My "bold/unpopular" opinion: Prime Federer played a better version of Rafa than Prime Djokovic did

[clout]

Here's my unpopular tennis opinion: Federer in his prime played a better version of Rafa than Djokovic did in his, despite the much wider age gap.

Here are some reasons:

- When Fed was at his best on clay between 2005-09, that coincided with Rafa's best years on clay where he won 81 matches in a row (Djoker's clay prime were during some of Rafa's not so great years on clay by his hefty standards)

- 2007/08 were Rafa's two best years on grass (alongside 2010), and better than any version of Rafa at Wimby post-2011 (only '18 is in the same stratosphere)

- 2009 AO Rafa was the best he ever played in the land down under and that of course, came at the expense of Fed

- Federer in his prime never got to play 2014-2016 Nadal (on and off clay) who Djokovic scored a handful of wins off of

- Rafa was a top 2 player in 5/6 prime Fed years; Rafa was top 2 for only 2/6 prime Djoker years

- Only place Djokovic has played a tougher version of Rafa is the USO and part of that is because Fed never played the Spaniard there

Since we're in quarantine, let's start what will surely be a long and heated discussion, grab the popcorn folks!

 

[125downthemiddle]

That's not an UO lol

 

[King No1e]

 

[clout]

That's not an UO lol

Try telling this to some posters on here

 

[daggerman]

I don't think either are losing sleep over the quality of Rafa they faced. And neither am I.

 

[The Guru]

Try telling this to some posters on here

I mean I think this is a pretty popular take. It's not really a bold one. I think it's fairly even. At the French and USO I think Djokovic got it worse and at AO and Wimbledon Fed got it worse.

 

[clout]

I mean I think this is a pretty popular take. It's not really a bold one. I think it's fairly even. At the French and USO I think Djokovic got it worse and at AO and Wimbledon Fed got it worse.

I mean on the surface it may seem hard to believe since Fed (b. 1981) is 5 years older than Rafa (b. 1986), who is only one year older than Novak (b. 1987)

 

[King No1e]

I mean I think this is a pretty popular take. It's not really a bold one. I think it's fairly even. At the French and USO I think Djokovic got it worse and at AO and Wimbledon Fed got it worse.

Fed only got it worse at AO for one year. Prime Nadal on HC came during and after 2009, not before.

 

[The Guru]

Fed only got it worse at AO for one year. Prime Nadal on HC came during and after 2009, not before.

Well Djokovic faced Nadal in 2012 and 2019. Federer faced him in 2009, 2012, 2014, and 2017.

2009/2014/2017 are all greater than 2019 so I don't see how it's possible to claim Djokovic had it harder. Purely on volume Fed had it harder.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Try telling this to some posters on here

Most of whom started watching tennis in 2017. There's no basis of comparison to anything except what's happened in the last 3 years. Pete Sampras might as well be the stone ages.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Your opinion is wrong.

Which exemplifies the mentality here.

The actual fact is that there is no "wrong" opinion. If someone claims Monfils is the GOAT, they're not "wrong," they're merely expressing their opinion, whether you agree with it or not. As Plato said, "opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance."

 

[King No1e]

Well Djokovic faced Nadal in 2012 and 2019. Federer faced him in 2009, 2012, 2014, and 2017.

2009/2014/2017 are all greater than 2019 so I don't see how it's possible to claim Djokovic had it harder. Purely on volume Fed had it harder.

That wasn't Prime Fed. OP's contention seems to be that Nadal was better pre-2010 than post-2010, which is just false outside of grass

 

[King No1e]

Which exemplifies the mentality here.

The actual fact is that there is no "wrong" opinion. If someone claims Monfils is the GOAT, they're not "wrong," they're merely expressing their opinion, whether you agree with it or not. As Plato said, "opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance."

Wow, what a withering takedown of a literal meme post. Do you watch Rick and Morty?

 

[Third Serve]

Wow, what a withering takedown of a literal meme post. Do you watch Rick and Morty?

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Rick and Morty. The humor is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Rick's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation - his personal philosophy draws heavily fromNarodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realize that they're not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Rick and Morty truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Rick's existencial catchphrase "Wubba Lubba Dub Dub," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Dan Harmon's genius unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools... how I pity them. And yes by the way, I DO have a Rick and Morty tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- And even they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Wow, what a withering takedown of a literal meme post.

If a withering takedown is deserved, so be it. @MichaelNadal - post a wrestling gif!

 

[King No1e]

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Rick and Morty. The humor is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Rick's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation - his personal philosophy draws heavily fromNarodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realize that they're not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Rick and Morty truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Rick's existencial catchphrase "Wubba Lubba Dub Dub," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Dan Harmon's genius unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools... how I pity them. And yes by the way, I DO have a Rick and Morty tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- And even they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand.

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Boku no Pico. The humour is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Chico's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realise that they're not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Boku no Pico truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Pico's existential catchphrase "YAMETE KUDASAI," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Katsuyoshi Yatabe's genius wit unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools.. how I pity them. joy

And yes, by the way, i DO have a Boku no Pico tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- and even then they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid

 

[MeatTornado]

It doesn't really matter anyway. Even if you think 2000s Rafa was better than 2010s Rafa on clay (like I do), it's not like prime Fed was going to beat the 2010s Rafa on clay and prime Novak isn't beating 2000s Rafa on clay either. Roger probably would have beaten most versions of 2010s Bull on grass, just like he actually did in the 2000s, losing just 1 epic nail-biter. So not much changes there. Would prime Novak still be undefeated at Wimbledon if he got 07-08 Rafa instead of 11/18? Idk. Probably, but it would be close.

Hard courts is the clear divider here. Hard court was the last surface he peaked on, so prime Novak simply played more matches against Nadal on the surface than prime Federer did. And we saw Federer already struggling against 2000s Rafa even then, the match-up advantage was so strong that it compensated for Nadal not totally having hard courts figured out yet. There's no way around that, so Federer would probably struggle even more against 10s Nadal. He might be 0-3 instead of 1-2 against 2010,11&13 Nadal at the USO. And the big difference is in Australia where both played 1 really good Nadal, Roger lost his final in 5 (09) and Novak won his (12). I think 12 Novak beats 09 Nadal and 09 Federer still loses to 12 Nadal.

idk if any of that made sense or not

 

[metsman]

So compare 05-08 RG Nadal, 06-08 Wimby Nadal, 09 AO Nadal vs 11 Wimby/USO Nadal, 12 AO Nadal, 12-15 RG, 13 USO Nadal. Should be a pretty easy answer.

08 Wimby > 07 Wimby ~ 09 AO ~ 13 USO > 12 AO > 11 Wimby ~ 06 Wimby > 11 USO. RG goes to 05-08 by a landslide just because of 2015.

 

[JaoSousa]

Nadal's best period on clay: 2005-2008, 2010, 2017. If we take Federer's prime from 2003-2010, he has 5 years of Nadal to deal with, including 81winstreak-dal.
Nadal's best on grass- 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2018- About the same. I would say 2008 Nadal is absolute peak, 2018 and 2007 are tied. So Fed had it marginally harder.
Nadal's best on HC- 2008, 2010, 2011, 2013, (some other years sprinkled in). Federer doesn't have much of a hard Nadal to deal with in this period aside from the 2009 AO version. Especially on Fast HC, Fed was more than comfortable against Nadal. Djokovic on the other hand had an almost peak Nadal to contend with.

So the Nadal Federer faced was much better on clay, marginally better on grass, and much worse on HC.

Now, this does not mean that Federer had more competition. Djokovic from 2011 on had to face prime Nadal on HC, the greatest grasscourter ever(arguably) at Wimbledon, and the greatest clay court player ever(although mostly past his best on clay). Plus he had Murray to deal with.

So Federer had a better Nadal on 2/3 surfaces, and Djokovic had better all around competition.

 

[Third Serve]

Nadal's best period on clay: 2005-2008, 2010, 2017. If we take Federer's prime from 2003-2010, he has 5 years of Nadal to deal with, including 81winstreak-dal.
Nadal's best on grass- 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2018- About the same. I would say 2008 Nadal is absolute peak, 2018 and 2007 are tied. So Fed had it marginally harder.
Nadal's best on HC- 2008, 2010, 2011, 2013, (some other years sprinkled in). Federer doesn't have much of a hard Nadal to deal with in this period aside from the 2009 AO version. Especially on Fast HC, Fed was more than comfortable against Nadal. Djokovic on the other hand had an almost peak Nadal to contend with.

So the Nadal Federer faced was much better on clay, marginally better on grass, and much worse on HC.

Now, this does not mean that Federer had more competition. Djokovic from 2011 on had to face prime Nadal on HC, the greatest grasscourter ever(arguably) at Wimbledon, and the greatest clay court player ever(although mostly past his best on clay). Plus he had Murray to deal with.

So Federer had a better Nadal on 2/3 surfaces, and Djokovic had better all around competition.

Scandalous to not include 2012. Only dropped three sets during his whole clay season (which included Monte-Carlo, Barcelona, Madrid, Rome, and RG -- essentially, he won Monte-Carlo, Barcelona, and Rome without dropping any sets). One was to Djokovic in the RG final and the other two came to Verdasco on blue clay. Everywhere else he was insanely dominant. Huge contender for his best ever.

Only time he's dropped fewer sets to my memory was 2010.

 

[MichaelNadal]

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Rick and Morty. The humor is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the jokes will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Rick's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation - his personal philosophy draws heavily fromNarodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these jokes, to realize that they're not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Rick and Morty truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Rick's existencial catchphrase "Wubba Lubba Dub Dub," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Dan Harmon's genius unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools... how I pity them. And yes by the way, I DO have a Rick and Morty tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- And even they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand.

The Freddy Kruger ep of Rick and Morty is epic af

If a withering takedown is deserved, so be it. @MichaelNadal - post a wrestling gif!

 

[Third Serve]

you good, man?

 

[MichaelNadal]

you good, man?

Lol very, just posted a wrestling Gif bc I was told to you don't know me yet?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

It doesn't really matter anyway. Even if you think 2000s Rafa was better than 2010s Rafa on clay (like I do), it's not like prime Fed was going to beat the 2010s Rafa on clay and prime Novak isn't beating 2000s Rafa on clay either. Roger probably would have beaten most versions of 2010s Bull on grass, just like he actually did in the 2000s, losing just 1 epic nail-biter. So not much changes there. Would prime Novak still be undefeated at Wimbledon if he got 07-08 Rafa instead of 11/18? Idk. Probably, but it would be close.

Hard courts is the clear divider here. Hard court was the last surface he peaked on, so prime Novak simply played more matches against Nadal on the surface than prime Federer did. And we saw Federer already struggling against 2000s Rafa even then, the match-up advantage was so strong that it compensated for Nadal not totally having hard courts figured out yet. There's no way around that, so Federer would probably struggle even more against 10s Nadal. He might be 0-3 instead of 1-2 against 2010,11&13 Nadal at the USO. And the big difference is in Australia where both played 1 really good Nadal, Roger lost his final in 5 (09) and Novak won his (12). I think 12 Novak beats 09 Nadal and 09 Federer still loses to 12 Nadal.

idk if any of that made sense or not

Bolded: disagree.

If peak Fed could go toe in toe with peak Claydal most of the time, there is no reason to believe that he couldn't have beaten lesser versions of him.

Also, saying "not much changes" because Federer was a superior grass court player doesn't really illustrate which version of Nadal was actually better, in that case clearly the 00s version.

Both these things mean that on two out of the three available surfaces Federer faced the strongest version of Nadal. The HC is not "the divider", as you say.

 

[ForehandCross]

Bolded: disagree.

Delusions of grandeur, LOL.

Neither of Djokovic and Federer are going to beat any version of RG winning Rafael.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Delusions of grandeur, LOL.

Neither of Djokovic and Federer are going to beat any version of RG winning Rafael.

Actually, despite of Nadal winning most of his matches against Federer at RG in 4, they were closer than the score suggests. Any lesser version of Nadal, and peak Federer is directly granted a chance for a win. Just like in their famous Rome match.

 

[Stannis Baratheon]

Delusions of grandeur, LOL.

Neither of Djokovic and Federer are going to beat any version of RG winning Rafael.

Fed, no.
Novak almost did. A little luck and he would have.

 

[King No1e]

Bolded: disagree.

If peak Fed could go toe in toe with peak Claydal most of the time, there is no reason to believe that he couldn't have beaten lesser versions of him.

Also, saying "not much changes" because Federer was a superior grass court player doesn't really illustrate which version of Nadal was actually better, in that case clearly the 00s version.

Both these things mean that on two out of the three available surfaces Federer faced the strongest version of Nadal. The HC is not "the divider", as you say.

2007 Federer vs 2012 Nadal at RG. Let's see how many games Federer would take off Peak Nadal. My guess is not many.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

2007 Federer vs 2012 Nadal at RG. Let's see how many games Federer would take off Peak Nadal. My guess is not many.

How about 2006 Fed vs 2015/16 Nadal?

 

[MeatTornado]

Bolded: disagree.

If peak Fed could go toe in toe with peak Claydal most of the time, there is no reason to believe that he couldn't have beaten lesser versions of him.

Besides the obvious 15/16, what year is peak Fed beating Rafa at RG? 2014 would be the only realistic option but I don't see it happening. He's still just going to spam Roger's backhand like every other version did.

 

[mike danny]

I mean I think this is a pretty popular take. It's not really a bold one. I think it's fairly even. At the French and USO I think Djokovic got it worse and at AO and Wimbledon Fed got it worse.

I disagree with Djoker getting it worse at the FO. He got 2015 Rafa which Fed never did.

 

[Azure]

How about 2006 Fed vs 2015/16 Nadal?

Fed of 2005-6 was a monster. I do see him being very capable of beating 2015 rafa on clay. I always have been of the opinion that despite Rafa and Novak being closer in age, their peaks did not overlap as supposed. Fed often faced beast Rafa on clay. Novak too faced some of the finest of Rafa on clay but I feel it was Fed who had it tougher with Rafa on clay.

 

[mike danny]

Fed only got it worse at AO for one year.

So did Djoker.

Difference is Fed played Rafa more times and neither of those times was Rafa at 2019 level.

 

[mike danny]

That wasn't Prime Fed. OP's contention seems to be that Nadal was better pre-2010 than post-2010, which is just false outside of grass

2009 wasn't prime Fed?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Besides the obvious 15/16, what year is peak Fed beating Rafa at RG? 2014 would be the only realistic option but I don't see it happening. He's still just going to spam Roger's backhand like every other version did.

There are a number of years from the 10s where peak Federer would have a realistic chance of beating the respective Nadal on clay at the RG. Nadal is but a shadow of himself movement wise. 2015, 2016 are the obvious choices. 2011 would have been another. Federer actually played Nadal close even in his (Federer's) diminished state. Obviously, also, all years from 2017 onwards due to the said deteriorated Nadal movement, which was key in beating Federer when Federer was at his peak.

 

[mike danny]

It doesn't really matter anyway. Even if you think 2000s Rafa was better than 2010s Rafa on clay (like I do), it's not like prime Fed was going to beat the 2010s Rafa on clay and prime Novak isn't beating 2000s Rafa on clay either. Roger probably would have beaten most versions of 2010s Bull on grass, just like he actually did in the 2000s, losing just 1 epic nail-biter. So not much changes there. Would prime Novak still be undefeated at Wimbledon if he got 07-08 Rafa instead of 11/18? Idk. Probably, but it would be close.

Hard courts is the clear divider here. Hard court was the last surface he peaked on, so prime Novak simply played more matches against Nadal on the surface than prime Federer did. And we saw Federer already struggling against 2000s Rafa even then, the match-up advantage was so strong that it compensated for Nadal not totally having hard courts figured out yet. There's no way around that, so Federer would probably struggle even more against 10s Nadal. He might be 0-3 instead of 1-2 against 2010,11&13 Nadal at the USO. And the big difference is in Australia where both played 1 really good Nadal, Roger lost his final in 5 (09) and Novak won his (12). I think 12 Novak beats 09 Nadal and 09 Federer still loses to 12 Nadal.

idk if any of that made sense or not

It did.

I disagree with Fed going 0-3 against Rafa at the USO. Prime Fed was a beast at the USO and 2011 Nadal wasn't so great. He got breadsticked by a Joker who could barely serve.

 

[mike danny]

If we are only talking prime, then:

AO: tie
FO: Fed
Wimb: Fed
USO: Novak

 

[mike danny]

Nadal's best period on clay: 2005-2008, 2010, 2017. If we take Federer's prime from 2003-2010, he has 5 years of Nadal to deal with, including 81winstreak-dal.
Nadal's best on grass- 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2018- About the same. I would say 2008 Nadal is absolute peak, 2018 and 2007 are tied. So Fed had it marginally harder.
Nadal's best on HC- 2008, 2010, 2011, 2013, (some other years sprinkled in). Federer doesn't have much of a hard Nadal to deal with in this period aside from the 2009 AO version. Especially on Fast HC, Fed was more than comfortable against Nadal. Djokovic on the other hand had an almost peak Nadal to contend with.

So the Nadal Federer faced was much better on clay, marginally better on grass, and much worse on HC.

Now, this does not mean that Federer had more competition. Djokovic from 2011 on had to face prime Nadal on HC, the greatest grasscourter ever(arguably) at Wimbledon, and the greatest clay court player ever(although mostly past his best on clay). Plus he had Murray to deal with.

So Federer had a better Nadal on 2/3 surfaces, and Djokovic had better all around competition.

Here's the thing though, that stopped after 2013. The greatest grass court player ever was past his best after 2012.

 

[mike danny]

Actually, despite of Nadal winning most of his matches against Federer at RG in 4, they were closer than the score suggests. Any lesser version of Nadal, and peak Federer is directly granted a chance for a win. Just like in their famous Rome match.

Nah, unless it's 2015 Rafa, Fed isn't beating him at RG.

 

[TripleATeam]

Yes, this is clear to anyone with eyes. Rafa was clearly better from 2005-2008 than 2011-2014. Federer never had the chances Djokovic had in 2015 and 2016 in his prime. However, that isn't me saying Djokovic had it easier.

Federer had the period from 2000-2004 to compete without Nadal. Before he turned 23, Federer did next to nothing on clay (comparatively speaking). Djokovic's equivalent seasons were 2006-2010, when he lost to Rafa 3/5 times. Federer didn't need anyone of Rafa's caliber to take him out when he was younger, Djokovic did and likely could have capitalized on the weaker RGs before Nadal. However, one would also guess Federer would have more RGs (would have won both 2015 and 2016).

Who lost out more in their prime from Rafa? Definitely Federer. Who lost more overall? That's debatable.

 

[DSH]

2005 Nadal vs 2015 Djokovic and 2006 Nadal vs 2016 Djokovic at RG, who wins?

 

[Rago]

- When Fed was at his best on clay between 2005-09, that coincided with Rafa's best years on clay where he won 81 matches in a row (Djoker's clay prime were during some of Rafa's not so great years on clay by his hefty standards)

Djokovic played Nadal 8 times in the same timespan and has also had to play 2012 Nadal who was a buzzsaw on clay.

So 11 matches for both Federer and Djokovic right there.

I do actually think 2012 Nadal >> 2006 Nadal on the mud and peak Djokovic would have performed slightly better (pushed Nadal a bit further) than Federer did in 2006.

- 2007/08 were Rafa's two best years on grass (alongside 2010), and better than any version of Rafa at Wimby post-2011 (only '18 is in the same stratosphere)

Djokovic played Nadal at USO 10, 11 and 13, each time on the back of a 5 set semi.

- 2009 AO Rafa was the best he ever played in the land down under and that of course, came at the expense of Fed

Only match where you could say Federer had it a bit tougher but I don't think 2012 is that far behind and Djokovic also played Nadal at Wimbledon 2011 where Nadal was serving at around 80 percent in the first set.

- Federer in his prime never got to play 2014-2016 Nadal (on and off clay) who Djokovic scored a handful of wins off of

Do you really think Federer would beat Nadal at Rome in 2014/2016 and MC in 2015?

Federer is 0-14 against Nadal at slow plexi AO, MC, Rome and FO combined.

Djokovic's wins against Nadal on clay in 2011 are more impressive wins than anything Federer has done on clay.

Only two wins Federer has against Nadal on clay is on lower bouncing surfaces after Nadal played the entire clay season before the Hamburg final (still needed three sets to win) and a 4 hour marathon SF against Djokovic in Madrid.

- Rafa was a top 2 player in 5/6 prime Fed years; Rafa was top 2 for only 2/6 prime Djoker years

Djokovic has been playing against Nadal all the way since 2005.

- Only place Djokovic has played a tougher version of Rafa is the USO and part of that is because Fed never played the Spaniard there

0-0 at USO; also, see above points.

@125downthemiddle @NoleFam @Hitman

 

[socallefty]

Weird how Rafa and Roger got old a decade ago according to so many posters while Novak is supposed to be still in his prime - is it his “new-age“ diet and yoga that keeps him young? The reality is that they all keep winning Slams and refusing to let anyone else win them - is it the last 13 in a row and counting? Rafa and Roger have won 8 Grand Slams just since 2017 long after their supposed primes - every other tennis player in the world would kill to be so “bad”.

Unfortunately for Fedal fans, Rafa and Roger are unable to beat Novak in Grand Slams since the 2014 French Open or they would have won at least 7 more Slams (3 Wimbledons and 1 USO for Roger; 1 AO, 1 Wimbledon and possibly 1 FO for Rafa) where they were beaten by Novak. If they had won all those Slams in addition to the eight they won, no one would be talking about them as being well past their primes. In fact, we would be marveling that their prime years lasted so long.

Roger was the best player of the 2000s and Novak has been the best player of the 2010s on hard courts and grass while Rafa has been the best player on clay during both decades. They are all very good and we are fortunate to see this level of excellence for two decades. I’m sad that the era will end in a few years and don’t see the point of wasting time having highly subjective arguments by each fan base about ‘weak eras’, ‘primes’, ‘age’ etc. Let‘s just enjoy watching them in their post-prime years, shall we? They are still better and way more interesting than every other player out there.

 

[ForehandCross]

2005 Nadal vs 2015 Djokovic and 2006 Nadal vs 2016 Djokovic at RG, who wins?

Rafael would have his hands full, but he would be ready to die on court to win it. Djokovic was stretched to 5 against Murray in 2015, and Murray is no Nadal.

 

[mike danny]

There are a number of years from the 10s where peak Federer would have a realistic chance of beating the respective Nadal on clay at the RG. Nadal is but a shadow of himself movement wise. 2015, 2016 are the obvious choices. 2011 would have been another. Federer actually played Nadal close even in his (Federer's) diminished state. Obviously, also, all years from 2017 onwards due to the said deteriorated Nadal movement, which was key in beating Federer when Federer was at his peak.

Federer would do better than Thiem against 2017-present Rafa at RG, but he wouldn't win.

I do see him pushing Rafa to 5 though.

We'll never know though. Fed's chances do increase with Rafa's deteriorated movement compared to his prime years, too bad we never got to see a match like this between them.

 

[mike danny]

Yes, this is clear to anyone with eyes. Rafa was clearly better from 2005-2008 than 2011-2014. Federer never had the chances Djokovic had in 2015 and 2016 in his prime. However, that isn't me saying Djokovic had it easier.

Federer had the period from 2000-2004 to compete without Nadal. Before he turned 23, Federer did next to nothing on clay (comparatively speaking). Djokovic's equivalent seasons were 2006-2010, when he lost to Rafa 3/5 times. Federer didn't need anyone of Rafa's caliber to take him out when he was younger, Djokovic did and likely could have capitalized on the weaker RGs before Nadal. However, one would also guess Federer would have more RGs (would have won both 2015 and 2016).

Who lost out more in their prime from Rafa? Definitely Federer. Who lost more overall? That's debatable.

Well, 2000-2001 had Kuerten on clay so Djoker might not win those editions. Even 2003 Ferrero wouldn't be easy.

 

[metsman]

Besides the obvious 15/16, what year is peak Fed beating Rafa at RG? 2014 would be the only realistic option but I don't see it happening. He's still just going to spam Roger's backhand like every other version did.

You guys do realize that the 2011 match between them exists right? Even in that match Nadal couldn't spam to the BH nearly as much as 05-08 did. His preparation to take the ball earlier to create those CC angles and depth wasn't nearly as good. Nor was his defense, obviously.

11-14 Nadal would still beat 05-08 Fed but the matchup would not be as far in his favor and I think Federer could take a few of those versions 5.

 

[metsman]

Yes, this is clear to anyone with eyes. Rafa was clearly better from 2005-2008 than 2011-2014. Federer never had the chances Djokovic had in 2015 and 2016 in his prime. However, that isn't me saying Djokovic had it easier.

Federer had the period from 2000-2004 to compete without Nadal. Before he turned 23, Federer did next to nothing on clay (comparatively speaking). Djokovic's equivalent seasons were 2006-2010, when he lost to Rafa 3/5 times. Federer didn't need anyone of Rafa's caliber to take him out when he was younger, Djokovic did and likely could have capitalized on the weaker RGs before Nadal. However, one would also guess Federer would have more RGs (would have won both 2015 and 2016).

Who lost out more in their prime from Rafa? Definitely Federer. Who lost more overall? That's debatable.

Djokovic was not a serious contender at RG in 06, 07, 09, 10 and there's not a snowball's chance in hell he wins the 00, 01, 03, 04 versions. 08 in 02, yes he'd have a great shot, but Federer was also good enough to win in 2011 (light balls asterisk, yeah yeah) but was stopped by Nadal.

 

[mike danny]

Only match where you could say Federer had it a bit tougher but I don't think 2012 is that far behind and Djokovic also played Nadal at Wimbledon 2011 where Nadal was serving at around 80 percent in the first set.

2011 Rafa was a really beatable version of Rafa at Wimb. Don't think Fed would have too much trouble.

Do you really think Federer would beat Nadal at Rome in 2014/2016 and MC in 2015?

Federer is 0-14 against Nadal at slow plexi AO, MC, Rome and FO combined.

You do realize 2015 was the worst ever version of Nadal, right? And 2014/2016 weren't spectacular versions of him either. Fed dealt with versions of Nadal better than those.

Only two wins Federer has against Nadal on clay is on lower bouncing surfaces after Nadal played the entire clay season before the Hamburg final (still needed three sets to win)

I guess that invalidates Novak's 2011 Rome win since Nadal had played the entire clay season before the Rome final.

Djokovic has been playing against Nadal all the way since 2005.

So has Fed.

 

[TripleATeam]

Well, 2000-2001 had Kuerten on clay so Djoker might not win those editions. Even 2003 Ferrero wouldn't be easy.

Djokovic was not a serious contender at RG in 06, 07, 09, 10 and there's not a snowball's chance in hell he wins the 00, 01, 03, 04 versions. 08 in 02, yes he'd have a great shot, but Federer was also good enough to win in 2011 (light balls asterisk, yeah yeah) but was stopped by Nadal.

08 in 02 would probably have won that edition. I'd certainly give Djokovic a fighting chance in 09/03 - saying he's stopped by a random loss in the R3 is like saying Federer loses 04/10 because a Kuerten-equivalent plays him in R3. 09 Djokovic reached the semis of all 3 clay masters and the final of 2 of them, losing only to Nadal all 3 times. I would definitely give Djokovic a great chance in 04.

I wouldn't discount him completely in 07/01 either - he didn't really play anyone of note, but a few lucky matches could see him winning there. Not to mention Djokovic in 2011 was also fairly strong. He'd also pick up 09 as the Federer stand-in (2015 Djokovic wasn't really going to lose to anyone but Stan, unfortunately).

Either way, there's 3 editions where I'd have tipped him to win, with another 2 where he has a decent chance at it. Instead we get this reality for him.

Federer on the other hand, would be in his clay heyday (05-11) in 11-18. He'd win 09/15 and 10/16 fairly straightforwardly. I doubt he takes 2017, though - Nadal won that convincingly. 11 and 12 I also doubt. Maybe he takes 13 - Nadal was choking in the SF with Djokovic. 08/14 maybe, but I'm not betting on it. Going through any version of Nadal would've been a tough ask, plus he'd need to go through 15 Wawrinka and a late-stage Djoker.

So that's what, 2-3 editions for Federer?

For me, it's a plain proposition. Djokovic was the better player on clay early in his career. Even at 18 he was meeting Nadal at RG, made his first SF at 19. It took Roger until 23 years old to even see a SF at Roland Garros. By 21, Djokovic was the 2nd best clay courter on the planet trailing only Nadal. Federer couldn't necessarily claim that same thing until he was 24 (Coria and Davydenko put up similar results in 05). Obviously Federer had it worse in his prime, but Djokovic was dealing with Nadal from day one to day [whatever day it is now]. Federer didn't.