Federer 11-1 in Wimbledon finals without Djokovic?

Federer 11-1 in WI finals if not for Djoker?


  • Total voters
    42

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
1. I don't care if you call the competition in Majors "weak." They just better have some substance to it other than "x-player was old." (and no one -- other than people on an Internet forum -- called any of those Majors weak).

2. And no, competition is not defined by age. Period. A younger player is not automatically more competitive than a younger player. More often than not, a younger player will be more competitive than an older player, but it is not automatic. Take Federer from 2011-2015. No one thinks that he was less competitive than all of the younger players he played.

Yes, it's an anomaly that the older guys are dominating the older guys. But it's only an anomaly of "concern" when someone other than Federer is doing it. Why is that? Why is Federer's longevity "celebrated" but everyone else's is questioned?

3. You call my suggestion of you expecting an 18-time slam winner to stop Djokovic a straw man. My response? Call it whatever you want. Thiem/Zverev/etc aren't living up to your own personal expectations. You think it's all about them, apparently. You fail to recognize that they're playing a No. 1, 18-time slam winner. During the 2008 Australian Open, who stopped then-No. 1, and 12-time major winner Federer? Was it Berdych or Tipsarevic? No. It was Djokovic....a player who would go on to win 18-slams. Evidently, it takes a future all-time legend to convincingly stop a present all-time legend. From all accounts, Thiem and co. aren't future legends (maybe it's too early to predict, who knows?) so you want more from them, which leads me to believe that you're expecting them to be legends. And they probably won't be, meaning that they aren't good enough to stop Djokovic.

4. Federer never stopped Djokovic? 2011 RG? 2012 Wimbledon? He very nearly beat him in several other slam matches which could have easily gone his way.

And I have no idea why you are limiting Nadal and Djokovic's rivalry to just the last 7 years. And yes, Djokovic beats Nadal on HC and Nadal beats Djokovic on clay. No one complained when Federer was beating everyone everywhere except for grass. But all of a sudden, everyone pearl clutches when Djokovic starts to dominate.

5. As for Federer's competition: I already mentioned Nadal. Hewitt and Roddick? They weren't competition. At all.
1. But I do. Apart from the obvious particular paths of the champion to the title, I pointed also at the general lack of adequate competition from a younger ATGs at the top, and, as I already pointed out, Tennis is a top heavy sport with its specific dynamic between successive generations. That is the substance that you are looking for.

2. You can deny it as much as you want: the history of tennis renders your denial to accept it irrelevant. I showed it using YOUR OWN picks. 1 out of 12 champions from those picks was an older generation over younger generation player, and for that one match the winner said it is the first time he feared he could lose the match. That was a statement from a player who, by then, was a 4 time champion of the event. He then went on to lose that event to the same player he feared from losing from already from the year before. That tells a fracking amazing story in confirmation of what I am talking about, so, who are you to dispute facts and the history of the sport?

3. No, I call you suggestion that only an 18 times Major champion will fulfil your criteria for a "worthy competition" a straw man, because all those players I mentioned were not 18 times Major champions, yet they did just fine to displace the older than them generations of ATGs. BTW, your example is quite feeble. Safin stopped Federer too at the same venue, and when Federer was arguably even more dominant, and Safin wasn't a "future 18 times Major winner", so that prerequisite is not necessary in any way, shape or form, to call for a worthy competition. For all the laughable flak Fed's era gets for his competition, in it there were players who, on their day had a much higher peak than any of the also rans from the current era could dream about. I don't "want" anything from anyone. In fact, if you were following what I am saying and consider what you say about Thiem et co, you will realise that you have come around to consider yourself the current competition weak. How else could you explain what you just said about them, if you don't expect them to provide a highest level of competition?

4. I specifically said the last 7-8 years. Federer's best years were up until Wimbledon 2012, after that he slowly stepped back, had a terrible 2013, a 2014 which was showing a signs already that his game is getting severely hampered by his equipment disadvantage and an year that became a basis for him completely retooling his game to continue to be competitive, so I put a rather precise framework as to what I mean.

You have no idea why I am limiting Djokovic and Nadal's rivalry to the last 7 years? I am putting the lack of such in the context of this discussion about the CURRENT weak era that has been such from some time, so I discussed one of the major points that makes it such: one of the key rivalries in recent years on the highest level. Hardly a very difficult concept to understand!

:cool:
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
Look guys ... I respect Andy Roddick and Baghdatis and other players of that generation. But if you're going to belittle Sampras by saying he beat the likes of Pioline and Voltchkov, then you leave me with no other recourse than point to you how poor Roddick's volleying skills were. He couldn't make the simplest of volleys that would have given him a 2 sets to love lead in the 2009 Wimbledon final against Federer and very likely the title.

The point is that top players don't get to choose who they play. So stop belittling my favorite's competition and I'll return the favor. Simple as that.
 

duaneeo

Legend
Look guys ... I respect Andy Roddick and Baghdatis and other players of that generation.
Baghdatis is not of Federer's generation. He was a strong NextGen of Federer's generation who failed to develop into a strong CurrentGen of Djokovic's generation.
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
Look guys ... I respect Andy Roddick and Baghdatis and other players of that generation. But if you're going to belittle Sampras by saying he beat the likes of Pioline and Voltchkov, then you leave me with no other recourse than point to you how poor Roddick's volleying skills were. He couldn't make the simplest of volleys that would have given him a 2 sets to love lead in the 2009 Wimbledon final against Federer and very likely the title.

The point is that top players don't get to choose who they play. So stop belittling my favorite's competition and I'll return the favor. Simple as that.
Name the top 10 players of the Federer generation.

:cool:
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
Baghdatis is not of Federer's generation. He was a strong NextGen of Federer's generation who failed to develop into a strong CurrentGen of Djokovic's generation.
Duane, I looked up his profile and he's only 4 years younger than Federer. I wonder if the age difference is enough to be considered NextGen?
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
Name the top 10 players of the Federer generation.

:cool:
Machan ... if I name Nadal & Djokovic in the top 10, some will object saying they're not Federer's generation. The way I see it, pick a year and I'll produce the top-10 from the ATP rankings history page.
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
Machan ... if I name Nadal & Djokovic in the top 10, some will object saying they're not Federer's generation. The way I see it, pick a year and I'll produce the top-10 from the ATP rankings history page.
I said "from the Federer generation", not "the top 10".

:cool:
 

duaneeo

Legend
Secondly (and on that note of all-time greats), while Djokovic may not have had "younger" all-time greats to slow him down (like Federer did), he had to deal with better than average older players who stopped him during his run: Nadal & Federer...
At the AO and Wimbledon, we have not seen a better Rafa the past decade (no titles). He's lost to 8 different players in his last 8 AO appearances, and to 7 different players in his last 7 Wimbledon appearances. At the USO, Rafa and Djokovic haven't met for the past 7 years.

Both Federer and Nadal have suffered injuries since 2012, with 2011 being the only season that had peak or prime Big-3s competing at all 4 slams.

So a big "NO" to your suggestion. Djokovic dealing with Nadal (though not often since 2013), an older Federer, and Murray and Wawrinka (two players who would never...repeat, never...be multi-slam champions in Federer's generation) does not 'make up' for Nole not facing what all past ATGs faced: strong young guns.

I left RG out of the discussion because both Federer and Djokovic have lost there many times to Rafa at their peak.
 

BackhandDTL

Hall of Fame
Speaks to how weak that era really was. Djokovic feasted on mugs and geriatrics.

In before some joker comes in and says “Djokovic had it the toughest at WB”:-D

Rings a bell @NoleFam innit mate?
 

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
Speaks to how weak that era really was. Djokovic feasted on mugs and geriatrics.

In before some joker comes in and says “Djokovic had it the toughest at WB”:-D

Rings a bell @NoleFam innit mate?
Told me and a few others in a chat that he's taken a break from the forum. Will be back to this nuthouse by RG.
 

itrium84

Professional
Pete would have been 0-4 Nadal if you send him to play Nadal on the slow grass even in Pete's peak.

Nadal would destroy him by exposing his backhand
Nadal is the absolute king, undisputable deity, when we talk about "woulda" world of endless possibilities.
Interesting fact - Nadal could win all GS tournaments in the span of whole 11 years (44), and he would win at least 9 of those (36). Amazing! He shoulda win at least 33 of those GS finals vs Nole and Fed!
No one is even close to Nadal.
 

Tony48

Legend
1. But I do. Apart from the obvious particular paths of the champion to the title, I pointed also at the general lack of adequate competition from a younger ATGs at the top, and, as I already pointed out, Tennis is a top heavy sport with its specific dynamic between successive generations. That is the substance that you are looking for.

2. You can deny it as much as you want: the history of tennis renders your denial to accept it irrelevant. I showed it using YOUR OWN picks. 1 out of 12 champions from those picks was an older generation over younger generation player, and for that one match the winner said it is the first time he feared he could lose the match. That was a statement from a player who, by then, was a 4 time champion of the event. He then went on to lose that event to the same player he feared from losing from already from the year before. That tells a fracking amazing story in confirmation of what I am talking about, so, who are you to dispute facts and the history of the sport?

3. No, I call you suggestion that only an 18 times Major champion will fulfil your criteria for a "worthy competition" a straw man, because all those players I mentioned were not 18 times Major champions, yet they did just fine to displace the older than them generations of ATGs. BTW, your example is quite feeble. Safin stopped Federer too at the same venue, and when Federer was arguably even more dominant, and Safin wasn't a "future 18 times Major winner", so that prerequisite is not necessary in any way, shape or form, to call for a worthy competition. For all the laughable flak Fed's era gets for his competition, in it there were players who, on their day had a much higher peak than any of the also rans from the current era could dream about. I don't "want" anything from anyone. In fact, if you were following what I am saying and consider what you say about Thiem et co, you will realise that you have come around to consider yourself the current competition weak. How else could you explain what you just said about them, if you don't expect them to provide a highest level of competition?

4. I specifically said the last 7-8 years. Federer's best years were up until Wimbledon 2012, after that he slowly stepped back, had a terrible 2013, a 2014 which was showing a signs already that his game is getting severely hampered by his equipment disadvantage and an year that became a basis for him completely retooling his game to continue to be competitive, so I put a rather precise framework as to what I mean.

You have no idea why I am limiting Djokovic and Nadal's rivalry to the last 7 years? I am putting the lack of such in the context of this discussion about the CURRENT weak era that has been such from some time, so I discussed one of the major points that makes it such: one of the key rivalries in recent years on the highest level. Hardly a very difficult concept to understand!

:cool:
1. Point to one credible source that says that the competition in tennis is exclusively due in part to the age of the player. You will not find one because that's a false statement.

2. You basically said nothing. Again, point to one credible source that backs up this claim, since it's so "historical" as you put it.

3. Or maybe Federer just wasn't that good as everyone made him out to be. Federer's terrible five-set record isn't a secret. Push him and he usually folds.

4. OK? My argument was that an older Federer stopped Djokovic. And he did.

5. Again, my argument was that Nadal stopped Djokovic, thus providing him competition. Your argument is that he isn't stopping him now. I'm not about to provide support for an argument I never offered.
 

Tony48

Legend
At the AO and Wimbledon, we have not seen a better Rafa the past decade (no titles). He's lost to 8 different players in his last 8 AO appearances, and to 7 different players in his last 7 Wimbledon appearances. At the USO, Rafa and Djokovic haven't met for the past 7 years.

Both Federer and Nadal have suffered injuries since 2012, with 2011 being the only season that had peak or prime Big-3s competing at all 4 slams.

So a big "NO" to your suggestion. Djokovic dealing with Nadal (though not often since 2013), an older Federer, and Murray and Wawrinka (two players who would never...repeat, never...be multi-slam champions in Federer's generation) does not 'make up' for Nole not facing what all past ATGs faced: strong young guns.

I left RG out of the discussion because both Federer and Djokovic have lost there many times to Rafa at their peak.
So Nadal and Federer didn't offer competition precisely when you preferred that they did? That's not my problem. I said that they provided Djokovic with competition, not that they beat Djokovic every time they played (which is what you'd rather happen).
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
1. Point to one credible source that says that the competition in tennis is exclusively due in part to the age of the player. You will not find one because that's a false statement.

2. You basically said nothing. Again, point to one credible source that backs up this claim, since it's so "historical" as you put it.

3. Or maybe Federer just wasn't that good as everyone made him out to be. Federer's terrible five-set record isn't a secret. Push him and he usually folds.

4. OK? My argument was that an older Federer stopped Djokovic. And he did.

5. Again, my argument was that Nadal stopped Djokovic, thus providing him competition. Your argument is that he isn't stopping him now. I'm not about to provide support for an argument I never offered.
1. I point you to the tennis history of the ATG rivalries , which has that answered for us. I even used YOU, as I used YOUR own picks to illustrate it!

2.What the **** would I need to point at OPINIONS for, when I point at the FACTS? If you look at the ATG H2Hs in the Open era it is clear as a bright sunny day that what I am saying is true. Have you ever looked into those to see whether that fact I am mentioning is presented or not?

3. Another straw man that has absolutely nothing to do with the argument you were making. You jumped from your previous straw man to a new straw man. Is that how you argue in principle? You said certain things for the current challengers of the current ATGs, and now you don't even dare address it, after I pointed it out that you yourself agree with me. No mention of the strength of the Thiems and Zverevs of the world, eh?

4. Federer didn't stop Djokovic from totally dominating the tour in the last 7-8 years, and that wasn't his job. As I already said, even a win at the (in)famous W2019 would't have changed that on principle. That was a job for younger generation ATGs, not for players that are 35 plus. ATGs that do not exist.

5. Again, Djokovic has amassed most of his legacy in the last 7 years. If you don't want to involve Nadal in the competition Djokovic faced while amassing his main legacy, I am fine with that, but if you thought that you can slip that argument unnoticed, you are sorely mistaken.If you say that Nadal stopped Djokovic, but don't mean to say it for the period where Djokovic accumulated his main legacy, then you have a problem with your argument. You need to present the backbone of your claim: when was Nadal stopping Djokovic, so that it is clear what you are saying.

:cool:
 

Tony48

Legend
1. I point you to the tennis history of the ATG rivalries , which has that answered for us. I even used YOU, as I used YOUR own picks to illustrate it!

2.What the **** would I need to point at OPINIONS for, when I point at the FACTS? If you look at the ATG H2Hs in the Open era it is clear as a bright sunny day that what I am saying is true. Have you ever looked into those to see whether that fact I am mentioning is presented or not?

3. Another straw man that has absolutely nothing to do with the argument you were making. You jumped from your previous straw man to a new straw man. Is that how you argue in principle? You said certain things for the current challengers of the current ATGs, and now you don't even dare address it, after I pointed it out that you yourself agree with me. No mention of the strength of the Thiems and Zverevs of the world, eh?

4. Federer didn't stop Djokovic from totally dominating the tour in the last 7-8 years, and that wasn't his job. As I already said, even a win at the (in)famous W2019 would't have changed that on principle. That was a job for younger generation ATGs, not for players that are 35 plus. ATGs that do not exist.

5. Again, Djokovic has amassed most of his legacy in the last 7 years. If you don't want to involve Nadal in the competition Djokovic faced while amassing his main legacy, I am fine with that, but if you thought that you can slip that argument unnoticed, you are sorely mistaken.If you say that Nadal stopped Djokovic, but don't mean to say it for the period where Djokovic accumulated his main legacy, then you have a problem with your argument. You need to present the backbone of your claim: when was Nadal stopping Djokovic, so that it is clear what you are saying.

:cool:
1. So nothing.
2. Again, nothing. Your facts only shows what typically happens (and happened in the past), not what's "supposed" to happen. This is a sporting event, not math. There are no defined "rules" as to how this all plays out.
3. Djokovic is arguably much better at the Australian Open than Federer, so Safin beating Federer is not convincing in the first place. He has beaten more accomplished players and dominated for longer stretches.
4. And only younger players are supposed to win slams. Whoops.....Federer won 3 after turning 35. And only younger players are supposed to be No. 1. Whoops...Federer became the oldest No. 1. So much for what younger players are supposed to do. Please direct me to how critical you were at how young players weren't doing their "jobs" when this happened. It seems to only be a problem when Djokovic does it.
5. Djokovic has elevated his game within the last 7 years (serve, volleys, slice, fitness, etc.) and has gotten better. And you know what happens when you get better? You win more.....which is evident in how dominant he is. So while Nadal was competition, Djokovic has surpassed him strategically (on HC and grass at least).
 

AceSalvo

Legend
5. Again, Djokovic has amassed most of his legacy in the last 7 years.

:cool:
Right. Djokdal met only 5 times in the last 7 years. Its just a myth that they were stopping each other when they were busy playing Old Fed/Murray/Stan or some no named youngster in the finals. Nothing that Fed didnt do in his era when he played Old Agassi/Safin/Hewitt/Roddick.

The biggest problem that Fed haters dont want to discuss is why there was no Next gen after Next gen after Next gen defeating Djokdal consistently. In comparison, Fed had Nadal/Djoko/Murray (Delpo/Tsonga/Berdych/Stan playing second fiddle) beating him in the QF/SF/F "consistently".
 
Last edited:

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
Right. Djokdal met only 5 times in the last 7 years. Its just a myth that they were stopping each other when they were busy playing Old Fed/Murray/Stan or some no named youngster in the finals. Nothing that Fed didnt do in his era when he played Old Agassi/Safin/Hewitt/Roddick.

The biggest problem that Fed haters dont want to discuss is why there was no Next gen after Next gen after Next gen defeating Djokdal consistently. In comparison, Fed had Nadal/Djoko/Murray (Delpo/Tsonga/Berdych/Stan playing second fiddle) beating him in the QF/SF/F "consistently".
They will NEVER be able to get out of this problem, as it is indeed the reason why Djokovic managed to amass all those achievement in the first place.

I am just pointing out at things that might not be talked about nearly as much as for some insignificant BS. It is "normal" to say that Djokovic "had Nadal to contend with", but looking at the massive lack of frequent competition between those two for such a humongous amount of time, that paints a completely different picture.

:cool:
 

duaneeo

Legend
Duane, I looked up his profile and he's only 4 years younger than Federer. I wonder if the age difference is enough to be considered NextGen?
Ok, lets accept that Baghdatis is of Federer's generation. This means that Wawrinka (also born in 85) is of Federer's generation. Well, as I stated earlier, he's a player who would NEVER be a slam champion in Federer's generation.

So, Djokovic's generation consisted of 2 past-generations (with the MUG becoming a 3-time slam champion and his kryptonite), battle-worn Rafa, Big-3 pigeon Murray, and LostGens.
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
1. So nothing.
2. Again, nothing. Your facts only shows what typically happens (and happened in the past), not what's "supposed" to happen. This is a sporting event, not math. There are no defined "rules" as to how this all plays out.
3. Djokovic is arguably much better at the Australian Open than Federer, so Safin beating Federer is not convincing in the first place. He has beaten more accomplished players and dominated for longer stretches.
4. And only younger players are supposed to win slams. Whoops.....Federer won 3 after turning 35. And only younger players are supposed to be No. 1. Whoops...Federer became the oldest No. 1. So much for what younger players are supposed to do. Please direct me to how critical you were at how young players weren't doing their "jobs" when this happened. It seems to only be a problem when Djokovic does it.
5. Djokovic has elevated his game within the last 7 years (serve, volleys, slice, fitness, etc.) and has gotten better. And you know what happens when you get better? You win more.....which is evident in how dominant he is. So while Nadal was competition, Djokovic has surpassed him strategically (on HC and grass at least).
1. So, the history of the ATG rivalries is "nothing" to you. What are you doing here, arguing about the history of the sport?

2. So, when you said "nothing", you already knew that you are merely trolling, since in the very next sentence you acknowledge that it isn't "nothing", and we are not using the history of the sport for anything else, but to see whether what is happening at the moment is in line with what is "normal". It is. Patterns are either confirmed or not. The current developments confirm the pattern, except, there is one side of that pattern missing right now ... for the first time in the history of the Open era (and before that, really).

3. You don't know what you are arguing, and so are mixing everything mentioned to create more and more straw man. Safin was mentioned to merely disprove your claim, that one needs 18 times Major champions for a competition to be called "worthy". I will just quote myself in the hope that you will remember what straw man you were making:

"No, I call you suggestion that only an 18 times Major champion will fulfil your criteria for a "worthy competition" a straw man, because all those players I mentioned were not 18 times Major champions, yet they did just fine to displace the older than them generations of ATGs. BTW, your example is quite feeble. Safin stopped Federer too at the same venue, and when Federer was arguably even more dominant, and Safin wasn't a "future 18 times Major winner", so that prerequisite is not necessary in any way, shape or form, to call for a worthy competition."

And now you are making another argument that has absolutely nothing to do with the mentioning of Safin (whether Djokovic or Safin is a better player at AO which was NID).

4. Funny, you thought that just because I am saying these things about Djokovic I will be less critical of the era, just because Federer won Majors. Except, you are sorely mistaken. I have said it many times that Federer also benefited from the lack of worthy younger generation in that era in the same pattern the others from the "Big 3" did. The difference is that then it was left to the top dogs between themselves to sort out who gets what, and that is when the younger vs older ATG dynamic kicks in (which is what we are discussing), so the effect on tennis is two fold in that regard: once in relation of the lacking younger generations ATGs vs the so called Big 3, and a second time for the Nadal/Djokovic younger generation vs Federer. The first doesn't mean that what Federer did wasn't special, as he in fact did it in the presence of a younger generation of ATGs relative to his own. His achievement in that regard stands!

5. They almost haven't played on the highest level considering the amount of time we are talking about, so I don't know what you are smoking. 3 times for the last 7 plus years. Federer and Nadal met 3 times on the highest level (Majors finals) only between may 2008 and January 2009, i.e. in less than 8 months.

:cool:
 

NoleIsBoat

Hall of Fame
Right. Djokdal met only 5 times in the last 7 years. Its just a myth that they were stopping each other when they were busy playing Old Fed/Murray/Stan or some no named youngster in the finals. Nothing that Fed didnt do in his era when he played Old Agassi/Safin/Hewitt/Roddick.

The biggest problem that Fed haters dont want to discuss is why there was no Next gen after Next gen after Next gen defeating Djokdal consistently. In comparison, Fed had Nadal/Djoko/Murray (Delpo/Tsonga/Berdych/Stan playing second fiddle) beating him in the QF/SF/F "consistently".
Last 7 years so 2014?

In this time Djokovic dealt with prime/peak form Federer, peak Murray, peak Wawrinka, Tsonga, Berdych, resurgent 17- Nadal then talented nextgen like Thiem, Zverev, Medvedev.

Yeah Fed lost a lot of matches to Nadal, Djokovic, Berdych etc. But if you look at the slams he won, his first 14 he basically only played a prime ATG twice -> Nadal 07 Wimbledon and Djokovic 08 USO. The rest he won vs mentally weak pigeons and unfit fat guys like Roddick, Hewitt, Bagdhatis, Philippousis, Nalbandian, Kiefer. :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle:
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Last 7 years so 2014?

In this time Djokovic dealt with prime/peak form Federer, peak Murray, peak Wawrinka, Tsonga, Berdych, resurgent 17- Nadal then talented nextgen like Thiem, Zverev, Medvedev.

Yeah Fed lost a lot of matches to Nadal, Djokovic, Berdych etc. But if you look at the slams he won, his first 14 he basically only played a prime ATG twice -> Nadal 07 Wimbledon and Djokovic 08 USO. The rest he won vs mentally weak pigeons and unfit fat guys like Roddick, Hewitt, Bagdhatis, Philippousis, Nalbandian, Kiefer. :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle:
being very generous with 08 Coeliac Nole as prime lol
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Right. Djokdal met only 5 times in the last 7 years. Its just a myth that they were stopping each other when they were busy playing Old Fed/Murray/Stan or some no named youngster in the finals. Nothing that Fed didnt do in his era when he played Old Agassi/Safin/Hewitt/Roddick.

The biggest problem that Fed haters dont want to discuss is why there was no Next gen after Next gen after Next gen defeating Djokdal consistently. In comparison, Fed had Nadal/Djoko/Murray (Delpo/Tsonga/Berdych/Stan playing second fiddle) beating him in the QF/SF/F "consistently".
So how is Nole playing 32-37 year old fit as a fiddle, totally healthy Fed playing smokin tennis suddenly weak competition while 35 year old Amun-RAgassi who can barely walk through all his pain is part of Fed's "strong" "competition"?
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
So how is Nole playing 32-37 year old fit as a fiddle, totally healthy Fed playing smokin tennis suddenly weak competition while 35 year old Amun-RAgassi who can barely walk through all his pain is part of Fed's "strong" "competition"?
HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA

Your ilk "forgets" Agassi EVERY TIME Fed's peak is mentioned. EVERY TIME. To the point that one has to remind you of him.

Interesting that you mention the competition of a "healthy fit as a fiddle" Federer who:

1) spend the entire 2013 in the doldrums because of his back issues
2) has missed half of 2016 due to injury and subsequent surgery
3) has missed the clay season in 2017
4) has missed the clay season in 2018
5) was carrying a wrist/hand injury in the second half of 2018
6) had TWO more surgeries
7) has missed more than one year of tennis between February 2020 and February 2021

Just how delusional are you on the scale from 1 to 10?

:cool:
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA

Your ilk "forgets" Agassi EVERY TIME Fed's peak is mentioned. EVERY TIME. To the point that one has to remind you of him.

Interesting that you mention the competition of a "healthy fit as a fiddle" Federer who:

1) spend the entire 2013 in the doldrums because of his back issues
2) has missed half of 2016 due to injury and subsequent surgery
3) has missed the clay season in 2017
4) has missed the clay season in 2018
5) was carrying a wrist/hand injury in the second half of 2018
6) had TWO more surgeries
7) has missed more than one year of tennis between February 2020 and February 2021

Just how delusional are you on the scale from 1 to 10?

:cool:
1) spend the entire 2013 in the doldrums because of his back issues ---->False. Federer played the 2013 season. He did not spend it "in the doldrums"
2) has missed half of 2016 due to injury and subsequent surgery ----->Djokovic beat him before he suffered said injury in Australia, where Federer showed great form
3) has missed the clay season in 2017 ----->False. Federer chose to skip the clay season in 2017. He won two slams that year.
4) has missed the clay season in 2018 ---->False. Federer chose to skip the clay season in 2018. He won a Grand Slam that year.
5) was carrying a wrist/hand injury in the second half of 2018-----> Federer's injury stopped affecting him in September of this year, per his own words (https://www.ubitennis.net/2018/10/roger-federer-reveals-three-month-battle-hand-injury/). He played a great tournament in Paris where he lost to Djokovic in full health. He won a Grand Slam that year.
6) had TWO more surgeries---->And yet he is still slated to return to play.
7) has missed more than one year of tennis between February 2020 and February 2021----->We are discussing up to 7 years of tennis prior to this, where it has been shown that Federer was capable of playing great tennis.

So despite the long list/excuses, Federer was actually much better competition for Novak than Amun-RAgassi was for Federer. He was never physically compromised in a Grand Slam final against Novak, at the least.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

NoleIsBoat

Hall of Fame
HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA

Your ilk "forgets" Agassi EVERY TIME Fed's peak is mentioned. EVERY TIME. To the point that one has to remind you of him.

Interesting that you mention the competition of a "healthy fit as a fiddle" Federer who:

1) spend the entire 2013 in the doldrums because of his back issues
2) has missed half of 2016 due to injury and subsequent surgery
3) has missed the clay season in 2017
4) has missed the clay season in 2018
5) was carrying a wrist/hand injury in the second half of 2018
6) had TWO more surgeries
7) has missed more than one year of tennis between February 2020 and February 2021

Just how delusional are you on the scale from 1 to 10?

:cool:
Federer was still fit and playing prime tennis in a lot of the slams Djokovic won. 0 - 6 in slams since 2014.
 

NoleIsBoat

Hall of Fame
Why are you quoting me with nothing to say?

:cool:
Your reply to petehammer was a waste of time. All those “injuries” had 0 impact on any of Djokovic’s slam winning runs.

When he says fit as fiddle, obviously referring to the six times they played at slams since 2014. 2016 2nd half of the year he didn’t win any slams, and 2021 AO he wouldn’t win anyway (0-4 since 08)
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
Your reply to petehammer was a waste of time. All those “injuries” had 0 impact on any of Djokovic’s slam winning runs.

When he says fit as fiddle, obviously referring to the six times they played at slams since 2014. 2016 2nd half of the year he didn’t win any slams, and 2021 AO he wouldn’t win anyway (0-4 since 08)
Thank you for spelling it out lol
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
Your reply to petehammer was a waste of time. All those “injuries” had 0 impact on any of Djokovic’s slam winning runs.

When he says fit as fiddle, obviously referring to the six times they played at slams since 2014. 2016 2nd half of the year he didn’t win any slams, and 2021 AO he wouldn’t win anyway (0-4 since 08)
Your expertise is zero and you are not following the discussion.

:cool:
 

NoleIsBoat

Hall of Fame
Your expertise is zero and you are not following the discussion.

:cool:
?
The discussion was people trying to compare 30s Federer to 30s agassi who had a back problem and could barely run.

In 5/6 of their slam matches since 2014, Federer has been fully fit and in red hot form.

In the 2005 USO final agassi could barely move out there.
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
1) spend the entire 2013 in the doldrums because of his back issues ---->False. Federer played the 2013 season. He did not spend it "in the doldrums"
2) has missed half of 2016 due to injury and subsequent surgery ----->Djokovic beat him before he suffered said injury in Australia, where Federer showed great form
3) has missed the clay season in 2017 ----->False. Federer chose to skip the clay season in 2017. He won two slams that year.
4) has missed the clay season in 2018 ---->False. Federer chose to skip the clay season in 2018. He won a Grand Slam that year.
5) was carrying a wrist/hand injury in the second half of 2018-----> Federer's injury stopped affecting him in September of this year, per his own words (https://www.ubitennis.net/2018/10/roger-federer-reveals-three-month-battle-hand-injury/). He played a great tournament in Paris where he lost to Djokovic in full health. He won a Grand Slam that year.
6) had TWO more surgeries---->And yet he is still slated to return to play.
7) has missed more than one year of tennis between February 2020 and February 2021----->We are discussing up to 7 years of tennis prior to this, where it has been shown that Federer was capable of playing great tennis.

So despite the long list/excuses, Federer was actually much better competition for Novak than Amun-RAgassi was for Federer. He was never physically compromised in a Grand Slam final against Novak, at the least.
1) You don't understand what "false" means
2) irrelevant, you were harping about the "competition" and last time I checked a competition is someone that can and does compete, not someone who can't/doesn't
3) You don't understand what "false" means
4) Ditto
5) He won a Major long before he had that injury, so you are arguing dishonestly. Also, the hand injury bothered him where it mattered in the Fall. Last time I checked Paris Bercy is not a Major
6) Ah, yes, he should have gone in retirement. You are a joke. Fact is, he had two surgeries. That is as far from being "fit as a fiddle" as it gets
7) No, we are discussing the entire period in which basically Djokovic is weeding through laughable competition to amass the most of his legacy, which includes this year. You don't get to say to exclude parts, just because they destroy your statements.

In total, since the beginning of 2014 Federer has been out of competition for a total of two years completely and another two he spent with various injury woes (of what we know, of course). For that time he had 3 surgeries. Now find somewhere else to troll.

:cool:
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
?
The discussion was people trying to compare 30s Federer to 30s agassi who had a back problem and could barely run.

In 5/6 of their slam matches since 2014, Federer has been fully fit and in red hot form.

In the 2005 USO final agassi could barely move out there.
I don't address troll statements, so like Petey you can find something else to do.

:cool:
 

NoleIsBoat

Hall of Fame
1) You don't understand what "false" means
2) irrelevant, you were harping about the "competition" and last time I checked a competition is someone that can and does compete, not someone who can't/doesn't
3) You don't understand what "false" means
4) Ditto
5) He won a Major long before he had that injury, so you are arguing dishonestly. Also, the hand injury bothered him where it mattered in the Fall. Last time I checked Paris Bercy is not a Major
6) Ah, yes, he should have gone in retirement. You are a joke. Fact is, he had two surgeries. That Sia as far from being "fit as a fiddle" as it gets
7) No, we are discussing the entire period in which basically Djokovic is weeding through laughable competition for amassing the most of his legacy, which includes this year. You don't get to say to exclude parts, just because they destroy your statements.

In total, since the beginning of 2014 Federer has been out of competition for a total of two years completely and another two he spent with various injury woes (of what we know, of course). For that time he had 3 surgeries. Now find somewhere else to troll.

:cool:
Djokovic first 12 slam wins final opponent:

Tsonga (peak Fed in semi)
Murray (prime Fed in semi)
Nadal
Nadal (prime Fed in semi)
Nadal (peak Murray in semi)
Murray (took down peak Wawrinka in 4R classic)
Federer
Murray
Federer
Federer
Murray (prime Fed in semi)
Murray

Federer first 12 slam wins final opponent:

Philippousis (Roddick in semi)
Exhausted Safin
Roddick
Hewitt
Roddick
Crippled Agassi
Bagdhatis
Baby Nadal
Roddick
Gonzalez
Nadal
Coeliac gluten allergy baby Djokovic

I’ll let objective observers decide which list of opponents is more “laughable” :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle:
 
P

PETEhammer

Guest
1) You don't understand what "false" means
2) irrelevant, you were harping about the "competition" and last time I checked a competition is someone that can and does compete, not someone who can't/doesn't
3) You don't understand what "false" means
4) Ditto
5) He won a Major long before he had that injury, so you are arguing dishonestly. Also, the hand injury bothered him where it mattered in the Fall. Last time I checked Paris Bercy is not a Major
6) Ah, yes, he should have gone in retirement. You are a joke. Fact is, he had two surgeries. That Sia as far from being "fit as a fiddle" as it gets
7) No, we are discussing the entire period in which basically Djokovic is weeding through laughable competition for amassing the most of his legacy, which includes this year. You don't get to say to exclude parts, just because they destroy your statements.

In total, since the beginning of 2014 Federer has been out of competition for a total of two years completely and another two he spent with various injury woes (of what we know, of course). For that time he had 3 surgeries. Now find somewhere else to troll.

:cool:
1) You don't understand what "false" means---->I do. The man played the entire season. I think you don't understand what, "spending the entire 2013 in the doldrums" means.
2) irrelevant, you were harping about the "competition" and last time I checked a competition is someone that can and does compete, not someone who can't/doesn't---->It is completely relevant. Roger played Novak at a time when he was fully healthy, and played a great tournament. He was simply, conclusively, beaten. That the rest of his season was derailed doesn't stop him from being competition for Djokovic at his best major.
3) You don't understand what "false" means ---->You are arguing dishonestly, as though to say that Federer "missed" the season due to some health related reason, which is the context of our conversation. Federer chose to miss the clay season. He did not do so out of some injury.
4) Ditto--->Ditto above
5) He won a Major long before he had that injury, so you are arguing dishonestly. Also, the hand injury bothered him where it mattered in the Fall. Last time I checked Paris Bercy is not a Major---->Paris Bercy is a tournament where both men played excellent, and once again Djokovic prevailed. As has been the pattern since both were prime players.
6) Ah, yes, he should have gone in retirement. You are a joke. Fact is, he had two surgeries. That Sia as far from being "fit as a fiddle" as it gets----->You realize Novak himself has had surgeries, as has Rafa, right? They are still fit as a fiddle and competing.
7) No, we are discussing the entire period in which basically Djokovic is weeding through laughable competition for amassing the most of his legacy, which includes this year. You don't get to say to exclude parts, just because they destroy your statements.----->The fact of the matter is that Federer and Novak played one another six times in slams since 2014. This is the same number of times Federer played his main rival Roddick in slams from 03-07. Like Roddick, Federer has lost all of them.

Given your favorite's precarious position in history, I will ignore the ad hominem and bias from you (although the bias is much harder to ignore)
 
Top