Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
No no no you're confusing that with ****...
Federer's 8 Grand Slams in Three Years
- Thread starter McEnroeisanartist
- Start date
No no no you're confusing that with ****...
Apun94
Hall of Fame
But had he existed, things wouldve been VERY different.
Apun94
Hall of Fame
I am not surprised you brought that up. You still think Nadal played his peak tennis at the 2011 Wimbledon...
zagor
Bionic Poster
Ah, but I didn't bring up peak Nadal, you did and unsurpisingly you've yet to define him.
When was this Nadal's peak? Enlighten me.
Otherwise it's like saying, things would have been very different if Fed had to face the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and Big Foot to win his slams in 2004-2006 or 2005-2007 (whichever period the OP is alluding to).
zagor
Bionic Poster
If Santa Claus existed, he'd have to be traveling faster than the speed of light to give presents to all children in the world.
Apun94
Hall of Fame
lol, did you forget that your boy was no 2?? NUMBER TWO??
He faces the same pathethic field....and guess what?
He can't beat those pathethic field and reach the final to face FedLOLOLOLOL
Are you really that high? Was Nadal really in this discussion? I openly admit that Nadal isnt GOAT. Please dont defend Federer by pulling Nadal in the discussion. I was comparing Nole's last 3 years with Fed's prime (which Fed fans seem to overrate)
sbengte
G.O.A.T.
Right. Had Chuck Norris played tennis, things would've been VERY different too.
Apun94
Hall of Fame
So you mean that had prime Nadal, Nole and Murray played in the 04-07 era, fed would still have this record...
Apun94
Hall of Fame
Ok, 2008 and 2010. Although he played incredible tennis in other years (protions of 2011 and 2012) he wasnt consistent enough throughout the whole year to call those his best years....
mike danny
Bionic Poster
baby rafa played much better on grass than man rafa and baby nole played much better in 2007 than 2010.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
all this baby talk is rubbish. every player rises differently. at 20-21 federer was not reaching grand slam finals on any surface. rafa was doing so on clay and grass. nole by the time he was 19 and 20 was already a factor on hardcourts and even.a consistent contender at slams. all this baby talk is rubbish since they performed so well at an early age
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
Declining Hewitt, old Agassi, Baghdatis, Gonzalez...
Tennis_Hands
Banned
The funny thing is, Federer has been №1 in 2012 in the middle of the very prime of Djokovic, Nadal and Murray. More importantly, he was well past his own prime at the time.
Can't say the same about any other player during Fed's prime.
Funny.
Didn't Fed amass most of his Majors when Nadal was already winning Majors himself? And Djokovic and Murray for that matter.
Or am I mistaken?
Last edited:
zagor
Bionic Poster
2008 AO and 2008 USO was Rafa at his very best? Getting blitzed by Tsonga and young Murray?
Slow HC season of 2010 was Rafa at his best? Remember, he lost to past their prime Rodidck and Ljubicic then
, not to mention he got thoroughly outplayed by Murray at AO.Actually, Nadal was never more consistent than in 2011 FO-2012 FO period, he reached 5 slam finals in a row (previous best was 3) and in 2011 he reached 7 finals in a row.
Regardless, if we accept your assertion that 2010 and 2008 was Rafa's peak:
AO - Nadal didn't even sniff a final, can't beat Fed if you don't reach him.
FO - business as usual.
Wimbledon - If I'm generous I'll give Rafa 2008 Wimbledon though even then, he barely won against a low on confidence Fed.
USO - Nadal's 2010 USO form was exceptional but then again Fed was a beast at USO in his best years, If I'm generous I'll give that one to Nadal as well.
So Fed would have won 6-7 in a 3 year period, hardly that much of a difference.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Hewitt was playing his best tenis in 04, 05 in the majors. Agassi played very well at the USO's in 04/05. You left out Safin, peak Roddick, Nalbandian, Davydenko and Nadal/Djokovic (especially in 2007).
sonicare
Hall of Fame
To be fair to djokovic, he was facing 2 all time greats in nadal and fed and a very very good player in murray.
fed was facing baghdatis, roddick and gonzales.
thats why i have djokovic as a tier 2 great already and have his 2011 as the greatest year ever. I mean 12-1 against fed and nadal in incredible.
fed was facing baghdatis, roddick and gonzales.
thats why i have djokovic as a tier 2 great already and have his 2011 as the greatest year ever. I mean 12-1 against fed and nadal in incredible.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Yes. That was an astounding level of play by Gonzo for the whole tournament. He was absolutely destroying people left, right, and center, and I often wonder what would've happened if Gonzalez had converted the SP's at 5-4 40-15 up on serve in the 1st set against Federer. Unfortunately for Gonzalez, Fed was also playing some of his best stuff during that very tournament.
But you are very right. His career is not storied, and that is the trap that many fall into, but dismissing Gonzalez during that AO, even against Fed, was a completely bonehead move. Btw, just a quick fact check, he beat Nadal in the QF's and Tommy Haas in the SF's strangely enough.
Last edited:
Tennis Fanatic 070
Banned
True.
Prime years of tennis players is between age 23-26. This has been proven by the statistics, so why people are still contradicting this is beyond me.
Past prime Federer h2h against prime Murray (2010-2012): 5-5, against prime Joker: 7-9 (2010-2012).
He still leads Joker in total h2h and very close to murray, but obviously had more important wins against Murray in slams.
So even past Feds prime he's still doing very well against these guys (also still able to beat prime Nadal 4 times out of the 13).
Lets see Murray, Nadal and Joker when they are in their 30s, before we decimate fed on TW.......... if they even last that long, they probably will be destroyed by younger players more often than not. Nadal will certainly never compete on the highest level again at age 30. I even doubt he'll ever be able to do this.
So the so called 'weak era' argument has been countered so many times, by so many legitimate reasons. Guess some people just can't accept Fed is the GOAT, hence they come up with weak arguments to deny him the GOAT title. That's fine by me, I'll just keep countering them, it's so easy.
Last edited:
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
Wow, that is a huge claim - one of the more erroneous claims I've seen on this board.
Andre Agassi and Jim Courier for example disprove that theory if you look at their results outside and inside that age bracket. Granted other factors come into play - such as who else is there denying you the chance to win big.
Point being, not everyone peaks in the same way - there is big variation amongst players including how early they start, how fast they get to their peak, how long it lasts, how quickly it tapers off etc.
I agree with you though, the weak era argument is a fool's argument. You could use the same logic to say the same about anyone who dominated a time-frame or surface.
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
yeah, not everyone. there are exceptions from the trend. But overall trend in the open era is best years being between 23-26
there's a thread for this :
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=453446&highlight=peak
Apun94
Hall of Fame
2008 AO and 2008 USO was Rafa at his very best? Getting blitzed by Tsonga and young Murray?
Slow HC season of 2010 was Rafa at his best? Remember, he lost to past their prime Rodidck and Ljubicic then
Actually, Nadal was never more consistent than in 2011 FO-2012 FO period, he reached 5 slam finals in a row (previous best was 3) and in 2011 he reached 7 finals in a row.
Regardless, if we accept your assertion that 2010 and 2008 was Rafa's peak:
AO - Nadal didn't even sniff a final, can't beat Fed if you don't reach him.
FO - business as usual.
Wimbledon - If I'm generous I'll give Rafa 2008 Wimbledon though even then, he barely won against a low on confidence Fed.
USO - Nadal's 2010 USO form was exceptional but then again Fed was a beast at USO in his best years, If I'm generous I'll give that one to Nadal as well.
So Fed would have won 6-7 in a 3 year period, hardly that much of a difference.
Yeah ok, one bad loss means you had a prety pathetic year. By your genious logic, your boy lost to baby Murray in 06 (seriously?? MURRAY??) and TWICE to Canas (canas who?) in 07. Please take into account that Nadal won cleaned up the clay season in 08, won RG, won Wimby and then obv the OG. 2010 was even better.
BTW, your boy couldnt even beat Tsonga when 2 sets up on his best surface and you are telling me...
Though yes, Nadal was actually pretty consistent in the 2011 season and honestly Nole was too good for him.
swordtennis
G.O.A.T.
Federer only had to beat 4.0 level players for all his majors.
Nadal in '06 and '07 was still getting dressed by his Mommy.
Federer said after winning '07 Wimbledon that he was happy to get as many major's as he could before Nadal started winning all of them.
Nadal majors are overrated. He only had to beat an average player in Federer.
Nadal is undefeated when he wins!
Nadal in '06 and '07 was still getting dressed by his Mommy.
Federer said after winning '07 Wimbledon that he was happy to get as many major's as he could before Nadal started winning all of them.
Nadal majors are overrated. He only had to beat an average player in Federer.
Nadal is undefeated when he wins!
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
We'll come back when your boy reaches 29+ yr old. Yes, RFederer did lose at Wimbledon in a tight 5 setter in 2011 QF when he was a month shy of 30, and your boy lost twice before the 3rd round in his second most successful slam at 26 and 27 respectively.
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
swordtennis
G.O.A.T.
Lol, the sarcasm is too good for RNadal trollboys to understand
LOL!
What confuses me is that NadFans say Federer is an overrated somewhat average player.
Yet when it is in reference to Nadals beatdowns of Federer all of a sudden Federer is one of the greatest of all times.
The Nadal confusion is alive and well since 2005!
Mass confusion and chaos!
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
Agree. That's what I said earlier in one of my previous posts. If they are pulling RFederer down, they're indirectly pulling down their boy too
Smasher08
Legend
Fact: Peak Federer once played tennis against the Hulk. Ever since then, the Hulk has hidden in the forest and called himself Shrek.
Last edited:
Smasher08
Legend
Why yes, all those insignificant, weak scrubs that Federer would beat for majors were routinely knocking Nads et al. out before the finals.
Funny how that happened! :lol:
zagor
Bionic Poster
Nope, where did I mention that? I was merely making sure you're aware of the choice (regarding peak/prime Nadal) you're making
.BTW. 3 of those losses I mentioned were slam losses, yet you retort with only a few early round masters losses.
Hah, typical Nadal fanboy, Canas who? The guy was a top 10 player who had an amazing win in Canada (one of the most brutal draws to win a masters I've ever seen.) before his suspension.
But regardless if you want to compare win-loss % between Fed and Nadal's best years just say so, I'd be happy to oblige (problem is, you won't like the result).
Yes, and per the title of the topic Fed won 8 slams in 3 years, you claimed things would have been drastically different with (what you consider)peak Nadal in the mix yet upon further analysis I've come to the conclusion that that wouldn't really be the case, instead of 8 slams Fed might have won 6-7 (and that's generous to Nadal).
Yes, when he(Fed) was past his prime, especially on grass.
Nadal lost to Darcis and Rosol when he was 26 and 27, will see how he'll do in 2016 and compare.
Actually, he was more consistent at going deep in tourneys than any other point of his career so even for his standards, pretty consistent doesn't cut it.
Strobe Lights
Semi-Pro
Even more impressive than just looking at 11 Majors in 4 calendar years is looking from Wimbledon 2004 through to the 2010 Australian Open.
That is 23 Majors (5¾ years worth) where Federer won 14 titles, was runner-up 6 times and a semi-finalist 3 times. 18 out of 19 finals at one point. Dominance and consistency that is unrivalled in the Open era.
Of those 9 defeats, 6 were to fellow all-time great Rafa - 4 on the surface where he is the best ever.
Another was to a peak Safin and Fed still had MP for a 4-set win.
Another to the rising Novak while suffering from mono (although Novak had shown he could beat Fed in Montréal and had SPs in each of first two sets in 2007 USO final).
The only "poor" loss was against Delpo (H2H was 6-0 Fed at the time) in his first Major final when Fed got a bit too cute when serving for a two-set lead and led two sets to one. It was a massive missed opportunity in retrospect as he would have entered the 2010 AO (which he won) going for the non-calendar year Grand Slam.
That is 23 Majors (5¾ years worth) where Federer won 14 titles, was runner-up 6 times and a semi-finalist 3 times. 18 out of 19 finals at one point. Dominance and consistency that is unrivalled in the Open era.
Of those 9 defeats, 6 were to fellow all-time great Rafa - 4 on the surface where he is the best ever.
Another was to a peak Safin and Fed still had MP for a 4-set win.
Another to the rising Novak while suffering from mono (although Novak had shown he could beat Fed in Montréal and had SPs in each of first two sets in 2007 USO final).
The only "poor" loss was against Delpo (H2H was 6-0 Fed at the time) in his first Major final when Fed got a bit too cute when serving for a two-set lead and led two sets to one. It was a massive missed opportunity in retrospect as he would have entered the 2010 AO (which he won) going for the non-calendar year Grand Slam.
Of course, Federer is way better player than Djokovic.
But current tour condition is a bit easier than the past for wining many
slams in relatively short period.
We will see the next player of a decade winning calendar slam and ~20+
career slam counts.
Apun94
Hall of Fame
Nope, where did I mention that? I was merely making sure you're aware of the choice (regarding peak/prime Nadal) you're making
BTW. 3 of those losses I mentioned were slam losses, yet you retort with only a few early round masters losses.
Hah, typical Nadal fanboy, Canas who? The guy was a top 10 player who had an amazing win in Canada (one of the most brutal draws to win a masters I've ever seen.) before his suspension.
But regardless if you want to compare win-loss % between Fed and Nadal's best years just say so, I'd be happy to oblige (problem is, you won't like the result).
Yes, and per the title of the topic Fed won 8 slams in 3 years, you claimed things would have been drastically different with (what you consider)peak Nadal in the mix yet upon further analysis I've come to the conclusion that that wouldn't really be the case, instead of 8 slams Fed might have won 6-7 (and that's generous to Nadal).
Yes, when he(Fed) was past his prime, especially on grass.
Nadal lost to Darcis and Rosol when he was 26 and 27, will see how he'll do in 2016 and compare.
Actually, he was more consistent at going deep in tourneys than any other point of his career so even for his standards, pretty consistent doesn't cut it.
So, Genius, please enlighten me as to how fed would still rack up 6-7 slams with peak Nadal in all of those 3 years. I would love to hear that. (Plus, if you hadnt noticed before, I had originally pointed out that not only Nadal but also Nole and Murray wouldnt have allowed him to rack up slams as he did. Also I am pretty sure he wouldve lost a few masters series matches to people like Tsonga, Berdych and Delpotro. I am obv referring to a loss here and there, not total domination)
As to your pathetic age argument, if you refer to that Tsonga match, Fed was actually playing some of the best tennis of his life. (You dont remember the Nole-Fed RG 2011 SF?). I mean, for the last 2 months the guy is playing incredible tennis and leading by 2 sets, and suddenly he remembers his age? Sure, that's how it happens in real life.
As to Nadal losing early at Wimby, those were CLEARLY injury issues. Now dont get moe wrong, I have not used the injury card a lot at all. However, those 2 matches were obvious, especially the Darcis match. The dude had problem putting weight on his left leg hitting BHs. He didnt even plant the leg forward a lot of times. No journeymen beats injury free Nadal, no matter how bad Nadal plays.
Last edited:
zagor
Bionic Poster
Sigh, here I'll explain it again, pay attention this time, I'm educating you for free.
Out of 2008, 2010 Wimbledon and 2010 USO I'll give two of those to Nadal at the most, one at the least ergo 6-7 slams for Fed.
At AO Nadal didn't even reach a final and at FO there would be no change.
It's not my fault, Nadal's peak is so short
Now, now you said peak Nadal, yes? Besides:
-Fed is 3-0 against against Murray in slam finals.
-Nadal himself didn't win any slam off clay since Novak matured and didn't reclaim #1 (yet to both instances obviously).
-Tsonga, Berdych and even Delpo are the type of players 2004-2007 Fed used to eat for breakfast when his defense and transition from defense to offense were at it's best, so I'm *pretty sure* he'd barely lose to them in that period no matter how well they play.
No, Fed had a great run at FO that year (played some of his finest tennis) but in 2010 and 2011 Wimbledon he played some of the worst grasscourt tennis in his career, peak Fed would have handled Jo in 4 sets, at most.
To give an example you can understand (comprehension was never your strong point so I have to use your boy as an example for anything to get through), Nadal played some terrific CC tennis in 2012 FO and even in 2013 FO (after two relatively shaky rounds) but got embarrassed by Rosol and Darcis at Wimbledon after, get it now? Playing great at FO/clay doesn't automatically mean you'll play great on other surfaces/slams.
P.S. Regarding age argument being pathetic, this coming from a guy who'll concede to Nadal's peak lasting two years is rich. What, Fed should be at his peak/prime 8 years after he won his 1st slam but fragile flower that is Rafa can only play his best for 2 years? Please.
snowwhite
Professional
What prime of Nadal in 2012? He was horrible, plus Murray needed one loss at Wimbledon final in front of his public to feel hurt so much so he FINALLY can get all the fear of grand slam finals out. (By the way he was going to lose Wimbledon final with whoever he plays) If he didn't get to Wimbledon final in sometime and lose he would still be that guy that plays great in 6 matches and get panic in the seventh, it would've been the same story at the Olympics, US Open and Wimbledon 2013. Murray of next Monday was never the same of before. Murray had never been considered at prime at Wimbledon 2012
Last edited:
snowwhite
Professional
He'd probably lose the next three sets. There are only few who made upsets through a grand slams and went on winning it. When it comes to grand slams finals, there are few people who can win them who can handle being in a grand slam final and win it, Federer, Nadal, Sampras, joined later Djokovic, etc. As much as an upset plays great for two weeks, it's very hard to anyone to wrap up the championship, and you probably see them for the last time in a grand slam final (Lisicki Wim 2012 was the last example)
Last edited:
snowwhite
Professional
I notice that the discuss went into two points: first, confirming on being great that will eventually means there is not possibility for getting rivalry and that's not true. Secondly (as usual) it turned automatically to Federer/Nadal war, like every thread mentioning any of them
Let me give another example to get you straight to my point; Steffi Graf has always been a great player, no doubt about it, she dominated women's tennis in late 80s, but when Monica Seles came up thing had changed dramatically. When Monica Seles was stabbed in 1993, Graf went back winning everything there, while she was still the very same Graf there. If Monica Seles was there all the time Graf would probably won slams too, but she probably wouldn't win 22. Of course it wasn't like Graf was at her peak at age 27 while she wasn't at her peak at 21
Same thing for Federer, if he had a rival there, he may have won many slams too but probably won't be 17 slams. The opposite is right too, if there was no Nadal there, Federer would've won at least 4-5 French Opens, and he had probably won 2-3 times all-four-year-grand slam.
Let me give another example to get you straight to my point; Steffi Graf has always been a great player, no doubt about it, she dominated women's tennis in late 80s, but when Monica Seles came up thing had changed dramatically. When Monica Seles was stabbed in 1993, Graf went back winning everything there, while she was still the very same Graf there. If Monica Seles was there all the time Graf would probably won slams too, but she probably wouldn't win 22. Of course it wasn't like Graf was at her peak at age 27 while she wasn't at her peak at 21
Same thing for Federer, if he had a rival there, he may have won many slams too but probably won't be 17 slams. The opposite is right too, if there was no Nadal there, Federer would've won at least 4-5 French Opens, and he had probably won 2-3 times all-four-year-grand slam.
Last edited:
mike danny
Bionic Poster
agree he would have won many slams even with a rival. but you have to take into consideration the fact that that rival would not be in every slam final
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
True that would probably be the case, but we don't know. The point is Gonzalez was on fire in that tournament, and had he won, Federer would technically not be as great as he is today because he would have one less slam. Yet somehow Gonzalez is brought up in these BS "weak era clown" talks when that same "clown" beat Rafa a couple of rounds earlier. A Rafa who would in fact go on to win IW a couple months later, but of course that was when he hit puberty. Then when he lost (in the QF to the same player he had beaten in the IW final a week earlier) in Miami he was a "baby" again. I've never seen a human being go backwards in biological development have you? But I guess Nadal is magical.
Last edited:
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
That is revisionist history that you are only revising because Federer beat Murray while both Federer and Murray played very well. You have no way of knowing if he would've lost against Djokovic or "anybody else". You can give me all the "Come on, no way's!" you like, but that is the truth.
Murray played very well in that final, problem is, once the roof closed it was all Federer because he likes those conditions, but Murray never played badly at all, and since you believe he would've lost that final to "anyone", I believe he would've beaten Djokovic in 2012 if Djokovic had defeated Federer. Neither one of us will ever know if we're right though. That's why you shouldn't go around proclaiming stuff as fact when it really isn't.
Last edited:
Eragon
Banned
I disagree. The match was dead-even, with Federer having slight momentum, when the roof was closed. Even if the roof wasn't closed, I'd give Federer a 60% chance, at least, to have won. Not to mention, Murray is no slouch indoors.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
You're misunderstanding me. I also think Federer had the momentum and would've done fine if the roof never closed. I still would've pegged him as a slight favourite at that point. What I'm saying is, I think the roof swung the pendulum even more in Federer's favour than it already was. Murray still played very well and is no slouch indoors for sure, but Federer was 2-0 over Murray indoors at this point, soon to become 3-0 with his WTF win later that year, so edge to Federer. That's what I'm trying to say.
Eragon
Banned
Yeah, the roof did help Federer.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
for some reason it did not help him against benneateau
Eragon
Banned
I don't like to make generalizations but the roof generally helps the aggressor. In the Federer-Murray match-up, Federer is the aggressor. Perhaps Benneteau was the aggressor in the match against Federer. Or it could be that Benneteau just found some form. It could be anything.
snowwhite
Professional
I'm really sorry couldn't clarify my point, didn't mean anyone like anyone, I meant, if he played his first Wimbledon he was probably going to lose even if the opponent (from top players) played less than average, pointing to Murray's fragile mentality in grand slam finals would only make it worst being under the pressure of playing at home. After getting to the the point of the most sore feeling he could ever have, losing at Wimbledon. that was obviously the turning point that set him mentally free, and that what made him winning the olympics against the very same Federer level, or may be a better Federer that is fresh from Wimbledon and wanted to win the medal so badly, and winning the US Open
cork_screw
Hall of Fame
The crazy thing is GOAT boy could have won *back to back* calendar slams back in '06 and '07. If nadal wasn't there federer could have really printed his name in bold in the record books. I can't imagine anyone winning back to back calendar slams, and roger almost did it. Goes to show what an amazing tennis talent he is.
zagor
Bionic Poster
:shock:
Are you serious? Fed did absolutely not play in the Olympics final (or any match at 2012 Olympics period) as well as he did in 2012 Wimbledon final, to suggest he might have even played at a higher level is just...well astounding.
This would be akin to me claiming Murray played better in 2008 USO final than in 2012 or something.
P.S. Murray's performance in 2012 Wimbledon final was noticeably different to his performances in slam finals prior to it, to claim that he would have lost to any top player playing less than average is nonsense.
fednad
Hall of Fame
fednad
Hall of Fame
Roger is glad you took to messaging in TT than playing tennis.
Had you been there in the slams to challenge him over the mugs he faced, he would have won none.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
So Djokovic, Murray, Hewitt and Roddick, even Nadal are 4.0 players? Two of those players are all time greats (Djokovic and Nadal) and the others are very good players (Hewitt beat Sampras in 2001 for the US Open, in straight sets no less feeding him two breadsticks), Roddick was a consistent threat and only lost to very few players during the 2004 season where he tested Federer at Wimbledon. Murray is a two time slam champion and equal or above Hewitt in terms of greatness now and has straight setted Djokovic for a Wimbledon title, Nadal has won 8 French Open titles over 9 attempts and Djokovic has won the last 3 Australian Open titles. So who are these 4.0 players you're talking about?
