Nadal is better than same age Federer at USO

[Objective observer]

If Nadal and Federer were the same age Nadal would still win 3 titles but Federer won't win 5 in a row

Nadal 2010 USO> Federer 2005 USO(Elite serving Nadal vs Fed who was being broken at will by Grandpa Agassi)
Nadal 2013 USO > Federer 2008 USO(Beating gluten free experienced Djokovic> beating gluten baby Djokovic)
Nadal 2017 USO > Federer 2012 USO(clearly)

This shows Federer is lucky to not be same age as Nadal
Nadal would be unaffected

 

[Towny]

Your username is becoming more ironic day by day

 

[Objective observer]

Your username is becoming more ironic day by day

Post is pretty accurate though what about it do you disagree with?

 

[Towny]

I don't really know where to start.

First off, assertions that Nadal would beat Federer in 2005 and 8 are subjective not objective, whether true or not. No doubt Nadal was good but so was Fed. Personally I'd take Fed in at least one of those.

Then you haven't factored in other variables such as what Fed might do differently if he lost one or what other players in the draw might do. If Fed didn't already have the record, I doubt he would have lost in all of 09,10 and 11, all winnable matches.

Finally, even if your assertions were correct they'd have the same title total but Fed would have a bunch more finals, meaning he would be better anyway, just as Djokovic is now.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Post is pretty accurate though what about it do you disagree with?

"Is" signifies a fact.

What you deal with is a hypothetical, and not a very well constructed one.

I concur with the general spirit of the other poster's statement, but would correct the time periods to minutes.

 

[Objective observer]

I don't really know where to start.

First off, assertions that Nadal would beat Federer in 2005 and 8 are subjective not objective, whether true or not. No doubt Nadal was good but so was Fed. Personally I'd take Fed in at least one of those.

Then you haven't factored in other variables such as what Fed might do differently if he lost one or what other players in the draw might do. If Fed didn't already have the record, I doubt he would have lost in all of 09,10 and 11, all winnable matches.

Finally, even if your assertions were correct they'd have the same title total but Fed would have a bunch more finals, meaning he would be better anyway, just as Djokovic is now.

Nadal would have the edge due to matchup
And federer may end up winning later but that's not the point I just said he wouldn't get 5 in a row

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Agassi USO 2005 > Djokovic USO 2010

 

[Objective observer]

Agassi USO 2005 > Djokovic USO 2010

Nadal would still beat Federer

 

[Towny]

Much of Nadal's edge in slams came after the FO2008 beatdown and the subsequent wimbledon loss. For example, Fed still won Wimbledon in 2007 despite Nadal being prime level. Regardless, your title was that Nadal would be better which just wouldn't be true, even if we allow for your subjective hypotheticals

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Nadal would still beat Federer

"All day, every day... in my dreams."

 

[Objective observer]

This forum is full of rabid Federer fans and Nadal haters!

Federer barely escaped baby Nadal in miami 2005, lost to him in dubai 2006, yet suddenly he is going to beat the best hardcourt version of Nadal? LOL

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Much of Nadal's edge in slams came after the FO2008 beatdown and the subsequent wimbledon loss. For example, Fed still won Wimbledon in 2007 despite Nadal being prime level. Regardless, your title was that Nadal would be better which just wouldn't be true, even if we allow for your subjective hypotheticals

Talking to deaf ears here. No Nadal fanatic could ever accept that he wasn't unbullievably better in Wim 08, not only that but Federer was better too (lol).

 

[chut]

Only someone like clayqueen will adhere to your kind of logic.
You could have tried:
Sky is blue hence Nadal > Federer at USO

 

[Objective observer]

Much of Nadal's edge in slams came after the FO2008 beatdown and the subsequent wimbledon loss. For example, Fed still won Wimbledon in 2007 despite Nadal being prime level. Regardless, your title was that Nadal would be better which just wouldn't be true, even if we allow for your subjective hypotheticals

Federer has literally only beaten Nadal twice on outdoor hard before 2017 and never in a slam match

 

[Objective observer]

Much of Nadal's edge in slams came after the FO2008 beatdown and the subsequent wimbledon loss. For example, Fed still won Wimbledon in 2007 despite Nadal being prime level. Regardless, your title was that Nadal would be better which just wouldn't be true, even if we allow for your subjective hypotheticals

Federer in Wimbledon 2008 was also basically the same as 2007

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

This forum is full of rabid Federer fans and Nadal haters!

Federer barely escaped baby Nadal in miami 2005, lost to him in dubai 2006, yet suddenly he is going to beat the best hardcourt version of Nadal? LOL

RAFA lost to fat Baghdatis, Melzer, Fish and of course the GOAT Dodig in HC Masters over 2010-11 and he's going to beat the best HC version of Federer? LOL

 

[CYGS]

I don't really know where to start.

First off, assertions that Nadal would beat Federer in 2005 and 8 are subjective not objective, whether true or not. No doubt Nadal was good but so was Fed. Personally I'd take Fed in at least one of those.

Then you haven't factored in other variables such as what Fed might do differently if he lost one or what other players in the draw might do. If Fed didn't already have the record, I doubt he would have lost in all of 09,10 and 11, all winnable matches.

Finally, even if your assertions were correct they'd have the same title total but Fed would have a bunch more finals, meaning he would be better anyway, just as Djokovic is now.

Translation: OP is not objective because he doesn't think Fed should win all imaginary matches.

 

[NatF]

Agassi USO 2005 > Djokovic USO 2010

USO 2013 Djokovic being better than 2008 Djokovic is highly debatable as well...

 

[Objective observer]

RAFA lost to fat Baghdatis, Melzer, Fish and of course the GOAT Dodig in HC Masters over 2010-11 and he's going to beat the best HC version of Federer? LOL

Federer is the one who developed a mental block against the guy who lost to journeymen outside clay LOL

 

[Objective observer]

When the matches actually happened Federer lost mostly eg AO 09

You can't hide behind mental block all the time Federer is not brainless

 

[Objective observer]

This mental nonsense takes all credit from the opponent

The only person who can beat Federer is himself! Nobody can ever beat him if he doesn't choke!!!!

 

[Towny]

Translation: OP is not objective because he doesn't think Fed should win all imaginary matches

It's nothing to do with that. If I say that Fed wins those matches it's also subjective. Coming up with a poorly constructed hypothetical and using that to prove something while claiming to be objective is a joke

 

[Jonas78]

If Nadal and Federer were the same age Nadal would still win 3 titles but Federer won't win 5 in a row

Nadal 2010 USO> Federer 2005 USO(Elite serving Nadal vs Fed who was being broken at will by Grandpa Agassi)
Nadal 2013 USO > Federer 2008 USO(Beating gluten free experienced Djokovic> beating gluten baby Djokovic)
Nadal 2017 USO > Federer 2012 USO(clearly)

This shows Federer is lucky to not be same age as Nadal
Nadal would be unaffected

There have been numerous threads regarding this. Sure, If Novak/Nads were born in 81 It would be a lot tougher for Fedr 04-07. Then again, he would have it a lot easier in his thirties. Slam count probably ends up about the same.

 

[Steve0904]

Can't wait for WTF to start. A Nadal free zone, as it stands.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Federer is the one who developed a mental block against the guy who lost to journeymen outside clay LOL

There was a grand total of 2 (two) matches outside of clay that Federer lost via 'mental block', you know - Wim 08, AO 09. Nadal was actually pretty consistent in big tournaments on all surfaces at the time until the RG loss.

 

[Towser83]

If Nadal and Federer were the same age Nadal would still win 3 titles but Federer won't win 5 in a row

Nadal 2010 USO> Federer 2005 USO(Elite serving Nadal vs Fed who was being broken at will by Grandpa Agassi)
Nadal 2013 USO > Federer 2008 USO(Beating gluten free experienced Djokovic> beating gluten baby Djokovic)
Nadal 2017 USO > Federer 2012 USO(clearly)

This shows Federer is lucky to not be same age as Nadal
Nadal would be unaffected

It's funny how in the first 2 examples you use the competition as an important factor, but in the last you do not - because given Nadal's 2017 draw Fed's chances increase significantly

Though there is no way to judge Fed's levels against Nadal's. If he were the same age it's not like he'd have played the same at every event anyway, it would cause so many changes to the whole sport that this scenario is pure nonsense

 

[Towny]

Federer has literally only beaten Nadal twice on outdoor hard before 2017 and never in a slam match

They met in 3 matches on outdoor Harcourt prior to AO09, where Nadal was number 1 and at his peak. Fed won 1 of them, Nadal won the others. But Nadal was absent from all the Hardcourt slam finals prior to 09, hardly Federer's fault

 

[Objective observer]

It's funny how in the first 2 examples you use the competition as an important factor, but in the last you do not - because given Nadal's 2017 draw Fed's chances increase significantly

Though there is no way to judge Fed's levels against Nadal's. If he were the same age it's not like he'd have played the same at every event anyway, it would cause so many changes to the whole sport that this scenario is pure nonsense

Federer lost pretty badly to Berdych I'm pretty sure he wouldn't beat 2017 Nadal

 

[CYGS]

It's nothing to do with that. If I say that Fed wins those matches it's also subjective. Coming up with a poorly constructed hypothetical and using that to prove something while claiming to be objective is a joke

I'm looking forward to you calling out Fed trolls pretending to be objective in thousands of other hypothetical matches threads.

Or the joke is on you.

 

[Objective observer]

There have been numerous threads regarding this. Sure, If Novak/Nads were born in 81 It would be a lot tougher for Fedr 04-07. Then again, he would have it a lot easier in his thirties. Slam count probably ends up about the same.

That isn't what I'm arguing here
I'm just saying these versions of Nadal are better than Federer not talking about future potential slam counts

 

[Xavier G]

Nadal might be considered lucky Delpo didn't play the US Open in 2010 after coming off surgery because the guy absolutely creamed Rafa in the 2009 semi.

The fantasy match-up 5 years apart thing is something we'll never know, how Rafa would have done in those years vs Roger.
I don't think Rafa 2013 is beating Roger 2008 though. RF barely lost the '08 Wimbledon final in the end (9-7 final set) and was not to be denied in NY 2008.

I'll say think Rafa's US Open wins are unaffected, as I think he would have beaten Fed in 2010, 2013 and 2017 real time.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

This mental nonsense takes all credit from the opponent

The only person who can beat Federer is himself! Nobody can ever beat him if he doesn't choke!!!!

Now that's nonsense indeed. If Federer chokes but gets beat convincingly (as Djokovic at AO and Nadal at RG did), then he'd presumably lose even if he didn't choke. If Federer chokes and loses a close match, he'd have probably won if he hadn't choked. Essentially, every close loss is a moral win for The Federer, so if you do not want to morally lose, try to win dominantly without all that close sets buffoonery.

 

[Steve0904]

2017 mysteriously being cherry picked from the history books. Good comedy.

 

[Objective observer]

They met in 3 matches on outdoor Harcourt prior to AO09, where Nadal was number 1 and at his peak. Fed won 1 of them, Nadal won the others. But Nadal was absent from all the Hardcourt slam finals prior to 09, hardly Federer's fault

So Federer lost most of the matches that actually happened

 

[Towny]

I'm looking forward to you calling out Fed trolls pretending to be objective in thousands of other hypothetical matches threads.

Of course Fed fans can be subjective (and some are trolls, as in every fanbase). They just don't tend to call themselves 'objective observer'

 

[Objective observer]

2017 mysteriously being cherry picked from the history books. Good comedy.

Yes that's very relevant for the versions I'm talking about
LOL

 

[Steve0904]

Yes that's very relevant for the versions I'm talking about
LOL

You are talking about nothing, Rafa devotee.

 

[Towny]

So Federer lost most of the matches that actually happened

Yes he lost those matches. It doesn't mean you can deduct slams from Federer based on a hypothetical

 

[Objective observer]

You are talking about nothing, Rafa devotee.

What?

 

[Steve0904]

What?

What?

 

[Objective observer]

Yes he lost those matches. It doesn't mean you can deduct slams from Federer based on a hypothetical

Where am I deducting?
I am just saying this version of Nadal is better than Federer
Federer still has 20 slams lol

 

[Fedforever]

Though there is no way to judge Fed's levels against Nadal's. If he were the same age it's not like he'd have played the same at every event anyway, it would cause so many changes to the whole sport that this scenario is pure nonsense

This absolutely. If Fed and Nadal were the same age their whole careers would have been different. Nadal could have been a couple of slams ahead by the time Fed hit top form and Fed would have been the one doing the chasing. Fed might well have made changes to his game that he was reluctant to make when he was the one being chased. As Nadal said himself, there can be a benefit to being the one coming from behind because you always know what you need to do.

As with all hypothetical arguments, they could be fun except that people always argue them as aggressively as if they were arguing the things that DID happen, which is ridiculous.
.

 

[Objective observer]

Yes if i say RG 2008 Nadal beats RG 2009 Federer i am deducting from Federer LOL

 

[Objective observer]

This absolutely. If Fed and Nadal were the same age their whole careers would have been different. Nadal could have been a couple of slams slams ahead by the time Fed hit top form and Fed would have been the one doing the chasing. Fed might well have made changes to his game that he was reluctant to make when he was the one being chased. As Nadal said himself, there can be a benefit to being the one coming from behind because you always know what you need to do.

As with all hypothetical arguments, they could be fun except that people always argue them as aggressively as if they were arguing the things that DID happen, which is ridiculous.
.

Agree we have no way of knowing

Still I am just saying in my opinion

 

[Towny]

I think this whole thing is a disservice to Rafa anyway. We don't need this sort of hypothetical to know he's played great at USO

 

[Objective observer]

I think this whole thing is a disservice to Rafa anyway. We don't need this sort of hypothetical to know he's played great at USO

Arguing Rafa is better than Federer is a disservice to Rafa? WTF!

 

[Towser83]

Federer lost pretty badly to Berdych I'm pretty sure he wouldn't beat 2017 Nadal

Firstly you're making the assumption that if Federer was born 5 years later or Nadal 5 years sooner, they'd play the same as he did day for day, despite different matches, different competition growing up and all sorts of variables, which is ridiculous.

Secondly, Nadal didn't play that well in 2017 but had one of the easiest draws in slam history. Federer's level in 2012 was generally better than Nadal's on HC, he's beaten Djokovic in Cincy 6-0 7-6 but had a walkover prior to the berdych match which may have robbed him of some momentum. He also seemed to have a bit of an issue with Berdych at that time

You're also not stating if you're making Nadal 5 years older or Fed 5 years younger. This matters a lot

 

[Jonas78]

That isn't what I'm arguing here
I'm just saying these versions of Nadal are better than Federer not talking about future potential slam counts

You were arguing Federer is lucky not being same age as Nadal. I disagree.

 

[Objective observer]

I haven't seen any actual arguments yet

Surely if 2005 Fed is basically even with 35 yr old Agassi he would lose to 24 yr old peak Nadal?

 

[Fedforever]

Still I am just saying in my opinion

Sure, but I think you're treating the scenario as if it was a time machine by transporting a 2013 Nadal to play a 2008 Fed. But if they'd been the same age then both 2013 Nadal and 2008 Fed would have been different players because their rivalry had such a big influence on how they developed. Change the terms of that rivalry and you change them.