Federer fans, be honest...

Is Federer to blame?


  • Total voters
    95
  • Poll closed .

OhYes

Legend
Number of meetings from 2004 - 2007:

Federer/Roddick: 10 (5 slams, 2 TMCs, 2 Masters, 1 250)
Federer/Hewitt: 11 (5 slams, 2 TMCs, 4 Masters)
Federer/Nadal: 14 (5 slams, 2 TMCs, 6 Masters, 1 500)

As said by Glenda, the good witch of the north: "Begone!"
:oops:
Nice of you to put into perspective just what kind of low profile players those 2 have been.
If Federer played against a teenager more than against Roddick and Hewitt, it just shows what kind of times those were.

As for that other part... classy.
 
Last edited:

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
:oops:
Nice of you to put into perspective just what kind of low profile players those 2 have been.
If Federer played against a teenager more than against Roddick and Hewitt, it just shows what kind of times those were.
Awwwwww, so now that you can't refute the argument you loathe the fact that Nadal has been consistently good in that period?

OK

Nadal Djokovic 2011-2014: 19 times

Imagine what kind of times when in their most consistent Nadal and Djokovic met only 19 times.

What is more

Federer Djokovic 2012-2015 21 times

Imagine in his peak years Djokovic meeting a pensioner more than meeting his main rival (and that is only up until 2015, after that there are additional years of free lunches)

:-D:-D:-D
 

terribleIVAN

Hall of Fame
What all of you don't understand is Federer has 2 ATGs 5/6 years his junior chasing him. Nadal and Djokovic have no one. They are benefiting tremendously from this and hence their slam count is highly inflated.
Ok.

But which ATG was chasing Fed between 2003-2007 ?

That's 5 years of no real competition.
 
I think he took his foot of the gas for a while when he broke the slam record and lost a bit of the single-minded drive you need to be at that level. So I think that he didn't quite maximize his potential in, say, 2009-2011 (or starting in 2008).

But what he's done as an elderly man against a younger field since 2014 is far beyond anything I could expect. Among the most awe-inspiring achievements in the sport.
This. So it balances out. If he missed out in 2009-11, he compensated in 2012 and again in 2017-18. He has done everything he can to defend the record. If one of the other two break it now, it will be well deserved for they have also learnt to manage their thirties in order to catch up with him.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Ok.

But which ATG was chasing Fed between 2003-2007 ?

That's 5 years of no real competition.
Nadal won RG in 2005, 2006 and 2007. If we extend the period to mid 2008 (that would be 5 years form first Major win for Federer). Nadal won RG 2008 and Wim 2008. That is 5 Majors out of 20.

Federer also beat Nadal at Wimbledon for his titles in 2006 and 2007, so that is also ATG competition right there. So that is 7 Majors out of 20.

That is 35% of all Majors that Federer contested with younger ATG competition.

:cool:
 

terribleIVAN

Hall of Fame
Nadal won RG in 2005, 2006 and 2007. If we extend the period to mid 2008 (that would be 5 years form first Major win for Federer). Nadal won RG 2008 and Wim 2008. That is 5 Majors out of 20.

Federer also beat Nadal at Wimbledon for his titles in 2006 and 2007, so that is also ATG competition right there. So that is 7 Majors out of 20.

That is 35% of all Majors that Federer contested with younger ATG competition.

:cool:
Rafa was only 19 in 2005, and hadn't developed his game enough to contend on hard with the rest of the field.

Yet had he met Roger on hard in these 2005-2007 USO and AO finals, i fully believe he would have won a fair share of them, simply because even as a teen, Rafa always had Fed's number.

We certainly wouldn't be talking about 5 straight USO for Fed.

So, Fed did indeed have 5 years of non-challenge outside of clay.
 

True Fanerer

G.O.A.T.
Nadal won RG in 2005, 2006 and 2007. If we extend the period to mid 2008 (that would be 5 years form first Major win for Federer). Nadal won RG 2008 and Wim 2008. That is 5 Majors out of 20.

Federer also beat Nadal at Wimbledon for his titles in 2006 and 2007, so that is also ATG competition right there. So that is 7 Majors out of 20.

That is 35% of all Majors that Federer contested with younger ATG competition.

:cool:
See, this is why I didn't mind Nadal winning the FO because there's no way they can win these discussions.
 

Bartelby

Talk Tennis Guru
Nadal adds another clay event. This changes nothing. The slam race has been about how long he can dominate clay for years now.

The slam race is tightening up now. Perhaps it's closer than you initially thought it might ever be. Federer still sits 2 slams in front of Nadal, and 5 in front of Djokovic. Both might not equal or surpass him, but my question to y'all is is Federer in part to blame for it being so close? I know he is 5-6 years older than Djokodal which gives him a disadvantage in the physical department for some years now, but are you satisfied that he did enough in the position he's been in, or are you slightly disappointed that he wasn't able to put up more of a fight in the past 9 years or so? Answer honestly.

Edit: Let's keep it civil. Federer fans only please.
 

Sabratha

Talk Tennis Guru
Actually, I'd say it's the other way around. Federer has become who he is because of Nadal/Djokovic/Murray. They all turned Federer into a better server, forced him to be a better returner, forced him to improve his backhand, and even forced him to change his racquet. In my opinion, 2010 through 2016 was a serious period where Federer learned/adjusted/learned/adjusted/learned/adjusted. He saw lots of changes in game approach. Lots of changes to his body. Coaching changes. And of course, there was an injury in there.

It doesn't take anything away from him. The reality is, he is at the tip-top of Open Era ATGs. He's 37 and he's still going. I sincerely hope he keeps it up.
Murray, the same muppet who struggled to beat an injured Fed in a GS SF and got butchered 5 other times helped Fed "improve"? Guess Roddick did too. Freaking joke.
 

Druss

Hall of Fame
Rafa was only 19 in 2005, and hadn't developed his game enough to contend on hard with the rest of the field.

Yet had he met Roger on hard in these 2005-2007 USO and AO finals, i fully believe he would have won a fair share of them, simply because even as a teen, Rafa always had Fed's number.

We certainly wouldn't be talking about 5 straight USO for Fed.

So, Fed did indeed have 5 years of non-challenge outside of clay.
Rafa was only 19 and a 'baby'? So tell me, what business did Lendl have losing to 'baby' 18 yr old Becker at Wimbledon?
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Rafa was only 19 in 2005, and hadn't developed his game enough to contend on hard with the rest of the field.

Yet had he met Roger on hard in these 2005-2007 USO and AO finals, i fully believe he would have won a fair share of them, simply because even as a teen, Rafa always had Fed's number.

We certainly wouldn't be talking about 5 straight USO for Fed.

So, Fed did indeed have 5 years of non-challenge outside of clay.
Is this a joke?

No matter what developments Nadal had to make to his game he was already a Major champion and consistent one, as the period in question and the further developments showed.

Regarding your omission of grass: you mind pointing me at a three consecutive years when Nadal was better than in the 2006-2008 period at Wimbledon?

:cool:
 

OhYes

Legend
Why talk smack when your boy has won in vomit worthy periods AND didn't lead the H2H with Roger until he was 34? Hate to say it but in regards to beating Roger Rafa is in another realm to Novak.
I didn't even start talk smack, you know already Hewitt = Berdych.

Now for Fed in 30 leading in h2h against Novak... really ? :-D Oh he trashed his butt when Novak was 20-21, badass Fed.
 

terribleIVAN

Hall of Fame
Is this a joke?

No matter what developments Nadal had to make to his game he was already a Major champion and consistent one, as the period in question and the further developments showed.

Regarding your omission of grass: you mind pointing me at a three consecutive years when Nadal was better than in the 2006-2008 period at Wimbledon?

:cool:
You're telling me Rafa's peak was at 19, and it all went downhill from there ?

Then why didn't Fed start to win slams at 19 then, LOL ?

And Rafa made the Wimbledon final in 2010 (won) and 2011 (lost). He was technically better than before 2009, but his repeated losing efforts vs peak Nole ran him into the ground.
 

duaneeo

Hall of Fame
Nice of you to put into perspective just what kind of low profile players those 2 have been.
If Federer played against a teenager more than against Roddick and Hewitt, it just shows what kind of times those were.

As for that other part... classy.
What was put into perspective is that peak Federer not only had his contemporaries, but a unique young gun who came blazing out of the gates and was a slam winner, multi-Masters winner, and YE #2 by the end of 2005. Djokovic was YE#3 by the end of 2007, and soon Murray had joined the list of strong young guns. Your silly claim that prime Roger "only" had Roddick and Hewitt was simply, well, silly.

And lets not talk about class. If you had any, you would've followed the OP's request (who even said "please"):

Federer fans only please.
 

BadBoy666

Rookie
There is a big difference between winning a M1000 and a slam. Djoker has Nadal and Federer to contend with which he has had his entire career.
Djokovic made a slam final in 2007 and won the next one in 2008. 2007 USO was a tight final despite straight sets. Djokovic was definitely prime by then. Federer was no longer peak by the time Djokovic became peak in 2011.
 

BadBoy666

Rookie
Djokodal isn't one player. It's two all time great players, having to contend with each other, consistently. And we see what happenes when one of them is in a low (Nole slam). Fed would have won 4 in a row as well if not for Rafa, as we know well.
Yes but only 2 guys splitting all the slams with no one else chasing them like Fed had, vastly inflates their results.
 

BadBoy666

Rookie
Ok.

But which ATG was chasing Fed between 2003-2007 ?

That's 5 years of no real competition.
Nadal was mature by 2005 definitely on clay (obviously since he won FO2005), so he was taking slams away from Fed. Nadal matured on grass by 2006 since he reached W final. Nadal was already beating peak Fed on HC by 2004. So yeah Nadal was very young, but he matured much faster than the the other guys. Djokovic was reaching slams finals and beating Fed by 2007. So both of those guys were already there. After 2009 till 2019, there were no younger guys challenging those 2 guys, only old Fed.
 

Crisstti

Legend
Yes but only 2 guys splitting all the slams with no one else chasing them like Fed had, vastly inflates their results.
I don't think so at all. Having a fellow all time great being consistent across all surfaces on your prime is tough as it gets.

That you need consistency to be mature is just something made up. He was mature if he was beating the #1 player at his peak.
His peak level was already high. But if he was first not going deep consistently at hc events, and then he was, he obviously matured as a hc player, no?
 

BadBoy666

Rookie
I don't think so at all. Having a fellow all time great being consistent across all surfaces on your prime is tough as it gets.


His peak level was already high. But if he was first not going deep consistently at hc events, and then he was, he obviously matured as a hc player, no?
Djokovic wasn't great across all surfaces except maybe in 2011. Otherwise he was pretty useless on clay as Fed was relative to Nadal. So Nadal had a given clay slam pretty much every year especially with the draws he'd been getting. Regardless, only 2 guys splitting most of the slams with no younger guys challenging, and in some cases not even able to get sets shows how lucky Djokodal are.

His peak level being high enough by 2004 shows he was mature. Whenever he was able to get to Fed, he was playing peak so there was a guy as early as 2004 already challenging Fed (see W2006,W2007 and he very well could have beaten Murray USO2008 but Murray just too good that day). Since 2011 till now, Djokodal have absolutely no one on their level except occasionally Fed.
 

Enga

Hall of Fame
You can ask Sampras the same question and of course the answer is no. Why would you ever overachieve for the hopes that your record would stand the test of time for 100 years? Thats an incredibly weird way of thinking of things. Youre lucky to set the record today, you dont have time to think of tomorrow.
 

Crisstti

Legend
What we're talking about is how hard they made it for the other guy: Nadal and Novak for each other, or both for Fed. So the consistency with which they could get to the later stages of tournaments is essential to this discussion.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
You're telling me Rafa's peak was at 19, and it all went downhill from there ?

Then why didn't Fed start to win slams at 19 then, LOL ?

And Rafa made the Wimbledon final in 2010 (won) and 2011 (lost). He was technically better than before 2009, but his repeated losing efforts vs peak Nole ran him into the ground.
What "peak"? We are talking about ATG opponents. It will be the first time that an ATG has to be peak to be considered ATG opposition. He consistently won Majors from 2005 onwards, and that is enough.

Your question contains the answer: Federer was't ATG material at 19. Nadal was. Is that a revelation to you?

So, you can't point me at a period of three consecutive years better than 2006-2008 at Wimbledon?

I guess that takes care of the omission of grass too.

35%.

How many percents of their Majors did Djokovic/Nadal contest with the next generation ATGs?

:cool:
 
Last edited:

Sephiroth

Professional
So basically h2h means nothing unless you want it to mean something, thus rendering it completely pointless in a GOAT debate.

Thanks for coming to my ted talk

Exactly. I couldn't care less about players having a leading H2H over Nadal because I don't, simple as. You can name any player over Nadal and I won't even bother to argue but Nadal having a H2H over Federer is pleasing and even more pleasing to see you lot get mad, running around like crabs in a bucket, I know for a fact it will make each and every Fed fan miserable so it's a win-win for me, it hurts you loy so much I'll keep bringing it up
 

Sephiroth

Professional
VB started trashing Fed before the RG had even started so zip it. Fed has the slam record, not to mention other important things over dear Nadal so we are pretty happy. It’s been more than a decade since your compatriots started the h2h debate and now it’s just irksome that you people still need to go back to it every time. Really, what else do you have for arguing? Not much.
Good, I want it to be irksome if it makes you miserable LOL

As I said you deserve it for getting Nadal threads deleted ever since he won RG. Time and time again all I see it the huge amount of disrespect for Nadal just because he wins on clay so when you get the heat back thrown at your face, be prepared to take it. I give no inch. I will continue to crap on "Federer only" threads if Nadal is being crapped on like he was before.

Don't like it? Block me
 

Grampa

Semi-Pro
Good, I want it to be irksome if it makes you miserable LOL

As I said you deserve it for getting Nadal threads deleted ever since he won RG. Time and time again all I see it the huge amount of disrespect for Nadal just because he wins on clay so when you get the heat back thrown at your face, be prepared to take it. I give no inch. I will continue to crap on "Federer only" threads if Nadal is being crapped on like he was before.

Don't like it? Block me
I don't block the trash, I just let it pass and wait for someone else to take it out for me. I don't plan on reporting or blocking anyone while I am here, but keep up your trolling and the mods will certainly ban you. Guys like you desert the ship whenever the journey gets tough, if Rafa loses and Fedovic win the remaining slams I expect you to take a 'break' 'cos there will be payback and much worse than what VB is even capable of here. :cool:
 

ChaelAZ

Legend
Ok.

But which ATG was chasing Fed between 2003-2007 ?

That's 5 years of no real competition.

Yeah, that is the normal mentioned years, but I really think 03-maybe 05 or 06 where it, so a couple years of easy pickins. He still had to compete, but if you go back and watch there was no one even close to challenging him for majors.
 

terribleIVAN

Hall of Fame
He consistently won Majors from 2005 onwards, and that is enough.
When Kuerten beat Fed in 2004 RG, he didn't beat a clay ATG , did he ?

No one in his right mind would call Federer 10 months removed from his first W win a clay ATG.

But take Roger from 2007, and Kuerten might not have won more than 10 games.


So, you can't point me at a period of three consecutive years better than 2006-2008 at Wimbledon?
I just gave you 2010 and 2011 where Rafa was better technically on grass.
But your obsession in making out of teen Rafa an all-surfaces ATG at just 19 to prove your thesis makes it futile.

Roger enjoyed 5 years of non clay dominance (15 slams) with no other ATG able to challenge him on these surfaces.

As soon as Novak, Rafa and Murray matured sufficiently, he stopped winning all these non clay slams.

So he's been a big beneficiary of a weak period and anyone with two ounces of good sense will readily recognize it, except people with an agenda like yourself.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
When Kuerten beat Fed in 2004 RG, he didn't beat a clay ATG , did he ?

No one in his right mind would call Federer 10 months removed from his first W win a clay ATG.
No, he just beat an ATG. Winning his first, second, third etc Major is part of what makes him an ATG.

The opposite idea, that a player is not an ATG while winning his first 5-6 Majors (i.e. the cutoff for an ATG status) is absolutely ridiculous.

I just gave you 2010 and 2011 where Rafa was better technically on grass.
You are giving me answers to questions that I don't remember asking, and you are not giving me answers to those that I asked. Fact is, you cannot point at a trio of consecutive years at Wimbledon where Nadal was better than the period in question, so curb your enthusiasm and admit that Nadal was a strong opponent of ATG status in those matches.

But your obsession in making out of teen Rafa an all-surfaces ATG at just 19 to prove your thesis makes it futile.

Roger enjoyed 5 years of non clay dominance (15 slams) with no other ATG able to challenge him on these surfaces.
Your pretzeling of definitions to manage to get something out of the difficult situation is entertaining, but there is only so much you can do to mask the problems. There is no reason to exclude clay, and there is no reason to exclude grass and that is what I contended and based on which I came up with the percentage I already mentioned.

BTW, Federer won his 15th Major in 2009, if I am not mistaken, so even the conclusions of your misplaced claims are incorrect. Of course, one of those Majors was also on clay.

As soon as Novak, Rafa and Murray matured sufficiently, he stopped winning all these non clay slams.
You can keep repeating that and it won't make it true without accounting for other factors, which you conveniently put aside.

So he's been a big beneficiary of a weak period and anyone with two ounces of good sense will readily recognize it, except people with an agenda like yourself.
I established exactly how many Majors he directly contested with next generation ATGs while in his peak. I haven't seen the percentages for Djokovic/Nadal, so, let's see you post them and we will see who had what era and opposition.

:cool:
 

terribleIVAN

Hall of Fame
No, he just beat an ATG. Winning his first, second, third etc Major is part of what makes him an ATG.
ATG's aren't obligatorily playing like ATGs on all surfaces.

Sampras on clay isn't an ATG.

Neither are Mc Enroe, Edberg, Becker.

Courier in his best form could never have beaten Sampras at Wimbledon in a thousandths tries.

So the surface is important when talking about ATG's.

Before playing the 2006 and 2007 W finals, Rafa got beaten in the second rd by 69 th ranked player Gilles Muller in 4 sets in 2005.

According to your reasoning (or lack thereof) it must have been a terrible counter performance by a future ATG, and Nadal clearly underperformed...

Your remark about Rafa's W perfs in 2006-2008 stretches the original point made about Fed ( 2004-2007). So, my comparisons of 2008-2010-2011 as being better than 2006-2007 are totally in line with reality.

Even if you want to argue for RAFA being an ATG on grass in 2006 and 2007, that leaves 12-2= 10 slams for Fedr of not being challenged by other ATG's on hard and in part of grass.

That's an inescapable fact.
 
Last edited:

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
ATG's aren't obligatorily playing like ATGs on all surfaces.

Sampras on clay isn't an ATG.

Neither are Mc Enroe, Edberg, Becker.

Courier in his best form could never have beaten Sampras at Wimbledon in a thousandths tries.

So the surface is important when talking about ATG's.
OK, so, applying that logic, Nadal hasn't beaten a single ATG in all his runs at RG. Good.

Before playing the 2006 and 2007 W finals, Rafa got beaten by 69 th ranked player Gilles Muller in 4 sets in 2005.

According to your reasoning (or lack thereof) it must have been a terrible counter performance by a future ATG, and Nadal clearly underperformed...
Muller beat Rafa at Wimbledon again some years later, clearly unimpressed by the ATG resume. Try again.

Alas, even if you want to argue for RAFA being an ATG on grass in 2006 and 2007, that leaves 15-2= 13 slams for Fedr of not being challenged by other ATG's on hard and in part of grass.
You can't do simple math. Those were Federer wins up until 2010.

Also one of them was actually on clay.

Also, not including the matches he actually lost against Nadal is basically eliminating the influence of his ATG competition.

And in general, do you even follow the conversation, because outside of repeating absolute BS, your arguments don't even orient themselves towards what we are talking about: we were talking about the ATG competition against Federer in his peak, and you went off on tangent including periods that have nothing to do with Federer's peak.

If you want to argue, argue with some decency.

:cool:
 

terribleIVAN

Hall of Fame
You can't do simple math. Those were Federer wins up until 2010.
Also one of them was actually on clay.
The point everyone makes stops at 2007. Not sure what you're babbling about here.

Math was a bit faulty, i concede: 4 years between 2004-2007, 16 slams - 4 RG - 2 W= 10 slams unchallenged by other ATG.

That's quite a free stretch.
 
Last edited:

OhYes

Legend
What was put into perspective is that peak Federer not only had his contemporaries, but a unique young gun who came blazing out of the gates and was a slam winner, multi-Masters winner, and YE #2 by the end of 2005. Djokovic was YE#3 by the end of 2007, and soon Murray had joined the list of strong young guns. Your silly claim that prime Roger "only" had Roddick and Hewitt was simply, well, silly.

And lets not talk about class. If you had any, you would've followed the OP's request (who even said "please"):
I am not saying that Fed didn't find it tough around 2008... after all Nadal entered his peak with 22 (or was it earlier :unsure: ), Nole won his 1st Slam, kids have started to pop out like mushrooms after rain... and yeah, Roddick and Hewitt were just... holding back those pushy kids.
We know when Fed took advantage of weak tour. It was 2004-2007 and he never repeated that. Not bcs of age. We know he is tailor made for weak field situations (2017).

I followed OPs request and I didn't vote. But if you expected that only Fed fans would be writing here...:rolleyes: especially after post #3 in this topic :sneaky: so typical.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
The point everyone makes stops at 2007. Not sure what you're babbling about here.

Math was a bit faulty, i concede: 4 years between 2004-2007, 16 slams - 4 RG - 2 W= 10 slams unchallenged by other ATG.

That's quite a stretch.
OK, so that is quite a stretch (or, rather, a percentage) of not facing a younger generation ATG.

Now, could you list the number of times younger generation ATGs played Djokovic/Nadal for a Major title?

:cool:
 

mightyrick

Legend
Murray, the same muppet who struggled to beat an injured Fed in a GS SF and got butchered 5 other times helped Fed "improve"? Guess Roddick did too. Freaking joke.
Ah, okay. Injury card, eh? Fed fanboy sound a lot like Nadal fanboy.

Well, Murray has been having back issues the latter half of his entire career. So I'd say that makes them even.
 
Last edited:

terribleIVAN

Hall of Fame
OK, so that is quite a stretch (or, rather, a percentage) of not facing a younger generation ATG.
Glad we got that out of the way.

It only took 11 pages. :cool:

Now, could you list the number of times younger generation ATGs played Djokovic/Nadal for a Major title?
Rather than going alone as in 2004-2007, since 2008, 4 people fight for the titles.

Novak beat Fed at W 2014-2015.

Fed beat Nadal in 2017 AO.

Nadal beat Fed for a place into RG final.

Nadal, Novak and Murray fought with each other and with old Fed. It's called competition.
 
No, because I know that 30+ year old Nadal and Djokovic wouldn’t do better against peak or prime Federer than he did against them.

In fact they would do probably much worse.
Current Djokovic beats any version of Fed on Plexi at AO and has maybe a 50/50 chance on clay.
Djokovic’s biggest enemy is his own mind at this point. He has no obvious physical issues.
 

VaporDude95

Banned
Exactly. I couldn't care less about players having a leading H2H over Nadal because I don't, simple as. You can name any player over Nadal and I won't even bother to argue but Nadal having a H2H over Federer is pleasing and even more pleasing to see you lot get mad, running around like crabs in a bucket, I know for a fact it will make each and every Fed fan miserable so it's a win-win for me, it hurts you loy so much I'll keep bringing it up
Again, you prove why a head to head is a pointless argument.

Nadal fans are the only ones that care about it because it’s the only thing you have lol. Keep bringing it up, but it just looks sad the more you do. Screams of desperation.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Glad we got that out of the way.

It only took 11 pages. :cool:
Actually, you just repeated my findings from earlier. I don't know if you realise that.



Rather than going alone as in 2004-2007, since 2008, 4 people fight for the titles.

Novak beat Fed at W 2014-2015.

Fed beat Nadal in 2017 AO.

Nadal beat Fed for a place into RG final.

Nadal, Novak and Murray fought with each other and with old Fed. It's called competition.
Why are you avoiding my question?

:cool:
 

duaneeo

Hall of Fame
But if you expected that only Fed fans would be writing here...:rolleyes: especially after post #3 in this topic :sneaky: so typical.
What was said that is incorrect? The poster simply stated that Federer had players 5-6 years younger "chasing him". Though Nadal only faced Roger twice in 2005 (1 BO5 Masters final/1 slam SF), it's still a fact that Rafa was "chasing" Federer...beating the competition, ending the year #2, and chasing for #1.

The chase continued in 2006 and 2007, and the match-ups between the two increased...2 slam finals, 2 BO5 Masters finals, a Dubai final and YEC SF in 2006 (4-2 Nadal), and 2 slam finals, 2 Masters finals, and a YEC SF in 2007 (3-2 Federer). Rafa finally chased down Federer in 2008, beating him at Monte Carlo, Hamburg, RG, Wimbledon, and ending the year #1. As stated, young gun Nole joined the chase in 2007, beating the competition to be YE #3, then won the AO and YEC in 2008, and eventually became #1 in 2011.

Now, list the young guns who chased down Nadal and Djokovic. I'll wait.
 

kar_katch

Rookie
He would eventually. If he could handle Roger h2h, Roddick would be ridiculously easier.
If djokovic can handle Fed in a slam final, why can't he beat wawrinka? Why has murray straiht setted thrashed him in slam finals?

Re your quoted statement: You don't know that. Djokovic has lost slam finals to Wawrinka multiple times, he has been straight setted by Murray in slam FINALS, has lost the WTFs to Zverev and Murray and has a losing h2h in finals vs Zverev and slams final h2h vs Thie,... on paper if you were to predict would 15 time slam champion Djokvoic lose (everything I just quoted above) I would say no and would always pick DJokovic.... but reality/what actually happened is different... Djokovic did get straight set thrashed by Murray, he did lose the WTF to mug Zverev etc....

so bottom line Roddick leads the h2h, as does Safin of that era, and a few other weak era mugs from that era. That actually happened not djokovic would have corrected it.
 

OhYes

Legend
If djokovic can handle Fed in a slam final, why can't he beat wawrinka? Why has murray straiht setted thrashed him in slam finals?
Wawrinka has beaten Djokovic once he was injured at UO, second time at RG when he was tired, and only once when he was ok - AO quarterfinals.
 

kar_katch

Rookie
Wawrinka has beaten Djokovic once he was injured at UO, second time at RG when he was tired, and only once when he was ok - AO quarterfinals.
hahahahahaha. Yeah and Fed lost to Djokovic those two times at wimbeldon because he was distracted by his twins and also the angle of the sun was wrong.

what happened with the murray straight set thrashing and losing the WTF to murray and Zverev. Did Djokovic break a nail that day?

Why does Djokovic have a losing h2h against weak era mugs safin, roddick, gonzalez, karlovic as well as fed and nadal during that period? Remember it was a super weak era and Djokovic had already reached slam finals at the point and of course nadal of the same age was a triple slam champion around 10 masters, world no 2 phenom then... was djoker to weak for the weak era? Remember age isn;t an excuse either cos then fed was tool old for 2012 onwards for djokovic's few wins
 

OhYes

Legend
What was said that is incorrect? The poster simply stated that Federer had players 5-6 years younger "chasing him". Though Nadal only faced Roger twice in 2005 (1 BO5 Masters final/1 slam SF), it's still a fact that Rafa was "chasing" Federer...beating the competition, ending the year #2, and chasing for #1.

The chase continued in 2006 and 2007, and the match-ups between the two increased...2 slam finals, 2 BO5 Masters finals, a Dubai final and YEC SF in 2006 (4-2 Nadal), and 2 slam finals, 2 Masters finals, and a YEC SF in 2007 (3-2 Federer). Rafa finally chased down Federer in 2008, beating him at Monte Carlo, Hamburg, RG, Wimbledon, and ending the year #1. As stated, young gun Nole joined the chase in 2007, beating the competition to be YE #3, then won the AO and YEC in 2008, and eventually became #1 in 2011.

Now, list the young guns who chased down Nadal and Djokovic. I'll wait.
Nadal and Djokovic back then were just talented kids, nothing more. Everyone "chased" Federer, even Roddick and Hewitt. The fact tour was so weak back then, pushed Nadal at the age of 20. One era can have 2 Slam contenders at minimum, 3 or 4 at maximum. So someone had to fill that gap of at least 1 Slam contender missing. At least decent one.
It is the same now as it was then. There are young players chasing Nadal and Djokovic, Rafole get beaten by them. It's not as they are super consistent, but you can understand their position since they have to deal with 3 superb players, oldish but good enough to win.
 
Top