Federer U.S. Open Titles Compared to other Big 3

M

McEnroeisanartist

Hall of Fame
Assuming Murray, Djokovic, or Nadal win the 2013 U.S. Open, Federer will have won one more U.S. Open than those three combined in the careers.

After the 2008 U.S. Open, Federer was 27 years old with 5 U.S. Opens. Nadal is currently 27 and 3 months with one U.S. Open. Murray and Djokovic will turn 27 in May 2014 and currently each have one.
 
McEnroeisanartist said:
Assuming Murray, Djokovic, or Nadal win the 2013 U.S. Open, Federer will have won one more U.S. Open than those three combined in the careers.

After the 2008 U.S. Open, Federer was 27 years old with 5 U.S. Opens. Nadal is currently 27 and 3 months with one U.S. Open. Murray and Djokovic will turn 27 in May 2014 and currently each have one.
Click to expand...

Well, one of them might yet have TWO US Open titles by the time they turn 27! :)

In any case, Federer had it easy. He didn't have to deal with hardcourt-prime Nadal, Djokovic or Murray during his 5 titles run up to 2008! :wink:
 
Mainad said:
Well, one of them might yet have TWO US Open titles by the time they turn 27! :)

In any case, Federer had it easy. He didn't have to deal with hardcourt-prime Nadal, Djokovic or Murray during his 5 titles run up to 2008! :wink:
Click to expand...

Give him some credit. Winning the title 5 times in a row is a great achievement.
 
Mainad said:
Well, one of them might yet have TWO US Open titles by the time they turn 27! :)

In any case, Federer had it easy. He didn't have to deal with hardcourt-prime Nadal, Djokovic or Murray during his 5 titles run up to 2008! :wink:
Click to expand...

he still defeated a pretty decent djokovic in 2007 and 2008. much better than 2009 and 2010 anyway.

nadal as well did not defeat full hardcourt prime djokovic in his title run.
 
Mustard said:
Nadal is the only one of them to win a US Open title by dropping just 1 set.
Click to expand...

rGpO3x3.jpg


:p
 
Last edited:
MichaelNadal said:
"Cake draw"

They could flood the nile with their tears that his US Open title still cause.
Click to expand...

Yet they fail to acknowledge the parade of cake draws Fed got in his prime, and is still continuing to get to this day. Look at his draw at the USO this year, and his draw at RG as well. Twinkies if there ever was any.
 
Clarky21 said:
Yet they fail to acknowledge the parade of cake draws Fed got in his prime, and is still continuing to get to this day. Look at his draw at the USO this year, and his draw at RG as well. Twinkies if there ever was any.
Click to expand...

You complain about feds cakewalk draws and you complain about fed fans complaining about nadals cakewalk draws. Sorry but you cannot have your cake and eat it.
 
Brett UK said:
Sure, as a Fed fan I would say Nadal played great in 2010 and deserved his US Open title. Nothing else to do sometimes except congratulate your rival.
Click to expand...

Exactly, why pick it apart and try to dissect it? The guy was playing very well and beat a Djokovic that was NOT playing badly whether people want to admit it or not. Crying over his draw doesn't change history. This place could use more people like you. People seem to forget he was right back in the final the next year too.
 
Clarky21 said:
Yet they fail to acknowledge the parade of cake draws Fed got in his prime, and is still continuing to get to this day. Look at his draw at the USO this year, and his draw at RG as well. Twinkies if there ever was any.
Click to expand...

Yeah, drawing the player of the year and his nemesis in the quarters was a cakewalk. LMFAO

Brett UK said:
You complain about feds cakewalk draws and you complain about fed fans complaining about nadals cakewalk draws. Sorry but you cannot have your cake and eat it.
Click to expand...

Yes exactly.

MichaelNadal said:
Exactly, why pick it apart and try to dissect it? The guy was playing very well and beat a Djokovic that was NOT playing badly whether people want to admit it or not. Crying over his draw doesn't change history. This place could use more people like you. People seem to forget he was right back in the final the next year too.
Click to expand...

Well you know 98% of Nadal fans moan all the time about Fed's draws,claim they were cakewalks etc. But a few times Nadal gets an easy draw and that is then off limits for discussion and even stat man Mustard claims things like "No one was beating Nadal anyway"

So when Fed has easy draws it's a case of he would never have won otherwise, when Nadal does it's "Nadal was winning anyway don't talk about easy draws you moaners" and then it;s back to moaning about the draws of every one of Fed's 17 slams.

Not having a go at you personally, but this is the way things go.
 
Brett UK said:
You complain about feds cakewalk draws and you complain about fed fans complaining about nadals cakewalk draws. Sorry but you cannot have your cake and eat it.
Click to expand...

I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the Fed fanatics that pollute this site. Not my fault if it went flying right over your head.
 
Towser83 said:
Yeah, drawing the player of the year and his nemesis in the quarters was a cakewalk. LMFAO



Yes exactly.



Well you know 98% of Nadal fans moan all the time about Fed's draws,claim they were cakewalks etc. But a few times Nadal gets an easy draw and that is then off limits for discussion and even stat man Mustard claims things like "No one was beating Nadal anyway"

So when Fed has easy draws it's a case of he would never have won otherwise, when Nadal does it's "Nadal was winning anyway don't talk about easy draws you moaners" and then it;s back to moaning about the draws of every one of Fed's 17 slams.

Not having a go at you personally, but this is the way things go.
Click to expand...


No what's funny is Fed's draw up until the quarters, where he still might not even meet his supposed "nemesis" anyway. He could make the final of this tournament without having to play anyone worth a crap. Deny it if you must but you know you're full of it if you insist this is a tough draw for Fed.

"Few" being the operative word here. Fed, otoh, has had loads of them throughout his career. Nadal had to play Cvac in that USO final to get his career slam, while Fed got to play his pigeon Soderling to get his. Let's also not forget multiple slam winners like Baggy, Roddick, Philippoussis, and Gonzales. How many slams does that make where he got a slam final virgin in the final? Lots, that's how many.
 
Last edited:
MichaelNadal said:
Exactly, why pick it apart and try to dissect it? The guy was playing very well and beat a Djokovic that was NOT playing badly whether people want to admit it or not. Crying over his draw doesn't change history. This place could use more people like you. People seem to forget he was right back in the final the next year too.
Click to expand...

Thanks Michael. I note your comments are quite reasonable also but I have to read a lot of others garbage here to get to the good comments. I do tire a bit of comments about illegit slams. If you win a slam, you earnt it, even if I didn't want you to win it!
 
Brett UK said:
Thanks Michael. I note your comments are quite reasonable also but I have to read a lot of others garbage here to get to the good comments. I do tire a bit of comments about illegit slams. If you win a slam, you earnt it, even if I didn't want you to win it!
Click to expand...

That's why I never had 1 bad thing to say about any of Federer's draws or his 2009FO. I was happy for him. People try to take things away from everyone on here. It's really silly, what's the point of watching tennis if you're going to whine about everything that doesn't go your way?
 
Clarky21 said:
No what's funny is Fed's draw up until the quarters, where he still might not even meet his supposed "nemesis" anyway. He could make the final of this tournament without having to play anyone worth a crap. Deny it if you must but you know you're full of it if you insist this is a tough draw for Fed.

"Few" being the operative word here. Fed, otoh, has had loads of them throughout his career. Nadal had to play Cvac in that USO final to get his career slam, while Fed got to play his pigeon Soderling to get his. Let's also not forget multiple slam winners like Baggy, Roddick, Philippoussis, and Gonzales. How many slams does that make where he got a slam virgin in the final? Lots, that's how many.
Click to expand...

No one is beating Nadal so Fed will have to play him and that's the worst possible quarterfinal opponent for him. But yet you are STILL moaning about how it's a easy draw. And supposed Nemesis? Ok I'll remind ou of that the next time you mention how Nadal owns fed. You also moan all the time about easy draws but then get annoyed when someone mentions whan Nadal had them too. Total hypocrite. Even a decent Mustard going on like Nadal would have won that USO final against anyone at anytime, but with Fed it's treated as if he only won because he didn't have to play whoever.

And Cvac was a mess that year. You have taught me that Nadal is a HC mug totally inferior to Cvac so obviously Nadal lucked out there didn't he? At least Fed made some RG finals before hand, did some hard work, didn't just turn up in the final first time and have the stars align for him :twisted:
 
Clarky21 said:
No what's funny is Fed's draw up until the quarters, where he still might not even meet his supposed "nemesis" anyway. He could make the final of this tournament without having to play anyone worth a crap. Deny it if you must but you know you're full of it if you insist this is a tough draw for Fed.

"Few" being the operative word here. Fed, otoh, has had loads of them throughout his career. Nadal had to play Cvac in that USO final to get his career slam, while Fed got to play his pigeon Soderling to get his. Let's also not forget multiple slam winners like Baggy, Roddick, Philippoussis, and Gonzales. How many slams does that make where he got a slam final virgin in the final? Lots, that's how many.
Click to expand...

The last time Nadal lost before the QF in a slam with the exceptions of RG 09 and the 2 most recent Wimbledons was in 2007 US open against HIS pidgeon David Ferrer.

Nadal beat Soderling in the first round of RG 2006 with 5 breaks of serve over 3 sets. Without Nadal's "perfect" clay conditions and Soderling in form he lost in 4. SEE the argument? I don't see how Soderling getting a Schiavone type of run (2 RG finals in a row minus winning it) makes him a a more worthy final opponent when Nadal plays him and less worthy when Fed plays him.

If you break down the whole clay resume of people Nadal has beaten on the road to his 8 titles you'll see hes taken advantage of the so called "weak era" just as much as Federer.
 
Towser83 said:
No one is beating Nadal so Fed will have to play him and that's the worst possible quarterfinal opponent for him. But yet you are STILL moaning about how it's a easy draw. And supposed Nemesis? Ok I'll remind ou of that the next time you mention how Nadal owns fed. You also moan all the time about easy draws but then get annoyed when someone mentions whan Nadal had them too. Total hypocrite. Even a decent Mustard going on like Nadal would have won that USO final against anyone at anytime, but with Fed it's treated as if he only won because he didn't have to play whoever.

And Cvac was a mess that year. You have taught me that Nadal is a HC mug totally inferior to Cvac so obviously Nadal lucked out there didn't he? At least Fed made some RG finals before hand, did some hard work, didn't just turn up in the final first time and have the stars align for him :twisted:
Click to expand...

Using your crystal ball again? You do not know if Nadal will make it that far, and since his draw is much harder than Fed's just to get to the quarters, he certainly could lose before then.

That's because it is IS an easy draw.

Please list all the easy draws Nadal has had over the years to win his slams. Then list all the easy draws Fed has had to win his, and how many slam final virgins he got in many of those finals. Nadal's alleged easy draws pale in comparison.

Not this crap again. Do you really think beating a 6+ slam winner on his best surface in a slam final is the same as beating zero slam winner, and perpetual pigeon Soderling? Nadal also played miles better throughout the USO in 2010 than Fed did at any point at RG 2009.

Nah, he lucked out by having Sod do the dirty work for him by taking out Nadal, having Haas choke his guts up against him, Sod being yet another slam final virgin whipping boy for him, and Delpo choking his guts up against him as well. No luck involved there at all. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Finesse4sum said:
The last time Nadal lost before the QF in a slam with the exceptions of RG 09 and the 2 most recent Wimbledons was in 2007 US open against HIS pidgeon David Ferrer.

Nadal beat Soderling in the first round of RG 2006 with 5 breaks of serve over 3 sets. Without Nadal's "perfect" clay conditions and Soderling in form he lost in 4. SEE the argument? I don't see how Soderling getting a Schiavone type of run (2 RG finals in a row minus winning it) makes him a a more worthy final opponent when Nadal plays him and less worthy when Fed plays him.

If you break down the whole clay resume of people Nadal has beaten on the road to his 8 titles you'll see hes taken advantage of the so called "weak era" just as much as Federer.
Click to expand...

When Nadal gets to win 5+ slams off the backs of slam final virgins, then you can say this. Fed also, IIRC, has never had to beat a top 5 opponent at the AO to win any of this titles there. When Nadal also gets that lucky, then you can say this. Until then, I think Fed has had it a whole lot easier than Nadal has.
 
Last edited:
Clarky21 said:
No what's funny is Fed's draw up until the quarters, where he still might not even meet his supposed "nemesis" anyway. He could make the final of this tournament without having to play anyone worth a crap. Deny it if you must but you know you're full of it if you insist this is a tough draw for Fed.

"Few" being the operative word here. Fed, otoh, has had loads of them throughout his career. Nadal had to play Cvac in that USO final to get his career slam, while Fed got to play his pigeon Soderling to get his. Let's also not forget multiple slam winners like Baggy, Roddick, Philippoussis, and Gonzales. How many slams does that make where he got a slam final virgin in the final? Lots, that's how many.
Click to expand...

Nadal was 14-7 vs djokovic going into that final. Nadal fans say federer is Nadal's pigeon with a similar head to head. So therefore djokovic was Nadal's Pigeon in that final. Also, Puerta. Berdych. Soderling. You lose.
 
MichaelNadal said:
That's why I never had 1 bad thing to say about any of Federer's draws or his 2009FO. I was happy for him. People try to take things away from everyone on here. It's really silly, what's the point of watching tennis if you're going to whine about everything that doesn't go your way?
Click to expand...

Yes but you did commit blasphemy when you rated Nadal's FH higher than Fed's so no chance to repent this sin no matter how happy you are for Fed's wins.
 
Cup8489 said:
Nadal was 14-7 vs djokovic going into that final. Nadal fans say federer is Nadal's pigeon with a similar head to head. So therefore djokovic was Nadal's Pigeon in that final. Also, Puerta. Berdych. Soderling. You lose.
Click to expand...

Puerta? LOL are you forgetting who he had to beat in the semi?

Berdych has sent Fed packing in majors more than once.

Soderling was Fed's opponent in a final as well.

Also re Djokovic, his h2h against Rafa was poor, but not on HC or does that not matter now? Maybe we should put the Davydenko argument away from now on then.
 
Clarky21 said:
Using your crystal ball again? You do not know if Nadal will make it that far, and since his draw is much harder than Fed's just to get to the quarters, he certainly could lose before then.
Click to expand...

My crystalball is alot better than yours, having predicted most of Nadal's titles this year and you on a big fat 0 out of 9. No one in Nadal's quarter can beat him, don't make me laugh. Top players hardly ever lose pre quarters anyway. And efore you mention Wimbledon, well Fed's playing guys as good as Darcis and Stak.

Clarky21 said:
That's because it is IS an easy draw.
Click to expand...

So is Nadal's (though not as easy) On form they should both make it through to the QF with ease, difference is then Fed has his worst possible match up and Nadal has his slam pigeon fresh from another beating in Cinci.

Clarky21 said:
Please list all the easy draws Nadal has had over the years to win his slams. Then list all the easy draws Fed has had to win his, and how many slam final virgins he got in many of those finals. Nadal's alleged easy draws pale in comparison.
Click to expand...

You don't get it. First at least I admit Fed has had easy draws, you on the other hand moan about Fed's draws but flat out deny or get tetchy when people suggest that sometimes Nadal has had that too. I am the only one here admitting that the player I like has had easy draws. You don't do that. Second, I'm not acting like whatever player won ONLY because of that draw. On the other hand I also don't suggest that whatever player would have DEFINITELY won even with a tougher draw like all you Nadal fans do about the USO (even when you go on about how Nadal is a hc mug and inferior to Djokovic) So on one hand Fed's easy draws are the only reason he won, Nadal gets an easy draw and you know he'd have won anyway. It's biased bs.

Also you know how many slam finals Fed has had against players who have never won a slam? 4. You know how many Nadal has? 4. Which is obviously a bigger percentage. Nadal also never had to beat anyone better at RG than Federer who only won RG (and probably most of his other slams) because he got lucky. So Nadal didn't exactly do great there according to that logic. Plus Fed has played the great Djokovic more times in slams than Nadal has and beaten him at each slam.

Clarky21 said:
Not this crap again. Do you really think beating a 6 slam winner on his best surface in a slam final is the same as beating zero slam winner, and perpetual pigeon Soderling? Nadal also played miles better throughout the USO in 2010 than Fed did at any point at RG 2009.
Click to expand...

Djokovic wasn't a 6 time slam winner at the time Nadal beat him at the USO, he was an underachieving player who had spent the last 2 years not living up to his potential and the last year double faulting all over the place and losing to every top ten player he faced. Soderling had just beaten the 4 time reigning RG champ. I mean when it suits you you will refer to Fed only beating a baby Djokovic but when Nadal eats him you act like he had 6 slams at the time. Nice.

Clarky21 said:
Nah, he lucked out by having Sod do the dirty work for him by taking out Nadal, having Haas choke his guts up against him, Sod being yet another slam final virgin whipping boy for him, and Delpo choking his guts up against him as well. No luck involved there at all. :lol:
Click to expand...

Yes but at least he paid his dues by taking a beating from Nadal 4 times before, including 3 finals. Nadal got the luck first time.

Also Nadal really should have beaten Soderling, too bad he wasn't good enough that year.
 
Clarky21 said:
When Nadal gets to win 5+ slams off the backs of slam final virgins, then you can say this. Fed also, IIRC, has never had to beat a top 5 opponent at the AO to win any of this titles there. When Nadal also gets that lucky, then you can say this. Until then, I think Fed has had it a whole lot easier than Nadal has.
Click to expand...

He has beaten top 5 players at the AO, this has been pointed out to you before but you insist on carrying on with this erroneous statement.

Also Fed has had 7 wins with finals vs slam virgins out of 17 slams (only 4 of thse players not winning a slam eventually)

Nadal has had title 4 wins with finals vs slam virgins out of 12 slams (all 4 still slamless) that's not that much different and tbh Federer at his best would still beat Djokovic and Murray at slams more often than not
 
Towser83 said:
My crystalball is alot better than yours, having predicted most of Nadal's titles this year and you on a big fat 0 out of 9. No one in Nadal's quarter can beat him, don't make me laugh. Top players hardly ever lose pre quarters anyway. And efore you mention Wimbledon, well Fed's playing guys as good as Darcis and Stak.



So is Nadal's (though not as easy) On form they should both make it through to the QF with ease, difference is then Fed has his worst possible match up and Nadal has his slam pigeon fresh from another beating in Cinci.



You don't get it. First at least I admit Fed has had easy draws, you on the other hand moan about Fed's draws but flat out deny or get tetchy when people suggest that sometimes Nadal has had that too. I am the only one here admitting that the player I like has had easy draws. You don't do that. Second, I'm not acting like whatever player won ONLY because of that draw. On the other hand I also don't suggest that whatever player would have DEFINITELY won even with a tougher draw like all you Nadal fans do about the USO (even when you go on about how Nadal is a hc mug and inferior to Djokovic) So on one hand Fed's easy draws are the only reason he won, Nadal gets an easy draw and you know he'd have won anyway. It's biased bs.

Also you know how many slam finals Fed has had against players who have never won a slam? 4. You know how many Nadal has? 4. Which is obviously a bigger percentage. Nadal also never had to beat anyone better at RG than Federer who only won RG (and probably most of his other slams) because he got lucky. So Nadal didn't exactly do great there according to that logic. Plus Fed has played the great Djokovic more times in slams than Nadal has and beaten him at each slam.



Djokovic wasn't a 6 time slam winner at the time Nadal beat him at the USO, he was an underachieving player who had spent the last 2 years not living up to his potential and the last year double faulting all over the place and losing to every top ten player he faced. Soderling had just beaten the 4 time reigning RG champ. I mean when it suits you you will refer to Fed only beating a baby Djokovic but when Nadal eats him you act like he had 6 slams at the time. Nice.



Yes but at least he paid his dues by taking a beating from Nadal 4 times before, including 3 finals. Nadal got the luck first time.

Also Nadal really should have beaten Soderling, too bad he wasn't good enough that year.
Click to expand...


Nadal has lost twice at Wimby in the early rounds the last two years. He has also struggled with mugs like Brands and Kilizan on his best surface at RG. He has every chance of losing before that quarterfinal. He's not a lock to make it that far.

Yeah because we all know how easy it will be for Nadal to go through Gollum and then Isner to even get to Fed. Nadal's draw is harder than Fed's draw. The end.

He is a hard court mug and inferior to Cvac. That's partly what makes his US win against him even more impressive than Fed's win against Sod at RG.

Holy hell you just keep making me laugh, Towser. :lol: Cvac was a slam winner, multiple slam finalist, and owns Nadal on hardcourts(all surfaces now), yet you want to make it seem like Fed beating zero slam winner/perpetual pigeon Soderling was the greater feat? Lol!! Totally ridiculous.

Yep, and Fed really should have beaten Soderling at RG in 2010 but he didn't did he?
 
Clarky21 said:
Nadal has lost twice at Wimby in the early rounds the last two years. He has also struggled with mugs like Brands and Kilizan on his best surface at RG. He has every chance of losing before that quarterfinal. He's not a lock to make it that far.
Click to expand...

Is this being played on grass or on a surface where Nadal is unbeaten this year and has won 3 masters titles?

Clarky21 said:
Yeah because we all know how easy it will be for Nadal to go through Gollum and then Isner to even get to Fed. Nadal's draw is harder than Fed's draw. The end.
Click to expand...

Please, Davydenko is finished and Isner couldn't even win a single tiebreak vs Nadal in a masters. If I said he was a hard draw for Djokovic you'd laugh, despite the fact he's actually beaten him and never beaten Nadal. Nadal's draw up to the quarter may be harder but both are pretty straight forward after which Nadal has an easy match and Fed has an almost impossible one.End of.

Clarky21 said:
He is a hard court mug and inferior to Cvac. That's partly what makes his US win against him even more impressive than Fed's win against Sod at RG.
Click to expand...

Right, one of those examples of Nadal being so crap being a reason why he is in fact so great :lol: Anyway Fed is a clay mug who couldn't win a clay slam without getting lucky.Nadal has won 2 hc slams with the worst luck in the world according to Nadal fans.

Clarky21 said:
Holy hell you just keep making me laugh, Towser. :lol: Cvac was a slam winner, multiple slam finalist, and owns Nadal on hardcourts(all surfaces now), yet you want to make it seem like Fed beating zero slam winner/perpetual pigeon Soderling was the greater feat? Lol!! Totally ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Yeah but Fed beating Djokovic in 2007,08 and 09 counts for nothing even though Djokovic played better those years than 2010.Nice touch about Djokovic owning Nadal on all surfaces now, I guess you managed to make a funnier joke than me :lol:

And in 2011 Nadal was a 9 times slam champ, but you make it sound like anyone beating their grandmother was better than beating him then or anytime since during which time he's won another 3 slams :lol: Again nice case of being a hypocrite.At least Nadal has won slams during allthis time, what slams or masters did djokovic win in 2010?

Clarky21 said:
Yep, and Fed really should have beaten Soderling at RG in 2010 but he didn't did he?
Click to expand...

Yes. He should have and he didn't. You see how it is to not be constantly biased? He should have beaten Berdych at Wimby that year too. Having said that it is a bit worse when your supposed to be the clay GOAT and 4 time defending champ to lose in your prime there. Fed losing to Berd was pretty bad for him too, not as bad but still a bad loss. But let me guess, Nadaldidn't get lucky that Berd took out 2 of his main rivals but Fed was super lucky Sod took out one?
 
Last edited:
Clarky21 said:
When Nadal gets to win 5+ slams off the backs of slam final virgins, then you can say this. Fed also, IIRC, has never had to beat a top 5 opponent at the AO to win any of this titles there. When Nadal also gets that lucky, then you can say this. Until then, I think Fed has had it a whole lot easier than Nadal has.
Click to expand...

Actually clarky, Fed has beaten Juan Carlos Ferrero (#3) in 2004 and Murray (#5) in 2010.

As for top 4, it's only JC Ferrero. Fed fans will argue vehemently that Murray should be included because his ranking was higher than his seed, at the end of the day all they're arguing is the top 4 opponent was within a bee's dick of being #5 anyway lol.

The truth is, Fed hasn't beat an incredibly tough opponent at the AO. When he was really challenged, he failed against Safin in 05, Nadal in 09 & 12, Novak in 08 & 11.

In 2010 he played an exhausted Tsonga and Murray was a head case.
 
The_Order said:
Actually clarky, Fed has beaten Juan Carlos Ferrero (#3) in 2004 and Murray (#5) in 2010.

As for top 4, it's only JC Ferrero. Fed fans will argue vehemently that Murray should be included because his ranking was higher than his seed, at the end of the day all they're arguing is the top 4 opponent was within a bee's dick of being #5 anyway lol.

The truth is, Fed hasn't beat an incredibly tough opponent at the AO. When he was really challenged, he failed against Safin in 05, Nadal in 09 & 12, Novak in 08 & 11.

In 2010 he played an exhausted Tsonga and Murray was a head case.
Click to expand...

Thanks for correcting me so the Fed fanatics will stop saying I'm spreading "erroneous" info about this subject. Lol. You know, anything to distract from the fact that Fed won nearly all of his AO titles against slam final virgins who were on a short lived hot streak.
 
Clarky21 said:
Thanks for correcting me so the Fed fanatics will stop saying I'm spreading "erroneous" info about this subject. Lol. You know, anything to distract from the fact that Fed won nearly all of his AO titles against slam final virgins who were on a short lived hot streak.
Click to expand...

You've been corrected before, you just didn't listen so no need to get mad, ignore the point your originally made so you can continue to go on with this stuff about Federer. You were wrong. Accept it. But anything to distract from the fact you were wrong.

Also the only reason why Fed defeated the slam virgin Murray was because that slam virgin Murray had knocked out defending champ Nadal. Put simply Fed was there knocking out Murray and Djokovic when they started challenging for slams on HC and Nadal wasn't beating them (he barely beat a schoolboy Murray in 2007)

You can also count the gonzo match, since gonzo beat Nadal that year (given that Nadal had made a wimby final the year before, no reason why he couldn't have beaten the weak 2007 field on a surface he played the majority of the year on)

(btw in 2010 Murray was ranked 4, but seeded 5 because the seedings had been made a week earlier. Davydenko in 2006 was also ranked 5)
 
Last edited:
Towser83 said:
He has beaten top 5 players at the AO, this has been pointed out to you before but you insist on carrying on with this erroneous statement.

Also Fed has had 7 wins with finals vs slam virgins out of 17 slams (only 4 of thse players not winning a slam eventually)

Nadal has had title 4 wins with finals vs slam virgins out of 12 slams (all 4 still slamless) that's not that much different and tbh Federer at his best would still beat Djokovic and Murray at slams more often than not
Click to expand...

let's not forget that nadal met djokovic and murray in slams much earlier than federer. nadal met djokovic for the first time in 2006 and murray in 2007 but nadal fans say those victories count while federer's not because they were too young
 
Towser83 said:
He has beaten top 5 players at the AO, this has been pointed out to you before but you insist on carrying on with this erroneous statement.

Also Fed has had 7 wins with finals vs slam virgins out of 17 slams (only 4 of thse players not winning a slam eventually)

Nadal has had title 4 wins with finals vs slam virgins out of 12 slams (all 4 still slamless) that's not that much different and tbh Federer at his best would still beat Djokovic and Murray at slams more often than not
Click to expand...

when federer beat djokovic in 2007 at the uso he was already an established threat on hards going deep in slams taking sets from nadal (W 2007 before he retired) and was already a top 3 player with wins over both federer and nadal.
 
The_Order said:
Puerta? LOL are you forgetting who he had to beat in the semi?

Berdych has sent Fed packing in majors more than once.

Soderling was Fed's opponent in a final as well.

Also re Djokovic, his h2h against Rafa was poor, but not on HC or does that not matter now? Maybe we should put the Davydenko argument away from now on then.
Click to expand...

Great post.
 
McEnroeisanartist said:
Assuming Murray, Djokovic, or Nadal win the 2013 U.S. Open, Federer will have won one more U.S. Open than those three combined in the careers.

After the 2008 U.S. Open, Federer was 27 years old with 5 U.S. Opens. Nadal is currently 27 and 3 months with one U.S. Open. Murray and Djokovic will turn 27 in May 2014 and currently each have one.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I really don't understand the point you are trying to make?
we all know Fed has 5 USO titles while Djokovic, Nadal and Murray have one each. So what is this thread about?
 
6-1 6-3 6-0 said:
Assuming Nadal stomps all over Federer in the QF, Nadal will be the only player to complete the Career Federer Slam.
Click to expand...

Rafa beating Fed is not impressive. Fed after 2008 is losing to everybody, lol.
Soderling, Tsonga, Berdych, Murray, Nole, Staky? Delpo?

I would be impressed people beating peak Fed at majors. Like Safin did in AO and Nadal at FO at Feds peak. Those are impressive wins.

If next generations greats start beating old Rafa at RG, I won't be impressed either. Fact is peak Fed was unbeatable except on RG against a clay goat.

Like peak Rafa on clay is unbeatable. He is also amazing on grass at his peak. Making 4 finals, losing to only peak Fed in the process.
 
jg153040 said:
Rafa beating Fed is not impressive. Fed after 2008 is losing to everybody, lol.
Soderling, Tsonga, Berdych, Murray, Nole, Staky? Delpo?

I would be impressed people beating peak Fed at majors. Like Safin did in AO and Nadal at FO at Feds peak. Those are impressive wins.

If next generations greats start beating old Rafa at RG, I won't be impressed either. Fact is peak Fed was unbeatable except on RG against a clay goat.

Like peak Rafa on clay is unbeatable. He is also amazing on grass at his peak. Making 4 finals, losing to only peak Fed in the process.
Click to expand...

Great point, reasonably made.
 
Mainad said:
Well, one of them might yet have TWO US Open titles by the time they turn 27! :)

In any case, Federer had it easy. He didn't have to deal with hardcourt-prime Nadal, Djokovic or Murray during his 5 titles run up to 2008! :wink:
Click to expand...

Only one guy had it easy - and that's Nadal. Remember his 2010 draw? Yep, that's what I'm talking about.

Fed beat the very best in the biz every time, including owning Djokovic in 2007, 2008 and 2009 as well as owning Murray in 2008. You fail.
 
McEnroeisanartist said:
Assuming Murray, Djokovic, or Nadal win the 2013 U.S. Open, Federer will have won one more U.S. Open than those three combined in the careers.

After the 2008 U.S. Open, Federer was 27 years old with 5 U.S. Opens. Nadal is currently 27 and 3 months with one U.S. Open. Murray and Djokovic will turn 27 in May 2014 and currently each have one.
Click to expand...

And your point is?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
Which player was hurt most by each of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic
Replies
27
Views
2K
kandamrgam
kandamrgam
M
Comparing Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic - First 6 Grand Slams
Replies
0
Views
718
McEnroeisanartist
M
federerfanatic
  • Poll Poll
Which records will Federer atleast tie by the end of 2009 U.S Open?
Replies
29
Views
2K
ksbh
ksbh
davey25
How many slams will current top players end up with
Replies
37
Views
2K
Anaconda
A
C
Who wins each slam since 2004 without the Big 3
Replies
11
Views
615
D.Nalby12
D
Back
Top