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

[abmk]

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.

I understand it perfectly well. I showed you were wrong. Not my fault if you can't accept that.

 

[skaj]

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!

And a part of the entire playing field is the main rival, in this case a player who dominated their head to head, and who beat him in on his best surface in a slam, something he did not manage to do. If that’s great dominance to you, enjoy your opinion.

 

[skaj]

I understand it perfectly well. I showed you were wrong. Not my fault if you can't accept that.

According to your posts you do not, and did not. Not my fault if you can't comprehend/accept that.

 

[abmk]

According to your posts you do not, and did not. Not my fault if you can't comprehend/accept that.

Cool story bro.

 

[skaj]

Cool story bro.

Since you love that true story so much, sis, let me tell it to you again:
- Nadal did not fully peak on grass in 2007
- the fact that Federer couldn’t have a streak against the main rival because of the surface, itself doesn’t make his dominance that much lesser. The fact that the main rival had the streak over him does.
- the 8-6 head to head is not marginal for the context of domination, especially since it includes a winning streak(which was not clay matches only). Not to mention that that part of head to head is just a segment of the head to head for the period that is the topic of the thread, and naturally my first post.
- it doesn't even matter that Nadal was still developing back then, but it does make Federer's dominance even less impressive
- nowhere in my posts did I say that the poster did not mention 2008-2009 period; I just said that even in the shorter period they introduced(2004-2007) the main rival had a positive head to head and a winning streak against him, and that those few years are not only not the topic of the thread nor my first post they replied to, but also can’t really be called “an era”.
- your ideas about me are not the topic here either, and they are your problem, so I should not comment on those cause I am not interested your problems, nor in going further away from the topic of the thread. All I can do is suggest therapy for that kind of behavior.
- speaking of going further away from the topic, the Nalbandian part is still a bit of mystery to me, but every good story, even a true one, should have some mystery to it, I agree.
I hope now that you understand it better, you enjoy it even more. Or maybe you just pretended you don’t understand, so I would tell it to you again because you like the story so much, I don’t know. Either way, happy to help you.

 

[Zebrev]

Everyone talks as if Novak is some mental fortress, but he couldn't stay at the top of his game like Federer did in those glory years.

 

[abmk]

Since you love that true story so much, sis, let me tell it to you again:
- Nadal did not fully peak on grass in 2007
- the fact that Federer couldn’t have a streak against the main rival because of the surface, itself doesn’t make his dominance that much lesser. The fact that the main rival had the streak over him does.
- the 8-6 head to head is not marginal for the context of domination, especially since it includes a winning streak(which was not clay matches only). Not to mention that that part of head to head is just a segment of the head to head for the period that is the topic of the thread, and naturally my first post.
- it doesn't even matter that Nadal was still developing back then, but it does make Federer's dominance even less impressive
- nowhere in my posts did I say that the poster did not mention 2008-2009 period; I just said that even in the shorter period they introduced(2004-2007) the main rival had a positive head to head and a winning streak against him, and that those few years are not only not the topic of the thread nor my first post they replied to, but also can’t really be called “an era”.
- your ideas about me are not the topic here either, and they are your problem, so I should not comment on those cause I am not interested your problems, nor in going further away from the topic of the thread. All I can do is suggest therapy for that kind of behavior.
- speaking of going further away from the topic, the Nalbandian part is still a bit of mystery to me, but every good story, even a true one, should have some mystery to it, I agree.
I hope now that you understand it better, you enjoy it even more. Or maybe you just pretended you don’t understand, so I would tell it to you again because you like the story so much, I don’t know. Either way, happy to help you.

1. yes, Nadal was peak on grass by the time of Wim 07 final. It was arguably his best match on grass. Only a fed hater or an intensely delusional nadal fanboy can deny and say nadal's level in Wim 07 final was not peak.
2, the winning streak of nadal of 5 was 4 matches on clay and 1 on HC.
3. the fact that you don't recognize your severely biased and at times comical views about Nalbandian even though it has been pointed out to you by people is your problem, not mine. I thought it was just fanboyism at first, but now I recognize its a pattern of delusions. Your delusions here are a continuation of that pattern of delusions. Hence why I said the one who needs therapy is you. You brought up therapy thing first, so don't come crying now when I hit back.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

I don't think a lot of Federer fans truly believe this anymore.

It's been a brutal ride for Fed and his fans. Great ride, but this GOAT stuff is pretty much over for him.

Whats brutal about nadal winning a couple more RGs than people expected a few years ago? It tells us basically nothing new, we already knew that he was the best clay player ever and that there is literally no one else who is any good on clay in the last ten years. Obviously it's impressive but "brutal"? The last few years Fed has basically just shown his ability more than ever, hasn't he won like 7 of his last 8 matches against Nadal? And was a point away from beating Djokodal in a row at Wimbledon last time.

It really isn't that bad. Nadal just added some more RG titles, true to form.

 

[octogon]

Whats brutal about nadal winning a couple more RGs than people expected a few years ago? It tells us basically nothing new, we already knew that he was the best clay player ever and that there is literally no one else who is any good on clay in the last ten years. Obviously it's impressive but "brutal"? The last few years Fed has basically just shown his ability more than ever, hasn't he won like 7 of his last 8 matches against Nadal? And was a point away from beating Djokodal in a row at Wimbledon last time.

It really isn't that bad. Nadal just added some more RG titles, true to form.

Yeah, whatever helps you sleep at night buddy.

Nadal has 7 slams off clay. That's an ATG career off clay (McEnroe or Agassi level). He doesn't have to prove he can win a lot of slams off clay. He just needs to rack up as many slam wins as possible to own the record outright. Doesn't matter if they all come from RG. That's all he needs. And aside from some Federer fans unwilling to concede the ride is over (and some Djokovic fans still willing their guy to surpass Nadal) I think most people in and out of tennis will have little problem seeing Nadal as the outright GOAT when he holds sole ownership of the slam record.

It's a shame for Fed and his fans. But he had a nice career. You should be proud.

 

[aditya123]

Yeah, whatever helps you sleep at night buddy.

This was really brutal. Please be nice to them

 

[Deleted member 748597]

This thread is a good party.

Also, I think that the pre-OE had more dominant players than Fed.

 

[RS]

This thread is a good party.

Also, I think that the pre-OE had more dominant players than Fed.

Waiting on you to make player rating threads.

 

[skaj]

1. yes, Nadal was peak on grass by the time of Wim 07 final. It was arguably his best match on grass. Only a fed hater or an intensely delusional nadal fanboy can deny and say nadal's level in Wim 07 final was not peak.
2, the winning streak of nadal of 5 was 4 matches on clay and 1 on HC.
3. the fact that you don't recognize your severely biased and at times comical views about Nalbandian even though it has been pointed out to you by people is your problem, not mine. I thought it was just fanboyism at first, but now I recognize its a pattern of delusions. Your delusions here are a continuation of that pattern of delusions. Hence why I said the one who needs therapy is you. You brought up therapy thing first, so don't come crying now when I hit back.

1.No. And if only a fed hater and Nadal fanboy intensely delusional or not can say that, how could I who am not a hater of anyone nor a Nadal fan, and so many of professional commentators say that.
2. That has nothing to do with the topic of the thread or anything I have said. In fact, it is already explained to you why it has nothing to do with it.
3. The fact that you have some ideas about my perception of David Nalbandian, for whatever reason(I didn’t even mention the poor guy before you did here), is your problem not mine. Again, your ideas about me, and you are adding more of your ideas about me as a person, which are your problem not mine, that is why I kindly recommended therapy.
I hope it is clear now.

 

[abmk]

1.No. And if only a fed hater and Nadal fanboy intensely delusional or not can say that, how could I who am not a hater of anyone nor a Nadal fan, and so many of professional commentators say that.

So many say Nadal was not playing at peak level in Wim 07 final?
nah.
If you are saying Nadal at Wim 2008 was overall better than at Wim 2007, then yes. But the 2 finals themselves were on a similar level. The 2007 Wim final is arguably the best match Nadal has played on grass (other 2 contenders would be Wim 08 QF vs Murray and Wim 08 final vs Fed)

2. That has nothing to do with the topic of the thread or anything I have said. In fact, it is already explained to you why it has nothing to do with it.

erm you mentioned the winning streak and said it wasn't clay only. which is true, but what you didn't mention is 4 of the 5 matches were on clay.

3. The fact that you have some ideas about my perception of David Nalbandian, for whatever reason(I didn’t even mention the poor guy before you did here), is your problem not mine. Again, your ideas about me, and you are adding more of your ideas about me as a person, which are your problem not mine, that is why I kindly recommended therapy.
I hope it is clear now.

Like I said : the fact that you don't recognize your severely biased and at times comical views about Nalbandian even though it has been pointed out to you by people is your problem, not mine. I thought it was just fanboyism at first, but now I recognize its a pattern of delusions. Your delusions here are a continuation of that pattern of delusions. Hence why I said the one who needs therapy is you. You brought up therapy thing first, so don't come crying now when I hit back.

 

[RS]

2007 was super strong year why does it get so much hate?

 

[Xemi666]

Nadal's 2007 was his peak on grass, but Federer wasn't peak in 2008 and he only lost because of mono, ebola, aids and cancer, isn't that right my fedt*rd friends?

 

[skaj]

So many say Nadal was not playing at peak level in Wim 07 final?
nah.
If you are saying Nadal at Wim 2008 was overall better than at Wim 2007, then yes. But the 2 finals themselves were on a similar level. The 2007 Wim final is arguably the best match Nadal has played on grass (other 2 contenders would be Wim 08 QF vs Murray and Wim 08 final vs Fed)




erm you mentioned the winning streak and said it wasn't clay only. which is true, but what you didn't mention is 4 of the 5 matches were on clay.



Like I said : the fact that you don't recognize your severely biased and at times comical views about Nalbandian even though it has been pointed out to you by people is your problem, not mine. I thought it was just fanboyism at first, but now I recognize its a pattern of delusions. Your delusions here are a continuation of that pattern of delusions. Hence why I said the one who needs therapy is you. You brought up therapy thing first, so don't come crying now when I hit back.

1. Yah, they are. If you think differently, enjoy your opinion.
2. I haven’t mentioned their outfits in those matches either, nor other things irrelevant for my point.
3. Like I said , again, your ideas about me(a stranger in a tennis forum), like “I don’t recognise bias”, ”my delusions”, “pattern of delusions” etc. are your ideas about me, and not my problem. Nor are they the topic of the thread, but you keep insisting on talking about them(your ideas about me) here. Hence I said that it is not a topic for this thread but more for you and your therapist.
I hope you understand it now. It shouldn't be too hard, you don't have to be a genius to get it.

(Again, I have no idea why are you trying to involve poor Nalbandian, and what are you referring to. Bizarre.)

 

[skaj]

Nadal's 2007 was his peak on grass, but Federer wasn't peak in 2008 and he only lost because of mono, ebola, aids and cancer, isn't that right my fedt*rd friends?

He was just rubbish in that match on grass in 2008, widely regarded as one of if not the best tennis match ever.

 

[abmk]

1. Yah, they are. If you think differently, enjoy your opinion.

You said many, right? Show me like 10 of them saying Nadal was not at his grass court peak in Wim 07 final.

2. I haven’t mentioned their outfits in those matches either, nor other things irrelevant for my point.

4 out of 5 matches on clay is relevant when you streak involved non clay matches.
Stop pretending to be dense on purpose.

3. Like I said , again, your ideas about me(a stranger in a tennis forum), like “I don’t recognise bias”, ”my delusions”, “pattern of delusions” etc. are your ideas about me, and not my problem. Nor are they the topic of the thread, but you keep insisting on talking about them(your ideas about me) here. Hence I said that it is not a topic for this thread but more for you and your therapist.
I hope you understand it now. It shouldn't be too hard, you don't have to be a genius to get it.

(Again, I have no idea why are you trying to involve poor Nalbandian, and what are you referring to. Bizarre.)

Boring story bro

 

[abmk]

Nadal's 2007 was his peak on grass, but Federer wasn't peak in 2008 and he only lost because of mono, ebola, aids and cancer, isn't that right my fedt*rd friends?

no one in this thread said anything remotely close to the latter part. But keep deluding yourself if you want.

 

[skaj]

You said many, right? Show me like 10 of them saying Nadal was not at his grass court peak in Wim 07 final.



4 out of 5 matches on clay is relevant when you streak involved non clay matches.
Stop pretending to be dense on purpose.



Boring story bro

Maybe after you show me 10 of them saying he was.
It is irrelevant for my point that it was not only clay. I hope you finally get it now.
Even more boring story for me who is explaining it for the millionth time to a person who don't get it, but true story anyway, sis.

 

[abmk]

Maybe after you show me 10 of them saying he was.
It is irrelevant for my point that it was not only clay. I hope you finally get it now.
Even more boring story for me who is explaining it for the millionth time to a person who don't get it, but true story anyway, sis.

I didn't base what I said on expert commentators. I based what I said on watching the matches and the match stats.
You were the one bringing up expert commentators for backing up what you said. So its on you to bring up commentator stuff.
As far as the rest is concerned, shh chakka.
(Stop misgendering me, else you will get as much, if not worse in return)

 

[TMF]

And a part of the entire playing field is the main rival, in this case a player who dominated their head to head, and who beat him in on his best surface in a slam, something he did not manage to do. If that’s great dominance to you, enjoy your opinion.

Again, I've already explained to you. Performance/result against the entire playing field measures an athlete's dominance in his respective sport. Yes I do enjoy this kind of discussion in all sports about an athlete dominating his sport.

 

[skaj]

I didn't base what I said on expert commentators. I based what I said on watching the matches and the match stats.
You were the one bringing up expert commentators for backing up what you said. So its on you to bring up commentator stuff.
As far as the rest is concerned, shh chakka.
(Stop misgendering me, else you will get as much, if not worse in return)

I didn't either, so? I just pointed out something that is well known, naively thinking that you know that too - that you would be lonely with your opinion among professional commentators. As I said, enjoy your opinion(including the one that you might have about most experts not thinking that Nadal played better in 2008).
As far as your shh chakka argument, it was one of your best so far.
When you stop misgendering me, I will stop referring to you in any gender, as I normally do here. So, if it's still not clear, I am the one who is giving you as much in return.

 

[skaj]

Again, I've already explained to you. Performance/result against the entire playing field measures an athlete's dominance in his respective sport. Yes I do enjoy this kind of discussion in all sports about an athlete dominating his sport.

Again, I've already explained to you. A part of the entire field is the main rival, so your simplified criterion is flawed.
I have no idea what your last sentence is about.

 

[abmk]

I didn't either, so? I just pointed out something that is well known, naively thinking that you know that too - that you would be lonely with your opinion among professional commentators. As I said, enjoy your opinion(including the one that you might have about most experts not thinking that Nadal played better in 2008).
As far as your shh chakka argument, it was one of your best so far.
When you stop misgendering me, I will stop referring to you in any gender, as I normally do here. So, if it's still not clear, I am the one who is giving you as much in return.

you are a female? you have never pointed that out before, if so. (not that I have seen anyways)
I OTOH have pointed out several times on this forum that I am a male.

The question is not about whether Nadal played better in 2008 wim final. You can argue whether he played better in Wim 07 final or Wim 08 final.
Its about whether Nadal was at grass court peak level in 2007 Wim final.

@ the bold part:

 

[TMF]

Again, I've already explained to you. A part of the entire field is the main rival, so your simplified criterion is flawed.

I completely disagree with you.

H2H = flawed
win/loss against playing field measures a player's achievements and his playing level.

I have no idea what your last sentence is about.

I don't expect you to.

 

[TMF]

Let's look at Nadal's level of dominance during his peak/prime years from 2008 - 2013.

During the span of 6 years, Nadal:

won 10 slams
reaches 13 finals
won 3 slams/year in 2010
37 single titles
win/loss percentage 86.6%(only third behind Federer and Nole)

He accumulated 173 weeks at number 1 in the ATP ranking and 3 years he ended the YE#1.

Amazing dominant stretch by Rafa !

 

[Xemi666]

no one in this thread said anything remotely close to the latter part. But keep deluding yourself if you want.

So was Federer peak in 2008 or not? It's an easy question.

 

[skaj]

you are a female? you have never pointed that out before, if so. (not that I have seen anyways)
I OTOH have pointed out several times on this forum that I am a male.

The question is not about whether Nadal played better in 2008 wim final. You can argue whether he played better in Wim 07 final or Wim 08 final.
Its about whether Nadal was at grass court peak level in 2007 Wim final.

@ the bold part:

If I do not point out my gender, you should not pick it out for me.
Yes that is the question, more than the other, because the topic is Federer's dominance.
I hope it is all clear now.

And your gif is one of the better arguments here.

 

[skaj]

I completely disagree with you.

H2H = flawed
win/loss against playing field measures a player's achievements and his playing level.


I don't expect you to.

No, you didn’t get it. Not head to head alone, head to head against the main rival is the important part that you have excluded, that is why your criterion is flawed. Important for the topic which is dominance, not achievements and playing level.

I do not care about your expectations, nor should they be discussed in a tennis forum.

 

[CYGS]

Proof of the weakest era of all time. Luckily the real GOATs emerged right after.

 

[blablavla]

Proof of the weakest era of all time. Luckily the real GOATs emerged right after.

emerged in an era with 12 years of no competition from younger ATGs?


how many bagels did this your goat eat from his competitors?

by the way, how's that bagel from FO 2020? still deep in your throat or did you manage to eat it by now?
cause I haven't heard much about the DCGS lately from you

 

[abmk]

If I do not point out my gender, you should not pick it out for me.

I am asking you now. Its a simple question - what's your gender? If you are a male, you should have no problem in me addressing you so.

Yes that is the question, more than the other, because the topic is Federer's dominance. I hope it is all clear now.

no, its not. Just because Fed played better in Wim 05 final than in Wim 07 final doesn't mean Fed was not peak in Wim 07 final.
Nadal was at his grasscourt peak in 2007 Wim final

Its a small difference b/w Nadal of Wim 07 final and Wim 08 final either ways.

 

[abmk]

So was Federer peak in 2008 or not? It's an easy question.

2008 was a prime year for Fed, but not a peak year. A big step down from 2004-07.
If you are talking specifically about Wimbledon, it was his 6th best Wim/Wim final (after 03-07). I'd say prime level, a marginal step down from his peak.
In contrast to Nadal, where Wim 07 final was arguably his best Wim final, could be said to be his 2nd best (after 08) and at worst his 3rd best (after 08/10). If you want to say Nadal's 3rd best Wim final is not his peak at Wim, well then sorry you pretend to think so low of Nadal just because of your fed/fed fan hatred.

 

[BeatlesFan]

It's been a brutal ride for Fed and his fans.

It seems that's what Fed haters want to think since I continually read it here. It's obviously tremendously important to the naysayers to think someone Fed fans are suffering. I can't imagine caring about such a thing, but it's pivotal to the haters.

How in the world could being a fan of Roger Federer be a "brutal ride" for his fans? He's the most beautiful player to watch in tennis history, has won 100+ tournaments, 20 slams and is the most beloved tennis player of all time. "Brutal ride?" Nope, it's been a glorious ride for over 20 years.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

I’d agree he’s most dominant ever in his stretch but Nole’s achievement in 2011-2016 was not a “distant second”

 

[TMF]

No, you didn’t get it. Not head to head alone, head to head against the main rival is the important part that you have excluded, that is why your criterion is flawed. Important for the topic which is dominance, not achievements and playing level.

I do not care about your expectations, nor should they be discussed in a tennis forum.

Again, I completely disagree with you. I've explained to you so there's no point of repeating it again. For someone who think H2H against one player is comparable to the playing field which consist of thousands players is simply reaching and reeks with desperation.

It's seem like you do seriously care since you can't stop replying to my post after I've debunked your fallacy so many times.

 

[TMF]

It seems that's what Fed haters want to think since I continually read it here. It's obviously tremendously important to the naysayers to think someone Fed fans are suffering. I can't imagine caring about such a thing, but it's pivotal to the haters.

How in the world could being a fan of Roger Federer be a "brutal ride" for his fans? He's the most beautiful player to watch in tennis history, has won 100+ tournaments, 20 slams and is the most beloved tennis player of all time. "Brutal ride?" Nope, it's been a glorious ride for over 20 years.

Spot on.

Calling a the most successful and most dominant tennis player of all time a "brutal ride" is comical. The jealousy and hatred toward one of the most celebrated athlete of all time have cloud so many hater's judgments on this forum.

 

[octogon]

It seems that's what Fed haters want to think since I continually read it here. It's obviously tremendously important to the naysayers to think someone Fed fans are suffering. I can't imagine caring about such a thing, but it's pivotal to the haters.

How in the world could being a fan of Roger Federer be a "brutal ride" for his fans? He's the most beautiful player to watch in tennis history, has won 100+ tournaments, 20 slams and is the most beloved tennis player of all time. "Brutal ride?" Nope, it's been a glorious ride for over 20 years.

I don't think you need to be a "hater" to acknowledge that most Federer fans here placed a disproportionately massive value of their Fed fandom on him being the undisputed so-called GOAT, with all the major untouchable records (most importantly the slam record). All of which will go away before he retires. For so many Fed fans who seemed to define so much of their fandom on that GOAT stuff, it's 100% been a "brutal" ride to see it ripped away from him (and possibly be relegated to 3rd best player of his era in the process), while he is still playing.

But I admire you for putting a brave face on things and taking the positives where you can.

 

[Gary Duane]

This thread is a good party.

Also, I think that the pre-OE had more dominant players than Fed.

Pre OE is usually ignored out of ignorance.

 

[zagor]

This thread is a good party.

Also, I think that the pre-OE had more dominant players than Fed.

Well, Laver won one of his CYGS in the Open Era. Then there's Borg who was dominant on both clay and grass, being the best CC on tour and still winning 5 Wimbledons in a row (one of them without dropping a set) is quite an amazing feat.

 

[lucky13]

so the most dominant player in his most dominant period had 7-12 (37%) h2h record against his biggest rival. including 0-5 series 2 times:

2009	ATP Masters 1000 Madrid Spain	Outdoor Clay	F	Roger Federer	64 64
2009	Australian Open Australia	Outdoor Hard	F	Rafael Nadal	75 36 763 36 62
2008	Wimbledon Great Britain	Outdoor Grass	F	Rafael Nadal	64 64 675 678 97
2008	Roland Garros France	Outdoor Clay	F	Rafael Nadal	61 63 60
2008	ATP Masters 1000 Hamburg Germany	Outdoor Clay	F	Rafael Nadal	75 673 63
2008	ATP Masters 1000 Monte Carlo Monaco	Outdoor Clay	F	Rafael Nadal	75 75
2007	Tennis Masters Cup China	Indoor Hard	SF	Roger Federer	64 61
2007	Wimbledon Great Britain	Outdoor Grass	F	Roger Federer	767 46 763 26 62
2007	Roland Garros France	Outdoor Clay	F	Rafael Nadal	63 46 63 64
2007	ATP Masters 1000 Hamburg Germany	Outdoor Clay	F	Roger Federer	26 62 60
2007	ATP Masters 1000 Monte Carlo Monaco	Outdoor Clay	F	Rafael Nadal	64 64
2006	Tennis Masters Cup China	Indoor Hard	SF	Roger Federer	64 75
2006	Wimbledon Great Britain	Outdoor Grass	F	Roger Federer	60 765 672 63
2006	Roland Garros France	Outdoor Clay	F	Rafael Nadal	16 61 64 764
2006	ATP Masters 1000 Rome Italy	Outdoor Clay	F	Rafael Nadal	670 765 64 26 765
2006	ATP Masters 1000 Monte Carlo Monaco	Outdoor Clay	F	Rafael Nadal	62 672 63 765
2006	Dubai U.A.E.	Outdoor Hard	F	Rafael Nadal	26 64 64
2005	Roland Garros France	Outdoor Clay	SF	Rafael Nadal	63 46 64 63
2005	ATP Masters 1000 Miami FL, U.S.A.	Outdoor Hard	F	Roger Federer	26 674 765 63 61

6-11 (35%) in finals and 2-6 (25%) in GS!

Fed vs Muzza 2005 - 2009: 4 - 6 (40%)!

Spoiler: No1e vs Rafa 2011 - 2020

22-11 (67%), including 7-0 series 2 times!
16-7 (70%) in finals and 6-5 (55%) in GS.

Spoiler: No1e vs Fed 2011 - 2020

21+WO - 10 (69%)
11+WO - 3 (80%) in finals
9 - 2 (82%) in GS!

 

[Deleted member 688153]

It seems that's what Fed haters want to think since I continually read it here. It's obviously tremendously important to the naysayers to think someone Fed fans are suffering. I can't imagine caring about such a thing, but it's pivotal to the haters.

How in the world could being a fan of Roger Federer be a "brutal ride" for his fans? He's the most beautiful player to watch in tennis history, has won 100+ tournaments, 20 slams and is the most beloved tennis player of all time. "Brutal ride?" Nope, it's been a glorious ride for over 20 years.

Hate us cos they ain't us and that's been true since 2004

To be fair some fed fans are serious sore winners ahaha, probably turns off a good number of people who would otherwise not care

 

[RelentlessAttack]

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.

Nadal 2007-08 on clay and grass was way better than anyone Nole faced in 2015-16

 

[ewiewp]

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

From 2004 - 2009, prime/peak Federer amazes us by winning a staggering 14 out of 24 slams !

He made 20 slam final appearances:

reaches 10 consecutive finals​

reaches 4 finals in a season 3 times​

won 3 out of 4 slams in a season 3 times​

reaches 23 out of 24 slam semifinals​

50 single titles

He accumulated 240 weeks at the top of the ATP rankings including an astonishing 237 consecutive weeks.
5 out of 6 years he ended the YE #1.

Prime Federer's dominance and consistency is off the charts !

Nadal, Nole, Borg or Sampras are great in their respective era, but they are in a debate for a distant second.

People usually refer this as "generation".
Federer was complete dominator of his generation (usually ~5 year group).

"Era" is much longer and usually refers to 30-40 years,
Significant changes in tennis has happened in a new era.
(eg. full pro tennis in 1969, tour-wide surface changes in early 2000s).

For example, top 3 guys in each era could be:

Pre-Open era: Gonzales, Laver, Rosewall
70s-90s: Sampras, Borg, Lendle.

The current modern power baseline era is still going on since early 2000s:

Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.

Currently Federer is the best player since early 2000s but Djokovic and Nadal look strong.

 

[skaj]

I am asking you now. Its a simple question - what's your gender? If you are a male, you should have no problem in me addressing you so.



no, its not. Just because Fed played better in Wim 05 final than in Wim 07 final doesn't mean Fed was not peak in Wim 07 final.
Nadal was at his grasscourt peak in 2007 Wim final

Its a small difference b/w Nadal of Wim 07 final and Wim 08 final either ways.

I know that you are asking me, and I don’t care about you and your interests, cause you are not the topic here, nor me, nor your interest, nor my gender.

Yes. Nadal played better tennis in 2008 finals than he did in 2007. If you don’t agree with that, enjoy your opinion.

 

[skaj]

Again, I completely disagree with you. I've explained to you so there's no point of repeating it again. For someone who think H2H against one player is comparable to the playing field which consist of thousands players is simply reaching and reeks with desperation.

It's seem like you do seriously care since you can't stop replying to my post after I've debunked your fallacy so many times.

Feel free to disagree with me, not my problem.

I’ve explained to you, but I need to explain it again obviously. If you are talking about dominance of one player in a certain period, the reductive and simplified criterion which includes simple general statistics and primary school math only is flawed. If you can’t understand the simple truth that a player being dominated in their head to head against the main rival makes the dominance of that player less impressive, feel free to disagree with that too.

 

[Phoenix1983]

I know that you are asking me, and I don’t care about you and your interests, cause you are not the topic here, nor me, nor your interest, nor my gender.

Yes. Nadal played better tennis in 2008 finals than he did in 2007. If you don’t agree with that, enjoy your opinion.

Pretty sure you were the one who brought up the gender thing apropos of nothing.

 

[skaj]

Pretty sure you were the one who brought up the gender thing apropos of nothing.

Don't be, the other poster did, go back and check.