Smasher08
Legend
Careful there! Dark Helmet will now start to argue that the four in the "weak era" don't count, so they're tied 13-13 and the H2H is the decider!! :lol:
Have you ever seen your favourite lose when playing his very best?
- Thread starter Djokovic2011
- Start date
Careful there! Dark Helmet will now start to argue that the four in the "weak era" don't count, so they're tied 13-13 and the H2H is the decider!! :lol:
kpktennis
Rookie
Riddle me this then. Let's say hypothetically Nadal surpasses Sampras and Federer/Nadal end up being the consensus TWO greatest players in the open era, above all other players. Based on the head to head, how can you then say that Federer's tennis is greater than Nadal's, when it has been demonstrated 23 times out of 33 that Nadal's tennis is superior. The reality is Nadal only needs 14/15 Grand Slams before the tennis establishment puts him ahead of Federer in the GOAT debate, this is the sad truth for Fedfans.
Last edited:
The Dark Knight
Legend
It was a weak era in my opinion .....and im many other opinions .
When you have players in the #1 ranking like ferrero or Roddick and your main rivalry on fast courts is Roddick then to me that's weaker.
Maybe you don't think it's weaker than today's top four but I totally disagree with that.
If you guys are so big on records then just look at it this way ......
You have at least four multiple slam winners competing on every surface ......and Joker is probably in the top 10 greatest players of all time already.
You may not think that the prior crew was not weaker but I think that may be a little biased .
The Dark Knight
Legend
A minority of the tennis establishment already consider Nadal greater than Federer ......guys like Mcenroe . And if you look at my like below from Sampras .....before he started to suck Feds butt......you will see his true thoughts on the topic
"Federer has to beat Nadal(if he wants) to be considered the greatest ever, certainly in my book." Pete Sampras
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
But again TDK the record books don't care which era was weaker[which is itself very subjective], they care about big fat numbers and at the end of the day Fed's are more impressive. Besides even if Roger did play in a weaker era that's not his problem- it's not his fault he was born 5 years earlier than Nadal!
DRII
G.O.A.T.
someone is hallucinating again
just FYI, even using your rather ridiculous line of thinking, two years represents the possibility of winning 8 slams, which is greater than the difference between 17 and 13
Particularly considering that Nadal has won 3 slams in a year’s time on multiple occasions!its called math...
also, it is not Nadal's fault that Federer bloomed relatively late, while he was a clay court phenom from the very beginning! point is, Nadal is ahead of Federer at this point relative to age and slam final appearances; and considering Nadal's various injuries throughout the years, that is an amazing stat!
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Your opinion. Nadal needs to at least equal 17 to be in contention. Federer also has otehr important records and achievements
H2H will come into play only when Nadal equals 17. If he wins 18 the debate is over
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Exactly. Federer played Djokovic 32 times and murray 21 and all of a sudden they are only Nadal's competition?
NatF
Bionic Poster
Federer had played the likes of Del Potro, Tsonga etc...more in slams than Nadal has too. He's also played the best version of Murray in the slams the last couple of years.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
well sir, we are not record books!
we are rational, cognitive beings (most of us at least) who are capable of making qualitative judgements and distinctions.
imagine the benefit that future generations of tennis fans will have, being able to look at discussions like these. i wish we had that ability to look at message boards during Laver's and other past-greats' time.
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
ROFL. We truly are a great bunch and I'm sure future tennis players, scholars, commentators, journos and fans will spend hours on end reading through our reflective posts
DRII
G.O.A.T.
yea, at the tail end of his career
Nadal literally grew up along side these two and had to contend with them from the beginning.
the two closest analogous players from Federer's early career are Hewit and Roddick. sorry but Nole + Murray >> Hewit + Roddick, by a pretty wide margin IMO...
DRII
G.O.A.T.
poofytail
Banned
Murray didnt even beat Federer in a slam until he was 31, so we can safely say there is no chance he would have any impact on prime Federer in slams. Maybe he would cut into his non slam dominance some, but that is it.
Djokovic would be more of a threat but in his best year ever lost to Federer at RG, was down match point at the U.S Open, and obviously Wimbledon between prime Federer and prime Djokovic would be a laugher.
Djokovic would be more of a threat but in his best year ever lost to Federer at RG, was down match point at the U.S Open, and obviously Wimbledon between prime Federer and prime Djokovic would be a laugher.
NatF
Bionic Poster
yea, at the tail end of his career
Nadal literally grew up along side these two and had to contend with them from the beginning.
the two closest analogous players from Federer's early career are Hewit and Roddick. sorry but Nole + Murray >> Hewit + Roddick, by a pretty wide margin IMO...
Why is it tougher for Nadal in his prime to deal with Djokovic than it is for Federer to deal with them past his prime? The fact is Federer has met Murray and Djokovic as many times as Nadal has. They're equally his competition. Also as previously stated Federer has faced Djokovic more on his best surfaces than Nadal has.
Hewitt ~ Murray, Djokovic is obviously a lot greater than Roddick. But then Federer had more depth with guys like Safin, Nalbandan, Agassi etc...Not to mention he often had to play them back to back unlike Nadal who's typically only had to play one serious opponent per slam the last few years.
Besides that the only 2 slams where Djokovic has a distinctly better record or playing level are the AO and the FO. On the faster surfaces Hewitt and Roddick at their best could certainly hold their own against any Djokovic bar his 2011 version.
Not to mention the fact that Federer had to face the best version of Nadal on clay and grass.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
Wow...just wow.
So, did I imagine Roger losing to Djoker in Montreal in 2007 or....
Im pretty sure Murray and Djoker both emerged in 2007, that is hardly the tail end of Fed's career, tail end of his peak yes, but the man won 5 slams since 2007. From 08-11 it was basically a lock for Fed to play Djoker in the semi of a slam.
and what does it say about this strong era that old man fed beat Djoker and Murray back to back to win Wimbledon and regain number 1 in 2012
Or how about ******* beating Djoker and Berdych to win Dubai last week
]
Meanwhile Nadal was the only one not named Federer winning slams til 2008. And even til 2011, only one man not named Nadal or Fed won a slam, so how much 'competition' were Murray and Djoker to Fedal anyway???
You are just....ridiculous doesnt begin to describe it.
M
monfed
Guest
Yes it would also be a laughter between peak Djokovic and Peak Ralph at Wimbledon as it was in 2011. IDK bout you but I laughed a lot in that final when Nole had Rafael on a string. :lol:
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
someone is hallucinating again
just FYI, even using your rather ridiculous line of thinking, two years represents the possibility of winning 8 slams, which is greater than the difference between 17 and 13
its called math...
also, it is not Nadal's fault that Federer bloomed relatively late, while he was a clay court phenom from the very beginning! point is, Nadal is ahead of Federer at this point relative to age and slam final appearances; and considering Nadal's various injuries throughout the years, that is an amazing stat!
WTF are you talking about? Why are you talking possibilities when the FACT is, from 2003 til FO 2005, Fed won 4 slams.
Thats the hard cold FACT.
Honestly, if this is the sort of mental gymnastics you need to proclaim Nadal's GOAThood then there is really no point in talking further.
So again, the FACT is , Fed and Nadal for most of Nadal's career, have faced the same competition.
The FACT is, Fed won most of his slams with Nadal in the mix.
The FACT is old, fed is still competing and winning against this 'strong era' and regained world number one in the midst of it..at age 31! Considering that he did this against this unbelievably strong era, that is an amazing stat!
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
You know, Ive thought about it as well..is it any coincidence that as the HC field has weakened over the years, all of a sudden Nadal is having more success there?
think about it, guys like nalbandian, davydenko and lubjcic are gone.
Delpo is often hurt, Fed is inconsistent, or at least he was last year. Djokovic isnt in the form of 2011.
So basically, for a HC title now, its basically Djoker, Murray( and murray right now is an if) and Fed on a good day, and maybe Ferrer on a hot streak. Its hard to say what Wawa will do from here on it, but lets throw him in the mix.
The HC field is most definitely weaker than it was say 7 years ago with guys
like Blake,, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Llujcic, prime fed, Roddick, emergent Murray and Djoker, and even guys like Gonzo and Bagdhatis.
Yes, I said it.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
I suggest you actually look up Nadal's record vs Nole and Murray and then compare to Federer's
also, Safin and Agassi were clearly in the sunset of their careers once Federer started to dominate. Nalbadian never had the fitness to be a true all-time great...
DRII
G.O.A.T.
LSD76 strikes again
like it or not, there is much discussion about GOAT-hood between Federer and Nadal, from other all-time greats for goodness sake!
i suggest you start dealing...
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
I suggest you actually look up Nadal's record vs Nole and Murray and then compare to Federer's
also, Safin and Agassi were clearly in the sunset of their careers once Federer started to dominate. Nalbadian never had the fitness to be a true all-time great...
umm No. Agassi wasnt on his last legs til 2006.
Fed started to dominate in 2004.
Safin was still a beast in 2004 and 2005. 2006 was the beginning of the end for him. If anything, Fed since 1998 had to deal with the best version( however inconsistent) of Safin and dominated him and everyone else long before he was past it. The same with Hewitt and roddick and Agassi pre 2006.
Nalbandian was a hell of a HC player as evidenced by him taking out fed in the USO in 2003 when Fed was fresh of his Wimbledon win.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
LSD76 strikes again
like it or not, there is much discussion about GOAT-hood between Federer and Nadal, from other all-time greats for goodness sake!
i suggest you start dealing...
which has nothing to do with you being dead wrong...pretty much about everything on this topic. but nice attempt at diverting from the facts
DRII
G.O.A.T.
which has nothing to do with you being dead wrong...pretty much about everything on this topic. but nice attempt at diverting from the facts
you're dealing in the wrong way LSD76...
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
you still cant counter any of the facts Ive presented to you.
at this point, its better you just walk away rather than try and be an internet tuff gai.
NatF
Bionic Poster
I suggest you actually look up Nadal's record vs Nole and Murray and then compare to Federer's
also, Safin and Agassi were clearly in the sunset of their careers once Federer started to dominate. Nalbadian never had the fitness to be a true all-time great...
Safin was always inconsistent but he made 2 slam finals winning one of them and won 2 masters in 04-05. He also played the top guys many times. Agassi was still very strong on hardcourts, just inconsistent with bringing his best tennis. His level of play at the 2 hardcourt slams in 2004 was very high for example. He was certainly more of a danger than most of the guys in the top 10 today. Nalbandian met Federer multiple times in the slams and actually beat him 3 times during 04-07. In this era Ferrer has been in the top 4, a player who is markedly inferior to even Davydenko. But ofcourse the era now is so much stronger.
The only thing you can cling onto is Djokovic, but even he's been declining since 2011. His mental game has been poor for the last year aside from that win streak after the USO.
It's not about the record versus them it's the fact that he's played them as many times as Nadal has
his record is only worse because they've played most of their matches versus him in their best years and outside of his...Who had a better record against Djokovic in 2011 again?
DRII
G.O.A.T.
Safin was always inconsistent but he made 2 slam finals winning one of them and won 2 masters in 04-05. He also played the top guys many times. Agassi was still very strong on hardcourts, just inconsistent with bringing his best tennis. His level of play at the 2 hardcourt slams in 2004 was very high for example. He was certainly more of a danger than most of the guys in the top 10 today. Nalbandian met Federer multiple times in the slams and actually beat him 3 times during 04-07. In this era Ferrer has been in the top 4, a player who is markedly inferior to even Davydenko. But ofcourse the era now is so much stronger.
The only thing you can cling onto is Djokovic, but even he's been declining since 2011. His mental game has been poor for the last year aside from that win streak after the USO.
It's not about the record versus them it's the fact that he's played them as many times as Nadal has
Who had a better record against Djokovic in 2011 again?
2011 is not the end-all be-all, regardless of how Nadal haters try to make it out to be.
and even with 2011, Nadal has a far better H2H vs Nole than Federer does!
and fyi, this time span (08 till now) is stronger than 04-07 because of the players at the top (Big 4), not due to greater depth.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
your 'facts' mean little.
Federer has had more time to amass his 17 slams than Nadal has had to win his 13!
simple as that!
Smasher08
Legend
Ah yes, a minority of one! :lol:
NatF
Bionic Poster
Because Novak and Nadal are the same age. Federer still leads Djokovic even now despite being 6 years older and having nearly all their meetings after his best years. Not to mention the fact that Federer has played Djokovic most of the time on hardcourts. What would Nadal's h2h with Djokovic look like if they met 5 more times on hardcourts and 5 less on clay? Chances are it would be pretty even like the current Djokovic/Federer h2h.
Why is top heavy better than depth? Even if there have been higher peaks there have been stretches of weakness during the last 6 years. In 2010 every top player bar Nadal declined from 2009. In 2013, Murray and Federer were injured and below their previous level. Not to mention the fact that Nadal has only been #1 for half the years in that time anyway. And please leave hypotheticals about injuries alone, I could easily wonder what if Federer didnt contract mono etc...
Last edited:
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Federer won 7 slams since 2007 when Nadal and Djokovic pushed him at W and USO. Why 2008? Because Nadal and Djokovic lost those slam finals? Because Roger still managed to hold his own against both Nadal and Djokovic in form?
Djokovic emerged as a top player in the summer of 2007 when he beat Federer for the first time and after that gave him a hell of a fight at the USO. From Montreal 2007 -present Djokovic was a top 3 player and a contender. That's far from at the tail end of Fed's career. He was only 26 at the time.
Right now Nadal does not have anybody good and younger to contend with. So he is having it easy
DRII
G.O.A.T.
:shock:no Nadal, has just had to contend with Federer himself since the onset and grow up along with Nole and Murray
BTW, baby Fed is up and coming, in case you've forgotten...
NatF
Bionic Poster
Yep, at the beginning of Federer's career he had Agassi, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick and Nalbandian to contend with. Since 05 he has Nadal and since 07 he's had Djokovic. It's nonsense.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
So 26 is the tail end of his career? Djokovic emerged as a top player in the summer of 2007. Federer was 26 then. In the summer of 2008 Murray emerged. Federer was 27 then. He was still young and in his prime.yea, at the tail end of his career
Nadal literally grew up along side these two and had to contend with them from the beginning.
the two closest analogous players from Federer's early career are Hewit and Roddick. sorry but Nole + Murray >> Hewit + Roddick, by a pretty wide margin IMO...
It is much harder to face such a strong generation when you are approaching the end of your prime. Because at the same time they are entering theirs. Federer still managed to obtain such good records against Djokovic and Murray despite him being 6 years older.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
uhm, i wouldn't call Federer's records against either as that good.
certainly not near approaching Nadal record against Federer
NatF
Bionic Poster
uhm, i wouldn't call Federer's records against either as that good.
certainly not near approaching Nadal record against Federer
They're 6 years younger than him. Get a clue a man. If they'd been facing prime Federer the last 3-4 years he'd be dominating them as bad as Nadal does. I already illustrated to you that the difference between Nadal's h2h with Djokovic's is likely the fact that Federer has played him more times on hardcourts...
TheMusicLover
G.O.A.T.
You missed the message apparently, all the players you mention were just weak era-bums, even *that* weak that they ended up as no-no cannon fodder for that very mediocre player, uhm what's his name, that guy holding about all valued records in the history of tennis, and who still manages to beat these current great strong era-warriors of nowadays once in a while...
[/ sarcasm]
mike danny
Bionic Poster
He is 10-6 vs Djokovic and Murray in slams and 27-26 overall. I say it is pretty good.uhm, i wouldn't call Federer's records against either as that good.
certainly not near approaching Nadal record against Federer
mike danny
Bionic Poster
And since 2008 Murray
DRII
G.O.A.T.
thats pure conjecture on your part! you have no idea how fully matured Nole and Murray would have competed against prime Federer at the same time.
baby Nadal had a winning record against Federer from the start!
mellowyellow
Legend
Dont forget to add that Murray has had a few opportunistic wins against Fed starting before he was a top player...
NatF
Bionic Poster
Yeah, got him in Cincinati when Federer was clearly more interested in the USO. Dubai when Federer was still suffering from Mono and then at the YEC when Federer had back problems.
However Federer also got to take advantage of Murray's form at the AO this year and he also got a mentally weak Murray in he USO final of 2008 too. Swings and round abouts.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Nadal is a totally different case. His game is mean to trouble Federer from the start. Nadal is literally his worst nightmare. Djokovic and Murray don't have that kind of match-up advantage that Nadal has. Which is why, none of these 2 are in his head.
Please don't compare the Nadal situation with those 2. You know very well that Nadal is his toughest opponent, much tougher than both Djoker and Murray combined.
Why do you think he has better records against then as opposed to his record vs Nadal?
Fed_Djoker_Fan
Banned
Yes. Federer all the time
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Especially given the fact that like 85-90% of those matches were after 2007.
Similar threads
