FreeBird
Legend
Look at my avatar closer and you'll notice why.
Body builder Rafa, I know what you did there. :twisted:
Look at my avatar closer and you'll notice why.
Cash can compare results if he wants, but the thing is if prime Federer and prime Djokovic were playing against each other Federer would win all their meetings at RG, Wim and US Open (and MAYBE the Australian Open too). Because look at what a 30-year-old is doing to prime Djokovic.....
So true.
Prime for prime, only Rafa stands up to Fed.
Federer, Lendl and Sampras only won 2 slams after turning 28. but the ****s think djokovic will win many slams after 28. lol. delusional. this will be nole's last great year and last year where he wins multiple slams. think roger after 2009.
No , Dustin Brown , Darcis and Rosol are better.
I do not see the djoker having the same aura as fed once did. Back in the old days people felt like they lost before they even got on the court against fed. People used to call fed 'invincible', yet we do not hold that same view against djoker despite his impressive season. The way i see it is if a post prime fed has one of the best shots in beating a prime djoker (and has done so fairly since the 2 other matches lost were from retirement), prime fed > prime novak.
Only agressive player with a more impressive display of touch mixed with awesome groundies were prolly Nalbandian the few times he played well,So true.
Prime for prime, only Rafa stands up to Fed.
That's because Feds Main competitor was Roddick and sciatica ridden Agassi who was 11 years older than Federer
Federer, Lendl and Sampras only won 2 slams after turning 28. but the ****s think djokovic will win many slams after 28. lol. delusional. this will be nole's last great year and last year where he wins multiple slams. think roger after 2009.
But Roger won only 2 slams afetr turning 28, not because he is old (he is still very good), but because players like Djokovic, Murray and Wawrinka finally matured and reached their primes.
I actually think that in most of their matches, even some of which Roger won, exept Basel 2008, and Wimby 2011, Nalbandian could outhit Roger from both wings almost it seemed, and showed at times superior finesse, both from the back of the Court and at the net, that´s maybe also due to Roger focusing less on his net and finesse game in his later primeyears, he always had it, Nalbandian became a touch player in his later career while still having these vicious groundstrokes. Look at his match against Santoro in A0 07 i think it is, almost as impressive as when Roger beat him the year after in the same tournament.Yes, certainly, Nalbandian always gave Roger all he could handle.
It's a bit like Ferreira always giving Sampras trouble, while he couldn't take a set of Agassi.
Nadal was only a year delayed behind Fed in winning slams, so bad comparison...Rafa, Nole may be better than Fed, like any new generation is better, but they are not greater.
Well baby Murray straight-setted Fed in 2006!Like Murray and Wawrinka would ever do any damage to prime Federer.
Yes when MS1000 had no break matches in R1...and Federer won almost every tournament.Well baby Murray straight-setted Fed in 2006!
God-mode Wawrinka was about like God-mode Safin so yes he could also hurt any version of Fed.
Geriatric Federer's been taking prime/peak Murray to the cleaners!Well baby Murray straight-setted Fed in 2006!
Safin's forehand/backhand combo was more devastating, he was also a better mover than Wawrinka.Nadalgaenger said:God-mode Wawrinka was about like God-mode Safin so yes he could also hurt any version of Fed.
So what excuse do we have for Fed's loss? Pre-mono?Yes when MS1000 had no break matches in R1...and Federer won almost every tournament.
It not like Djokovic has not lost to scrubs this year.....
Murray however good he was in 2006...did not beat a 100 percent Federer.