moonballs
Hall of Fame
Yeah Nadal was not good enough compared to these guys.
Rafael Nadal: ´Novak Djokovic the Toughest Opponent I Ever Had´
- Thread starter joekapa
- Start date
NatF
Bionic Poster
In hindsight that is a match with more meaning attached to it than at the time IMO. But yes it's pretty great that even though neither were at the best both guys got that 5 setter on Wimbledon Centre court.
zagor
Bionic Poster
I don't hold Rafa's H2H with Brown against him, Dustin is just too athletic for Nadal to have a chance against him on grass.
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
Stop stating that. You're going to look like an idiot if/when Nadal makes a comeback. The bio passport means zero. The ATP does not want to catch dopers, at least not the elite stars.
Last edited:
chjtennis
G.O.A.T.
H2H is absolutely everything in this type of discussion. To Nadal, obviously the player who beat him most times and has close H2H should be his toughest rival. It's like Courier picking Boris Becker over Pete Sampras as his bogey opponent in his prime. Sampras is the greater player but Becker gave him a lot of trouble when they met, almost unbeatable for him.
Sysyphus
Talk Tennis Guru
What a discussion...
Gag me with a spoon please.
Djokovic (and Nadal by extension) are the epitomes of tennis and would completely tyrannize every imaginable era of tennis (strangely enough, though, not quite large parts of his own for Djokovic), and Federer is just a glorified journeyman who's lucky to get to feed on the legacy of these guys by virtue of playing his best ever tennis at 34.
Gag me with a spoon please.
Djokovic (and Nadal by extension) are the epitomes of tennis and would completely tyrannize every imaginable era of tennis (strangely enough, though, not quite large parts of his own for Djokovic), and Federer is just a glorified journeyman who's lucky to get to feed on the legacy of these guys by virtue of playing his best ever tennis at 34.
It makes sense for Nadal to say this. Besides the fact that Djokovic is better at beating Nadal, Nadal considers the slow-court baseline endurance game to be real tennis. Federer's trick shots and Sampras-esque stuff don't impress him as much.
I think you know. But how many players have won more slams at Federer's post-2008 age, against a field of opponents better than peak Djokovic/Nadal?
Nobody has. Agassi, Laver, and Federer have the record for most majors after turning 27. Federer also has the record for most majors before 27.
I think you know. But how many players have won more slams at Federer's post-2008 age, against a field of opponents better than peak Djokovic/Nadal?
Nobody has. Agassi, Laver, and Federer have the record for most majors after turning 27. Federer also has the record for most majors before 27.
I don't think that looking in the past will tell us much about the future age-wise. What is happening now is that there is more money in tennis than ever before and players can (and have to if they want to continue making huge sums of money) afford investing into areas where previously they didn't. Now they have teams taking care off them and we will see more and more that 30-something are successful and it will come time that this will be true for 40-something. I genuine believe that Federer is now better than ever. If anything is physically lost (there are legal techniques/compounds that tremendously help to maintain physical ability), it could be compensated by experience and knowledge generated over the years. Wawrinka and Karlovic enjoy their tennis more than ever, and I believe that we will see this with more and more players.
jelle v
Hall of Fame
He seems to be reflecting on his career in a retrospective kind of manner.. Maybe looking less at the future as a time where he achieve a lot more. So I would have to say yes to your question.
moonballs
Hall of Fame
Don't tell me I can't express my honest opinion. It he comes back I will change my opinion. At curent time he is more suspecious than anyone else.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
don't count your lion cubs before they're born!
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
Come on now Sabratha, it's funny for a few hours but not days on end. Stop trying to outdo the Fed hating trolls.
it's not saying much, but Fed's record vs. Rafa by the end of 2012 was actually better than Novak's vs. Rafa pre-2011
Fixed that one for you, no need to thank me.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Maybe we won't get the quarter final, I personally think we will, both are good enough to navigate through their section of the draw. Djokoivc looked sharp, and Nadal did well to get past a tricky first round, and I think Rafa should get past Raonic in the fourth round. Maybe you think he won't, and you don't want to count your lion cubs yet, fair enough.
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
Dedans Penthouse
Legend
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
you're making less and less sense by the second. finals in slams? (2), finals in grand slams (what's the difference?) (2). Number of times played: 10, not 11.
And how's Djokovic, who at his peak, so far went 5-5 in 2014-2015 supposed, I use your words, to make minced meat out of a much better Federer in 2003-2008 (2004-2007 if you want peak Fed)?
It. just. doesn't. make. sense.
It. doesn't. hold. up. in. court.
Get it?
Glad you understand
Cheers
Chanwan
racquetreligion
Hall of Fame
do we really care who is the greatest so much to lose sight that tennis is becoming a hackers paradise that bores the masses?
We should be arguing on how to improve tennis out of this situation before Fed retires.
USO is dreadfully slow and Nadal has a good chance if he actually played well but his best days are long gone
We should be arguing on how to improve tennis out of this situation before Fed retires.
USO is dreadfully slow and Nadal has a good chance if he actually played well but his best days are long gone
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
A flow in your reasoning is that Federer 2003-8 was better than Federer of today. According to Federer himself it is actually vice verse. I have to accept what Federer says about his own game; I would be an idiot to claim that I know better about his game than him. Thus, Federer 2003-8 is not as good as he is now, and now is 5:5.you're making less and less sense by the second. finals in slams? (2), finals in grand slams (what's the difference?) (2). Number of times played: 10, not 11.
And how's Djokovic, who at his peak, so far went 5-5 in 2014-2015 supposed, I use your words, to make minced meat out of a much better Federer in 2003-2008 (2004-2007 if you want peak Fed)?
It. just. doesn't. make. sense.
It. doesn't. hold. up. in. court.
Get it?
Glad you understand
Cheers
Chanwan
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
Iirc (and if this article is to be believed, which I believe it is: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...ael-nadal-in-rome-the-shift-is-a-tectonic-one) it was 16-7
zagor
Bionic Poster
Actually, I'm still finding it funny as hell, he has perfected the art of counter-trolling. For some reason, Nadal fans seemed to have dropped the "tennis evolution" theory like a hot potato.
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
Sampras played a lot better in that match than Rafa played at the RG. Still, taking Rafa down at the RG is special. But did you regard the match as particularly special? Other than the first set, he was a no show. And even then, it was only Novak's mental nerves that kept Rafa in the set.Was Federer's win over Sampras not special?
When did you start watching tennis? 2014? 2011?
exactly - and twice to be precise.
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
I'm surprised OP hasn't liked this comment yet, it seems to be exactly what he's saying:
Not quite imo, but also not that far off. It would certainly have been a heck of a lot closer if their meetings had been equally spread out across the year, years and surfaces.
Rafa seems to be at his best ever too (and so is Pete, Agassi and McEnroe I hear). Novak truly is the greatest to ever grace the game.
p.s. So said Pete in 2002 when he was losing left and right. It's the mind of a champion to always believe they get better. Go watch some tapes, you obviously weren't watching tennis 10 years ago.
p.p.s. Just a minor correction - I believe you meant to say flaw, not flow.
(@zagor - you're right )
@Djokovic2011 - thanks, got 5 hours and a bit. When is Djoko on? Not that enthused about his 2nd round tbh. Another cruise control match imo - and no offense, but I don't find Novak that exciting to watch against people who can't push him.
Last edited:
DRII
G.O.A.T.
I was referring to the H2H...
Do you claim that Federer is incapable to assess his own game?
Meles
Bionic Poster
How many more majors would Fed have won without Nadal? I'm thinking at least five French Opens. Kind of interesting when you think about GOAT. Djoker never go gluten free, how much would Rafa have? How many for Murray?
Rafa's game matched up really well against Federer, so how could he say Roger Toughest given head to head?
heninfan99
Talk Tennis Guru
...he fears The Dog
ArcspacE
G.O.A.T.
U mad, bro?
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
I claim that Fed admitting to playing worse and being slower and having 1/4 of the forehand he used to have would lead to worse results. Hence the attempt to fool himself which has apparently fooled you.
Did you start watching tennis in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 or just now?
And do you have any comment on Sampras and plenty of other past greats echoing Fed's sentiments about their own game, when clearly their game had gotten worse?
And do you think that Fed going from getting to 18 out of 19 slam finals in a row (winning 12-13) to getting to 4 finals out of 22 (winning 1) is primarily explained by the rest of the tour getting better instead of Fed getting worse?
He's just imitating posters like the one I'm arguing with above.
Inanimate_object
Hall of Fame
Should Nadal be given a probationary ban for inferring that Federer is not a tough opponent? I believe his actions go against the etiquette and philosophy of the tennis establishment. One must always treat your opponent with the utmost respect - anything less should be seen as a violation of the code of gentlemanly conduct.
Do you claim that you can assess Federer's game better than Federer (1/4 and all that)? Do you claim that you are psychiatrist/psychologist treating Federer? If not, how do you know his mind so well?
p.s. I watch/play tennis from 1974.
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
If you want me to engage you in discussions now and in the future, I suggest you answer the questions I posted above first - more specifically these two:
Do you have any comment on Sampras and plenty of other past greats echoing Fed's sentiments about their own game, when clearly their game had gotten worse?
And do you think that Fed going from getting to 18 out of 19 slam finals in a row (winning 12-13) to getting to 4 finals out of 22 (winning 1) is primarily explained by the rest of the tour getting better instead of Fed getting worse?
NatF
Bionic Poster
Sampras said the same thing about his game at the end of his career. You've seen a lot of tennis so just to remind you in case you're confused (so many tennis memories right?), this is a man who after winning his 13th slam didn't win another tournament for over 2 years. So was Pete Sampras being accurate with his assessment of his own game and the tougher competition in the twilight of his career?
sportsfan1
Legend
No surprises there, would have guessed as much.
Inanimate_object
Hall of Fame
It doesn't matter if it's obvious or true. You simply don't slight a fellow player like that. It's just not acceptable. This sledge era has gotta stop. It's disgraceful.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Yep and Federer would be on 20+ slams without Djokovic...so he'd still be short of the target.
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
To be truly honest. The only thing special was the result, in that Djokovic finally toppled the ultimate clay warrior.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
So was I...
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
Fed being on 20+ is more sure than Rafa being on 17+ with no Djoko. He'd have 3 more slams at the most and I would say 2's way more likely and just 1 more not that unlikely (given the opponents he would have played instead of Djoko in those slams).
again, there's no BS with you - as close to unbiased, fair and 'objective' posts as they come.
Still, beating Rafa at the RG must have felt good for every Djoko fan. I know I would like it as a Fed fan - even in 2016 and 2017.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Yeah I think Federer was more of a lock for AO 11 and Wim 14-15 than Nadal for any of the slams he lost in 11-12 as well.
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
Exactly + Fed would have decent to good chances in AO 2008 vs. first timer Tsonga and at US Open 2011 (2010, not so much).
It's quite a common misconception that Djoko's hurt Rafa's slam chances more than Fed's. He hasn't. Not by a long shot.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
so you're assuming Nole will beat Nadal every time they meet for now on, i.e. counting your chickens a little too early guy.
Comment about Sampras statement: For me, it is difficult to comment on Sampras as I never liked his game at all. I always considered him technically limited and thought that he was an exaggerated case of a "strong element" strategy (when player have few strong elements bringing him many points while the rest of his game is not very good; Karlovic being a very good example); in contrast I liked Agassi. However, that is just my taste and certainly can't diminish Sampras. He is one of the most successful tennis players ever and very accomplished human being. If he said in 2002 that he was better than ever I trust him. I know when I played best and I am confident than he knew as well. I appreciate that Safin, Federer, Hewitt etc. are different kettle of fish when compared to players he faced before and that formal success is not necessarily a measure of absolute level of play.
Comments about Federer: In a nutshell, yes. If I am objectively assessing Federer games technically, I would say that he plays now better than ever. The way how he played in W and in Cincinnati is, in my opinion, the highest level of his play in technical terms. His anticipation is now impeccable (if he is slightly slower it is more than compensated by much better anticipation), his backhand is better and forehand is as good as ever.
Comments about Federer: In a nutshell, yes. If I am objectively assessing Federer games technically, I would say that he plays now better than ever. The way how he played in W and in Cincinnati is, in my opinion, the highest level of his play in technical terms. His anticipation is now impeccable (if he is slightly slower it is more than compensated by much better anticipation), his backhand is better and forehand is as good as ever.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
I didn't say that either...I said this H2H is swinging Djokovic way, and yeah, I am sticking with it. He is going to gain the advantage in that H2H, just like he will get it against Federer.
NatF
Bionic Poster
There can be no more debate after Wimbledon 2015 who Djokovic has hurt more. There's a lot of crap peddled on here that doesn't really stand up.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
If I am going to be perfectly honest with you, I actually felt sad for Rafa. I don't know what it was, maybe it was seeing the champion finally defeated. You wait so long for it to happen, and when it does, it doesn't feel as good as you had imagined. Maybe it was all the respect and admiration I have for Rafa, that finally overwhelmed what I was hoping for all these years, watching a great champion rise and fall before you, having gone on his journey. The moment in that sense becomes a lot bigger.
Similar threads
