abmk
Bionic Poster
murray and fed were 2 all indoors before wimby 2012 , murray winning in madrid 2008 and YEC 2008
federer had won in YEC 09 and YEC 10.
Federer's 8 Grand Slams in Three Years
- Thread starter McEnroeisanartist
- Start date
murray and fed were 2 all indoors before wimby 2012 , murray winning in madrid 2008 and YEC 2008
federer had won in YEC 09 and YEC 10.
Eragon
Banned
He was being sarcastic.
abmk
Bionic Poster
there .... fixed ....
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Yes, my mistake. Somehow, I had forgotten that YEC and Madrid 2008 were indoors. I would still have said the roof helped Federer more than Murray though considering he was playing much better in 2012 at Wimbledon, and overall, than he was in late 2008.
Last edited:
manley0702
Semi-Pro
He beat peak Nadal in 2006 and 2007 Wimbledon final. He beat peak Roddick at I think 3 of those slams. He beat Djokovic at 2007 USO. That's pretty stiff competition.
abmk
Bionic Poster
yes, federer was quite a bit better in Wimbledon 2012 final than in late 08, but he was still playing pretty well in madrid 08 and in the YEC match vs murray ( though he sucked vs stepanek & simon and back injury resurfaced in the murray match ) .
murray himself is pretty competent indoors and I found ( still find ) the thoughts about roof helping federer a great extent in winning Wimbledon 12 hilarious, since :
a ) roof was the major part of why benneteau got so close to beating him
b ) the momentum in the final had already shifted to federer's side before the roof closed.
the roof did help federer a bit , but nowhere close to what you'd be lead to believe
Last edited:
mike danny
Bionic Poster
and grandpa agassi imo played much better at the uso in 2004 than djokovic in 2010
abmk
Bionic Poster
absolutely ... agassi in 04 was easily better than djokovic in USO 10 .
Apun94
Hall of Fame
Simple really. Fed would probably still be the no1 for most of the 04-07 era (if he was facing the present field) beacuse he was THAT good. But i definitely dont think he wouldve dominated the way he did. Wouldve also lost some of the slams. Dont think he woulvde had much success at the AO
Last edited:
Apun94
Hall of Fame
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
Are you for real? We were talking about how Fed wouldve fared against a btter field in the era of 04-07! Where were you this whole time??
Umm... Murray has defeated Fed in the last 2 best of 5 matches.
And I am sure that losses to players like Canas obviously means that Fed wouldve never lost to Delpo, Tsonga and Berdych (who are better than Canas ever was). Plus it doesnt help that baby Berd got your boy in Rog's peak once.
AHan, but you see at that time, Fed was actually playing great on grass. IIRC, he did not even lose a set going into that Tsonga match. Your boy had already gone 2 sets up in that match. He suddenly realized he wasnt playing well?? Really man... Then again, you havent been making a lot of sense now have you...
Plus, Fed and Nadal are totally 2 different players. It's easier for Fed to get used to grass after playing clay whereas it's easier for Nadal to get used to clay after playing grass.
Seriously, I still dont get how you have time to post all this crap...
Last edited:
Apun94
Hall of Fame
Peak Nadal in 06!! Aren't you cute
You do realize that DJokovic was actually leading the in 2 sets in the 07 final. He choked big time. I mean, if baby Nole can do so much damage at ROg's peak and the surface being to Fed's liking, imagine Nole 2.0 in the 04-07 era...
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
Peak Nadal in 06!! Aren't you cute
You do realize that DJokovic was actually leading the in 2 sets in the 07 final. He choked big time. I mean, if baby Nole can do so much damage at ROg's peak and the surface being to Fed's liking, imagine Nole 2.0 in the 04-07 era...
I can say otherwise. 30 year old RFederer had match points against Nole 2.0 in 2011 USO. NDjokovic didn't even win a set in that 2007 final. Not to mention he defeated him in the FO SF earlier in May.
Eragon
Banned
Djokovic didn't do much of note on Rebound Ace. Federer would be the firm favorite against him, each time.
zagor
Bionic Poster
No, you said peak Nadal, that's one player, not a field.
I'm talking mainly about slams and also we don't know if the OP is referencing to a 2005-2007 period or 2004-2006 now, don't we? Fed's winning % in 2007 dropped quite a bit compared to 2004-2006 (when he lost about as many matches combined in 3 years time as your boy did in his best year-2010).
Yes, Murray defeated Fed in a slam this year for the first time but Fed still has a 3-0 lead in slam finals and this year's Fed is a far cry from 2004-2007 Fed (heck it's a far cry from last year let alone his heyday).
And yes, I don't see Tsonga, Berdych and Delpo having much success against Fed in slams in 2004-2007, maybe one win combined from them but I doubt it.
Actually, he did lose a set (to Youzhny) but regardless, no Fed certainly wasn't playing anything resembling great (or even good) grasscourt tennis (for his standards, since I have to spell that out for you) at any point of the match (yes even when he went 2-0 up) or tourney, anyone who has followed Fed's career (and isn't an utterly biased Fed obsessed hater like yourself) will come to the same conclusion.
P.S. Nadal didn't lose a set before he faced Soderling in 2009 FO, we know how that turned out.
Doesn't matter, it illustrates that a player being in great form one surface doesn't automatically transcend to the other.
Regardless, we'll see how great will your boy play at the FO in 2016, stay tuned, I'm sure he'll be playing some of the best tennis of his career due to all that experience, we'll see how you like a taste of your own medicine won't we?
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
What is funny is that he played once Agassi, once Gonzales, once Baghdatis, and five time Nadal in this time frame. Three times at RG and two times at Wimbledon.
M
monfed
Guest
M
monfed
Guest
Fed>Nole(Rebound Ace)
Nole>Fed(Plexicushion)
Fed>Nole(Decoturf)
Nole>Fed(whatever turf Miami is played on,anyone? :lol: )
Anyway, Fed was a joy to watch till AO 07 for me. After that all the big matches were nail biters which weren't all that enjoyable,plus Fed's FH declined considerably since 06 IMO. I don't know why Fed lost so much power on his FH wing from say 06 to 07,what changed could someone tell me? The most noticeable thing I found was that Fed's FH swing path looked "fuller"/more powerful esp in 05/06 compared to 07.
Nole>Fed(Plexicushion)
Fed>Nole(Decoturf)
Nole>Fed(whatever turf Miami is played on,anyone? :lol: )
Anyway, Fed was a joy to watch till AO 07 for me. After that all the big matches were nail biters which weren't all that enjoyable,plus Fed's FH declined considerably since 06 IMO. I don't know why Fed lost so much power on his FH wing from say 06 to 07,what changed could someone tell me? The most noticeable thing I found was that Fed's FH swing path looked "fuller"/more powerful esp in 05/06 compared to 07.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
I am sure Federer still would have won last year's Wimbledon without the roof being closed. He was on a mission, and despite Murray's British heritage and what was on the line, he would have beaten him any way he could to lift his 7th trophy.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Yes, but what's even more funny is said poster's failure at basic math.
According to him peak Nadal would have cut Fed's slam tally in those 3 years from 8 to 4 (at most) but peak Nadal according to him only existed for 2 years in which he won 3 non-FO slams (counting non-FO slams because among those 8 slams Fed won in 3 years not a single one came at FO) which would cut Fed to 5 at the least (of course in reality no way am I giving Nadal both 2008 and 2010 Wimbledons, the one he did won against Fed he did by so 9-7 in the 5th but let's presume for the sake of the argument), quite interesting, no?
Apun94
Hall of Fame
Nope, read my intial post and you will see.
Very convenient for you to say that Fed leads Murray 3-0, but look at the way Murray has improved his game. The Murray that lost those slam finals is a far cry from the Murray that dominated Nole at Wimbeldon 2 weeks ago.
Also remember that trouble for Fed started AFTER the AO. He was playing some very good tennis at the AO.
This post surprises me the most. Do you actually mean to say that the Delpotro who played Nole in the SF of WImbledon (his weakest surface) would be utterly dominated by Fed, "no matter how well they play". Are you really that biased? REALLY? WOW. Dont think anyone else o this forum would agree with you on this at all. Pathetic, really
Ok, dont take my word for it. See your boy's comments after that match,
" Well, except the score, many, many things went right. I thought I played a good match myself. I'm actually pretty pleased with my performance today. It's kind of hard going out of the tournament that way, but unfortunately it does happen sometimes.
At least it took him, you know, sort of a special performance to beat me, which is somewhat nice. But, you know, like I said, I think he played an amazing match. Didn't give me many chances. There was some close ones along the way, but he always was able to sneak out on me. That made it tough for me.
But, look, I played well for myself, so it was pretty good."
(and I have not even taken bits and pieces from here and there to support my claim)
I think we should all stop listening to these Fed and consider your opinion the TRUTH.
Big difference between not losing any sets during the first 3 rounds and till the quarters...
zagor
Bionic Poster
Let's see:
Nope, you mentioned peak Nadal and failed at math on the way.
As it is convenient for you to ignore all of their slam meetings prior to 2013, the worst year for Fed in more than a decade (since 2002).
That on the other hand you make a crapload excuses for 24 year old Nadal makes this all the more hilarious.
LOL, Fed certainly wasn't playing some "very good" tennis at the AO, you have a very low opinion on Fed's abilities if you believe his AO performance this year constitutes for very good tennis considering Fed's standards.
Del Potro in Wimbledon SF this year? Any of 2003-2008 Wimbledon version of Fed would have won that match in 4 which is what Novak should have done.
But hey if you believe I'm alone in believing that, do you want me to make a poll? 2013 Delpo vs 2004-2007 Fed at Wimbledon, who would have won.
Fed may be my favourite player but that does in no way mean I have to agree with any of his opinions/statements.
But hey, following your logic, your boy claims Fed is the best ever and claims that he leads H2H because most matches happened on clay, should we agree with him?
Q. I have a different question for you. Everyone in tennis loves Roger, respects Roger. He is said to be the best of all time. Yet two out of every three times you play him, you win. You've won six of the last seven times. Who's a better player?
RAFAEL NADAL: You like this. You are focused on the Roger thing, eh? (laughter.)
Yesterday with the clay. Today with the if somebody says I am better than Roger, I think this person don't know nothing about tennis. That's my answer.
Q. How so?
RAFAEL NADAL: Why?
Q. Yeah.
RAFAEL NADAL: So you don't know nothing about tennis.
You see the titles of him and you see the titles of me? It's no comparison. So that's the answer. Is difficult to compare Roger with me now, because he has 16 Grand Slams; I have 6. Masters 1000, yeah, I have more than him. But for the rest of the things the records of Roger is very, very almost impossible to improve.
Q. Still, it is interesting when you step out on the court...
RAFAEL NADAL: What?
Q. Still, it is interesting, Rafa, when you step out on the court...
RAFAEL NADAL: (Through translation.)
Sorry, I interrupt you. What's the question? Sorry.
Q. The question is: Still, for the fans, it is interesting when you step on the court with him, you usually win.
RAFAEL NADAL: Well, I am No. 2 in the world for five years, so I think I am a good player, too. Sure, I can beat him. No. 2 can beat No. 1. That's the thing. It's not a lot of difference between No. 2 and No. 1 or between No. 1 and No. 10. That's the tennis, and the tennis very close, the level, all the time.
But I can beat him, yes. The same time, the thing is I beat him a lot of times on clay. I beat him on other surfaces, too. But the most of the times I beat him on clay, so I played with him more times on clay than on the rest of the surfaces.
Yeah, the difference of one single match, besides Fed did lose a set.
Apun94
Hall of Fame
Yes, I primarily mentioned Nadal but I also mentioned Fed playing against a weak field. Compare that field to today;s and you will see the difference.
As for the slams win, let's see:
1. Wudve certainly lost the 04 and 06 AOs since he played inconsistent Safin and Baghdatis in those years. Belive it or not Baghdatis cudve actaully taken a 2 sets to love lead there.
But yes, Fed played a freaky 07 AO. Definitely wudve won that one regardless of peak Nole.
2. No RGs obviously.
3. Wudve lost the 07 final to Nadal of 08. Nadal mentally choked there. We all know it.
4. THis one's the trickiest really. Will give the 04 USO to Fed. Even peak Murray wudve given Fed a bug run for his money in the 05 and 06 USO's. Peak Nole wud definitely finish the job baby Nole couldnt do (CHOKE)
So, Ok, NOT 4 but maybe 5-6 at max. Big deal, considering he won 11 slams during this time.
Pretty sure Murray 2.0 would defeat Fed in 04-07 since he already had the ability to defeat Rog in masters series during that time...
Ummm... Yes he was, actually. He had a good finish to the end of 2012 and was carrying on that momentum in the AO'13. That Tomic match comes to mind??
You have created this persona of Fed in your mind that depicts him as unbeatable at his best. Sorry to burst your bubble buddy but that's not how everyone else sees it
Since when did I say that Delpotro would defeat peak Fed at WImby. Obv not. WHat my initial argument was that Fed would have a lower win percentage in the 04-07 era because of the present players. I then stated that players like Tsonga, Berdych and Delpotro (all of whom give trouble to Fed) would definitely lower Rog's over-hyped win percentage. YOu atlk as if they would be utterly dominated by peak Fed but I definitely think that these players are a handful especially in th best 0f 3 matches.
Ok, let me clarify a few things for you. I am a big fan of Nadal but I have NEVER said that Nadal is GOAT or even that Nadal is a more accomplished player than Fed. I have absolutely no problem in acknowledging that Fed has more of a claim than Nadal to GOAT title.
HOWEVER, what bothers me is the image of Fed that you ****s have built of his peak. Certainly he was ridiculously good and better than most in the history but I certainly dont believe in over-estimating his dominance.
I do give credit to Rog for raising the bar of tennis in his prime but I strongly believe that Nadal, Nole and Murray have matched that level. (Nole infact raised that level in 2011).
The reason Rog stands out is that he could sustain that level for longer periods of time than the rest. (The problem with Nadal is that when he did reach his prime, he has been barred with injuries a lot) ROg does not stand out because of his peak level but rather because of sutaining that level the longest.
zagor
Bionic Poster
My response was to you claiming peak Nadal would cut Fed to 4 slams, now you're trying to switch the topic.
Now your argument is getting all over the place, the field today? It's not that simple, today's Nadal can't even get past the 2nd round of Wimbledon for example.
In your mind you seem to have created this situation where all of Nadal, Novak and Murray are playing their peak tennis and transported them to 2004-2007 yet according to you:
-Nadal's peak came before 2011
-Novak's peak started in 2011
-Murray's peak started in 2nd half of 2012
I mean, unless you consider Darcis and Rosol to have bested peak or prime Nadal on grass.?
Masters /= slams.
He could but I'd favour 2004-2007 Fed in every slam.
No, he really wasn't.
Was Fed unbeatable at his peak? Definitely not, was he playing a heck lot better than he did at AO this year? You bet, the vast majority of tennis players throughout the history played much better tennis in their early-mid 20s than in their 30s.
P.S. Tomic is still a scrub at this point, Fed beating him in straights is no indication of Fed's form.
Yes, and I think peak Fed would beat Tsonga, Berdych and Delpotro the vast majority of times, have a problem with that?
That's good to hear, I never claimed Fed is GOAT either, don't believe in the concept.
Right back at you regarding Nadal's peak and not giving Novak his due in 2011.
I don't believe in over-estimating his dominance either, I believe in giving him his due, as I do for every other player.
That's your prerogative.
For me only Novak reached Fed's level in 2011 (amazingly high level of play and consistency across all surfaces day in day out) but couldn't maintain it in 2012 and after, nonetheless I still do consider that year to be one of the best in the Open Era (if not the best).
And many will argue the opposite, that Fed does indeed stand out because of his peak level of play and regardless of what you believe it is a valid opinion,
Me? My opinion is somewhere in the middle, I don't think there's much separating tennis greats regarding their peak level of play but credit to Fed for sustaining such level of play for 4 consecutive years.
