The most dominant tennis player in his era is Roger Federer.

[mike danny]

No, 1) the entire period is 2004-2009, check the original post(which is already too little for calling it "an era") 2) even in the shorter period you are proposing, his main rival had positive head to head against him and winning streaks you were mentioning(which Federer he did not have against him) 3) he beat still developing Nadal on grass, in 5 sets, the following year he was beaten there too.

Nadal was fully peak on clay and grass in 2007.

Yes, Nadal was developing, but Fed met him many times on clay where he peaked early so it was impossible to have a winning streak over him because of that.

8-6 is a very marginal lead. Close to even. Fed was only dominated in 2008-early 2009.

Nadal back then was still a solid rival to Fed on clay and grass, who cares if he was developing. You talk as if he was chopped liver.

 

[abmk]

Nadal was fully peak on clay and grass in 2007.

Yes, Nadal was developing, but Fed met him many times on clay where he peaked early so it was impossible to have a winning streak over him because of that.

8-6 is a very marginal lead. Close to even. Fed was only dominated in 2008-early 2009.

Nadal back then was still a solid rival to Fed on clay and grass, who cares if he was developing. You talk as if he was chopped liver.

 

[TMF]

And in that era of his, which he dominated, he was dominated in their head to head by another player.
(Who also managed to beat him on his best surface in a slam, and win something he never did, the gold medal in singles.)

Domination is how a player fare against the entire playing field, not a selective match-up against certain player. The overall high winning percentage is a testament of a player's consistency playing at the top of his game and the distance he separate himself from the field.

2004: 76-4(93%)
2005: 81-4(95%)
2006: 92-5(95%)
2007: 68-9(88%)
2008: 66-15(81%)
2009: 61-12(84%)

Out of the big 5(Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal and Nole)Federer is the only player who has 3 seasons with a 90+ winning percentage in a season.

 

[TMF]

2004 :
Rome: R32 lost Costa 63 36 26
RG: R32 lost Kuerten 46 46 46

2005:
Monte Carlo QF lost Gasquet 76 26 67

2007:
Rome: R16 lost Volandri 26 46

2008:
Rome QF lost Stepanek 67 67

2009:
Monte Carlo R16 lost Wawrinka 46 57
Rome semis lost Djokovic 64 36 36

Nick-pick certain losses and ignore what he actually achieved(SIGH...)

He made the French Open final 4 times and was the best clay court player in 2009. He won multiple clay MS1000 and made many finals. Clearly he was the second best clay-court player despite it's his least favorite surface facing the king of clay.

 

[skaj]

Nadal was fully peak on clay and grass in 2007.

Yes, Nadal was developing, but Fed met him many times on clay where he peaked early so it was impossible to have a winning streak over him because of that.

8-6 is a very marginal lead. Close to even. Fed was only dominated in 2008-early 2009.

Nadal back then was still a solid rival to Fed on clay and grass, who cares if he was developing. You talk as if he was chopped liver.

So, Nadal was as good on grass in 2007 as he was in 2008, no difference whatsoever? I wouldn't try that if I were you.

#2-#1 8-6 is not a marginal lead in this context, and that is dominant player in an era. And he had a winning streak(including wins on hard court), which Federer did not against him. So, yes, it doesn't even matter that Nadal was still developing back then, but it does make Federer's dominance even less impressive.

 

[skaj]

Domination is how a player fare against the entire playing field, not a selective match-up against certain player. The overall high winning percentage is a testament of a player's consistency playing at the top of his game and the distance he separate himself from the field.

2004: 76-4(93%)
2005: 81-4(95%)
2006: 92-5(95%)
2007: 68-9(88%)
2008: 66-15(81%)
2009: 61-12(84%)

Out of the big 5(Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal and Nole)Federer is the only player who has 3 seasons with a 90+ winning percentage in a season.

Yes, that is a selective and incomplete definition of domination, that was the point of my very first post here.

 

[skaj]

You should not have held your hopes up too high. Post #55

 

[NoleIsBoat]

Domination is how a player fare against the entire playing field, not a selective match-up against certain player. The overall high winning percentage is a testament of a player's consistency playing at the top of his game and the distance he separate himself from the field.

2004: 76-4(93%)
2005: 81-4(95%)
2006: 92-5(95%)
2007: 68-9(88%)
2008: 66-15(81%)
2009: 61-12(84%)

Out of the big 5(Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal and Nole)Federer is the only player who has 3 seasons with a 90+ winning percentage in a season.

Djokovic in 2011 - 2016 had 6 consecutive seasons with 10,000+ ATP ranking points

I am sure he would have 90%+ in years like 2012, 2013, 2014 if his main rivals were Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Bagdhatis instead of big 4...

 

[abmk]

You should not have held your hopes up too high. Post #55

So, Nadal was as good on grass in 2007 as he was in 2008, no difference whatsoever? I wouldn't try that if I were you.

#2-#1 8-6 is not a marginal lead in this context, and that is dominant player in an era. And he had a winning streak(including wins on hard court), which Federer did not against him. So, yes, it doesn't even matter that Nadal was still developing back then, but it does make Federer's dominance even less impressive.

you think too much of yourself, pal.
When I say bulls eye, I mean he was correct in his assessment, not about any hopes.

Nadal in Wim 07 final ~ Nadal in Wim 08 final
better serve in Wim 08 final, better ground game in Wim 07 final

Fed was 1-6 vs Nadal on clay from 2004-07
and 5-2 vs Nadal outside of clay in 2004-07

Federer got the job done outside of clay

 

[mike danny]

So, Nadal was as good on grass in 2007 as he was in 2008, no difference whatsoever? I wouldn't try that if I were you.

#2-#1 8-6 is not a marginal lead in this context, and that is dominant player in an era. And he had a winning streak(including wins on hard court), which Federer did not against him. So, yes, it doesn't even matter that Nadal was still developing back then, but it does make Federer's dominance even less impressive.

The difference between 2007 and 2008 is minimal at best. You're basically suggesting that Nadal was better in 2008 just because he won, which is ridiculous.

Nadal had a 6-1 record on clay, while Fed had a 5-2 record on the other surfaces. You're exaggerating Nadal's numbers.

I mean, didn't a teenage Becker also beat Lendl at Wimb? You talk as if being 20-21 is some sort of curse and it's impossible to play at a high level at that age. Didn't Borg have great seasons at 20-21? Didn't Mac? Etc.

 

[mike danny]

So, Nadal was as good on grass in 2007 as he was in 2008, no difference whatsoever? I wouldn't try that if I were you.

#2-#1 8-6 is not a marginal lead in this context, and that is dominant player in an era. And he had a winning streak(including wins on hard court), which Federer did not against him. So, yes, it doesn't even matter that Nadal was still developing back then, but it does make Federer's dominance even less impressive.

2006-2007 Nadal still better than 2012-2017 Nadal on grass, the period when he was fully developed. So I don't see why you completely dismiss those 2 versions of younger Nadal. He was better on grass than fully developed Nadal was for a long time.

 

[skaj]

you think too much of yourself, pal.
When I say bulls eye, I mean he was correct in his assessment, not about any hopes.

Nadal in Wim 07 final ~ Nadal in Wim 08 final
better serve in Wim 08 final, better ground game in Wim 07 final

Fed was 1-6 vs Nadal on clay from 2004-07
and 5-2 vs Nadal outside of clay in 2004-07

Federer got the job done outside of clay

Yes, your hopes that the assessment is correct.

Nadal 2008 Wimbledon > Nadal 2007 Wimbledon, I think everyone knows that, it's silly to pretend to think anything else.

Good job outside clay from 2004-07 does not contradict anything of what I have said here. (And that is, in case you forgot, it seems from your reply that you did - in the era he dominated according to the original post, 2004-2009, he was dominated by another player in their head to head, and even in those few years 2004-2007, which somebody desperately singled out and which could hardly be called "an era", he had a losing head to head and losing streak against that player)

 

[skaj]

The difference between 2007 and 2008 is minimal at best. You're basically suggesting that Nadal was better in 2008 just because he won, which is ridiculous.

Nadal had a 6-1 record on clay, while Fed had a 5-2 record on the other surfaces. You're exaggerating Nadal's numbers.

I mean, didn't a teenage Becker also beat Lendl at Wimb? You talk as if being 20-21 is some sort of curse and it's impossible to play at a high level at that age. Didn't Borg have great seasons at 20-21? Didn't Mac? Etc.

I am not suggesting that at all. I am saying something that everyone knows, and that is that Nadal was better that year than in 2007 and him being better has something to do with his win, doesn't it.
Plus that part is irrelevant for this thread, again see the original post. Same goes for the numbers on surfaces. And I am not "exaggerating Nadal's numbers, I am giving you the official numbers. Again, reminder, in the context of this thread. Factual numbers.

I am talking that being 20-21 is some sort of a curse? You are saying that. I am saying that Nadal was improving on certain surfaces in the period we are talking about, no generalization whatsoever. But again, not too relevant for the topic of this thread.

 

[skaj]

2006-2007 Nadal still better than 2012-2017 Nadal on grass, the period when he was fully developed. So I don't see why you completely dismiss those 2 versions of younger Nadal. He was better on grass than fully developed Nadal was for a long time.

Nobody is "completely dismissing" any version of Nadal. Read my previous posts. I merely said that he was better in 2008 than he was in 2007.
As for later Nadal, since you brought that up, developed game does not coincide with peak physique always and forever.

 

[mike danny]

I am not suggesting that at all. I am saying something that everyone knows, and that is that Nadal was better that year than in 2007 and him being better has something to do with his win, doesn't it.
Plus that part is irrelevant for this thread, again see the original post. Same goes for the numbers on surfaces. And I am not "exaggerating Nadal's numbers, I am giving you the official numbers. Again, reminder, in the context of this thread. Factual numbers.

I am talking that being 20-21 is some sort of a curse? You are saying that. I am saying that Nadal was improving on certain surfaces in the period we are talking about, no generalization whatsoever. But again, not too relevant for the topic of this thread.

Well, it did sound like Nadal was better in 2008 than 2007 just because he won. But what if he lost? Would we still say Nadal was developing on grass?

Yes, Nadal was still developing, but he was still pretty much an ATG at 20-21 like Borg and Mac before him.

 

[mike danny]

Nobody is "completely dismissing" any version of Nadal. Read my previous posts. I merely said that he was better in 2008 than he was in 2007.
As for later Nadal, since you brought that up, developed game does not coincide with peak physique always and forever.

Yes, he was slightly better in 2008 than in 2007, but the difference is minimal. Much more minimal than between 2006 and 2007.

 

[abmk]

Yes, your hopes that the assessment is correct.

Nadal 2008 Wimbledon > Nadal 2007 Wimbledon, I think everyone knows that, it's silly to pretend to think anything else.

I was talking about specific finals, not entire Wimbledon.

2007 Wim final Nadal was better off the ground, 2008 Wim final Nadal was better on serve. Keep in mind Federer was better in Wim 07 (though not by a big amount)

You could go any way: Nadal 2008 Wim final ~ Nadal 2007 Wim final
Nadal 2008 Wim final > Nadal 2007 Wim final
Nadal 2008 Wim final < Nadal 2007 Wim final

Both were on a similar level.

If you think it set in stone that Nadal in 2008 Wim final was better, you are one delusional fellow.

Good job outside clay

from 2004-07 does not contradict anything of what I have said here. (And that is, in case you forgot, it seems from your reply that you did - in the era he dominated according to the original post, 2004-2009, he was dominated by another player in their head to head, and even in those few years 2004-2007, which somebody desperately singled out and which could hardly be called "an era", he had a losing head to head and losing streak against that player)

I pointed out bulls eye to a correct post about 04-07. If that bothered you, that's your problem. I didn't mention about 08-09.

 

[Kapsikal]

Good joke.. Next one pls!!!

 

[socallefty]

Geologists measure an era as hundreds of million of years. Fed fans measure it as five years. Whose definition will reign supreme?

 

[skaj]

Well, it did sound like Nadal was better in 2008 than 2007 just because he won. But what if he lost? Would we still say Nadal was developing on grass?

Yes, Nadal was still developing, but he was still pretty much an ATG at 20-21 like Borg and Mac before him.

Yes, he was slightly better in 2008 than in 2007, but the difference is minimal. Much more minimal than between 2006 and 2007.

Developing towards being good enough to beat everyone he needs on his way to the Wimbledon title.
The difference is crucial for that purpose, whatever the size of the difference is.

And by the way this has little to do with my original point.

 

[skaj]

I was talking about specific finals, not entire Wimbledon.

2007 Wim final Nadal was better off the ground, 2008 Wim final Nadal was better on serve. Keep in mind Federer was better in Wim 07 (though not by a big amount)

You could go any way: Nadal 2008 Wim final ~ Nadal 2007 Wim final
Nadal 2008 Wim final > Nadal 2007 Wim final
Nadal 2008 Wim final < Nadal 2007 Wim final

Both were on a similar level.

If you think it set in stone that Nadal in 2008 Wim final was better, you are one delusional fellow.




I pointed out bulls eye to a correct post about 04-07. If that bothered you, that's your problem. I didn't mention about 08-09.

Not that it is relevant for this thread and my comment on the topic of it, but Nadal was as good off ground in 2008, plus served better. Wimbledon includes the finals. If you think anything is set in stone here, you are one delusional lass, but it is not only well known but obvious that Nadal had improved in 2008, as a player in general, regardless of the surfaces.

I pointed out that the post was not correct, and explained why in case you you did not understand. If that bothers you, that's not my problem.

 

[DSH]

Nadal from Wimbledon 2008 is better than his version of the previous year.
Everyone knows that.
Denying it only impoverishes discussions.

 

[mike danny]

Developing towards being good enough to beat everyone he needs on his way to the Wimbledon title.
The difference is crucial for that purpose, whatever the size of the difference is.

And by the way this has little to do with my original point.

So, basically, if Nadal had lost the 2008 final (which he was very close to doing), it would have still been developing Nadal on grass?

 

[blablavla]

So, basically, if Nadal had lost the 2008 final (which he was very close to doing), it would have still been developing Nadal on grass?

yes, it would have been the baby Nadal

 

[skaj]

So, basically, if Nadal had lost the 2008 final (which he was very close to doing), it would have still been developing Nadal on grass?

Towards being a player who can beat Federer at Wimbledon, yes. But he was already developed for that in 2008, as the history tells us.

 

[mike danny]

Towards being a player who can beat Federer at Wimbledon, yes. But he was already developed for that in 2008, as the history tells us.

He was already developed for that in 2007. That's like saying Mac wasn't developed for beating Borg at Wimb in 1980.

 

[skaj]

He was already developed for that in 2007. That's like saying Mac wasn't developed for beating Borg at Wimb in 1980.

No he wasn't. He was a better player in 2008; if you want to deny that, enjoy your opinion(and don't say it publicly, just a friendly advise).

 

[Lew II]

Federer sure dominated like no one else. 237 consecutive weeks at #1 is nuts. That streak is twice longer than Djokovic's best (122) and four times longer than Nadal's best (56).

He then ruined his BOAT status by losing 7 Slam finals in a row to Djokodal...

 

[blablavla]

Federer sure dominated like no one else. 237 consecutive weeks at #1 is nuts. That streak is twice longer than Djokovic's best (122) and four times longer than Nadal's best (56).

He then ruined his BOAT status by losing 7 Slam finals in a row to Djokodal...

ruined where?
in Wonderland? where you, CYGS, beard, RF-18, Nadal_Django and weakera voted for it?

 

[mike danny]

No he wasn't. He was a better player in 2008; if you want to deny that, enjoy your opinion(and don't say it publicly, just a friendly advise).

People agree Nadal was very good in 2007, even if he was better in 2008. Calling him developing in 2007 just because he didn't win is ridiculous.

By that logic, Mac was also just developing at 1980 Wimb.

 

[abmk]

Not that it is relevant for this thread and my comment on the topic of it, but Nadal was as good off ground in 2008, plus served better. Wimbledon includes the finals. If you think anything is set in stone here, you are one delusional lass, but it is not only well known but obvious that Nadal had improved in 2008, as a player in general, regardless of the surfaces.

I pointed out that the post was not correct, and explained why in case you you did not understand. If that bothers you, that's not my problem.

No, Nadal was better off the ground in the 2007 Wimbledon final.
You didn't point out anything about correctness, you just made a fool out of yourself because you were insecure. That's your problem, pal.

 

[abmk]

Nadal from Wimbledon 2008 is better than his version of the previous year.
Everyone knows that.
Denying it only impoverishes discussions.

Nadal was better off the ground in 2007 Wimbledon final. Better on serve in 2008 WImbledon final.
I'm talking about the respective finals only.

Denying it only makes you look real partisan.

 

[skaj]

People agree Nadal was very good in 2007, even if he was better in 2008. Calling him developing in 2007 just because he didn't win is ridiculous.

By that logic, Mac was also just developing at 1980 Wimb.

No, it's not the same logic, it's two different cases, players, situations...
Nothing ridiculous in calling a player who was better in one season than he was in the season before developing in the latter. Irrelevant term for discussion by the way.

 

[mike danny]

Towards being a player who can beat Federer at Wimbledon, yes. But he was already developed for that in 2008, as the history tells us.

Your entire point can be summed up as "Nadal was better in 2008 because he won".

I could just as easily suggest that Fed was worse in 2008 because he lost and I wouldn't be wrong.

 

[mike danny]

No, it's not the same logic, it's two different cases, players, situations...
Nothing ridiculous in calling a player who was better in one season than he was in the season before developing in the latter. Irrelevant term for discussion by the way.

Your entire point can be summed up as "Nadal was better in 2008 because he won".

I could just as easily suggest that Fed was worse in 2008 because he lost and I wouldn't be wrong.

 

[skaj]

No, Nadal was better off the ground in the 2007 Wimbledon final.
You didn't point out anything about correctness, you just made a fool out of yourself because you were insecure. That's your problem, pal.

No, Nadal was not better off the ground in the 2007 Wibledon final.

Speaking of fools, I did point out what was wrong(not correct) with the post. So, no problems for me.

 

[abmk]

No, Nadal was not better off the ground in the 2007 Wibledon final.

Speaking of fools, I did point out what was wrong(not correct) with the post. So, no problems for me.

Yeah, he was.
I already pointed out your insecurity and that you proved nothing here:

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/the-most-dominant-tennis-player-in-his-era-is-roger-federer.687695/post-14953444

Keep going though. Your hilarious over-rating of Nalbandian aside (and I like Nalby, he's one of my favorite players), you are going to be further proving your evaluation is sorely lacking and proving to be an insecure fellow.

 

[skaj]

You can also suggest that Nadal cheated, that Federer was injured etc.

It would help you move away from the topic once again though.

 

[mike danny]

You can also suggest that Nadal cheated, that Federer was injured etc.

It would help you move away from the topic once again though.

No, what I can suggest is that Federer as a player was worse in 2008 than in 2007 but I don't expect you to acknowledge that.

Classic case of Fed never gets worse, others simply get better.

 

[skaj]

Yeah, he was.
I already pointed out your insecurity and that you proved nothing here:

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/the-most-dominant-tennis-player-in-his-era-is-roger-federer.687695/post-14953444

Keep going though. Your hilarious over-rating of Nalbandian aside (and I like Nalby, he's one of my favorite players), you are going proving your evaluation is sorely lacking and proving to be an insecure a**.

Your ideas about me are not the topic here, so I will not comment of that but leave it to you and your therapist.

The post you repeated I have already replied to, go back and check.

Nalbandian? Where did I mention Nalbandian here? Another attempt to get farther away from the topic of the thread?

 

[skaj]

No, what I can suggest is that Federer as a player was worse in 2008 than in 2007 but I don't expect you to acknowledge that.

Classic case of Fed never gets worse, others simply get better.

Your expectations are none of my or anybody else's concern here, it's a tennis forum and tennis thread.
Yes, you can suggest anything you want. Free forum. Question is can you support that suggestion with arguments.

 

[abmk]

Your ideas about me are not the topic here, so I will not comment of that but leave it to you and your therapist.

The post you repeated I have already replied to, go back and check.

Nalbandian? Where did I mention Nalbandian here? Another attempt to get farther away from the topic of the thread?

I already checked. You were again in denial of the reality that mike danny did not mention 2008-09 in his post to which I replied bulls eye. My response setting your a** on fire is not my problem. Its yours.
The Nalby part was to just show a pattern on your end. (earlier I just used to think it was you being over-enthusiastic about nalby, but your more recent post have convinced me its a part of pattern of bad evaluation from your end)
As far as therapist, projection much, delusional guy?

 

[mike danny]

Your expectations are none of my or anybody else's concern here, it's a tennis forum and tennis thread.
Yes, you can suggest anything you want. Free forum. Question is can you support that suggestion with arguments.

Uhhh, yeah.

Losing record vs the top 10

Did not win a single masters title

Lost in the RR of the WTF for the only time in his career

Only reached one HC final all year long

Many losses to players he had no business losing to.

 

[skaj]

I already checked. You were again in denial of the reality that mike danny did not mention 2008-09 in his post to which I replied bulls eye. My response setting your a** on fire is not my problem. Its yours.
The Nalby part was to just show a pattern on your end. (earlier I just used to think it was you being over-enthusiastic about nalby, but your more recent post have convinced me its a part of pattern of bad evaluation from your end)
As far as therapist, projection much, delusional guy?

Which part of your ideas about me are not the topic of the thread nor my problem but yours don't you understand exactly?
And which part of my replys to the posts about something you thought was bulls eye don't you understand?

Please tell me, and I will help you comprehend.

 

[skaj]

Uhhh, yeah.

Losing record vs the top 10

Did not win a single masters title

Lost in the RR of the WTF for the only time in his career

Only reached one HC final all year long

Many losses to players he had no business losing to.

Uhhh, yeah, and all that happened at 2008 Wimbledon? Sorry, I didn't know that.

Anyway, great dominance period 2004-2009.

 

[mike danny]

Uhhh, yeah, and all that happened at 2008 Wimbledon? Sorry, I didn't know that.

Anyway, great dominance period 2004-2009.

Just trying to show you that Fed also wasn't the same in 2008 as a player.

 

[skaj]

Just trying to show you that Fed also wasn't the same in 2008 as a player.

Why are you trying to show me that?

 

[mike danny]

Why are you trying to show me that?

Because you insisted that Nadal improved in 2008 as a player, while not acknowledging that Roger himself was worse as a player in 2008 too.

 

[skaj]

Because you insisted that Nadal improved in 2008 as a player, while not acknowledging that Roger himself was worse as a player in 2008 too.

I did not insist on anything, I just replied to your posts. Federer was playing great tennis - at Wimbledon. In 2008, the rest of "the BIG 4" improved significantly, he lost a lot of his confidence, became beatable in that period in the eyes of other players who sensed blood. I don't need to be reminded of that nor "acknowledge" it, cause that is well known to everyone who followed tennis back then, myself included.

 

[TMF]

Yes, that is a selective and incomplete definition of domination, that was the point of my very first post here.

I disagree. Dominant athlete in his respective sport is measure by his level of success against the entire playing field combined, not just selective one player.

Everything - total titles, consistency ranked #1, break/set records, sustaining high level of play are all base on performance/result against the playing field.

No player in the open era has ever dominated tennis in his respective era like Roger did from 2004-2009. No one!