For the first time since 2002, Federer is not in Wimbledon final (after 7 years).
For the first time since 2003, Federer is not in US Open final (after 6 years).
It's a sign of decline for the great champion.
Also the first time he did not win a slam level championship.
Maybe its more a sign of dominance of other great champion named Nadal.
Also the first time he did not win a slam level championship.
Nadal has done great winning 3 slams in a year. But Federer has done it 3 times (2004, 2006,2007).
It's terribly hard. The last two before them were Wilander(1988) and Connors (1974).
Also the first time he did not win a slam level championship.
Maybe its more a sign of dominance of other great champion named Nadal.
Nadal has done great winning 3 slams in a year. But Federer has done it 3 times (2004, 2006,2007).
It's terribly hard. The last two before them were Wilander(1988) and Connors (1974).
The most impressive part of Nadals 3 slam level championship year is he did it against Federer, who many were claiming was the GOAT. When Federer achieved his 3 slam years, there were not other great champions to contend with and it was before Nadal reached his prime.
He was super amazing against Sod in the US Open quarterfinal, was he not?Federer of today is not Federer of 3 years ago, so stop saying he's super amazing still
Nadal has done great winning 3 slams in a year. But Federer has done it 3 times (2004, 2006,2007).
It's terribly hard. The last two before them were Wilander(1988) and Connors (1974).
And how, exactly, does this to relate to a topic called "Facts"?bears beets battlestar galactica
He was super amazing against Sod in the US Open quarterfinal, was he not?
I agree, I don't think Nalbandian is still super amazing.Nalbandian was super amazing against Sod too, how many people think he's still super amazing though?
The most impressive part of Nadals 3 slam level championship year is he did it against Federer, who many were claiming was the GOAT. When Federer achieved his 3 slam years, there were not other great champions to contend with and it was before Nadal reached his prime.
This is very quickly becoming my favourite meme :lol:
Federer of today is not Federer of 3 years ago, so stop saying he's super amazing still
What Fed did has nothing to do with what Nadal did. Fed has never won 3 consecutive slams on 3 surfaces.Nadal has done great winning 3 slams in a year. But Federer has done it 3 times (2004, 2006,2007).
It's terribly hard. The last two before them were Wilander(1988) and Connors (1974).
Maybe because Federer beat those other people so they could not become "great champions"?The most impressive part of Nadals 3 slam level championship year is he did it against Federer, who many were claiming was the GOAT. When Federer achieved his 3 slam years, there were not other great champions to contend with and it was before Nadal reached his prime.
He was super amazing against Sod in the US Open quarterfinal, was he not?