Evan77
Banned
right, and Fed just played the match of his life against some guy from Belgium who is like 12 yo, lol ... please man, you have no clue
Pat Cash: Djokovic is better than Federer at his best
- Thread starter 5555
- Start date
zagor
Bionic Poster
He was already a slam winner and ranked #2, if Fed ranked #3 is used as a proof that he's still playing his best tennis at the age of 31 then we can do the same for Nadal in 2006 and 2005.
But he was ranked #2 already in 2005, 2006 and 2007 which proves he already developed then given that Fed being ranked #3 at the age of 31 proves (according to you) he's still playing his best tennis.
As a matter of fact, in terms of winning percentage and # of titles won in a year, 2005 is Nadal's best year.
So why didn't the tough competition (from 2008 onward of course) stop Andy Roddick from reaching the final? I mean the guy's a clown and a pathetic player, why didn't strong era player Murray stop him in SF?
5555
Hall of Fame
Is it opinion or fact?
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
I am not talking grammar but content.
On top of that, Nadal won 3 out of his 5 hard court Masters titles before his breakthrough in 2008. That's over half! Looks like Nadal used to be better on hard court!
Last edited:
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
The Dark Knight
Legend
Nadal was only a slam winner on clay. Everyone was in shock that he made it to the finals. In fact everyone said that the field was so weak that even a clay courter made it to the finals.
Nadal was ranked number two but he is not the player he is today. Add to that that Joker is much improved . Can't you see how much tougher the competition is now?
Ok 2005 may have been better for Nadal as well but that just proves that the competition was weaker even for Nadal!!
My point is not that Nadal is better than Federer but rather that the competition is tougher today and had it been this tough it's questionable whether Fed woul have 16 slams.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Wrong on both counts. Everyone was impressed by Nadal's ability to reach the finals the first time, because it showed him as being more than just a clay courter. Nice try, though.
And 2005 doesn't prove it was a weak field. Don't you understand basic logic? In most situations, the most simplistic explanation is usually correct. In this case, it's more likely that two men, Federer and Nadal, are simply that much better than the field, rather than the whole field being much weaker.
Same with today, except now it's 3 guys instead of two.
The Dark Knight
Legend
Ok you are entitled to believe Bgahdatis and Ginzalez were as good as Joker and Nadal is today.
Let's agree to disagree on that point.
The Dark Knight
Legend
But before there was Nadal Federer was racking up slams ......that's the point .
Andy Roddick was the #1 player in the world and he was Federers biggest rival.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
And... your point is? After Nadal made that Wimbledon final Federer still won 4 of the next 5 majors.
zagor
Bionic Poster
He reached 2 Wimbledon finals in a row, I don't give a crap how shocked "everyone" was. Overall Fed played Nadal 5 times in slams in 2005-2007 period.
That's great, just as Fed is ranked #3 right now and he's not the player he was, see how easy it is?
Okay, I don't think even you yourself know what exactly did you try to say here so I'll leave it as it is.
I don't give a crap whether Nadal is better than Fed or whether Fed would have won 16 slams in this competition (whatever that is).
My point is, if you use Fed being ranked #3 as some proof he's as good as he ever was then the same goes for Nadal in 2005, 2006, 2007-the years in which he finished ranked #2.
Also given that at some point you mentioned Fed losses to Rafter when he was 17 your point seems to be that Fed's level stays consistently the same no matter his age(whether he's 17 or 31 or 25 seems to be irrelevant) yet you don't hold other players to the same standards (Nadal especially).
Last edited:
anantak2k
Semi-Pro
Yep. Tougher competition today for sure.
Bolleli
Istomin
Schwank
Monaco
OMG Now that was a really tough one against Monaco. The guy is top 30 after all. I know how shocked we all were when Nadal barely made it past him. Strong Era right there.
I don't mean just Nadal either.
Federer too...
Kamke
Ungur
Mahut (did he get confused and think that clay and grass are the same?)
Goffin???
Strong era right there. Very strong. I am shocked that Federer and Nadal are still in the tournament.
The Dark Knight
Legend
You may not give a "crap" however the lack of Feds competition is precisely what this entire thread is about.
As far as Nadal he evolved from a clay court specialist.....by the way his best surface by far is still clay.
The Rafter record you are taking out of context. When Fed supporters cry out that he beat Sampras then I simply countered with that he lost to Rafter the same year on all surfaces......but of course I think Fed improved .
As far as nadal vs Fed Wimbledon.....
Their first meeting at wimby was not real competition for Fed. I think Nadal himself was shocked that he was there and it gave him the belief that he could return the next year.
The second wimby was a legit win for Fed. That was one of the greatest wins matches ever. I will not take anything away from fed on that grandslam.....that was a real win.
.
The Dark Knight
Legend
Nadal is a different player today.....shall I post you Fed getting his butt kicked on every surface by Rafter?
billnepill
Hall of Fame
Was Federer a slam winner then? That's what I thought.
Btw the first video is from 2010. Just saying
above bored
Semi-Pro
Baghdatis beat Nadal when he was ranked No.1. Gonzalez beat Nadal when he was ranked No.2, like he is now, but feel free to post what you want.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
zagor
Bionic Poster
I don't give a crap whether some people were shocked Nadal reached the Wimbledon finals or not, if anything that (some people's reaction) has nothing to do with the topic. Heck, I was surprised Fed reached FO final last year but that doesn't really count for anything.
Fact is, Nadal reached 2 Wimbledon finals in a row in that period.
Nadal was never a CC specialist, already in 2005 he won a masters on indoor HC (Madrid) and was extremely close to winning another HC masters in Miami, then in 2006 and 2007 he reached 2 Wimbledon finals in a row.
Now I'm sure some people will say Nadal would have never won anything off clay in the 90s due to faster conditions (surfaces, balls etc), however that's speculation and I can only judge/evaluate Nadal as a player by his results in this era, in current conditions.
Please, you claimed Rafter was a better player than Fed, don't try to wiggle out, atleast stand behind what you said.
Just as a 30 year old Fed is not a great competition for Nadal and Novak who are supposedly in their best years. I think Fed himself is shocked he's still playing instead of enjoying the retirement with his family.
This is great, it's definitely a step forward, we've now established Fed has actually won a legit slam title. Fed, the one slam wonder.
Sid_Vicious
G.O.A.T.
Cup8489, bro, I think it is time you stopped replying to the Dark Knight. It is clear as day that he is arguing for the sake of annoying other people. He started out small and due to all the replies, he is now brought out all the guns h2h records, weak era, Federer is as good now as he ever was.... pretty much everything he says makes for low quality reading material.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
He's not really bothering me that much, I know everything he's saying is crap, and he's not swaying my opinion in anyway, so I guess I can just sit here and watch him helplessly spin his wheels further.
kiki
Banned
You shouldn´t take my opinions as facts...as great as they may look to you
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Oh, trust me. I'm not.
I'm saying that you think you know everything, and assume that your own opinions are facts, when they're not.
The Dark Knight
Legend
Some people thought nadal was a clay court specialist? How about the entire world? Come on dude that was his first Wimbledon final ever....even Rafa couldn't believe that he was there.
Look I can counter each point you have made but this all comes down to one simple question :
If Nadal and Joker were around in the form they are in now would Federer have won 16 slams?
I think of you are honest you have to say no.
The fact is that Nadal against Fed is 6-2 in slams and the only thing Roger won on was grass. Now add Joker into the mix ......there's no way fed would have 16.
They are calling this era the new golden era of tennis. Why?
The answer is because the competition is much better now.
Is Roger one of the GOATS? YES.......but would he have 16 slams if the competition was as tough as today's golden era? No way in hell.
tlm
G.O.A.T.
This is very true but fed fans that live in la la land can never face the facts, but you are absolutely right he benefited immensely from the weak field.
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Eloquent. Weak era is still speculation and hypothesis that take second hand to the record books.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Yeah, I mean, everyone was surprised that Nadal made the Wimbledon final, since before that tournament he literally had no idea how to play on grass, at all.
Oh... wait..
But you're definitely right about countering each of zagor's points, you've done an excellent job of that in this post.
oh...wait.. no you didn't. Nothing but opinions, which can't counter facts....
I think if you're honest with yourself, you'd realize that if Federer, Nadal and Djokovic were all the same age, Federer would have become used to playing both men in his career early on, and would have adapted his game to beat them as he did against every, single player from his own generation.. and would probably still have won a record number of majors, perhaps even more than one French open.
They're calling this the Golden era in tennis because 2 men are dominating the tour, with Federer basically cleaning up with they don't win. Doesn't actually make it true. Idk about you, but it's become thoroughly BORING for me.. the last few years. No point hardly even watching the French this year, for instance.
Oh, btw. Competition isn't any better... unless you can objectively prove it. But, since you can't, I disagree. Nice try, though, making it seem like your opinions are actually facts, when they're not.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Entire world? LOL, talk about exagerrating.
Regardless, I'm perfectly capable of forming my own opinion, what the "entire world" thinks is not my business.
And my opinion (again) is that a player who won an indoor HC masters in the first year on tour in which he established himself as a top player and followed that up by reaching 2 Wimbledon finals in a row in the next 2 years can not be classified as a CC specialist.
Are you a mind reader or something?
Nadal has always claimed grass is his favourite surface and that his goal since his very young days was to win Wimbledon.
Sorry, but I kinda doubt that, you haven't displayed much ability to counter any semi-valid points that came your way. You seems to respond to every question posed to you in this thread by incessantly shouting "Fed weak, Rafa strong".
Nope, regarding the argument between you and me it doesn't. I posed a question to you, why should the fact that Fed is ranked #3 at the moment be considered as proof that he's playing as good as ever but Nadal being ranked #2 in 2005, 2006 and 2007 doesn't do the same ?
Playing the role of the mind reader again? If I'm honest, I'd actually wait to see Nadal's and Novak's level when they get to the age of 28-29-30 before I conclude anything.
No matter how much and how often you shout this it still doesn't make it a fact and as I said I haven't formed my opinion on that subject yet as I don't have all the data.
Sorry, I don't pay much attention to what media talking heads blabber on for the mass audience, as I said I like to form my own opinion.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
I have logic and rationality on my side, which is all the help I need...
But thanks anyway.
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
The Dark Knight
Legend
Oh man you are going to get people angry with this!
cknobman
Legend
LOL trying to make yourself feel better after the humiliating beat-down DelPo handed your boy Nadal. Lets necro a 4 month old thread, LMAO.
Rafa looked outgunned and sad, LOL.
Yet another example of how making a surface a little faster "to be more fair" (in the tournament directors own words) makes things so drastically different.
FreeBird
Legend
But I see Rafa in your avatar.
Don't care about TDK. He watches only GSs and comes up with stats in which majority are cringe-worthy.
illusions30
Banned
I believe Nadal's best ever Wimbledon before 2006 was a 3rd round. As #2 seed in 2005 he had lost 2nd round. So the perception of most people would have been he literally had no idea how to play on grass at all, before the tournament. Even that year someone named Robert Kendrick, a career U.S only challenger player (which he still doles away in to this day) served for a straight sets win in the 3rd round, and had he not choked the perception at that point would have only continued. In short I wouldnt paint Nadal in the 2006 Wimbledon final as a difficult foe. 2007 yes, the perception had been long broken by then.
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
In the second week when the grass is more worn down 2006 Nadal would definately be a difficult foe. In 2010 Nadal nearly went out twice in the first week, surely by then having won Wimbledon in 2008 Nadal shouldn't have struggled? There's not been all that much progression over the years between Nadal's form in the first week. I believe the only years he didn't have near misses were 2008 and 2011?
Nadal is a difficult matchup for Federer on any surface and apart from the first set he actually played very well.
illusions30
Banned
You do make a good point on grass conditions being different from 1st to 2nd week. It would have been interesting to see how dangerous Nadal would have suddenly become had he survived the Rosol and Darcis matches the last 2 years (despite the obvious degree he appears to be struggling on grass today). I think 2008 and 2011 are the years he won pretty easily all the way through, which indicates it was a remarkable feat for Djokovic to pound him the way he did in the 2011 final.
It was a shame for Nadal he played a very bad game with 3 or 4 easy errors when serving for the 2nd set at 5-4 in the 2006 final. Had he won that anything might have happened, especialy as he did win the 3rd set.
NatF
Bionic Poster
I can't remember the exact numbers for the 3rd set but I think Nadal had a huge winner to error differential. He was playing very well and had won 5 in a row versus Federer up till that point. Not an easy final for Federer or anyone IMO. Clearly the 5 straight finals Nadal made show it wasn't a fluke he made it there.
As for Nadal from the last 2 years, he would have played Kohlschreiber in the next round. I don't know if his form would have been enough especially considering his injury. I doubt he would have won the title though, not unless he was at his best. Murray and Federer back to back would have been too much IMO. Both were excellent and the one slam Federer might have confidence against Nadal is Wimbledon. This year if Nadal was in good form he could have won it, no one was playing that great apart from Novak and Del Potro in the semi's.
cknobman
Legend
But I see Rafa in your avatar.
Don't care about TDK. He watches only GSs and comes up with stats in which majority are cringe-worthy.
Look at my avatar closer and you'll notice why.
How do these guys get time in the paper? This guy is worse than the best trolls on here. Djokovic is a great player but are you serious? Old man Fed beat him at his best at RG in 11, and then at USO 11 he choked away the victory, which isn't even an opinion it is a fact (USO 10 as well).
I think he is confusing the fact that Djokovic matches up better against the other GOAT in Nadal with that meaning he is > then Federer.
I think he is confusing the fact that Djokovic matches up better against the other GOAT in Nadal with that meaning he is > then Federer.
The Dark Knight
Legend
I can't believe it but we actually agree on something.....your avatar:
"Gamma Tour 320X, a marvelous raqcuet on the cheap! Donnay X-Hybrid a true hidden (and cheap) gem of a hybrid."
What a fabulous racket ......one of my all time favorites. played with it for a year or two.....had to bulk it up a bit.....but freaking amazing stick.
I've moved on the because I'm a racket hore......I'm using the Donnay Pro one now and loving it.
RFRF
Semi-Pro
pat cash is a complete f**K stick. disregard anything he says, his a born moron known for running his fat mouth, he has been grilled in the past for his comments most memorable one is "it will be interesting to see how jennifer capriati will preform when she's on the grass" he also called benesova bendherova on national tv here in aus.
The Dark Knight
Legend
Funny how fed fans didn't get upset when he said Nadal and Joker are boring.
Make up you mind ?
Plus add to the list of morons ....Mcenroe , Wilander , Courier, Peter Bodo
It's getting to be an all star list
5555
Hall of Fame
cknobman
Legend
Similar threads
