Federer had it the toughest out of the Big 3

[abmk]

Hewitt coming off his worst season in years when he dropped from #1 to #17?

had won DC for Aus, including comeback vs fed in late 03. Took the 1st set vs fed at the AO as well.

Ferrero? Come on mate, hot off losing to Guccione? JCF only made the SF because his draw was country club level.

so because he had an easy draw, he couldn't be playing well ?

so nadal had an easy draw at RG 10, so he wasn't playing well ? good to know !
same for RG 12 till the final as well ? good to know !

maybe , one day you'll acually watch the SF match and get a clue, like many others who actually watched it. ferrero played pretty well, esp. sets 1 and 3. federer did extremely well to close him out in straights.

His loss vs Guccione at Sydney doesn't mean much for the AO -- as he beat clearly better ranked players than Guccione at the AO to get to the SF ...

07 Gonzo not as mentally strong in major final as Stan was/is.

yeah, but put stan vs peak fed and there's a good chance he suffers the same fate.

 

[abmk]

2003 had some crappy draws,agreed.

outside of the AO -- which were these crappy draws ?

AO : still had nalby-fed 4R, hewitt-el ayanoui 4R, roddick el-ayanoui 4R all very good or better matches ...

RG : ferrero beat gonzalez+costa(2002 winner)+surprise finalist verkerk
verkerk had come to the final beating moya(98 winner)+coria(one of RG favs)

wimbledon : federer beat roddick+scud
scud had come into the final beating agassi+grosjean

USO : ferrero came into the final beating hewitt+agassi
roddick beat nalbandian+ferrero

2003 is probably one of the most under-rated/less talked about years tbh ..

 

[InsideOut900]

outside of the AO -- which were these crappy draws ?

AO : still had nalby-fed 4R, hewitt-el ayanoui 4R, roddick el-ayanoui 4R all very good or better matches ...

RG : ferrero beat gonzalez+costa(2002 winner)+surprise finalist verkerk
verkerk had come to the final beating moya(98 winner)+coria(one of RG favs)

wimbledon : federer beat roddick+scud
scud had come into the final beating agassi+grosjean

USO : ferrero came into the final beating hewitt+agassi
roddick beat nalbandian+ferrero

2003 is probably one of the most under-rated/less talked about years tbh ..

I exaggerated for the sake of the argument,but dunno man,I am not happy with 2003.
Agassi had a cakewalk at AO,Verkerk played bad in the FO final,Coria was fairly good around that time,but still green IMO and USO had a lot of great players on paper,but most of them were not playing that well. Agassi,Hewitt,Federer. Roddick-Nalbandian semi also had questionable quality.

Regarding Wimbledon,I have said in a comment recently that I consider it one of the strongest in the last 15 years alongside 2004,2009 and others.

 

[abmk]

I exaggerated for the sake of the argument,but dunno man,I am not happy with 2003.
Agassi had a cakewalk at AO,Verkerk played bad in the FO final,Coria was fairly good around that time,but still green IMO and USO had a lot of great players on paper,but most of them were not playing that well. Agassi,Hewitt,Federer. Roddick-Nalbandian semi also had questionable quality.

Regarding Wimbledon,I have said in a comment recently that I consider it one of the strongest in the last 15 years alongside 2004,2009 and others.

US Open : Agassi reached the SF losing only one set ( to Dent ). He played pretty decent tennis in the SF vs ferrero, but was simply outplayed by ferrero.
roddick-nalby wasn't the highest quality, but was still a good match.

RG : verkerk did play badly in the RG final, but had a great run before the final. Ferrero of course was playing well ( and had a 5-setter vs gonzo as well ) and finally won a well deserved RG.

Rewatching some of his matches at 2003 Roland Garros..I think this run may have been the most impressive offensive tennis I've seen there(more than soderling or wawrinka)
He hit 112 aces in 6 matches. Hit close to 100 winners vs Moyà in the QF and lost serve only twice in 5 sets! Hit like 75 winners vs coria in the semis. It's not easy to get balls past him. And the courts weren't fast that year, there were pretty rainy and overcast days throughout. somehow, in these conditions verkerk was able to Play like he was on a fast hardcourt. Shame he laid an egg in the final, I guess that's how he's ultimately remembered today(and posters cite his being in the final as a sign of how weak that time was or something)

Does anyone know how many aces soderling had for the tournament in 09 or 10? I believe the 124 aces verkerk hit during the 03 French open is the tournament record by some margin. FYI Murray has 48 aces and Novak has 14(so far)

 

[tarutani]

Not really a stretch considering all 3 of those AO matches came when Fed was past his best, and 30+ in two of them. Heck, Fed even outplayed Nadal in 2012 but got clutched the hell out of.

I don't give a damn about some irrelevant H2H stat. I'm talking peak level.

Fed owns Nadal on fast/low bouncing HC and grass. Nadal owns Fed on clay. Slow HC 50/50 (see Miami 2005 as peak for peak reference.)

all those clowns that said Nadal stands no chance against Federer on fast courts ^^


9/2006 F dubai Hard Rafael Nadal defeated Roger Federer 2-6 6-4 6-4 odds 3.65 - 1.35

 

[KINGROGER]

all those clowns that said Nadal stands no chance against Federer on fast courts ^^


9/2006 F dubai Hard Rafael Nadal defeated Roger Federer 2-6 6-4 6-4 odds 3.65 - 1.35

Just like when Fed owned Nadal on clay in Hamburg 07 with a bagel thrown in then... and Fed was the better player in Dubai.

I didn't say they win every match on their favoured surfaces, just most of them.

 

[Druss]

all those clowns that said Nadal stands no chance against Federer on fast courts ^^


9/2006 F dubai Hard Rafael Nadal defeated Roger Federer 2-6 6-4 6-4 odds 3.65 - 1.35

Just like many Nadalistas, you're quick to bring up Nadal's success on HC pre 2008 especially against Fed, but when talking about Fed's competition during that period, suddenly Nadal becomes non-existent or a baby. How convenient!

 

[tarutani]

Just like when Fed owned Nadal on clay in Hamburg 07 with a bagel thrown in then... and Fed was the better player in Dubai.

I didn't say they win every match on their favoured surfaces, just most of them.

Please look at this data
https://matchstat.com/tennis/h2h-odds-bets/Rafael Nadal/Roger Federer

The essence of the problem is that most of the expectations in these two games are thought that Federer will win but In the end, in most cases Nadal has won.
The same thing can be said after all in such a vote.
What is always supported is Federer, but what has happened in real life is the opposite

 

[KINGROGER]

Please look at this data
https://matchstat.com/tennis/h2h-odds-bets/Rafael Nadal/Roger Federer

The essence of the problem is that most of the expectations in these two games are thought that Federer will win but In the end, in most cases Nadal has won.
The same thing can be said after all in such a vote.
What is always supported is Federer, but what has happened in real life is the opposite

Well yeah the best player ever at his peak will usually be favourite but as we know, Nadal was a bad match up for him on clay and slow HC.

 

[Micheal Federer]

had won DC for Aus, including comeback vs fed in late 03. Took the 1st set vs fed at the AO as well.



so because he had an easy draw, he couldn't be playing well ?

so nadal had an easy draw at RG 10, so he wasn't playing well ? good to know !
same for RG 12 till the final as well ? good to know !

maybe , one day you'll acually watch the SF match and get a clue, like many others who actually watched it. ferrero played pretty well, esp. sets 1 and 3. federer did extremely well to close him out in straights.

His loss vs Guccione at Sydney doesn't mean much for the AO -- as he beat clearly better ranked players than Guccione at the AO to get to the SF ...



yeah, but put stan vs peak fed and there's a good chance he suffers the same fate.

2014 Wimbledon/WTF and 2015 USO Shows that You don't need a peak Fed, A post prime Fed is good enough to deal with Stan

 

[abmk]

2014 Wimbledon/WTF and 2015 USO Shows that You don't need a peak Fed, A post prime Fed is good enough to deal with Stan

on a medium-fast surface, yes.
On a slower surface, AO/RG ..you'd need a prime federer ...

 

[Micheal Federer]

on a medium-fast surface, yes.
On a slower surface, AO/RG ..you'd need a prime federer ...

Yea, a prime Fed, at least not a peak Fed is more than enough to handle Stan on any surface.

 

[mike danny]

Yea, a prime Fed, at least not a peak Fed is more than enough to handle Stan on any surface.

Prime Fed is definitely not losing to Stan at 3 different GS. Even old Fed did not do it.

 

[Tornes]

Federer wouldn't have been the big favourite in 08.

Ok - maybe not big, however favourite nonetheless. It is easy to look at Djokovic in 08 and say he was amazing on clay - however he did not defeated any top 18 player on clay that year. And as for Federer - maybe not in best form of his life but still two times finalist on FO.

 

[The_Order]

LOL, yeah, nadal with modern racket and borg with wooden racket. Yeah, makes sense? M-O-R-O-N. You equalise if you have common sense.

There's too many variables to equalise it accurately you moron.

nadal was less aggressive in 08 compared to 07, hence the less # of UEs. fed was more aggressive in 08 compared to 07, but not much more.
Nadal's stats are about the very same if equalized for # of points. federer's slightly lesser in 08 compared to 07.

Less aggressive because he was playing a cleaner game and limiting his UEs. In 08 Rafa hit 27 UE compared to 24 in 07.

24/323 != 27/413 It's not even close either, only 3 more UE after 90 more points! So again more crap from the abmk sh*t factory.

In 08, all the sets were relatively close. In 07, 4th and 5th set were one sided.

clueless ...
fed letting concentration waver is his fault. rafa dropping his serve is his fault. It equalizes. Get it ?

I never said it wasn't you muppet. We all know it was his fault. What you seem to have trouble understanding is, that Rafa should have held and taken the set. If he was playing with his 07 form, he would have.

no, clueless. If you learn to read, I said 2004 wim roddick was clearly a bigger threat than 2006 wim nadal.
I also said peak nadal would be toughest opponent for fed. Just that he's still not beating fed from 03-06 on grass.

But that's obvious! Peak Roddick was a bigger threat than a barely 20 year old Nadal in his first WIM final. What a revelation!

Peak Nadal also was obviously the toughest opponent for peak Fed on grass. As for whether he would beat Fed or not, like I said, it's not likely but it's also not an absurd suggestion like Fed ever beating peak Rafa at RG.

fed was past his prime in AO 12. His prime was from YEC 03-AO 10.
If fed had met rafa in USO 08/09, he'd have beat him.

So, RG08 dented Fed's confidence vs Rafa at WIM08 which is why he lost (according to you).

Now Fed in US08 is going to somehow have rejuvenated confidence vs Rafa in US08 after losing both RG and WIM? Face the facts, Murray played far better in the SF than he did the final, just like AO10 far better in QF than the final where he was dropping his balls.

LOL so Fed beats 09 Novak and has a walkover in the final = he's beating Rafa yeah right.

Oh and AO12 was part of Fed's prime. He was in scintillating form after taking the 2011 WTF, won all his matches in straight sets leading up to the SF and would eventually recapture #1 that year. 2013 is when his prime was over.

he took 2 sets in 5 matches, whoppity do ......... you are clueless ..

No you are clueless. I clearly said when playing well. That means you don't count the matches where he got owned. Almagro got smashed in some matches vs Fed because his form was nowhere near comparable to RG10. But when Almagro was playing well, he was capable of giving Fed some trouble. If he can take a set of peak Fed in Cinci than he most certainly can take 2 sets off Fed at RG.

after tipsarevic had done the same in AO 08 ? right ....not peak fed, but a declined from peak, but still prime fed in 08, I wouldn't rule it out.

Bullsh*t. You'd use the mono excuse for that any other time but now you want to use that match as a way to prove a point that you clearly don't believe in.

Except, I didn't say he had back injury at that time. Learn to read . Are you that thick ?

You said he was coming back from a back injury which is clearly rubbish. You have no case, Fed was in form, at his peak and had 100% physical fitness. Oh and he still lost. To a guy who actually was coming back from a career threatening injury. Only his 2nd tourney back. On fast HC.

lol, you are a friggin clueless fella. Djoko in no way choked set 2. I've proven this already. but then you are so sh*t clueless and can't remember either. Here's a reminder : 2 SPs, one cace from federer and 1 rally that ended with djoko hitting a FH that just landed out ( wasn't a wild or bad miss )

If djoko collapses that badly after losing 1 set, maybe, he wasn't that good then, ever thought of that, ignoramus ?

1 choke in set 1 <<<<<<<<< 2 friggin' bad sets ...

1 - You haven't proven anything. He committed an UE on his set point. That is a choke.

2 - Hey ignoramus, how many times has Federer collapsed after losing a set? Nadal has done that too. Maybe all the players just aren't that good then...

3 - 2 friggin' high level sets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything he produced in 07 final...

lol , 2010/2013 USO wasn't even peak form Novak at the USO. You are the one pumping up those not so great performances.

04 USO agassi was clearly better than both
05 USO hewitt was better as well.
07 USO QF roddick as well

04 US Agassi would stand no chance of taking 2 sets off peak Novak and Rafa at the USO. But he did it against Peak Fed...

Hewitt and Roddick were Fed's pigeons in the majors. Tell me, how many total wins do Hewitt + Roddick have vs Fed at the majors?

They can play as well as they can, but in the end, Fed still always had the mental edge over them. That clearly wasn't the case with Rafa and Novak.

I seem to recall you clearly saying that Nadal would never beat Novak on HC again sometime during 2012. So goes to show how much you know. Your predictions are rubbish which is why nobody should listen to any of these fanciful alternate reality situations you keep coming up with...

davy wouldn't beat hewitt in AO 10 ? LOL ..
a tired tsonga ? double LOL !
Murray ? the only real threat. But he was in very good form, as good as Murray, if not better.

Didn't say he would beat Hewitt and Tsonga you clown. I said historically they have proven to be tough opponents for Davy. There's no way he'd cruise through them like Fed did, they'd be giving Davy tough matches leading to the final where an in form Murray wouldn't be so overwhelmed by the situation because he'd be facing a guy who he clearly knows he can beat in a major final.

I said as a threat at majors. He was #3 for a little time based on consistent performances , but ended the year #5.

That's right he was #3! The #3 ranked player in the world couldn't do sh*t at the majors and yet, we're supposed to believe that 06 had tough opponents?

no, you clueless fella, sickness was something that was well known way before the match actually happened.

"It was the continuation of an earlier problem for Federer, who survived a bad case of the shanks in a three-set opening win over Russian Nikolay Davydenko. The Swiss was hindered earlier in the week by the flu, which looks to be lingering. "

http://www.tennis-x.com/story/2004-03-30/d.php



he was in near prime form and lost. The only miami final where he played at similar level or better was 11. In 08/14, he'd have lost.

Sickness is the excuse made by ignorant fans like yourself because you can't cope with the reality that Nadal at only 17 years of age owned him. Didn't even face a break point LOL.

 

[The_Order]

You call players insects and ohhhhhh, now I am supposed to show Novak "respect" by telling a h2h that I don't believe in ?

Except, you do believe it deep down, just don't want to admit it.

Insects compared to the likes of Rafa and Novak. Learn to understand context.

bwaha ha ha ha ha ....

oh and nadal and murray are both quite a bit below fed and djoko when it comes to peak level on slow HC. nadal's matchup with federer of course makes it closer in their matches ..
no wonder even nadal/murray haven't got a win vs djoko on slow HC. federer of course has been ~30 or above which makes it tough to get a win on slow HC.

in a prime to prime fed-nole match on slow HC, no such matchup issues/advantages either way ...

Nadal beat Novak in IW07. He would have beat him in 09 as well.

Fed wouldn't have match up issues but Novak would still win majority of them.

its called "longevity" ...not the # of finals made. get it ?

oh and nadal's ****ty play on grass have affected his longevity there. He was still making finals at RG/USO/AO from 12-14 , but bombing out at wimby.

Again, you clearly highlight the fact that you've never played this sport. Sorry, but playing at some court with your mates does not mean you understand it. Grass is a surface where movement is essential. How's Nadal meant to move well on a grass court after all the significant knee injuries?

It was R2. It was your boy who bombed out in R1...and look up the word longevity.

Oh wow you spotted a typo. Give yourself a medal.

rafa's worst surface/slam is the AO -09 , he made his first final/won it in 09 - same age as fed in 04.

LOL, fed beat an in-form Murray in wim 15, a Murray clearly better than 08/10/11 Murray that nadal faced.
and he stopped stan dead in his tracks in set 1 when stan was looking threatning in USO 15 SF, then frustrated/overwhelmed/rushed stan with his play afterwards ...djoko couldn't in USO 16 final.

the field was strong in 04, 05, 07 and fed won 8 majors combined in those 3 years. it was strong in 08,09 and fed won 3 majors in those years (prime, but not peak form) ..

Rafa hasn't had the same success at AO but as I've said it's clearly because of injuries. Hammy in 11, knee in 13 and back in 14...

Nadal beat Fed at WIM. He doesn't have to prove anything else. Fed never beat him at RG, never even got close.

The field was not strong in 04, 05 and 07. You can say it as much as you want, but you will never convince anyone that Hewitt, Roddick and old Agassi were as much of a threat as Fed, Novak and Murray were for Nadal.

no, in fact, Novak would lose AO encounters to fed. and fed would have the adv vs nadal as well at the USO ..

In fact? Do you even know what a fact is? You can't state your pathetic and useless opinion as a fact you clown especially when it based on nothing but Fed fanboyism.

The facts are that Fed has never taken a set off Novak on plexicushion AO and only won 07 because Novak hadn't developed his game yet. So, based on that, it's clearly a more logical thing to say that Novak would stop Fed from winning the titles he did had Novak peaked earlier.

Same deal with his matches vs Rafa. Rafa has clearly showed throughout his entire career that he gives peak Fed trouble on any surface apart from indoor, low bouncing HC. So again, logic suggests that peak Rafa would be beating him more often than not.

Fed couldn't even prevent Rafa from winning Wimbledon because FACT is he eventually won it against Fed in 08. So how's he going to stop him at AO and USO???

Novak couldn't even stop Murray in 12, crumbled in 13 vs nadal , lost to NIshi in 14, barely beat a well below par fed in 10 and he's going to stop prime fed in that kind of form ? bwahaha

in the years that he played close to his best tennis at the USO, 11/15, he actually beat fed ...and his next best 3 performances were in 07/08/09 where he lost to fed.

I was talking about AO. USO, Nadal would be the main guy stopping him.

because that was rafa's 2nd best there and djoko's 5th best -- considering SF/form ( after 11/08/16/13 ) ...Murray also took Novak to the brink in 12 and he's 0-5 vs Novak there. Nadal being better than Murray, would get that 1 win vs Novak in 5 encounters.

oh and nadal was lucky to even take it to a 5th set. Nole should've finished him off in 4 sets. He missed a simple FH at 5-3 in the 4th set breaker , if he had hit that properly, he'd be up 6-3 in the breaker, having 3 MPs and would've finished it off in 4 sets.

at least Murray was up 2 sets to 1.

What difference does that make? Who cares which sets were won lol, both matches went the distance, but Nadal had the better chance of taking the 5th. And you say it was Novak's 5th best considering SF form? LOL Murray played a whole lot better in the 12 SF than anyone from all of those other years. No wonder he took it to 5 sets. Go and watch the match and see how well he played that night, would've probably beat anybody else.

Fed was lucky to avoid Nadal in RG09 otherwise he'd have 0 RG titles

lol, unbelievable, you are a piece of not reading properly/twisting ...

Oh really, I'm "a peice of not reading properly/twisting" geez so offended...

"yeah, not a Herculean task. He only had to dig in in the 5th set to save a BP, after federer, arguably the grass court GOAT had saved 2 MPs in the 4th set TB. and then had to break and consolidate to finally win the whole thing."


that's saying what nadal did was that good ...

"Again, spoken like a blind Nole worshipper who hasn't watched much tennis before 2011.

Hilarious how you mention djokovic "sucked" on grass in 08, yet neglect to mention that he did play well at Queens in 08 when he lost to nadal in tight straight sets."


that's not nole bashing, you fool. that's bashing of a blind Nole worshipper. saying Novak played well at Queens in 08 is not bashing Nole.



LOL,get it through your thick head, I don't think that way at all. Its all your delusions.

there about 3-4 posts about nadal faking it and about 10 posts saying he was nowhere near his best and that was majorly why djoko beat him.
But all you can see is the first part. Like I said, you are piece of work at not reading properly/twisting things ...

3-4 posts showing your true agenda. You think that saying Nadal wasn't at his best in WIM11 final proves anything? LOL everyone on here know how butt hurt you are that your hero was constantly getting owned in his peak by Rafa.

but why doesn't MC 2013 have anything to do with it ? because you got owned ? After all it was on clay, and rafa had convincingly won 3 matches on clay in the previous year ?

No it's because of the FACT that Nadal missed 7 months and had he played he would've enter the AO with a good chance considering he pushed Novak to the limit in 2012 and he made the 14 final.

and like I said, its plain BS. He got injured after a set and a break ..

Just to play devil's advocate, didn't Baghdatis go up a set and a break? So Stan's position in the match didn't make it a foregone conclusion like you would like to believe it to be.

Fact is he got injured in the warmup.

so USO/wim/AO -- none of these favour poor poor nadal... LOLz .....

WIM didn't favour him vs Fed
AO didn't favour him vs Novak

AO certainly favours him vs Fed which is why he never lost to him there.

LOL, what a joke. He'd quite clearly luckier than them on top of being better. That's why he's survived for longer than them.

LOL Nadal is physically a beast compared to those guys. His physical condition cannot be compared to them. Not to mention Nadal's ability has always given him confidence until 2015. He always felt like he could return from injury and play well. His talent allowed him to come back and reach his best.

It was only until 2015 where the injuries caught up with his age and mentally he lost confidence in his body as well.

 

[The_Order]

it was 1 all vs a non-sick fed. fed edged out in miami and rafa edged out in dubai ( with fed winning more of the points in general ).

you talk as if they played 5-6 matches on outdoor HC in fed's prime and fed only won 1 match ..newsflash, they didn't. They played 3, out of which one was vs a sick fed.

As far as Miami 04 is concerned ....

"It was the continuation of an earlier problem for Federer, who survived a bad case of the shanks in a three-set opening win over Russian Nikolay Davydenko. The Swiss was hindered earlier in the week by the flu, which looks to be lingering. "

http://www.tennis-x.com/story/2004-03-30/d.php

3 Matches, Rafa won 2 and was in a winning position in the other before a stupid line call saved Fed from defeat...

NatF has pretty much rebutted this.

How? By telling me how many times Federer had to face Novak?

Tell me how does that rebut the point that Nadal won 1 AO title because he faced tougher final opponents and various injuries?

I was talking about HC there.

And on HC Nadal would beat Fed more often than not. History has proven that. Deal with it.

 

[The_Order]

had won DC for Aus, including comeback vs fed in late 03. Took the 1st set vs fed at the AO as well.

And? He still dropped from #1 to #17 and was clearly not a threat.

so because he had an easy draw, he couldn't be playing well ?

so nadal had an easy draw at RG 10, so he wasn't playing well ? good to know !
same for RG 12 till the final as well ? good to know !

maybe , one day you'll acually watch the SF match and get a clue, like many others who actually watched it. ferrero played pretty well, esp. sets 1 and 3. federer did extremely well to close him out in straights.

His loss vs Guccione at Sydney doesn't mean much for the AO -- as he beat clearly better ranked players than Guccione at the AO to get to the SF ...

So you really want to compare JC Ferrero at AO to Nadal at RG? LMFAO.

Understand this; Nadal at RG when playing well is unbeatable. Ferrero when playing well at AO is beatable by many players.

Ferrero was as much of a threat at the AO as Ljubicic was at RG.

Nalbandian was the only decent opponent he beat.

yeah, but put stan vs peak fed and there's a good chance he suffers the same fate.

Fair chance he suffers a loss vs healthy Rafa too...

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Just like many Nadalistas, you're quick to bring up Nadal's success on HC pre 2008 especially against Fed, but when talking about Fed's competition during that period, suddenly Nadal becomes non-existent or a baby. How convenient!

When Nadal was beating Federer, this was happening...

So obviously Nadal struggled with Federer's competition more than the guy himself, and he was taking large craps all over those guys...

 

[Druss]

When Nadal was beating Federer, this was happening...

So obviously Nadal struggled with Federer's competition more than the guy himself, and he was taking large craps all over those guys...

Amazing! Nadal owned Federer outside of grass pre 2008, who in turn was owned by the guys that got spanked and whipped from Federer himself. Paper-stone-scissors.
Pre-2008
Nadal beats Federer = Nadal GOAT
Nadal loses to the likes of Hewitt/Roddick/Gonzo = Nadal baby

Got to love these Nadalistas...LOL!

 

[Djokovic2011]

abmk's sure got his work cut out for him tonight.

 

[abmk]

And? He still dropped from #1 to #17 and was clearly not a threat.

he was rising back in the rankings after a bad season. That's what the DC win was indicative of. But you are not too bright, are you ? And yes, he was absolutely a threat. played well apart from the 3rd set.

So you really want to compare JC Ferrero at AO to Nadal at RG? LMFAO.

Understand this; Nadal at RG when playing well is unbeatable. Ferrero when playing well at AO is beatable by many players.

Ferrero was as much of a threat at the AO as Ljubicic was at RG.

again, shows your lack of understanding. I just gave an example to show that just because you face an easy draw doesn't mean you can't be playing well. But you don't have enough logic in your body to understand that.

Ferrero was getting pretty good on HC by 2003 and a much bigger threat on it than ljubicic ever on clay.

And like I said, you are sh*t clueless --- ferrero played pretty well in the SF.

Nalbandian was the only decent opponent he beat.

4 of them - hewitt, nalby, ferrero, safin -( safin was exhausted by the draw and done after set 2 though )

Fair chance he suffers a loss vs healthy Rafa too...

he was up a set and a break vs healthy rafa and was playing well enough to have beaten djokovic in 5 and continued that form in the final, so no. Less chance that he suffers a loss even if rafa remained healthy.

 

[abmk]

There's too many variables to equalise it accurately you moron.

If you can't make it fair, then don't talk about it, clueless.

Less aggressive because he was playing a cleaner game and limiting his UEs. In 08 Rafa hit 27 UE compared to 24 in 07.

24/323 != 27/413 It's not even close either, only 3 more UE after 90 more points! So again more crap from the abmk sh*t factory.

In 08, all the sets were relatively close. In 07, 4th and 5th set were one sided.

157 -- W+FE ( out of 413 points) ( 38%)

124 -- W+FE ( out of 323 points) ( 39.61%)

24/323 -- UE (7.66%)

27/413 -- UE(6.537%)

the difference in W+FE % is actually a bit more for 07 than the other way around for the UE.
Like I said, there was hardly any difference b/w his final performances quality wise. His serving was better in 08 final, ground game in 07 final.

I never said it wasn't you muppet. We all know it was his fault. What you seem to have trouble understanding is, that Rafa should have held and taken the set. If he was playing with his 07 form, he would have.

umm, maybe if fed knew rafa was better, he wouldn't have let up at the start of the 2nd set in the 1st place. So again, quit this BS.
Like I said, federer was closer to making it 3-0 at wimbledon than rafa was to making it 2-1.

But that's obvious! Peak Roddick was a bigger threat than a barely 20 year old Nadal in his first WIM final. What a revelation!

seemed like something that had to be explained to someone like you.

Peak Nadal also was obviously the toughest opponent for peak Fed on grass. As for whether he would beat Fed or not, like I said, it's not likely but it's also not an absurd suggestion like Fed ever beating peak Rafa at RG.

I didn't say it was absurd . I said it wouldn't happen. There's a difference.

So, RG08 dented Fed's confidence vs Rafa at WIM08 which is why he lost (according to you).

Now Fed in US08 is going to somehow have rejuvenated confidence vs Rafa in US08 after losing both RG and WIM? Face the facts, Murray played far better in the SF than he did the final, just like AO10 far better in QF than the final where he was dropping his balls.

RG 08 was part of the reason , yeah. Never said it was the only reason.
Also rafa played his very best tennis in wim 08 final and barely beat fed in the final.

he was in considerably worse form at the USO.

LOL so Fed beats 09 Novak and has a walkover in the final = he's beating Rafa yeah right.

you mean 08 Novak ? well, rafa wasn't in good enough form in the SF vs Murray ..he's not beating fed in the final.

and as far as 09 is concerned, same ..rafa wasn't in good enough form in the SF vs delpo ..he's not beating fed in that kind of form.

Oh and AO12 was part of Fed's prime. He was in scintillating form after taking the 2011 WTF, won all his matches in straight sets leading up to the SF and would eventually recapture #1 that year. 2013 is when his prime was over.

The only really impressive match he played in 11 YEC was the RR match vs rafa.

he had a resurgence in that time period ( after USO 11 to cincy 12) , but it wasn't his prime period.

He'd had better AOs in 04/05/06/07/09/10 -- that's 6 years.

No you are clueless. I clearly said when playing well. That means you don't count the matches where he got owned. Almagro got smashed in some matches vs Fed because his form was nowhere near comparable to RG10. But when Almagro was playing well, he was capable of giving Fed some trouble. If he can take a set of peak Fed in Cinci than he most certainly can take 2 sets off Fed at RG.

LOL, fed wasn't that invincible at cincy at his peak, that he shouldn't be losing sets. Hewitt took him to a 3rd set breaker in cincy 07, yet didn't take him to 5 sets at either wimby/USO.

and he was far better at those 2 than almagro was at RG which more than counterbalances the fact that fed was clearly better at wimbledon/USO than at RG.

Bullsh*t. You'd use the mono excuse for that any other time but now you want to use that match as a way to prove a point that you clearly don't believe in.

yes, mono was major part of why it went 5 sets. But tipsy was playing some pretty good tennis as well. And fed become somewhat vulnerable in the earlier rounds at slams from then on, something he wasn't at his peak.

You said he was coming back from a back injury which is clearly rubbish. You have no case, Fed was in form, at his peak and had 100% physical fitness. Oh and he still lost. To a guy who actually was coming back from a career threatening injury. Only his 2nd tourney back. On fast HC.

I didn't mention he was coming from a back injury, you fool. Quote where I said that.
I said he was coming back from injury. It was the same ankle injury that kept him out of Madrid/Paris ..he didn't nearly make it to YEC. had to use an ankle brace to recover.

1 - You haven't proven anything. He committed an UE on his set point. That is a choke.

no, clueless. Missing an easy FH at the net when up 5-3 in the TB and not closing out rafa in 4 sets is a choke ( AO 12 ) . Just barely missing a FH, not a bad miss is not a choke.

2 - Hey ignoramus, how many times has Federer collapsed after losing a set? Nadal has done that too. Maybe all the players just aren't that good then...

yeah, clueless. If they collapsed after losing a set, it means they weren't good enough in those matches.

3 - 2 friggin' high level sets >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything he produced in 07 final...

no, clueless. He played all 3 sets a pretty good level in 07 USO final ( with one choke in the 1st set ) which outstrips 2 sets at a higher level+2 really ****ty sets

and while his level in the 2nd and 3rd set was higher than in anything 07 final, it wasn't a gigantic difference.

this is what it should be, going by your "logic" :

any set of 07 USO final >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> his 1st and 4th set in USO 13 final

04 US Agassi would stand no chance of taking 2 sets off peak Novak and Rafa at the USO. But he did it against Peak Fed...

LOL, that's hilariously cute. He'd be beating any version of rafa at the USO except 2010. 13 would be a tossup. Same goes for Novak except 11 and 15 would be a tossup.

It was the best match he's played vs the combo of sampras+federer at the USO bar the 2001 QF vs sampras.

I seem to recall you clearly saying that Nadal would never beat Novak on HC again sometime during 2012. So goes to show how much you know. Your predictions are rubbish which is why nobody should listen to any of these fanciful alternate reality situations you keep coming up with...

yeah, get a quote of me saying anything definitely like that ...you won't.

Didn't say he would beat Hewitt and Tsonga you clown. I said historically they have proven to be tough opponents for Davy. There's no way he'd cruise through them like Fed did, they'd be giving Davy tough matches leading to the final where an in form Murray wouldn't be so overwhelmed by the situation because he'd be facing a guy who he clearly knows he can beat in a major final.

yeah, he wouldn't be as nervous as he was against fed, no doubt. But davy had won YEC & doha beating fed/nadal , had that confidence going for him at that point.

That's right he was #3! The #3 ranked player in the world couldn't do sh*t at the majors and yet, we're supposed to believe that 06 had tough opponents?

he did reach the SF of RG. wasn't rafa #4 in late 15/16 having no major SFs to his credit ?
and when on earth did I say 06 was a tough year ? I said it was a relatively easy one. Just like 10 was for rafa and 14-present is for djokovic and now murray. Maybe , if you learned to read.

and even in 06, fed did not face him at a major - he faced haas/davy/baggy in AO 06, nalby/nadal in RG 06, ancic/nadal in wim 06, blake/davydenko/roddick in USO 06.

Sickness is the excuse made by ignorant fans like yourself because you can't cope with the reality that Nadal at only 17 years of age owned him. Didn't even face a break point LOL.

no, clueless. That was a fact all over the news at that time. And I pointed out a news article at that time. But then seeing as you are sh*t ignorant and blinded by your rafa love and fed-hate, you can't accept the reality.

Game, set and match.

 

[abmk]

Except, you do believe it deep down, just don't want to admit it.

Insects compared to the likes of Rafa and Novak. Learn to understand context.

no, I don't, that's your delusion.

6-4 to fed peak to peak vs djoko, IMO.

You referred to all players apart from fed/rafa/novak of this generation as insects. That's downright disrespectful. Get a clue.

Nadal beat Novak in IW07. He would have beat him in 09 as well.

I was referring to from 11 onwards there.

Fed wouldn't have match up issues but Novak would still win majority of them.

peak to peak, they'd split it , at worst, for fed at AO/IW.
miami - djoko would have the clear edge.

Again, you clearly highlight the fact that you've never played this sport. Sorry, but playing at some court with your mates does not mean you understand it. Grass is a surface where movement is essential. How's Nadal meant to move well on a grass court after all the significant knee injuries?

also slightly slowed down reflexes, not enough confidence on grass ...( on top of knee problems ) ...basically him being well below par from 12-15.

Oh wow you spotted a typo. Give yourself a medal.

oh, now that was a typo, was it? LOL !

Rafa hasn't had the same success at AO but as I've said it's clearly because of injuries. Hammy in 11, knee in 13 and back in 14...

Nadal beat Fed at WIM. He doesn't have to prove anything else. Fed never beat him at RG, never even got close.

The field was not strong in 04, 05 and 07. You can say it as much as you want, but you will never convince anyone that Hewitt, Roddick and old Agassi were as much of a threat as Fed, Novak and Murray were for Nadal.

he wasn't winning vs Novak in 11 in any case, dream on. was losing to stan in 14 before the injury.
and I doubt he wins AO 13 vs Novak either.

and again , you show your ****iness by excluding nadal of 05/07 from fed's competition while including fed for nadal.

from 04-07 : fed met all of roddick,hewitt, nadal 5x at the majors.

also Novak has met fed more times at majors than he has met nadal and has denied fed more majors than he has rafa.

In fact? Do you even know what a fact is? You can't state your pathetic and useless opinion as a fact you clown especially when it based on nothing but Fed fanboyism.

The facts are that Fed has never taken a set off Novak on plexicushion AO and only won 07 because Novak hadn't developed his game yet. So, based on that, it's clearly a more logical thing to say that Novak would stop Fed from winning the titles he did had Novak peaked earlier.

Same deal with his matches vs Rafa. Rafa has clearly showed throughout his entire career that he gives peak Fed trouble on any surface apart from indoor, low bouncing HC. So again, logic suggests that peak Rafa would be beating him more often than not.

Fed couldn't even prevent Rafa from winning Wimbledon because FACT is he eventually won it against Fed in 08. So how's he going to stop him at AO and USO???

fed took a set of Novak on plexi in 16. and like I said, all of their matches involved federer far from his best. 08 - mono, 11 - past his prime, 16 -- too old.
and all 3 involved Novak at his best. Its asisnine to use that in a prime to prime encounter.


because fed is 2-1 vs rafa at Wimbledon. he did win vs him in 07 when rafa was at his best.
rafa's peak at wimbledon was better than his peak at USO/AO ...same as fed, that's why.

09 AO for instance had fed serving ****tily. Had he been at his peak, his serving would be better, so would his confidence and that'd be enough to turn that around in his favour.

I was talking about AO. USO, Nadal would be the main guy stopping him.

LOL, only 2 times nadal was even playing well enough to beat prime fed -- 10/13...and he'd be the main guy stopping him ? LOL ...
he'd win 1 of those 2 times at best.

you could throw in 11 as well, but I really doubt that...

What difference does that make? Who cares which sets were won lol, both matches went the distance, but Nadal had the better chance of taking the 5th. And you say it was Novak's 5th best considering SF form? LOL Murray played a whole lot better in the 12 SF than anyone from all of those other years. No wonder he took it to 5 sets. Go and watch the match and see how well he played that night, would've probably beat anybody else.

Fed was lucky to avoid Nadal in RG09 otherwise he'd have 0 RG titles

I said it was 5th best considering SF+F form.

11 - was his best, beating fed in straights and then thrashing Murray
16 -- 2nd best, dominating fed , inspite of losing a set and then straight-setting Murray
08 -- 3rd best, taking out fed in straights and tsonga playing well in 4 sets
13 -- 4th best, taking ferrer out in a dominating performance in the SF and then Murray in 4 sets in the final

Murray played pretty well in AO 12, not denying that. But if Novak was in better form, he'd beat him easier.

Nadal had to have one failure at RG in so many years. Fed was good enough to win in 09 , when he did. and fed came through a tough draw to win it

What difference does it make ? It makes a difference because Novak was close to finishing the final in 4 sets ; how many times does that have to be told ?
he choked that 4th set away. 5-3 in the TB, misses an easy FH at the net. He would've had 3 MPs, THREE MPs.

Since Murray was up 2-1 in sets, Novak couldn't have closed him out in 4 sets, could he ?

3-4 posts showing your true agenda. You think that saying Nadal wasn't at his best in WIM11 final proves anything? LOL everyone on here know how butt hurt you are that your hero was constantly getting owned in his peak by Rafa.

saying nadal fakes MTOs is based on observation of the convenience of those MTOs and him running around like a rabbit after them, is not hating him.

You do realise that thread was started by that djoko fanatic to try to one-up djoko's performance vs nadal in wim 11 and I called him out on it.

No it's because of the FACT that Nadal missed 7 months and had he played he would've enter the AO with a good chance considering he pushed Novak to the limit in 2012 and he made the 14 final.

yes, maybe 3rd fav after djoko and murray. and like I said, I doubt he's getting past djoko.

Just to play devil's advocate, didn't Baghdatis go up a set and a break? So Stan's position in the match didn't make it a foregone conclusion like you would like to believe it to be.

Fact is he got injured in the warmup.

baggy didn't reach the final beat djoko in the QF. stan did.
baggy had an exhausting draw, stan didn't. he'd have to win the 2nd set to get his adrenaline/spirits going. He couldn't and the draw caught upto him.

and you better believe it and get it, vs the field ...fed at the AO > rafa at the AO. its not close.

nadal got injured during the match, after stan had gone up a set and a break.

WIM didn't favour him vs Fed
AO didn't favour him vs Novak

AO certainly favours him vs Fed which is why he never lost to him there.

I was talking about in general, not vs specific opponents. All are "weak" surfaces for rafa apart from clay, isn't it ? poor rafa ! LOL !

LOL Nadal is physically a beast compared to those guys. His physical condition cannot be compared to them. Not to mention Nadal's ability has always given him confidence until 2015. He always felt like he could return from injury and play well. His talent allowed him to come back and reach his best.

It was only until 2015 where the injuries caught up with his age and mentally he lost confidence in his body as well.

he's been luckier than them to be able to get back to that kind of form after injuries ( on top of being better )

 

[abmk]

3 Matches, Rafa won 2 and was in a winning position in the other before a stupid line call saved Fed from defeat...

1 match - sick
1 match each won by the player who was getting beaten initially -- fed in miami 05 and rafa at dubai 06.

hardly proof of rafa's edge. What it shows is fed-rafa would be competitive on outdoor HC prime-prime, that's it.

How? By telling me how many times Federer had to face Novak?

Tell me how does that rebut the point that Nadal won 1 AO title because he faced tougher final opponents and various injuries?

"Federer has faced Djokovic 3x, Nadal 3x, Safin etc...at the AO in the later rounds.

Nadal has only 3 finals at the AO and 1 SF, comparing their records is complete bollocks when Federer has faced many more top flight players anyway. The fact that Federer was good enough to make it deep so many times so he could take advantage of some softer draws is hardly a weakness compared to Nadal who even in his prime years rarely made it beyond the QF's."

"Murray is an example of an on-fire opponent, Gonzo in 2007 is another - I'd also include Hewitt 2005 under that description. He of course very unfortunate in 2011 and 2014. Nadal is better at the AO than his 1 title would suggest, but he'd trail Federer there in any era in terms of wins. Federer is 16-9 (64%) against the top 10 at the AO, Nadal is 5-7 (42%). Against the top 5 Federer is 4-8 (33%), Nadal is 2-3 (40%).

Claiming Nadal had tougher competition is frankly ridiculous."

that clearly rebutts that nadal face tougher competition ( talk wasn't about final specific opponents ) ...but apparently too tough for you to get. Read it multiple times.

Let me elaborate here :

08 - tsonga destroyed him in straights
10 - murray would've won anyways.
11 - without injury, would've won vs ferrer and made the final where he'd have lost to Novak
14 - stan was winning vs him even before injury, had beaten 3x defending champ in Novak in the QF and was playing in similar form in the final vs rafa who wasn't in top form -- which is he what he would've needed to stop that stan
13 - doubt he gets past Novak, even if he was fit. Maybe even loses to Murray.

So all you got without the injuries for sure is 1 final in 11 and maybe more 1 final in 13. Still no AO where he'd be remotely close to having a real good chance of winning.

of course without an opponent like djoko in 11/12/13 in this hypothetical scenario , maybe a slightly weaker one, he probably gets another AO to make it 2 AOs.

but then fed would get another AO atleast as well.

And on HC Nadal would beat Fed more often than not. History has proven that. Deal with it.

only 5 relevant matches on outdoor HC. Its 2-3 for fed. Hardly some gigantic proof.

Also 5-1 for fed on indoor HC. I could go into more detail here, but I don't think there's a need, is there ?

 

[RS]

Sorry but you're so biased I can't take these claims seriously



Man, old man Federer was #1 in 2012, threatening for #1 in 2014 and #2 for most of 2015. Even old man Ferrer made it to #3 in 2013. Gives you an example of the quality of players in this golden generation.

31 isn’t old in modern tennis due to the substances and training around.

 

[mike danny]

31 isn’t old in modern tennis due to the substances and training around.

It is when you are up against other younger ATG.

 

[Julian Houston]

Sure, to be the best need to sacrifice to play more. I believe Federer will play 4+ more years than Nadal, Djokovic, Murray when they quit.

 

[RS]

It is when you are up against other younger ATG.

Not always. Federer rates his game very high and says he is more complete now than he was in the mid 2000s which he was dominating. Older can mean more experience. I

 

[Deleted member 757377]

The results of the poll LOL

Clearly not Federer, whose best coetaneous were Roddick, Hewitt.

Djokovic had it the toughest, he had peak Nadal and Federer from the beginning, plus peak Murray, plus generally more modern opponents.

 

[mike danny]

Not always. Federer rates his game very high and says he is more complete now than he was in the mid 2000s which he was dominating. Older can mean more experience. I

Not this crap again. Fed said the same thing in 2013.

 

[robthai]

Not always. Federer rates his game very high and says he is more complete now than he was in the mid 2000s which he was dominating. Older can mean more experience. I

You need to separate the notion of better player and better athlete. Yes Fed is a better player now, but those physical abilities he had before would compensate for his lack of "experience" and tennis IQ. So overall he was better back then because he was already a fantastic player to begin with but also factoring in being a much better athlete. Tennis at its core is an athletic sport so being a better athlete also means being at your peak abilities.

 

[Djorau]

In 2003 he was peak for just 2 tournaments: Wimb

In Wim 2003 he looked peaked because he faced a bunch of clowns through the tournament except for the semifinal.

The fact that Phillipwho reaching the final that year showed how low the standard of grass game was in 2003.

 

[mike danny]

In Wim 2003 he looked peaked because he faced a bunch of clowns through the tournament except for the semifinal.

The fact that Phillipwho reaching the final that year showed how low the standard of grass game was in 2003.

Phillippoussis had Sampras on the ropes in 1999.

 

[Djorau]

Phillippoussis had Sampras on the ropes in 1999.

Not the Philipwho who could not even sniff a break chance against Roger.

Phillippoussis' role in 2003 was only to watch the winner of the Fed-Rod SF lifting the trophy.

Murray would have won Wimbledon 2012 and Djokovic would have won Wimbledon 2013 if they only had to meet average players like Scud in the finals.

 

[RS]

Not this crap again. Fed said the same thing in 2013.

He knows his game well. I do think Federer might be getting ahead of himself due to the success but it shows Federer didn’t 100% leave his Prime as quick as some people believe. Certainly not in 2007 like people keep saying.

 

[RS]

You need to separate the notion of better player and better athlete. Yes Fed is a better player now, but those physical abilities he had before would compensate for his lack of "experience" and tennis IQ. So overall he was better back then because he was already a fantastic player to begin with but also factoring in being a much better athlete. Tennis at its core is an athletic sport so being a better athlete also means being at your peak abilities.

I agree. But that shows he shots and experience are better than many fans like to claim.

 

[RS]

In Wim 2003 he looked peaked because he faced a bunch of clowns through the tournament except for the semifinal.

The fact that Phillipwho reaching the final that year showed how low the standard of grass game was in 2003.

He faced Roddick a tough oppenent and a 3 time Wimbeldon finalist and won 4 queens titles if I am not mistaken?

 

[Jonas78]

31 isn’t old in modern tennis due to the substances and training around.

It is. We are just blinded by the NextGen. All Big4 had their peak before 30y, the reason they are still winning is because there are no younger ATG's. The quality of the current 3-10 rank havent been weaker for as long as i can remember.

 

[abmk]

Not the Philipwho who could not even sniff a break chance against Roger.

Phillippoussis' role in 2003 was only to watch the winner of the Fed-Rod SF lifting the trophy.

Murray would have won Wimbledon 2012 and Djokovic would have won Wimbledon 2013 if they only had to meet average players like Scud in the finals.

lol, hilarious stuff from "new user".

Djoko 13 final would've lost to Scud , given he was a zombie due to the semi vs delpo.
and I'd favour Murray 12 over Scud . so what ? Murray was playing real good tennis. Scud losing to him wouldn't mean Scud was bad..

yes, Scud couldn't sniff a break chance vs Fed in major part because Fed was playing that well, his best grass court tennis.
Scud was playing some pretty good tennis in that Wimbledon, including in the final.

 

[Djorau]

I'd favour Murray 12 over Scud . so what ? Murray was playing real good tennis. Scud losing to him wouldn't mean Scud was bad..

I mean Murray was one of the unluckiest player. He always ran into Big 3 in his finals.

He would have got 5-6 Slams by now if more of his finalist opponents were mugs like Phillipwho or Baghdatis.

If he had a joke draw like Fred's draw in Wimbledon 2006, he wouldn't have to wait until 2012 to have his first Wimby final.

Federer's first Slam final opponent: Phillipwho (ranked No.48)
Djokovic/Murrray's first Slam final opponent: Fed

 

[abmk]

I mean Murray was one of the unluckiest player. He always ran into Big 3 in his finals.

He would have got 5-6 Slams by now if more of his finalist opponents were mugs like Phillipwho or Baghdatis.

If he had a joke draw like Fred's draw in Wimbledon 2006, he wouldn't have to wait until 2012 to have his first Wimby final.

Federer's first Slam final opponent: Phillipwho (ranked No.48)
Djokovic/Murrray's first Slam final opponent: Fed

utter load of bollocks from a BSer and a butthurt Federer hater like you.
If Murray had played like he did in USO 08/AO 11 finals, he'd have got thrashed by Phillippoussis/Baghdatis in their respective slam runs.
If he played like he did in AO 10 final, it'd be a tossup and that's being a bit generous to Murray.

Murray already got his shot with a below par Raonic in Wim 16 final. He wouldn't win more than 3-4 slams in any decent era.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Once I calculated the average ranking of players beaten in slam finals and slam finals. It was something like this

finals: Djokovic 5, Nadal 7, Federer 15
semis: Djokovic 8, Nadal 13, Federer 14

Who had it the toughest? Mumble mumble...

 

[Djorau]

Murray already got his shot with a below par Raonic in Wim 16 final. He wouldn't win more than 3-4 slams in any decent era.

Bulsh**. Murray systemically figured out and broke down Raonic's game. And he would have done the same with Phillippoussis' serve-and-volley game.

Oh, and Nadal would have won his first Wimbledon in 2006 instead of 2008 if we somehow remove Federer (let's say have him w/o in the QF, the only way for Ancic to get past that match).
Nadal would have whipped Ancic in the final that year.

Once I calculated the average ranking of players beaten in slam finals and slam finals. It was something like this

finals: Djokovic 5, Nadal 7, Federer 15
semis: Djokovic 8, Nadal 13, Federer 14

Who had it the toughest? Mumble mumble...

Fred even faced unseeded opponents in Slam finals.

 

[abmk]

Bulsh**. Murray systemically figured out and broke down Raonic's game. And he would have done the same with Phillippoussis' serve-and-volley game.

BS. Scud could actually volley pretty well unlike Raonic who was unimpressive at that Wimby at the net. Raonic was also tactically clueless in that match and didn't serve that well. Murray did return pretty well, but someone who could actually volley well would've troubled him significantly more. Scud also had a better BH than Raonic did/does.

Oh, and Nadal would have won his first Wimbledon in 2006 instead of 2008 if we somehow remove Federer (let's say have him w/o in the QF, the only way for Ancic to get past that match).
Nadal would have whipped Ancic in the final that year.

again, you are in dream land.
Match would've been close and could've gone either way if Ancic was playing well --- anywhere close to how he played in the QF vs Fed.
But then , again, you'd actually need to watch the QF match. But you can't bear to watch it, because it'd hurt your BS agenda.

Fred even faced unseeded opponents in Slam finals.

those unseeded opponents were better than the crapola version of Murray (AO11), Anderson (USO 17) etc.

 

[Djorau]

gain, you are in dream land.
Match would've been close and could've gone either way if Ancic was playing well --- anywhere close to how he played in the QF vs Fed.
But then , again, you'd actually need to watch the QF match. But you can't bear to watch it, because it'd hurt your BS agenda.

20 yr old Nadal actually took a set off Fred.

BS. Scud could actually volley pretty well unlike Raonic who was unimpressive at that Wimby at the net. Raonic was also tactically clueless in that match and didn't serve that well. Murray did return pretty well, but someone who could actually volley well would've troubled him significantly more. Scud also had a better BH than Raonic did/does.



again, you are in dream land.
Match would've been close and could've gone either way if Ancic was playing well --- anywhere close to how he played in the QF vs Fed.
But then , again, you'd actually need to watch the QF match. But you can't bear to watch it, because it'd hurt your BS agenda.




those unseeded opponents were better than the crapola version of Murray (AO11), Anderson (USO 17) etc.

So was Phillippoussis who did not sniff a single break opportunity.

 

[Pheasant]

Federer had it the toughest due to the age factor and it isn’t even close. 30-31 old Federer played 24-25 year old Djokovic pretty tough back in 2011-2012(2-3 vs Djoker in slams). The fact that so many people have given old Fed crap for not getting the better of peak Djoker and peak Nadal blows my mind.

Let’s flip the script. How would 30-31 year Djokovic from 2017-2018 do against a 24-25 year old Federer from 2005-2006? How about 31 year old Nadal in 2017 vs 26 year old Fed from 2007? We already know that 36 year old Fed went 4-0 against that version of Nadal.

Let’s put it this way. Imagine if we reversed their ages. Imagine Nadal being 5 years older than Fed and Djoker being 6 years older than Fed? How many slams would Fed have then?

That means Nadal is born in 1976 and Djoker is born in 1975. Let’s play this out:

2003. I still think that this version of Fed takes out Djoker. But he wouldn’t need to. Peak Roddick with his 150 mph bomb serves would have taken out Novak. That leaves 27 year old Nadal. Nadal hasn’t been to a quarter at a Wimby since he was 25. Fed keeps this Wimby. But I see an argument for peak Djoker winning this one.

2004. Federer still wins 3 slams. Fed was 18-0 vs the top 10. Granted, 28 1/2 year old Djoker was dynamite at the AO. But Peak Fed on Rebound Ace was murder. But I see a case for Djoker taking then AO.

2005. Fed walks away with 3 slams instead of 2. Age 29 was a massive down year for Nadal on clay.

2006: Federer wins calendar slam. Nadal’s age 30 year is still way off from his best.

2007: Federer still wins 3 slams and he loses FO final to 31 year old Nadal.

2008: Federer wins 3 slams and loses FO final to beast-mode Nadal. This time, Federer gets the better of 32 1/2 year old Djoker at the AO.

2003-2008. Worst case scenario is that Federer is down 1 slam from his actual count. This assumes 2003 Federer loses to Djokovic at Wimby and 2004 Fed loses to Djokovic at AO. But my gut says that peak Roddick takes Djoker out at 2003 Wimby and peak Safin take out Djoker at 2004 AO. But I will give Djoker these two slams anyway.
So far, Fed is down only 1 slam.

It is 2009-2016 where Fed makes up a ton of slams.
2009 AO
2010 USO
2011AO
2011 FO
2011 USO
2014 Wimby
2015 Wimby
2015 USO
2016 AO.

Federer likely gains 9 slams during this time frame.

That puts Federer at 28 slams.


How does Fed do against Novak and Nadal if they are all the same age? I think that he loses some slams during his peak, but gains a bunch of them back during his 30’s.

Lost slams early:

2003 Fed loses Wimby title to 2008 Nadal(close call, no guarantees here).

2005 Federer loses USO to 2010 Nadal(very debatable, but this was by far Nadal’s best form at this event). Federer keeps Wimby. I think peak Rodddick stops 2011 Djoker for Fed. Even then, peak Fed is nearly unbeatable on grass

2008 Federer loses USO to 2013 Nadal(another debatable call).

2009 Federer loses FO to 2015 Djoker or Stan(very debatable). Stan was basically Söderling on clay.

2010 Federer loses AO to 2016 Djoker. This is the only one that I feel like it is somewhat obvious. Djokovic was probably in his top form ever at this event. Djoker in 4 tight sets.

Peak Nadal and Djoker have now stolen away 5 slams. 4 of these losses are quite debatable. The only one that is fairly decisive is 2016 Djoker’s win at the AO over 2010 Federer. Also, it is possible that 2006 Federer beats 2011 at the FO. This was not Nadal’s best work. Federer was a beast on clay in 2006. It took Nadal and his 81 match winning streak on clay to stop this version of Fed. Nadal was blinding-fast during these days. By 2011, he had lost a couple of steps and it became obvious when he was no longer fast enough to run down balls at Wimby. But I will not give this one to Fed. Fed is still down 5 slams.

However, Federer starts season picking a bunch back up.

Federer gains the following:

2010 USO-Novak’s 2016 USO featured a worn out Djoker that eventually got blown out by Stan. Stan is 0-16 in his career against Fed off of clay.
2011 AO
2011 USO
2014 Wimby
2015 Wimby
2015 USO
2016 AO

So even if Nadal and Djoker were actually 36 1/2, I have Federer at 22 slams now. He would be missing the FO trophy. But his consistency during his peak and old age have made him impossible.

Federer has been screwed over the worst and it isn’t even close. Djoker has seen first hand what age and injures can do. Djoker hasn’t won a slam in 2 year now. Nadal’s recent comeback makes things interesting again. Nadal is telling Fed that he cannot coast to the finish line. Old Nadal has quite honestly shocked the world. Nobody ever thought that Nadal would comeback after Djoker absolutely demolished him at the 2015 FO, or after Fognini owned him that same year.

 

[Thomas195]

That means Nadal is born in 1976 and Djoker is born in 1975

Congratulation. By having them being born in 1976 and 1975, you have robbed Nadal of all of his Wimbledon titles and at least one USO title; Djokovic of at least 1 Wimbledon, 1 USO and 1 AO.

For Nadal:
Wimbledon 2008, 2010 = Wimbledon 1998, 2000
USO 2010, 2013, 2017 = USO 2000, 2003, 2007
This assumes that Guga would not able to sneak at least one FO from Nadal.

For Djokovic:
Wimbledon 2011, 2014, 2015 = Wimbledon 1999, 2003, 2004
AO 2008, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016 = AO 1997, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005
USO 2011, 2015 = USO 2000, 2004

Not to mention that:
Wimbledon before 2002: Superfast old grass
US Open before 2005: old green decoturf
Australian Open before 2008/9: Rebounce Ace
No polystring until the early 2000s

Meanwhile, Fed would vulture at least 2 Slams per year during 2007-2017 (except for 2013).

 

[abmk]

20 yr old Nadal actually took a set off Fred.

yeah, so ? He was also bagelled in the 1st set and Fed won the 4th set comfortably. Fed played at a higher level in the QF than in the final.

So was Phillippoussis who did not sniff a single break opportunity.

nope, equating Scud's performance in the Wim 03 final to Anderson's in USO 17 final or Murray;s in AO 11 final is just utter bullsh*te. Only someone with biased agenda or hater can do that.
Scud played fine (though he could've played better). Federer was just too good in that final.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I mean Murray was one of the unluckiest player. He always ran into Big 3 in his finals.

He would have got 5-6 Slams by now if more of his finalist opponents were mugs like Phillipwho or Baghdatis.

If he had a joke draw like Fred's draw in Wimbledon 2006, he wouldn't have to wait until 2012 to have his first Wimby final.

Federer's first Slam final opponent: Phillipwho (ranked No.48)
Djokovic/Murrray's first Slam final opponent: Fed

Murray in his career best form struggled to beat Fed in his career worst form (LMAO).

Put Murray into Fed's era and he wins 0 majors.