Feliciano Lopez on Novak & Co.

[irishnadalfan1983]

Only the opinion of one guy...

I'm really not sure how Nole today would do against peak Rafa or peak Roger - kind of impossible to say really...

I find the best way to judge is based on records/stats/trophies won.

Of course Nole could eclipse all those but at the moment he hasn't even won the 4 grand slams.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

What makes sense is these guys are paid handsomely for their 'opinion' on this topic. I've said it before and I'll say it again - nobody is going to give these tell-all interviews without a price tag. It's also easier to repeat the "tennis is evolving" mantra to keep the psycho Novak fans happy (who knows what they'd do if one of these tennis idols said today is a weak era -- we already know what they did when Safin said as much) than to be controversial and make the same accusations fans have done (like I mentioned before Safin did, only for fans around the globe to mock his tennis abilities).

This is food for thought though. The corporate compensation for various comments, or even seemingly off-the-cuff remarks. I actually wonder whether there will be monetary consequences for Isner spouting off about Federer's apparent WWE fandom!

 

[dr325i]

Only the opinion of one guy...

I'm really not sure how Nole today would do against peak Rafa or peak Roger - kind of impossible to say really...

I find the best way to judge is based on records/stats/trophies won.

Of course Nole could eclipse all those but at the moment he hasn't even won the 4 grand slams.

Tennis is more than running crazy and smacking the hell out of your FH. It is also playing with your head and figuring out your key opponents weaknesses and adjusting to those.
Federer was never able to adjust to Nadal, hence terrible H2H.
Nadal refuses to adjust to post 2014 tennis, hence loses to some that have upped their game.
Novak has always threatened his key opponents and always inched closer and closer to them by completely altering his FH, serve, net game. His serve and net have evolved even since 2011.
Federer has changed the racket but nothing about his game.
Nadal has been playing the same game since 2008

Therefore, I'd say that peak Nadal and Federer would still have hard time against Novak today.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

Tennis is more than running crazy and smacking the hell out of your FH. It is also playing with your head and figuring out your key opponents weaknesses and adjusting to those.
Federer was never able to adjust to Nadal, hence terrible H2H.
Nadal refuses to adjust to post 2014 tennis, hence loses to some that have upped their game.
Novak has always threatened his key opponents and always inched closer and closer to them by completely altering his FH, serve, net game. His serve and net have evolved even since 2011.
Federer has changed the racket but nothing about his game.
Nadal has been playing the same game since 2008

Therefore, I'd say that peak Nadal and Federer would still have hard time against Novak today.

This post was coherent until you got to the highlighted part above. Fed has made considerable adaptations over the years. That is part of his brilliance. Adaptability and innovation are kind of hallmarks of his career. These are actually key characteristics that help to elevate his legacy above that of his rivals. Nadal is inflexible, and his decline has been predictable. Your statement that Federer has not made changes to his game is fairly laughable, TBH.

 

[cc0509]

Is this the same Feliciano Lopez who said this last year about Federer:

Feliciano Lopez has not hidden to the press his deep admiration for Roger Federer . The Spaniard wanted to express his profound esteem for a champion who, in his opinion, "flies in the field": " It 'absolutely unreal, has an incredible head and his movements are perfect. So perfect that any pictures you can scattargli, will always be fantastic. it 'a real talent. a tall person, in his situation, would still not be on the pitch to play because he is the best player in history, he has won everything there was to win as well because it already has a family. There are many reasons that could have left the court but I think he loves this sport, it is number two in the world and wants to continue playing. it 'a gift for tennis. "

http://www.tennisworlditalia.com/Fe...eale-Guardatelo-e-perfetto-articolo26130.html

Can we stop trying to figure out which player is the greatest of all time? Federer,Djokovic , Nadal, Sampras, Borg, Laver, etc. are all great players and it's impossible to tell which one is the greatest of all time. They all have strengths and weaknesses. Federer is better than Nadal and Djokovic in some respects, Nadal is better than both in other respects and Djokovic is better than both in other respects. Can we give this topic a rest? It's immature. At the end of the day there will be a player who has the greatest tennis achievements, i.e.most weeks @ #1, the most slams and that is the player most people will say is the greatest but the truth is we can never know which player is the greatest of all time unless we have all of these players in their primes playing against each other in the same conditions. Tennis didn't start in 2011. Today a player like Lopez says Djokovic is the greatest but last year he said Federer was. Tomorrow he may say something different about another player. Relax people,it means very little.

 

[irishnadalfan1983]

Tennis is more than running crazy and smacking the hell out of your FH. It is also playing with your head and figuring out your key opponents weaknesses and adjusting to those.
Federer was never able to adjust to Nadal, hence terrible H2H.
Nadal refuses to adjust to post 2014 tennis, hence loses to some that have upped their game.
Novak has always threatened his key opponents and always inched closer and closer to them by completely altering his FH, serve, net game. His serve and net have evolved even since 2011.
Federer has changed the racket but nothing about his game.
Nadal has been playing the same game since 2008

Therefore, I'd say that peak Nadal and Federer would still have hard time against Novak today.

I'd find it hard to believe anyone could take peak Rafa on clay.

Same for Fed maybe on grass although for me the King of Wimbledon and unbeatable was Sampras at peak - however surface was different.

Anyway of course Rafa and Fed would have difficulty against Nole even if they were at peak and vice Verza - I suppose we will never know.

Hence I tend to go with records/stats really.

The 3 of them are incredible and may go down as the 3 greatest ever.

 

[dr325i]

This post was coherent until you got to the highlighted part above. Fed has made considerable adaptations over the years. That is part of his brilliance. Adaptability and innovation are kind of hallmarks of his career. These are actually key characteristics that help to elevate his legacy above that of his rivals. Nadal is inflexible, and his decline has been predictable. Your statement that Federer has not made changes to his game is fairly laughable, TBH.

Well, if he is such a genius and so adaptable, I would expect him to have positive record against two of his biggest challengers. He does not. Some may claim (or whine) that his Novak record became negative at Novak's peak, however, I see it both ways - it took off while Novak was young.
He was never even close to Nadal, H2H score, and every time they played, Federer played the same game, no adjustment.
So, I am not sure how you can call him brilliant if pretty much only "true" challengers since 2006 owe him H2H?

 

[dr325i]

I'd find it hard to believe anyone could take peak Rafa on clay.

Same for Fed maybe on grass although for me the King of Wimbledon and unbeatable was Sampras at peak - however surface was different.

Anyway of course Rafa and Fed would have difficulty against Nole even if they were at peak and vice Verza - I suppose we will never know.

Hence I tend to go with records/stats really.

The 3 of them are incredible and may go down as the 3 greatest ever.

Tennis is not about clay only and yes, Rafa did lose on clay during his peak days, including RG 2009.
And today, his approach to clay is the same as 8 years ago except others have adopted and can challenge him more than before.

 

[irishnadalfan1983]

Tennis is not about clay only and yes, Rafa did lose on clay during his peak days, including RG 2009.
And today, his approach to clay is the same as 8 years ago except others have adopted and can challenge him more than before.

Easy - calm down

I was just picking out surfaces where maybe certain guys at their peak (Rafa on clay and maybe Sampras on grass) were also kind of close to unbeatable....Just an opinion...

 

[dr325i]

Easy - calm down

I was just picking out surfaces where maybe certain guys at their peak (Rafa on clay and maybe Sampras on grass) were also kind of close to unbeatable....Just an opinion...

I agree with you, close to unbeatable

 

[mightyrick]

Easy - calm down

I was just picking out surfaces where maybe certain guys at their peak (Rafa on clay and maybe Sampras on grass) were also kind of close to unbeatable....Just an opinion...

When it comes to clay, you can use the word unbeatable when it comes to Nadal. The guy has 9 French Opens and had a mind boggling 81 natch win streak. He did not lose on the surface in three years. That is insane.

If a guy posts a 100 percent win rate on a surface over three years, the word "unbeatable" is allowed to be used without reservation. Especially when your competition contains names like Federer, Djokovic, Del Potro, Gasquet... etc.

 

[swordtennis]

What is the exact opposite of Unbeatable?
Answer: Djokovic at the French Open.
LMAO

Outside of that tho Feli and co. have some valid points.

 

[uscwang]

I felt people missed Feli's point.
It's quite fascinating that he thought Novak is winning many matches with only 50-60% effort. It's no secret that Novak paces himself in early rounds of tournaments. But 60% effort is a scary thought.
I also like Sock's spirit.

 

[uliks]

Wait what?! All this players, ex pros, commentators, coaches are getting paid now to say nice things about Novak.

 

[ABCD]

"Feliciano Lopez glad he plays in tennis era of Novak Djokovic & Co." by Dale Robertson

Dale Robertson, 63, is now the longest-tenured sports writer at a major daily newspaper in Texas, having spent 18 years with the Houston Post (1972-90) before joining the Houston Chronicle in the fall of 1990.

Link for the article: http://www.houstonchronicle.com/spo...ez-glad-he-plays-in-tennis-era-of-7235565.php

 

[Urkezi]

Well, if he is such a genius and so adaptable, I would expect him to have positive record against two of his biggest challengers. He does not. Some may claim (or whine) that his Novak record became negative at Novak's peak, however, I see it both ways - it took off while Novak was young.
He was never even close to Nadal, H2H score, and every time they played, Federer played the same game, no adjustment.
So, I am not sure how you can call him brilliant if pretty much only "true" challengers since 2006 owe him H2H?

Well, maybe because tennis is played by more than 3 people at the time? What is it with this H2H obsession? Edberg "owns" Lendl just as much as Nole "owns" Roger (by a huge difference of 1 match...) so is Edberg a better player than Lendl? Mind you, the years difference is the same and the H2H took the same pattern - Lendl in the lead, then Edberg taking over with age. Although Stefan was always close to Lendl while Rog had a 13:6 lead at one point.

Anyways, it's ridiculous to claim Rog hasn't changed anything about his game. And if both his challengers "owe" him why haven't they won more than he did?

 

[ABCD]

Well, maybe because tennis is played by more than 3 people at the time? What is it with this H2H obsession? Edberg "owns" Lendl just as much as Nole "owns" Roger (by a huge difference of 1 match...) so is Edberg a better player than Lendl? Mind you, the years difference is the same and the H2H took the same pattern - Lendl in the lead, then Edberg taking over with age. Although Stefan was always close to Lendl while Rog had a 13:6 lead at one point.

Anyways, it's ridiculous to claim Rog hasn't changed anything about his game. And if both his challengers "owe" him why haven't they won more than he did?

You are no Ivy league graduate, but I like your enthusiasm. There is no way around 23:11. It is what it is. However, it is not yet over. I would love to see Nadal-Federer now in MC and FO2016. Federer has significantly improved his game recently (he even beat Nadal in Basel) so he could win both encounters and be at 23:13. If he comes to 23:18 in year or two, that would be bearable and not the deal-breaker as it is now.

 

[Jonas78]

You are no Ivy league graduate, but I like your enthusiasm. There is no way around 23:11. It is what it is. However, it is not yet over. I would love to see Nadal-Federer now in MC and FO2016. Federer has significantly improved his game recently (he even beat Nadal in Basel) so he could win both encounters and be at 23:13. If he comes to 23:18 in year or two, that would be bearable and not the deal-breaker as it is now.

As a Federer-fan, i find no pleasure in those H2H-numbers getting better with Nadal being way under his prime-level sinse late 2014. Beating Nadal sinse late 2014 proves nothing, and Nadals results after this has mostly to do with his decline, not other players getting better. The numbers are what they are, although they are somewhat inflated, Nadal was the better one H2H. After all, tennis is about titles.

 

[ABCD]

As a Federer-fan, i find no pleasure in those H2H-numbers getting better with Nadal being way under his prime-level sinse late 2014. Beating Nadal sinse late 2014 proves nothing, and Nadals results after this has mostly to do with his decline, not other players getting better. The numbers are what they are, although they are somewhat inflated, Nadal was the better one H2H. After all, tennis is about titles.

Whether a player is declined or inclined is his problem and until he is active ATP player everything counts. I don't remember that anyone ever said "this doesn't count as that was baby Djokovic" or "this doesn't count as this was Djokovic before his gluten-intolerance was discovered"; on the contrary, he was ridiculed. If you told me "I don't take pleasure in any win over Djokovic prior to 2011 as that was untreated sick Djokovic", I could say this guy tries to be fair.

 

[Krish872007]

Whether a player is declined or inclined is his problem and until he is active ATP player everything counts. I don't remember that anyone ever said "this doesn't count as that was baby Djokovic" or "this doesn't count as this was Djokovic before his gluten-intolerance was discovered"; on the contrary, he was ridiculed. If you told me "I don't take pleasure in any win over Djokovic prior to 2011 as that was untreated sick Djokovic", I could say this guy tries to be fair.

By this logic, we can find ways to discount every single win by any one player against another - so all the H2Hs are actually tied at 0-0

 

[ABCD]

By this logic, we can find ways to discount every single win by any one player against another - so all the H2Hs are actually tied at 0-0

You got it. There is always some excuse and therefore everything counts. Thus, all these stories about peaks, declines, inclines are rubbish.

 

[Urkezi]

You are no Ivy league graduate, but I like your enthusiasm. There is no way around 23:11. It is what it is. However, it is not yet over. I would love to see Nadal-Federer now in MC and FO2016. Federer has significantly improved his game recently (he even beat Nadal in Basel) so he could win both encounters and be at 23:13. If he comes to 23:18 in year or two, that would be bearable and not the deal-breaker as it is now.

Hey, I never claimed to be Ivy Still a graduate, though. But anyway my post was about Nole vs Roger H2H. Nole needed 9 years of matches against a 6 year older player to go 1 ahead - not really noteworthy. He'll probably inflate it a bit more but it will always be considered a very even rivalry.

Naturally we can't say that for Nadal vs Rog, the Bull was easily the winner od that matchup. Quite deservedly I might add, RF could rarely hurt him. However in terms of success Nadal is considerably behind Roger which is why H2H stats are a poor man's argument. And I completely agree with Jonas, that matchup is now just cosmetics, we saw them prime to prime and even peak to peak and it was mostly quite onesided.

 

[above bored]

Lopez is just expressing his opinion, like all of us, not fact. Although a current player, it is my view that knowledgeable and perceptive fans are often more adept at making comparisons, because they invariably invest more time analysing different players/eras and take this interest more seriously.

Also, erudition and rigorous analysis are rare in sports commentary and journalism, due to the format, audience, conflicting interests and the trivial nature of the whole enterprise. Take Lopez’s silly comment that Djokovic is only playing at 50%. Clearly, he’s just being hyperbolic, but some people will take that literally. Anyway, the fact that Lopez is a player does not mean his opinion is closer to the truth than non-professional players who are knowledgeable fans.

Djokovic is clearly a great player in his own right, but he is currently also benefiting from a diminished Federer and a diminished Nadal, with no comparable players on the horizon. A prime Federer or Nadal would be dominating the tour too in similar circumstances.

Regarding comparisons with Federer and Nadal, Djokovic is also benefiting from the timing of his career, as all younger replacements do. He came after Federer and Nadal, so has developed from a higher starting position, and after being brought up to a similar level, is now the last man standing amongst the three, given he is younger and fresher. Even though he is now no spring chicken himself and soon to be 29, he is still able to benefit from that grooming because there is no one else of Federer or Nadal calibre in their prime or even emerging. Prime for prime, however, Federer is still the better player, in my opinion. I would say that Nadal is only better on clay.

Even though Djokovic appears to be very strong right now, no one beats age and mileage. Though the current younger generation have so far been lacking, I would expect even them to start getting some wins and gradually taking over from Djokovic, if not this year, then certainly next year.

 

[Serve&Bash]

Reminds me of back in 2005-2006 when Federer didn't have the record but lots of active pros were already saying that they could confirm that Federer's peak was higher than Sampras after having competed against both in their careers. Lots of Sampras fanboys got their feathers ruffled by that. I think Nadal/Federer fans need to toughen up and deal with the same scenario now. There is really nothing blasphemous about a pro saying that Djokovic is up there or higher than Nadal/Federer; The dude is at 11 slams and keeps breaking records.

 

[ABCD]

Hey, I never claimed to be Ivy Still a graduate, though. But anyway my post was about Nole vs Roger H2H. Nole needed 9 years of matches against a 6 year older player to go 1 ahead - not really noteworthy. He'll probably inflate it a bit more but it will always be considered a very even rivalry.

Naturally we can't say that for Nadal vs Rog, the Bull was easily the winner od that matchup. Quite deservedly I might add, RF could rarely hurt him. However in terms of success Nadal is considerably behind Roger which is why H2H stats are a poor man's argument. And I completely agree with Jonas, that matchup is now just cosmetics, we saw them prime to prime and even peak to peak and it was mostly quite onesided.

H2H is a small thing until there is a GOAT discussion. In my book, the most important parameter for the GOAT is weeks No1 (as ranking depends on all play and includes everything). However, there are certain deal-breakers. One of them is respectable H2H. GOAT does not need to be necessarily positive in all H2H, but can't be grossly negative over large number of matches against any specific players. To be undisputable GOAT 1) Federer needs more respectable H2H against Nadal, 2) Nadal needs more No1 and majors, 3) Djokovic needs more majors and No1.

 

[ABCD]

Reminds me of back in 2005-2006 when Federer didn't have the record but lots of active pros were already saying that they could confirm that Federer's peak was higher than Sampras after having competed against both in their careers. Lots of Sampras fanboys got their feathers ruffled by that. I think Nadal/Federer fans need to toughen up and deal with the same scenario now. There is really nothing blasphemous about a pro saying that Djokovic is up there or higher than Nadal/Federer; The dude is at 11 slams and keeps breaking records.

You are spot on. Lopez played against all 3 recently and he just said how he felt. When you play someone you feel how close or far you are from beating him.

 

[Jonas78]

Whether a player is declined or inclined is his problem and until he is active ATP player everything counts. I don't remember that anyone ever said "this doesn't count as that was baby Djokovic" or "this doesn't count as this was Djokovic before his gluten-intolerance was discovered"; on the contrary, he was ridiculed. If you told me "I don't take pleasure in any win over Djokovic prior to 2011 as that was untreated sick Djokovic", I could say this guy tries to be fair.

Of course it counts, also for Nole! Roddick is 5-4 H2H vs Djokovic, nobody says Roddick is the better player. Players have good and less good seasons, you cant stay on top for 10 years. Its different to defeat Nole after 2011. Its different to defeat Nadal since late 2014. It was different to defeat Roger in 2013.

 

[Jonas78]

Delete

 

[ABCD]

Of course it counts, also for Nole! Roddick is 5-4 H2H vs Djokovic, nobody says Roddick is the better player.

I am glad that we agree.

 

[mightyrick]

Hm, great. Now Djokovic fanboys are claiming there is no such thing as peak, prime, diminished capacity, injury, et cetera. So all performances are the exactly the same. Playing someone when they are on their first year of the tour... or the last year of the tour... is the same. NICE!

Nadal and Federer (or any) fanboys have officially been eclipsed by Djokovic fanboys in terms of peak levels of idiocy. I think the average age of Djokovic fanboys on here must be 14 or 15 years old. And I might be high on that estimate.

 

[TheMusicLover]

Can we stop trying to figure out which player is the greatest of all time? Federer,Djokovic , Nadal, Sampras, Borg, Laver, etc. are all great players and it's impossible to tell which one is the greatest of all time. They all have strengths and weaknesses. Federer is better than Nadal and Djokovic in some respects, Nadal is better than both in other respects and Djokovic is better than both in other respects. Can we give this topic a rest? It's immature. At the end of the day there will be a player who has the greatest tennis achievements, i.e.most weeks @ #1, the most slams and that is the player most people will say is the greatest but the truth is we can never know which player is the greatest of all time unless we have all of these players in their primes playing against each other in the same conditions. Tennis didn't start in 2011. Today a player like Lopez says Djokovic is the greatest but last year he said Federer was. Tomorrow he may say something different about another player. Relax people,it means very little.

Quoted for intelligent post-purpose, which should not remain unnoticed among the Kindergarten-IQ-level folks/trolls over here.

Bloddy hell, why not just *enjoy the sport*, or at least *enjoy your fav player winning*, as long as it lasts?
Because it won't last forever. Just a kind reminder to fanbois/grlz of whatever kind.

 

[The Fedfather]

You are spot on. Lopez played against all 3 recently and he just said how he felt. When you play someone you feel how close or far you are from beating him.

I think that's the way it works. The thing is, out of 12 matches that Federer and Lopez played against each other, Lopez won 0. So it's irrelevant how close Lopez felt he was to beating Federer because in the end, he couldn't beat him. Feelings, unfortunately, don't always correspond with reality.

 

[ABCD]

Hm, great. Now Djokovic fanboys are claiming there is no such thing as peak, prime, diminished capacity, injury, et cetera. So all performances are the exactly the same. Playing someone when they are on their first year of the tour... or the last year of the tour... is the same. NICE!

Nadal and Federer (or any) fanboys have officially been eclipsed by Djokovic fanboys in terms of peak levels of idiocy. I think the average age of Djokovic fanboys on here must be 14 or 15 years old. And I might be high on that estimate.

It seems to me that you made some conclusions based on my posts. They are wrongly generalised as I speak only for myself and I don't represent anybody else. Regarding age I wish I am 14-15, but, unfortunately, I am not (I am 4 times that). In this respect, your opinion about "peak levels of idiocy" refers exclusively to me and nobody else. In return, I can't refer to you as a moron, as it would be insulting (for a moron). Nice talking to you and have a nice day. BW.

 

[Jonas78]

I am glad that we agree.

Of course we agree. Its pretty normal to have a kind of reversed U-like shape. We all know Nole hadnt reached his current level when he lost to Roddick. And we all know Nadal was on the decline when he started to lose in early rounds even on clay, even vs relatively weak opponents. I know some people say Federer plays his best game ever at age 34. I have a hard time seeing that age 34 is nothing but a disadvantage. No player has ever finished YE#1 past 30. And you have to go back to Laver to find anyone winning more than 2 slams past 30. Im pretty sure Novak wont dominate like today when he is 34 either.

 

[NoleFam]

I think that's the way it works. The thing is, out of 12 matches that Federer and Lopez played against each other, Lopez won 0. So it's irrelevant how close Lopez felt he was to beating Federer because in the end, he couldn't beat him. Feelings, unfortunately, don't always correspond with reality.

It's the same situation with Djokovic really. The only "win" he has is from a retirement in Dubai this year. At the very least, Feliciano was very close to beating Federer in at least two of their matches, in 2003 and 2011 Madrid. He had never got that close to beating Djokovic. It's his opinion really and he's played them all. It doesn't mean his opinion is right but he does have validity.

 

[mightyrick]

It seems to me that you made some conclusions based on my posts. They are wrongly generalised as I speak only for myself and I don't represent anybody else. Regarding age I wish I am 14-15, but, unfortunately, I am not (I am 4 times that). In this respect, your opinion about "peak levels of idiocy" refers exclusively to me and nobody else. In return, I can't refer to you as a moron, as it would be insulting (for a moron). Nice talking to you and have a nice day. BW.

No, I wasn't calling out your post specifically. Believe me, we've all heard this line of thinking before from Djokovic fanboys. The level of idiocy usually varies. It's particularly bad on the days when mom didn't make breakfast or they forgot to do their algebra homework.

 

[ABCD]

Of course we agree. Its pretty normal to have a kind of reversed U-like shape. We all know Nole hadnt reached his current level when he lost to Roddick. And we all know Nadal was on the decline when he started to lose in early rounds even on clay, even vs relatively weak opponents. I know some people say Federer plays his best game ever at age 34. I have a hard time seeing that age 34 is nothing but a disadvantage. No player has ever finished YE#1 past 30. And you have to go back to Laver to find anyone winning more than 2 slams past 30. Im pretty sure Novak wont dominate like today when he is 34 either.

You seem like a nice guy and I will try to explain why I personally believe that Federer raised his level in last few years. I don't like to do that as for me it is more than enough what Federer says. Nevertheless, I believe that Federer is better now than ever due to:
1) Improved serving. He serves really well.
2) Improved backhand. Now his backhand can withstand barrage and he can hit winners from that side as well.
3) His anticipation at the net has massively improved. His win over Djokovic in Cincinnati2015 was master class of net play.
4) He has psychologically toughened up (he beat Nadal in Basal when I was certain that he will go down).
5) Maybe he lost step or a two; when I think about it probably not as the point he played against Djokovic in AO2016 springs to mind (how he got that?). I am not sure. However, this is more than compensated by improved anticipation (which goes hand in hand with experience) and knowing where to go on time.
This is my personal opinion, which I don't deem particularly relevant. However, I was kind of proud of myself when Henman said similar things while commenting on WTF2015. In my opinion, the best play I have ever seen from Federer was his play in the last 2 sets in AO2016 SF.

 

[The Fedfather]

It's the same situation with Djokovic really. The only "win" he has is from a retirement in Dubai this year. At the very least, Feliciano was very close to beating Federer in at least two of their matches, in 2003 and 2011 Madrid. He had never got that close to beating Djokovic. It's his opinion really and he's played them all. It doesn't mean his opinion is right but he does have validity.

He does have validity but some mistakenly take his opinion as a legitimate proof that Djokovic is generally harder to beat than Federer and Nadal, which it isn't. I mean, ask Karlovic.

 

[dr325i]

Well, maybe because tennis is played by more than 3 people at the time? What is it with this H2H obsession? Edberg "owns" Lendl just as much as Nole "owns" Roger (by a huge difference of 1 match...) so is Edberg a better player than Lendl? Mind you, the years difference is the same and the H2H took the same pattern - Lendl in the lead, then Edberg taking over with age. Although Stefan was always close to Lendl while Rog had a 13:6 lead at one point.

Anyways, it's ridiculous to claim Rog hasn't changed anything about his game. And if both his challengers "owe" him why haven't they won more than he did?

So, the age comes to play when Novak is catching up with him, but the experience (vs. a teenager) did not matter when RF built a 13:6 lead?
My point is when both were mature and complete, Novak was ahead.
Did you see ANY change in RF game between Wimbledon 2014 and AO 2016 against Novak? I did not see any adjustments or improvements.
Did you see any change against Nadal all these years?

 

[NoleFam]

That's true.

 

[The Fedfather]

1) Improved serving. He serves really well.
2) Improved backhand. Now his backhand can withstand barrage and he can hit winners from that side as well.
3) His anticipation at the net has massively improved. His win over Djokovic in Cincinnati2015 was master class of net play.
4) He has psychologically toughened up (he beat Nadal in Basal when I was certain that he will go down).
5) Maybe he lost step or a two; when I think about it probably not as the point he played against Djokovic in AO2016 springs to mind (how he got that?). I am not sure. However, this is more than compensated by improved anticipation (which goes hand in hand with experience) and knowing where to go on time.
This is my personal opinion, which I don't deem particularly relevant. However, I was kind of proud of myself when Henman said similar things while commenting on WTF2015. In my opinion, the best play I have ever seen from Federer was his play in the last 2 sets in AO2016 SF.

Is that so? What was it that impressed you the most? Was it 58% of first serves in? 27 UE to 23 winners? Maybe 0% net points won in the 4th (really showed Federer's massively improved anticipation at the net)? Anything that I missed?

 

[Urkezi]

When were they both complete and mature? Let me guess, Nole was "complete and mature" in 2011, right? About the time Rog turned 30... Pathetic hipocracy, as usual.

Now, as for changing his game, did you happen to see Federer play before 2014? Because what you are seeing from 2014 onwards is not his usual game. Are you suggesting he should have revamped his game 6 months after he revamped his game? There are always subtle differences to Rog's game, you won't always see SABR type changes.

As for Nadal, he sure tried playing him in different ways, but he didn't succeed in winning - there is a difference. Besides it's not that easy to play Nadal differently when he basically always plays high spins to your backhand.

So, the age comes to play when Novak is catching up with him, but the experience (vs. a teenager) did not matter when RF built a 13:6 lead?
My point is when both were mature and complete, Novak was ahead.
Did you see ANY change in RF game between Wimbledon 2014 and AO 2016 against Novak? I did not see any adjustments or improvements.
Did you see any change against Nadal all these years?

 

[ABCD]

 

[Urkezi]

Honestly, man, it was a great point. But please don't say this is your best argument that Roger has never played this good or that he didn't lose any footwork - the most ridiculous statement from your Top 5 list. If you look at it closely, he barely makes it back in time to return the well placed but soft lob, and then it's up to the "most complete player of all times" to showcase his net skills and allow him back in the point twice. And I am sorry to say but you are losing your mind if you think Roger's last match played was his best. This Roger ages better than any human alive nonsense really has to stop, it's almost a collective madness now. He is still great, no doubt, but he is simply not at his best.

 

[dr325i]

When were they both complete and mature? Let me guess, Nole was "complete and mature" in 2011, right? About the time Rog turned 30... Pathetic hipocracy, as usual.

Now, as for changing his game, did you happen to see Federer play before 2014? Because what you are seeing from 2014 onwards is not his usual game. Are you suggesting he should have revamped his game 6 months after he revamped his game? There are always subtle differences to Rog's game, you won't always see SABR type changes.

As for Nadal, he sure tried playing him in different ways, but he didn't succeed in winning - there is a difference. Besides it's not that easy to play Nadal differently when he basically always plays high spins to your backhand.

Enough with the "old age" nonsense.
Federer is not old, not slow, not tired, not more prone to injuries. He is not Agassi or Sampras or Nadal... Novak will endure longer than average, obviously, too.
SABR is not the game change.
Yes, Roger was playing very close to his best tennis in 2015...

 

[The Fedfather]

That was a spellbinding point. Unfortunately, 15 seconds of mind-blowing play from Federer could only win the hearts of the fans and not the match. The 3rd and 4th sets lasted for almost an hour and a half so those 15 seconds don't make up for the overall poor performace from Roger.

BTW, if you think that was the best point Federer played in his career you have to watch the video below.

 

[mightyrick]

There is a little hypocrisy here being displayed by Federer fans in this thread. Because I remember threads and posts regarding "Peak Agassi vs Peak Federer"... and the US Open 2004 match where Agassi took Federer to five sets. At that time, Federer fanboys were claiming that Agassi was playing nearly his best tennis ever in that match. Thus, Federer would dominate a H2H against him -- peak to peak. Pretty hypocritical, honestly.

 

[ABCD]

Honestly, man, it was a great point. But please don't say this is your best argument that Roger has never played this good or that he didn't lose any footwork - the most ridiculous statement from your Top 5 list. If you look at it closely, he barely makes it back in time to return the well placed but soft lob, and then it's up to the "most complete player of all times" to showcase his net skills and allow him back in the point twice. And I am sorry to say but you are losing your mind if you think Roger's last match played was his best. This Roger ages better than any human alive nonsense really has to stop, it's almost a collective madness now. He is still great, no doubt, but he is simply not at his best.

For some reasons I like you so I will bother to respond:
1) Did I tell you that I know something about ageing (I just given an invited lecture about that at the Mayo Clinic)?
2) I said to Jonas78 (as he is a nice guy) what I had to say about Federer; I have nothing else to add.
3) I embedded the video as I like the point. I am not saying anything, it shows what it shows.

 

[Jonas78]

You seem like a nice guy and I will try to explain why I personally believe that Federer raised his level in last few years. I don't like to do that as for me it is more than enough what Federer says. Nevertheless, I believe that Federer is better now than ever due to:
1) Improved serving. He serves really well.
2) Improved backhand. Now his backhand can withstand barrage and he can hit winners from that side as well.
3) His anticipation at the net has massively improved. His win over Djokovic in Cincinnati2015 was master class of net play.
4) He has psychologically toughened up (he beat Nadal in Basal when I was certain that he will go down).
5) Maybe he lost step or a two; when I think about it probably not as the point he played against Djokovic in AO2016 springs to mind (how he got that?). I am not sure. However, this is more than compensated by improved anticipation (which goes hand in hand with experience) and knowing where to go on time.
This is my personal opinion, which I don't deem particularly relevant. However, I was kind of proud of myself when Henman said similar things while commenting on WTF2015. In my opinion, the best play I have ever seen from Federer was his play in the last 2 sets in AO2016 SF.

I agree that Federers game 2015 has been better than at least 2013 and 2014. My point is even though he has improved, age 34 is still a disadvantage. That is partly my subjective meaning, but all tennis history supports it; players do worse past 29-30. I dont like the who is best of peak Fedalovic discussion, and i really dont have any problem with peak-Nole being better than peak-Fed. It doesnt take away any glory from Federer in my eyes. What i protest against, is people who mean that Nole being better than Federer at age 34, proves that Nole is the greatest. Being 28 vs 34 is an advantage, noone can change my meaning regarding that. Nole said so himself prior to the US OPEN 2015 final. One must be aware of the recency bias. If a new player dominates tennis in 2026, and people generally agree he plays the best game ever, it wont take away any glory from Novak, Rafa and Federer in my eyes. Thats unfortunately what some of Novaks fans do nowadays, i am quite sure Novak himself has great respect for the former champions. As i have said before; enjoy Nole dominate, no need to insult players who dominated earlier and their fans

 

[dr325i]

BTW, if you think that was the best point Federer played in his career you have to watch the video below.

Great point, and amazing scrambling by RF.
HOWEVER, do you think that Djokovic of today would play it the same way Agassi did then? I can tell you that Djokovic would have finished that point at least twice before that lob...
That is the difference. Federer still walks over the competition at most of the tournaments today - W2015, USO2015 he looked so unstoppable...until the final. The ball coming at him, the returns, hitting the ball on the rise, deep balls is all that is different when he plays against Novak. On top of that - there is also some of the mental component on both sides.