The problem with Roger Federer G.O.A.T. claims: Nadal and Djokovic rivalries

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 3771
  • Start date Start date
Nothing to impress
Just hilarious how he was so clutch against Djokovic then choked miserably against his daddy in the final

I was addressing the argument that he never beat another ATG at his peak (putting all the details around that statement aside).

So,do you want to make another argument that isn't trolling, and if you do, what is it?

That was my question.

Got something?

8-)
 
I'm sure it's a riveting read. A few key buzzwords and any clown can be a "tennis expert" these days.
Yeah, we wait for your unbiased piece of "Federer larger than life experience" in some popular media outlet. Too bad talent like yourself to be hidden in the basement of some obscure tennis forum. ;):)
 
I was addressing the argument that he never beat another ATG at his peak (putting all the details around that statement aside).

So,do you want to make another argument that isn't trolling, and if you do, what is it?

That was my question.

Got something?

:cool:

The argument was not that he never, just that he did it far less than the other two
 
I see it more as counter trolling. the weak era argument was started by Nadal fans, and players being at their peak during mid 30s argument was started by Djokovic fans.
The Weak Era argument is an argument, not trolling. The prime discussion isn't trolling either. (And RF fans started the peak/prime thing, for your info.)

Not every argument you disagree with is "trolling".

To me, the "Mono Fed" argument sounds much closer to trolling, but even that isn't trolling, it's just an opinion.

Trolling isn't disagreeing, it's open mockery. If RF had weak(er) competition in 2003-2006, then how is pointing that out trolling?

If we use the word "trolling" for everything, then the word loses its meaning. Let's use the English language as intended, otherwise we should switch to Cantonese or Swahili or German.
 
Did you not read what I wrote? I just said he was more inconsistent but his peak was about the same

I guess Nadal almost lost to Youzhny in 2007 wimbledon so he was a very weak opponent for Federer in the final:-D:-D
But didn't even manage a single MS-1000?!? Some peak.
 
The Weak Era argument is an argument, not trolling. The prime discussion isn't trolling either. (And RF fans started the peak/prime thing, for your info.)

Not every argument you disagree with is "trolling".

To me, the "Mono Fed" argument sounds much closer to trolling, but even that isn't trolling, it's just an opinion.

Trolling isn't disagreeing, it's open mockery. If RF had weak(er) competition in 2003-2006, then how is pointing that out trolling?

If we use the word "trolling" for everything, then the word loses its meaning. Let's use the English language as intended, otherwise we should switch to Cantonese or Swahili or German.
Thing is I get triggered way more than Fed fans do by the weak era argument because I like some of the guys from back then. And actually, at the time, 2004 was seen as brilliant. It's only in retrospect do we try and argue these view points.

Either way, trolling or not, it is agenda driven.
 
But didn't even manage a single MS-1000?!? Some peak.

He was bad in the masters on hard, true

But he made 2 finals on clay and of course no masters on grass

LOL at you claiming he played at the same level in his losses to Roddick and Blake as he did reaching 3 slam finals

I guess Nadal also was terrible in 2010 because he lost to Roddick, Baghdatis in masters LOL
 
He was bad in the masters on hard, true

But he made 2 finals on clay and of course no masters on grass

LOL at you claiming he played at the same level in his losses to Roddick and Blake as he did reaching 3 slam finals

I guess Nadal also was terrible in 2010 because he lost to Roddick, Baghdatis in masters LOL
You're putting words in my mouth.

Nadal has never been the most consistent player on hardcourt. Federer, however, was.
 
Have you ever done anything competitively in your life? Confidence is important.
That's exactly what I was arguing earlier. Matches differ on a day by day basis, most people who have played even recreational tennis would know that. It doesn't mean so and so was better then because he had more chances.
 
Thing is I get triggered way more than Fed fans do by the weak era argument because I like some of the guys from back then. And actually, at the time, 2004 was seen as brilliant. It's only in retrospect do we try and argue these view points.

Either way, trolling or not, it is agenda driven.
I like a lot of these players too, but none of them were legend material.

However, unlike you and a lot of others, I thought the 2004 era was awful. I hated 2011 too. Was bored with 2015/2016. I hate a lack of competition. To me the best seasons are ones when 2 or preferably three players duke it out on a level playing field. 2012 was great hence. 2005 was interesting. 2000 was great. 1996-1998 was fun.

Agenda is all it's about. Fan camps warring over facts, rarely able to be objective. The moment you notice that you're cherry-picking facts, you know you've joined a camp. From then on, your opinions are tainted, subjective, ridiculous even.

I try to be objective. I may not be entirely unbiased, but at least I try.
 
He is trying his hand at competitive trolling, and the problem is that he will soon find out that you are correct about the confidence part.

:cool:

Nah I agree with him but confidence is different from decline

Federer 2017 would be more confident of beating 2008 Nadal than 2008 Federer, but do you think he has a better chance;):D
 
Except Federer has recently improved his record against Nadal despite being older
Wrong analogy
Whats your point? That Federer beating Nadal four times in 2017 means Federer has been just as good in 2011-2018 as 2004-2010?

That rivalry was always a bit weird, with so many matches on clay and so many matches early season. Nadal was also a very early bloomer.

Fed-Djok rivalry is more "balanced". And it shows the same pattern as for example Lendl-connors, where the older one wins early on, then there is an overlap, before the younger one takes over.
 
Last edited:
I think most honest, seasoned tennis watchers outside of the online frenzy acknowledge that Federer’s poor H2H record against his main rivals -particularly dreadful in slams- rules him out of the title of undisputed greatest of his era.

He is still an undisputed top 10 all-time great though, and will be for a long time to come.
 
Nah I agree with him but confidence is different from decline

Federer 2017 would be more confident of beating 2008 Nadal than 2008 Federer, but do you think he has a better chance;):D

I am completely saddened by the fact that you don't offer me any statement that I can discuss seriously with you.

After your failure to intervene, now there is only weak noise coming from your direction.

Got anything?

8-)
 
But much worse than before
You were bringing up his losses to Blake etc to act like he was hugely declined
No, I was bringing up those losses because they matter in this context. I was staying away from the Novak and Rafa matches because they played unbelievable. There's no way to tell if anybody could've beaten them in those runs.

But losing to players he never has before does indicate a dip in level. Even if it's slight, it was a dip nonetheless. That's different than arguing he was past his prime and declined.
 
I think most honest, seasoned tennis watchers outside of the online frenzy acknowledge that Federer’s poor H2H record against his main rivals -particularly dreadful in slams- rules him out of the title of undisputed greatest of his era.

He is still an undisputed top 10 all-time great though, and will be for a long time to come.

So, since it is widely accepted, you don't have to worry about that another day.

Everyone is happy.

8-)
 
No, I was bringing up those losses because they matter in this context. I was staying away from the Novak and Rafa matches because they played unbelievable. There's no way to tell if anybody could've beaten them in those runs.

But losing to players he never has before does indicate a dip in level. Even if it's slight, it was a dip nonetheless. That's different than arguing he was past his prime and declined.

Dip in level against those players doesn't mean he was worse against Djokovic and Nadal . You can't say he played worse against Djokovic in a slam semfinal because he lost a few masters matches against lesser players
 
I agree that it's hard for Federer to be considered the Greatest of ALL-TIME when he wasn't even the Greatest of his Own Era. He has a losing record against his 2 biggest rivals and that's just unacceptable for someone who wants to be the best ever no matter how you twist it.

You can say Federer is the best of his generation, that would be true but the players of his generation weren't that good anyway. Hewitt lost a Slam final with a double bagel score when an even 11 years older Agassi than Federer was able to take the same Federer to a fifth set in the same tournament. The grass god Roddick had a career one Top10 win in Wimbledon, just one. Baghdatis hasn't won even a 500 title in his whole career!
That ain't how you do it dude. Cherry picker extraordinaire.
 
So, since it is widely accepted, you don't have to worry about that another day.

Everyone is happy.

:cool:
It doesn’t worry me in the slightest, any day.

It’s important to stop false information being spread on the internet, though. Young tennis fans might come here and accept the nonsense they read as gospel.
 
No, I was bringing up those losses because they matter in this context. I was staying away from the Novak and Rafa matches because they played unbelievable. There's no way to tell if anybody could've beaten them in those runs.

But losing to players he never has before does indicate a dip in level. Even if it's slight, it was a dip nonetheless. That's different than arguing he was past his prime and declined.

To give you another example Murray beat Federer loads of times in bo3 but couldn't do much in slams

That in itself should tell you Federer's non slam losses don't indicate decline in slams
 

This article makes three arguments against Federer.

1. Head to head.

refuted here:

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...e-federer-nadal-head-to-head-is-bogus.594943/



2. Strength of competition.

refuted here

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ution-of-all-open-era-major-finalists.453446/

in the sense that you can't compare players 5-6 years apart in age, because their peaks don't overlap. So results on record tell you nothing about how players would have fared in each others' mini eras.



3. Win percentage in finals

Refuted by common sense. Winning more finals is all that counts. Reaching and losing finals is better than not reaching finals. Thus, a worse win percentage with more titles is better than fewer titles and a higher win percentage.
 
This article makes three arguments against Federer.

1. Head to head.

refuted here:

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...e-federer-nadal-head-to-head-is-bogus.594943/



2. Strength of competition.

refuted here

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ution-of-all-open-era-major-finalists.453446/

in the sense that you can't compare players 5-6 years apart in age, because their peaks don't overlap. So results on record tell you nothing about how players would have fared in each others' mini eras.



3. Win percentage in finals

Refuted by common sense. Winning more finals is all that counts. Reaching and losing finals is better than not reaching finals. Thus, a worse win percentage with more titles is better than fewer titles and a higher win percentage.

You failed with peak to peak issue. Federer stated that his peak was 2015. End of the peak discussion.
 
Everybody knows that Fed was at his peak in 2008. But unfortunately for him, his talent level was exposed by other players peaking.

For example:

Peak Fed was 0-2 vs Simon in 2008. Unfortunately for Fed, that was Simon’s peak too. And look at what happened to Fed. The fact that Fed was 7-0 vs Simon outside of 2008 is meaningless. Bottom line: peak Simon destroys Peak Fed

Peak Fed was 1-1 vs Blake in 2008. Outside of that year, Fed was 9-0 vs Blake. Bottom line: Peak Fed=James Blake

Roddick was 1-0 vs Peak Fed. No great players ever lost a single match to Roddick because Roddick was a terrible player. And yet, Peak Fed did. This means that Peak Fed was decent at best.

World #98 Mardy Fish steamrolled Peak Federer 6-3, 6-2 in 2008 at their only meeting that year. Outside of 2008, Fed was 8-0 vs Fish. However, Despite it not being obvious, Fish was favored heading into that 2008 IW match. The experts knew that an in-form 98th ranked Fish would take out Peak Fed, despite the fact that Fed was the 3-time defending champion at IW and despite the fact that he had a career record of 5-0 against Fish( most huge blowouts at that). The experts figured out in 2008 that Fed was a “weak era mug”. So Fish was actually the favorite going into that match. Vegas made a killing!

Baby Murray was 3-1 vs Peak Fed. The only reason Murray lost that one match at the USO final is that he was overconfident going into that match. Murray was wise beyond his years. He figured out that Fed was a weak era mug. And he proved that by going 3-1 vs Peak Fed in 2008. But Murray actually ate 30 large pancakes right before that USO match to try and give the pansy a chance at winning a set.

Stepanek beat Peak Fed in 2008. Stepanek was 2-14 vs Fed. That means Stepanek beat Fed one other time. This is good. Wait for it... Stepanek’s only other win over Fed was in 2002, yet another one of Fed’s peak years. Stepanek actually beat Fed during 2 of his very best seasons ever. This Shows that Stepanek was every bit as good as Fed ever was.

The only reason that Fed lost as many matches in 2008 as he did in 2004, 2005, and 2006 combined is that 2008 was the year that professional tennis started. I believe that 2008 was the beginning of the 2nd Open Era. This exposed Peak Fed.

So there you have it. 1998-2002, 2008, 2013, and 2016 were clearly Fed’s peak years. And yet, Fed was badly exposed those years. I predict that Federer won’t make the Hall of Fame.
 
I predict that Federer won’t make the Hall of Fame.

I disagree. I consider Federer top5 player in the open era. He has secured his place in tennis history as it stands. However, he can further improve his tally. If he wins MC and Rome and NCYGS (or CYGS) he could be seriously considered in the GOAT discussion.
 
Everybody knows that Fed was at his peak in 2008. But unfortunately for him, his talent level was exposed by other players peaking.

For example:

Peak Fed was 0-2 vs Simon in 2008. Unfortunately for Fed, that was Simon’s peak too. And look at what happened to Fed. The fact that Fed was 7-0 vs Simon outside of 2008 is meaningless. Bottom line: peak Simon destroys Peak Fed

Peak Fed was 1-1 vs Blake in 2008. Outside of that year, Fed was 9-0 vs Blake. Bottom line: Peak Fed=James Blake

Roddick was 1-0 vs Peak Fed. No great players ever lost a single match to Roddick because Roddick was a terrible player. And yet, Peak Fed did. This means that Peak Fed was decent at best.

World #98 Mardy Fish steamrolled Peak Federer 6-3, 6-2 in 2008 at their only meeting that year. Outside of 2008, Fed was 8-0 vs Fish. However, Despite it not being obvious, Fish was favored heading into that 2008 IW match. The experts knew that an in-form 98th ranked Fish would take out Peak Fed, despite the fact that Fed was the 3-time defending champion at IW and despite the fact that he had a career record of 5-0 against Fish( most huge blowouts at that). The experts figured out in 2008 that Fed was a “weak era mug”. So Fish was actually the favorite going into that match. Vegas made a killing!

Baby Murray was 3-1 vs Peak Fed. The only reason Murray lost that one match at the USO final is that he was overconfident going into that match. Murray was wise beyond his years. He figured out that Fed was a weak era mug. And he proved that by going 3-1 vs Peak Fed in 2008. But Murray actually ate 30 large pancakes right before that USO match to try and give the pansy a chance at winning a set.

Stepanek beat Peak Fed in 2008. Stepanek was 2-14 vs Fed. That means Stepanek beat Fed one other time. This is good. Wait for it... Stepanek’s only other win over Fed was in 2002, yet another one of Fed’s peak years. Stepanek actually beat Fed during 2 of his very best seasons ever. This Shows that Stepanek was every bit as good as Fed ever was.

The only reason that Fed lost as many matches in 2008 as he did in 2004, 2005, and 2006 combined is that 2008 was the year that professional tennis started. I believe that 2008 was the beginning of the 2nd Open Era. This exposed Peak Fed.

So there you have it. 1998-2002, 2008, 2013, and 2016 were clearly Fed’s peak years. And yet, Fed was badly exposed those years. I predict that Federer won’t make the Hall of Fame.
Lol:-D:-D.

Short explanation:

Fed loses: exposed
Fed wins: weak era or Djokodal not peak.
Nadal loses: injured
Djokovic loses: not peak
 
Slam wins over top3 ranked ATGs:

2003-10 Federer: 4
2011-18 Djokovic: 14
 
Lol:-D:-D.

Short explanation:

Fed loses: exposed
Fed wins: weak era or Djokodal not peak.
Nadal loses: injured
Djokovic loses: not peak

Everything done in the presence of Djokovic, Nadal and Murray has my utmost respect. Those 8 slams I fully appreciate.
 
Back
Top