Sander001
Hall of Fame
Is it, is it really? If it was, you wouldn't need to shame yourself by polluting the boards far and wide trying to force everybody on your opinions.
Federer admits Nadal better now than when they first started
- Thread starter The Dark Knight
- Start date
The Dark Knight
Legend
Actually I just made observations...... You deem it as an act of blasphemy against your religion/God......Federer.
You are entitled to your opinion ....but why can't I have a differing one without
Being attacked for it?
Have I attacked anyone?
I've been pretty polite considering the circumstances.....
Even printing an article ....an opinion held by someone else with no comment from me is wrong?
Sander001
Hall of Fame
Yeah your opinion/assumption is that Fed is my god/religion. That is an attack, idiot.
The Dark Knight
Legend
Notice I did not call you a name.
That's quite a difference and typical of certain people's responses.
Your just angry because you cannot counter .
I will not stoop to that level
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
You seem to find it hard to understand what I'm saying. I never compared Scud to Nadal, but you Nadal fans love H2H over titles or ranking, and scud beat Sampras twice in slams including the AO in the prime of Pete's career, so he can't be that bad. He also led Pete by a set at Wimby before getting injured and retiring and also beat Henman who made several Wimby semi's in Sampras's day and who beat Rafter who made two Wimby finals in that era.
Safin never won Wimby, but Federer never played him in a wimby final (and I'm assuming you're judging just final opponents) Fed did beat Safin in a HC slam final after safin was a HC slam champ. Safin's form on grass doesn't count if you are talking about who Fed met in finals because he never met him in a wimby final, clear? Though he did straight set Djokovic who had just lost a tight Quens final to Nadal..
When Rafa was a boy on HC he beat Federer. Nadal fans love to crow about this, so if he was good enough to beat Fed he should be good enough to beat Fed's whipping boys, no?
Hewitt won a slam 2 years before Fed beat him at the US Open. And Wimby was slowed down which should have helped Hewitt. It seemed to in 2002 but after Fed rose up he never got another sniff of a title.
Btw how many titles with stiff competition does Nadal get? I give him Wimbledon 2008 (even though Federer was mentally wounded and Nadal still almost lost when in total control), AO 2009, (even though Federer had already won more HC slams than anyone in history, without many left obviously) RG 2011 (even though Federer was nearly 30) and that's it. All his RG titles were against players who never won RG apart from RG 2011. His Wimby 2010 was against Berdych, and US Open 2010 was against the worst Djokovic since he broke the top 10 and he had never won the US Open at that time. So at best he gets 3, and only by the skin of his teeth I'm afraid. All 3 come against weak era king Fed and are based on him choking matches.
Also my point about Nadal on grass stands, he got beaten by a rookie Djokovic who couldn't beat an old Federer (weak era king who doesn't deserve more than 4 slams) Nadal never beat anyone decent on grass or anywhere else really.
Last edited:
Sander001
Hall of Fame
You did not call me a name, so you place yourself on some moral high ground? What a joke, buy a clue[along with some grammar lessons, seriously] because you're far worse than a name caller.
The Dark Knight
Legend
Just try and discuss tennis ok?
zagor
Bionic Poster
Ah, I can't believe I forgot about JFC, very good player and a great guy, shame he never got his mojo back after having chicken pox.
I don't think it's easy as saying competition got tougher after 2007, 2008 was a relatively tough year (especially Nadal's level of play was off the charts on natural surfaces, Novak playing some spectacular tennis AO, the arrival of Murray etc.) but in 2009 and 2010 Murray and Novak were relatively mediocre.
People forget but Novak actually played considerably better in 2007 compared to 2009 and 2010, while Fed was up and down in 2008 and 2009 he still played great tennis in slams but in 2010 his level visibly dropped off which was especially noticeable in his extremely poor Wimbledon performance.
Also Fed is 3-0 against Murray in slam finals (lost one set overall and none of them were played in 2004-2007, during Fed's best period) so regarding slams I don't think he's necessarily tougher for Fed than Fed's competition in 2004-2007, sure he finally got him in a 5 set match at AO this year but I don't consider Fed to be the player he was in his heyday, he isn't some Agassi type player who achieved most of his success in advanced tennis years (Fed won the bulk of his slams from the age of 22-26 not from the age of 29-33 like Agassi did).
Now in 2011 and 2012 yes I'd say competition considerably picked up, 2012 especially was one of the most entertaining years in tennis I've ever seen.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Amazingly I have also gotten better since I started.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
i would have to say i agree. in 2012 there were a lot of different things happening. first half with federer reemerging, djokovic and nadal again battling out, then federer winning a slam and capturing no.1 and in the end the emergence of murray
Federer20042006
Banned
Sampras never won a French Open. He would be sissy competition for Federer if he played him at any of the other 3 slams in Federer's prime, just like Safin.
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
Still nothing about 2008 as you claimed.
Yes, Roger in 2008 equals Rafa in 2013 and Novak in 2014 in terms of age.
So it's a little early to tell how they'll do in that respect over the next five years.
But there's one big thing in favour for them in terms of doing well in 'old age':
There's no Nadal, no Murray, no Djokovic, no del Potro emerging as far as we can see yet.
When Federer reached the age where most tennisplayers starts to lose a bit more, he had a fully matured Nadal and some all-time great talents in terms of Djokovic and Murray to compete with.
Nadal, Djokovic and Murray now have ..... - Tomic? Dimitrov? Janowitz? Harrison? Raonic? Nishikori? None have made it to top-10, much less a slam semi (they've got one quarterfinal between them).
Unless they start growing up soon, Nadal, Djoker, Murray etc. will have it a lot easier against the emerging generation than Federer had from 26-31/32.
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
Toughest field ever was in ' ' - as you tend to think that.
I do think the current era is tough, but perhaps more so from 2011, when we had Djokovic as a real force too. Djokovic and Murray - though very good - were not great threats from 2008-2010 in most of the big tournaments.
And I agree completely that he's in a very tough field now - competing with three all-time talents at 25-26 years of age, while he's well over 30 - hence while Nadal-Djoko etc. might have an easier time going forward as I explained above. Still - Fed made it to No. 1 against these young guns, while he was 31 - which is certainly not prime age.
Last edited:
The problem with tough and weak fields is they are compared only to Fed.
He wins, they aren't good to challenge him. He loses, now that he lost the field became stronger.
Has it occurred to people that Feds declining makes this field look tougher?
What is more likely , entire field improving or just one guy declining?
The Dark Knight
Legend
The field is has been looking tougher ever since Nadal became an all surface player in 2008.
The jig was up for Fed and he finally had some real competition.
VPhuc tennis fan
Professional
No, the jig is up for Rafa now. No, make it since 2011. Almost a Grand Slam-loss record, isn't it? If not due to this weak era GOAT Fed in FO SF. If Rafa were so much worthy, shouldn't he have NOT been in this situation? Should he just have squashed Djoker as a bug in 3 GS finals that year! Hey, he owns the GOAT after all, no? Who can own him, right?!!!
LOL the jig is up for Fed. Yeah with his 17 slams, 302 weeks at nr.1 and ranked nr.3, he sure is finished. What a tough ending for a guy soon turning 32.
The Dark Knight
Legend
LOL the jig is up for Fed. Yeah with his 17 slams, 302 weeks at nr.1 and ranked nr.3, he sure is finished. What a tough ending for a guy soon turning 32.
Nah I'm much better .
I dressed up like an old man and joined the 80 and over league .
I have 35 slams.....impressed?
No you say? Well that's how I feel about Feds stats for the same reason.
So we are back to square one
You keep repeating the same crap.....
As bush said : "Read my Lips"......Fed beat a bunch of losers !
ScottleeSV
Hall of Fame
Yep, he's won slam finals against Nadal (twice), Murray (three times), and Djokovic, the biggest bunch of losers ever to grace a tennis court.
The Dark Knight
Legend
Again Fed says Nadal was a boy those 2x
Murray was not even a slam winner yet although I think his win over Murray was solid in 2012.
Wins over joker were pre slam victories. Once gluten free Joker took over Fed crumbled . Although Feds win at the FO over Joker was absolutely huge .....too bad it doesn't mean anything because he lost badly to Nadal in the final.
For the upteenth time....I'm not impressed.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
And if he did not beat them, they would be...winners.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
like nadal did not crumble. fyi federer was the only one to beat him in a slam that year. actually since 2011 federer has more victories over djoker in slams than nadal. guess u forgot 7-0 ownage
Similar threads
- Poll
