Roger Federer is the most overrated No.1 of all time. Discuss.

[RF20Lennon]

Media hypes everyone up thats common but Sampras and Djokovic lost in the 4th round or below in their primes! Federer never did! So I don't see why this result should matter. Not to mention he's beaten Djokovic twice this year!

 

[Logic]

might as well talk to someone else "Logic"...a misnomer if ever there was one. people decline yes, people get better yes. Some eras have more talent than others yes...all the evidence supports Fed's early part of his career 03-07 was one of those with less competition yes...do fanboys pretend it's not true...yes....is the earth flat.....etc.etc

Instead of resorting to an ad-hominem, and just parroting on that there was an "obvious weak era", why don't you address my questions with some actual reasoning?

 

[kiki]

the bad match up is such a massive poorly thought and executed excuse

Connors ( and Nastase) was a very bad match up for Borg.Until he overcame it

Rosewall (and Gonzales) was a very bad match up for the Rocket.Until he overcame it.

That makes the difference between tough eras champs and weak eras champ

 

[mike danny]

the bad match up is such a massive poorly thought and executed excuse

Connors ( and Nastase) was a very bad match up for Borg.Until he overcame it

Rosewall (and Gonzales) was a very bad match up for the Rocket.Until he overcame it.

That makes the difference between tough eras champs and weak eras champ

Nastase was 10 years his senior.

Nadal is 5 years younger.

Poor comparison.

And also: was Nastase an all-tme great? Nope...

 

[NatF]

the bad match up is such a massive poorly thought and executed excuse

Connors ( and Nastase) was a very bad match up for Borg.Until he overcame it

Rosewall (and Gonzales) was a very bad match up for the Rocket.Until he overcame it.

That makes the difference between tough eras champs and weak eras champ

What nonsense. Borg and Laver were both younger than their respective rivals which is a big reason why they overcame them.

 

[burn1986]

Another stupid topic because Fed lost to Gulbis, geez

 

[mike danny]

the bad match up is such a massive poorly thought and executed excuse

Connors ( and Nastase) was a very bad match up for Borg.Until he overcame it

Rosewall (and Gonzales) was a very bad match up for the Rocket.Until he overcame it.

That makes the difference between tough eras champs and weak eras champ

If you don't believe in match-up issues why is Davydenko 6-1 vs Rafa on HC?

Why does Isner trouble Djokovic a lot but not Nadal and Federer?

Why did Fed manage to beat 2011 Djoker but Nadal did not do squat?

 

[WhiskeyEE]

Connors was 10 years his senior.

Nadal is 5 years younger.

Poor comparison.

And also: was Nastase an all-tme great? Nope...

Only 4 years. But yeah, still. Fed would have to be young against an again Nadal to "overcome" him.

 

[mike danny]

only 4 years

Sorry I meant Nastase

 

[WhiskeyEE]

Sorry I meant Nastase

Just wait until Novak overtakes Nadal in the h2h. Then Nadal fans suddenly won't value h2h so much. Even though Nadal and Novak are from the same generation and don't have h2h surface skewed in favour of Novak.

Novak - Nadal h2h is also clay skewed, but still Novak is catching up to him

 

[Jam]

I know you said somewhere Djokovic and Nadal started ownin him in slams from 2008/2009.

Maybe I did not see it right. I apologize.

But you gotta stop callin someone names because he thinks differenly an please tell me what was with that 3 year olds comment

It was an unsupported assertion for which I have no evidence. I was parodying your unsupported assertion about me saying post-2008 Djokovic owning Federer in slams. I know tennis and the stats.

I said no such thing. That's why you can't find it anywhere. You completely made it up. So I made something up to parody you. You make things up to suit your agenda. I have no agenda. Well that's not true. Mine is the truth.

 

[Jam]

Instead of resorting to an ad-hominem, and just parroting on that there was an "obvious weak era", why don't you address my questions with some actual reasoning?

I've provided a theory that suggests either a: Federer and the top 100 dropped their level or b: the 3 others were coming into prominence.

I think b is more likely. The fact that they were already doing very well before 2008 before their primes and regularly beating Federer pre-2008 unlike the field at the time suggests that b is the far more likely theory. Unlike you Mr "Logic".

For your theory to be consistent the whole top 100 fell apart from 3 players. Totally ludicrous. Fed probably has gradually declined but he was 26 at Wimbledon not 27 in 2008. And he certainly was 26 at Oz 2008 when Djoko dismantled him..


Or was he 27 there too???????????????????


"No he had mono"......

 

[kiki]

Nastase was 10 years his senior.

Nadal is 5 years younger.

Poor comparison.

And also: was Nastase an all-tme great? Nope...

He was the world´s number one player for a while.Is Djokovic an all time great?

 

[kiki]

What nonsense. Borg and Laver were both younger than their respective rivals which is a big reason why they overcame them.

there is another one: it is called ball´s size

 

[Logic]

I've provided a theory that suggests either a: Federer and the top 100 dropped their level or b: the 3 others were coming into prominence.

I think b is more likely. The fact that they were already doing very well before 2008 before their primes and regularly beating Federer pre-2008 unlike the field at the time suggests that b is the far more likely theory. Unlike you Mr "Logic".

Firstly, will you at least concede that, as well as Nadal, Djokovic, Murray improving post-2007, that Federer dramatically declined?

Secondly, pre-2008, only Rafa (of the three) beat Fed at a major. So your text in bold is just blatantly false!

For your theory to be consistent the whole top 100 fell apart from 3 players. Totally ludicrous. Fed probably has gradually declined but he was 26 at Wimbledon not 27 in 2008. And he certainly was 26 at Oz 2008 when Djoko dismantled him..


Or was he 27 there too???????????????????


"No he had mono"......

Actually, "my theory" is merely that Fed declined post-26 (as evidenced by his performance against the field even when EXCLUDING Rafa, Nole and Andy). So to reason about the strength of his opponents from different times based on their performance against two different Feds (agewise) is flawed.

Also, I never said Fed was 27 in '08, nor that he had mono. I merely stated the fact that he was past 26: and so, going by history, entering the phase of dramatic decline.

 

[kiki]

If you don't believe in match-up issues why is Davydenko 6-1 vs Rafa on HC?

Why does Isner trouble Djokovic a lot but not Nadal and Federer?

Why did Fed manage to beat 2011 Djoker but Nadal did not do squat?

life is full of bad match ups.You either come over them or not.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

I've provided a theory that suggests either a: Federer and the top 100 dropped their level or b: the 3 others were coming into prominence.

I think b is more likely. The fact that they were already doing very well before 2008 before their primes and regularly beating Federer pre-2008 unlike the field at the time suggests that b is the far more likely theory. Unlike you Mr "Logic".

For your theory to be consistent the whole top 100 fell apart from 3 players. Totally ludicrous. Fed probably has gradually declined but he was 26 at Wimbledon not 27 in 2008. And he certainly was 26 at Oz 2008 when Djoko dismantled him..


Or was he 27 there too???????????????????


"No he had mono"......

Tipsarevic almost beat Federer at 2008 AO. And that was the only time he managed to take a set from him in 5 meetings.

 

[mike danny]

It was an unsupported assertion for which I have no evidence. I was parodying your unsupported assertion about me saying post-2008 Djokovic owning Federer in slams. I know tennis and the stats.

I said no such thing. That's why you can't find it anywhere. You completely made it up. So I made something up to parody you. You make things up to suit your agenda. I have no agenda. Well that's not true. Mine is the truth.

You still haven't answered my question on the 3 year olds comment

 

[Jam]

You still haven't answered my question on the 3 year olds comment

Yes I have. It was a parody of your unsupported assertion. Of course you don't think that. But your assertion was also unsupported. So, I used parody as a form of comedy by saying something ridiculous to highlight it.

 

[NatF]

there is another one: it is called ball´s size

You don't win as much Federer has without balls. He overcame numerous players who had strong h2h's with him (Hewitt, Nalbandian, Agassi and Henman - the latter 2 were obviously a lot older), even against Murray who is 6 years younger than him Federer has been closing that h2h for years.

 

[mike danny]

I've provided a theory that suggests either a: Federer and the top 100 dropped their level or b: the 3 others were coming into prominence.

I think b is more likely. The fact that they were already doing very well before 2008 before their primes and regularly beating Federer pre-2008 unlike the field at the time suggests that b is the far more likely theory. Unlike you Mr "Logic".

For your theory to be consistent the whole top 100 fell apart from 3 players. Totally ludicrous. Fed probably has gradually declined but he was 26 at Wimbledon not 27 in 2008. And he certainly was 26 at Oz 2008 when Djoko dismantled him..


Or was he 27 there too???????????????????


"No he had mono"......

First of all while those 3 improved, Fed did not stay the same. Claiming otherwise is not true.

Second of all you are wrong. They were not beating Federer regularly pre 2008. Only Nadal was. An clinching to that Murray victory in 2006 is not enough data to support your argument

Also why use only from 2008? Weren't Nadal and Djokovic top 3 players in 2007 and challenged Fed in slam finals? Didn't Fed beat them in tough matches (Nadal at W and Nole at USO) to win his slams?

But of course. Fed won so it must have been a weak era. I wouldn't be surprised if the weak era extended unill 2009 if Fed won that 2008 W final

 

[mike danny]

Yes I have. It was a parody of your unsupported assertion. Of course you don't think that. But your assertion was also unsupported. So, I used parody as a form of comedy by saying something ridiculous to highlight it.

That was rude and totally uncalled for.

 

[burn1986]

Why start this thread right after he's: just had another kid: just turned like 100 yrs old, has laid off for about 2 weeks, and is using a racquet that he's played with less than a year?

So, he's more over rated than Sharapova? Seriously?!

 

[Jam]

Tipsarevic almost beat Federer at 2008 AO. And that was the only time he managed to take a set from him in 5 meetings.

Behave. Look at the 3 other members record against Federer, in masters and at the business end of slams compared with the field before that. There is no stand out player before ten (apart from Federer). They didn't even stand out against each other. It took a 17 year old Nadal to turn up to finally provide competition. They just weren't that good. Tipsarevic vs Federer = 5-0 beatdown. Tipsarevic = no slams, Tipsarevic = no masters...Tipsarevic = QF best performance in a slam.

The next lot were simply better and that's the principle reason for Fed fading. He was losing to them when Djokovic was age 20 in a slam and, Nadal age 18. Murray is slightly behind them and Fed is still brilliant. I'm not saying they're better I'm just saying they're much closer (in Nadal's case and Djoko's definitely) than the previous 03-07 competition.

 

[Jam]

That was rude and totally uncalled for.

well it was a parody. I thought it was obvious. Obviously not. Sorry for offending. I don't think that for a minute.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

Behave. Look at the 3 other members record against Federer, in masters and at the business end of slams compared with the field before that. There is no stand out player before ten (apart from Federer). They didn't even stand out against each other. It took a 17 year old Nadal to turn up to finally provide competition. They just weren't that good. Tipsarevic vs Federer = 5-0 beatdown. Tipsarevic = no slams, Tipsarevic = no masters...Tipsarevic = QF best performance in a slam.

The next lot were simply better and that's the principle reason for Fed fading. He was losing to them when Djokovic was age 20 in a slam and, Nadal age 18. Murray is slightly behind them and Fed is still brilliant. I'm not saying they're better I'm just saying they're much closer (in Nadal's case and Djoko's definitely) than the previous 03-07 competition.

I was using that as evidence that Federer was actually sick during the 2008 AO. Tipsy was 50 in the world and a nobody and almost beat a 3 time champion. After that, he got owned by Federer every time. Even years later when Federer was 30-31 and Tipsy was top 10 in his own prime.

 

[Logic]

The next lot were simply better and that's the principle reason for Fed fading. He was losing to them when Djokovic was age 20 in a slam and, Nadal age 18. Murray is slightly behind them and Fed is still brilliant. I'm not saying they're better I'm just saying they're much closer (in Nadal's case and Djoko's definitely) than the previous 03-07 competition.

Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Sampras and others all performed much worse after the age of 26 (i.e the same age as Federer in late 2007), than they did beforehand.

So by your logic, each of them was merely confronted with stronger opposition, and eras are always getting stronger over time?

 

[mike danny]

well it was a parody. I thought it was obvious. Obviously not. Sorry for offending. I don't think that for a minute.

Good. Apologiez accepted

 

[clayqueen]

Don't get me wrong. He's a fantastic player, and his achievements are outstanding. What he has achieved is undoubtedly admirable and some of the records he has set may not be beaten for a long time.


Despite this, it just appears to me that all the hype that he's received since 2004, and even today, just isn't warranted. I'm not saying he's not an amazing player, but that he at times can be ridiculously overhyped, especially when its evident that the majority of his slams were won against comparatively (stress) mediocore players. Upon the emergence of Djokodalray, his true position, to me at least, became clear.



P.S(I admire RF, support him in most matches. What i'm saying does not disqualify my admiration of him; just a mere observation of how others see him as 'god-like' when in reality he isn't)

Totally agree I made the same observation sometime ago.

 

[mike danny]

Behave. Look at the 3 other members record against Federer, in masters and at the business end of slams compared with the field before that. There is no stand out player before ten (apart from Federer). They didn't even stand out against each other. It took a 17 year old Nadal to turn up to finally provide competition. They just weren't that good. Tipsarevic vs Federer = 5-0 beatdown. Tipsarevic = no slams, Tipsarevic = no masters...Tipsarevic = QF best performance in a slam.

The next lot were simply better and that's the principle reason for Fed fading. He was losing to them when Djokovic was age 20 in a slam and, Nadal age 18. Murray is slightly behind them and Fed is still brilliant. I'm not saying they're better I'm just saying they're much closer (in Nadal's case and Djoko's definitely) than the previous 03-07 competition.

Not necessarily. Federer was already losing to the field in 2008. He had 15 losses, 7 of which were to guys he used to own in his sleep.

In 2010 as well he was losing more to the field than to them.

Bottom lin is, while those 3 got better, Federer got worse

 

[Jam]

Firstly, will you at least concede that, as well as Nadal, Djokovic, Murray improving post-2007, that Federer dramatically declined?

Secondly, pre-2008, only Rafa (of the three) beat Fed at a major. So your text in bold is just blatantly false!



Actually, "my theory" is merely that Fed declined post-26 (as evidenced by his performance against the field even when EXCLUDING Rafa, Nole and Andy). So to reason about the strength of his opponents from different times based on their performance against two different Feds (agewise) is flawed.

Also, I never said Fed was 27 in '08, nor that he had mono. I merely stated the fact that he was past 26: and so, going by history, entering the phase of dramatic decline.

I didn't say Murray beat him in a major. I said he beat him.

maybe he did decline but there was evidence form right in his prime that he wasn't much better or better at all than an improving Nadal at both 2006 and especially 2007 Wimbledon and then 2008 vs Djokovic. Not to mention his increasingly worsening results against Nadal at RG. Or his worsening h2h vs Murray.

Look, I don't want to disparage the legend that is Fed. But stop pretending he's head and shoulders above the competition. He simply isn't better than Nadal. More accomplished yes, greater artistry well up to you but personally I think yes. But end of the day Nadal at the same age had probably at least as many accomplishments and irrespective of whether he beats Fed's slam record is going to go down in history at a minimum of roughly his equal. I'd actually prefer Fed to hold the record as Nadal seems to be stealing all of his other ones. But hey-ho we'll see what happens.

 

[mike danny]

So a guy with all the Open Era records,including the weeks at no.1 record is overrated?

Some guys with their logic....

 

[mike danny]

I didn't say Murray beat him in a major. I said he beat him.

maybe he did decline but there was evidence form right in his prime that he wasn't much better or better at all than an improving Nadal at both 2006 and especially 2007 Wimbledon and then 2008 vs Djokovic. Not to mention his increasingly worsening results against Nadal at RG. Or his worsening h2h vs Murray.

Look, I don't want to disparage the legend that is Fed. But stop pretending he's head and shoulders above the competition. He simply isn't better than Nadal. More accomplished yes, greater artistry well up to you but personally I think yes. But end of the day Nadal at the same age had probably at least as many accomplishments and irrespective of whether he beats Fed's slam record is going to go down in history at a minimum of roughly his equal. I'd actually prefer Fed to hold the record as Nadal seems to be stealing all of his other ones. But hey-ho we'll see what happens.

What other ones? The slam record is the only record he is the closest to breaking.

At the others he is miles behind

 

[mike danny]

I didn't say Murray beat him in a major. I said he beat him.

maybe he did decline but there was evidence form right in his prime that he wasn't much better or better at all than an improving Nadal at both 2006 and especially 2007 Wimbledon and then 2008 vs Djokovic. Not to mention his increasingly worsening results against Nadal at RG. Or his worsening h2h vs Murray.

Look, I don't want to disparage the legend that is Fed. But stop pretending he's head and shoulders above the competition. He simply isn't better than Nadal. More accomplished yes, greater artistry well up to you but personally I think yes. But end of the day Nadal at the same age had probably at least as many accomplishments and irrespective of whether he beats Fed's slam record is going to go down in history at a minimum of roughly his equal. I'd actually prefer Fed to hold the record as Nadal seems to be stealing all of his other ones. But hey-ho we'll see what happens.

You claimed they were beating him consistenly pre 2008, which is false. Only Nadal was.

 

[mike danny]

I didn't say Murray beat him in a major. I said he beat him.

maybe he did decline but there was evidence form right in his prime that he wasn't much better or better at all than an improving Nadal at both 2006 and especially 2007 Wimbledon and then 2008 vs Djokovic. Not to mention his increasingly worsening results against Nadal at RG. Or his worsening h2h vs Murray.

Look, I don't want to disparage the legend that is Fed. But stop pretending he's head and shoulders above the competition. He simply isn't better than Nadal. More accomplished yes, greater artistry well up to you but personally I think yes. But end of the day Nadal at the same age had probably at least as many accomplishments and irrespective of whether he beats Fed's slam record is going to go down in history at a minimum of roughly his equal. I'd actually prefer Fed to hold the record as Nadal seems to be stealing all of his other ones. But hey-ho we'll see what happens.

Actually it shows how good he is. Over 30 years old an he is still Djoker and Murray's equal, while they are in their prime

 

[Carsomyr]

there is another one: it is called ball´s size

Terrific counter-argument from one of the forum's greatest historians. No arguing that.

 

[Logic]

maybe he did decline but there was evidence form right in his prime that he wasn't much better or better at all than an improving Nadal at both 2006 and especially 2007 Wimbledon and then 2008 vs Djokovic. Not to mention his increasingly worsening results against Nadal at RG. Or his worsening h2h vs Murray.

Look at your own data: it takes until 2008 for Federer to be dethroned, at an age when all tennis greats have dramatically declined. Federer's no exception to that: in large part, his worsening results (in general) post-2008 are a consequence of age.

 

[Jam]

Clearly the next lot in Nadal, Djokovic and Murray were way better. They were flying up the rankings before they were 20 and beating Federer right in the middle of Fed's prime from 2004 for Nadal and 2006 for Murray. His other competition weren't nearly as good as evidence by their accomplishments, their inability to separate themselves from the general field and their h2h against Fed (or indeed the field).

It was much easier for Fed. Fed is a significant outlier but definitely no more than Nadal and possibly no more than Djokovic.

 

[monfed]

Fed has 237 consec weeks at #1 and 302 overall weeks and 5 YE #1s. He's at the very least the top 2 greatest #1 along with Sampras in the history of the sport and you call him overrated? Do you even like tennis or do you just watch cause HIMYM ended? :lol:

 

[NatF]

In 2008 Federer lost no more times to Nadal than he did in 2006, he also led the h2h with Djokovic 2-1. His h2h versus top 10 players dropped dramatically and he lost to players he usually owned - players who were past their best years themselves. But yes there was no decline. Complete BS.

 

[mike danny]

Clearly the next lot in Nadal, Djokovic and Murray were way better. They were flying up the rankings before they were 20 and beating Federer right in the middle of Fed's prime from 2004 for Nadal and 2006 for Murray. His other competition weren't nearly as good as evidence by their accomplishments, their inability to separate themselves from the general field and their h2h against Fed (or indeed the field).

It was much easier for Fed. Fed is a significant outlier but definitely no more than Nadal and possibly no more than Djokovic.

Using just 1 mere victory for Murray is simply not enough data. At that time it was no more than a Canas loss

 

[agreed]

Nadal went through injuries and a foot disorder, overcame hewitt, Roddick and overrated fed.
Djoko had surgery in his sinus and had allergy that was undiagnosed. He over came nemesis nadal, federer and roddick.
Why can't you overcome federer's low number of quality slam wins, low count of lucky masters1000 titles the last 5 years?

Why can't you overcome fed's poor game plans, choking, tanking, and inability to save match points, Let alone 1 match point at slams...?:twisted:
The only thing he enjoys is a draw falling in his favor at a high fee tournament where he could grab quick cash for appearing. He also enjoyed the 2005-2011 years when every top 8 guy was not at his best, and tired or injured from playing Davis cup and dominating tennis all year. Cry a river for fed.

 

[Logic]

Clearly the next lot in Nadal, Djokovic and Murray were way better. They were flying up the rankings before they were 20 and beating Federer right in the middle of Fed's prime[/B] from 2004 for Nadal and 2006 for Murray. His other competition weren't nearly as good as evidence by their accomplishments, their inability to separate themselves from the general field and their h2h against Fed (or indeed the field).

It was much easier for Fed. Fed is a significant outlier but definitely no more than Nadal and possibly no more than Djokovic.

As I've stated several times, of the three, only Rafa beat Fed at a Major in his prime. Djokovic and Murray did not, so your argument is moot. Beating Federer at a non-Major is irrelevant.

Your text in bold is making me suspect that you may be trolling me: in which case, well done, you have succeeded.

 

[WhiskeyEE]

Clearly the next lot in Nadal, Djokovic and Murray were way better. They were flying up the rankings before they were 20 and beating Federer right in the middle of Fed's prime from 2004 for Nadal and 2006 for Murray. His other competition weren't nearly as good as evidence by their accomplishments, their inability to separate themselves from the general field and their h2h against Fed (or indeed the field).

It was much easier for Fed. Fed is a significant outlier but definitely no more than Nadal and possibly no more than Djokovic.

If one thing is for sure, it's that the current young generation is far worse than Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin, who are criminally underrated (especially Roddick) because they kept getting owned and deprived by Federer.

Old man Fed doesn't make this generation hard. Nor do the plethora of other 30 year old has beens. Novak and Nadal are alone at the top and are in a position to do what no other 27+ year old players have ever done. Like Nadal did last year, despite getting straight setted by Darcis in R1 of Wimbledon.

 

[mike danny]

Clearly the next lot in Nadal, Djokovic and Murray were way better. They were flying up the rankings before they were 20 and beating Federer right in the middle of Fed's prime from 2004 for Nadal and 2006 for Murray. His other competition weren't nearly as good as evidence by their accomplishments, their inability to separate themselves from the general field and their h2h against Fed (or indeed the field).

It was much easier for Fed. Fed is a significant outlier but definitely no more than Nadal and possibly no more than Djokovic.

Why aren't you mentioning Nadal's easy roads? He has no younger outliers

 

[NatF]

Using just 1 mere victory for Murray is simply not enough data.

Using that Murray victory is hilarious. Federer had played 4 back to back 3 setters to win Canada was getting ready to defend the USO. But I'm sure he was very invested in winning Cincinati lol. Not to mention that was the only match he lost in like a 6 month stretch. Had Federer been invested in winning that tournament he would have beaten Murray, no doubt in my mind of that. Roddick schooled Murray later than tournament - so much for him being simply better than Federer's contemporaries.

 

[Djokovic2011]

 

[Jam]

he won plenty of games consistently and is significantly above the field:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federer–Murray_rivalry#Singles

Nadal and Djokovic and Murray (less so) are the main reasons for Federer's decline. only fanboys ignore the blatant evidence in that favour

 

[mike danny]

Using that Murray victory is hilarious. Federer had played 4 back to back 3 setters to win Canada was getting ready to defend the USO. But I'm sure he was very invested in winning Cincinati lol. Not to mention that was the only match he lost in like a 6 month stretch. Had Federer been invested in winning that tournament he would have beaten Murray, no doubt in my mind of that. Roddick schooled Murray later than tournament - so much for him being simply better than Federer's contemporaries.

It would have been great for Fed and Murray to meet at the USO that same year. It would have shut people up with this argument.

Oh I have just remebered. It was Davydenko, a Fed contemporary that beat Murray that year at the USO. So much for him being better than Fed's contemporaries

 

[Jam]

Why aren't you mentioning Nadal's easy roads? He has no younger outliers

Because this thread isn't about Nadal. Feel free to start one and yes it's true. But this is about Fed being placed too highly in many people's minds. The evidence of Nadal's arrival and then Djoko and Murray and the fact that they beat him consistently before their primes and during Federer's prime is evidence of that.

You'll never change your totally biased and blinkered perspective though.