mike danny
Bionic Poster
He lost to Roddick and Davydenko in 2010
Federer had it the toughest out of the Big 3
- Thread starter Druss
- Start date
90's Clay
Banned
He lost to Roddick and Davydenko in 2010
Slam peaking Nadal from RG-USO doesn't lose to them.
I dont care about Mickey Mouse tourneys since they mean nothing in the grand scheme of things
mike danny
Bionic Poster
And do you think 2004-2007 Fed would have trouble against Berdych, Murray, "no big titles in 2010" Djokovic, Soderling, Melzer, Youzhny etc???
mike danny
Bionic Poster
The best Fed doesn't lose to Nadal's opponents either.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Bottom line is Nadal had some very easy draws in 2010, so I don't see how that year is stronger than Fed's.
90's Clay
Banned
Point is Rafa only got from 2008-2010 to rule (And he got injured in 2009 so not even THAT long) than peak Nole comes on like a house of fire which Is SUPERIOR to anything from 2004-2007 for Federer. (Outside of Safin at the AO in '05)
Peak Nole is always going to trouble players and take big matches from them.
Nadal only got 3 years to rule, Fed got 4-5, Nole gets 4-5 years or more
You assumed that the speed and height of the ball was tested under favorable conditions in 2003, but I believe they are aware all of these factors. Of course their experiments are under equal conditions and same court, and the results say 2003 conditions was difference than 2008.
Also Federer played serve/volley in 2003, but wouldn't be successful had he played the same in 2008. Yes, Federer won Wimbledon on slow grass because it's his best surface, but my point is had the grass was fast and low bounce, it increases his match up advantage over Nadal and Nole.
http://jimfawcette.typepad.com/fnet/2012/02/hard-courts-fast-clay-slow-not-so-much-.html
No it isn't. You're just in denial because players, commentators and journalists all have said the courts have been slowed down over the years, not just grass but hard court.
InsideOut900
Legend
2004 Roddick at Wimby and 2004 Agassi at USO in the wind have a good chance against 2010 Nadal. They gave peak Federer hell I mean. 2005 Safin beats any Nadal at AO and is slight favourite over 2009 Nadal. 2005 Hewitt was a good chance to beat any Nadal at USO aside from 2010,which he would lose to for sure.
2007 Gonzo who blown Nadal off the court,2007 Roddick serving amazing on Decoturf. Good luck to Nadal
90's Clay
Banned
2004 Roddick at Wimby and 2004 Agassi at USO in the wind have a good chance against 2010 Nadal. They gave peak Federer hell I mean. 2005 Safin beats any Nadal at AO and is slight favourite over 2009 Nadal. 2005 Hewitt was a good chance to beat any Nadal at USO aside from 2010,which he would lose to for sure.
2007 Gonzo who blown Nadal off the court,2007 Roddick serving amazing on Decoturf. Good luck to Nadal
What??? 2007 Gonzo isn't even as good as 2009 AO Verdasco. Roddick is DUD. Don't make me laugh.
Roddick doesn't give anyone hell. Outside of 2009 Wimbledon (And even that he CHOKED into oblivion)
mike danny
Bionic Poster
2004 and 2009 Wimb versions of Roddick would beat Nadal at Wimb. 2007 USO Roddick also played well. Nadal did not play anybody as good as that on his way to his USO finals (except maybe Murray in 2011).
2007 Gonzo was very good. He destroyed his competition in the QF and SF. He only made 3 UE in the semis. That's not bad.
killerboi2
Hall of Fame
I don't get why Roddick his hyped up so much by some people. Apart from some isolated wins against pre prime Murray and Djokovic, the guy has done nothing against top players at slam level. His fitness is also a joke considering he retired so early. He is actually younger than Fed.
InsideOut900
Legend
You talk as if peak Nadal would show up in every Slam. Just admit it that he was inconsistent like hell on hards and not that great on grass either,meaning that in a string of 'n' years he would lose to those guys you are putting down.
Just imagine 2007 Nadal who was out of sort in the Wimby semi facing someone like peak Hewitt.
I have no real reason to defend Federer here,but it is annoying how you straight discredit certain players based on there status.
Roddick was choking at times,but just taking Federer that far in a Wimby final is an accomplishment in itself.
And more importantly,Nadal's career is clay centered and the clay field was/is weaker that grass/harda for the last 15-20 years.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Than Pete's fitness was was a joke considering he retired early too.
Roddick was 30 when he retired. Not so early. And he is only 1 year younger than Fed.
You call pushing the best grass player of this era to 16-14 5th set in a Wimb final nothing??
NatF
Bionic Poster
Djokovic probably cost Federer at least; AO 2011, Wimbledon 14-15, USO 2016
Yet you'll swear until you're blind that Nadal had it harder
killerboi2
Hall of Fame
Than Pete's fitness was was a joke considering he retired early too.
Roddick was 30 when he retired. Not so early. And he is only 1 year younger than Fed.
You call pushing the best grass player of this era to 16-14 5th set in a Wimb final nothing??
Sampras had the mileage of 14 slams and a lack of motivation to stay on tour, which is understandable as he had broken slam record. What kinda mileage did Roddick have? 1 weak era slam, lmao.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Slight correctionDjokovic probably cost Federer at least; AO 2011, Wimbledon 14-15, USO 2015
Yet you'll swear until you're blind that Nadal had it harder
Fed chose the worst time to be injured as this year's USO could have been his for the taking.
90's Clay
Banned
Djokovic probably cost Federer at least; AO 2011, Wimbledon 14-15, USO 2016
Yet you'll swear until you're blind that Nadal had it harder
Nole didn't win his FIRST slam until Fed had already won 11 slams or something. So spare me that BS.
Yea I KNOW that Nadal had it harder. When you factor in being sandwiched between Fed/Nole at injuries at the worst possible time at his peak.
Face it bud.. Fed operated with impunity for 4-5 years. Nole has a garbage cakewalk today.
Nadal didn't have a multi-year cakewalk like the other two did
mike danny
Bionic Poster
8 straight years in the top 10 and competing in multiple slam finals?
mike danny
Bionic Poster
He had one cakewalk the only time he won 3 slams in a season.Nole didn't win his FIRST slam until Fed had already won 11 slams or something. So spare me that BS.
Yea I KNOW that Nadal had it harder. When you factor in being sandwiched between Fed/Nole at injuries at the worst possible time at his peak.
Face it bud.. Fed operated with impunity for 4-5 years. Nole has a garbage cakewalk today.
Nadal didn't have a multi-year cakewalk like the other two did
mike danny
Bionic Poster
And Nole didn't win his second slam until Nadal had already won 9. Your point?Nole didn't win his FIRST slam until Fed had already won 11 slams or something. So spare me that BS.
Yea I KNOW that Nadal had it harder. When you factor in being sandwiched between Fed/Nole at injuries at the worst possible time at his peak.
Face it bud.. Fed operated with impunity for 4-5 years. Nole has a garbage cakewalk today.
Nadal didn't have a multi-year cakewalk like the other two did
NatF
Bionic Poster
Nole didn't win his FIRST slam until Fed had already won 11 slams or something. So spare me that BS.
Yea I KNOW that Nadal had it harder. When you factor in being sandwiched between Fed/Nole at injuries at the worst possible time at his peak.
Face it bud.. Fed operated with impunity for 4-5 years. Nole has a garbage cakewalk today.
Nadal didn't have a multi-year cakewalk like the other two did
That's irrelevant. The fact is Djokovic has been as much Federer's competition as Nadal's. Why does it matter when Djokovic started denying Federer slams? Fact is Federer has been competing with Djokovic at the HC majors since 2007, Nadal only since 2010. It's not exactly easier to face an ATG in your decline.
Besides you're often saying Federer/Djokovic aren't even worth a Bruguera on clay, considering that's where most of Nadal's slams came how is that very tough? Surely not that much tougher than Roddick/Hewitt/Agassi etc...on HC and grass.
Face it bud, you're just a hater.
metsman
Talk Tennis Guru
2011 Nadal may have been a little better overall but 05 Nadal was imo better equipped to deal with Federer. Look at a much older and slower Fed's performance against nadal from 11-12 on slow surfaces. The matchup wasn't nearly as bad as it used to be.
metsman
Talk Tennis Guru
The toughest opponent he faced in those 3 slams combined was freakin Murray who played a good match, but not quite at his 2012-2013 level. The second toughest was pre-peak Djokovic who gave it a good go for a couple sets but clearly wasn't ready. The third toughest was....Soderling on grass? Or Petzchner? Can't even spell his name, LMAO.
90's Clay
Banned
Oh you think Fed is gonna do any damage to Nadal???? Punk- talentless Roddick gonna stop Nadal in a best of 5?
metsman
Talk Tennis Guru
Nadal had the toughest slam win of the 3 with the 09 AO but besides that one his slam draws weren't any tougher than Federer's and 10 RG is weaker than any of Fed's slam draws. 10/13 USO might be as well. Djokovic's might be a little weaker due to the recent cupcake era but even then Djokovic's 14-15 Wimby wins were pretty solid. The other 4 were fairly weak though but 2015 AO/USO were still tougher than 2010 RG/USO.Nole didn't win his FIRST slam until Fed had already won 11 slams or something. So spare me that BS.
Yea I KNOW that Nadal had it harder. When you factor in being sandwiched between Fed/Nole at injuries at the worst possible time at his peak.
Face it bud.. Fed operated with impunity for 4-5 years. Nole has a garbage cakewalk today.
Nadal didn't have a multi-year cakewalk like the other two did
metsman
Talk Tennis Guru
Who cares? No one else was gonna stop Federer either but that doesn't stop you from talking crap. Point is that Nadal's weakest slam draws have been as weak as Fed's maybe even weaker.
And it's not impossible for peak Roddick to beat Nadal not playing his absolute best at Wimby/USO. Their h2h on hard was pretty even from 08-10 with Roddick destroying Nadal the only time they met on fast hard, yet still scoring another win on super slow hard and nearly another win when he was way past it.
D
Deleted member 733170
Guest
An amazing thread full of the most wonderful tautologies, a gem for future students to study in the years to come.
2003-2008 Tough years
2009-2012 Toughest years
2013-2015 Tough years
2016 Quite tough year
2003-2008 Tough years
2009-2012 Toughest years
2013-2015 Tough years
2016 Quite tough year
90's Clay
Banned
'
OH BULL HONKEY!! Since people only point out ONE YEAR that Nadal had it easy (2010). Fed had 3-4 years of easy peasy.. Nole has multiple years (depending on how long he lasts) of easy peasy draws.
Lets not forget as well. Nadal got hurt during his peak (2009). Or else he sweeps the 2009 season. (probably calendar slam)
Tenisfan3
Professional
What damage is PETE going to do to any of Nadal/Nole? Talentless Roddick owned even more talentless SAMPRAS HTH....
Druss
Hall of Fame
What about 'baby in his nappies' Hewitt and 'baby' Safin bringing Sampras back down to earth? ROFLMAO. Put Sampras in 2003-10 instead of Federer and he'd be on 4 slams tops LOL!
tarutani
Rookie
Nadal always better than Federer. but he is not consistant than federer on HC
Peak Federer needed five sets to beat an 18 year old Nadal in Miami 2005. He lost in 2004 and also lost in Dubai 2006. Those are facts. And you can't possibly claim Nadal was as good on HC seven, eight years ago as he is today. So despite the fact that he may be a **** your reponse is just a hopeless attempt of an insult when everything else failed.
The fact is, if your life depended on it, you would all bet on Nadal. You can claim how you would choose Federer and I believe you, afterall you're his fans and it's only logical to support and believe in your favourite player, but if the **** went down, if this match really had an impact on your REAL life, you'd bet on Nadal.
Peak Federer needed five sets to beat an 18 year old Nadal in Miami 2005. He lost in 2004 and also lost in Dubai 2006. Those are facts. And you can't possibly claim Nadal was as good on HC seven, eight years ago as he is today. So despite the fact that he may be a **** your reponse is just a hopeless attempt of an insult when everything else failed.
The fact is, if your life depended on it, you would all bet on Nadal. You can claim how you would choose Federer and I believe you, afterall you're his fans and it's only logical to support and believe in your favourite player, but if the **** went down, if this match really had an impact on your REAL life, you'd bet on Nadal.
Fed is better on grass and medium - fast HC.
Nadal is better on clay.
I'd split slow HC 50/50.
90's Clay
Banned
Thats quite a stretch considering Fed is 0-3 vs. Nadal in Australia with a LOSING h2h on HC vs. Nadal'
Fed's only advantage is indoors. Nadal is the favorite outdoors
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.)
90's Clay
Banned
Nadal-Fed have been playing since 2004 and Nadal has been owning him since. There is no point in discussing "peak level"
No he hasn't. Peak for peak Nadal and Fed were even, and the only reason the best player ever was even with Nadal was the match up issue and the clay skewed factor.
It's useless discussing anything with you because you're a complete and utter troll.
IGNORED. That felt good. Luckily Sampras wasn't around in the 00s era, otherwise he'd be a 2-3 slam chump with a 30-3 losing record to Nadal LOL.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Nadal only has 3 AO finals in his entire career and he faced Djokovic just once at the AO. What tougher opponents?
Oh, and Nadal lost to that very same Muzzler whom Federer beat in the final. He got injured after he lost the first 2 sets but before that he got beat rather decisively.
1 - What tougher opponents? Fed AO09, Novak AO12 and Stan AO14.
2 - Same Muzzler? How about you go and watch Andy's QF and then watch his performance in the final and tell me it's the same Muzzler. Same person, no doubt, but very different level. That QF was probably Murray's best performance of the year.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Fed couldn't have possibly played himself, that's why it's hard to compare some of their AO opponents. Stan was tough, but Rafa wasn't the same after the 1st set.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Agreed on point 2.
Your first point is nonsense though, Federer had Djokovic 11, 08 and 16, Safin 05 and Murray 13. I'd through in Verdasco for Nadal as well but Federer clearly faced more great players at the AO. Need to look beyond just finals here.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Fed also faced Hewitt, Nalbandian, Ferrero and Safin in a row in 2004. Safin was gasses, but Fed had work to even before he got to Safin. He didn't have an easy draw.
In 2005 he had Safin in great form.
In 2007 he had Gonzo who was on fire just like Stan in 2014.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Hewitt coming off his worst season in years when he dropped from #1 to #17?
Nalbandian was a decent win.
Ferrero? Come on mate, hot off losing to Guccione? JCF only made the SF because his draw was country club level.
Safin as we've said was done before it even started.
Sain AO05 was at his best but can't really fault Fed for losing there. Close match that could've gone either way.
07 Gonzo not as mentally strong in major final as Stan was/is.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Yes, Hewitt had a bad 2003, but he was on the rise once 2004 kicked in. He didn't play a bad match vs Fed and he even won the 1st set, continuing where he had left off in the Davis Cup SF.
Most Rafa-fans say 2008-2013 is his prime. Thats 6 years. Federer didnt stop him once in a slam in that period. Djoker stopped him in about a 6 month period from Wimbledon 2011 until Aussie 2012. That leaves over 5 years for Rafa to rule without Fed/Djoker defeating him in a single slam. "The sandwiched in between Fed/Djoker" is an illusion.
Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil
Talk Tennis Guru
You guys still on this? Damn... 
Try to stay away, but cant help itYou guys still on this? Damn...
BVSlam
Professional
These discussion never have a conclusion, the same arguments are repeated over and over and over and over and...You guys still on this? Damn...
Nobody is going to concede, yet people discuss this "which era was better" endlessly as if they really believe that at some point they'll convince the other fanbases that they're right.
And what is the actual benefit in the impossible scenario that two of the three fanbases do concede? The player representing them will have eternal glory and happiness? Or is it a personal victory? One which proves you supported the correct legend and didn't waste your time on a, quote on quote, MUG?
I will be fair though and consider my own questioning of this equally pointless as nobody is going to concede to that either.
Tennisanity
Legend
Great so you agree Fed > Sampras on grass considering Sampras is 0-1 vs. Federer in London with a LOSING h2h on grass vs. Federer.
abmk
Bionic Poster
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
NatF has pretty much rebutted this.
I was talking about HC there.
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
