More Impressive Comeback of Federer or Nadal

Tenez101 said:
Regardless, we're not discussing whether Fed was the best player of 2009 or not. We're discussing whether Fed's "comeback" in 2009 or Nadal's comeback in 2013 is more impressive. The fact that Fed pretty much had to avoid his rival to win anything that year, whereas Nadal had to go through Djokovic for all of his major titles, leads me to support Nadal's case.
Click to expand...

Federer's 2009 was more impressive than Nadal's. Losing in R1 of Wimbledon is a massive fail for Nadal. Fed made all 4 slam finals in 2009;
 
Nadal's comeback was more impressive in my opinion. Federer's comeback was great, but the reason he got back to number 1 was mostly because Nadal played poorly and injured himself.
 
Federer took advantage of the scene when Nadal was out of the game, Wimbledon '09 and knocked out early -RG '09

Nadal had to go through his toughest rival Djoko in both RG & USO '13
 
Tenez101 said:
Federer's comeback was due mainly to Nadal's injury.

Nadal's comeback was due to his sheer resilience and will to turn around the rivalry with Djokovic.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I was going to say the same but couldn't be bothered. How is the scenario described by the OP a Federer comeback? Comeback from what? Injury time out? Have I missed something?
 
tennis_pro said:
This kind of thinking is worthless. Nadal never shows up in the latter rounds when he's injured/out of form so when he and Fed were the top 2 seeds and could only meet in the final, they never did unless it was on clay and to a lesser degree on grass.

Nadal gets Rosolized when he doesn't bother to show up so Fed very rarely got the chance to face a not-at-his-best Nadal. Fed, on the other hand, played 18 out of 19 Slam finals so no matter what his form was he reached the latter stages and Nadal, naturally, took advantage of some.

People talk about Nadal as a great champion and the biggest fighter in history but I feel he doesn't get critisized enough for losing to complete nobodies when he doesn't feel like he's in form. Fed on the other hand shouldn't get crap for losing to Nadal often cause at least he didn't chicken out in the 1st rounds when he was out of form.

Sampras had the exact same attitude. He was fantastic on fast surfaces and was incredibly hard to beat but who took care of him in the Slams? Not the Agassis (although Andre beat him 3 times), Edbergs, Beckers, Couriers -but guys ranked outside the top 10/20. Yzaga, Krajicek, Philippoussiss, Korda, Kucera and a bunch of complete no namers at the FO - these are only his prime years.
Click to expand...

Wow , what a post ! Totally agree and I have said as much myself several times. Nadal makes sure he never gives his chief rivals the chance to beat up on him when he is not at his best or is vulnerable. He'd rather withdraw or lose early than concede the mental edge to his rivals.
 
Steve Dykstra said:
Nadal's comeback was more impressive in my opinion. Federer's comeback was great, but the reason he got back to number 1 was mostly because Nadal played poorly and injured himself.
Click to expand...

Well, we can say the same for Rafa in 2013. Rafa got nr.1 cuz Fed is old and played poorly and injured himself.

Those kind of excuses are weak.

But I do believe Rafa's comeback is greater. If you can call what Fed did a comeback. Since he never left, he was always waiting at the top.

In Fed's defense, Fed after W 08 made 6 major finals and won 4.

It is funny how close both were in all majors to losing. Fed's three 09 finals went to 5 sets. And at RG he was playing two 5-setters.

And Rafa in 2013 was a break down in the fifth RG. And was so close to being 2-1 down at USO final.
 
OP please pick another comeback. You really shot yourself in the foot with your choice. Obviously Nadal's was better because he had to go through his rival. Fed's was impressive also but it is easier to win tough matches vs guys you own(Del potro, Roddick, Haas) than winning tough matches vs your main rival who owns you.


Federer's comeback since his loss at the USO 2011 was more impressive. 9 tournaments won including, 4 masters, a slam and 1 WTF. Also returning to world no.1 dethroning one of your biggest rivals in his prime.

Doing all of these at 30-31 makes it even more impressive.
 
sbengte said:
Wow , what a post ! Totally agree and I have said as much myself several times. Nadal makes sure he never gives his chief rivals the chance to beat up on him when he is not at his best or is vulnerable. He'd rather withdraw or lose early than concede the mental edge to his rivals.
Click to expand...

Sure, that is what he did in 2011 and 2012 against Djokovic... oh wait.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
Nadal is a great player but he doesn't really get criticized as much as he should for losing early in various slams,even when in his prime, whereas Fed only just recently failed to reach the QF.
Click to expand...

So what?! Rafa's GS tournament win percentage is higher that that of Fed at the same age!
Rafa has won 36,1% of GS tourneys he has entered (13 of 36).
Fed at the same age - 32,5% (13 of 40) !!!
 
Tenez101 said:
Regardless, we're not discussing whether Fed was the best player of 2009 or not. We're discussing whether Fed's "comeback" in 2009 or Nadal's comeback in 2013 is more impressive. The fact that Fed pretty much had to avoid his rival to win anything that year, whereas Nadal had to go through Djokovic for all of his major titles, leads me to support Nadal's case.
Click to expand...

Fed didn't "avoid" anyone since he showed up and won the FO. Nadal didn't try to "avoid" because he try his best and lost.:)

Fed comeback in 2009 was better than Nadal 2013 because he had a tougher field. Del Potro played his best tennis in 2009 and won the USO, Davydenko won the WTF and consistently stay in the top 10(his ranking is now below 50). Roddick got fitter by losing 15 pounds and play the match of his life at Wimbledon. In 2013 Fed was way past his prime, Murray got injured in the latter year. Old Davydenko, Del Potro wasn't as good as he use to be. No Soderling either who was playing his best tennis in 2009.
 
When was Fed somewhere else than on the ATP Tour? He played in 2008 (starting with Wimby) - 2011:
Barclays ATP World Tour Finals, Great Britain; 20.11.2011;
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Paris, France; 07.11.2011;
Basel, Switzerland; 31.10.2011;
AUS vs SUI WG Play-Off, Australia; 16.09.2011;
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Cincinnati, OH, U.S.A.; 14.08.2011;
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Canada, Montreal, Canada; 08.08.2011;
SUI vs. POR EAG 1 2nd RD, Switzerland; 08.07.2011;
Wimbledon, Great Britain; 20.06.2011;
Roland Garros, France; 22.05.2011;
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Rome, Italy; 08.05.2011;
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Madrid, Spain; 01.05.2011;
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Monte Carlo, Monaco; 10.04.2011;
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Miami, FL, U.S.A.; 23.03.2011;
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Indian Wells, CA, U.S.A.; 10.03.2011;
Dubai, U.A.E.; 21.02.2011; 500; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 32
Australian Open, Australia; 17.01.2011; GS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 128
Doha, Qatar; 03.01.2011; 250; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 32
Barclays ATP World Tour Finals, London, England; 21.11.2010;
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Paris, France; 07.11.2010;
Basel, Switzerland; 01.11.2010;
Stockholm, Sweden; 18.10.2010;
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Shanghai, China; 10.10.2010;
US Open, NY, U.S.A.; 30.08.2010;
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Cincinnati, OH, U.S.A.; 15.08.2010;
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Canada, Toronto, Canada; 09.08.2010;
Wimbledon, Great Britain; 21.06.2010;
Halle, Germany; 07.06.2010;
Roland Garros, France; 24.05.2010;
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Madrid, Spain; 09.05.2010;
Estoril, Portugal; 03.05.2010;
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Rome, Italy; 25.04.2010;
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Miami, FL, U.S.A.; 24.03.2010;
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Indian Wells, CA, U.S.A.; 11.03.2010;
Australian Open, Australia; 18.01.2010;
Doha, Qatar; 04.01.2010; 250;
Barclays ATP World Tour Finals, London, England; 22.11.2009;
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Paris, France; 08.11.2009;
Basel, Switzerland; 02.11.2009; 500;
ITA vs. SUI WG Play-off, Italy; 18.09.2009; DC;
US Open, NY, U.S.A.; 31.08.2009; GS;
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Cincinnati, OH, U.S.A.; 16.08.2009;
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Canada, MontrTal, Canada; 10.08.2009;
Wimbledon, Great Britain; 22.06.2009;
Roland Garros, France; 25.05.2009;
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Madrid, Spain; 10.05.2009;
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Rome, Italy; 27.04.2009;
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Monte Carlo, Monaco; 12.04.2009;
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Miami, FL, U.S.A.; 25.03.2009;
ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Indian Wells, CA, U.S.A.; 12.03.2009;
Australian Open, Australia; 19.01.2009;
Doha, Qatar; 05.01.2009;
Tennis Masters Cup, China; 09.11.2008;
ATP Masters Series Paris, France; 26.10.2008;
Basel, Switzerland; 20.10.2008;
ATP Masters Series Madrid, Spain; 12.10.2008;
SUI vs. BEL WG Play-offs, Switzerland; 19.09.2008;
US Open, NY, U.S.A.; 25.08.2008;
ATP Masters Series Cincinnati, OH, U.S.A.; 28.07.2008;
ATP Masters Series Canada, Toronto, Canada; 21.07.2008;
Wimbledon, Great Britain; 23.06.2008;
 
jg153040 said:
Well, we can say the same for Rafa in 2013. Rafa got nr.1 cuz Fed is old and played poorly and injured himself.
Click to expand...

Rafa came back and overtook Djokovic, who was the number 1 player in the world at the time. He did it by defeating Djokovic multiple times at the most important events. As I said, Federer's comeback in 2009 was great, but not nearly as impressive as Nadal's. He did not have to turn around his rivalry with the then number 1 player in the world to get back to number 1. That is not an excuse, that is just reality.
 
Last edited:
octobrina10 said:
So what?! Rafa's GS tournament win percentage is higher that that of Fed at the same age!
Rafa has won 36,1% of GS tourneys he has entered (13 of 36).
Fed at the same age - 32,5% (13 of 40) !!!
Click to expand...

With all due respect, I do not feel that having a higher win percentage at the slams at a certain age matters at all. They both won 13 at that age. The fact that Federer had played 4 more is actually a good thing and shows that he has been more consistently injury free.

Playing 4 slams and doing well is more impressive than skipping 4 slams.
 
Last edited:
Steve Dykstra said:
I do not feel that having a higher win percentage at the slams at a certain age matters at all. ...The fact that Federer had played 4 more is actually a good thing and shows that he has been more consistently injury free.
Click to expand...

A low winning percentage shows consistency???

Rafa is the only player ever to win at least one GS tourney (or more) for 9 consecutive years. That shows consistency!
 
TMF said:
Fed didn't "avoid" anyone since he showed up and won the FO. Nadal didn't try to "avoid" because he try his best and lost.:)

Fed comeback in 2009 was better than Nadal 2013 because he had a tougher field. Del Potro played his best tennis in 2009 and won the USO, Davydenko won the WTF and consistently stay in the top 10(his ranking is now below 50). Roddick got fitter by losing 15 pounds and play the match of his life at Wimbledon. In 2013 Fed was way past his prime, Murray got injured in the latter year. Old Davydenko, Del Potro wasn't as good as he use to be. No Soderling either who was playing his best tennis in 2009.
Click to expand...

The fact is I highly doubt Fed would have won as much as he did in 2009 if he had to go through Nadal as much as Nadal had to go through Djokovic this year. Nadal won regardless of who he met en route to his titles, making his season more impressive in my opinion.
 
octobrina10 said:
It's strange that, according to Fedfans, Fed has been always sick when he has lost to Rafa! He has had famous mono, back pain and so on and so on...
Click to expand...
Those claiming that are fools. Federer did not have mono anymore when he met Nadal at W and AO. But something clealry was wrong with him the entire year because let's be honest: he was not losing only to rafa.
 
Steve Dykstra said:
Rafa came back and overtook Djokovic, who was the number 1 player in the world at the time. He did it by defeating Djokovic multiple times at the most important events. As I said, Federer's comeback in 2009 was great, but not nearly as impressive as Nadal's. He did not have to turn around his rivalry with the then number 1 player in the world to get back to number 1. That is not an excuse, that is just reality.
Click to expand...

Nadal also didn't have to turn around a rivalry. In 2012 Nadal already turned it around. Also Nole was never leading a rivalry in the first place.

But still I think Nadal was more impressive, since he was gone for so long.

I mean can we even compare? Fed's comeback wasn't even a comeback. He never left. So we are comparing apples to oranges here.
 
mike danny said:
Those claiming that are fools. Federer did not have mono anymore when he met Nadal at W and AO. But something clealry was wrong with him the entire year because let's be honest: he was not losing only to rafa.
Click to expand...

The mono or whatever sickness he had threw him off at the beginning of the year, and this was only exacerbated by the beating Nadal laid down him at RG. I'm actually more impressed by Fed's ability to comeback that season and win USO than by his alleged 2009 'comeback'. If he had won AO 2009, I indeed would have labeled it as one of the greatest comebacks of all time.
 
Last edited:
octobrina10 said:
A low winning percentage shows consistency???
Click to expand...

You completely misunderstood my post. I never said that a low winning percentage shows consistency.

Edit: Looking back through the posts, I see that you conveniently left out important parts in my post when you quoted me. It seems you tried to pick pieces of my post and put them together in an attempt to take my comments out of context. Maybe you have a future in shady journalism?

octobrina10 said:
Rafa is the only player ever to win at least one GS tourney (or more) for 9 consecutive years. That shows consistency!
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with what I wrote, and I have no interest in discussing it.

octobrina10 said:
It's strange that, according to Fedfans, Fed has been always sick when he has lost to Rafa! He has had famous mono, back pain and so on and so on...
Click to expand...

Please stop putting words in my mouth. I never said any of those things...
 
Last edited:
Tenez101 said:
The mono or whatever sickness he had threw him off at the beginning of the year, and this was only exacerbated by the beating Nadal laid down him at RG. I'm actually more impressed by Fed's ability to comeback that season and win USO than by his alleged 2009 'comeback'. If he had won AO 2009, I indeed would have labeled it as one of the greatest comebacks of all time.
Click to expand...
Well something was clearly wrong with Fed. Can't explain why he received such a beating at the french
 
mike danny said:
Well something was clearly wrong with Fed. Can't explain why he received such a beating at the french
Click to expand...

Fedfans have difficulties in choosing whether Fed has been very sick or injury free. 10 years ago he was deemed unfit to serve in the military.

Wiki: ¤¤¤Like all male Swiss citizens, Federer was subject to compulsory military service in the Swiss Armed Forces. However, in 2003 he was deemed unfit because of a long-standing back problem and was subsequently not required to fulfill his military obligation.¤¤¤
 
octobrina10 said:
Fedfans have difficulties in choosing whether Fed has been very sick or injury free. 10 years ago he was deemed unfit to serve in the military.

Wiki: ¤¤¤Like all male Swiss citizens, Federer was subject to compulsory military service in the Swiss Armed Forces. However, in 2003 he was deemed unfit because of a long-standing back problem and was subsequently not required to fulfill his military obligation.¤¤¤
Click to expand...

Fed has had back problems for a long time but doesn't make a big deal out of it.

He also doesn't have a mouth piece broadcasting his problems every few weeks.

Fed is cool, plays as well as he can and goes with the flow.
 
Talker said:
Fed...doesn't make a big deal out of it.
Click to expand...

Are you serious?

¤¤ Roger Federer blamed a back injury after suffering a second embarassing defeat in a week, this time going out to world number 55 Daniel Brands in the second round at Gstaad.
July 25, 2013.
Federer, who slipped outside the top four after flopping at Wimbledon, went out 6-3 6-4 in one hour and five minutes to the big-serving German, who is unseeded for the tournament.
It was top seed and home favourite Federer's first match at the Swiss Open, having been granted a round-one bye. Last week he was ousted from Hamburg by world number 114 Federico Delbonis.
"I've had serious problems with the back, I had to get some anti-inflammatories last week in Hamburg due to the back pain," Federer said.
"It was so tough to play and move out there today. I'll just have to take treatment and see how it all goes."¤¤
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/...-world-number-55-gstaad-opener-162743747.html
 
TMF said:
So you think he never had mono but Fed and his camp lied? LOL

Fed's prime years are from 2004-2007. I don't think anyone except Fed-detractors say otherwise.
Click to expand...
Federer had a much longer prime than that. At least 2003-2010. He has played at a level very close to his best from 2011-2013, ending at the Australian Open. His peak was from 2004-2007.
 
Sabratha said:
Federer had a much longer prime than that. At least 2003-2010. He has played at a level very close to his best from 2011-2013, ending at the Australian Open. His peak was from 2004-2007.
Click to expand...

But if Fed was in his prime, why did he lose so many matches? I mean in his peak he only lost 4-5 matches a year. And after 2008 he was losing to lesser players too.

I doubt entire field in 2008-2010 improved so much. All top players improve all the time including Fed. But Fed in 2008 stopped improving. This is what decline is.

People would have a point if he only lost vs Rafa. One guy reaching Fed's level is more likely. But Fed was losing to all sorts of people. He was barley beating his pigeons. AO 08 he barley made it past Tipsarevic. USO 08 barley made it past Andreev. He lost to Blake at Olympics. AO 09 - I think he barely made it past a guy in 5 sets too. FO 09 - two five setters. W 09 barely won vs his pigeon Roddick. USO 09 lost 5-setter to some new guy at the time. He lost WTF in 08/09. Those are big matches, not some masters.

How do you explain his results if he was still in his prime?
 
Last edited:
What are you talking about? Federer comeback in 2009? When did he left first of all? If memory serves, it was Nadal who had to miss the end of the 2008 season because of his knees.
 
McEnroeisanartist said:
What do you think was the more impressive comeback?

Federer devastated at losing the epic 2008 Wimbledon final to Nadal and seemingly passing the throne onto his career rival and then going on to win 4 of the next 6 Grand Slams, including one at each Grand Slam.

Or Nadal losing in the second round of 2012 Wimbledon to 100th Ranked Rosol, taking a 222 day break from tennis, and then returning in 2013 with winning 2 Grand Slams, five Masters Series tournaments, and posting a career best 75.7 season record.
Click to expand...

Fed opportunistically won some slams while the king was out injured. The winning stopped once the king returned.
 
TheNatural said:
Fed opportunistically won some slams while the king was out injured. The winning stopped once the king returned.
Click to expand...

So what. It's not like injured Rafa could beat Fed anyway or even make a final.

Are you saying winning a war where enemy soldiers are injured doesn't count?

I guess Allies didn't win WW2 against Germany, since most German soldiers were injured / tired unable to fight. Doesn't count.

So, let us start speaking German :).
 
jg153040 said:
But if Fed was in his prime, why did he lose so many matches? I mean in his peak he only lost 4-5 matches a year. And after 2008 he was losing to lesser players too.

I doubt entire field in 2008-2010 improved so much. All top players improve all the time including Fed. But Fed in 2008 stopped improving. This is what decline is.

People would have a point if he only lost vs Rafa. One guy reaching Fed's level is more likely. But Fed was losing to all sorts of people. He was barley beating his pigeons. AO 08 he barley made it past Tipsarevic. USO 08 barley made it past Andreev. He lost to Blake at Olympics. AO 09 - I think he barely made it past a guy in 5 sets too. FO 09 - two five setters. W 09 barely won vs his pigeon Roddick. USO 09 lost 5-setter to some new guy at the time. He lost WTF in 08/09. Those are big matches, not some masters.

How do you explain his results if he was still in his prime?
Click to expand...
Federer lost those matches because he was not in peak form, therefore more susceptible to upsets. Decline is not just the halting of improvement, it's also something that includes rendering a player's powers down until they are nothing like they once were. How can you possibly say that Federer was rendered useless when he won a slam in 2008, two in 2009 and a slam in 2010? He was still winning at least a slam a year.

Also, remember that the surface changed at the Australian Open in 2008 and that all the top players had to get used to how slow it was. Maybe that is why Federer struggled on plexicushion when it was first introduced, and that explains his five setters against his pidgeons.

At Wimbledon in 2009, Federer was in prime form. It was not peak form, but it was at least as good as the form he showed at Wimbledon the year previous which was nearly enough to beat Nadal. In earlier years he's lost sets too, does that mean he was never at his peak on grass? :confused:

Federer may have had these five setters on clay, but he still made it to the final and won it. If he was in decline, he would have had a terrible loss like he did this year against Tsonga.
 
reversef said:
What are you talking about? Federer comeback in 2009? When did he left first of all? If memory serves, it was Nadal who had to miss the end of the 2008 season because of his knees.
Click to expand...

Nadal also took 2 months out in 2009 so could not defend his Wimbledon title which opened the door for Federer to win it. After coming back from the 2 months injury time out, Rafa suffered a tear in his stomach which hampered his chances in the North American swing so he couldn't defend his Canadian title and lost in the SF to Delpo at the USO.
 
Last edited:
dudeski said:
Or maybe due to weak era? LOLbredo in USO Q and Gasquet in the S anyone? Not to mention Ferrer in FO final :lol:

I can even accept Gasquet in the USO semi because you can make an argument that he is a late bloomer but old way past his prime #22 ranked LOLbredo in USO Q and old way past his prime Ferrer in FO F that right there is 100% weak era. There is a very good reason why in 2013 was the first time ever 31 year old past his prime Ferrer made to his first slam final ever.
Click to expand...

He's LOLbredo is he? Now see what he did to the 'King' of h/c

2013 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard R16 - Robredo, Tommy bt Roger Federer
7-6(3), 6-3, 6-4 Stats
 
Quote of the Day: "Rafa, obviously, with his “never say die” attitude. He’s someone that I even look up to now. He never ever gives up, obviously. Doesn’t matter how he’s feeling out there." — Lleyton Hewitt hails Rafa Nadal as his inspiration
 
clayqueen said:
Nadal also took 2 months out in 2009 so could not defend his Wimbledon title which opened the door for Federer to win it. After coming back from the 2 months injury time out, Rafa suffered a tear in his stomach which hampered his chances in the North American swing so he couldn't defend his Canadian title and lost in the SF to Delpo at the USO.
Click to expand...
Don't remind me all those moments. I know them too well. I'm always ready for the next injury setback. It's waiting around the corner.
 
Sabratha said:
Federer lost those matches because he was not in peak form, therefore more susceptible to upsets. Decline is not just the halting of improvement, it's also something that includes rendering a player's powers down until they are nothing like they once were. How can you possibly say that Federer was rendered useless when he won a slam in 2008, two in 2009 and a slam in 2010? He was still winning at least a slam a year.

Also, remember that the surface changed at the Australian Open in 2008 and that all the top players had to get used to how slow it was. Maybe that is why Federer struggled on plexicushion when it was first introduced, and that explains his five setters against his pidgeons.

At Wimbledon in 2009, Federer was in prime form. It was not peak form, but it was at least as good as the form he showed at Wimbledon the year previous which was nearly enough to beat Nadal. In earlier years he's lost sets too, does that mean he was never at his peak on grass? :confused:

Federer may have had these five setters on clay, but he still made it to the final and won it. If he was in decline, he would have had a terrible loss like he did this year against Tsonga.
Click to expand...

Prime form means mental too. Mentality declines with age too. So you are less clutch.

No, Fed was not in prime form. He lost tons of tight matches. Also he got pushed to 5 from lesser players.

He went from 3 majors/year standard to barley winning a major in 2008. I mean he almost lost that USO too to Andreev.

That is HUGE drop in results for Fed. But he was so great in his prime, that even with 80%, he can still play at a top level, he just can't dominate as much.

It's not about losing sets. But after 2008 he was losing/struggling to guys he was dominating before. And they are not isolated examples.
-Tipsarevic AO 08, Djokovic AO 08, Andreev USO 08, Blake Olympics, AO 09 was pushed to 5, was is Berdych?, Haas FO 09, Delpo FO 09, Roddick W 09, Delpo USO 09, WTF 08/09...

Those are guys not Rafa and not even close to Rafa's level.

Rafa declined on grass too the last years. It's obvious to see too.
 
clayqueen said:
Quote of the Day: "Rafa, obviously, with his “never say die” attitude. He’s someone that I even look up to now. He never ever gives up, obviously. Doesn’t matter how he’s feeling out there." — Lleyton Hewitt hails Rafa Nadal as his inspiration
Click to expand...

I know Rafa is amazing fighter. But those words apply to Fed even more.

It seems he never skips a major or gets beaten early in majors. Never retires from a match.

Never gives up, doesn't matter how he's feeling out there. This is what Hewitt said. This applies to Fed even more in my book.

And how Fed after tough losses never takes time off, but comes back stronger too.

Fed's mentality and his fighting spirit is very underrated here.

But, I guess you are that type of fan, who won't give Fed credit for anything.
 
Last edited:
jg153040 said:
Prime form means mental too. Mentality declines with age too. So you are less clutch.

No, Fed was not in prime form. He lost tons of tight matches. Also he got pushed to 5 from lesser players.

He went from 3 majors/year standard to barley winning a major in 2008. I mean he almost lost that USO too to Andreev.

That is HUGE drop in results for Fed. But he was so great in his prime, that even with 80%, he can still play at a top level, he just can't dominate as much.

It's not about losing sets. But after 2008 he was losing/struggling to guys he was dominating before. And they are not isolated examples.
-Tipsarevic AO 08, Djokovic AO 08, Andreev USO 08, Blake Olympics, AO 09 was pushed to 5, was is Berdych?, Haas FO 09, Delpo FO 09, Roddick W 09, Delpo USO 09, WTF 08/09...

Those are guys not Rafa and not even close to Rafa's level.

Rafa declined on grass too the last years. It's obvious to see too.
Click to expand...
They don't have to be close to Nadal's level to push Federer. Safin beat Federer smack bang in the middle of his peak, he was losing to Murray and Djokovic and he lost to Kuerten at the French Open at the start of his peak. The list can go on and on, but the thing is Federer wasn't invincible. He might have seemed that way when he was beating pretty much everyone left and right, but in 2008-2010, his losses weren't terrible and he certainly posted great results in every major, never losing before the quarterfinals. In fact, when Federer started truly declining was when his semifinal streak ended and he lost early at Roland Garros in 2010. After that his form became subpar because he was taking these bad losses to majors.

And he squeezed past the players he had trouble with because he is so good. That is a testament of mental strength, beating a player who has a chance to win the very match you're playing.

Federer has always struggled with Djokovic and he only won in 3 tight sets mere months before their match at the Australian Open in 2008, and as I have said before, I believe Federer struggled with plexicushion to begin with whereas Djokovic thrived playing on it.

Tipsarevic was playing great during that match and taking his chances and he later became a staple in the top 10 a couple of years down the track. Pushing Federer to five is not a big deal here.

Blake played the match of his life to beat Federer at the Olympics, but so did Berdych in 2004. Was this peak Federer?

Berdych made the Wimbledon final a year later so him pushing Federer doesn't mean he was not in his prime, and the funny thing is he did not completely own Berdych to start with. He's always struggled with him, even going back as far as 2004.

The point is, most of the people Federer struggled with in these years either played the match of their life and or went on to achieve something great. Federer wasn't perfect, even in his prime.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
octobrina10 said:
Are you serious?

¤¤ Roger Federer blamed a back injury after suffering a second embarassing defeat in a week, this time going out to world number 55 Daniel Brands in the second round at Gstaad.
July 25, 2013.
Federer, who slipped outside the top four after flopping at Wimbledon, went out 6-3 6-4 in one hour and five minutes to the big-serving German, who is unseeded for the tournament.
It was top seed and home favourite Federer's first match at the Swiss Open, having been granted a round-one bye. Last week he was ousted from Hamburg by world number 114 Federico Delbonis.
"I've had serious problems with the back, I had to get some anti-inflammatories last week in Hamburg due to the back pain," Federer said.
"It was so tough to play and move out there today. I'll just have to take treatment and see how it all goes."¤¤
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/...-world-number-55-gstaad-opener-162743747.html
Click to expand...

I don't understand the purpose of your post. This is not evidence of Federer making a big deal about a back injury. The article does not show it, but I think it is highly likely that Federer's quotes were in response to questions from journalists. I highly doubt that Federer simply showed up and gave a speech about why he lost the match.

There is nothing wrong with answering questions truthfully, and simply answering questions does not mean that he was making a big deal of it.
 
Sabratha said:
They don't have to be close to Nadal's level to push Federer. Safin beat Federer smack bang in the middle of his peak, he was losing to Murray and Djokovic and he lost to Kuerten at the French Open at the start of his peak. The list can go on and on, but the thing is Federer wasn't invincible. He might have seemed that way when he was beating pretty much everyone left and right, but in 2008-2010, his losses weren't terrible and he certainly posted great results in every major, never losing before the quarterfinals. In fact, when Federer started truly declining was when his semifinal streak ended and he lost early at Roland Garros in 2010. After that his form became subpar because he was taking these bad losses to majors.

And he squeezed past the players he had trouble with because he is so good. That is a testament of mental strength, beating a player who has a chance to win the very match you're playing.

Federer has always struggled with Djokovic and he only won in 3 tight sets mere months before their match at the Australian Open in 2008, and as I have said before, I believe Federer struggled with plexicushion to begin with whereas Djokovic thrived playing on it.

Tipsarevic was playing great during that match and taking his chances and he later became a staple in the top 10 a couple of years down the track. Pushing Federer to five is not a big deal here.

Blake played the match of his life to beat Federer at the Olympics, but so did Berdych in 2004. Was this peak Federer?

Berdych made the Wimbledon final a year later so him pushing Federer doesn't mean he was not in his prime, and the funny thing is he did not completely own Berdych to start with. He's always struggled with him, even going back as far as 2004.

The point is, most of the people Federer struggled with in these years either played the match of their life and or went on to achieve something great. Federer wasn't perfect, even in his prime.
Click to expand...
But you said federer started declining when he lost at RG in 2010. And then you said just because Berydich beat him at W does not mean he was not in his prime.

Make up your mind
 
Sabratha said:
They don't have to be close to Nadal's level to push Federer. Safin beat Federer smack bang in the middle of his peak, he was losing to Murray and Djokovic and he lost to Kuerten at the French Open at the start of his peak. The list can go on and on, but the thing is Federer wasn't invincible. He might have seemed that way when he was beating pretty much everyone left and right, but in 2008-2010, his losses weren't terrible and he certainly posted great results in every major, never losing before the quarterfinals. In fact, when Federer started truly declining was when his semifinal streak ended and he lost early at Roland Garros in 2010. After that his form became subpar because he was taking these bad losses to majors.

And he squeezed past the players he had trouble with because he is so good. That is a testament of mental strength, beating a player who has a chance to win the very match you're playing.

Federer has always struggled with Djokovic and he only won in 3 tight sets mere months before their match at the Australian Open in 2008, and as I have said before, I believe Federer struggled with plexicushion to begin with whereas Djokovic thrived playing on it.

Tipsarevic was playing great during that match and taking his chances and he later became a staple in the top 10 a couple of years down the track. Pushing Federer to five is not a big deal here.

Blake played the match of his life to beat Federer at the Olympics, but so did Berdych in 2004. Was this peak Federer?

Berdych made the Wimbledon final a year later so him pushing Federer doesn't mean he was not in his prime, and the funny thing is he did not completely own Berdych to start with. He's always struggled with him, even going back as far as 2004.

The point is, most of the people Federer struggled with in these years either played the match of their life and or went on to achieve something great. Federer wasn't perfect, even in his prime.
Click to expand...

Fed never struggled against anyone from his generation. You are comparing here older Fed vs prime Nole. I mean every player "struggles" vs the greats of next generation.

And even with this, Fed still managed to come on top vs Nole and Murray vs greats of even next generation. He still leads them in the majors h2h even with the edge they have over him. And by some weird luck Fed lost twice MPs vs Nole. Nole was lucky to even beat 2011/2010 Fed at USO.

Rafa is a similar case. But Rafa is a lot better than Nole, Murray so from the next generation he was the only one being able to come on top vs Fed. But that is on clay only. On grass/HC Fed was leading the h2h at one point.

Fed had two big stages of decline. 2008 was first big step. Fed lost almost the same number of matches in one year than in his 3 previous years combined.
Then after 2010 was another huge step. Fed didn't win a major for two and a half years.

What is your point anyway? Numbers show Fed declined, naked eye shows his speed declined. What else do you need?
 
This isnt even close, only the most hardcore Fed fans would argue otherwise. What Nadal did is unprecedented and seemed impossible to tennis experts and former pros.

What Fed did is admirable as well but getting from no. 2 back to no. 1 isn't that tremendous a feat, especially when Fed's taking advantage of the no. 1's absence to take back the spot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Most Impressive Achievement of Federer and Nadal
Replies
35
Views
6K
ScottleeSV
S
M
More Impressive Career Turnaround - Federer or Djokovic
Replies
10
Views
2K
Morj
M
M
More Impressive Achievement of Federer and Nadal
Replies
4
Views
1K
Graf=GOAT
G
M
More Impressive Achievement of Nadal
Replies
29
Views
3K
The_Order
The_Order
M
More Impressive Achievement of Federer and Nadal
Replies
13
Views
2K
FrontHeadlock
F
Back
Top