Federer, Sampras, and dealing with decline

[fedfan39]

Federer has intrinsic motivation, he doesn't need to be pushed by anyone. He plays any next slam like his life is on the line, it doesn't matter to him.

Federer had 16 majors and was nr.1 in 2010, Nadal only had 6 majors at the time.

Ok, if Agassi with 8 is not pushing Pete, then surely Rafa with 6 isn't pushing Fed.

You can put Fed in an era of nobodies and he would still win 30 majors, he gets extra motivation when he is nr.1, unlike most others who lose motivation and start cruising.
He loves being chased and being on top, he is so comfortable under pressure. I think Fed is pushing Rafa and Nole they have his slam record in reach. Plus Fed is not the kind of guy who needs titles for validation. I think that Nadal, Sampras and Djokovic all searched some life meaning in tennis, Fed didn't need that. Djokovic has finally realized records don't make you happy. Maybe Nadal should do that too.

Possible what you say. But there is a difference between Agassi and Nadal.

Agassi barely had 5 or 6 slams by 2000 and he was already nearing 30 when Sampras won the 13th. Agassi was also not a threat at the channel slams at all (FO and Wimby). There was no reason to believe old man Agassi would challenge 13.

Nadal was barely 24 in 2010. Yes, at AO 2010, Fed had a 16-6 edge but that same year, the edge got narrowed to 16-9 when Nadal was entering his prime and Fed was declining. There was every bit reason to believe Nadal would challenge 16.

Honestly, the rise of Djokovic helped Federer in a very ironic way. 2011 and 2012 were two of the very best years of Nadal's career and he was literally denied 3 slams by Djokovic (along with many other Masters tournaments). Still, Nadal had come close to 16-11 by FO 2012. Then, Fed won the Wimby and pushed it to 17-11.

Nadal had one more dominant year left, which also coincided to one of the Fed's worst years on tour. It was 17-13 at the end of 2013. No wonder that was around the time Fed found motivation to change his racket and also change strategies (more volleys, half volleys, sneak-attack-by-Roger tactics, the revamped servebot etc).

Don't get me wrong. I think Fed takes 20+ slams in any era, and in an era without Nadal, he takes 25 slams. However, I do not believe Fed would win slams at age 37 if Nadal didn't exist. I have a very hard time seeing just what could possibly motivate a man who would have won 25 slams to go with countless other records.

 

[merlinpinpin]

Possible what you say. But there is a difference between Agassi and Nadal.

Agassi barely had 5 or 6 slams by 2000 and he was already nearing 30 when Sampras won the 13th. Agassi was also not a threat at the channel slams at all (FO and Wimby). There was no reason to believe old man Agassi would challenge 13.

Nadal was barely 24 in 2010. Yes, at AO 2010, Fed had a 16-6 edge but that same year, the edge got narrowed to 16-9 when Nadal was entering his prime and Fed was declining. There was every bit reason to believe Nadal would challenge 16.

Honestly, the rise of Djokovic helped Federer in a very ironic way. 2011 and 2012 were two of the very best years of Nadal's career and he was literally denied 3 slams by Djokovic (along with many other Masters tournaments). Still, Nadal had come close to 16-11 by FO 2012. Then, Fed won the Wimby and pushed it to 17-11.

Nadal had one more dominant year left, which also coincided to one of the Fed's worst years on tour. It was 17-13 at the end of 2013. No wonder that was around the time Fed found motivation to change his racket and also change strategies (more volleys, half volleys, sneak-attack-by-Roger tactics, the revamped servebot etc).

Don't get me wrong. I think Fed takes 20+ slams in any era, and in an era without Nadal, he takes 25 slams. However, I do not believe Fed would win slams at age 37 if Nadal didn't exist. I have a very hard time seeing just what could possibly motivate a man who would have won 25 slams to go with countless other records.

Love of the game, quite simply? Not even trolling here, everyone agrees that Fed is a total fluke in that respect, the absolute outlier. All the past champs will tell you how life on tour became unbearable after a while. Fed still loves it at 36+.

Also, Djokovic denied Federer more slams than he did Nadal, so his "helping" Fed is probably to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[fedfan39]

Love of the game, quite simply? Not even trolling here, everyone agrees that Fed is a total fluke in that respect, the absolute outlier. All the past champs will tell you how life on tour became unbearable after a while. Fed still loves it at 36+.

Also, Djokovic denied Federer more slams than he did Nadal, so his "helping" Fed is probably to be taken with a grain of salt.

It's possible Fed could be a total fluke...but what about Nadal, and in fact, what about even Djokovic? Why is Nadal going so hard at age 32, and why is Djokovic attempting a comeback at age 31 after having won everything there is to win?

It's very clear that there is a slam count race going on. Djokovic is possibly gearing up for another run to see if he has any slams left in him.

Yes, Djokovic has denied Fed lots of slams, and I have engaged in a bit of the unpopular opinion before that he "helped" Fed. The simple nature of "helping" simply boils down to Djokovic being a third dominant player splitting and taking slams away from Nadal. Without Djokovic, Nadal follows his dominant 2010 with 3 slams in 2011, 2 slams in 2012 and 2 more in 2013. That is the *minimum* he would have. In truth, he probably peaks for additional AO and/or Wimby. Nadal basically has a Federer like dominant 4 year stretch, possibly equal or even lead in slam count (with him being 5 years younger!!!) and by 2013, Fed would be written off as being the GOAT.

Understand that Fed's GOATness still very heavily comes from his peak years from 2004-07. If Nadal had his own 4 year stretch of 10 or 11 slams, it would be over for Fed given also his bragging H2H rights over Fed.

So Djokovic took away 4 slams from Fed...so what? It still wasn't Nadal. Nadal is closest in slam counts. Suppose Zverev becomes very dominant tomorrow and starts winning, what of it? No one will question Fed's GOATness. No one seems to really get or understand the significance of Djokovic rise in 2011 and how it eventually shaped the GOAT battle.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

They all take Majors from each other.

Jeebus, that is what opponents do, regardless if their names are Safin, Djokovic, Roddick, Nadal etc.

Btw, Djokovic took away exactly the same number from Federer and Nadal:3

Accidentally, Federer has taken also the same number from Nadal.

Nadal has taken 5 from Djokovic and 6 from Federer etc.

 

[merlinpinpin]

They all take Majors from each other.

Jeebus, that is what opponents do, regardless if their names are Safin, Djokovic, Roddick, Nadal etc.

Btw, Djokovic took away exactly the same number from Federer and Nadal:3

Accidentally, Federer has taken also the same number from Nadal.

Nadal has taken 5 from Djokovic and 6 from Federer etc.

It's actually a bit more complicated than that, as they sometimes met at the SF stage, too (well, okay, I mean Federer and Djokovic, obviously; it's much more straightforward as far as Nadal is concerned, as he was sipping mojitos on the other side of the draw or in Mallorca while Fed and Djoko were having a go at each other during all these years).

 

[mike danny]

I have to completely dissent from this. Sampras was a mental giant who was obviously stronger in the head than Federer ever was. He was never a quitter, he completed the Corretja USO match while he was vomiting on court. He completed his Davis Cup match in Russia and then fell to the ground with full body cramps. The new generation quits with minor maladies like blisters, a bruise or whatever else they can invent at a moment's notice. Pete went out on top, as few in the sport have ever done or ever will do. He was the antithesis of a quitter.

And Fed the greatest fighter in tennis history? He's the most talented and the greatest player in tennis history, but he's far from the greatest fighter. Djokovic, Nadal, Chang, Muster and others were greater fighters than Fed. Just consult the fifth set of the AO in 2009 for eloquent proof of that. I'd even put Becker and Edberg ahead of Fed in the "greatest fighter" category.

I'm not sure Nadal and Djokovic are much bigger fighters than Federer necessarily. Fed usually pushes a losable match to 5, while Nadal or Djokovic loses it in less than 5.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

It's actually a bit more complicated than that, as they sometimes met at the SF stage, too (well, okay, I mean Federer and Djokovic, obviously; it's much more straightforward as far as Nadal is concerned, as he was sipping mojitos on the other side of the draw or in Mallorca while Fed and Djoko were having a go at each other during all these years).

My point was that saying that "they pushed each other to achieve more" is like saying that the water is wet.

However, it is blatantly false to search for motivation in the opposition, when it comes to how long one intends to play.

When one goes that way he arrives at the faulty conclusions, like for example the one somewhere in this thread, that Sampras left, because he achieved it all and there was nothing to play for.

Ummm, no, there was plenty to stay for, seeing the dubbings he received in the hands of the younger generation.

He just knew that his time is up, and lucky that his final opponent in that last US Open was a very old "friend".

 

[mike danny]

It's possible Fed could be a total fluke...but what about Nadal, and in fact, what about even Djokovic? Why is Nadal going so hard at age 32, and why is Djokovic attempting a comeback at age 31 after having won everything there is to win?

It's very clear that there is a slam count race going on. Djokovic is possibly gearing up for another run to see if he has any slams left in him.

Yes, Djokovic has denied Fed lots of slams, and I have engaged in a bit of the unpopular opinion before that he "helped" Fed. The simple nature of "helping" simply boils down to Djokovic being a third dominant player splitting and taking slams away from Nadal. Without Djokovic, Nadal follows his dominant 2010 with 3 slams in 2011, 2 slams in 2012 and 2 more in 2013. That is the *minimum* he would have. In truth, he probably peaks for additional AO and/or Wimby. Nadal basically has a Federer like dominant 4 year stretch, possibly equal or even lead in slam count (with him being 5 years younger!!!) and by 2013, Fed would be written off as being the GOAT.

Understand that Fed's GOATness still very heavily comes from his peak years from 2004-07. If Nadal had his own 4 year stretch of 10 or 11 slams, it would be over for Fed given also his bragging H2H rights over Fed.

So Djokovic took away 4 slams from Fed...so what? It still wasn't Nadal. Nadal is closest in slam counts. Suppose Zverev becomes very dominant tomorrow and starts winning, what of it? No one will question Fed's GOATness. No one seems to really get or understand the significance of Djokovic rise in 2011 and how it eventually shaped the GOAT battle.

Even if Djokovic had not risen and stopped Nadal, Fed would have still won more slams by defaults because he is always putting himself out there in the latter stages of slams. And the minute Nadal falters at a slam, Fed would be there to win it without Djokovic stopping him.

So Nadal would still be behind in the slam count.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Even if Djokovic had not risen and stop Nadal, Fed would have still won more slams by defaults because he is always putting himself out there in the latter stages of slams. And the minute Nadal falters at a slam, Fed would be there to win it without Djokovic stopping him.

So Nadal would still be behind in the slam count.

Like I said, Djokovic has stopped directly Nadal and Federer roughly the same amount of times, so it stands to reason that without him the outcome for the other two would have been the same.

It is roughly the same for the other two, i. e. Nadal missing.

The biggest difference would have been Federer himself missing, which would have left Nadal with more Majors.

But these speculations are absolutely pointless in regard to how they would have influenced Federer's longevity.

 

[mike danny]

Like I said, Djokovic has stopped directly Nadal and Federer roughly the same amount of times, so it stands to reason that without him the outcome for the other two would have been the same.

It is roughly the same for the other two, i. e. Nadal missing.

The biggest difference would have been Federer himself missing, which would have left Nadal with more Majors.

But these speculations are absolutely pointless in regard to how they would have influenced Federer's longevity.

I'm just tired of the same old argument claiming that without Djokovic Nadal would have broken the slam record a long time ago. I just showcased why this is not true. Fed would have won the slams in which he was stopped by Djokovic and would have even beaten Nadal in a slam or two. So Fed would still be ahead in the slam count.

 

[fedfan39]

Even if Djokovic had not risen and stopped Nadal, Fed would have still won more slams by defaults because he is always putting himself out there in the latter stages of slams. And the minute Nadal falters at a slam, Fed would be there to win it without Djokovic stopping him.

So Nadal would still be behind in the slam count.

It's really not that simple.

Fed was losing to Solderling, Tsonga, Berdych and also Murray on occasion. He could have also lost against Nadal at the USO too.

From 2010 to 2013, there aren't many slams in which Nadal would falter. Plain and simple. In fact, Nadal would have been tremendously motivated to go for a CYGS too (maybe in 2012 after winning AO and FO and holding 5 consecutive slams!!!).

The blind willingness of fanboys to simply ignore the damage that was done to Nadal in his absolute prime is astonishing. Imagine someone like Nalbandian or Safin had beaten Fed in 3 straight slams in 2005-06. Just what do you think would have happened? Would Fed even be Fed?

You simply cannot make linear projections and completely turn a blind eye to the elephant in the room: human psychology. Despite the utter wishes of fanboys, Fed is a mere human and so is Nadal. And there is no denying that Nadal suffered massive psychological blows due to 7 straight losses (3 in slams) to Djokovic in his absolute prime peak years. In fact, this very thing stands against Nadal in the GOAT discussion.

It is very painful to say it, but Fed had proven completely incapable of dealing with Nadal and this didn't change until 2014. The 2009 AO loss had completely done Fed in, and it took years to recover. Fed was afforded the luxury to bide his time, retool his game and come back with more vigor by one man, and one man only: Novak Djokovic. Without Djokovic totally dismantling the bull, Nadal would have gone on to have a greater career and a greater peak than Fed by 2014, and then, all bets are off. There is no guarantee Fed would have ever found success against a Nadal carrying an invincibility aura.

 

[fedfan39]

I'm just tired of the same old argument claiming that without Djokovic Nadal would have broken the slam record a long time ago. I just showcased why this is not true. Fed would have won the slams in which he was stopped by Djokovic and would have even beaten Nadal in a slam or two. So Fed would still be ahead in the slam count.

Sorry, you didn't showcase anything. You cannot rewrite history by making *linear projections*. The reality is far more complex, and to the unbiased eyes seen without fanboy glasses, one simply cannot deny the impact of Djokovic's dismantling of Nadal on the eventual GOAT race.

 

[mike danny]

It's really not that simple.

Fed was losing to Solderling, Tsonga, Berdych and also Murray on occasion. He could have also lost against Nadal at the USO too.

From 2010 to 2013, there aren't many slams in which Nadal would falter. Plain and simple. In fact, Nadal would have been tremendously motivated to go for a CYGS too (maybe in 2012 after winning AO and FO and holding 5 consecutive slams!!!).

The blind willingness of fanboys to simply ignore the damage that was done to Nadal in his absolute prime is astonishing. Imagine someone like Nalbandian or Safin had beaten Fed in 3 straight slams in 2005-06. Just what do you think would have happened? Would Fed even be Fed?

You simply cannot make linear projections and completely turn a blind eye to the elephant in the room: human psychology. Despite the utter wishes of fanboys, Fed is a mere human and so is Nadal. And there is no denying that Nadal suffered massive psychological blows due to 7 straight losses (3 in slams) to Djokovic in his absolute prime peak years. In fact, this very thing stands against Nadal in the GOAT discussion.

It is very painful to say it, but Fed had proven completely incapable of dealing with Nadal and this didn't change until 2014. The 2009 AO loss had completely done Fed in, and it took years to recover. Fed was afforded the luxury to bide his time, retool his game and come back with more vigor by one man, and one man only: Novak Djokovic. Without Djokovic totally dismantling the bull, Nadal would have gone on to have a greater career and a greater peak than Fed by 2014, and then, all bets are off. There is no guarantee Fed would have ever found success against a Nadal carrying an invincibility aura.

Why limit to 2010-2013? Fed would have still won many slams after 2013 putting him ahead in the slam count.

Nadal's Wimb woes would have still appeared, so no CYGS for him. His injury issues would have still happened, can't pretend like Nadal would have been healthy every year from 2011 to 2014.

Basically, Nadal has only lost 3 slams to Djokovic. Just 3. Fed has lost 6. Nadal would falter at some point in a slam and Fed would be there to take advantage.

 

[mike danny]

Sorry, you didn't showcase anything. You cannot rewrite history by making *linear projections*. The reality is far more complex, and to the unbiased eyes seen without fanboy glasses, one simply cannot deny the impact of Djokovic's dismantling of Nadal on the eventual GOAT race.

You're only looking from Nadal's point of view. Have you even bothered to look from Federer's too?

Yes, Nadal was hurt by Djokovic. But Fed even more so. He lost 6 slams to Djokovic, while Nadal only lost 3. No need to limit to just 2010-2013. Fed would have been right back in the GOAT discussions after winning many more slams after 2013.

 

[mike danny]

It's really not that simple.

Fed was losing to Solderling, Tsonga, Berdych and also Murray on occasion. He could have also lost against Nadal at the USO too.

From 2010 to 2013, there aren't many slams in which Nadal would falter. Plain and simple. In fact, Nadal would have been tremendously motivated to go for a CYGS too (maybe in 2012 after winning AO and FO and holding 5 consecutive slams!!!).

The blind willingness of fanboys to simply ignore the damage that was done to Nadal in his absolute prime is astonishing. Imagine someone like Nalbandian or Safin had beaten Fed in 3 straight slams in 2005-06. Just what do you think would have happened? Would Fed even be Fed?

You simply cannot make linear projections and completely turn a blind eye to the elephant in the room: human psychology. Despite the utter wishes of fanboys, Fed is a mere human and so is Nadal. And there is no denying that Nadal suffered massive psychological blows due to 7 straight losses (3 in slams) to Djokovic in his absolute prime peak years. In fact, this very thing stands against Nadal in the GOAT discussion.

It is very painful to say it, but Fed had proven completely incapable of dealing with Nadal and this didn't change until 2014. The 2009 AO loss had completely done Fed in, and it took years to recover. Fed was afforded the luxury to bide his time, retool his game and come back with more vigor by one man, and one man only: Novak Djokovic. Without Djokovic totally dismantling the bull, Nadal would have gone on to have a greater career and a greater peak than Fed by 2014, and then, all bets are off. There is no guarantee Fed would have ever found success against a Nadal carrying an invincibility aura.

Yes, he could have lost to Nadal at the USO too. But they didn't play any slam matches at Wimb and USO after 2008 so there's no reason to give every slam match to Nadal.

Like you said, reality is far more complex. Maybe Fed would have switched to a bigger racquet much earlier seeing that Nadal was getting close to his slam record and would have figured out Nadal much earlier.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

It's really not that simple.

Fed was losing to Solderling, Tsonga, Berdych and also Murray on occasion. He could have also lost against Nadal at the USO too.

From 2010 to 2013, there aren't many slams in which Nadal would falter. Plain and simple. In fact, Nadal would have been tremendously motivated to go for a CYGS too (maybe in 2012 after winning AO and FO and holding 5 consecutive slams!!!).

The blind willingness of fanboys to simply ignore the damage that was done to Nadal in his absolute prime is astonishing. Imagine someone like Nalbandian or Safin had beaten Fed in 3 straight slams in 2005-06. Just what do you think would have happened? Would Fed even be Fed?

You simply cannot make linear projections and completely turn a blind eye to the elephant in the room: human psychology. Despite the utter wishes of fanboys, Fed is a mere human and so is Nadal. And there is no denying that Nadal suffered massive psychological blows due to 7 straight losses (3 in slams) to Djokovic in his absolute prime peak years. In fact, this very thing stands against Nadal in the GOAT discussion.

It is very painful to say it, but Fed had proven completely incapable of dealing with Nadal and this didn't change until 2014. The 2009 AO loss had completely done Fed in, and it took years to recover. Fed was afforded the luxury to bide his time, retool his game and come back with more vigor by one man, and one man only: Novak Djokovic. Without Djokovic totally dismantling the bull, Nadal would have gone on to have a greater career and a greater peak than Fed by 2014, and then, all bets are off. There is no guarantee Fed would have ever found success against a Nadal carrying an invincibility aura.

That sort of thinking is not very beneficial for a reasonable discussion.

The scenario you describe is heavily biased in favour of Nadal in its outcomes and its interpretations.

For example, you assume that USO 2011 would have gone to Nadal, but Djokovic has stopped Federer in the SF, so it would have been Federer - Nadal final instead.

Same for a potential final between Nadal and Tsonga, who was playing very well in that tournament and went out to Djokovic in 4 sets but with 2 lost TBs.

I say he would have had a very decent chance against Nadal.

The blabbing about Federer not being able to deal with Nadal I will leave without further comment, as I want to see whether there is something reasonable you want to argue.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Sorry, you didn't showcase anything. You cannot rewrite history by making *linear projections*. The reality is far more complex, and to the unbiased eyes seen without fanboy glasses, one simply cannot deny the impact of Djokovic's dismantling of Nadal on the eventual GOAT race.

How about addressing the fact that Djokovic took roughly the same number of Majors directly from both?

Why do you underestimate that?

 

[merlinpinpin]

Sorry, you didn't showcase anything. You cannot rewrite history by making *linear projections*. The reality is far more complex, and to the unbiased eyes seen without fanboy glasses, one simply cannot deny the impact of Djokovic's dismantling of Nadal on the eventual GOAT race.

Well, actually, "rewriting history" is exactly what you did in your previous post, so, can you or can't you?

(I'm totally in the camp of those who say you can't, btw, so having these projections about not having Djokovic or anybody else is just pointless, imho. What happened, happened, and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that. Would Nadal have passed Federer if Djokovic didn't exist? What about "Would Nadal have passed Federer if *Federer* didn't exist?")

 

[fedfan39]

How about addressing the fact that Djokovic took roughly the same number of Majors directly from both?

Why do you underestimate that?

*When* matters.

Djokovic totally dominated a prime and peak Nadal who was ready to romp on the verge to greatness.

Djokovic dominated a 33/34 year old Federer who had already won 17 slams and had achieved greatness before.

Vastly different scenarios.

 

[fedfan39]

Well, actually, "rewriting history" is exactly what you did in your previous post, so, can you or can't you?

(I'm totally in the camp of those who say you can't, btw, so having these projections about not having Djokovic or anybody else is just pointless, imho. What happened, happened, and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that. Would Nadal have passed Federer if Djokovic didn't exist? What about "Would Nadal have passed Federer if *Federer* didn't exist?")

Frankly, I didn't rewrite anything.

Do you not agree that if Djokovic didn't exist, Nadal was straight up winning 3 slams along with some 5 Masters tournaments in 2011 and *at least* another 2 slams with the entire clay court season (and possibly the early sunshine double too) in 2012? (I grant that 2011 USO is not a given to Nadal, but I have a hard time seeing Federer taking Nadal out in 2011).

If Djokovic didn't exist, Nadal was going to win 5 straight slams and was practically going to do unchallenged at least until Wimbledon 2012. This is a simple fact.

Mull that over please.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

*When* matters.

Djokovic totally dominated a prime and peak Nadal who was ready to romp on the verge to greatness.

Djokovic dominated a 33/34 year old Federer who had already won 17 slams and had achieved greatness before.

Vastly different scenarios.

That is your entirely biased reading of the events.

Let's try something else.

How about Djokovic is not presented and everything remains the same, but instead of Nadal (like you do in your scenario) Federer wins the USO 2011.

What then?

 

[fedfan39]

That sort of thinking is not very beneficial for a reasonable discussion.

The scenario you describe is heavily biased in favour of Nadal in its outcomes and its interpretations.

For example, you assume that USO 2011 would have gone to Nadal, but Djokovic has stopped Federer in the SF, so it would have been Federer - Nadal final instead.

Same for a potential final between Nadal and Tsonga, who was playing very well in that tournament and went out to Djokovic in 4 sets but with 2 lost TBs.

I say he would have had a very decent chance against Nadal.

The blabbing about Federer not being able to deal with Nadal I will leave without further comment, as I want to see whether there is something reasonable you want to argue.

1. I agree that USO 2011 is not a given to Nadal. But if you really wanted to take a wager, do you think Federer had it in him to beat Nadal at 2011 USO?
2. What *blabbing*? Buddy, I AM TALKING FACTS. Federer could not deal with Nadal until 2014, this is obvious and even Fed fanatics have come to terms with it. Did you forget Nadal also beat Fed at 2012 and 2014 AO and with *complete ease* on both occasions? Sorry that you seem to have forgotten.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

1. I agree that USO 2011 is not a given to Nadal. But if you really wanted to take a wager, do you think Federer had it in him to beat Nadal at 2011 USO?
2. What *blabbing*? Buddy, I AM TALKING FACTS. Federer could not deal with Nadal until 2014, this is obvious and even Fed fanatics have come to terms with it. Did you forget Nadal also beat Fed at 2012 and 2014 AO and with *complete ease* on both occasions? Sorry that you seem to have forgotten.

1. So, you again give it to Nadal?

2. I wasn't aware that Nadal won all his matches in all circumstances against Federer until 2014.

Shame on me.

 

[fedfan39]

That is your entirely biased reading of the events.

Let's try something else.

How about Djokovic is not presented and everything remains the same, but instead of Nadal (like you do in your scenario) Federer wins the USO 2011.

What then?

You believe what you believe, there is no undoing it.

A general piece of advice.

My screen-name screams out load I am a Fed fan first. And second, you are *not accustomed to digesting uncomfortable truths*. Then, you turn around and convince yourself I am somehow biased (ironically, I am biased against the very person whose fandom I preach).

When you think someone else is biased, *look inward*.

Also:

You can also play the *what if* game all day long, and using some other combination, you could also prove Nadal wouldn't win anything without Djokovic around. But then, you are simply not adhering by a useful premise. Without a premise, everything is a straw-man's argument.

The premise here is that Fed couldn't beat Nadal on hard courts, especially in a slam from 2009 to 2014. I don't think there is any reason to believe Nadal wouldn't have taken Fed out even at the USO. Hard data shows it is Nadal who is the more successful USO player since 2010 (4 finals, 3 wins versus just 1 final). Given Nadal's 3 defeats of Fed at the AO and also the fact that Nadal is the more successful player at the USO in the last 8 years, just what do you base your premise that Fed would somehow emerge victorious over Nadal?

*But but but*....yeah, I know, there is always the BUT.

Anyway, my last response on this thread.

 

[fedfan39]

1. So, you again give it to Nadal?

2. I wasn't aware that Nadal won all his matches in all circumstances against Federer until 2014.

Shame on me.

One more just for you pigeon.

1. Yes, because Nadal is more successful than Fed at the USO in the last 8 years, and Nadal took Fed out with ease in both AO 2012 and 2014. Hard data shows Nadal would win a hypothetical Fed matchup at the USO. You don't like it, boo hoo. You cannot change the reality based on your liking.

2. Who is talking about *all matches*? But then, you could also do a simple google search, and list their matches from 2009 to 2014, no?

19. 2009 Australian Open Major Hard Final Nadal 7–5, 3–6, 7–6(7–3), 3–6, 6–2 4:23 5/5 6 13
20. 2009 Madrid Open Masters Clay Final Federer 6–4, 6–4 1:26 2/3 7 13
21. 2010 Madrid Open Masters Clay Final Nadal 6–4, 7–6(7–5) 2:10 2/3 7 14
22. 2010 ATP Finals Tour Finals Hard (i) Final Federer 6–3, 3–6, 6–1 1:37 3/3 8 14
23. 2011 Miami Open Masters Hard Semifinals Nadal 6–3, 6–2 1:18 2/3 8 15
24. 2011 Madrid Open Masters Clay Semifinals Nadal 5–7, 6–1, 6–3 2:36 3/3 8 16
25. 2011 French Open Major Clay Final Nadal 7–5, 7–6(7–3), 5–7, 6–1 3:40 4/5 8 17
26. 2011 ATP Finals Tour Finals Hard (i) Round Robin Federer 6–3, 6–0 1:00 2/3 9 17
27. 2012 Australian Open Major Hard Semifinals Nadal 6–7(5–7), 6–2, 7–6(7–5), 6–4 3:42 4/5 9 18
28. 2012 Indian Wells Masters Masters Hard Semifinals Federer 6–3, 6–4 1:31 2/3 10 18
29. 2013 Indian Wells Masters Masters Hard Quarterfinals Nadal 6–4, 6–2 1:24 2/3 10 19
30. 2013 Italian Open Masters Clay Final Nadal 6–1, 6–3 1:08 2/3 10 20
31. 2013 Cincinnati Masters Masters Hard Quarterfinals Nadal 5–7, 6–4, 6–3 2:14 3/3 10 21
32. 2013 ATP Finals Tour Finals Hard (i) Semifinals Nadal 7–5, 6–3 1:19 2/3 10 22
33. 2014 Australian Open Major Hard Semifinals Nadal 7–6(7–4), 6–3, 6–3 2:24 3/5 10 23

Nadal leads 11-4 with 2 of Fed's wins coming in WTF. Fed has 1 win each over Nadal, one on clay and one on outdoor hard courts.

You still think Fed could beat Nadal in 2011 USO?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

You believe what you believe, there is no undoing it.

A general piece of advice.

My screen-name screams out load I am a Fed fan first. And second, you are *not accustomed to digesting uncomfortable truths*. Then, you turn around and convince yourself I am somehow biased (ironically, I am biased against the very person whose fandom I preach).

When you think someone else is biased, *look inward*.

Also:

You can also play the *what if* game all day long, and using some other combination, you could also prove Nadal wouldn't win anything without Djokovic around. But then, you are simply not adhering by a useful premise. Without a premise, everything is a straw-man's argument.

The premise here is that Fed couldn't beat Nadal on hard courts, especially in a slam from 2009 to 2014. I don't think there is any reason to believe Nadal wouldn't have taken Fed out even at the USO. Hard data shows it is Nadal who is the more successful USO player since 2010 (4 finals, 3 wins versus just 1 final). Given Nadal's 3 defeats of Fed at the AO and also the fact that Nadal is the more successful player at the USO in the last 8 years, just what do you base your premise that Fed would somehow emerge victorious over Nadal?

*But but but*....yeah, I know, there is always the BUT.

Anyway, my last response on this thread.

The last time Federer met at a HC Major where the conditions were somewhat faster, he prevailed, so I could also say that, despite of Nadal having more success against Federer, Federer would have taken advantage of his superior game in faster conditions.

Fare thee well!

 

[Tennis_Hands]

One more just for you pigeon.

1. Yes, because Nadal is more successful than Fed at the USO in the last 8 years, and Nadal took Fed out with ease in both AO 2012 and 2014. Hard data shows Nadal would win a hypothetical Fed matchup at the USO. You don't like it, boo hoo. You cannot change the reality based on your liking.

2. Who is talking about *all matches*? But then, you could also do a simple google search, and list their matches from 2009 to 2014, no?

19. 2009 Australian Open Major Hard Final Nadal 7–5, 3–6, 7–6(7–3), 3–6, 6–2 4:23 5/5 6 13
20. 2009 Madrid Open Masters Clay Final Federer 6–4, 6–4 1:26 2/3 7 13
21. 2010 Madrid Open Masters Clay Final Nadal 6–4, 7–6(7–5) 2:10 2/3 7 14
22. 2010 ATP Finals Tour Finals Hard (i) Final Federer 6–3, 3–6, 6–1 1:37 3/3 8 14
23. 2011 Miami Open Masters Hard Semifinals Nadal 6–3, 6–2 1:18 2/3 8 15
24. 2011 Madrid Open Masters Clay Semifinals Nadal 5–7, 6–1, 6–3 2:36 3/3 8 16
25. 2011 French Open Major Clay Final Nadal 7–5, 7–6(7–3), 5–7, 6–1 3:40 4/5 8 17
26. 2011 ATP Finals Tour Finals Hard (i) Round Robin Federer 6–3, 6–0 1:00 2/3 9 17
27. 2012 Australian Open Major Hard Semifinals Nadal 6–7(5–7), 6–2, 7–6(7–5), 6–4 3:42 4/5 9 18
28. 2012 Indian Wells Masters Masters Hard Semifinals Federer 6–3, 6–4 1:31 2/3 10 18
29. 2013 Indian Wells Masters Masters Hard Quarterfinals Nadal 6–4, 6–2 1:24 2/3 10 19
30. 2013 Italian Open Masters Clay Final Nadal 6–1, 6–3 1:08 2/3 10 20
31. 2013 Cincinnati Masters Masters Hard Quarterfinals Nadal 5–7, 6–4, 6–3 2:14 3/3 10 21
32. 2013 ATP Finals Tour Finals Hard (i) Semifinals Nadal 7–5, 6–3 1:19 2/3 10 22
33. 2014 Australian Open Major Hard Semifinals Nadal 7–6(7–4), 6–3, 6–3 2:24 3/5 10 23

Nadal leads 11-4 with 2 of Fed's wins coming in WTF. Fed has 1 win each over Nadal, one on clay and one on outdoor hard courts.

You still think Fed could beat Nadal in 2011 USO?

You are losing it.

Of all the matches you listed you would notice a trend that Federer won more often than not in fast-ish conditions.

That is what I was referring to, when I said "in all circumstances".

 

[fedfan39]

Yes, he could have lost to Nadal at the USO too. But they didn't play any slam matches at Wimb and USO after 2008 so there's no reason to give every slam match to Nadal.

Like you said, reality is far more complex. Maybe Fed would have switched to a bigger racquet much earlier seeing that Nadal was getting close to his slam record and would have figured out Nadal much earlier.

I am *specifically* pointing out Nadal's point of view, because everyone discusses Federer's point of view all the time. Yes, we all know Federer's point of view.

It's possible that Fed would have switched to a bigger racket much sooner after even more losses to Nadal. But that still wouldn't have prevented Nadal from totally dominating in 2011 and 2012 with added slams in 2013.

The point I am making is this: Djokovic's all 4 slam defeats of Nadal have hurt him FAR more than some of his defeats of Fed because of the circumstances. Fed was hurt more by 2010 and 2011 USO losses, but 2014 onwards, Fed was old and Djokovic was simply denying him icing on the cake. In Nadal's case, Djokovic robbed him of a great peak the first 3 times, and then, ended his reign on RG the 4th time.

 

[fedfan39]

The last time Federer met at a HC Major where the conditions were somewhat faster, he prevailed, so I could also say that, despite of Nadal having more success against Federer, Federer would have taken advantage of his superior game in faster conditions.

Fare thee well!

Ammm, no, that's a completely ******** argument.

1. Way bigger backhand
2. Bigger racket
3. Hadn't seen Nadal in over 3 years so less of a psychological impact
4. Had practically 0 expectations so no psychological baggage
5. He was still going to choke in the 5th set with a break down but summoned the Gods and put the Nadal spell out once and for all.

He didn't have any of that in 2011. What a disingenuous way to use a 2017 win to argue a similar 2011 scenario.

 

[fedfan39]

You are losing it.

Of all the matches you listed you would notice a trend that Federer won more often than not in fast-ish conditions.

That is what I was referring to, when I said "in all circumstances".

You think USO in 2011 played as fast as the WTF? And what is "fast-sh"? What's their H2H on "outdoor hard courts"? And you are saying I am losing it?

How many times has Nadal won the USO? How many times has he won the WTF?

My 3 year old can tell me 3 > 0.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Ammm, no, that's a completely ******** argument.

1. Way bigger backhand
2. Bigger racket
3. Hadn't seen Nadal in over 3 years so less of a psychological impact
4. Had practically 0 expectations so no psychological baggage
5. He was still going to choke in the 5th set with a break down but summoned the Gods and put the Nadal spell out once and for all.

He didn't have any of that in 2011. What a disingenuous way to use a 2017 win to argue a similar 2011 scenario.

Awwwww.

Adorable.

Your explanations are a blast to read.

At the time Federer had also a:

1: much bigger FH
2. much better movement
3. was entering a period of good form

Not to speak of how you pick your arguments.

So, matches played in 2013, the year where Federer was losing left right and center are much more relevant to the analysis of Nadal's chances at USO 2011, but their match at the WTF (on HC and closest to their potential meeting at the USO that year), where Federer annihilated Nadal for less than an hour (the ATP stat is incorrect, it was either 58 or 59 minutes for the destruction) is just part of the stats?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

You think USO in 2011 played as fast as the WTF? And what is "fast-sh"? What's their H2H on "outdoor hard courts"? And you are saying I am losing it?

How many times has Nadal won the USO? How many times has he won the WTF?

My 3 year old can tell me 3 > 0.

I have another blast from you trying to pretzel your way through the fast-faster-fast-ish argument.

Also, your 3 y o probably can tell you that Nadal didn't meet Federer in any of those USO finals, and also that he had to beat world record breaking weak opposition en route to those titles, a luxury that he didn't have at the WTF.

 

[fedfan39]

I have another blast from you trying to pretzel your way through the fast-faster-fast-ish argument.

Also, your 3 y o probably can tell you that Nadal didn't meet Federer in any of those USO finals, and also that he had to beat world record breaking weak opposition en route to those titles, a luxury that he didn't have at the WTF.

Because Nadal didn't meet Federer, he won 3 USOs? Is that your logic?

- Nadal has a better track record at the USO than Federer by a lightyear since 2010 (4 finals/3 wins versus 1 final).
- Nadal has beaten Djokovic (a hard court beast) twice at USO finals.
- 4 months later, Nadal beat Federer at a hard court slam with relative ease.

But still, Federer was going to win the USO because....? He dispatched Nadal at the WTF.

Right.

Edit: Nadal's 2017 draw was weak, but was 2010 and 2013 draw weak too? He beat Djokovic for both titles. Cupcake draw?

2010 (R3 onwards):
Nadal: Simon > Lopez(23) > Verdasco(8) > Youzney(12) > Djokovic(3)
Federer: Mathieu > Melzer(13) > Solderling(5) > Djokovic(3)

Yes, Fed had it tougher, but Nadal didn't have a cakewalk exactly.

2013 (R3 onwards, Nadal only, Fed out in R4):
Dodig > Kohli(22) > Robredo(19) > Gasquet(8) > Djokovic(1)

Sorry, I don't see a cupcake draw here either.

In fact, 2011 (R3 onwards, Nadal only again):
Nalbandian > Muller > Roddick(21) > Murray(4) > Djokovic(1)

Look at the opponents. Both Nalbandian and Muller are unseeded but very dangerous and then, he also dispatched Roddick and Murray. I hardly see a cupcake again.

Data is your friend. Data = knowledge. No data = asinine opinions that you champion.

 

[fedfan39]

Awwwww.

Adorable.

Your explanations are a blast to read.

At the time Federer had also a:

1: much bigger FH
2. much better movement
3. was entering a period of good form

Not to speak of how you pick your arguments.

So, matches played in 2013, the year where Federer was losing left right and center are much more relevant to the analysis of Nadal's chances at USO 2011, but their match at the WTF (on HC and closest to their potential meeting at the USO that year), where Federer annihilated Nadal for less than an hour (the ATP stat is incorrect, it was either 58 or 59 minutes for the destruction) is just part of the stats?

Bigger FH? Really now? I can probably find a trillion threads on this very board that talk about how Nadal made Federer's FH irrelevant by giving him all those high bouncing topspin laden moonballs. Jesus. This is the only thing that stands out in the Fedal rivalry.

Better movement? LMAO. *Nadal had a vastly better movement too*. In fact, Nadal has also lost his movement at age 32, and his loss is more pronounced because he plays so physical.

Entering good form? Yes, at WTF, indoor tournaments, Wimbledon and Cincy (he did win IW 2012). All the places where he has always performed well. We are talking about the USO, where he was last a threat to win a title in 2009 (correction: I will say 2012 to be fair).

If you don't like 2013 stats in the analysis, why not look around and use AO 2012 as a datapoint? The only outdoor HC win Fed had on him is 2012 IW. Otherwise, it's Nadal everywhere. Doesn't matter if you don't like outdoor HC stats singled out. They are kept separately in fact because the outdoor conditions are vastly different.

 

[mike danny]

I am *specifically* pointing out Nadal's point of view, because everyone discusses Federer's point of view all the time. Yes, we all know Federer's point of view.

It's possible that Fed would have switched to a bigger racket much sooner after even more losses to Nadal. But that still wouldn't have prevented Nadal from totally dominating in 2011 and 2012 with added slams in 2013.

The point I am making is this: Djokovic's all 4 slam defeats of Nadal have hurt him FAR more than some of his defeats of Fed because of the circumstances. Fed was hurt more by 2010 and 2011 USO losses, but 2014 onwards, Fed was old and Djokovic was simply denying him icing on the cake. In Nadal's case, Djokovic robbed him of a great peak the first 3 times, and then, ended his reign on RG the 4th time.

It is unlikely that Nadal was winning RG anyway in 2015 even without Djokovic.

 

[fedfan39]

It is unlikely that Nadal was winning RG anyway in 2015 even without Djokovic.

Maybe, maybe not. All we know is this: Only Soderling and Djokovic have ever defeated Nadal at the FO. Soderling was a shock loss, Djokovic's wasn't that much of a shock, because he had proven he could take Nadal out at clay courts and after years of defeats at RG, he was due once.

The ATP tour collectively proved powerless to stop a 31 year Nadal on clay without the ultron.

 

[merlinpinpin]

Frankly, I didn't rewrite anything.

Do you not agree that if Djokovic didn't exist, Nadal was straight up winning 3 slams along with some 5 Masters tournaments in 2011 and *at least* another 2 slams with the entire clay court season (and possibly the early sunshine double too) in 2012? (I grant that 2011 USO is not a given to Nadal, but I have a hard time seeing Federer taking Nadal out in 2011).

If Djokovic didn't exist, Nadal was going to win 5 straight slams and was practically going to do unchallenged at least until Wimbledon 2012. This is a simple fact.

Mull that over please.

Could you please explain to me how "if Djokovic didn't exist" is "not rewriting anything"?

 

[abmk]

One more just for you pigeon.

1. Yes, because Nadal is more successful than Fed at the USO in the last 8 years, and Nadal took Fed out with ease in both AO 2012 and 2014. Hard data shows Nadal would win a hypothetical Fed matchup at the USO. You don't like it, boo hoo. You cannot change the reality based on your liking.



You still think Fed could beat Nadal in 2011 USO?

what a load of crappy cherrypicking.
Ignoring the one important data piece in USO 11.
Fed took djoko to 5 sets, nearly beating him,
Nadal struggled to take 1 set off him.

I'd give a slight edge to Fed, I could see a slight edge to Nadal as well.
but to give it to Nadal is just utter BS.

Edit : Federer's struggles at the USO from 2012 onwards (apart from 15) are utterly, completely irrelevant to this. So is Nadal's record after 2011.

 

[abmk]

I am *specifically* pointing out Nadal's point of view, because everyone discusses Federer's point of view all the time. Yes, we all know Federer's point of view.

It's possible that Fed would have switched to a bigger racket much sooner after even more losses to Nadal. But that still wouldn't have prevented Nadal from totally dominating in 2011 and 2012 with added slams in 2013.

The point I am making is this: Djokovic's all 4 slam defeats of Nadal have hurt him FAR more than some of his defeats of Fed because of the circumstances. Fed was hurt more by 2010 and 2011 USO losses, but 2014 onwards, Fed was old and Djokovic was simply denying him icing on the cake. In Nadal's case, Djokovic robbed him of a great peak the first 3 times, and then, ended his reign on RG the 4th time.

umm, no.

especially pointing out RG 2015 is just plain idiotic.

Federer was hurt far more in AO 11, Wim 14, Wim 15, USO 15 and AO 16 because he'd actually be favored to win if not for Djokovic.

Stan would've taken out Nadal in RG 15,

 

[fedfan39]

Could you please explain to me how "if Djokovic didn't exist" is "not rewriting anything"?

"If Djokovic didn't exist" is the topic of discussion.

what a load of crappy cherrypicking.
Ignoring the one important data piece in USO 11.
Fed took djoko to 5 sets, nearly beating him,
Nadal struggled to take 1 set off him.

I'd give a slight edge to Fed, I could see a slight edge to Nadal as well.
but to give it to Nadal is just utter BS.

So, you are going to take the argument that A > B and B > C means A must be > C? You are going to apply the transitivity property while ignoring massive edge Nadal used to have in the matchup while knowing fully well that transitivity property is useless in sports?

Still, in one isolated match, what you say is absolutely true. But that's not what's being discussed here. What's being discussed is "what if Djokovic didn't exist".

For the (trillion+1)th time, humor me.

- Nadal takes 3 slams in 2010.
- Nadal takes the channel slam in 2011 and sweeps the clay season as well as other major Masters tournaments and has a huge lead in points.
- Nadal is the defending champ and is extra motivated to defend a non clay title.
- Nadal meets Federer at the USO final. The last time Federer has beaten him is in WTF 2010.
- History proves that Nadal has been very good at the USO, better than Federer since 2010.
- History shows that Nadal was in his prime in 2011 and 2012 only stopped by Djokovic.
- History shows that Federer didn't get a single win over prime Nadal at a slam venue. The alleged slam where it is said Fed has an edge, it is Nadal who has performed better and he has faced tough draws.

An unbiased observer would pick Nadal.

 

[fedfan39]

umm, no.

especially pointing out RG 2015 is just plain idiotic.

Federer was hurt far more in AO 11, Wim 14, Wim 15, USO 15 and AO 16 because he'd actually be favored to win if not for Djokovic.

Stan would've taken out Nadal in RG 15,

What has Stan ever done to Nadal for you to believe he could take him at RG?

Pointing out a possible RG for Nadal is idiotic? LMAO. Did I read this right? Nadal is as sure a thing at RG as the Sun rising the East. What blasphemy...Stan would beat Nadal. Right!!

Of course, everyone knows all the slams Fed has lost to Djokovic. My point is that slams lost by Nadal impacted him more. Go back and read everything in the thread because I am not going to reiterate everything.

 

[abmk]

Because Nadal didn't meet Federer, he won 3 USOs? Is that your logic?

- Nadal has a better track record at the USO than Federer by a lightyear since 2010 (4 finals/3 wins versus 1 final).
- Nadal has beaten Djokovic (a hard court beast) twice at USO finals.
- 4 months later, Nadal beat Federer at a hard court slam with relative ease.

But still, Federer was going to win the USO because....? He dispatched Nadal at the WTF.

Right.

Edit: Nadal's 2017 draw was weak, but was 2010 and 2013 draw weak too? He beat Djokovic for both titles. Cupcake draw?

2010 (R3 onwards):
Nadal: Simon > Lopez(23) > Verdasco(8) > Youzney(12) > Djokovic(3)
Federer: Mathieu > Melzer(13) > Solderling(5) > Djokovic(3)

Yes, Fed had it tougher, but Nadal didn't have a cakewalk exactly.

2013 (R3 onwards, Nadal only, Fed out in R4):
Dodig > Kohli(22) > Robredo(19) > Gasquet(8) > Djokovic(1)

Sorry, I don't see a cupcake draw here either.

In fact, 2011 (R3 onwards, Nadal only again):
Nalbandian > Muller > Roddick(21) > Murray(4) > Djokovic(1)

Look at the opponents. Both Nalbandian and Muller are unseeded but very dangerous and then, he also dispatched Roddick and Murray. I hardly see a cupcake again.

Data is your friend. Data = knowledge. No data = asinine opinions that you champion.

2010 USO : If Federer had beaten Djokovic and faced Nadal in the final, he'd have faced a draw of Soderling+Djokovic+Nadal
Nadal would've faced only Federer (or as he actually did : Djokovic).

that's 10 country miles worth of a difference. Your way of looking at it is crappy.

Also Simon just received the news of the birth of his 1st born and didn't look particularly motivated. wanted to get out of there. played below par.
Lopez played below par as well. Verdasco started out well in the first set and played below par after that. Youzhny was tired after 2 tough matches before.
Both Verdasco, &Youzhny had played 5-setters the round before they faced Rafa. Djokovic also (5-setter vs Fed)

it was a cakewalk to the final. Only Djokovic was playing some good stuff in the final, though not great and that salvages the draw.

USO 2013 :

kohli was the only one who played some good tennis (&took a set). Gasquet didn't play that great either. Robredo was cr*p. Another cakewalk before the final. Djoko playing some good tennis in sets 2 & 3 of the final is the only one that salvages the draw.

Edit : Gasquet came into the semi after 5-setters vs Raonic & Ferrer.

USO 11 was the only tricky draw due to Roddick+Nalbandian, though it wasn't as tricky as the names suggest (since Roddick was spent after the Ferrer match and played the Nadal match kamikazing with bad net approaches, Nalby didn't play all that well either). He did face & beat Murray in the semi though.

you don't have the proper context and then go on to talk about "data" ?

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Gasquet didn't play that great either

Played two back to back 5 setters against Ferrer and Raonic before the SF with Rafa

 

[abmk]

"If Djokovic didn't exist" is the topic of discussion.


So, you are going to take the argument that A > B and B > C means A must be > C? You are going to apply the transitivity property while ignoring massive edge Nadal used to have in the matchup while knowing fully well that transitivity property is useless in sports?

Still, in one isolated match, what you say is absolutely true. But that's not what's being discussed here. What's being discussed is "what if Djokovic didn't exist".

For the (trillion+1)th time, humor me.

- Nadal takes 3 slams in 2010.
- Nadal takes the channel slam in 2011 and sweeps the clay season as well as other major Masters tournaments and has a huge lead in points.
- Nadal is the defending champ and is extra motivated to defend a non clay title.
- Nadal meets Federer at the USO final. The last time Federer has beaten him is in WTF 2010.
- History proves that Nadal has been very good at the USO, better than Federer since 2010.
- History shows that Nadal was in his prime in 2011 and 2012 only stopped by Djokovic.
- History shows that Federer didn't get a single win over prime Nadal at a slam venue. The alleged slam where it is said Fed has an edge, it is Nadal who has performed better and he has faced tough draws.

An unbiased observer would pick Nadal.

1. its no guareentee Nadal wins Wimbledon without Djokovic. Tsonga would have his shot, even if Nadal was favored.

2. USO after 2011 is irrelevant to this discussion. what is relevant is the USOs before that and that USO. Fed was in better form in USO 11. was playing well in the years at the USO before that (apart from the one below par match vs djoko in USO 10 SF)

3. Federer did get wins over prime Nadal at Wim 07 and arguably Wim 06 (Nadal's prime on grass was from 06-11)

4. If I was applying the transitive property as is, I'd have said Federer would be massively favoured over Nadal. I didn't. I said I'd give the slight edge to Federer. That is accounting for the matchup. the matchup would be quite lesser at the USO than at RG or the slow as molasses AO surface in 12. (11&12 were the slowest AO has been). Both RG and AO matches were competitive and the USO surface favoring Federer more than RG/AO would be enough to tilt the balance IMO. But I could see people giving a slight edge to Nadal or calling it 50-50. To say Nadal definitely wins that without a shadow of doubt however is just pathetic and is just your pretense of being an "objective" fed fan.

5. As far as this goes "The alleged slam where it is said Fed has an edge, it is Nadal who has performed better and he has faced tough draws.", I have no idea what it means.

 

[abmk]

Played two back to back 5 setters against Ferrer and Raonic before the SF with Rafa

oh yeah, that too !

 

[abmk]

What has Stan ever done to Nadal for you to believe he could take him at RG?

Pointing out a possible RG for Nadal is idiotic? LMAO. Did I read this right? Nadal is as sure a thing at RG as the Sun rising the East. What blasphemy...Stan would beat Nadal. Right!!

Stan beat Nadal in AO 14 - a GS final.
He also beat Nadal in Rome 15. 7-6,6-2- including saving 4 SPs with brilliant stuff in the 1st set tie-breaker.

Stan was in MUCH better form than Nadal at that RG.

Maybe if you actually watched matches/followed tennis properly instead of just pretending to be an objective fed fan >> you'd know.

Pointing out a Nadal chance at RG is not idiotic. What is idiotic is saying that loss hurt him that much in comparision to the federer losses to djokovic. it wasn't part of his prime period and he wasn't playing well. (unlike in 11-early 12).

Of course, everyone knows all the slams Fed has lost to Djokovic. My point is that slams lost by Nadal impacted him more. Go back and read everything in the thread because I am not going to reiterate everything.

I did read it and its a load of cr*p with a sh*tload of crappy assumptions needlessly favoring Nadal.

 

[abmk]

Maybe, maybe not. All we know is this: Only Soderling and Djokovic have ever defeated Nadal at the FO. Soderling was a shock loss, Djokovic's wasn't that much of a shock, because he had proven he could take Nadal out at clay courts and after years of defeats at RG, he was due once.

The ATP tour collectively proved powerless to stop a 31 year Nadal on clay without the ultron.

pretty sure almagro, ferrer beat Nadal on clay in 14 (nishi was doing the same before injury).
fognini, stan, murray beat him on clay in 15. (Murray didn't just beat him in the Madrid final, he thrashed him btw)
murray beat him on clay in 16 as well.

remember you said clay, not RG.

he was better in 17 than in all these years. Even Djokovic would've lost to Nadal at RG 17,

 

[letstakeourshirtsoff]

why do people keep mentioning nadal & co in a thread about 2 dominators of their respective era?

sampras was goat, now fedr goat.

bull irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[fedfan39]

2010 USO : If Federer had beaten Djokovic and faced Nadal in the final, he'd have faced a draw of Soderling+Djokovic+Nadal
Nadal would've faced only Federer (or as he actually did : Djokovic).

that's 10 country miles worth of a difference. Your way of looking at it is crappy.

Also Simon just received the news of the birth of his 1st born and didn't look particularly motivated. wanted to get out of there. played below par.
Lopez played below par as well. Verdasco started out well in the first set and played below par after that. Youzhny was tired after 2 tough matches before.
Both Verdasco, &Youzhny had played 5-setters the round before they faced Rafa. Djokovic also (5-setter vs Fed)

it was a cakewalk to the final. Only Djokovic was playing some good stuff in the final, though not great and that salvages the draw.

USO 2013 :

kohli was the only one who played some good tennis (&took a set). Gasquet didn't play that great either. Robredo was cr*p. Another cakewalk before the final. Djoko playing some good tennis in sets 2 & 3 of the final is the only one that salvages the draw.

Edit : Gasquet came into the semi after 5-setters vs Raonic & Ferrer.

USO 11 was the only tricky draw due to Roddick+Nalbandian, though it wasn't as tricky as the names suggest (since Roddick was spent after the Ferrer match and played the Nadal match kamikazing with bad net approaches, Nalby didn't play all that well either). He did face & beat Murray in the semi though.

you don't have the proper context and then go on to talk about "data" ?

Your logic: I say this opponent played crap, so the whole argument is crap. Got it.

What context? What the hell are you blabbering about? You haven't disproven absolutely anything that I said - Nadal has faced his share of tough draws and he has 3 USO titles to show for it. Is it too hard to digest drama queen?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Because Nadal didn't meet Federer, he won 3 USOs? Is that your logic?

- Nadal has a better track record at the USO than Federer by a lightyear since 2010 (4 finals/3 wins versus 1 final).
- Nadal has beaten Djokovic (a hard court beast) twice at USO finals.
- 4 months later, Nadal beat Federer at a hard court slam with relative ease.

But still, Federer was going to win the USO because....? He dispatched Nadal at the WTF.

Right.

Edit: Nadal's 2017 draw was weak, but was 2010 and 2013 draw weak too? He beat Djokovic for both titles. Cupcake draw?

2010 (R3 onwards):
Nadal: Simon > Lopez(23) > Verdasco(8) > Youzney(12) > Djokovic(3)
Federer: Mathieu > Melzer(13) > Solderling(5) > Djokovic(3)

Yes, Fed had it tougher, but Nadal didn't have a cakewalk exactly.

2013 (R3 onwards, Nadal only, Fed out in R4):
Dodig > Kohli(22) > Robredo(19) > Gasquet(8) > Djokovic(1)

Sorry, I don't see a cupcake draw here either.

In fact, 2011 (R3 onwards, Nadal only again):
Nalbandian > Muller > Roddick(21) > Murray(4) > Djokovic(1)

Look at the opponents. Both Nalbandian and Muller are unseeded but very dangerous and then, he also dispatched Roddick and Murray. I hardly see a cupcake again.

Data is your friend. Data = knowledge. No data = asinine opinions that you champion.

No, my logic is that Federer wasn’t in any of those finals, so simply saying Nadal is better than Federer ("there, and that is why I will give it to him"), because he has more titles doesn't say anything about how an eventual match between the two there would have ended.

However, what we do know is how the nearest match in similar conditions turned out (note, I am not saying that Federer would have destroyed Nadal WTF style either, just that the match result is relevant).

I find your "analysis" of the draws laughable, but that is neither here nor there.

2017 is considered the weakest path to the title in a Major in the Open Era (if not of all time), and, of course, in 2010 Djokovic was not half the player he became after his DC win with Serbia.

More of the 2010 draw, which featured two of his favourite spanish armada opponents (one of which played an exhausting 5 setter against Ferrer in a jam packed with spaniards quarter) and Youzny, who was busy playing (and losing from) players in the second half of top 100 most of the year.

Of course, Murray, who was, well, the better of the two options.

I will just note that both Roddick and Nalbandian were before retirement.

That is all that needs to be said about them, but cudos to Nadal for beating them.

Data is your friend when you know what it says.