Has fed ever been truly beaten?

Bottle Rocket

Hall of Fame
Safin at the Australian Open?

I think his 100% depends on his opponent, just as everybody's performances do. In this match though, he looked to be playing about as well as I have seen him against anyone.
 

MajinX

Professional
Has fed ever been truly beaten? I was wondering ....has Fed ever been beaten when he was 100%?
that question can be asked for almost all the top 8... have any of them ever been beaten at 100 percent?

i dont think by comparing how great one is at 100 percent is a good indication of their tennis, but rather how often can they play at 100 percent.
 

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
Safin at the Australian Open? I think his 100% depends on his opponent, just as everybody's performances do. In this match though, he looked to be playing about as well as I have seen him against anyone.
He had blisters that he was treated for during that match. And I also think he claimed he started having 'plantar fascitis' during that tournament(which caused him to withdraw from a few events later that year)
 

BigT

Professional
Safin at the Aussie
Nadal at Dubai
Gonzo at Shanghai

probably others...most guys wouldn't lose playing 100%...look at Fish at IW...
Feds greatness has been his ability to win when not playing his best, and to do so for so long...now it's caught up with him and he can't rely on that any more..to beat Nadal and the Joker, he has to play his best...
 

coloskier

Legend
Look at the Fed fans making excuses and trying to convince people he never lost at 100%. :rolleyes:
Personally, I think every time Nadal has beaten Fed is when Fed has been at his best. And I also say that every time Fed has beaten Nadal, Nadal has played his best. When they play each other, they leave nothing left after they leave the court.
 

grafrules

Banned
Personally, I think every time Nadal has beaten Fed is when Fed has been at his best. And I also say that every time Fed has beaten Nadal, Nadal has played his best. When they play each other, they leave nothing left after they leave the court.
So Nadal was at his best in Hamburg? Federer was at his best in the Nasdaq final of 2005? Federer was at his best in last years Wimbledon final? Nadal was at his best in last years Masters semis? There are probably more times atleast one player has not been at their best in their past matches then both were.
 

coloskier

Legend
So Nadal was at his best in Hamburg? Federer was at his best in the Nasdaq final of 2005? Federer was at his best in last years Wimbledon final? Nadal was at his best in last years Masters semis? There are probably more times atleast one player has not been at their best in their past matches then both were.
Let me rephrase. Neither of them would ever use the excuse that they were not at their best when playing each other. They have too much respect for each other. When speaking of playing other players there may be a different story.
 

Babb

Professional
These fanboys and their insistence that Fed has never "truly" lost a match...

"Has fed ever been truly beaten?"

Um... yeah. Look at his record.

A loss is a loss.
 

gj011

Banned
Never. Not in a million years. No man can really beat Federer. It is impossible. All his losses happened in a parallel universe, not in this one. :rolleyes:
 

Casey10s

Rookie
Has fed ever been truly beaten? I was wondering ....has Fed ever been beaten when he was 100%?
Probably many times. The people posting here are just making guesses. What is 100%? Every time you lose, there are things that can be said on why you didn't win. From not feeling good physically or mentally, equipment not good, bad calls, unfavorable weather conditions, condition of the surroundings, time of day, the opponent playing better than usual, etc. The list could go on for a long while. Maybe Mirka asked Roger to go shopping after a match and he didn't want to go and he kept thinking about it the whole match.

Why do people need to justify why their favorite player wasn't good enough that day? Everybody loses at one time or another, some more than others.
 

Nadal_Freak

Banned
Well since 100% is playing your best on that surface, Nadal in Rome comes to mind. I don't think Fed could play much better than that on clay against Nadal. That was 100%.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
When has Federer ever beaten Djokovic at his best? That is right. Never.

So all fedfans delusional "100%" arguments are flawed and silly.
Firstly the OP was the one who started the 100% and he is probably a Djokovic fanboy,he sure as hell aint a Fedfan which if you'd read some of his post you would see for yourself.Playing 100% means playing your best tennis,so are you saying that Djokovic at his best is a better tennis player then Federer at his best? If Djokovic wins more then 12 slams or more and spends 224 consecutive weeks at number one maybe I'll agree with you,until then I would say you're wrong.
 

fgzhu88

Semi-Pro
Each time he has been truly outplayed, it has been very tight 5-4 set matches.

vs. Nadal @ Rome 2006, MC 06, 08, FO 06
Safin @ AO 05
Gasquet @ MC 05
Nalbandian @ TMC 05
 

r2473

G.O.A.T.
Q: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?

A: No.

Q: Did you check for blood pressure?

A: No.

Q: Did you check for breathing?

A: No.

Q: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?

A: No.

Q: How can you be so sure, Doctor?

A: Because his brain was sitting on my desk, in a jar.

Q: But could the patient have still been alive, never the less?

A: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Well since 100% is playing your best on that surface, Nadal in Rome comes to mind. I don't think Fed could play much better than that on clay against Nadal. That was 100%.
Nadal at his best wins against Federer at his best on clay,I never disputed that and it has proven many times since 2005.
 

gj011

Banned
Firstly the OP was the one who started the 100% and he is probably a Djokovic fanboy,he sure as hell aint a Fedfan which if you'd read some of his post you would see for yourself.Playing 100% means playing your best tennis,so are you saying that Djokovic at his best is a better tennis player then Federer at his best? If Djokovic wins more then 12 slams or more and spends 224 consecutive weeks at number one maybe I'll agree with you,until then I would say you're wrong.
No I am just aksing. When has Federer beaten Djokovic at his best?

This is just to show that these "100%" and "at his best" arguments make no sense whatsoever.
 
Last edited:

grafrules

Banned
Safin at AO 05
Nadal in Rome in 06
Hewitt, Davis Cup 03
Nalbandian, Masters Cup 05
Those last two are downright laughable. In the 2005 Masters Cup final he was injured and visibly struggling the entire match. The Davis Cup loss to Hewitt was one of his last epic chokes before becoming the dominant player. Also the idea of Hewitt ever beating Federer at his best? ROTFL!!! Tommy Robredo has about as much chance of beating Federer at his best as Federer's personal pigeon Hewitt. A better question is whether Federer's personal bagel machine Lleyton Hewitt could ever beat an average Federer at his own best.
 

gj011

Banned
No injuries or illness. That would be my only criteria. Timing problems (hitting long/wide, double faults) are usually caused by the opponent or atmospheric conditions.
If that is the case, than Djokovic beat "100%, at his best" Federer in Montreal 2007.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
I would like to know answers to these questions as well.
My definition of it is when a certain player plays the best level of tennis I think he is capable.For example with the level of tennis Djokovic has shown this year I would say that the only one who can beat him if he plays his best tennis on hardcourt is Federer while on clay it's Nadal and Federer-meaning everybody else will IMO lose from Djokovic if he plays the best tennis he is capable on these surfaces,I haven't seen him play on grass this year yet so I'm undecided there.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
When Fed gets sweaty, yes that's 100%. Safin, Nadal, Djoker, Fish...
I don't think even the biggest Federer haters would deny that Federer was pretty off in his loss against Fish in Indian Wells but whatever floats your boat.
 

coloskier

Legend
Converting 1 of 16 break chances is NOT playing your best.
As much as I like Fed, I would say that was more due to Nadal than Fed playing bad. Nadal took it from Fed. Fed was playing his best for the mere fact that he actually had 16 breakpoint chances against Nadal, even though he only converted one.
 

edmondsm

Legend
As much as I like Fed, I would say that was more due to Nadal than Fed playing bad. Nadal took it from Fed. Fed was playing his best for the mere fact that he actually had 16 breakpoint chances against Nadal, even though he only converted one.
I don't know. I remember there being a lot of stupid errors from Federer on those break points. It really seemed like Federer was playing great until he got to an important point, then his level would fall. Very un-Federer like.
 

grafrules

Banned
I don't know. I remember there being a lot of stupid errors from Federer on those break points. It really seemed like Federer was playing great until he got to an important point, then his level would fall. Very un-Federer like.
Yes that happens when Federer plays Nadal on clay. He has a major mental block about playing Nadal on clay. Combine that with that Nadal is the better clay courter already and you have a bad combination for Fed.
 

Nadal_Freak

Banned
Yes that happens when Federer plays Nadal on clay. He has a major mental block about playing Nadal on clay. Combine that with that Nadal is the better clay courter already and you have a bad combination for Fed.
Not being as good as Nadal on most clay could be the reason. Though Hamburg is lower bouncing and thus Fed has a better shot to beat Nadal. It's not mental but physical imo due to how much height Nadal can get on his shots.
 
Top