NatF
Bionic Poster
I've watched highlights of the RG '13 semifinal a few times but I wouldn't say I watch it over and over, not that I'd necessarily consider it the match that hurts the most anyway.
Way to not answer the question
I've watched highlights of the RG '13 semifinal a few times but I wouldn't say I watch it over and over, not that I'd necessarily consider it the match that hurts the most anyway.
Here's mine
The best three set match between Nadal and Djokovic, and the best three set match I have seen on clay ever.
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.
omg why do you torture yourself in watching that more than once? I wanted to pull my hair out the first time will all those bps he had.USO15
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"
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.
LOL, is that bad or what?
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.
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.Or when original view doesn't support favourite player in current argument...
I look forward to age excuses for Federer being ok now
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
Don't see it that way. The match was very even throughout its duration as it could be.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.
I was expecting you to mention that match.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!
1980 USO final as well...1981 Wimbledon Final.
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.Rome 2006 final. Federer lost to Nadal squandering multiple advantages in the fifth set and two match points.
Yes. At least we had that AO 17 final.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.
A killer.1980 USO final as well...
We can discuss two topics: 1) highest level in the Grand Slam performance and 2) better season.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.
Two match points, a break and mini-breaks up in the tie break...well, I guess it happens to everyone, including Rodja.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.
Borg would've gone to Australia to play for the Calendar Slam had he won that final. I always thought it's unfair that a player as versatile as Borg never won a HC slam, but...there is no such thing as unfair or lack of luck in tennis.A killer.
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.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.
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 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.
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.I agree. I wanted Andy to win so bad. It would have been such a great way to cap off an amazing career.
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.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:
You're quoting yourself now? Or which account did you think you were signed into?Well said, my friend.
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.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.
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.