NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
Also 3 on rebound ace which was slow - medium. More Miami and Indian Wells titles both slow HCs. No excuses for Federer Nadal just better in that match up.
Federer is 10-21 versus Djokodal in grand slams
- Thread starter Halba
- Start date
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
Fed was strong at AO that year. Bulldozed Roddick in SF.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
He was strong yes. The surface still didn't suit his game against Nadal.
But I'm willing to give Fed credit here since it was a winnable match. But mentioning 2012 and 2014 is hilarious.
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
2012 Federer was peak. Reached number 1 during big 4’s peak, defeated Djokovic-Murray b2b, won 3 masters.
NintendoTennis1990
Rookie
Laughably stupid said
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
Why do people keep starting threads on this old mug? He won 20 slams in a weak era against a bunch of nobody's. Why not start threads on truly elite players like Davydenko, Blake, Rainer Schuetler and Kohlschreiber? Up your game.
Spencer Gore
Legend
That is utter, dishonest nonsense.
He didn't win 20 slams in a weak era against a bunch of nobodies. He won 12 slams in a weak era against a bunch of nobodies.
The Guru
Legend
I know, just pointing out the fact that those first 3 encounters at the AO favored Nadal in terms of surface
Honestly I'd only say that for 2012
Ao 17 was too important so as FO 2011
This is the same arguement that kyrgios very often makes "How can he be GOAT when i beat him twice in straight sets".....
New style or Slow bouncy courts does the trick for Nadal....if that new style was that effective why he failed to win another AO in his career. In the green surface in USO he was getting outplayed by a teen Murray in 4 sets because those surfaces were very fast which doesn't suits his game style.
After 2007 both AO and USO changed their court surface which was slower compared to previous ones
NatF
Bionic Poster
- 2009 was pretty neutral, Fed just didn't serve well enough and put too much pressure on his groundgame.
- 2012 was slow af, at that point I think the physical dynamics of their rivalry had switched to where the slow court heavily favoured Nadal over five sets. Fed should have made it closer still though.
- 2014 was Fed coming off a poor year and lacking confidence/still not acclimated to the new stick. I think the surface was still on the slow side but that wasn't the main problem for Fed.
BGod
G.O.A.T.
It's fairly common with Federer being not only 5 & 6 years older but playing well past his mid 30s, an age most pros have already retired.
Connors was 12-22 against Lendl in ATP matches being 8 years older. Sampras was 12-7 against a 4 years older Becker who was also an early bloomer. In both cases the younger player would stretch their margins in later years, like Lendl winning their last 17 matches after Connors won the first 8 meetings.
Connors was 12-22 against Lendl in ATP matches being 8 years older. Sampras was 12-7 against a 4 years older Becker who was also an early bloomer. In both cases the younger player would stretch their margins in later years, like Lendl winning their last 17 matches after Connors won the first 8 meetings.
Lol Aleksandar Mitrovic
Villain
Professional
Ah yes, the old Andy Murray and Stan Wawrinka are terrible tennis players argument.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
That's a little creepy...lol
When you play a 6 year old Player from your previous Generation with contrasting styles it is bound to happen.
Fed dominated Djoker with 4-1 in slams in 2010 after that he lost many close matches. They were tied. Till 2014 wimbledon Fed led 6-5.
Against Nadal he struggled early on with the match up but 6 of those defeats were on clay where Federer has a big disadvantage.
Still most of his losses were closely fought 4 or 5 setters against both of his rivals.
He lost ground to djokovic as 9 of djokers wins after Federer turned 30.
It is a baseless post with lack information that Fed played more often in the prime and peak of djokdal than vice versa.
Villain
Professional
Definitely too late for that.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Yea I'm reading more of the comments in here now...lol
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
This thread smells of 2015 or something.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah 2009 was very much a neutral surface (NO EXCUSES). Fed only has himself to blame for that one.
2012 was definitely a surface that favored Nadal, especially at those stages of their careers. Still shoulda made it five sets though.
2014, the surface was on the slow side but it was the least of Fed’s worries that match. Most of it was his coming off of his 2013 season and getting accustomed to the new racket. Horror show of a match
2017 surface favored Fed a lot.
D
Deleted member 748597
Guest
No excuses for the 2009 loss.
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
Didnt Federer lead in every set? I know he was a break up in set 2 and 4.
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
Why should Fed beat Nadal in 2017 and not in 2012?
dr325i
G.O.A.T.
Or even better question would be -- isn't it soooo obvious how overrated Federer is? Racked up first 10 slams in 4 seasons against literally no competition (Roddick was his biggest threat!!), then basically hit the wall and won next 8 slams over the next 8 years and finally last two when competition got injured again.
Overall, he has absolutely nothing on the other two, now, even statistically that could be argued before.
Amazing how big 4 became big 3 and how the order of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic transformed into something else when all set and done.
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
Residual mono (court brought back latent infection)
itrium84
Hall of Fame
Nadal is still far behind Fed and Novak. He needs at least 2 more GS titles to level up with Fed.
Rago
Hall of Fame
You're wasting your time unfortunately. Even slight changes in conditions can have a huge impact on a tennis match.
Look no further than RG'11 with lighter balls when Isner pushed Rafa to 5 (no surprises that that is Bull's worst performance at the tourney during his prime since it favored aggressive players) or the RG'12 final when Novak won 8 straight games in damp conditions (when it earlier looked to be a straight sets loss) and Nadal immediately starting moaning about the unfavorable conditions and for play to be suspended.
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
Yeah, he basically racked up most of his slams when he didn't have to face an ATG opponent.
First the 12 freebies against Roddick/Bagdhatis/Hewitt/Baby Nadal/Philippousis/Bogdanovic
Then the 3 vultured slams in 09/10 when Nadal was injured
Only1/25 slams won between 2010-2016.... finally wins 3 more when Novak injured in 17/18... greatest vulture of all time
D
Deleted member 779124
Guest
You never get boredYeah, he basically racked up most of his slams when he didn't have to face an ATG opponent.
First the 12 freebies against Roddick/Bagdhatis/Hewitt/Baby Nadal/Philippousis/Bogdanovic
Then the 3 vultured slams in 09/10 when Nadal was injured
Only1/25 slams won between 2010-2016.... finally wins 3 more when Novak injured in 17/18... greatest vulture of all time
NoleIsBoat
Hall of Fame
No one is saying federer isn't a great player - 20 slams is amazing and shows his sheer consistency and longevity. The only problem is he got owned over and over again by his only ATG opposition hence the 10-21 slam h2h vs Nadal/Djokovic. No shame in being 3rd greatest of 21st centuryYou never get bored
D
Deleted member 779124
Guest
Whatever man but I admire your consistencyNo one is saying federer isn't a great player - 20 slams is amazing and shows his sheer consistency and longevity. The only problem is he got owned over and over again by his only ATG opposition hence the 10-21 slam h2h vs Nadal/Djokovic. No shame in being 3rd greatest of 21st century
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
Of course it is, because Federer lost those.
Ever notice how the greatest modern matches are always the ones where he loses?
HailDjokovic
Semi-Pro
Federer is an amazing player, one of the greatest of all time, and by far the most aesthetic.
However, he doesn’t play winning tennis the way Djokovic and Nadal do.
However, he doesn’t play winning tennis the way Djokovic and Nadal do.
This is what I always said, all players have weaknesses. Fed in his prime could play the way he wanted due to just being better than everyone else then Nadal came along and found that top spin to the BH and it will breakdown, Yet I felt Fed was so arrogant in thinking that if he just kept playing the way he did and played well he would win.
Use Djokovic as a example he lost most of the first few matches against next gen and then has owned them due to knowing the matchup and adjusting, I always feel Fed never done that
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Wimbledon 06 is not a historic match lol stop. Wimbledon 08 was already hailed as something absolutely insane before the first ball was struck. But if you wanna take it there....yes he does seem to lose all the important matches
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
Wimbledon 06 is not a historic match lol stop. Wimbledon 08 was already hailed as something absolutely insane before the first ball was struck. But if you wanna take it there....yes he does seem to lose all the important matches
The only one that seems to rise to the level of 'great' where Fed actually beat one of the others was AO17.
Would Wimbledon 2008 still be a historic match if Fed had won? AO09?
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
Wimbledon 2008 probably wouldn’t have been as historic, but I think AO 2009 would. It’d be a nice story of Fed reclaiming the throne from Nadal after his defeats in 2008.
Yugram
Legend
Delbonis?
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
Nadal being epic is a story
Right and now he's no longer the king so people are laughing at him.
Seems like there's a lot of bitterness out there at Fed under the mistaken impression that he's had everything handed to him and that the game just came easy w/o work.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Well that's certainly not my view. I maintain that Fed is the highest level I've ever seen
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
Well that's certainly not my view. I maintain that Fed is the highest level I've ever seen
When though?
Nadal owned him from jump street and then Djoker did.
Anything before 05 was a weak era. Any Slam victories he had over Djok or Nadal were either before they peaked or after.
So when did he attain this highest level you've ever seen, as a Nadalite?
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
2006. When he lost 5 matches all year barely breaking a sweat. And idk why you're coming with this tone when I've said this for years.
Federer did adjust, but he could rarely get his backhand to the point where it would hold up over 5 sets against the pressure Djokovic/Nadal put him under.
I actually think late career Federer, post-2017, made Nadal and Djokovic more uncomfortable in the slams because he was able to play with much more tactical clarity and more consistent topspin aggression off his backhand. Even though he didn't move like he in his physical prime, he was able to dictate from more areas of the court.
But it was a big transition. I was watching some early 2000s Federer and he was miles ahead of his peers in terms of movement and baseline play. Then Nadal came along and had a better baseline game and better movement.
Spencer Gore
Legend
Oh for goodness sake! It's very simple. Federer only has a losing record against Djokodal because he's older and until he got older he had a winning record against them, unless you count his results against Nadal, where he had a losing record, but we can dismiss those as most where on clay, apart from the ones that were on hard courts where he also had a losing record, but we can dismiss those as Federer was using the wrong racquet, even though that racquet helped him to beat the young Djokovic but we can ignore that because the racquet was more important in the Nadal losses than the Djokovic wins, and anyway, the only reason he kept losing to Djokodal in recent years is because he got older, the proof is in the deterioration of his results against them, if we dismiss the results against Nadal where he started to win when he was older, apart from on clay but we can dismiss clay because it is clay, and anyway none of this matters because endorsements.
Hopefully that's clear now?
Hopefully that's clear now?
Last edited:
Similar threads
