Fun take: 2007 Nadal was better than 2011 Nadal on all surfaces when healthy

Which of these seasonal showings of The Nadal was better on which surface when not rusty or injured?

  • 11 on clay, 11 on grass, 07 on hard

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 11 on clay, 07 on grass, 07 on hard

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    55
  • Poll closed .

Nadal_Django

Hall of Fame
The rallies were brutal for the first 3 sets in USO 2011 but the last brings it down. The third set is one of the best i have seen though.
And it is not your comment about HC that was shocking it was the comment about grass and Nadal having a mug draw in 2007.
Read the thread title, read the OP and then read the comments of the resident Federer fanbois. In a thread like this, everything is allowed. ;)
 
The rallies were brutal for the first 3 sets in USO 2011 but the last brings it down. The third set is one of the best i have seen though.
And it is not your comment about HC that was shocking it was the comment about grass and Nadal having a mug draw in 2007.
Don't forget Nadal ate a virtual bagel in the first set (started well and was up 2-0 then boom, 6-2 Djokovic it is). One of the more competitive bagels, but still.
 

alexio88

Hall of Fame
Don't forget Nadal ate a virtual bagel in the first set (started well and was up 2-0 then boom, 6-2 Djokovic it is). One of the more competitive bagels, but still.
and now imagine what djo would do with 07 raf...boom and it's more likely a straight setter:-Dsmth like uso 08 final
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
So Djokovic and / or Federer weren't around in 2010, 2017, 2018 & 2019? lol
And Nadal wasn't around in 2005 and 2006? LOL. Agassi, another ATG, wasn't around in 2004-2005? LOL.

As for 2010, how many times did he actually play Djokovic and Federer that year? Exactly 4 times combined in the entire year. Federer played Nadal alone more times than that in 2006, but nobody takes that year seriously.

And as for the other years:

-in 2017 Nadal didn't have to overcome Federer to win any of his slams.

- In 2018, he only played Federer/Djokovic....twice, the entire year. No different to Fed in 2005.

- In 2019 he didn't really have to overcome Federer/Djokovic to win his slams. He really didn't have to overcome them at all. Yes, he defeated Federer at RG, but is a win over an ancient Federer in BO5 on clay really that impressive? And this was one of only 2 wins vs Fedovic this year. The other was against an exhausted Djokovic in Rome. He pretty much won the matches he was supposed to win.

Heck, if having an ancient Federer counts as incredible competition, then why are you even mentioning 2004, 2005 and 2006 for Federer when he had an old Agassi (who was still younger than 2017-2019 Federer) and a young Nadal (who was still better than every young player in the last 3 years)? Apparently, those were weak opponents, but a 36-38 year old Fed is top notch stuff.

Let's not be hypocrites now. Just accept that at the end of the day, things have evened out competition wise for both Fedal. Nadal has had the same amount of weaker seasons as Federer after all, which will have proven crucial in Nadal overtaking Federer.

So any talk about weak era for Federer is really hypocritical at this point, since it is thanks to these weaker seasons that Nadal will be able to overtake Fed.
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
Third option is the most reasonable for me. Not much I can add as others have already covered it. I'll just display some stats (M1K and up):

2007 on clay:
MC: Won, def. Federer 6-4 6-4
Rome: Won, def. Gonzalez 6-2 6-2
Hamburg: Final, lost to Federer 6-2 2-6 0-6
RG: Won, def. Federer 6–3 4–6 6–3 6–4

2007 on grass:
Wimby: Final, lost to Federer 6-7 6-4 6-7 6-2 2-6

2007 on hard:
AO: QF, lost to Gonzalez 2-6 4-6 3-6
IW: Won, def. Djokovic 6-2 7-5
Miami: QF, lost to Djokovic 3-6 4-6
Canada: QF, lost to Djokovic 5-7 3-6
Cincinatti: 2R, lost to Monaco 6-7 1-4 RET
USO: 4R, lost to Ferrer 7-6 4-6 6-7 2-6
Madrid: QF, lost to Nalbandian 1-6 2-6
Paris: Final, lost to Nalbandian 4-6 0-6
Masters Cup: SF, lost to Federer 4-6 1-6

2011 on clay:
MC: Won, def. Ferrer 6-4 7-5
Madrid: Final, lost to Djokovic 5-7 4-6
Rome: Final, lost to Djokovic 4-6 4-6
RG: Won, def. Federer 7-5 7-6 5-7 6-1

2011 on grass:
Wimby: Final, lost to Djokovic 4-6 1-6 6-1 3-6

2011 on hard:
AO: QF, lost to Ferrer 4-6 2-6 3-6
IW: Final, lost to Djokovic 6-4 3-6 2-6
Miami: Final, lost to Djokovic 6-4 3-6 6-7
Canada: 2R, lost to Dodig 6-1 6-7 6-7
Cincinnati: QF, lost to Fish 3-6 4-6
USO: Final, lost to Djokovic 2-6 4-6 7-6 1-6
Shanghai: 3R, lost to F. Mayer 6-7 3-6
Paris: Did not play
ATP Finals: Eliminated in RR, lost to Federer 3-6 0-6 and Tsonga 6-7 6-4 3-6

I think it should be clear that 2007 Nadal was a superior player to 2011 Nadal, despite being slightly weaker on hard courts overall (still, all but one of his losses came to either respectable opponents or players who happened to be GOATing atm). Significantly better on clay and grass, however.
 

Mike Sams

Legend
These discussions are like what you hear on the playground with 7 year olds arguing over who's better between Superman and Batman. LOL
And worst thing is that most of the people engaging in these nonsense arguments on this forum are in their 40s and up :-D :-D
The internet really does bring out the worst in people. Especially these fanatical borderline whackos on here who live and die over one guy and don't give an eff about the sport itself.
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
Based on events:
AO: 2011
IW: 2007
Miami: 2011, but 2007 Nadal ran into the eventual champ much earlier in the tournament so it's hard to tell
MC: 2007
Hamburg/Madrid (clay): Equal
Rome: 2007
RG: 2007
Wimby: 2007
Canada: 2007
Cincy: 2011
USO: 2011
Madrid (indoors)/Shanghai: 2007
Paris: 2007, not a particularly fair comparison since he was injured in 2011 so leave it out if you wish
ATP Finals: 2007
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Third option is the most reasonable for me. Not much I can add as others have already covered it. I'll just display some stats (M1K and up):

2007 on clay:
MC: Won, def. Federer 6-4 6-4
Rome: Won, def. Gonzalez 6-2 6-2
Hamburg: Final, lost to Federer 6-2 2-6 0-6
RG: Won, def. Federer 6–3 4–6 6–3 6–4

2007 on grass:
Wimby: Final, lost to Federer 6-7 6-4 6-7 6-2 2-6

2007 on hard:
AO: QF, lost to Gonzalez 2-6 4-6 3-6
IW: Won, def. Djokovic 6-2 7-5
Miami: QF, lost to Djokovic 3-6 4-6
Canada: QF, lost to Djokovic 5-7 3-6
Cincinatti: 2R, lost to Monaco 6-7 1-4 RET
USO: 4R, lost to Ferrer 7-6 4-6 6-7 2-6
Madrid: QF, lost to Nalbandian 1-6 2-6
Paris: Final, lost to Nalbandian 4-6 0-6
Masters Cup: SF, lost to Federer 4-6 1-6

2011 on clay:
MC: Won, def. Ferrer 6-4 7-5
Madrid: Final, lost to Djokovic 5-7 4-6
Rome: Final, lost to Djokovic 4-6 4-6
RG: Won, def. Federer 7-5 7-6 5-7 6-1

2011 on grass:
Wimby: Final, lost to Djokovic 4-6 1-6 6-1 3-6

2011 on hard:
AO: QF, lost to Ferrer 4-6 2-6 3-6
IW: Final, lost to Djokovic 6-4 3-6 2-6
Miami: Final, lost to Djokovic 6-4 3-6 6-7
Canada: 2R, lost to Dodig 6-1 6-7 6-7
Cincinnati: QF, lost to Fish 3-6 4-6
USO: Final, lost to Djokovic 2-6 4-6 7-6 1-6
Shanghai: 3R, lost to F. Mayer 6-7 3-6
Paris: Did not play
ATP Finals: Eliminated in RR, lost to Federer 3-6 0-6 and Tsonga 6-7 6-4 3-6

I think it should be clear that 2007 Nadal was a superior player to 2011 Nadal, despite being slightly weaker on hard courts overall (still, all but one of his losses came to either respectable opponents or players who happened to be GOATing atm). Significantly better on clay and grass, however.
What's the indication 2007 Nadal was clearly better though? In 2007, he was 70-15, made 7 Tier 1 finals (4 on clay, 2 on hardcourt and 1 on grass), made 2 Slam finals and was 11-7 against the top 10. In 2011, he was 69-15, made 8 Tier 1 finals (4 on clay, 3 on hardcourt and 1 on grass), made 3 Slam finals, was 16-11 against the top 10. The main difference from 2011 becoming a goat season for him was Djokovic in his way. In 2007, Federer stopped him at Wimbledon but he had losses to quite a few players outside of that.
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
What's the indication 2007 Nadal was clearly better though? In 2007, he was 70-15, made 7 Tier 1 finals (4 on clay, 2 on hardcourt and 1 on grass), made 2 Slam finals and was 11-7 against the top 10. In 2011, he was 69-15, made 8 Tier 1 finals (4 on clay, 3 on hardcourt and 1 on grass), made 3 Slam finals, was 16-11 against the top 10. The main difference from 2011 becoming a goat season for him was Djokovic in his way. In 2007, Federer stopped him at Wimbledon but he had losses to quite a few players outside of that.
I base it on his being much superior on clay and grass and being only slightly worse on hard in 2007. He was definitely better in the Slams in 2011, but I think that his overall results in 2007 make up for it.

I don't really care much for that "take Djokovic out of the equation and he wins ___" argument. He didn't look altogether convincing in the 2011 Wimby and US Open finals (and even in the French Open that year) while he was in scary form at the French Open and Wimbledon, being only slightly below his 2008 form in both. Besides, Federer and Djokovic also stopped him plenty of times in 2007.

Event by event, 2007 was a better season for Nadal, I'd say. I can see the arguments for 2011, even if I disagree with them.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
I base it on his being much superior on clay and grass and being only slightly worse on hard in 2007. He was definitely better in the Slams in 2011, but I think that his overall results in 2007 make up for it.

I don't really care much for that "take Djokovic out of the equation and he wins ___" argument. He didn't look altogether convincing in the 2011 Wimby and US Open finals (and even in the French Open that year) while he was in scary form at the French Open and Wimbledon, being only slightly below his 2008 form in both. Besides, Federer and Djokovic also stopped him plenty of times in 2007.

Event by event, 2007 was a better season for Nadal, I'd say. I can see the arguments for 2011, even if I disagree with them.
Much superior on clay and grass and slightly worse on hardcourt? I think you have that backwards. He certainly was significantly better on hardcourt in 2011 than 2007. Nadal was no threat to any top guy at a hardcourt Slam back in 2007. Him being better on clay and grass is a better argument but I certainly wouldn't say much better.

Scary form at 2007 Wimbledon? I don't remember it that way. I remember he was close to losing to Soderling, who was not great on grass, and was down 2 sets to love to Youhnzny. He played a great final but he was not this supreme world beater the whole tournament. He was in better form in 2011 leading up to the final, with good wins over Del Potro and Murray.

The argument can go either way but I just don't see how he was clearly better in 2007.
 

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
Much superior on clay and grass and slightly worse on hardcourt? I think you have that backwards. He certainly was significantly better on hardcourt in 2011 than 2007. Nadal was no threat to any top guy at a hardcourt Slam back in 2007. Him being better on clay and grass is a better argument but I certainly wouldn't say much better.

Scary form at 2007 Wimbledon? I don't remember it that way. I remember he was close to losing to Soderling, who was not great on grass, and was down 2 sets to love to Youhnzny. He played a great final but he was not this supreme world beater the whole tournament. He was in better form in 2011 leading up to the final, with good wins over Del Potro and Murray.

The argument can go either way but I just don't see how he was clearly better in 2007.
Yeah at times 2011 Nadal is undersold. He played well and was still in his Prime. Djokovic just made things hell for him that year.
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
And Nadal wasn't around in 2005 and 2006? LOL. Agassi, another ATG, wasn't around in 2004-2005? LOL.

As for 2010, how many times did he actually play Djokovic and Federer that year? Exactly 4 times combined in the entire year. Federer played Nadal alone more times than that in 2006, but nobody takes that year seriously.

And as for the other years:

-in 2017 Nadal didn't have to overcome Federer to win any of his slams.

- In 2018, he only played Federer/Djokovic....twice, the entire year. No different to Fed in 2005.

- In 2019 he didn't really have to overcome Federer/Djokovic to win his slams. He really didn't have to overcome them at all. Yes, he defeated Federer at RG, but is a win over an ancient Federer in BO5 on clay really that impressive? And this was one of only 2 wins vs Fedovic this year. The other was against an exhausted Djokovic in Rome. He pretty much won the matches he was supposed to win.

Heck, if having an ancient Federer counts as incredible competition, then why are you even mentioning 2004, 2005 and 2006 for Federer when he had an old Agassi (who was still younger than 2017-2019 Federer) and a young Nadal (who was still better than every young player in the last 3 years)? Apparently, those were weak opponents, but a 36-38 year old Fed is top notch stuff.

Let's not be hypocrites now. Just accept that at the end of the day, things have evened out competition wise for both Fedal. Nadal has had the same amount of weaker seasons as Federer after all, which will have proven crucial in Nadal overtaking Federer.

So any talk about weak era for Federer is really hypocritical at this point, since it is thanks to these weaker seasons that Nadal will be able to overtake Fed.
Things are starting to even up in terms of 'softer' slam wins. I would however, quality-wise I would still put:

Philippoussis, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Roddick, Old Agassi, Baghdatis, Baby Nadal on grass, Roddick, Gonzalez, Baby Nadal on grass, Baby Djoker, Baby Murray, Soderling, Roddick, Murray, Murray, Nadal, Cilic, Cilic

behind

Puerta (Peak Fed in the semi), Federer, Federer, Federer, Federer on grass, Federer on hard, Soderling, Berdych, Djokovic on hard, Federer, Djokovic, Ferrer (Djokovic in the semi), Djokovic on hard, Djokovic, Wawrinka, Anderson, Thiem, Thiem (old Federer in the semi) and Medvedev

For Nadal that is:
10 slams beating either Djokovic or Federer for the title (only one against old Federer most were against prime Fed)
2 more slams beating non-slam winners but beating either Djokovic or Federer in the semi-final: Puerta, Ferrer
1 slam beating three-time slam winner Wawrinka for the title
6 slams beating non-slam winners Thiem, Anderson, Soderling, Berdych, Medvedev


For Fed that is:
4 slams beating either Nadal or Djokovic for the title (only 4 - this is one of the major problems for Fed in this argument, three of them were against baby Nadal and baby Djoker)
1 slam beating eight-time slam winner Agassi for the title (Agassi was past his best but certainly a worthy challenger)
3 slams beating three-time slam winner Murray for the title
2 slams beating two-time slam winners Safin and Hewitt for the title
6 slams beating one-time slam winners Roddick and Cilic for the title
4 slams beating non-slam winners Philippoussis, Baghdatis, Gonzalez and Soderling for the title

There is just way more strength and credibility in the level of player Nadal has beaten for his 19 slams than Federer has beaten for his 20. This is on the back of Rafa being able to beat Fed & Djokovic for more than 50% of his slams and Fed failing in any real way to beat Djoker or Rafa in slam finals consistently. It's not even close.
 

ForehandRF

Professional
Things are starting to even up in terms of 'softer' slam wins. I would however, quality-wise I would still put:

Philippoussis, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Roddick, Old Agassi, Baghdatis, Baby Nadal on grass, Roddick, Gonzalez, Baby Nadal on grass, Baby Djoker, Baby Murray, Soderling, Roddick, Murray, Murray, Nadal, Cilic, Cilic

behind

Puerta (Peak Fed in the semi), Federer, Federer, Federer, Federer on grass, Federer on hard, Soderling, Berdych, Djokovic on hard, Federer, Djokovic, Ferrer (Djokovic in the semi), Djokovic on hard, Djokovic, Wawrinka, Anderson, Thiem, Thiem (old Federer in the semi) and Medvedev

For Nadal that is:
10 slams beating either Djokovic or Federer for the title (only one against old Federer most were against prime Fed)
2 more slams beating non-slam winners but beating either Djokovic or Federer in the semi-final: Puerta, Ferrer
1 slam beating three-time slam winner Wawrinka for the title
6 slams beating non-slam winners Thiem, Anderson, Soderling, Berdych, Medvedev


For Fed that is:
4 slams beating either Nadal or Djokovic for the title (only 4 - this is one of the major problems for Fed in this argument, three of them were against baby Nadal and baby Djoker)
1 slam beating eight-time slam winner Agassi for the title (Agassi was past his best but certainly a worthy challenger)
3 slams beating three-time slam winner Murray for the title
2 slams beating two-time slam winners Safin and Hewitt for the title
6 slams beating one-time slam winners Roddick and Cilic for the title
4 slams beating non-slam winners Philippoussis, Baghdatis, Gonzalez and Soderling for the title

There is just way more strength and credibility in the level of player Nadal has beaten for his 19 slams than Federer has beaten for his 20. This is on the back of Rafa being able to beat Fed & Djokovic for more than 50% of his slams and Fed failing in any real way to beat Djoker or Rafa in slam finals consistently. It's not even close.
Big names don't always translate in high level of play.A BiG 3 member can play bad in a slam match, but at the same a 2nd tier player can get in the zone and be very tough to beat.More than that, it's not only who you beat in the final that matters because sometimes the toughest match can be in the QF or SF(see Fed's USO 2004 for example).You can't penalize Federer for not beating Nadal or Djokovic more often because they are not peers and due to age differential they peaked in different periods.Let's not act that a great win it's only when beating a BIG 3 member because that it's only valid in the la la land of the fanboys.This guys play to win the title, not for beating their rival, that can be secondary at most.The h2h gets too much attention again only in the fanbases and the actual players don't think too much about it.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
2007 Nadal win percentage vs non-Federer:

overall 68-12 (85%)
slams 19-2 (90.5%)
vs top-ten 9-4 (69.2%)

2011 Nadal win percentage vs non-Djokovic:

overall 69-9 (88.5%)
slams 23-1 (95.8%)
vs top-ten 16-5 (76.2%)
 
Conversely though Djokovic mid 07-mid 09 is undersold because of the problems he had during late 09 and 10.
Noel was pretty good in HC in 07, but crashed out at the end of the season (illness or something, I recall?), not prime overall I think. Clay and grass not really great though managed to clutch his way to both slam semis.

2008 was pretty much a prime season barring the Wimbledon early loss, consistent quality throughout the season; only other downside was three straight losses to Tsonga in the fall.

2009, gave Nadal great fights on clay but crashed at RG, otherwise not that great a season for him: 1 slam sf, 1 masters w, yec rr loss.
 
Noel was pretty good in HC in 07, but crashed out at the end of the season (illness or something, I recall?), not prime overall I think. Clay and grass not really great though managed to clutch his way to both slam semis.

2008 was pretty much a prime season barring the Wimbledon early loss, consistent quality throughout the season; only other downside was three straight losses to Tsonga in the fall.

2009, gave Nadal great fights on clay but crashed at RG, otherwise not that great a season for him: 1 slam sf, 1 masters w, yec rr loss.
In another thread someone noticed that he had one of the longest streaks of beating everyone but other big 3 in slams in 07-08, 31 matches or so. The Madrid battle is what tanked the rest of his 2009, and then Todd Martin and the change to Head hurt him to start 2010. I’d agree that 08 was basically a prime season from him
 
Noel was pretty good in HC in 07, but crashed out at the end of the season (illness or something, I recall?), not prime overall I think. Clay and grass not really great though managed to clutch his way to both slam semis.

2008 was pretty much a prime season barring the Wimbledon early loss, consistent quality throughout the season; only other downside was three straight losses to Tsonga in the fall.

2009, gave Nadal great fights on clay but crashed at RG, otherwise not that great a season for him: 1 slam sf, 1 masters w, yec rr loss.
Did you open a new chat? Nobody is writing in the old one.
 
In another thread someone noticed that he had one of the longest streaks of beating everyone but other big 3 in slams in 07-08, 31 matches or so. The Madrid battle is what tanked the rest of his 2009, and then Todd Martin and the change to Head hurt him to start 2010. I’d agree that 08 was basically a prime season from him
Well it's the ability to battle the best that counts, not just the ability to get to them consistently, else the player is like a punching bag, see Ferrer in 12-13, or worse, Nishikori's recent Wim 18-19 streak. 07 Djokovic was better than that of course but not enough in BO5, only managed a good fight at the USO but still couldn't take a set. Let's put it like this: he had a prime level performance in only 5 of the 14 top tournaments in 2007 (IW, Miami, Canada, USO, Madrid), compared to 11 of 14 in 2008 (all except Miami, Wimbledon and Paris; Madrid TB loss to Karlobot accepted as it defied primes/peaks/whatever, a big bot can always force TBs and then anything may happen). 2009 was kinda up and down in large chunks: subpar spring HC season, strong battles with Nadal on clay but epic fail at RG, haas'd on grass, strong season post-Wimbledon but one mug set vs Söderling kicked Djo out of YEC.
 

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
Well it's the ability to battle the best that counts, not just the ability to get to them consistently, else the player is like a punching bag, see Ferrer in 12-13, or worse, Nishikori's recent Wim 18-19 streak. 07 Djokovic was better than that of course but not enough in BO5, only managed a good fight at the USO but still couldn't take a set. Let's put it like this: he had a prime level performance in only 5 of the 14 top tournaments in 2007 (IW, Miami, Canada, USO, Madrid), compared to 11 of 14 in 2008 (all except Miami, Wimbledon and Paris; Madrid TB loss to Karlobot accepted as it defied primes/peaks/whatever, a big bot can always force TBs and then anything may happen). 2009 was kinda up and down in large chunks: subpar spring HC season, strong battles with Nadal on clay but epic fail at RG, haas'd on grass, strong season post-Wimbledon but one mug set vs Söderling kicked Djo out of YEC.
Would you consider 2012 or 2017 a prime Federer since you consider 2008 a prime Djokovic for the most part.
 
Would you consider 2012 or 2017 a prime Federer since you consider 2008 a prime Djokovic for the most part.
2017 Federer showed something resembling prime in 5/14 top tournaments (AO, IW, Miami, Wimbledon, Shanghai), no comparison. Skipped clay altogether and was beset by injuries post-Wimbledon, resulting in only Shanghai played at a top notch level.

2012 is closer: prime grass, non-prime clay, hard is tougher to decide but I guess borderline, given that the only subpar performance was USO although being a slam makes it worse. 2008 Djokovic was obviously better than 2012 Federer on HC though, not just because he played prime-ish at the USO but also had a peak showing at the AO losing just one set all tournament, so 2008 was certainly a prime season on HC for him, and obviously clay, but not grass; on grass he never had a prime season before the 2011 ascension.
 

ForehandRF

Professional
2017 Federer showed something resembling prime in 5/14 top tournaments (AO, IW, Miami, Wimbledon, Shanghai), no comparison. Skipped clay altogether and was beset by injuries post-Wimbledon, resulting in only Shanghai played at a top notch level.

2012 is closer: prime grass, non-prime clay, hard is tougher to decide but I guess borderline, given that the only subpar performance was USO although being a slam makes it worse. 2008 Djokovic was obviously better than 2012 Federer on HC though, not just because he played prime-ish at the USO but also had a peak showing at the AO losing just one set all tournament, so 2008 was certainly a prime season on HC for him, and obviously clay, but not grass; on grass he never had a prime season before the 2011 ascension.
It's strange how Fed struggled with Berdych in that period.
 
It's strange how Fed struggled with Berdych in that period.
Big hitter exploiting Fed's declining movement, makes sense. What's strange is that Federer struggled to exploit Berdych's own movement, a liability at the highest level. His worst loss in terms of level relative to season average was actually 2011 Cincy, looked clueless the entire match despite Berdych starting to wilt near the end. (Obviously not considering the lolypimcs fail back in 04, what on earth was that lol.)
 

ForehandRF

Professional
Big hitter exploiting Fed's declining movement, makes sense. What's strange is that Federer struggled to exploit Berdych's own movement, a liability at the highest level. His worst loss in terms of level relative to season average was actually 2011 Cincy, looked clueless the entire match despite Berdych starting to wilt near the end. (Obviously not considering the lolypimcs fail back in 04, what on earth was that lol.)
Racket change seems to have helped Fed in their rivalry so probably the old "museum" one was one of the causes.Yeah, that loss back in 04 was stupid, something like the one vs Nadal in Dubai 06
 
Yeah, that loss back in 04 was stupid, something like the one vs Nadal in Dubai 06
Umm... silly comparison. Federer played really well in Dubai for most of the match, Nadal was honestly the smarter player and changed groundstroke patterns mid-match to give Fed something to think about; as we can see, it worked wonders, Rogr began to doubt himself and there's the loss. Should have won, but no one but Nadal could've pulled that off at the time, a brilliant win, like it or not. Teen Berdych isn't in the same breath as teen Nadal, and while I couldn't locate the footage, a newspaper report states Federer committed 58 UEs including 10 DFs over the three sets, so it must've been pretty crappy indeed.
 

ForehandRF

Professional
Umm... silly comparison. Federer played really well in Dubai for most of the match, Nadal was honestly the smarter player and changed groundstroke patterns mid-match to give Fed something to think about; as we can see, it worked wonders, Rogr began to doubt himself and there's the loss. Should have won, but no one but Nadal could've pulled that off at the time, a brilliant win, like it or not. Teen Berdych isn't in the same breath as teen Nadal, and while I couldn't locate the footage, a newspaper report states Federer committed 58 UEs including 10 DFs over the three sets, so it must've been pretty crappy indeed.
Well, it seems I have to take a look at the highlights.It's been a long time :)
 

titoelcolombiano

Hall of Fame
Big names don't always translate in high level of play.A BiG 3 member can play bad in a slam match, but at the same a 2nd tier player can get in the zone and be very tough to beat.More than that, it's not only who you beat in the final that matters because sometimes the toughest match can be in the QF or SF(see Fed's USO 2004 for example).You can't penalize Federer for not beating Nadal or Djokovic more often because they are not peers and due to age differential they peaked in different periods.Let's not act that a great win it's only when beating a BIG 3 member because that it's only valid in the la la land of the fanboys.This guys play to win the title, not for beating their rival, that can be secondary at most.The h2h gets too much attention again only in the fanbases and the actual players don't think too much about it.
We are very safe to say that the level of opponent that Nadal beat for his slams are better than the level of Fed's by a long way. Djokovic for example on a bad day will still thrash Philippoussis.

Fed is not of the same generation as Djoker and Rafa but the fact that he's lost some piviotal matches against them in his career is not good for his legacy which, like it or not will be directly compared to his two biggest rivals.
 
We are very safe to say that the level of opponent that Nadal beat for his slams are better than the level of Fed's by a long way. Djokovic for example on a bad day will still thrash Philippoussis.
Djokovic on a bad day gets straight-setted by a version of Murray who should have lost to Verdasco, and loses to a version of Nishikori who gets crushed by Cilic. No thrashing in sight.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
We are very safe to say that the level of opponent that Nadal beat for his slams are better than the level of Fed's by a long way. Djokovic for example on a bad day will still thrash Philippoussis
The guys Federer faced were often able to give him tough matches on his strongest surfaces, but I'm sure on his weakest surface he was still relatively far more formidable than they were.

Logic fail.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
We are very safe to say that the level of opponent that Nadal beat for his slams are better than the level of Fed's by a long way. Djokovic for example on a bad day will still thrash Philippoussis.

Fed is not of the same generation as Djoker and Rafa but the fact that he's lost some piviotal matches against them in his career is not good for his legacy which, like it or not will be directly compared to his two biggest rivals.
Lol Rafa had it easy for all his RG titles aside from 2013.
 

GabeT

Legend
Djokovic beat Nadal in 7 straight finals. Without Djokovic we’d never have this conversation, and Nadal’s 2011 would likely be his best season ever.
 

GabeT

Legend
Getting stopped by Federer and Djokovic < getting stopped by Djokovic only? :eek::X3: Opposite world!
What are we debating? The point is that has Novak not gone on his incredible 2011 run that would have been nadal’s best year. That’s not true for 2007. There is no one single player in 2007 that stopped Nadal like Nole blocked him un 2011.
 
What are we debating? The point is that has Novak not gone on his incredible 2011 run that would have been nadal’s best year. That’s not true for 2007. There is no one single player in 2007 that stopped Nadal like Nole blocked him un 2011.
There's nothing to debate: the only big tournament Nadal did substantially better in 2011 than 2007 is the USO.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Has no relevance to how well he played for the whole year in 2007.
That is like me saying that Federer made one final at slam before AO 2004 and was making his first baby steps in the tour. Doesn’t change the fact he was at his peak that year.
That should basically be in big bold letters in Lew's sig.
 
Top