokovic in sublime form at the FO in 2011 in four sets. He got trounced by Kohlschreiber in 2009 in straights. He got beat by Melzer in 2010.. and Djokovic won the first two sets. :shock:

All of those are aggressive players.

Djokovic is great in best-of-three on clay, but when it comes to best-of-five on clay... he is very beatable by any aggressive player out there.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Djokovic is a very good clay court player, but the reality is that he is very beatable in best-of-five on clay. Someone said it far earlier in this thread, but an in-form Wawrinka, Nishikori, and Federer can definitely take out Djokovic. And it is definitely a matchup issue.

Djokovic's playing style gives opponents on clay a lot of time to get to the ball and prepare for a shot.

If you give aggressive players like Wawrinka/Nishikori/Federer time to set up their shots... you are in for a long day. Federer took out a blazing-hot Djokovic in sublime form at the FO in 2011 in four sets. He got trounced by Kohlschreiber in 2009 in straights. He got beat by Melzer in 2010.. and Djokovic won the first two sets. :shock:

All of those are aggressive players.

Djokovic is great in best-of-three on clay, but when it comes to best-of-five on clay... he is very beatable by any aggressive player out there.
Yeah agree. Also remember Tsonga in 2012.

Though I think Seppi did something different. Generally he isn't a a super agressive playerlike Stan, Kei and Roger, yet the italian still won the first 2 sets vs Nole at RG 2012
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Not sure, I think he definitely did after 2011.
In 2011 he wanted to just prove the doubters wrong. And he chise the FO to prove to everybody that he was still in contention.

In 2012 he just wanted to become no.1 and win Wimb. Winning the FO was not a priority for him. He wasn't even supposed to get that far. Del Potro should have beaten him. He was just playing for the points.

After 2012 he realised that he would stand a better chance at another slam because he knew that there was no way he could beat Djokovic or Nadal on a clay court in best of 5
 

Chopin

Legend
v08hqno.jpg

Gold star poster of the week!
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
In 2011 he wanted to just prove the doubters wrong. And he chise the FO to prove to everybody that he was still in contention.

In 2012 he just wanted to become no.1 and win Wimb. Winning the FO was not a priority for him. He wasn't even supposed to get that far. Del Potro should have beaten him. He was just playing for the points.

After 2012 he realised that he would stand a better chance at another slam because he knew that there was no way he could beat Djokovic or Nadal on a clay court in best of 5

Yeah in 2012 he wanted the SF to get enough points for #1. In 2013 he was outplayed but probably not too fussed, same in 2014.

He clearly cared in 2011 and in 2010 Soderling was just unstoppable in the QF.
 

vanioMan

Legend
So if he didn't win them? Reaching all those finals is an achievement too and shows how good a player is during that period. I don't think it's a coincidence he reached all those finals again after that 2010 season. In 2011 the competition was a bit better also. And thats were = Djokovic comes in wich I have been telling you. Difference was him because Djokovic peaked in 2011. And Djokovic at his best is a better player than Nadal at his best, just ask Uncle Toni. Nadal is only 11 months older than Djokovic.

You wouldn't claim Nadal was as good in 2010 if he won majority of those finals in 2011? Hahaha!

Sorry Vanio, I don't buy your talk.

Listen, I did admit Djokovic was awesome and he was the main reason for Nadal's losses. But I also said Nadal was playing worse than a year before. Tennis is played by two and one's level is always dependent on the others' - sometimes a lot, sometimes not much. I've already claimed in another thread that Djokovic' success over Nadal in 2011 was 85-90% due to him playing unbelievable and 10-15% Rafa not being at his best and up to the challenge.

You on the other hand admit only one thing - that Djokovic was awesome, but deny the fact that Nadal was worse.

As far as "if Nadal won those finals" - I said it already, why don't you read? I can't know what I would say since Nadal did not win those finals. Only way to know my reaction is if he did, but since he didn't I do not speak for that. So once again - stop throwing false accusations at me.

And after all of this you got the nerve to call me a hypocrite?
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
Let's think about this… Federer has won the French Open and has 4 finals which he lost only to Nadal.

Djokovic has 2 finals (lost both to Nadal), 0 titles and only in 2013 was he one of the main favorites and he lost to Nadal.

Djokovic does not have a matchup issue against Nadal, Federer on the other hand does (so their respective matchup against Nadal matters not). Federer leads the H2H on clay by 4-3, despite over half of their meetings being after 2010.

Things seem to be pointing towards the swiss, no?

In fairness, Federer only really has more finals at the French due to the seedings each year. If Djokovic didn't have to face Nadal so many times in the semis I'm pretty sure he too would have close to 5 finals. And Nole has also won all 3 clay Masters 1000s, beating Nadal in all of them, compared to Fed who only has the 1. You'd better believe this is a nice feather for him to have in his cap.
 

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
In fairness, Federer only really has more finals at the French due to the seedings each year. If Djokovic didn't have to face Nadal so many times in the semis I'm pretty sure he too would have close to 5 finals.

I mentioned 2013. Next there's what? 2008 and 2007? In 2008 I don't give him much of a chance, even if he plays Federer instead of Nadal (his clay game was not yet developed). In 2007 there's no way he'd reach the final, keep dreaming. You also ignore the draws with which Djokovic got to those early Sfs (spoiler alert: they weren't great). You can at most argue for Djokovic deserving one more final due to 2013.

And Nole has also won all 3 clay Masters 1000s, beating Nadal in all of them, compared to Fed who only has the 1. You'd better believe this is a nice feather for him to have in his cap.

I dislike repeating myself, but here you go:
Djokovic does not have a matchup issue against Nadal, Federer on the other hand does (so their respective matchup against Nadal matters not)
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
In fairness, Federer only really has more finals at the French due to the seedings each year. If Djokovic didn't have to face Nadal so many times in the semis I'm pretty sure he too would have close to 5 finals. And Nole has also won all 3 clay Masters 1000s, beating Nadal in all of them, compared to Fed who only has the 1. You'd better believe this is a nice feather for him to have in his cap.

2 semis concession to djokovic - 08 and 13 ( 07, he wasn't that good on clay )

remember federer also met nadal in the SF in 05
and was stopped only by a GOATing soderling in 10 in the QF

so it evens out ...

the one point I'll agree with is Djokovic winning all 3 masters , he is in particular better at Rome, but not at RG or hamburg/madrid ...

even in MC is arguable , though djoker has won there, federer IIRC has more finals and did beat djoker twice when they met - 08 and 14 ..
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
I mentioned 2013. Next there's what? 2008 and 2007? In 2008 I don't give him much of a chance, even if he plays Federer instead of Nadal (his clay game was not yet developed). In 2007 there's no way he'd reach the final, keep dreaming. You also ignore the draws with which Djokovic got to those early Sfs (spoiler alert: they weren't great). You can at most argue for Djokovic deserving one more final due to 2013.



I dislike repeating myself, but here you go:

Why so touchy? :? And no, I can argue he'd have more than one final as I think he'd have a good chance in 2008. Just as you're entitled to your opinion, so am I. If not for meeting Nadal in the semis in '08 and '13 he'd have 4 finals which incidentally is the same amount your hero had at the age of 28.

And it's not a good look bringing up the "match-up" issue either. If you believe Federer's the GOAT(which you clearly do judging from the content of your posts) then he should have figured a way of beating Nadal when he started giving him major headaches a decade ago. The fact that he failed to do so is a black mark on his legacy and all the excuses in the world won't alter that.

I used to think you were a decent poster but you've become way too much of a hardcore fanboy for my liking just recently. You really need to keep that in check.
 
Last edited:

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
Why so touchy? :? And no, I can argue he'd have more than one final as I think he'd have a good chance in 2008. Just as you're entitled to your opinion, so am I. If not for meeting Nadal in the semis in '08 and '13 he'd have 4 finals which incidentally is the same amount your hero had at the age of 28.

And it's not a good look bringing up the "match-up" issue either. If you believe Federer's the GOAT(which you clearly do judging from the content of your posts) then he should have figured a way of beating Nadal when he started giving him major headaches a decade ago. The fact that he failed to is a black mark on his legacy and all the excuses in the world won't alter that.

I used to think you were a decent poster but you've become way too much of a hardcore fanboy for my liking just recently. You really need to keep that in check.

I'm sorry, but no sane person with any knowledge about tennis believes this sort of thing. There is nothing remarkable with having a losing h2h to one of the three greatest players of all time when considering a match-up issue (which is alfa and omega in tennis).

It's like saying that Nadal not figuring out Davy in BO3 on hards is a huge black mark, or the case Djokovic not being able to lead a mere Roddick.
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
Peak-to-peak, Federer would win against Nole about 60-70% of matches.

Peak-to-peak, against Nadal, Djokovic would play better.

Yes this is realistic. I wouldn't even bet on Nole doing markedly better against Nadal peak to peak. Nole has been dominated by more lackluster versions of Nadal than those Fed has had decent showings against, truth be told. But I could concede Nole at least being a reliable in putting up a fight versus Nadal, peak for peak.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
I'm sorry, but no sane person with any knowledge about tennis believes this sort of thing. There is nothing remarkable with having a losing h2h to one of the three greatest players of all time when considering a match-up issue (which is alfa and omega in tennis).

It's like saying that Nadal not figuring out Davy in BO3 on hards is a huge black mark, or the case Djokovic not being able to lead a mere Roddick.

Yeah but come on, they're hardly comparable. Trailing a H2H 4-5 is nothing like 10-23. Believe me I wanted Fed to beat Nadal every time they played back in the day but after a while I just had to accept reality, the Spaniard was simply too good for him.
 

Sysyphus

Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah but come on, they're hardly comparable. Trailing a H2H 4-5 is nothing like 10-23. Believe me I wanted Fed to beat Nadal every time they played back in the day but after a while I just had to accept reality, the Spaniard was simply too good for him.

And trailing Nadal (with a huge clay-skew btw, and a skew in which half of the year they met) is nothing like trailing Roddick. It outlines a truth by example: Specific h2h's don't accurately describe the difference in level of two players; the influence of match-ups is undeniable in tennis. Roddick wasn't simply too good for Djokovic by 10% either.
 

Noelan

Legend
Huge Federer match up disadvantage to Nadal, blah, blah:rolleyes:, favour fictionary story from federer fans, along side with the story about his age. The true is that he did nothing through the years to change something in that match up. Or he isn't capable for that?:confused:
 
Then I would say the same thing about Nadal although in fairness, Davy was never his main rival.

Nadal was just lucky that nobody but Davy at the top hits on the rise. Had Agassi been on this era, Nadal would've been in big trouble!

In comparison, Roger was unlucky that there was this worst possible match up playing against him in slams.
 

The Green Mile

Bionic Poster
Huge Federer match up disadvantage to Nadal, blah, blah:rolleyes:, favour fictionary story from federer fans, along side with the story about his age. The true is that he did nothing through the years to change something in that match up. Or he isn't capable for that?:confused:

Yeah, he did. He beat him 10 times, playing a style of highly aggressive play throughout most of the entire match, which is very difficult for him to do against Nadal. Their first meetings, he wasn't as aggressive as he had to be in their matches later on. Of course, you would judge who the greater player is on Clay, by judging their matches with Nadal though, and constantly whine about Federer fans, which is all you seem to do.
 

Noelan

Legend
Yeah, he did. He beat him 10 times, playing a style of highly aggressive play throughout most of the entire match, which is very difficult for him to do against Nadal. Their first meetings, he wasn't as aggressive as he had to be in their matches later on. Of course, you would judge who the greater player is on Clay, by judging their matches with Nadal though, and constantly whine about Federer fans, which is all you seem to do.
Cry me a river:cry:
 

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
Why so touchy? :? And no, I can argue he'd have more than one final as I think he'd have a good chance in 2008. Just as you're entitled to your opinion, so am I. If not for meeting Nadal in the semis in '08 and '13 he'd have 4 finals which incidentally is the same amount your hero had at the age of 28.

And it's not a good look bringing up the "match-up" issue either. If you believe Federer's the GOAT(which you clearly do judging from the content of your posts) then he should have figured a way of beating Nadal when he started giving him major headaches a decade ago. The fact that he failed to do so is a black mark on his legacy and all the excuses in the world won't alter that.

I used to think you were a decent poster but you've become way too much of a hardcore fanboy for my liking just recently. You really need to keep that in check
.

Aha. So when I say that there is no GOAT (repeatedly if I may add) as eras cannot be compared due to equipment, conditions, etc. that's me proclaiming Federer as GOAT. Strange, but okay, whatever floats your boat.

By the way, I am not touchy and I admire Federer, but he is not "my hero". I don't worship players.
 
Last edited:
Top