The Green Mile
Bionic Poster
lol, wordIf their biggest competition is a 36-year old Federer and a bunch of nobodies with a mentality of a 5-year old girl, then I can easily see them compete for majors even then.
lol, wordIf their biggest competition is a 36-year old Federer and a bunch of nobodies with a mentality of a 5-year old girl, then I can easily see them compete for majors even then.
Prime Novak in 2010 lol
Nice, this must mean Federer have same number of slams at W and RG... Wait its 8:1...The players didn’t change, the conditions did. Average rally length of each slam by year:
The trend towards homogenization is obvious, 3 slams had equal rally length in 2011 and the range has been ~1 stroke since. It’s only logical that if surfaces are made to be more similar, certain play styles will gain an advantage and be more consistently successful. The ITF and ATP kept making surface changes to result in lower ball speeds and higher bounce heights without studying poly strings, and defensive baseliners gained a competitive advantage as a result. They admitted as much when they lamented not extensively researching poly strings and allowing them to proliferate the professional ranks without any regulations.
It’s nothing to support one player or try and diminish the achievements of another. Look at Djokovic in the 2007 USO final against Fed, he was an aggressive baseliner and was attacking and hitting winners all over the court. He saw the changes that were taking place and adapted, evolving into the best defender/returner/neutralizer to ever play the game.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
True.It's like saying that Nadal failed to win Wimbledon after 2010 because he faced real competition since thenThe guy has 5 of them. Why did he need to win more?
I swear some of Rafa's fans use this as a reason to bash Fed and it's one of the silliest ever.
It wasn't a thread. It was a thread on some Fed thing with me saying "Federer AO 2017 winner confirmed".I’ve seen the first thread. I didn’t know you predicted the second. What’s the title of the thread so I can take a look at it?
He lasted for 2.5 sets. Getting there is no prime.He was certainly getting there by that final, and the way he beat Fed confirms it. And as if it was ever easy for Nadal to beat Djokovic on HC..... here he did it in a slam final, over 2 years after Novak was a slam champ and 3.5 years after the first time Novak beat him on HC
Yeah, 26 years old Federer is no competition at Wimbledon.True.It's like saying that Nadal failed to win Wimbledon after 2010 because he faced real competition since then
Yes. Djokovic lost in 3 sets against Federer at the USO 2009. At the USO 2010 he beat Federer in 5, the same result than in his match against Federer at the USO 2011, proving he alrrqdy peaked the last months of 2010.Prime Novak in 2010 lol
Dude you weren't watching tennis in 2010 I'm 100% sure. Djokovic played extremely well for his 2010 standards for one match and one match only against an older Fed who tanked two sets and still need to save match points. He returned to his crapola level after the US Open, Fed beat him in Shanghai and murdered him at the WTF.Yes. Djokovic lost in 3 sets against Federer at the USO 2009. At the USO 2010 he beat Federer in 5, the same result than in his match against Federer at the USO 2011, proving he alrrqdy peaked the last months of 2010.
Dude you weren't watching tennis in 2010 I'm 100% sure. Djokovic played extremely well for his 2010 standards for one match and one match only against an older Fed who tanked two sets and still need to save match points. He returned to his crapola level after the US Open, Fed beat him in Shanghai and murdered him at the WTF.
The only tournament where he reached that 2011 level was in the DC final but that was in December.
Saying that Nadal beat peak Djokovic is like saying that Roddick beat peak Federer in Canada in 2003 or that Nalbandian beat peak Federer at the 2003 US Open.
Some GOAT if he consistently requires flukes to beat Senilerer.No one else would have beaten Djokovic in the 2010 USO final bro, it's ok LOL at how you try to come for EVERY Nadal victory off clay. We're very sorry Federer has lost from 40-15 3 times to Djokovic.
Some GOAT if he required several flukes to beat Owlderer.
You didn't get my point.The thing is some Rafanatics like beast of mallorca bash Fed because he didn't won USO since 2008 and I used the same argument in Rafa's case at Wimbledon to point out how stupid his argument was.Yeah, 26 years old Federer is no competition at Wimbledon.
He did not start bashing Federer. He replied to Fednatic tennis_pro, who asserted in a previous comment that Nadal only wins the USO because of his draw. Hence, the proportional reply of beast of mallorca "then why hasn't Federer won the USO since 2008?", implying he doesn't win it anymore because of the draw. Yet, I didn't see you criticize tennis_pro.You didn't get my point.The thing is some Rafanatics like beast of mallorca bash Fed because he didn't won USO since 2008 and I used the same argument in Rafa's case at Wimbledon to point out how stupid his argument was.
He didn't replied to tennis_pro though.I agree with the bolded.He did not start bashing Federer. He replied to Fednatic tennis_pro, who asserted in a previous comment that Nadal only wins the USO because of his draw. Hence, the proportional reply of beast of mallorca "then why hasn't Federer won the USO since 2008?", implying he doesn't win it anymore because of the draw. Yet, I didn't see you criticize tennis_pro.
If both fanbases try to be nice to each other, this little war could be easily avoided.
Or AO since 2009.True.It's like saying that Nadal failed to win Wimbledon after 2010 because he faced real competition since then
2004-2007 was before the ITF and ATP mandated homogenization of surfaces, and there was such a thing as surface specialists. All stats comparing an era of surface specialization and diversity to an era of surface homogenization with slower speeds and higher bounce heights are inherently flawed.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes, because an extremelly well-playing Verdasco and 27 years old Federer is not strong competition.Or AO since 2009.
So we don't know good was Federer at the AO 2018 because the Next Gen sucks? Or does your logic only apply to Nadovic?well we dont know how good or bad they are because the nextgen and lost gen absolutrly suck
But he hasn't won another AO after that, which is the main point.Yes, because an extremelly well-playing Verdasco and 27 years old Federer is not strong competition.
Nadal, Murray and Federer altogether have 0 wins over Djokovic since 2008 at the Australian. There's the difference. I don't see how that's something special to gloat about from any fan other than Djokovic'But he hasn't won another AO after that, which is the main point.
Nadal, Murray and Federer altogether have 0 wins over Djokovic since 2008 at the Australian. There's the difference. I don't see how that's something special to gloat about from any fan other than Djokovic'
yes because 2018 Djokovic was top competition.Well, 2009, 2010, 2017 and 2018 versions of Djokovic were there for the taking.
yes because 2018 Djokovic was top competition.
Well, that's the point.yes because 2018 Djokovic was top competition.
Well, that's the point.
If their biggest competition is a 36-year old Federer and a bunch of nobodies with a mentality of a 5-year old girl, then I can easily see them compete for majors even then.
So we don't know good was Federer at the AO 2018 because the Next Gen sucks? Or does your logic only apply to Nadovic?
Please tell me that last sentence is a joke.
Prime Novak in 2010 lol
Just to clarify, do you mean that Nadal would have sent prime Federer (the one who won five USO titles in a row) packing in any of those tournaments, or do you mean the version of Federer who competed in those same tournaments (2010 Federer, 2013 Federer, etc.)? If it's the latter, I misunderstood your original comment.Ok, if you think it's a joke, tell me which title run Nadal had at the US Open where Fed would've beat him:
2010? Unlikely
2013? No chance
2017? Not as unlikely as 2010 but still unlikely
2019? Nope
Amids the mostly amazingly correct predictions your comment looks like whining just to troll, which is what you are doing.
Exactly!
How do you think Djokovic defeated Nadal at RG in 2015?
Yes, he adjusted really well, his clay resume is a testament to that.I would put sampras' 14 slams ahead of the big three's slam achievements. Because sampras won in an era of real surface variety and style variety, where he had to adjust to different playing conditions and surface specialists as well as some great all round players
And all those monsters he beat in Slam finals like Pioline, Martin or baby Moya.Yes, he adjusted really well, his clay resume is a testament to that.
Just to clarify, do you mean that Nadal would have sent prime Federer (the one who won five USO titles in a row) packing in any of those tournaments, or do you mean the version of Federer who competed in those same tournaments (2010 Federer, 2013 Federer, etc.)? If it's the latter, I misunderstood your original comment.
Ok, sorry for that!Yes, I meant the latter.
Nice, this must mean Federer have same number of slams at W and RG... Wait its 8:1...
Wait,lets see Nadal, he must have about same no of titles at W and RG... But wait, its 12:2...
But, but, but rallies length about the same, it must of be same to play on it... I heard some term of homogenisation and wanted to use it, but something doesn't work...
Add to what?
I didn't think so
And, my point was that conditions haven't become so similar over time as you say, which is proved by enormous difference in accomplishments of different players on different surfaces.You might have an almost relevant point if I was over here arguing that Fed is the ultra GOAT and was robbed of slams, but I’m not lol. I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say, it’s been documented from a myriad of credible sources that it was a conscious decision to slow surfaces and raise bounce heights.
If you’re drawing those conclusion from that chart then maybe you’d be more comfortable with a chart like this:
My point was that it’s inherently biased to make comparisons between eras using metrics that reward consistency, as conditions become more similar over time. To call 03-07 a ‘weak era’ because of lower scoring consistency based metric is a fundamentally flawed argument.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fallacy of false dilemma, which consists in incorrectly presenting a false dichotomy in which there are supposedly only 2 avalaible options, when in reality there are more options.You might have an almost relevant point if I was over here arguing that Fed is the ultra GOAT and was robbed of slams, but I’m not lol. I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say, it’s been documented from a myriad of credible sources that it was a conscious decision to slow surfaces and raise bounce heights.
If you’re drawing those conclusion from that chart then maybe you’d be more comfortable with a chart like this:
My point was that it’s inherently biased to make comparisons between eras using metrics that reward consistency, as conditions become more similar over time. To call 03-07 a ‘weak era’ because of lower scoring consistency based metric is a fundamentally flawed argument.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ok, sorry for that!
Ok, sorry for that!
Why shouldn't I?you believe him lol
Fed had a back injury and didn't even practice on the USTA grounds in 2017. He could barely move in the Canadian final against Zverev.Ok, if you think it's a joke, tell me which title run Nadal had at the US Open where Fed would've beat him:
2010? Unlikely
2013? No chance
2017? Not as unlikely as 2010 but still unlikely
2019? Nope
not wings???I see through the trolling and know how much you love Rafa, it's ok Following in the steps of Vive lol, we'll talk about it over Pizza in heaven