Federer faced the very best of Nadal at the FO than Djokovic ever did

AgassiSuperSlam11

Professional
1. prime Nadal was from 2005-13 on clay. Ergo contender fed faced prime Nadal 5 times and contender djoko faced him 3 times. But since you are chosing to ignore that, that's your problem.

2. you actually missed mentioning Djokovic losing to Wawa in RG 15 while mentioning ~34 year old fed doing the same and now try to divert? Have some shame.
As far as Wilander goes, yes, AO was not the 4th best tournament in those years. The YEC was. That's a fact. Sorry that I exposed your ignorance and your narrow understanding of tennis based on 2010s doesn't work for the 80s.

3. lol, what? djoko had won AO in 08, faced off vs Nadal thrice in CC season 09 and lost to Kohly - much worse than losing to Kuerten. djoko also lost to melzer in RG 10. much worse than losing to Kuerten.
Fed wasn't a GS champion at the time of RG 03 in case that has to be specified. :rolleyes:

4. talk is about RG

5. lol, what? prime Nadal on clay is from 2005-13. maybe you could argue RG 14 to be prime Nadal. its a joke to think Nadal in RG 20 or 21 or 22 or 15 is prime Nadal on clay

6. Djoko would have lost to Mathieu or even Hewitt in RG 06 if nadal wasn't there. not Ljubicic. Mathieu and Nadal were involved in a big battle for 4+ hours. Hewitt also took a set off Nadal. But then you'd actually have to follow tennis/know about it than just picking stuff off atpworldtour.com or wiki.

7. Djoko was 3-10 vs prime Nadal on clay from 08-13
fed was 2-12 vs prime Nadal from on clay 05-11.

Djoko was little more effective vs prime Nadal. that's about it.
the other 5 wins of Djoko are vs past prime Nadal.

1-Highest Peak and Prime are different things and this is already dicussed. Nadal won 14 RG titles in 17 years. He definitely was in bad form in 2015 and injured his wrist in 2016. He always will be near prime level in Bo5 clay compared to Bo3. As a result, minus the two aforementioned years any opponent would face a difficult challenge in RG against Nadal.

2-There is something called Issue Rule Application Conclusion (IRAC). I've mentioned the fact that Nole lost to Wawrinka several times. However, the premise and issue here is that Fed fans keep stating Clay Goat Nadal is what kept Fed from winning more than 1 RG. Fed owned Wawrinka and would end up 6-1 against Wawrinka in GS events. Moreover, had previous wins against Wawrinka in RG but still couldn't win the RG when Nadal was not in front of him. As far as ignorance goes you made an issue about Wilander and the AO when there were numerous other reasons why I specifically explained to a Djokovic fan that using most slams and weeks at #1 wasn't the most effective way to claim one player is better than the other. I cited Wilander having more slams and weeks at #1 than Becker but I thought Becker's edge in H2H, more singles titles, Bo5 Finals, YEC, and Davis Cup gave the German the advantage. However, what I didn't mention or trivialize were his GS wins. If those AO titles don't mean much I don't want to talk about Margaret Court and some of her draws. I know that many players skipped the AO due to travel and near Christmas but we also must consider who you actually play leading to your win. Many will say Vilas had a vulture win in the FO since there was no Borg or Connors that year. Once you say this then we also have to consider other RG events slams in which Evert and Connors didn't show up due to World Team Tennis. Moreover, we know many players also skipped the AO for many years. However, we also should consider that even recent slam winner didn't beat 1 top 10 or GS champion en route to their win. I think it's subjective to say since you played in a full draw and beat NO top 10's or GS champs that your title means more than someone who did beat quality opponents in a smaller draw. As the silly jab about 1980's AO any poster in the former players section has seen my numerous posts about the subject of the AO. I reluctantly use the word "straw man" here. I never stated the AO was the same as today. However, I did say that due to the quality of opponents Wilander faced the AO wins were much more than generic wins. Moreover, if you want to go deep into the 1980's we can also mention that Wilander did win the Lipton tournament when there were Bo5 matches prior to even the final. In fact, I think he won 21 sets in a win which means that the tournament was very close to slam level in both competition and longevity of play.

3-Fed was at/near top 5 when he lost in the 1R to a marginal play that never made much impact in the sport. I've mentioned the Melzer in the past. Fed has plenty more questionable losses, so it doesn't really advance any argument here. If the (issue) is Fed couldn't win more FO titles than start by taking at least 1 set from a Gustavo that had previous injuries and later would get neutralized by Nalbandian in the same tournament. BTW, he was a 2-time GS champion at the time.

4- Talk is about RG but you're implying that Nadal wasn't in prime level when he WON 5 RG titles in 6 years? How ignorant does that sound? I only mention his previous clay finals to show that his previous success warranted a better showing than losing in the first round to a relative unknown.

5-I guess learn a little reading comprehension with the difference between highest peak and prime level again. Nadal won 4 RG in a row and did beat some great players during that period. He wasn't peak level but was still in top level. How many players have won 4 RG in a row during Open Era? Borg did it once and Nadal did it three times including 2017-2020. Djokovic in 2022 was in great form until he got stopped by Nadal in 2022 RG QF. BTW, so yes stick to the OP topic it's "FO" not clay in general.

6-Actually many of your stats are taken from questionable sources if you think about it. The entire previous discussion about winning titles in straight sets had you implying that Borg never did it more than 3 times by citing Borg in 1979 and1980 when any competent Tennis fan knew that he likely achieved it years before. Immediately I stated Borg had it do it a few times and you stated he never went past 3 but it was in fact 7 times. Hypothetical draws only exist in fantasy. The fact is that Djokovic got deep into the RG draws and was stopped by Nadal twice in 2006 and 2007. Of course, in your contradictory logical reasoning you get punished for not facing players that don't appear in your draw but also get punished as Wilander for defeating top players you actually FACE. You can't have it both ways.

7-Cherry picking stats? The affirmative defense you state it "may go to 2014." Djokovic defeated Nadal in the 2014 Italian Open Final which "might" give him a fourth win vs "prime Nadal" using your flawed logic. BTW, as a proponent of Bo5 finals I actually think Nadal could've won that 2014 Final if it was Bo5 as he is 21-0 in Bo5 Clay Finals. Nonetheless, it was a quality win.

As far as the personal Ad Hominem nonsense about being "ignorant' and "narrow understanding" please exercise the "ignore" function at your discretion as I will with you. I make distinction between stans and impartial fans. When I heard a Djokovic fan denigrate Nadal's Gold medals claiming it was 250 level this clearly demonstrated they weren't worth any more discussions. This entire thread might get locked or deleted so please get your last word before it does.
 

SonnyT

Legend
This was VERY TRUE.

Except when it wasn’t.

Like when he beat them at slams in
2006
2007
2008
2009
2011
2012
2017
2019

and beat them at BO3 in say …
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2014
2015
2017
2019

But otherwise he almost always lost to them.
Fed lost repeteadly to Nadal when the rivalry started out. Up to 2017, he didn't have a single slam win besides W against Nadal.

Fed lost all important slam battles once Djokovic emerged as #1, except W '12. And he had many battles against Djokovic, and winning 1 was pitiful, even Murray & Wawa had more than that. Non-slam battles don't count, because they gave their max at slams.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Fed lost repeteadly to Nadal when the rivalry started out. Up to 2017, he didn't have a single slam win besides W against Nadal.

Fed lost all important slam battles once Djokovic emerged as #1, except W '12. And he had many battles against Djokovic, and winning 1 was pitiful, even Murray & Wawa had more than that. Non-slam battles don't count, because they gave their max at slams.

Actually a 6 years younger Djokovic had to wait for king Federer comes down to Earth in order for him to reach #1. King Federer dominated the sport when Djokovic can only watch...16 slams, 237 consecutive weeks at #1, 18/19 slam final appearances, etc.. It's worth mentioning that Djokovic never met the very best version of Nadal on clay and grass to before he emerges #1.

At their highest level of play, I see Djokovic is 3rd behind Fedal
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
1-Highest Peak and Prime are different things and this is already dicussed. Nadal won 14 RG titles in 17 years. He definitely was in bad form in 2015 and injured his wrist in 2016. He always will be near prime level in Bo5 clay compared to Bo3. As a result, minus the two aforementioned years any opponent would face a difficult challenge in RG against Nadal.

2-There is something called Issue Rule Application Conclusion (IRAC). I've mentioned the fact that Nole lost to Wawrinka several times. However, the premise and issue here is that Fed fans keep stating Clay Goat Nadal is what kept Fed from winning more than 1 RG. Fed owned Wawrinka and would end up 6-1 against Wawrinka in GS events. Moreover, had previous wins against Wawrinka in RG but still couldn't win the RG when Nadal was not in front of him. As far as ignorance goes you made an issue about Wilander and the AO when there were numerous other reasons why I specifically explained to a Djokovic fan that using most slams and weeks at #1 wasn't the most effective way to claim one player is better than the other. I cited Wilander having more slams and weeks at #1 than Becker but I thought Becker's edge in H2H, more singles titles, Bo5 Finals, YEC, and Davis Cup gave the German the advantage. However, what I didn't mention or trivialize were his GS wins. If those AO titles don't mean much I don't want to talk about Margaret Court and some of her draws. I know that many players skipped the AO due to travel and near Christmas but we also must consider who you actually play leading to your win. Many will say Vilas had a vulture win in the FO since there was no Borg or Connors that year. Once you say this then we also have to consider other RG events slams in which Evert and Connors didn't show up due to World Team Tennis. Moreover, we know many players also skipped the AO for many years. However, we also should consider that even recent slam winner didn't beat 1 top 10 or GS champion en route to their win. I think it's subjective to say since you played in a full draw and beat NO top 10's or GS champs that your title means more than someone who did beat quality opponents in a smaller draw. As the silly jab about 1980's AO any poster in the former players section has seen my numerous posts about the subject of the AO. I reluctantly use the word "straw man" here. I never stated the AO was the same as today. However, I did say that due to the quality of opponents Wilander faced the AO wins were much more than generic wins. Moreover, if you want to go deep into the 1980's we can also mention that Wilander did win the Lipton tournament when there were Bo5 matches prior to even the final. In fact, I think he won 21 sets in a win which means that the tournament was very close to slam level in both competition and longevity of play.

3-Fed was at/near top 5 when he lost in the 1R to a marginal play that never made much impact in the sport. I've mentioned the Melzer in the past. Fed has plenty more questionable losses, so it doesn't really advance any argument here. If the (issue) is Fed couldn't win more FO titles than start by taking at least 1 set from a Gustavo that had previous injuries and later would get neutralized by Nalbandian in the same tournament. BTW, he was a 2-time GS champion at the time.

4- Talk is about RG but you're implying that Nadal wasn't in prime level when he WON 5 RG titles in 6 years? How ignorant does that sound? I only mention his previous clay finals to show that his previous success warranted a better showing than losing in the first round to a relative unknown.

5-I guess learn a little reading comprehension with the difference between highest peak and prime level again. Nadal won 4 RG in a row and did beat some great players during that period. He wasn't peak level but was still in top level. How many players have won 4 RG in a row during Open Era? Borg did it once and Nadal did it three times including 2017-2020. Djokovic in 2022 was in great form until he got stopped by Nadal in 2022 RG QF. BTW, so yes stick to the OP topic it's "FO" not clay in general.

6-Actually many of your stats are taken from questionable sources if you think about it. The entire previous discussion about winning titles in straight sets had you implying that Borg never did it more than 3 times by citing Borg in 1979 and1980 when any competent Tennis fan knew that he likely achieved it years before. Immediately I stated Borg had it do it a few times and you stated he never went past 3 but it was in fact 7 times. Hypothetical draws only exist in fantasy. The fact is that Djokovic got deep into the RG draws and was stopped by Nadal twice in 2006 and 2007. Of course, in your contradictory logical reasoning you get punished for not facing players that don't appear in your draw but also get punished as Wilander for defeating top players you actually FACE. You can't have it both ways.

7-Cherry picking stats? The affirmative defense you state it "may go to 2014." Djokovic defeated Nadal in the 2014 Italian Open Final which "might" give him a fourth win vs "prime Nadal" using your flawed logic. BTW, as a proponent of Bo5 finals I actually think Nadal could've won that 2014 Final if it was Bo5 as he is 21-0 in Bo5 Clay Finals. Nonetheless, it was a quality win.

As far as the personal Ad Hominem nonsense about being "ignorant' and "narrow understanding" please exercise the "ignore" function at your discretion as I will with you. I make distinction between stans and impartial fans. When I heard a Djokovic fan denigrate Nadal's Gold medals claiming it was 250 level this clearly demonstrated they weren't worth any more discussions. This entire thread might get locked or deleted so please get your last word before it does.

1. Nadal was also out for 6 months after RG 21. level was meh at best in RG 21 vs Djoko. nothing remotely resembling prime level.

2. I am not triviliazing Wilander's wins. I'm putting it in context. The AO was not the 4th biggest event in those years. The YEC was. that's a fact. I do give credit to Wilander for beating Mac/Lendl in AO 83. But its just not at the level of a major for that year. I mean Nalby beat Djoko/Nadal/Fed in Madrid 07, a much tougher job than many of the slam wins. doesn't mean Madrid 07 is a major or anything near that.

As far as Fed at RG goes, the realistic chances of winning at RG he had were from 04-11. Won in 09, lost to Nadal 5 times, lost to Kuerten turning back the clock, lost to peak Sod.
For Djoko, that is supposed to be 08-09, 11-16. Won in 16, lost to Nadal 4 times, fed once, peak Wawa once and Kohly once.
Djoko has the win at RG 21 which was impressive for that age, but lessens if you look at it in general.

I'm not mentioning RG 12 or RG 15 or RG 19 for Fed for the record. so don't mention RG 19/20/22 etc. for Djoko.

3. You didn't mention Melzer loss here before. Only now you acknowledged it. How would I know when you have mentioned Melzer loss in the past?
As far as Fed's RG 03 loss goes, you first mention about winning a slam. now you are changing it to near top 5/top 6.

4 and 5. Yes, because clay field was quite weak. Nadal's prime on clay was 2005-13. you need to be close to physical and mental prime to be in your prime.
yes, peak is narrower than prime., but you seem to have a much wider definition of prime than me (&majority of others here). 15/20/21/22 is not prime Nadal on clay.

Nadal faced 0, yes, ZERO very good level opponents at RG from 17-20. Thiem was done after 2 sets in RG 19. schwartz tapered off after set and half in RG 18. and these were the best opponents he faced. Of course in 17 he was in very good form, especially final, so may not have mattered, but he could've been taken out by very good opponents in 18-20.

6. what on earth are you talking about? I only checked for and mentioned year by year for Borg in 79,80. I didn't even check for 77. So the question of me getting it wrong when I didn't even check or mention 77 doesn't arise.
Also djokovic retired in RG 06 QF vs Nadal after 2 sets. How on earth is he a contender?
I also pointed out Mathieu/Hewitt were playing better than Ljubicic at that RG. they would the ones facing off vs Djoko in case Nadal wasn't there. But you instead put in Ljubicic. why?

7. no, I'm saying only RG 14 could be argued to be prime level from Nadal, not the pre-RG events where he was getting beaten left right by almagro, ferrer, not just Djokovic.

I'm not the one making such absurd comparision of Olympics with 250. So not relevant here.
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
"You are ignoring content by this member. Show ignored content" -Na i'm good lol.

(y) Great to have the last word hopefully the entire thread isn't deleted FWIW. @Ivan69 was correct about this overzealous fanboyism.

You didn't even read what I wrote and then being in this nonsense, including something from that clown Ivan69. a lie from another thread. (about Borg), another topic about Wilander from nowhere when it wasn't even relevant.
Good riddance. Off to the ignore list you go, arrogant *****.
 

duaneeo

Legend
Fed fans need to stop spamming the GPPD forum.

A sample of the current threads:

Medvedev has a Rome title and Federer doesn't...Nadal faced the very best of Federer at Wimbledon...Who would have thought (which is about Federer)...Interesting Big-3 numbers (Federer is a Big-3 of course)...Federer last match...

Seems it's not just Fed fans who are spamming the GPPD forum with this former player. :rolleyes:
 

Incognito

Legend
2010 was the first year that Nadal (age 25) put it all together and had statistically his best year. He won W and UO for first time.

If it weren't for Djokovic, he had an even better year in 2011, would've won 9 tournaments (vs 6 in '10). But Djokovic totally destroyed him.

'12-14 were not good years for Djokovic, who had sub-par 3 slams. But he snapped out of it with '14 Wim win over Federer, who would've beaten anybody else on the green lawns of Wimbledon. Then Djokovic returned to greatness in '15, when he won 3 slams.
So 2011 was his peak but not anymore in 2012-2013 and then peaked again in 2014 for a short time on grass, and then peaked really high in 2015-16…?
 

DSH

Talk Tennis Guru
While I agree Federer did face an overall better Nadal at RG than Djokovic, some of the specifics of your opening post are just silly. 2005 Nadal better than 2012, LOL! 2012 was easily Nadal's 2nd best year at RG at worst, after only 2008, and his best overall year of clay tennis ever. 2013 Nadal was also extremely good, better than 2005, and atleast on par with 2006 and 2007.
RG's 2014 version of Nadal was also more complete than the 2006 version.
:D
 
Top