The match that hurts you but you can never stop watching again and again

  • Thread starter Deleted member 77403
  • Start date

Pantera

Banned
Here's mine


The best three set match between Nadal and Djokovic, and the best three set match I have seen on clay ever.
AO 2019. Yes Nadal was not fully fit yet, but the reality was even at his beast mode best he would have had an education even if the scoreline was closer. For a fan who hopes Nadal will be undisputed GOAT, that match showed only one man will ever have played perfect tennis. Djokovic was peerless that day. Perfect tennis. Ouch.
 

Pantera

Banned
2012 AO final. Some of the best hitting I’ve ever seen, and you knew both guys were leaving it all out there. But my heart was eventually broken when Rafa lost it.
After AO 2019, AO 2012 no longer hurts at all as simply put in Australia the best of Nadal cannot overcome the best of Novak. Going 5 sets was a big achievement on that court.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
you "change your mind" every few days. You went on about age excuses used for Federer again and again but now just change your mind? No doubt you'll be back to saying Fed was prime at 30 again when it suits you. Also as Djokovic continues to win I'm sure you'll say he's in his prime.

This is from YESTERDAY



So 29 is prime but 30 is not? Like it's an exact cut off point? And now 28 is near prime but not prime lol but yesterday it was prime?

Also



So Nadal vs Djokovic in 2013 = BOTH prime

Fed vs Nadal AO 2017 = Fed at 35 (past prime since he's over 33) vs near prime Nadal since he is within the 28-32 near prime range. This would mean Federer had the tougher task. According to your logic. I mean the current logic, that could change in the next 30 seconds to give Nadal the "win"
LOL, is that bad or what?

:cool:
 

chut

Semi-Pro
I never watch a whole match, even a victory, but i admit sometimes watching the W08 4th set tie break (and only the tie break)
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
Changing our mind is necessary sometimes, when we realize a mistake. Imagine a racist that never changed his mind.

29 years old is good/optimal. Where is the contradiction? I said 28-32 years old is near-prime thus good/optimal.
Or when original view doesn't support favourite player in current argument...

I look forward to age excuses for Federer being ok now :-D

Ok so if 28-32 is near prime then in 2017 a past prime Federer beat a near prime Nadal, thus Fed was at a disadvantage prime wise. Where as in 2013 both Nadal and Djokovic were prime so there was no disadvantage to either player. Despite this you picked Nadal's 2013 as harder and tried to make out that Nadal was more disadvantaged in 2013. So would you change your mind about this now and accept that Nadal was near prime and Federer was obviously past prime, so Federer's achievement of beating someone close to their prime whilst being past it himself, was greater than Nadal's achievement of facing a player with no advantage of prime over him?
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
LOL, is that bad or what?

:cool:
It's not that he changes his mind, it's that the views exist in two different universes, and he switches between them so that whatever one he's current on favours Nadal. The "change of opinion" gets changed back again when the argument shifts, it doesn't undo all the previous arguments.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
It's not that he changes his mind, it's that the views exist in two different universes, and he switches between them so that whatever one he's current on favours Nadal. The "change of opinion" gets changed back again when the argument shifts, it doesn't undo all the previous arguments.
Yes, I know his tricks very well.

I am not sure that most people pay enough attention to point them out, so it is a good thing to summarise it like that.

:cool:
 

Sport

Legend
Or when original view doesn't support favourite player in current argument...

I look forward to age excuses for Federer being ok now :-D

Ok so if 28-32 is near prime then in 2017 a past prime Federer beat a near prime Nadal, thus Fed was at a disadvantage prime wise. Where as in 2013 both Nadal and Djokovic were prime so there was no disadvantage to either player. Despite this you picked Nadal's 2013 as harder and tried to make out that Nadal was more disadvantaged in 2013. So would you change your mind about this now and accept that Nadal was near prime and Federer was obviously past prime, so Federer's achievement of beating someone close to their prime whilst being past it himself, was greater than Nadal's achievement of facing a player with no advantage of prime over him?
No, changing my mind is a result of experience and observation. For example, I am seeing LeBron James at age 34 playing much worse than at age 31.

Yes Federer was non-prime and Nadal near-prime at the AO 2017. But Federer was more fresh, since Nadal played a 5 hours SF with Dimitrov.
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
Yes, I know his tricks very well.

I am not sure that most people pay enough attention to point them out, so it is a good thing to summarise it like that.

:cool:
I don't think most people do notice. I'm not even sure it's intentional it's just a fan always finding the side of the argument to favour their player, then he probably forgets what he said and argues the opposite, thus it's not a genuine unbiased argument - its starting point is the player in question, not the game or other unbiased points. Look at who the player is and tailor the argument to that, not have a solid argument and see how it affects each player. What's annoying though is the lack of admitting it when called on it.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
I don't think most people do notice. I'm not even sure it's intentional it's just a fan always finding the side of the argument to favour their player, then he probably forgets what he said and argues the opposite, thus it's not a genuine unbiased argument - its starting point is the player in question, not the game or other unbiased points. Look at who the player is and tailor the argument to that, not have a solid argument and see how it affects each player. What's annoying though is the lack of admitting it when called on it.
It is intentional, believe me.

That is why he never admits when something like that happens.

:cool:
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
No, changing my mind is a result of experience and observation. For example, I am seeing LeBron James at age 34 playing much worse than at age 31.

Yes Federer was non-prime and Nadal near-prime at the AO 2017. But Federer was more fresh, since Nadal played a 5 hours SF with Dimitrov.
lol so now bringing the freshness factor in? You see you can't ever admit you were wrong in any meaningful way

Federer had 2 five setters coming into to the final including one in the semis, he was 5 years older than Nadal. Nadal being close to prime would have no problem recovering from a 5 set match so he was in no worse shape than 35 year old past prime Fed.

In 2013, Djokovic was disadvantaged by a 5 set match with Wawrinka. So this really makes no difference. it's still a greater achievement for Fed to beat Nadal in 2017 than it is Nadal beating Djokovic in 2013. If the 5 set match Nadal had gave Fed an advantage, then we have to rule the 5 set match that Djokovic had gave Nadal an advantage in 2013, otherwise we are applying double standard logic.

And in Fed's case his advantage was offset by his age/prime DISADVANTAGE. It wasn't offset in Nadal's case as he had no age/prime disadvantage vs Djokovic.

Hence Fed AO 2017 >>>>> Nadal USO 2013
 

Sport

Legend
lol so now bringing the freshness factor in? You see you can't ever admit you were wrong in any meaningful way

Federer had 2 five setters coming into to the final including one in the semis, he was 5 years older than Nadal. Nadal being close to prime would have no problem recovering from a 5 set match so he was in no worse shape than 35 year old past prime Fed.

In 2013, Djokovic was disadvantaged by a 5 set match with Wawrinka. So this really makes no difference. it's still a greater achievement for Fed to beat Nadal in 2017 than it is Nadal beating Djokovic in 2013. If the 5 set match Nadal had gave Fed an advantage, then we have to rule the 5 set match that Djokovic had gave Nadal an advantage in 2013, otherwise we are applying double standard logic.

And in Fed's case his advantage was offset by his age/prime DISADVANTAGE. It wasn't offset in Nadal's case as he had no age/prime disadvantage vs Djokovic.

Hence Fed AO 2017 >>>>> Nadal USO 2013
Players at their prime don't get exhausted so easily (remember that Nadal played a Long SF against Verdasco before the AO 2009 final and wasn't affected in the final). Don't compare the recovery time of a player in his 20s with a player in his 30s. Also, Djokovic played a 4 hours SF against Wawrinka at the USO 2013, not a 5 hours SF like Nadal with Dimitorv at the AO 2017. You can't compare the recovery time of a 26 years old who played a 4 hours SF with the recovery time of a 30 years old who played a 5 hours SF. Djokovic was fine at the US Open 2013 final, not tired.

2017 Federer needed 5 sets to defeat near-prime Nadal. Can't see how could he defeat prime Nadal who defeated prime Djokovic at the US Open. Federer himself has never defeated prime Djokovic at the USO.
 
Last edited:

Keystoner

Rookie
I wish I weren't this way but such a match doesn't exist. I don't want to even see one highlight of the most heartbreaking losses of my guy.
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
Players at their prime don't get exhausted so easily (remember that Nadal played a Long SF against Verdasco before the AO 2009 final and wasn't affected in the final). Don't compare the recovery time of a player in his 20s with a player in his 30s. Also, Djokovic played a 4 hours SF against Wawrinka at the USO 2013, not a 5 hours SF like Nadal with Dimitorv at the AO 2017. You can't compare the recovery time of a 26 years old who played a 4 hours SF with the recovery time of a 30 years old who played a 5 hours SF. Djokovic was fine at the US Open 2013 final, not tired.

2017 Federer needed 5 sets to defeat near-prime Nadal. Can't see how could he defeat prime Nadal who defeated prime Djokovic at the US Open. Federer himself has never defeated prime Djokovic at the USO.
It's just excuse making to constantly favour Nadal. Nadal was "near prime" his physical powers were way above those of 35 year old Federer who'd played 2 5 setters himself. The 2009 AO final is a laugh because plenty of Nadal fans said Nadal WOULD be tired in that to already prepare an excuse for his loss.

Nadal had the rest advantage in 2013 and had no age disadvantage either. Federer had rest advantage in 2017 but had age/prime disadvantage.

Also I agree, I don't think Federer in 2017 probably couldn't have defeated a prime Nadal but why should he be able to when he was past his prime? He defeated a near prime Nadal, and you've been going on about how there are no excuses for Federer at 30-32 to lose to players in their prime so stop being so biased and stop making excuses for Nadal! I had hoped you would be reasonable enough to concede this but you're too much of a fantic to let your own logic get in the way of hyping up Nadal once more.

I'm not even sure why you're bring into this the hypothetical match up between 2017 Federer and 2013 Nadal, it's just about who had a better season, not who would have won hypothetical matches vs each other "which is untestable and thus should not be up for discussion, again according to your logic)

I'm amazed though, Fed never beat prime Djokovic? So Djokovic wasn't prime in 2008 or 2009? I guess then we're not counting anything before 2011 as prime for Djokovic (I'm sure you'll insist on 2010 though it's one of his worst years on tour just so you can include Nadal's win at the USO) in which case Nadal's record vs prime Djokovic looks very very bad indeed. I'm not sure if Nadal's prime is supposed to be until 27 or 28 though? When did his prime end?

I would also say that if we are discussing who had the better HC season fed 2017 or Nadal 2013, as a test to see whether your logic is unbiased, who had the better entire season in 2017, Fed or Nadal?
 

Sudacafan

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic should have won that match. Nadal even got a dead net cord winner in one of the tie breaks if I recall correctly
Don't see it that way. The match was very even throughout its duration as it could be.
Nole missed 3 non consecutive MPs in the 3rd set TB, and Nadal missed one before he won.
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
Don't see it that way. The match was very even throughout its duration as it could be.
Nole missed 3 non consecutive MPs in the 3rd set TB, and Nadal missed one before he won.
Well Djokovic won a set with a break and Nadal won 2 tiebreaks, always feel matches like that are ones that got away especially as Djokovic generally is a much better tiebreak player. There was also I think a netcord winner from Nadal in one of the tiebreaks which ended up being crucial and as you say Djokovic missed 3 MPs. For me Djokovic played the better match but came up empty handed but I'm not expecting everyone to agree
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
2012 Shanghai Final. Murray had FIVE championship points against Djokovic but couldn't convert a single one. If he had done so, I feel he would probably have created a momentum against Djokovic after beating him in the US Open final that would have been difficult to stop. But he didn't and so he didn't.

I have never been so frustrated and annoyed by the outcome of a Murray-Djokovic match as that one!
 
2012 Shanghai Final. Murray had FIVE championship points against Djokovic but couldn't convert a single one. If he had done so, I feel he would probably have created a momentum against Djokovic after beating him in the US Open final that would have been difficult to stop. But he didn't and so he didn't.

I have never been so frustrated and annoyed by the outcome of a Murray-Djokovic match as that one!
I was expecting you to mention that match.
 

Sudacafan

G.O.A.T.
I share your pain. At least we witnessed the AO 2017 final and its famous fifth set, so it's a bit easier to deal with the Rome loss. ;)
Yes. At least we had that AO 17 final.
Rome 2006 was important not only for the match itself, but for its consequences going forward.
It was the nearest that Roger came of beating Rafa in a clay best of five sets match.
That match could have taken away Roger's confidence of beating Rafa on clay.
 

Sport

Legend
It's just excuse making to constantly favour Nadal. Nadal was "near prime" his physical powers were way above those of 35 year old Federer who'd played 2 5 setters himself. The 2009 AO final is a laugh because plenty of Nadal fans said Nadal WOULD be tired in that to already prepare an excuse for his loss.

Nadal had the rest advantage in 2013 and had no age disadvantage either. Federer had rest advantage in 2017 but had age/prime disadvantage.

Also I agree, I don't think Federer in 2017 probably couldn't have defeated a prime Nadal but why should he be able to when he was past his prime? He defeated a near prime Nadal, and you've been going on about how there are no excuses for Federer at 30-32 to lose to players in their prime so stop being so biased and stop making excuses for Nadal! I had hoped you would be reasonable enough to concede this but you're too much of a fantic to let your own logic get in the way of hyping up Nadal once more.

I'm not even sure why you're bring into this the hypothetical match up between 2017 Federer and 2013 Nadal, it's just about who had a better season, not who would have won hypothetical matches vs each other "which is untestable and thus should not be up for discussion, again according to your logic)

I'm amazed though, Fed never beat prime Djokovic? So Djokovic wasn't prime in 2008 or 2009? I guess then we're not counting anything before 2011 as prime for Djokovic (I'm sure you'll insist on 2010 though it's one of his worst years on tour just so you can include Nadal's win at the USO) in which case Nadal's record vs prime Djokovic looks very very bad indeed. I'm not sure if Nadal's prime is supposed to be until 27 or 28 though? When did his prime end?

I would also say that if we are discussing who had the better HC season fed 2017 or Nadal 2013, as a test to see whether your logic is unbiased, who had the better entire season in 2017, Fed or Nadal?
We can discuss two topics: 1) highest level in the Grand Slam performance and 2) better season.

Nadal wins in the first deparment, while in the second department it should be a tie since both won 1 Grand Slam and 3 Masters 1000 on hard.
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
We can discuss two topics: 1) highest level in the Grand Slam performance and 2) better season.

Nadal wins in the first deparment, while in the second department it should be a tie since both won 1 Grand Slam and 3 Masters 1000 on hard.
First is debatable.

Who would you say had the overall better season in 2017 between Fed and Nadal and why? Nadal finsihed number 1 but Federer won more big titles thanks to an extra masters so should be Federer had the better season even though he finished number 2?
 

Night Slasher

Semi-Pro
Yes. At least we had that AO 17 final.
Rome 2006 was important not only for the match itself, but for its consequences going forward.
It was the nearest that Roger came of beating Rafa in a clay best of five sets match.
That match could have taken away Roger's confidence of beating Rafa on clay.
Two match points, a break and mini-breaks up in the tie break...well, I guess it happens to everyone, including Rodja. :)
Regarding the consequences, it's very tough to beat a player like Nadal at RG where the conditions suit his game more (that's what Federer pointed out after the 2006 final in Paris) so I'm not quite sure if a victory would've changed the history between these two at RG, but at I'm sure it would've helped him in some of their future encounters.
 

Sport

Legend
First is debatable.

Who would you say had the overall better season in 2017 between Fed and Nadal and why? Nadal finsihed number 1 but Federer won more big titles thanks to an extra masters so should be Federer had the better season even though he finished number 2?
Not debatable at all. If Federer needed 5 sets to defeat 30 years old Nadal (a bit past his prime) and a bit tired after the 5 hours SF with Dimitrov, he literally would stand no chance against prime 27 years old and fresh Nadal who defeated prime Djokovic. Federer has never defeated prime Djokovic at the US Open (2010, 2011 and 2015) despite being younger and better than in 2017.

By the way, there was no extra Masters. Nadal won IW, Montreal and Cincinnati in 2013. Federer won IW, Miami and Shanghai in 2017. Where is the extra masters? Nadal ended in 2013 as YE #1 and Federer as YE #2 in 2017. Also, Nadal defeated prime Djokovic both at RG and USO, so he had stronger opposition than an injured Cilic at WB. Nadal had the overall better season. On hard courts it was a tie though.
 
Last edited:

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
Not debatable at all. If Federer needed 5 sets to defeat 30 years old Nadal (a bit past his prime) and a bit tired after the 5 hours SF with Dimitrov, he literally would stand no chance against prime 27 years old and fresh Nadal who defeated prime Djokovic. Federer has never defeated prime Djokovic at the US Open (2010, 2011 and 2015) despite being younger and better than in 2017.
It's all relative though,Fed being 35 facing a 30 year old Nadal is more of a challenge than a prime Nadal facing a Prime Djokovic. Prime vs Prime is equal.

And sorry, if Djokovic was prime in 2010 then he was prime in 2009 and 2008 and even 2007. He was a far better player in 2007-2009 than 2010. The only reason you've said he was prime in 2010 and not before is Nadal beat him in 2010. If Federer beat Djokovic in 2010 you would say that was pre prime as well. In 2010 Djokovic failed to even make a masters final. In 2008 he won a slam and several masters and the WTF and Fed beat him that year. He also beat him in 2009 when Djokovic won masters and he beat him in 2007 when he made the final and won several masters.

Absolutely no objectivity, just out to serve Nadal and twist the points to fit that.

Not that it really matters much because even in 2010 Nadal only scored 2 wins vs Djokovic meaning that vs prime Djokovic, Nadal still has a losing record. Also according to your (current) arguments, Fed in 2010 at 29 was post prime playing prime Djokovic and thus would be expected to lose (he still had match points) since 29 Nadal has never managed to beat Djokovic in a slam (losing 3 matches) and gone 2-9 vs him, many of these matches being vs post prime djokovic too. By contrast post prime 29 year old Fed beat prime djokovic at RG 2011. 29 year old Nadal could not beat slightly post prime 28 year old Djokovic in 2015.

Again, who would you say had the better 2017, Federer or Nadal?
 

Sport

Legend
It's all relative though (...)

And sorry, if Djokovic was prime in 2010 then he was prime in 2009 and 2008 and even 2007. He was a far better player in 2007-2009 than 2010. The only reason you've said he was prime in 2010 and not before is Nadal beat him in 2010.
1. Not relative, because Federer needed 5 sets to defeat a near-prime and a bit tired Nadal, so a prime and fresh Nadal would easily win like in AO 2012 or AO 2014.

2. Federer was in better shape in USO 2010 (29 years old) and USO 2011 (30 years old) than in AO 2017 (35 years old). Yet, he was unable to defeat prime Djokovic. So how is 2017 Federer going to stop 2013 Nadal who stopped prime Djokovic?

P. S.: late 2010 Djokovic was substantially better than in 2007 or 2008, that explains why he defeated a near-prime Federer in the SF. Djokovic started his prime the last months of 2010. It is not like Djokovic was non-prime the 31th of December of 2010 and suddenly started his prime the 1st of January of 2011. He started his prime the last months of 2010.

Federer was also in good form the last months of 2010. When Federer is out of form he loses to Nadal even at the ATP finals (remember 2013). Look how 2010 Federer absolutely DEMOLISHED prime Nadal in the 2010 ATP finals:


 

MeatTornado

Legend
I agree. I wanted Andy to win so bad. It would have been such a great way to cap off an amazing career.
It's definitely one of my bigger "what if" matches. In hindsight, we can all see that it was the breaking point for him and was his last real chance at a major.

But what kind of boost would a win have provided? Could he have backed it up in NY against a somewhat vulnerable Fed? How about the idea of returning to SW19 as the defending champion and not having to deal with Fed in 2010? Was that title there for the taking as well?

Probably not. But I like to dream.
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
1. Not relative, because Federer needed 5 sets to defeat a near-prime and a bit tired Nadal, so a prime and fresh Nadal would easily win like in AO 2012 or AO 2014.

2. Federer was in better shape in USO 2010 (29 years old) and USO 2011 (30 years old) than in AO 2017 (35 years old). Yet, he was unable to defeat prime Djokovic. So how is 2017 Federer going to stop 2013 Nadal who stopped prime Djokovic?

P. S.: late 2010 Djokovic was substantially better than in 2007 or 2008, that explains why he defeated a near-prime Federer in the SF. Djokovic started his prime the last months of 2010. It is not like Djokovic was non-prime the 31th of December of 2010 and suddenly started his prime the 1st of January of 2011. He started his prime the last months of 2010.

Federer was also in good form the last months of 2010. When Federer is out of form he loses to Nadal even at the ATP finals (remember 2013). Look how 2010 Federer absolutely DEMOLISHED prime Nadal in the 2010 ATP finals:



Lol this is laughable.

First my point isn't whether Federer was playing better in 2017 than 2013 Nadal, it's whether his task was as tough. Playing near prime Nadal when he was himself past his prime was a bigger task for him than Nadal's task of defeating Djokovic when both were in their prime. You're not even arguing the point I am actually making. But forget that.

Djokovic was not more prime in late 2010 than 2007-2009. Seriously man, I will give you no excuses over 2013 because Djokovic had already transformed into the multiple slam winning version of himself, so would it kill you to concede that just one of the USO wins Nadal had was not over a prime Djokovic (if we are calling 2007-2009 non prime)? You say Djokovic was better than in 2007-2009 because he beat Federer but it's equally plausible that Djokovic beat Federer because Federer was also a poorer version of himself than previous years, he'd already blown the USO final the year before and the signs were there that he had lost it at the USO.

Djokovic's results were poor the entire year. In 2008 he won a slam and masters and the WTF, so how the hell was he better in 2010? That's like me saying Nadal was better in 2011 compared to 2010. In 2009 he won masters, in 2007 he made the USO final and won masters so explain using any actual facts how he was better in 2010? The only reason is because Nadal beat him and you want to make out Nadal beat prime Djokovic and Federer didn't which is pure rubbish. The only thing you are using is him beating Federer but this can be explained by Federer being poorer, and he was 29 which is post prime as you have stated so obviously it's valid that he had started to get worse. Also after this he lost 3 matches to Federer having lost 1 in Canada before the USO, so this was no turn around in level like we saw in 2011 where he consistantly got the better of Fed. He even lost at the WTF to Nadal. So if anything the USO win vs Federer was a one off bad match by fed/good match by Djokovic. His confidence levels were low.

At the USO in 2010 Djokovic almost lost in the first round to Trocki he was that bad. You want us to believe he didn't suddenly improve overnight but are actually expecting us to believe he did this exact thing at the USO, because he'd lost in Canada and Cincy as well, so how exactly did he improve overnight at the USO? Also September is not december 31st. Djokovic really started to emerge as the best player in march/april of 2011.

Also just like he reached the uso final in 2010 and then won the AO the next year, he did this in 2007/2008. He was a much better player in these years as the stats prove. You say he was playing great at the end of 2010 but his end of year results in 2007-2009 are better, so why wasn't he prime then apart from the fact you don't want to give any credit to Federer?

2007 won Canada made USO final
2008 reached cincy final beaten by Murray who also beat him in 2011 and was USO finalst beating Nadal beaten by Fed in USO semi, won WTF title
2009 won Paris masters, reached USO semi, beaten by Fed

2010 only good result reaching USO final which can be explained by Federer being poorer then previous years. No other results outside of this support Djokovic being a better player. So why should we believe he was not prime in 2007-2009 but was in 2010? You have to have other reasons besides him beating Federer as this is just one match.

Finally I have to laugh at you saying "When Federer is out of form he loses to Nadal even at the ATP finals (remember 2013) "

Lol that's happened ONCE! vs prime Nadal and Federer with back problems. And he didn't demolish Nadal in the WTF, it went to the deciding set, this was also an indoors match and you Nadal fans love to point out the difference in indoors and outdoors so this has zero baring on Fed's form in an indoor slam match several months previous.
 
I have a hard time rewatching losses of my favorite players/teams in any sport, no matter how well they played.

2014 Wimbledon hurt pretty bad, Federer was so close and at the time I thought that was his last real chance to win a slam. Glad he proved me wrong.
 

Sport

Legend
1. Not relative, because Federer needed 5 sets to defeat a near-prime and a bit tired Nadal, so a prime and fresh Nadal would easily win like in AO 2012 or AO 2014.

2. Federer was in better shape in USO 2010 (29 years old) and USO 2011 (30 years old) than in AO 2017 (35 years old). Yet, he was unable to defeat prime Djokovic. So how is 2017 Federer going to stop 2013 Nadal who stopped prime Djokovic?

P. S.: late 2010 Djokovic was substantially better than in 2007 or 2008, that explains why he defeated a near-prime Federer in the SF. Djokovic started his prime the last months of 2010. It is not like Djokovic was non-prime the 31th of December of 2010 and suddenly started his prime the 1st of January of 2011. He started his prime the last months of 2010.

Federer was also in good form the last months of 2010. When Federer is out of form he loses to Nadal even at the ATP finals (remember 2013). Look how 2010 Federer absolutely DEMOLISHED prime Nadal in the 2010 ATP finals:


Well said, my friend.
 

True Fanerer

G.O.A.T.
You're quoting yourself now? Or which account did you think you were signed into?
Maybe you should let up on Sport. He's one of the the rare posters here that is willing to change his views after reading what some of us have to say. Most of us won't budge. At least he's open to a different point of view.
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
Maybe you should let up on Sport. He's one of the the rare posters here that is willing to change his views after reading what some of us have to say. Most of us won't budge. At least he's open to a different point of view.
I've yet to see that. All I see is changing his views to favour Nadal constantly. Using 30 years old as young for Federer, but then post prime when talking about Nadal. Then adopting 28-32 as a "near prime" age which means basically prime for Federer and basically past prime for Nadal.

Then there's claiming Djokovic was prime in 2010 but not 2007-2009 even though his results were better. It's sheer bias again and again. I'd let up if he ever conceded anything but he doesn't even when it's his own logic you're using. Used to think like you he could be balanced but I really don't see it anymore.
 
I've yet to see that. All I see is changing his views to favour Nadal constantly. Using 30 years old as young for Federer, but then post prime when talking about Nadal. Then adopting 28-32 as a "near prime" age which means basically prime for Federer and basically past prime for Nadal.

Then there's claiming Djokovic was prime in 2010 but not 2007-2009 even though his results were better. It's sheer bias again and again. I'd let up if he ever conceded anything but he doesn't even when it's his own logic you're using. Used to think like you he could be balanced but I really don't see it anymore.
@Sport flip flops often to suit Nadal but I think he's a good guy. He's obviously a huge Nadal fan and will change his criteria to favor Nadal, but he never resorts to insults or personal attacks and is generally respectful. He was one of the first Nadal fans to congratulate Nole fans after the AO win, despite having very high expectations for his guy - see the thread below.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/congratulations-to-the-nole-family-from-a-nadal-fan.636018/

Others have called him out on his bias and changing views - see the thread below. He at least came out to address it, even if his answer wouldn't satisfy everybody. I think he's done more than can be expected for most people on this forum.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/psychological-effects-of-losing-a-slam-final.636770/

I completely agree with your points though and enjoyed reading your exchange with Sport.
 

BeatlesFan

Talk Tennis Guru
I do like to watch Rome 2006 which I think is Roger's best-ever clay match. I rank it above 2011 FO semi for myriad reasons, mostly because Fed played attacking tennis and was hugely successful at net. Rome 2006 was the most pivotal match of the Fed-Rafa rivalry in terms of later clay dominance by Rafa. Had Fed managed to convert one of his two MP's, the trajectory of their later matches may have been different.
 
Top