If Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic Were all the same age.

[Povl Carstensen]

Its the same every time, Federer acknowledged as best / goat by a big margin (no contest at all), and a few frustrated Nadal and Djokovic fans bickering and argueing in circles.
Btw I think Nadal and Djok are great.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

They began playing some matches indoors where Nadal pretty much sucks, so those were pretty much guaranteed wins for Federer. Fortunately for Nadal it is by far the least important surface which doesnt and never has hosted a slam event. Of course TW must worship indoors by all the love Fatbandian gets on here.

How many of those 5 losses were indoors?

 

[tennis_pro]

They began playing some matches indoors where Nadal pretty much sucks, so those were pretty much guaranteed wins for Federer. Fortunately for Nadal it is by far the least important surface which doesnt and never has hosted a slam event. Of course TW must worship indoors by all the love Fatbandian gets on here.

They played only twice indoors in that span.

2006 Wimbledon
2006 WTF
2007 Monte Carlo
2007 Hamburg
2007 French Open
2007 Wimbledon
2007 WTF

What about the 2004-mid 2006 span? Out of the 7 matches played 4 were on clay and only 1 match on a fast hard court (Dubai) where Federer was still playing with a stripped ankle btw.

 

[Towser83]

This poll is nothing but a popularity contest so is pointless. Of course on Federer Palace, Federer will easily win the poll.

On the silly and ridiculous hypothetical it depends what age they are really. From age 18 to 21 Federer isnt even half the player Nadal and to some degree Djokovic were at those ages. We have yet to see Nadal or Djokovic from age 26 and beyond so impossible to say there.

From age 22 to 26, well Nadal would totally own Federer on clay and isnt losing regularly before finals on other surfaces at those ages like he did while Federer dominated when Nadal was young. So Federer who would have no chance to ever beat Nadal on clay, and has trouble with Nadal on all surfaces, would still have a hard time being #1 even then IMO. Then when you factor in Djokovic as well I am not sure how it all turns out in the big picture.

Agree that Nadal and Djokovic were better players at 19-22, but Nadal owning Federer on clay from 22 to 26? More like 19-24. Did you see Nadal play at this year's French Open? He had a hard time against a 30 year old and mentally scarred Federer. A 25 year old Federer (same Federer from Rome 2006 and RG 2006) would easily have a shot, and Who knows how Nadal will even play next year?

They began playing some matches indoors where Nadal pretty much sucks, so those were pretty much guaranteed wins for Federer. Fortunately for Nadal it is by far the least important surface which doesnt and never has hosted a slam event. Of course TW must worship indoors by all the love Fatbandian gets on here.

Lol. Yes of course it is rather unjust for Nadal to have to play Federer a whopping 3 times on indoor hard over 4 years, also unfair that they have only played 12(?) times on clay. The meetings have always favoured Federer with the surfaces... :roll:

Also why does Nadal suck on indoor hard? Apparently a 17-19 year old Nadal beating an unsuspecting Federer in the first round of Miami, and the elite, prestigious 250 Doha event, proves he was better than him, so a 19 year old Nadal winning Madrid indoors should prove he is a capable indoor player.

As for Djokovic, great player no doubt but he has trouble against Federer even NOW.

 

[tenniselbow1]

Its the same every time, Federer acknowledged as best / goat by a big margin (no contest at all), and a few frustrated Nadal and Djokovic fans bickering and argueing in circles.
Btw I think Nadal and Djok are great.

Have you seen the most recent margin in this poll? Absurd how these frustrated few can still convince themselves they are right

 

[tennis_pro]

Lol. Yes of course it is rather unjust for Nadal to have to play Federer a whopping 3 times on indoor hard over 4 years, also unfair that they have only played 12(?) times on clay. The meetings have always favoured Federer with the surfaces... :roll:

Also why does Nadal suck on indoor hard? Apparently a 17-19 year old Nadal beating an unsuspecting Federer in the first round of Miami, and the elite, prestigious 250 Doha event, proves he was better than him, so a 19 year old Nadal winning Madrid indoors should prove he is a capable indoor player.

As for Djokovic, great player no doubt but he has trouble against Federer even NOW.

Now I've heard everything. Nadal is unlucky to play Federer 3 times on indoor hard courts in 7-8 years really since their rivalry began in 2004 while it's perfectly fine with some that they played, what, 14 times on clay? Gimme a break, Nadal wouldn't touch prime Federer in any big match out of clay. Too bad he couldn't get past Blake or Gonzalez so that the *********s have something to speculate on. Good luck with Nadal beating Federer serving at 75 % first serves on a fast surface.

 

[Set Sampras]

I think its more to do with the fact, that Nadal leaves everything on the table through the whole season so he doesn't have the health and focus by YEC time. hell look at Djokovic. He gave everything he had all season and now his body is paying for it. Thats the downfall of going balls to the wall the entire year really.


Nadal wouldn't touch Fed outside of clay? Hes been "touching him" since 2004. He took out Fed in 08, took him out in 09 (the year Fed made the finals of every slams).. Outside on indoors, no one should like Fed's chances against Nadal prime for prime.

 

[Clarky21]

I think its more to do with the fact, that Nadal leaves everything on the table through the whole season so he doesn't have the health and focus by YEC time. hell look at Djokovic. He gave everything he had all season and now his body is paying for it. Thats the downfall of going balls to the wall the entire year really.


Nadal wouldn't touch Fed outside of clay? Hes been "touching him" since 2004. He took out Fed in 08, took him out in 09 (the year Fed made the finals of every slams).. Outside on indoors, no one should like Fed's chances against Nadal prime for prime.

Nope. He is not injured,and will not miss any of the fall tournies coming up.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Now I've heard everything. Nadal is unlucky to play Federer 3 times on indoor hard courts in 7-8 years really since their rivalry began in 2004 while it's perfectly fine with some that they played, what, 14 times on clay? Gimme a break, Nadal wouldn't touch prime Federer in any big match out of clay. Too bad he couldn't get past Blake or Gonzalez so that the *********s have something to speculate on. Good luck with Nadal beating Federer serving at 75 % first serves on a fast surface.

The 2007 Wimbledon final could have gone either way, and even Federer admitted Nadal badly outclassed him from the baseline (their mutual predominant game) that day, and it took a career serving performance and probably his best ever big point performance (think of all the break points he saved, and capatilizing on all his chances, very unusual when he plays Nadal) to pull through. Nadal arguably wasnt even in his prime yet. Nadal beat Federer on hard courts multiple times, and Nadal is tougher to play in a best of 5 than a best of 3, especialy for Federer who is usually mentally weak vs Nadal. I wouldnt be so sure of this statement if I were you.

One thing is for sure, prime Nadal would have a better chance of beating prime Federer anywhere but the WTF than prime Federer ever had of beating any version of Nadal at Roland Garros.

 

[The-Champ]

a 24 year old federer would walk all over the nadal on clay this year..

 

[NadalAgassi]

Lol. Yes of course it is rather unjust for Nadal to have to play Federer a whopping 3 times on indoor hard over 4 years, also unfair that they have only played 12(?) times on clay.

What is a more important and predominant surface in todays game (or at any point in history). Indoors or clay. I think you know full well the answer. I agree that the head to head is lopsided with the extra clay meetings but their hard court head to head (even with the 0-3 indoors) is 4-4. So drop the clay meetings to say 6 (which would be 6-0 or 5-1 in favor of Nadal), raise the hard court meetings to 14 or whatever you want (which based on their current h2h would be 7-7) and Nadal still considerably leads the H2H.

Also why does Nadal suck on indoor hard? Apparently a 17-19 year old Nadal beating an unsuspecting Federer in the first round of Miami, and the elite, prestigious 250 Doha event, proves he was better than him, so a 19 year old Nadal winning Madrid indoors should prove he is a capable indoor player.

He won the Madrid Masters since mental midget Ljubicic choked in the final, and almost nobody else in the top 10 even played. The way Ljubicic was completely overwhelming him in the final before the choke already says enough. I feel sorry for Fernando Gonzalez who played the match of his life vs Ljubicic in the quarters but still was beaten from 6-3, 2-0 down by Ljubicic. If Gonzalez had made the final there he would have won his only Masters. Oh well.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Agree that Nadal and Djokovic were better players at 19-22, but Nadal owning Federer on clay from 22 to 26? More like 19-24. Did you see Nadal play at this year's French Open? He had a hard time against a 30 year old and mentally scarred Federer. A 25 year old Federer (same Federer from Rome 2006 and RG 2006) would easily have a shot, and Who knows how Nadal will even play next year?

I thought you claimed Nadal was still playing as well as ever and was just being outplayed by Djokovic (which I mostly agreed with btw, although his clay game has declined significantly IMO). Yet now you are basically saying Nadal is much weaker now, and would even be losing to prime Federer on clay. So which is it.

 

[tennis_pro]

The 2007 Wimbledon final could have gone either way, and even Federer admitted Nadal badly outclassed him from the baseline (their mutual predominant game) that day, and it took a career serving performance and probably his best ever big point performance (think of all the break points he saved, and capatilizing on all his chances, very unusual when he plays Nadal) to pull through. Nadal arguably wasnt even in his prime yet. Nadal beat Federer on hard courts multiple times, and Nadal is tougher to play in a best of 5 than a best of 3, especialy for Federer who is usually mentally weak vs Nadal. I wouldnt be so sure of this statement if I were you.

One thing is for sure, prime Nadal would have a better chance of beating prime Federer anywhere but the WTF than prime Federer ever had of beating any version of Nadal at Roland Garros.

Nadal arguably not being in his prime in 2007 is just as saying Federer wasn't arguably in his prime in 2007.

I also don't think Nadal would've beaten Federer if Fed's decline in 2008 compared to 2007 was similar to his 2007 decline compared to 2006. It was a big jump in 08 compared to 07, followed mostly by his sickness in early 2008, lack of match play and simply lack of confidence.

Btw it didn't take Federer a "career serving" performance as he served similar to that throughout whole 2007. Just look at his AO, US or WTF serving % to name a few. Sampras' whole career was based mostly on a single shot, why don't we take away his serve as well?

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

I thought you claimed Nadal was still playing as well as ever and was just being outplayed by Djokovic (which I mostly agreed with btw, although his clay game has declined significantly IMO). Yet now you are basically saying Nadal is much weaker now, and would even be losing to prime Federer on clay. So which is it.

Actually it's YOU who just contradicted yourself. See bold. LOL get it straight ****. Nadal has not declined one iota. Djoker is simply superior on all counts. The data prove it.

 

[NadalAgassi]

At the time of the 2007 Wimbledon final it was the best Federer had ever served. His serve is one aspect that has gotten better through the years as his baseline game has declined, atleast up until very recently. Federer even admitted he was dominated from the baseline in that match though. The 2006 Wimbledon final is the only one of their 3 grass matches Federer even matched Nadal from the baseline, and even in that one he lost alot of the rallies.

 

[tennis_pro]

What is a more important and predominant surface in todays game (or at any point in history). Indoors or clay. I think you know full well the answer. I agree that the head to head is lopsided with the extra clay meetings but their hard court head to head (even with the 0-3 indoors) is 4-4. So drop the clay meetings to say 6 (which would be 6-0 or 5-1 in favor of Nadal), raise the hard court meetings to 14 or whatever you want (which based on their current h2h would be 7-7) and Nadal still considerably leads the H2H.

Neither. Both are at about 25 % of the season with clay having 3 masters (1 non-mandatory) and a slam while "indoor" lasts from now on till the end of the season (2 masters + wtf)

 

[tennis_pro]

At the time of the 2007 Wimbledon final it was the best Federer had ever served. His serve is one aspect that has gotten better through the years as his baseline game has declined, atleast up until very recently. Federer even admitted he was dominated from the baseline in that match though. The 2006 Wimbledon final is the only one of their 3 grass matches Federer even matched Nadal from the baseline, and even in that one he lost alot of the rallies.

He also served great at Halle/Wimbledon in 2008 but started to shank a lot.

Point is, his serve was always there to rescue him. Not so much his ground game. He really could (can) afford some lacks from the baseline as long as his serve holds up. Obviously you don't realize how good Federer's 2004-2006 serve was cause it was a full package.

 

[Clarky21]

a 24 year old federer would walk all over the nadal on clay this year..

Yep. I think prime Fed could have taken out Nadal on every surface this year. Old Fed took a set off of Nadal at RG and Madrid this year so I am sure prime Fed would have beaten the Nadal of this year badly.

 

[Biscuitmcgriddleson]

The 2007 Wimbledon final could have gone either way, and even Federer admitted Nadal badly outclassed him from the baseline (their mutual predominant game) that day, and it took a career serving performance and probably his best ever big point performance (think of all the break points he saved, and capatilizing on all his chances, very unusual when he plays Nadal) to pull through. Nadal arguably wasnt even in his prime yet. Nadal beat Federer on hard courts multiple times, and Nadal is tougher to play in a best of 5 than a best of 3, especialy for Federer who is usually mentally weak vs Nadal. I wouldnt be so sure of this statement if I were you.

One thing is for sure, prime Nadal would have a better chance of beating prime Federer anywhere but the WTF than prime Federer ever had of beating any version of Nadal at Roland Garros.

24 year old Federer wouldn't have beat 24 year old Nadal at RG? I guess you never watched Rome 2006. But hey it's ok........ you're special

 

[Biscuitmcgriddleson]

Agree that Nadal and Djokovic were better players at 19-22, but Nadal owning Federer on clay from 22 to 26? More like 19-24. Did you see Nadal play at this year's French Open? He had a hard time against a 30 year old and mentally scarred Federer. A 25 year old Federer (same Federer from Rome 2006 and RG 2006) would easily have a shot, and Who knows how Nadal will even play next year?




Lol. Yes of course it is rather unjust for Nadal to have to play Federer a whopping 3 times on indoor hard over 4 years, also unfair that they have only played 12(?) times on clay. The meetings have always favoured Federer with the surfaces... :roll:

Also why does Nadal suck on indoor hard? Apparently a 17-19 year old Nadal beating an unsuspecting Federer in the first round of Miami, and the elite, prestigious 250 Doha event, proves he was better than him, so a 19 year old Nadal winning Madrid indoors should prove he is a capable indoor player.

As for Djokovic, great player no doubt but he has trouble against Federer even NOW.

Careful there. Posters don't respond to logic.

 

[tennis_pro]

24 year old Federer wouldn't have beat 24 year old Nadal at RG? I guess you never watched Rome 2006. But hey it's ok........ you're special

I don't know when will people realize that Nadal was at his clay best in 2006-2009. Stamina, endurance and rallying skills is ALL that's required on clay. Who cares Nadal improved his volleys or serve if he's not as fast as he was a couple of years back.

Nadal on clay in 2006 > Nadal on clay in 2011, I would even argue that Nadal in 2005 on clay would challenge this year's Nadal on the red dirt

 

[NadalAgassi]

24 year old Federer wouldn't have beat 24 year old Nadal at RG? I guess you never watched Rome 2006. But hey it's ok........ you're special

Federer playing aguably his best clay court match ever and still losing, like he virtually always loses to Nadal on clay. Yep good example, you are the one who is special I think. Now we have ****s even trying to argue prime Federer is better than Nadal on clay, now I have heard it all.

 

[Biscuitmcgriddleson]

I don't know when will people realize that Nadal was at his clay best in 2006-2009. Stamina, endurance and rallying skills is ALL that's required on clay. Who cares Nadal improved his volleys or serve if he's not as fast as he was a couple of years back.

Nadal on clay in 2006 > Nadal on clay in 2011, I would even argue that Nadal in 2005 on clay would challenge this year's Nadal on the red dirt

People also don't remember that he nearly took Nadal to 5 sets at RG in 2006. But it's ok, every form of Nadal on Clay is better than Federer's. Even when Nadal doesn't win his form is better, it's just that his form didn't show up that day but it's still better. You know?

 

[NadalAgassi]

People also don't remember that he nearly took Nadal to 5 sets at RG in 2006. But it's ok, every form of Nadal on Clay is better than Federer's. Even when Nadal doesn't win his form is better, it's just that his form didn't show up that day but it's still better. You know?

Every form of Nadal on clay has easily beaten Federer over and over again, be it 18 year old Nadal, peak Nadal, current Nadal, so your attempted point is ridiculous. You seem even dumber than most ****s which is an achievement in itself.

 

[Biscuitmcgriddleson]

Federer playing aguably his best clay court match ever and still losing, like he virtually always loses to Nadal on clay. Yep good example, you are the one who is special I think. Now we have ****s even trying to argue prime Federer is better than Nadal on clay, now I have heard it all.

Not arguing that. However, I implore you yo pick up your coke bottles and read my post in a more thorough manner. I SAID THAT FEDERER OF 2006 COULD BEAT NADAL 2011 ON CLAY. WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT PRIME FEDERER IS BETTER THAN NADAL ON CLAY?

 

[Towser83]

What is a more important and predominant surface in todays game (or at any point in history). Indoors or clay. I think you know full well the answer. I agree that the head to head is lopsided with the extra clay meetings but their hard court head to head (even with the 0-3 indoors) is 4-4. So drop the clay meetings to say 6 (which would be 6-0 or 5-1 in favor of Nadal), raise the hard court meetings to 14 or whatever you want (which based on their current h2h would be 7-7) and Nadal still considerably leads the H2H.

It doesn't matter that there is a slam on clay and isn't on inddor hard. The AO has a roof, technically if the final was played with the roof closed then that is indoor hard. Also just because it's indoors, doesn't mean that is the only factor in the way it plays favouring a player, any fast hardcourt favours Federer. Also I'm not saying clay is a lesser surface than Hardcourt because it only has one major. A tennis match is a tennis match regardless of surface, the end of year masters where Federer got the 3 wins is the 5th most prestigious tournament. No one surface is better than another, a tournament can be, hence the majors are more important, but I'd rank the TMC/WTF above every Clay and Hardcourt masters and tournaments like Queens. Just seems like you were accounting for Federer closing the H2H because he got to play a lot of matches on indoor hard. Well it was only as lopsided as it was because so many were on clay, so it's a bit of a ridiculous argument.

I thought you claimed Nadal was still playing as well as ever and was just being outplayed by Djokovic (which I mostly agreed with btw, although his clay game has declined significantly IMO). Yet now you are basically saying Nadal is much weaker now, and would even be losing to prime Federer on clay. So which is it.

At the French Open I admit he played pretty badly, the rest of the year he played well, on clay not his best but still good, on hardcourt he's playing as good as ever.

 

[Biscuitmcgriddleson]

Every form of Nadal on clay has easily beaten Federer over and over again, be it 18 year old Nadal, peak Nadal, current Nadal, so your attempted point is ridiculous. You seem even dumber than most ****s which is an achievement in itself.

GREAT SCOTT! Have you been hanging with Dr. Brown again? When did Nadal 2011 play 2006? Hey if you have a time machine could you go back and fix a few blunders in the Government please?

 

[veroniquem]

Federer at 24 couldn't beat a teenage Rafa on clay. How could he beat a prime Rafa? No way.

 

[Biscuitmcgriddleson]

Federer at 24 couldn't beat a teenage Rafa on clay. How could he beat a prime Rafa? No way.

So this was Prime Rafa? Man sure sucks being owned by your rival in your prime right?

 

[veroniquem]

Djoko is a bad matchup for Rafa, that's all there is to it. Rafa made every single clay final this year and that's only the second time he's doing it (1st time was 2007). No version of Fed can beat any version of Rafa at RG. I really wouldn't have thought that was a controversial statement, it's so obvious. Fed is a perfect matchup for Rafa on slow clay.

 

[fms]

Probably. I guess he prefers ping pong to tennis, as that is the game Nadal plays.

Please do not insult table tennis like that. If Nadal played table tennis like he plays tennis, he would get slaughtered.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Djoker 2.0 is not simply a bad match up for Nadal like Nadal is to Fed. Djoker 2.0 is simply a superior tennis player to Nadal in every way.

 

[Biscuitmcgriddleson]

Djoker 2.0 is not simply a bad match up for Nadal like Nadal is to Fed. Djoker 2.0 is simply a superior tennis player to Nadal in every way.

Really can't wait for Nadal fans to start playing the "MATCHUP" card.

 

[Clarky21]

Djoko is a bad matchup for Rafa, that's all there is to it. Rafa made every single clay final this year and that's only the second time he's doing it (1st time was 2007). No version of Fed can beat any version of Rafa at RG. I really wouldn't have thought that was a controversial statement, it's so obvious. Fed is a perfect matchup for Rafa on slow clay.

Fed could have beaten Nadal this year at RG if not for choking away the first set the way he did. That started his downfall in that match,and he then choked the whole match away like he seems to almost always do against Nadal. Plus,Nadal played like crap all the way through RG,and didn't even deserve to win it. He had to depend on Roger to do his dirty work for him by beating Cvac because Nadal sure as h*ll wasn't going to do it.

 

[Biscuitmcgriddleson]

Djoko is a bad matchup for Rafa, that's all there is to it. Rafa made every single clay final this year and that's only the second time he's doing it (1st time was 2007). No version of Fed can beat any version of Rafa at RG. I really wouldn't have thought that was a controversial statement, it's so obvious. Fed is a perfect matchup for Rafa on slow clay.

Matchup. My god..... this is tennis. Matchup means nothing. All matchups are equal!

 

[Towser83]

The 2007 Wimbledon final could have gone either way, and even Federer admitted Nadal badly outclassed him from the baseline (their mutual predominant game) that day, and it took a career serving performance and probably his best ever big point performance (think of all the break points he saved, and capatilizing on all his chances, very unusual when he plays Nadal) to pull through. Nadal arguably wasnt even in his prime yet. Nadal beat Federer on hard courts multiple times, and Nadal is tougher to play in a best of 5 than a best of 3, especialy for Federer who is usually mentally weak vs Nadal. I wouldnt be so sure of this statement if I were you.

One thing is for sure, prime Nadal would have a better chance of beating prime Federer anywhere but the WTF than prime Federer ever had of beating any version of Nadal at Roland Garros.

Thing is, Nadal only beat Federer once in a best of 5 hardcourt match and once in a best of 5 grass match, so if best of 5 is a whole different game (which it is) then those results are not conclusive. People often say Nadal beat Federer 2 times out of 3 on hard, like there were only 3 meetings, when in truth it's just because this point represented the best H2H over Federer on hard, so let's just pick that point in time. I can easily pick the end of 2007 when Federer had a narrow 6-8 H2H overall and winning H2H on grass and Hardcourt - in fact this is the fairest point in the H2H because the meetings were as evenly spread over the surfaces as they ever would be, but even then we all know Federer started declining after this point and before this point Nadal was not as consistant as he became.

Still the first time Nadal beat Federer in a best of 5 hardcourt match was 2009 when Federer was past his best. He was still very good, but when dealing with 2 top players if one slips a bit that could be all that decides it. Federer has lost a lot of matches in recent years due to a slight dip in his form - it's like if Nadal loses a tiny bit of speed. Up til 2009 (when Federer had won 8 of the 9 HC slams he has, so basically towards the end of his HC dominance) Nadal had never beaten Federer over 5 sets on hardcourt, a miami first round and the final of a 250 don't compare and even the miami masters 2005 final does not compare to a major. Whether you like Federer or not, his record in slams is much better than in any other tournament. He even gets beaten again and again by Murray but won't lose a set in a slam against him because he is much more serious about winning the big events.

He basically choked the 2009 AO final away, his game was very good that day (never seen him rally so good) but he served badly and crucially choked break points and got mentally tired at the end, something he didn't do as much in his best years. He played good but he'd played better in years before, it was a slight dip which combined with Nadal being slightly better caused the loss. I think If Federer had taken one of the several break points in the 3rd, He'd have won, so a very slight dip in form can cause a result like this. Also with Wimbledon, he'd won 5 years in a row, it was obvious if Nadal had played him every year he was going to win sooner or later.

 

[veroniquem]

Fed could have beaten Nadal this year at RG if not for choking away the first set the way he did. That started his downfall in that match,and he then choked the whole match away like he seems to almost always do against Nadal. Plus,Nadal played like crap all the way through RG,and didn't even deserve to win it. He had to depend on Roger to do his dirty work for him by beating Cvac because Nadal sure as h*ll wasn't going to do it.

Fed would not have beaten Rafa in any clay event this year. He got very lucky to even make the final at RG.

 

[NadalAgassi]

You are right there is limited evidence. However one would assume if Nadal was holding his own with Federer and sometimes winning in best of 3s on hard courts, he would definitely have as good or better a chance in best of 5. Since Nadal is harder to beat in a best of 5 than a best of 3. His fitness was unmatched up until this year, as is his mental toughness. Federer is also even harder to beat in a best of 5, but to no more an extent then Nadal. When Federer was winning all the non clay slams, he was winning virtually every non clay match (when he didnt play Nadal especialy) so that was no difference really. Nadal at that point had alot of players who could take him out on hard courts both in regular events and slams, so it mostly came down to the draws for him. So why would Federer have a better chance when meeting Nadal in a best of 5. Of course you have to win 7 matches to win an event so Federer deserved all his hard court and other slams, and it is well known Nadal has problems with alot of players on hard courts so really doesnt deserve anymore than he currently has. However I laugh at the idea prime Nadal would only have any chance vs prime Federer on clay.

 

[Towser83]

Djoko is a bad matchup for Rafa, that's all there is to it. Rafa made every single clay final this year and that's only the second time he's doing it (1st time was 2007). No version of Fed can beat any version of Rafa at RG. I really wouldn't have thought that was a controversial statement, it's so obvious. Fed is a perfect matchup for Rafa on slow clay.

It's not controversial, it's just an easy knee-jerk one. Rafa played pretty bad at this year's RG final and still did well not to get taken to 5 by a 30 year old mentally scarred Federer. I mean a solid Nadal would have won something like 6-2 6-4 6-2. He still needed Federer to choke a big lead in the first set and had to dig out the second in a tiebreak before losing the 3rd form being a break up and almost got broken in the first game of the 4th.

Even after snatching the set from Federer in the first set he kept letting Federer back in. Considering that Federer nearly took a much better nadal to 5 in Roland Garros back in 2006 (and this being before Roger ever lost a slam final) I seriously think Federer could have beaten him if Nadal had played like he did this year.

That is not saying that Federer is better than Nadal on clay, but to say that Nadal's bad form can still beat anyone's best form is just arrogant, considering he has been beating at RG.

Also with Djokovic, all very well saying he's a bad matchup but Nadal had never once lost to Djokovic on clay before this year in abaout 10 meetings. So it's not a matchup issue, Djokovic has just been the better player on clay this year (and every other surface)

 

[NadalAgassi]

Nadal won Monte Carlo and French Open. Djokovic won Rome and Madrid. Nadal did not miss a clay court final, while Djokovic did. Obviously Nadal is still the best clay courter of 2011. If Djokovic had played and won Monte Carlo too (which is anyones guess as it is the slowest clay out there, and multiple guys nearly beat him in Rome and Madrid even if Nadal didnt) he would have a claim to be best clay courter of 2011 even losing in the FO semis, but he didnt.

 

[Biscuitmcgriddleson]

Nadal won Monte Carlo and French Open. Djokovic won Rome and Madrid. Nadal did not miss a clay court final, while Djokovic did. Obviously Nadal is still the best clay courter of 2011.

What ever helps ya sleep at night buddy.

 

[veroniquem]

Federer has the WORST possible record in 5th sets. To give you an idea, this is a few win % for 5th set in open era:

1-Nadal: 83.3
4-Borg: 80.0
8-Murray: 75.0
11-Djokovic: 72.2
17-Becker: 69.6
19-Sampras: 68.8
117-Federer: 52.9


The notion that 5 setters would have helped Fed in any way, shape or form get an edge over Nadal at any point in his career is HIGHLY laughable

 

[NadalAgassi]

What ever helps ya sleep at night buddy.

LOL people will look at the history books years from now and see one player won the French Open, Monte Carlo, and was runner up in Rome and Madrid. The other won Rome, Madrid, and lost in the French Open semis. It is pretty obvious who all will conclude was the top clay courter of the year.

 

[veroniquem]

What ever helps ya sleep at night buddy.

Of course he is (the best clay courter). He won the clay slam, didn't he?

 

[NadalAgassi]

Federer has the WORST possible record in 5th sets. To give you an idea, this is a few win % for 5th set in open era:

1-Nadal: 83.3
4-Borg: 80.0
8-Murray: 75.0
11-Djokovic: 72.2
17-Becker: 69.6
19-Sampras: 68.8
117-Federer: 52.9


The notion that 5 setters would have helped Fed in any way, shape or form to get an edge over Nadal at any point in his career is HIGHLY laughable

Exactly. To say Nadal would have had no chance against Federer if they played in a hard court slam in Federers prime is to say Federer is much stronger compared to Nadal in a best of 5 relative to a best of 3. Since as we already have seen teenage Nadal can certainly beat prime or peak Federer in best of 3s on hard courts. He did it easily in Miami (when Nadal was 17), did it on the fast Dubai court, should have done it in 3 straight sets in the 2005 Miami final where he choked a huge lead. This is when almost nobody but Nadal could beat Federer in a hard court match anywhere. I dont believe anyone else won more from the 2003 YEC until Canas in March 2007. Yet the stats in no way indicate Federer is tougher to beat in a best of 5 relative to Nadal.

Nadal failed to make those finals so Federer deserved to win his slams, but that argument as another desperate way to detract from what a tough matchup Nadal is for Federer is an epic fail.

 

[Set Sampras]

Exactly. To say Nadal would have had no chance against Federer if they played in a hard court slam in Federers prime is to say Federer is much stronger compared to Nadal in a best of 5 relative to a best of 3. Since as we already have seen teenage Nadal can certainly beat prime or peak Federer in best of 3s on hard courts. He did it easily in Miami (when Nadal was 17), did it on the fast Dubai court, should have done it in 3 straight sets in the 2005 Miami final where he choked a huge lead. Yet the stats in no way indicate Federer is tougher to beat in a best of 5 relative to Nadal.

Nadal failed to make those finals so Federer deserved to win his slams, but that argument as another desperate way to detract from what a tough matchup Nadal is for Federer is an epic fail.

Thats a pretty telling percentage. It seems to say, just don't let your foot of the gas and continue to take it to Fed and push it 5 and you have a good chance of beating him if you can do that. Thats a **** poor 5th set percentage. But Fed always like the subservient players who bend over and let Fed violate them instead of putting up the fight. It was pretty telling this year. Two straight slams he had a 2 set lead and the opponent nevetr gave up and Fed eventually folded in the 5th.

 

[Towser83]

You are right there is limited evidence. However one would assume if Nadal was holding his own with Federer and sometimes winning in best of 3s on hard courts, he would definitely have as good or better a chance in best of 5. Since Nadal is harder to beat in a best of 5 than a best of 3. His fitness was unmatched up until this year, as is his mental toughness. Federer is also even harder to beat in a best of 5, but to no more an extent then Nadal. When Federer was winning all the non clay slams, he was winning virtually every non clay match (when he didnt play Nadal especialy) so that was no difference really. Nadal at that point had alot of players who could take him out on hard courts both in regular events and slams, so it mostly came down to the draws for him. So why would Federer have a better chance when meeting Nadal in a best of 5. Of course you have to win 7 matches to win an event so Federer deserved all his hard court and other slams, and it is well known Nadal has problems with alot of players on hard courts so really doesnt deserve anymore than he currently has. However I laugh at the idea prime Nadal would only have any chance vs prime Federer on clay.

Basically on hardcourt Federer and Nadal's primes don't match up at all. Personally I think the Wimbledon example would be repeated if nadal and Federer met multiple times in the hardcourt majors, starting in 2005 or 2006, Federer would win for the first couple of years and then Nadal would win. Basically I think that even when Federer was losing a touch of consistancy he still had a big chance to win the AO, so a better Federer against a less assured Nadal would probabaly mean a Federer win. Just my feeling.

If they were the same age then that is tricky, Nadal and Federer would come into hardcourt prime at the same time, probably would be quite even for a while with maybe Federer getting an edge in some years since Nadal isn't a really consistant hardcourter (at least until this year with all the finals) Federer has been the consistant player, nadal is a lot of the time either there for the taking by several people or unbeatable.

Of course a prime Nadal beats Federer on clay every time. The Nadal that played RG this year, that was a Nadal there for the taking by the next best claycourter (someone really good though) this year that wasn't Federer, the Federer of 2006 or maybe even 2007, maybe he could have won (gamewise yes, mentally who knows)

 

[Towser83]

Federer has the WORST possible record in 5th sets. To give you an idea, this is a few win % for 5th set in open era:

1-Nadal: 83.3
4-Borg: 80.0
8-Murray: 75.0
11-Djokovic: 72.2
17-Becker: 69.6
19-Sampras: 68.8
117-Federer: 52.9


The notion that 5 setters would have helped Fed in any way, shape or form get an edge over Nadal at any point in his career is HIGHLY laughable

Yeah but saying Federer is better in 5 set matches doesn't mean he is the best IN A 5th SET. Slams motivate Federer more, they just happen to be best of 5. Masters finals were best of 5 too, but were still not as highly prized as a slam match. It's not always the length of the match, it's the prestige that the 5 sets signifies.

So it's not that Federer would have won in a 5th set, but that he would be more motivated and play better in a slam or masters 5 set match compared to a 250 point 3 set final, and thus it might not have gone to a 5th.

And just because he has a bad 5 set record, doesn't mean he'd always lose the 5th - the only time a Nadal/Federer match has been won from 2 sets down was when Federer did so. Nadal actually looked spent. In 2009 it was Federer who was at least mentally spent, but when Federer was in his prime and Nadal short of it, could have been the other way around.

 

[Towser83]

Thats a pretty telling percentage. It seems to say, just don't let your foot of the gas and continue to take it to Fed and push it 5 and you have a good chance of beating him if you can do that. Thats a **** poor 5th set percentage. But Fed always like the subservient players who bend over and let Fed violate them instead of putting up the fight. It was pretty telling this year. Two straight slams he had a 2 set lead and the opponent nevetr gave up and Fed eventually folded in the 5th.

It could indicate Federer is terrible in pressure situations. Or it could mean that even when you beat him you usually have to go all the way and get a few battle scars rather than roll him over.

I mean how many players have even had a 2-0 set lead over Djokovic this season? None apart from Federer who's done it twice. Most people would probabaly have got beaten in straights or at most 4.

 

[Rippy]

Federer has the WORST possible record in 5th sets. To give you an idea, this is a few win % for 5th set in open era:

1-Nadal: 83.3
4-Borg: 80.0
8-Murray: 75.0
11-Djokovic: 72.2
17-Becker: 69.6
19-Sampras: 68.8
117-Federer: 52.9


The notion that 5 setters would have helped Fed in any way, shape or form get an edge over Nadal at any point in his career is HIGHLY laughable

Are those the stats for "best of 5 set matches" or "matches that went to a 5th set"?

The latter is a useless statistic that makes losing in straights better than losing in 5, and makes winning in 5 better than winning in straights. Eg, US Open this year. Federer took Djokovic to 5, Nadal lost in 4. Federer obviously did better, even though it worsens the useless "win percentage in matches that went to a fifth set" statistic.