Federer fans, be honest...
- Thread starter ADuck
- Start date
The Safinator
Rookie
Inflated? Please, you can only beat the guy across the net. Whatever you end up with is what you did and it doesn't matter who you played or who came after you, or anything else.
D
Deleted member 763024
Guest
Look at the younger generation on Nadal and Djokovic's heels challenging them like these guys did to Federer...... <<crickets>>
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
It is more fruitful to have weaker era when you are in your early 30’s
When at your physical peak it doesn’t matter as much - Fed 2004-07, Djoker 2014-16
Sport
G.O.A.T.
This year Nadal stopped Thiem at age 33, so I fail to see why Federer did not stop Djokovic at Wimbledon at age 33 (Wimbledon 2014 final). You can say "Djokovic is an ATG, Thiem isn't", but without Nadal Thiem already would have 3 RG titles and would be considered an ATG on clay, in the same tier of Kuerten/Lendl. If Nadal keeps stopping Thiem the next 3/4 years at RG, it will mean Thiem would have won 6 or more RG titles without Nadal.
O
OhYes
Guest
Doesn't make any sense. When you are in early 30s you think of retirement, you probably have family, but when you are in early 20s.... even lost gen players could make a career. Talking about pre Fed time.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
That is the point really
You don’t see early 30’s thinking about retirement now because next gen is not pushing them out
Look at Cilic , Stan and Ferrer
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
I agreed with your entire post except that part. What 'no names' did Fed lose to at Wimbledon besides Stakhovsky? Unless you're talking about Berdych/Tsonga/Raonic type players. But Novak has losses at Australia to Istomin/Chung/Roddick/Tsonga, so that more than evens out. Nadal has the one loss to Soderling, who is on that Berdych/Tsonga level and would've likely had another loss to a no name if he hadn't withdrawn in 2016.
Obviously he has more bad losses in NY, but they were all after 30 and after the surface had been slowed down to such a degree that it was unrecognizable from the tournament he first won in 04.
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
"Untestable and therefore unprovable."
13 of Federers majors were before Nadal and Djokovic were 21...Nadal and djokovic there whole career have had each other to deal with plus peak federer until around 2012.
Your argument has relegated Federer to no.3.
Sephiroth
Hall of Fame
Lmao Roddick can have his H2H record over Djokovic. Oh well. But Nadal and Djokovic have the H2H over Federer and as long as that stings you right up the arse I'm more than happy cuz I know that one really gets the Federer fans mad.
As for your other crappy post you guys deserve it given all you Federer fans have done is crap on Nadal since he won #18. Stay mad.
Standaa
G.O.A.T.
"therefore irrelevant."
VaporDude95
Banned
Davydenko leads Nadal. So does Djokovic. Doesn’t stop you guys from claiming GOAT over a freaking h2h while you ignore all the ones he has a losing record in lol
titoelcolombiano
Legend
Imagine the nice head-start Fed could build if he had 2003 - 2007 all to himself before the other two matured on all surfaces
Sephiroth
Hall of Fame
They can have the H2H over Nadal. But nothing will change the H2H over Federer LOL and I'd rather have that one.
True Fanerer
G.O.A.T.
I don't think there are any Fed fans that are mad about the Djokovic H2h. Federer led the H2h until he was 34. It's hilarious how Djokovic and Nadal fans band together on this. It's very telling.
True Fanerer
G.O.A.T.
Fed has wasted some opportunities like others have said. I'm not angry about it. Djokovic and Nadal have too. Djokovic even more so.
VaporDude95
Banned
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
oldmanfan
Legend
Few things in his career can top this:
Agreed!
If we look at his career as a whole, and each of his achievements in context (i.e. his previous achievements are possible bc of his age/etc., so it's more possible, while AO17 is 'much less' possible bc of his age/injury-return/etc.), I might have to rate this AO17 win as his greatest. It's not necessarily bc it's a win (he did win 17 before that, no?), but it's the circumstances surrounding the way he did it. If we are to find a better achievement of his, it will have to come from his coming days, not his past.
oldmanfan
Legend
Forget challenging Djokodal, look at Djokodal's NexGens challenging post-prime-Fedr since 2010-to-present-day 37.8 yrs old Fedr.... still <<crickets>>....
Grampa
Semi-Pro
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.
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
Where is Nadal?
VaporDude95
Banned
So Rafa has won 18 GS, yet he is shown 3rd on the table and slams are supposed to be the what defines greatness.
No WTF titles? No GOAT title.
Suck it up
Last edited:
mightyrick
Legend
To me, the biggest knock on Federer's legacy is that he was beaten at his best slam by a rival on his worst surface twice. He just barely won in 2009. 2008 through 2016 for Federer at Wimbledon made me raise my eyebrows a lot. But especially 2008 through 2010. It also took Federer 4.5 years to reach the semis of a slam (and ultimately win one). But that is mainly because the field was much stronger from 1999 through 2003. There's no question the guy is an ATG. His run from 2004 through 2007 was pretty sickening. Incredible longevity. But he clearly was prevented from 2008 forward from making mincemeat of the field. His rivals came into their own and the field got stronger.
If Federer/Djokovic/Nadal were the same age, they'd probably have very equivalent (and lower) slam counts.
If Federer/Djokovic/Nadal were the same age, they'd probably have very equivalent (and lower) slam counts.
D
Deleted member 743561
Guest
Get a clue, man.
Nadal and Djokovic became who they are because of Federer.
The bar was raised so high that they had no choice but to fashion their games accordingly.
That eluded you somehow?
duaneeo
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!"
Rogfan
Professional
Such an excellent post! You said everything I wanted to say
It’s what it is. As a Fed fan I’ve completely gotten over the slam race orbGOAT debate. It really doesn’t matter if both of Nadal and Djoker pass him in slam counts. My greatness book isn’t defined by these numbers. You can’t choose your age, your era, your competition. Think about for it for a moment for Berdychm Tsonga and Ferrers alike, are they worse players than Tsitsipas/Zeverv/ Thiem? I doubt. But they will most likely achieve less wins and titles some of these next gens will because the era and competitions they played in. At the end of the day fans and players themselves just have to make sense of it and focus on the incredible careers they’ve had. Same goes to Fed. I feel not many true Fed fans are glory hunters and will abandon him as soon as the slam count is surpassed. I’m definitely not one of those. Won’t even be disappointed
mightyrick
Legend
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.
D
Deleted member 743561
Guest
Too true.
Blistering the field was never his thing until they came along.
As a reminder, Federer went 92-5 in 2006.
Minus Nadal and Murray, Federer would have gone undefeated for an entire season.
Next.
VacationTennis
Semi-Pro
No, tennis is very hard and winning 20 grand slams is insane. I could see a couple more honestly.
Grampa
Semi-Pro
How are the guys who came later raised the bar of the sport? That’s like saying it’s because of Fed Kuerten became an excellent player. That guy’s logic is completely absent.Too true.
Blistering the field was never his thing until they came along.
As a reminder, Federer went 92-5 in 2006.
Minus Nadal and Murray, Federer would have gone undefeated for an entire season.
Next.
Ridiculous. It's irrelevant what age they were. They are ATGs. Nadal had already won a slam by 19. The point which eludes you is that after 2009 when Fed was around 28 year old, Nadal and Djokovic rose to power together. Fed declined and they started taking away slams from Fed. Djokodal are now almost 33 and there NO ONE taking away slams from them. You can't be this obtuse can you?
Nadal matured on all surface by 2008, he made semi's of HC slams. You can't have it both ways. Nadal was beating Fed on HC by 2004, so he was clearly mature. Djokovic made USO final in 2007, mature. Fed didn't really have much of a head start. It's Djokodal who is cleaning up now with no one else behind them willing to step it up.
So what? Kyrgios leads Djokovic and Dustin Brown leads Nadal. Ummm let me guess they were injured in those loses
titoelcolombiano
Legend
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.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/maestronians-be-honest.645023/
Didn't I just do this?
Didn't I just do this?
Crisstti
Legend
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.
Crisstti
Legend
He clearly wasn't, since he didn't have the consistency on the surface at all. Same with Novak until 2011.
titoelcolombiano
Legend
Your thread was epic!
F
FRV
Guest
Two completely different threads if you ask me. He just borrowed bits of your title.
hipolymer
Hall of Fame
20 year old Rafito took peak Fed to 5 sets at Wimby 2007, even after having a ****ty schedule; same with Wimby 2008
whachoo talkin bout
If anything, 35-37 year old Fed is higher level on hard courts and grass than 30-33 year old Rafa
Last edited:
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Well, Soderling maybe, but Istomin and Chung are not far
duaneeo
Legend
LOL!
This is a better description of Fedal. From 2005 - 2010 (a mere 6-year period), they were the top-2 players (four YE#1s for Federer, two for Nadal), won 21 of 24 slams, won 31 Masters, and faced each other in 18 finals.
Nadal won the USO, his lone AO title, and 5 of his 9 HC Masters (including his lone indoor hard title, won in a BO5 final) all before 2010. To add, he also won his two Wimbledon titles before 2010.
titoelcolombiano
Legend
Tennis_Hands
Banned
BorisRogerFan
Semi-Pro
Roger is beyond criticisms and regrets. He's such a unique tennis player. And such a human being too , for that matter.
Similar threads
