If Federer, Nadal and Djokovic were the same age

Djokovic2011 said:
Lol, didn't you just intimate in another thread that Novak should be ashamed to still be losing to Federer these days T_O and now you're saying something completely different? :?

I can't keep up with you at times mate!
Click to expand...

Go and point out where I said Novak should be ashamed.

You don't know how to read properly and that's not my problem it's yours.
 
The_Order said:
Go and point out where I said Novak should be ashamed.

You don't know how to read properly and that's not my problem it's yours.
Click to expand...

You came out with your usual sarcastic crap where you were basically saying the same thing. I don't know why you always say nasty things about Novak when you're responding to my posts. Anyone would think I was the world's biggest fanboy the way you talk to me at times. :rolleyes:
 
Sabratha said:
Yeah and in the Masters 1000 final he made he was up against peak Federer. And in a couple of the other tournaments (especially towards the end of the year) he was playing well below par. After his surgery in October '05, he just sucked (much like Nadal did this year in the indoor season).

I don't believe Djokovic is "much more skilled" than Hewitt. I don't believe he's "much more skilled" than Murray either. He is more skilled than both of them but it's not by a huge stretch to say the least. You'd have to compare Hewitt and Murray with someone like Nadal or Federer for that to be true.
Click to expand...

?????? Djoker and Murray are playing the same competition!! They are born apart by a week. 7 > 2, 4 > 0, 20 > 9, 120 weeks > 0. That was one insane comment. What is your definition for skill?

Djokovic didnt need a weaker field to win Slams. He was beating in prime Nadal, Murray and past his prime Federer. Murray needed that lucky break of Nadal's absence to win. No comparison.
 
Last edited:
kandamrigam said:
Federer's level did drop by so much!! The biggest difference being his bread and butter shot, FH. The consistency, power and depth have all went downhill. Not to mention the movement.

I often think why is it hard for people to understand the difference between "level" and "success". Success comes to you because you're a good player. Sometimes the drop in level is still good enough to win matches more than others. Nadal's level in 2005-2007 was nothing outstanding given how much Nadal improved from there. Yet he will have all the success to show off for that period.

If Federer wins against Djoker today then it is to Federer's credit. If he losses, it's not to his discredit.
Click to expand...

No what I mean is, it's been a slight drop each year as he gets older.

2014 level was much better than 2013, but still a bit less than 2012 which was less than 2011 etc.

And as long as Federer decides to keep playing then all his losses count. You can't have the best of both worlds and say it's to his credit if he wins, but if he loses it's ok "what did you expect he's 33?".
 
Djokovic2011 said:
You came out with your usual sarcastic crap where you were basically saying the same thing. I don't know why you always say nasty things about Novak when you're responding to my posts. Anyone would think I was the world's biggest fanboy the way you talk to me at times. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So you make an assumption and I've got to answer for it? LOL get real.
 
The_Order said:
No what I mean is, it's been a slight drop each year as he gets older.

2014 level was much better than 2013, but still a bit less than 2012 which was less than 2011 etc.

And as long as Federer decides to keep playing then all his losses count. You can't have the best of both worlds and say it's to his credit if he wins, but if he loses it's ok "what did you expect he's 33?".
Click to expand...

I disagree. Passionate people will keep playing. I like how Roger loves tennis. Jimbo played up to his 40s. You will count all those losses to discredit him? Like his late losses to Mac and Lendl?
 
kandamrigam said:
I disagree. Passionate people will keep playing. I like how Roger loves tennis. Jimbo played up to his 40s. You will count all those losses to discredit him? Like his late losses to Mac and Lendl?
Click to expand...

Why does Nadal's losses in HC majors early in his career count as discredit to him? Fed fans continuously say Nadal not good enough to get to Federer in 2004 AO or USO, ok same argument can be made here.

Nadal was too young and his game on HC wasn't developed and/or consistent enough. But that's unacceptable reasoning. So why should it be any different for Federer now that he's older?
 
The_Order said:
Why does Nadal's losses in HC majors early in his career count as discredit to him? Fed fans continuously say Nadal not good enough to get to Federer in 2004 AO or USO, ok same argument can be made here.

Nadal was too young and his game on HC wasn't developed and/or consistent enough. But that's unacceptable reasoning. So why should it be any different for Federer now that he's older?
Click to expand...

Ya they do, and I fight with them! Those people are a lot harsh. In fact I would read more to Federer's performance today than the teenager Nadal's. Since I had seen somewhere stats based on age which shows it's rarer to win early than late. I will try to find out.

My original point was Federer's game dopped considerably, though he is still good enough to be among the top guns.
 
kandamrigam said:
Some legendary posts here.



This.



And this.



And this.



And this.



These basically sum it. Such keen observation and exquisite tennis acumen. After all when Federer managed only 17 Slams barely going through Nadal and Djokovic, it's much more probable he will win more if their peaks coincided ;)
Click to expand...

Federer reached 18 of 19 finals, 23 consec SF, 25 major finals and 36 semis.

With that kind of resume, you are going to give yourself more chances irrespective of who your competitors are.

You are thinking this is a h2h thread. Rafa lacks consistency and abstains from majors to add anything more to his count.
 
Last edited:
tennisaddict said:
Federer reached 18 of 19 finals, 23 consec SF, 25 major finals and 36 semis.

With that kind of resume, you are going to give yourself more chances irrespective of who your competitors are.
Click to expand...

Federer reached 18 of 19 finals, 23 consec SF, 25 major finals and 36 semis barely going through Nadal and Djokovic. And won 17 titles overall. Now if he goes through Rafole, his Slam tally will be lesser. That to me is commonsense.
 
kandamrigam said:
?????? Djoker and Murray are playing the same competition!! They are born apart by a week. 7 > 2, 4 > 0, 20 > 9, 120 weeks > 0. That was one insane comment. What is your definition for skill?

Djokovic didnt need a weaker field to win Slams. He was beating in prime Nadal, Murray and past his prime Federer. Murray needed that lucky break of Nadal's absence to win. No comparison.
Click to expand...
Murray has still beaten Djokovic in the big moments. Namely Wimbledon 2013. For there to be such a vast differential in skill, he would need to punish Murray during these times instead of getting crushed by him.
 
kandamrigam said:
Federer reached 18 of 19 finals, 23 consec SF, 25 major finals and 36 semis barely going through Nadal and Djokovic. And won 17 titles overall. Now if he goes through Rafole, his Slam tally will be lesser. That to me is commonsense.
Click to expand...

Again, you are treating this from a h2h standpoint.

The respective resumes indicate who has been consistent and who has not.

Rafa has been flaky all through his career at non clay majors. Thus only 5 majors in innumerable attempts.
 
Sabratha said:
Murray has still beaten Djokovic in the big moments. Namely Wimbledon 2013. For there to be such a vast differential in skill, he would need to punish Murray during these times instead of getting crushed by him.
Click to expand...

The two slam matches in which Murray defeated Djokovic took him over eight hours to do so. That's hardly "getting crushed" Saby.
 
Sabratha said:
Murray has still beaten Djokovic in the big moments. Namely Wimbledon 2013. For there to be such a vast differential in skill, he would need to punish Murray during these times instead of getting crushed by him.
Click to expand...

???

1. Murray has beaten Djokovic how many times? 2. Djokovic beat his twice as many times. So is not Djokovic considerably better?

2. Does h2h between Djokovic and Murray indicate who is more skilled?

3. Why do you ignore the fact that Djokovic has shown potential of beating reasonably good Federer, peak Nadal and Murray to win Slams while Murray only Djokovic to win Slams?

4. Why do you talk nothing at all about 7 > 2, 4 > 0, 20 > 9, 120+ > 0 ? Are they not indicative of Djoker being considerably better?

5. Getting crushed? You on drugs?
 
Last edited:
tennisaddict said:
Again, you are treating this from a h2h standpoint.

The respective resumes indicate who has been consistent and who has not.

Rafa has been flaky all through his career at non clay majors. Thus only 5 majors in innumerable attempts.
Click to expand...

1. When it comes to Fedalovic being put together in one era, h2hs matter. As these are the 3 top dogs hunting for glory, predominantly.

2. Rafa has been flaky. I didnt say he will improve. I said Federer will get worse. Because flaky Rafa as well as consistent Djoker will still meet Federer more often. Apply some brain.
 
kandamrigam said:
1. When it comes to Fedalovic being put together in one era, h2hs matter. As these are the 3 top dogs hunting for glory, predominantly.

2. Rafa has been flaky. I didnt say he will improve. I said Federer will get worse. Because flaky Rafa as well as consistent Djoker will still meet Federer more often. Apply some brain.
Click to expand...

Ok, we dont agree on the basic premise.

To me, this thread is more about consistency and less about h2h.

You need to win 6 matches before even you get to the finals.

Federer reached 25 finals, 36 semis , won 17 times and never lost to lower ranked players in his peak / prime / end of peak.

I see Federer adding more AO , due to his match up advantage with Novak.

Rafa is not in the discussion for the most part , apart from FO and a little bit at Wimbledon.

Again, to reiterate, the thread is not assuming that these players directly meet each other in semis and finals.
 
tennisaddict said:
Ok, we dont agree on the basic premise.

To me, this thread is more about consistency and less about h2h.

You need to win 6 matches before even you get to the finals.

Federer reached 25 finals, 36 semis , won 17 times and never lost to lower ranked players in his peak / prime / end of peak.

I see Federer adding more AO , due to his match up advantage with Novak.

Rafa is not in the discussion for the most part , apart from FO and a little bit at Wimbledon.

Again, to reiterate, the thread is not assuming that these players directly meet each other in semis and finals.
Click to expand...

1. False. This thread is all about h2h in their prime, keeping the exhibited consistency as such. The q "if their primes coincided" or "if they were same age".

2. So if 3 players play in the same generation, then how are you guaranteeing that they dont meet in semis and finals? What magic is that?

3. If Federer added only 4 AOs in a generation of Safin Hewitt Roddick Nalbandian, and young Nadal Djokovic, then he is winning less when you add peak Djokovic. Federer's matchup advantage against the former lot is nothing like against Djokovic.

4. Why is Rafa not in the discussion for most part? He made 3 finals in every Slam at least.

These are dead simple things. You're pretty high on my ignore list. I will reply only if I see you're making good points. I dont mind you getting some facts wrong. That can be corrected. Weak argumentation cant be tolerated for long.
 
Last edited:
kandamrigam said:
1. False. This thread is all about h2h at their prime, keeping the exhibited consistency as such. The q "if their primes coincided" or "if they were same age".

2. If Federer added only 4 AOs in a generation of Safin Hewitt Roddick Nalbandian, and young Nadal Djokovic, then he is winning less when you add peak Djokovic. Federer's matchup advantage against the former lot is nothing like against Djokovic.

These are dead simple things. You're pretty high on my ignore list. I will reply only if I see you're making good points. I dont mind you getting some facts wrong. That can be corrected. Weak argumentation cant be tolerated for long.
Click to expand...

These kind of hypothetical threads do not lead anywhere.

Each to their own. I wish you could see the point that Rafa is not going to magically be more consistent just because Fed and Novak are of the same age.
 
tennisaddict said:
These kind of hypothetical threads do not lead anywhere.

Each to their own. I wish you could see the point that Rafa is not going to magically be more consistent just because Fed and Novak are of the same age.
Click to expand...

1. Somethings should be said only once. I will extend my mercy one last time more. THERE IS NEVER IN THE UNIVERSE I TOLD NADAL IS GOING TO BE MORE CONSISTENT. Listen. Apply the thought. Nadal is already consistent. To degree X. That X will ensure he meets Federer, everywhere. More often. He has 11 non-clay Slam finals. Realise. Rethink. Reapply. Try for a paradigm shift in thinking. May be you can hate less? So thoughts have more clarity? So you repeat less? So you get the intent better? Try try try. Nothing is impossible.

2. It took you this much to realise it's hypothetical and resign? It's hypothetical, and an interesting exercise. I like it! Will try to answer myself.
 
kandamrigam said:
1. Somethings should be said only once. I will extend my mercy one last time more. THERE IS NEVER IN THE UNIVERSE I TOLD NADAL IS GOING TO BE MORE CONSISTENT. Listen. Apply the thought. Nadal is already consistent. To degree X. That X will ensure he meets Federer, everywhere. More often. He has 11 non-clay Slam finals. Realise. Rethink. Reapply. Try for a paradigm shift in thinking. May be you can hate less? So thoughts have more clarity? So you repeat less? So you get the intent better? Try try try. Nothing is impossible.

2. It took you this much to realise it's hypothetical and resign? It's hypothetical, and an interesting exercise. I like it! Will try to answer myself.
Click to expand...

NO, i resigned because you see it as a 3 way race . I do not.

I see Rafa losing to Novak and Stan still. You are perhaps gifting 2 majors to Rafa (2006 and 07 wimb). There is no more majors to add in any case.

Now, if Rafa can get beaten by Kyrgios, Rosol and Darcis in his prime, you want me to agree that a 7 time Wimb champion , who had beat Rafa 10 times, would lose those finals ? Fed beat Rafa when he was a 2-3 major champion , not some debutant.

The only real debate here is between Fed and Novak.
 
tennisaddict said:
NO, i resigned because you see it as a 3 way race . I do not.

I see Rafa losing to Novak and Stan still. You are perhaps gifting 2 majors to Rafa (2006 and 07 wimb). There is no more majors to add in any case.

Now, if Rafa can get beaten by Kyrgios, Rosol and Darcis in his prime, you want me to agree that a 7 time Wimb champion , who had beat Rafa 10 times, would lose those finals ? Fed beat Rafa when he was a 2-3 major champion , not some debutant.

The only real debate here is between Fed and Novak.
Click to expand...

1. The q is "if their primes coincided" or "if they were same age". So if 3 ATGs play in the same generation with win% around 85%, then how are you guaranteeing that they dont meet in semis and finals? What magic is that?

2. Nadal is not going to rob AOs anyway, so you have a point there. Not true for WC and UO. Nadal has 8 finals there. Depends on draw. Accept it, Nadal and Djoker are capable of doing more damage than Roddick and Hewitt ;)

3. Rafa's best years on grass is 2007-2011. Rest Novak will take care of Roger ;) I dont think you're getting it at all.

Can you do a favour. Can you write a detailed answer when their age coincide? Like 22 year old Federer in 2003 WC is facing 22 year old Rafa in 2008 etc? May be that will solve your Kyrgios/Darcis confusion. Attempt it. Dont just pull it from your #$% :)
 
Last edited:
I believe the question can be interpreted in two ways:

a. If Fedalovic were all born on the same date. In this case it's probable that their peaks dont coincide perfectly because of bloom factor.

b. If Fedalovic had their primes coincided together. Though it's a bit arguable.

I will try to answer both, an interesting exercise! I make the following assumptions to be objective:

a. Their form factor in each of those Slams they appeared chronologically is considered. For eg, Nadal's injury will be a factor in Slams.

b. Federer has a slight evolution disadvantage, ie, being 5 years younger Nadal and Djoker did have time to adapt to Federer, so in case I am tentative about results based on actual results today, I will give Federer advantage.

c. I will transport their careers into a totally hypothetical era. This will ignore the outside competition factors like Safin or Del Potro. Which means generally the rest of the players on tour are lesser players than Fedalovic is not capable of beating them peak for peak, and also not capable of dominating them consistently. I do this because both the generations can play this "weaker era", "tougher competition" game. As such I consider Safin owning Djokovic like theories ********.

d. There will be match-up. I cannot ignore that. Rafa has a Djoker problem, Nole has a Federer problem and Roger has a Nadal problem. That's the fact. The degree of the problem largely depends on their form. The biggest argument such a hypothetical leaves will be the draws. We do not know how the seeding will be. Is 2008 Rafa going to be ranked ahead of 2011 Nole? Who knows. But I will consider it all 3 ways. In other words I will ignore draws. In case I'm not fully sure I will give the benefit of the doubt to all 3.



Fedalovic about the same age

Nadal and Djokovic definitely were relatively early bloomers. Nadal was strong on clay, Djokovic was an all courter back then. This will naturally mean they are going to edge Federer early on. Federer will catch up. But there is a problem. At what age are they coinciding? At 20-28, Nadal-Djoker has the edge. At 22-30, Federer has the edge. I will consider 21-29 to be the most reasonable, but since they were all born mid-season for easiness sake it would be easier to consider 21.5-29.5. But neither Nadal nor Djoker have played till 29.5, so there will be too much conjecture. Hence I consider 20.5-28.5. All of them turns 20.5 on Jan 1 of some year.

I will not give a detailed explanation for sake of brevity. Just a matter of grazing through their performances w.r.t their age.

20.5: AO - Djokovic, FO - Nadal, WC - #Nadal, UO - Djokovic
21.5: AO - #Other > Djokovic, FO - Nadal, WC - Nadal, UO - #Djokovic > Federer
22.5: AO - Nadal, FO - #Other > Federer, WC - Federer, UO - Federer
23.5: AO - Djokovic, FO - #Nadal > Djokovic, WC - #Federer = Nadal = Djokovic, UO - #Federer = Nadal = Djokovic
24.5: AO - Federer, FO - Nadal, WC - #Federer, UO - #Federer
25.5: AO - #Federer, FO - Nadal, WC - Federer, UO - #Federer > Djokovic
26.5: AO - #Other > Djokovic, FO - Nadal, WC - Federer, UO - Nadal
27.5: AO - #Federer = Djokovic, FO - #Nadal, WC - #Djokovic, UO - #Federer

Tally:
Federer - 10 to 13 Slams
Nadal - 11 to 13 Slams
Djokovic - 5 to 8 Slams
Others - 3

Few points:

1. Marked with # are where I am tentative. #Djokovic means Djokovic has probably the best chance. #Djokovic > Federer means Djokovic should win but Federer is close. #Djokovic = Nadal = Federer means all 3 got equal probability.

2. Federer gains a lot of tentative votes but as I said in my assumption it's fair to do so.

3. Djokovic and Federer dont have a Career Slam, Nadal does.

4. Djokovic has slam-less years. 4 of them.

5. Federer still maintains 3 Slam per year runs - twice.

6. Nadal wins a Slam in all 8 years.

7. Federer actual tally - 17 - takes the biggest toll. Djoker's also worsens. Nadal not as much.

8. The best possible Slams would be Federer WC 2005 against Nadal WC 2010 against Djoker WC 2011 and Federer UO 2005 against Nadal UO 2010 against Djoker UO 2011. I think it's open for all 3 equally and will depend on draws. N > F > D > N basically.

9. Given Federer's superior consistency he will be mostly ranked 1. Nadal 2. Djokovic 3.

10. This is not a very meaningful analysis, for one the early age bracket penalizes Federer, and two, I had to speculate Djoker's 2015 performance.



Fedalovic about the same primes

This is better. I will consider primes as 2003-2010 for Federer, 2007-2014 for Nadal and 2008-2015 for Djokovic though 2015 didnt happen for him. I will have to be speculative there, again!

1. AO - Djokovic, FO - Nadal, WC - #Federer > Nadal, UO - Djokovic
2. AO - Federer, FO - Nadal, WC - #Nadal, UO - Federer
3. AO - #Federer = Nadal, FO - Federer, WC - Federer, UO - Federer
4. AO - Djokovic, FO - Nadal > Djokovic, WC - #Federer = Nadal = Djokovic, UO - #Federer = Nadal = Djokovic
5. AO - Federer, FO - Nadal, WC - #Federer = Nadal = Djokovic, UO - #Federer = Nadal = Djokovic
6. AO - #Djokovic > Nadal, FO - Nadal, WC - Federer, UO - #Federer > Djokovic
7. AO - Federer, FO - Nadal, WC - Federer, UO - Nadal
8. AO - Federer, FO - #Nadal, WC - #Djokovic, UO - #Djokovic

Tally:
Federer - 12 to 17 Slams
Nadal - 9 to 14 Slams
Djokovic - 6 to 10 Slams

Few points:

1. Marked with # are where I am tentative. #Djokovic means Djokovic has probably the best chance. #Djokovic > Federer means Djokovic should win but Federer is close. #Djokovic = Nadal = Federer means all 3 got equal probability.

2. Federer and Nadal's tally are affected but Djokovic's remains the same.

3. Federer has a Career Slam, Nadal arguably, but not Djokovic

4. Djokovic has 3 slam-less years at least.

5. The best possible Slams would be Federer WC 2006 against Nadal WC 2010 against Djoker WC 2011 and Federer UO 2006 against Nadal UO 2010 against Djoker UO 2011. I think it's open for all 3 equally and will depend on draws. N > F > D > N basically.

6. Given Federer's superior consistency he will be mostly ranked 1. Nadal 2. Djokovic 3.

7. When their primes coincide nobody outside Big3 are winning Slams.

8. This again has the problem of speculating Novak's 2015 performance but better than previous case.



Fun exercise!
 
Last edited:
BringBackSV said:
Is 2007 the year the world ended, why do Fed fans constantly want to use such an arbitrary cut off point?
Click to expand...
For the same reason that Nadal fans and Novak fans will point the top years of the players they support. For instance, if Rafa does not have another great year, most likely fans will talk about before and after 2013. If Novak does not have another great year, the end of his peak will be 2011, which will be hard for him because it was only one great year.

I don't really expect that for Novak. I think the potential is there for a strong 2015. We'll know in a year.
 
kandamrigam said:
1. The q is "if their primes coincided" or "if they were same age". So if 3 ATGs play in the same generation with win% around 85%, then how are you guaranteeing that they dont meet in semis and finals? What magic is that?

2. Nadal is not going to rob AOs anyway, so you have a point there. Not true for WC and UO. Nadal has 8 finals there. Depends on draw. Accept it, Nadal and Djoker are capable of doing more damage than Roddick and Hewitt ;)

3. Rafa's best years on grass is 2007-2011. Rest Novak will take care of Roger ;) I dont think you're getting it at all.

Can you do a favour. Can you write a detailed answer when their age coincide? Like 22 year old Federer in 2003 WC is facing 22 year old Rafa in 2008 etc? May be that will solve your Kyrgios/Darcis confusion. Attempt it. Dont just pull it from your #$% :)
Click to expand...

If ages coincide, Hewitt ,Roddick , Kyrgios, Darcis, Muller, Rosol, Ferrer , Stan, Novak, Gonzalez still will beat Rafa, like they did in reality.

Novak and Rafa are practically the same age. So, You cannot take back any major that Rafa lost to Novak.

Wimbledon that Rafa won are against Berdych and Fed. He does not get those with the peaks aligned, because Federer and Novak stand a better chance.

He does not get the fluke USO. Dont even get me started on the 2010 USO draw. At best one USO.

So, I still stand by his 9 major count. Say max 10.
 
tennisaddict said:
If ages coincide, Hewitt ,Roddick , Kyrgios, Darcis, Muller, Rosol, Ferrer , Stan, Novak, Gonzalez still will beat Rafa, like they did in reality.

Novak and Rafa are practically the same age. So, You cannot take back any major that Rafa lost to Novak.

Wimbledon that Rafa won are against Berdych and Fed. He does not get those with the peaks aligned, because Federer and Novak stand a better chance.

He does not get the fluke USO. Dont even get me started on the 2010 USO draw. At best one USO.

So, I still stand by his 9 major count. Say max 10.
Click to expand...

1. Horna, Mirnyi, Ancic, Novak, Arazi, Corretja, Clement say hi :)

2. Despite losing to Hewitt, Roddick, Kyrgios, Darcis, Muller, Rosol, Ferrer, Stan, Novak, Gonzalez, he won 14 Slams. May be it is an eye opener in this discussion?

3. As I said, show me a clear work. Like how 2003 Federer will do against 2007 Nadal at WC etc. Dont pull it out of thin air. And your lack of objectivity is clearly becoming more evident. Just warning you that ignore time is imminent. I am hopeful you can do better.
 
Last edited:
kandamrigam said:
1. Horna, Mirnyi, Ancic, Novak, Arazi, Corretja, Clement say hi :)

2. Despite losing to Hewitt, Roddick, Kyrgios, Darcis, Muller, Rosol, Ferrer, Stan, Novak, Gonzalez, he won 14 Slams. May be it is an eye opener in this discussion?

3. As I said, show me a clear work. Like how 2003 Federer will do against 2007 Nadal at WC etc. Dont pull it out of thin air. And your lack of objectivity is clearly becoming more evident. Just warning you that ignore time is imminent. I am hopeful you can do better.
Click to expand...

First of,stop threatening. It is borderline childish.

Rafa is winning only 1 uso title apart from clay.

He is winning zero on grass.

Is it still not clear?
 
tennisaddict said:
First of,stop threatening. It is borderline childish.

Rafa is winning only 1 uso title apart from clay.

He is winning zero on grass.

Is it still not clear?
Click to expand...

It is as clear as Federer winning zero Slams in Rafole era :) I will call you a coward for not attempting to show me your detailed analysis Slam by Slam, besides of course being an irrational poster.
 
kandamrigam said:
It is as clear as Federer winning zero Slams in Rafole era :) I will call you a coward for not attempting to show me your detailed analysis Slam by Slam, besides of course being an irrational poster.
Click to expand...

AO - Both Novak and Fed will beat Rafa

Wimb - Both Novak and Fed will beat Rafa

USO- In the event Novak beats Fed, Rafa may win a lone major beating Novak.

Capiche ?
 
kandamrigam said:
???

1. Murray has beaten Djokovic how many times? 2. Djokovic beat his twice as many times. So is not Djokovic considerably better?

2. Does h2h between Djokovic and Murray indicate who is more skilled?

3. Why do you ignore the fact that Djokovic has shown potential of beating reasonably good Federer, peak Nadal and Murray to win Slams while Murray only Djokovic to win Slams?

4. Why do you talk nothing at all about 7 > 2, 4 > 0, 20 > 9, 120+ > 0 ? Are they not indicative of Djoker being considerably better?

5. Getting crushed? You on drugs?
Click to expand...
No. Are you?

6-4, 7-5, 6-4.
 
tennisaddict said:
AO - Both Novak and Fed will beat Rafa

Wimb - Both Novak and Fed will beat Rafa

USO- In the event Novak beats Fed, Rafa may win a lone major beating Novak.

Capiche ?
Click to expand...
I "capiche" that you have a magic crystal ball that allows you, apparently, to see the future. ;)
 
Seriously, the rants and crazy discussions in this thread... Pure gold.

200.gif
 
Sabratha said:
He was still a firm top 10 player in 2004 and he won a Masters title. Obviously it isn't as good as 2002 or 2003 because by 2004 his back started affecting him and his playing level started to become slightly more sporadic. He still gave enough good performances throughout 2004 to stay ranked within the top 10; and in any era that demands consistency and dedication.
Click to expand...
Please don't confuse me with rabid fans. I have a huge respect for Agassi as a player.

But with two masters and the AO in 2001, three masters in 2002, one masters and another AO in 2003, one masters in 2004 and nothing else seems like a long way down for Agassi.

Isn't that fair? If Fed only wins one masters in 2015, nothing else, wouldn't we rightfully suspect his career is finally close to the end?

That's all I'm saying.
 
Gary Duane said:
Please don't confuse me with rabid fans. I have a huge respect for Agassi as a player.

But with two masters and the AO in 2001, three masters in 2002, one masters and another AO in 2003, one masters in 2004 and nothing else seems like a long way down for Agassi.

Isn't that fair? If Fed only wins one masters in 2015, nothing else, wouldn't we rightfully suspect his career is finally close to the end?

That's all I'm saying.
Click to expand...
I am expecting a bad year for Federer next year personally, perhaps he may only win a single Masters title. For that reason I will agree with you on Agassi's career drawing to a close in 2004-2005, but he could still perform near prime level (2004 moreso than 2005) on some occasions.
 
Sabratha said:
I am expecting a bad year for Federer next year personally, perhaps he may only win a single Masters title. For that reason I will agree with you on Agassi's career drawing to a close in 2004-2005, but he could still perform near prime level (2004 moreso than 2005) on some occasions.
Click to expand...
I think Fed performed at near prime level last year, but there is a slow drop in his return games over the past few years. His serve only dropped in 2013, so that part of his game is still strong.

Agassi's return game % dropped 8 points from 2003, when he was about the same age as Fed last year. The problem with performing at the top only on some occasions is that the loss in ranking takes away the advantages in draws.

I hope Fed has another great year in him, but we both know how hard it is at age 34 or older. You can't stop the march of time.
 
Gary Duane said:
I think Fed performed at near prime level last year, but there is a slow drop in his return games over the past few years. His serve only dropped in 2013, so that part of his game is still strong.

Agassi's return game % dropped 8 points from 2003, when he was about the same age as Fed last year. The problem with performing at the top only on some occasions is that the loss in ranking takes away the advantages in draws.

I hope Fed has another great year in him, but we both know how hard it is at age 34 or older. You can't stop the march of time.
Click to expand...
In 2013 and 2014, I am not convinced Federer played near his prime level. 2012 I will agree with because he trounced Djokovic and Murray on grass like he would in his prime but in particular 2013 and some of 2014, Federer has not met the lofty standards of his own prime level of tennis.

Even at Wimbledon this year, Federer had a great serve but his groundgame has virtually vanished. Djokovic, in my opinion, played better in 2012. If you put 2012 Djokovic into 2014 Wimbledon instead of 2014 Djokovic, I would say he would beat Federer in about 4 sets. That's how much I believe Federer's dropped off from his prime.
 
Sabratha said:
In 2013 and 2014, I am not convinced Federer played near his prime level.
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstood my point.

Federer: career:

Federer: 88/27 115
:::::: Grass: 92/25 117
:::::: HC: 89/27 116
:::::: Clay: 84/28 112

That's % of service games/% of return games and total

2014

Federer 91/26 116 Ranking # 2
:::::: Grass: 95/22 117
:::::: HC: 90/27 117
:::::: Clay: 89/26 115

2013

Federer 87/26 113
:::::: Grass 95/27 122
:::::: HC: 86/25 111
:::::: Clay: 84/28 112

2007

Federer 89/29 118
:::::: Grass: 93/24 117 -------------------------------WIMBLY
:::::: HC 91/29 120 -------------------------------USO--AO

2006:

Federer 90/32 122
:::::: Grass 94/30 124 -------------------------------WIMBLY
:::::: HC 91/32 123 -------------------------------USO --AO
:::::: Clay: 85/33 118 (very few games on clay)

2004:

Federer 92/30 122
:::::: Grass 95/35 130 -------------------------------WIMBLY
:::::: HC 92/29 121 -------------------------------USO -------------------------------AO
:::::: Clay: 88/30 118
Even at Wimbledon this year, Federer had a great serve but his groundgame has virtually vanished.
Click to expand...
Exactly. He still has the ground game to back up his serve, also allowing him to win 95% of his games in 2014. That's not just the serve. But he can't rally long enough when returning. In 2004 he won 35% of his return games on grass. That's God-like. This year only 22%, still very good. And I don't think he can increase that again at age 34 (almost), plus there is the question of the back. If he has more problems with it, he's done for things like slams.
 
tennisaddict said:
AO - Both Novak and Fed will beat Rafa

Wimb - Both Novak and Fed will beat Rafa

USO- In the event Novak beats Fed, Rafa may win a lone major beating Novak.

Capiche ?
Click to expand...

1. You dont show Slam by Slam wins, still.

2. Fed never beat Nadal at AO, even in a year he played all 4 Slam finals and won two.

3. Rafa has a winning record against Nole at UO. And didnt meet Fed there eva

4. Why should Novak beat Fed? You have some idea on the draws?

Nice list of jokes ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

O
Nadal is better than same age Federer at USO
3 4 5
Replies
218
Views
11K
NatF
NatF
K
  • Poll Poll
If Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic Were all the same age.
2 3 4
Replies
198
Views
23K
DragonBlaze
DragonBlaze
R
If the big 4 were the same age
2
Replies
52
Views
3K
xFedal
xFedal
GasquetGOAT
If Nadal-Federer played in the Agassi-Sampras Era...
2 3
Replies
146
Views
15K
Cyan
Cyan
S
what if roger is the same age as nadal,djokovic,murray & gasquet.
Replies
40
Views
3K
tacou
tacou
Back
Top