Soderling agrees with Nadal : Peak Djokovic better than Peak Federer

[ForumMember]

If peak Djokovic is that much better than peak Fed, what business did a 30yr old, 3-4 years past his absolute peak Federer have, in stretching Djoker to 5 sets at Flushing Meadows 2011, notwithstanding having two MPs to close it out?

Hmmmm

Nobody goes past peak at the age of 30. Federer seems to be having his peak in 2005-06 just because there were no Djokovic and Nadal (in complete sense). They may be out of form but that doesn't equate with diminished physical abilities. Nadal had a very bad 2015-16. He had it that's all. No ******** like he was off his peak years. If I contend that Nadal is out of his prime/peak or whaever euphemism you want to use, after 2014 than I should stop counting his two grand slams of 2017. Going off peak is irreversible process.

 

[abmk]

Roddick has some very good showings at the AO TBH. Depends how much mental baggage he carried into the match. Federer's return was pretty bad in that match he could struggle IMO.

yeah, its the mental part ...otherwise AO 03, 04, 05, 07 and 09 forms of Roddick (not the 03/07 semis, but before that) were good enough to beat the form of fed in AO 13 SF.

 

[merlinpinpin]

Nobody goes past peak at the age of 30.

We're mainly talking about tennis on this forum. You've never really watched tennis in your life, have you? Historically, almost no player could sustain his best level of play past 28, sometimes even 25-ish. It's not because we suddenly have a few players who are still very competitive past 30 (helped in no small way by the next generations not pushing them off the court) that this cancels all that has gone before in 140 years of tennis history. Your sentence is just about as wrong as it could be, as in fact, among ATG's, nobody is at his peak at 30 (you could argue Wawrinka with his odd career path and late blooming, obviously, but ATG he isn't). At such an age, in tennis, whoever you are, your best years are firmly behind you.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I think Simon’s tactics in that match had something to do with Djoko’s 100ufe’s. He almost pulled it off too!

With all due credit to Simon for his perseverance, Djokovic's epic 2nd set choke had much to do with it. He easily dominated that set until TB, losing just 5 points on serve and never facing deuce, but missed 11 BPs (best Federer impression, ha) and then tossed the tiebreak 1-7. A half-notch better Djokovic wins that match in straights.

 

[Deleted member 748597]

That’s retaliation for calling Djokovic a ‘baby’ in 2007/08 or Nadal a ‘baby’ in 2006/07.

It’s a 2-way traffic that started with the Nadal fans.

Yeah. That's also annoying. I should have mentioned that too.

 

[abmk]

Your level of delusion is out of this world, and you need to take your head out of feds butt just a tad.

I evaluated those performances of Murray correctly. There are performances of hewitt/roddick that weren't that good or were clearly below par (USO 04 F, Wim 05 F, AO 07 SF etc). I didn't mention as them being tough in those cases. Nor do I have a problem in admitting that those performances were not that good or clearly below par.

OTOH, when someone mentions Murray was well below par in AO 11 final for instance , you can't admit it and keep BSing/side-tracking that Murray is a better player than Roddick/Hewitt.

its your level of delusion that's out of the world. you seemed to think people will continue to fall for your sh*te pretense of being a fed fan. you don't have the guts and are a coward.

and your head is far up djokovic a** that it'll take you a lifetime to get out of it.

 

[abmk]

Hewitt is a better player than roddick but if we look at both and compare to Murray then it's a no brainer that Murray is the much more competent player. You don't win what Murray has won, in an era where he has had to face three of the greatest players, if you are not great. Quality wise Murray is closer to the big 3 than what Hewitt and roddick are to Murray. For me that is pretty clear.

So to answer your first sentence: yes it's alot different facing Murray.

 

[abmk]

Since I found that Roddick actually had a game point on serve to go up *5-3 in the 3rd, BPs to serve for it is not a factor in favour of USO 13/15 F losers, so I agree with you now. Great start + 1 bad lull (start of the 2nd) + 1 bad choke (start of the 4th) > mediocre start + bad choke (end of 3rd) + 1 bad lull (start of the 4th) > ok start followed by a bad lull (end of 1st) + semi-choke (end of 3rd) + bad lull (most 4th set).

Roddick's 2nd set lull was worse than Federer's and as bad as Djokovic's, winning 1 point in two service games, but having rewatched most of that set, I am impressed by the quality of Roddick's comeback, it was better than I remembered it being, not much in the way of of Federer relaxing and playing poor shots on serve. So yes, he wins this.

good to see someone (in this case you), willing to see/check and change their opinion ...

 

[RF-18]

What is fail in that post?

 

[RF-18]

Just a tad?

LOL!!!

LMAO I know I was too generous

 

[abmk]

What is fail in that post?

the whole post.

Quality-wise, Murray is MUCH closer to Hewitt/Roddick than to FEderer/Djokovic/Nadal.

 

[RF-18]

the whole post.

Quality-wise, Murray is MUCH closer to Hewitt/Roddick than to FEderer/Djokovic/Nadal.

Well then that's your opinion. Don't tell me my opinion is fail.

There are plenty of arguments to be made that Murray is closer to fedalovic quality wise than what roddwit is to murray. As I mentioned in my post and what Murray has achieved in his career while competing under Fedalovic.

He has an aura wich Hewitt and Roddick never was close to. Murray carrying his nation to a DC win on his WILL is alone what seperates him from them IMO. That is sheer greatness. That amount of quality and mental determination Hewitt and Roddick was never close to.

 

[swordtennis]

Lmao la sod is in the dog house now at the house of fed. Once beloved by them now hated.

 

[metsman]

Well then that's your opinion. Don't tell me my opinion is fail.

There are plenty of arguments to be made that Murray is closer to fedalovic quality wise than what roddwit is to murray. As I mentioned in my post and what Murray has achieved in his career while competing under Fedalovic.

He has an aura wich Hewitt and Roddick never was close to. Murray carrying his nation to a DC win on his WILL is alone what seperates him from them IMO. That is sheer greatness. That amount of quality and mental determination Hewitt and Roddick was never close to.

Wait he won a DAVIS CUP?? Seriously? DAVIS CUP? Well this changes everything...

 

[mike danny]

Well then that's your opinion. Don't tell me my opinion is fail.

There are plenty of arguments to be made that Murray is closer to fedalovic quality wise than what roddwit is to murray. As I mentioned in my post and what Murray has achieved in his career while competing under Fedalovic.

He has an aura wich Hewitt and Roddick never was close to. Murray carrying his nation to a DC win on his WILL is alone what seperates him from them IMO. That is sheer greatness. That amount of quality and mental determination Hewitt and Roddick was never close to.

You never saw DC 2003 then.

 

[RF-18]

Wait he won a DAVIS CUP?? Seriously? DAVIS CUP? Well this changes everything...

Armchair critics won't understand what that is like.

 

[RF-18]

You never saw DC 2003 then.

Hewitt had better players around him

 

[abmk]

Well then that's your opinion. Don't tell me my opinion is fail.

There are plenty of arguments to be made that Murray is closer to fedalovic quality wise than what roddwit is to murray. As I mentioned in my post and what Murray has achieved in his career while competing under Fedalovic.

no, there isn't, not quality-wise. not one sane argument.

He has an aura wich Hewitt and Roddick never was close to.

no, he doesn't.

Murray carrying his nation to a DC win on his WILL is alone what seperates him from them IMO. That is sheer greatness. That amount of quality and mental determination Hewitt and Roddick was never close to.

what a load of tosh.
Hewitt was clearly mentally tougher guy and more mentally determined than Murray.
Anyone with an iota of tennis knowledge knows that.

comparing with Roddick, Murray's better game-wise, but not better mentally.

Both Hewitt and Roddick have won DC as well.
Including Hewitt coming back from 2 sets to love vs Federer in DC 2003 semi. Aus won that tie 3-2. Could've lost 2-3 easily.

 

[metsman]

Armchair critics won't understand what that is like.

And what exactly are you again?

 

[RF-18]

And what exactly are you again?

I wasn't the one who tried to laugh away a Davis cup victory..

 

[killerboi2]

Hewitt was clearly mentally tougher guy and more mentally determined than Murray.
Anyone with an iota of tennis knowledge knows that.

It's hard to decide who's more mentally tougher, both can be mentally tough at times and not so much at others. Hewitt definitely had a lot of fight and determination in him though. A shame his game started letting him down after 2005 though.

 

[abmk]

It's hard to decide who's more mentally tougher, both can be mentally tough at times and not so much at others. Hewitt definitely had a lot of fight and determination in him though. A shame his game started letting him down after 2005 though.

its not tough to decide at all.
Its Hewitt without a shadow of doubt.
Murray at his prime crumbled mentally far more often than Hewitt did.

Hewitt was regarded as a tough SoB at his prime. He very rarely crumbled mentally at his prime.

Hewitt's problem was his injuries that wrecked him from 2006 onwards. He had 4 prime years before that -- 2001, 2002, 2004 , 2005.

 

[KINGROGER]

Well then that's your opinion. Don't tell me my opinion is fail.

There are plenty of arguments to be made that Murray is closer to fedalovic quality wise than what roddwit is to murray. As I mentioned in my post and what Murray has achieved in his career while competing under Fedalovic.

He has an aura wich Hewitt and Roddick never was close to. Murray carrying his nation to a DC win on his WILL is alone what seperates him from them IMO. That is sheer greatness. That amount of quality and mental determination Hewitt and Roddick was never close to.

Yet only has 3 slams to show for it. Hewitt and Roddick had it tougher too as they had peak Federer blocking them most of the time.

 

[zagor]

Lmao la sod is in the dog house now at the house of fed. Once beloved by them now hated.

Nope, will always love the glorious bastar - d.

He showed massive huevos against Nadal at the FO at a time everyone else was bending over before the first ball was even struck.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Hewitt had better players around him

When Hewitt came back from 2 sets to love down to best Federer in the fifth set of that Davis Cup semi final, and collapsed on court afterwards, there was only one man responsible for the victory: Hewitt.

 

[zagor]

its not tough to decide at all.
Its Hewitt without a shadow of doubt.
Murray at his prime crumbled mentally far more often than Hewitt did.

Hewitt was regarded as a tough SoB at his prime. He very rarely crumbled mentally at his prime.

Hewitt's problem was his injuries that wrecked him from 2006 onwards. He had 4 prime years before that -- 2001, 2002, 2004 , 2005.

Hewitt was tough but I felt he started showing some cracks against Fed in 2004-2005, nervous play in big moments, double faults in worst moments etc. He still competed but I think Fed was in his head ever since their 2004 AO match.

Of course as everyone who followed tennis in that period knows, his DC record is beyond reproach (and he competed at time DC was taken more seriously). He's one of (if not the) best DC players of last few decades, who probably played twice as many matches as Murray did (with all due respect for his 2015 win).

 

[Deleted member 744633]

The experts opinion is one thing but let's use our brains and tennis experience also to make some judgement. I've closely followed tennis for 40 years and as great as Federer, Nadal and other greats are, I've never seen any top level player like Federer or Nadal look as helpless as they did against peak Djokovic. When a player makes all time greats like Federer or Nadal look helpless, that should tell you something.

The highest level tennis I ever saw was played by Djokovic.

 

[Fedforever]

Lmao la sod is in the dog house now at the house of fed. Once beloved by them now hated.

He will always have a special place in our hearts! It's very unfair that some people still try to portray that victory as a lucky fluke. Not only did he reach the Final that year he did it again the next year, beating the No 2 claycourter of the time along the way.

 

[Druss]

“Nobody beats Soderling 12 times in a row”....the words came from the man himself in 2009. I wonder who he was referring to?

 

[abmk]

The experts opinion is one thing but let's use our brains and tennis experience also to make some judgement. I've closely followed tennis for 40 years and as great as Federer, Nadal and other greats are, I've never seen any top level player like Federer or Nadal look as helpless as they did against peak Djokovic. When a player makes all time greats like Federer or Nadal look helpless, that should tell you something.

The highest level tennis I ever saw was played by Djokovic.

all 3 of federer, nadal, djokovic have made each other look helpless at times.
its not something exclusive to djokovic.

 

[abmk]

Hewitt was tough but I felt he started showing some cracks against Fed in 2004-2005, nervous play in big moments, double faults in worst moments etc. He still competed but I think Fed was in his head ever since their 2004 AO match.

Of course as everyone who followed tennis in that period knows, his DC record is beyond reproach (and he competed at time DC was taken more seriously). He's one of (if not the) best DC players of last few decades, who probably played twice as many matches as Murray did (with all due respect for his 2015 win).

some cracks, yes (USO 04 final, wim 04 4th set loose game to get broken back come to mind). But nothing compared to some of Murray's mental lapses/problems. (nervous 1st slam final in USO 08, very poor AO 11 final, blowing it vs Nadal in wim 11 SF after missing an easy FH in the 2nd set, allowing himself to be distracted by a feather in AO 13 final 2nd set TB vs djokovic, distracted by djokovic's possum act in AO 15 final, poor 3 sets in RG 16 final after winning the first set etc.)

Also federer was just a beast in so many of those big points vs Hewitt in that time period along with playing him really well.
I think he respected Hewitt too much and knew that mental lapses could cost him badly.

agree re: DC.

 

[sportsfan1]

More clickbait.

Soderling says it's tough to say (in other words: I have no idea, don't quote me).
Nadal also gives a tentative answer.

Conclusion: They both say Novak at his best is better than Roger.

Legit logic

Well but he also says the following quite clearly:

"If they are both at the top, I think Novak would beat Roger more times than the opposite"

Robin Soderling

 

[Pete Player]

Well but he also says the following quite clearly: "If they are both at the top, I think Novak would beat Roger more times than the opposite", Robin Soderling

He thinks, so it is his opinion. And what are the odds we’ll ever gonna know that, cause let us face it; the Young Senior, can never be at the peak of his form anymore. However his talent and skills may and will probably shadow Djoco’s, if he’s not close to his best. At least Fede will give him a run, if he’s well, yet the age difference.



——————————
On pain meds - all contributed matter and anti-matter subject to disclaimer

 

[Bender]

Soderling is referring to Djokovic's Earth's Mightiest Warrior form.

That makes sense, since peak Federer is from a different planet.

Edit:

 

[Bender]

"He just made me play bad"...

That's what you say when you've met someone and got outplayed

He's saying fedr is a pshr

 

[Checkmate]

It's interesting that Federer views Djokovic as an attacking player while Rafa and Murray as defensive

 

[axlrose]

It's interesting that Federer views Djokovic as an attacking player while Rafa and Murray as defensive

Source or it never happened.

 

[Checkmate]

Source or it never happened.

Done.

 

[axlrose]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">2014, Briggs writes about Federer. Some interesting Djokovic tangents:<br>- &quot;I guess Rafa  and Andy have more the defensive DNA: for me and Novak, we’re more attacking players but we’ve also gotten very good at defence.”<br>- &quot;Aged 16, Federer was a vegetarian &quot;<a href="https://t.co/C5eWeXKqbU">https://t.co/C5eWeXKqbU</a> <a href="https://t.co/06zVPT1YEn">pic.twitter.com/06zVPT1YEn</a></p>&mdash; C Kristjánsdóttir ● (@CristinaNcl) <a href="https://twitter.com/CristinaNcl/status/937780157879865344?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 4, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

OK I've found it.

http://www.news.com.au/sport/sports...s/news-story/9f5575c0303f9060e4e9c64917a087de

Hmmm, most of his fans call Djokovic a pusher. What a dilemma.

 

[RF-18]

Source or it never happened.

He did say that a couple of years ago.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Nobody goes past peak at the age of 30. Federer seems to be having his peak in 2005-06 just because there were no Djokovic and Nadal (in complete sense). They may be out of form but that doesn't equate with diminished physical abilities. Nadal had a very bad 2015-16. He had it that's all. No ******** like he was off his peak years. If I contend that Nadal is out of his prime/peak or whaever euphemism you want to use, after 2014 than I should stop counting his two grand slams of 2017. Going off peak is irreversible process.

- Michael Chang.
- Jim Courier.
- Lleyton Hewitt.
- Marat Safin.

Countless other examples of guys being well past their peak at 30 too.

Federer was in his prime until he was about 29 I would say. And results still cover that.

Because of his greatness he can achieve short bursts of success similar to his prime today much like past prime players can turn back the clock for a match.

 

[zagor]

- Michael Chang.
- Jim Courier.
- Lleyton Hewitt.
- Marat Safin.

Countless other examples of guys being well past their peak at 30 too.

Federer was in his prime until he was about 29 I would say. And results still cover that.

Because of his greatness he can achieve short bursts of success similar to his prime today much like past prime players can turn back the clock for a match.

Those are guys that burned out in early-mid 20s.

When it comes to 30 and over you could just name every ATG in the Open Era (every single one, even Agassi).

I honestly feel that the majority of current Nadal fans on TW started following tennis in 2008.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

It's interesting that Federer views Djokovic as an attacking player while Rafa and Murray as defensive

Great quote. I think the confusion fans have (giving them credit and assuming they're not just haters )is that Novak is such a great athlete and he does tend to play a more defensive style when it's most appropriate and gives him the best chance of winning. Due to extreme flexibility, endurance, and athleticism, he is simply better at it than pretty much anyone bar maybe Nadal. That's why many of the matches with someone like AM were criticized as "Pong". His natural style is offensive though as you can see from early on in his career. He hugs the baseline and takes the ball on the rise, in this sense he is a "time robber" (very useful against Nadal) and that is an offensive trait. He probably seems more offensive to opponents than he looks on TV. Because he is also very willing and capable to engage in endless baseline wars of attrition, it comes across as more of a defensive style and he also isn't the best at net or with "touch" etc. But, I would say his natural play style is somewhat of an aggressive baseliner.

 

[zagor]

Great quote. I think the confusion fans have (giving them credit and assuming they're not just haters )is that Novak is such a great athlete and he does tend to play a more defensive style when it's most appropriate and gives him the best chance of winning. Due to extreme flexibility, endurance, and athleticism, he is simply better at it than pretty much anyone bar maybe Nadal. That's why many of the matches with someone like AM were criticized as "Pong". His natural style is offensive though as you can see from early on in his career. He hugs the baseline and takes the ball on the rise, in this sense he is a "time robber" (very useful against Nadal) and that is an offensive trait. He probably seems more offensive to opponents than he looks on TV. Because he is also very willing and capable to engage in endless baseline wars of attrition, it comes across as more of a defensive style and he also isn't the best at net or with "touch" etc. But, I would say his natural play style is somewhat of an aggressive baseliner.

Yeah, tennis is somewhat nuanced as a sport so some of those superficial traits players are best known for (such as Novak for his gumby stretching in defense) doesn't necessarily reflect reality or moment-to-moment play.

Novak is not offensive as in trying to hit direct winners (though his winners count is usually not that shabby either when's playing well) but he is in terms of willingness to dictate points, his court positioning (both on the return of serve and in the rallies) and preference of going DTL reflect this (the depth of his shots as well). Also, as you said he's also good at taking the ball on the rise which is why Bagdathis years ago said he's like Agassi who hits with less pace.

Despite his athleticism he's quite vulnerable when you consistently push him behind the baseline (which is what Stan has done so effectively in slam matches against him ever since 2013/2014). In that sense it's not that surprising that Fed puts Novak and himself in the "attacking players" group in contrast to Murray and Nadal who have a different comfort zone.

 

[swordtennis]

He will always have a special place in our hearts! It's very unfair that some people still try to portray that victory as a lucky fluke. Not only did he reach the Final that year he did it again the next year, beating the No 2 claycourter of the time along the way.

Me too! Two great french open runs back to back. Just went for it against nadal 2009.

 

[BeatlesFan]

You never saw DC 2003 then.

Exactly. I never could stand Roddick but that guy had grit, determination and drive, despite not being the most talented guy ever. Anyone claiming "Murray has an aura that Roddick or Hewiit never came close to" is almost cringe worthy. Murray has no aura and never has had one. I'm not claiming A-Rod or Lleyton had any "aura" to them, but Murray sure as hell doesn't have it either. Players with an aura are few and far between: Borg, Mac, Fed, Nadal and a handful of others.

Players with an aura transcend the sport. Murray by any definition has not done that. And no, being the first Brit to win W since Perry is not transcending tennis.

 

[mike danny]

Exactly. I never could stand Roddick but that guy had grit, determination and drive, despite not being the most talented guy ever. Anyone claiming "Murray has an aura that Roddick or Hewiit never came close to" is almost cringe worthy. Murray has no aura and never has had one. I'm not claiming A-Rod or Lleyton had any "aura" to them either, but Murray sure as hell doesn't have it either. Players with an aura are few and far between: Borg, Mac, Fed, Nadal and a handful of others.

DC 2003 was about Hewitt though. I agree Roddick also had grit.

 

[YellowFedBetter]

Exactly. I never could stand Roddick but that guy had grit, determination and drive, despite not being the most talented guy ever. Anyone claiming "Murray has an aura that Roddick or Hewiit never came close to" is almost cringe worthy. Murray has no aura and never has had one. I'm not claiming A-Rod or Lleyton had any "aura" to them, but Murray sure as hell doesn't have it either. Players with an aura are few and far between: Borg, Mac, Fed, Nadal and a handful of others.

Players with an aura transcend the sport. Murray by any definition has not done that. And no, being the first Brit to win W since Perry is not transcending tennis.

As a Roddick fan I wholeheartedly agree. He had so much heart.

Only players of this century with an “aura” are Fed, Nadal & Djokovic.

 

[Nadal_Django]

I prefer the elegance of Federer to the grind of Nadal and the robotic nature of Djokovic, nishikori the most flamboyant baseliner of course.

However the problem Federer is going to have, and I think why he is still playing a sits an issue that really irritates him, is that for a decade almost he is way behind Nadal and Djokovic. I think Nadal has 13 majors and Djokovic 12 compared to Federers 7, I may be one or two out but I know Federer is a distant third over almost a 10 year period.

While Federer was at his absolute monstrous best 2004-2006, having such a long period as third best does resonate with many who follow the game closely. Nobody disputes Federers greatness, but I do not think any ex pro will definitively say Federer is GOAT. It will forever be prefixed with 'arguably' just as it will be with both Nadal and Djokovic. There will be forever arguments for all three.

Soderling was a top player and such a shame what happened to him

Excellent post. Since 2008 Federer is basically behind Nadal and Djokovic, and people should be honest about it.

Last decade:

Djokovic 15 Slams
Nadal 13
Federer 5

And a decade is really a long period for the supposed Goat to be just a distant third.

 

[tennis_pro]

Not everyone gets to play a series of Gonzales, Roddicks, Bagdatis, Hewitts and so on in their GS finals. Just saying.

Yeah some get to play him in the QF instead LMAO.

No, wait, I don't know know how GonzaleS is. You mean Pancho?