Federer was barely losing matches in 2005-2006, yet there Nadal was beating Federer time after time. After the 2006 French Open final, it was 6-1 to Nadal in his head-to-head against Federer, while Federer was 44-4 in 2006 at that point with all 4 losses to Nadal. As Mats Wilander said after the 2006 French Open final "Federer's balls shrink to a very small size whenever he plays against Nadal, and it's not just once, it's everytime!".
A slam more important than a master though.
Had to say it
This doesn't make any sense. If you lose the first 6 of 8 matches against a player, their game is definitely bothering you.
It told us that 2015 and 2016 Nadal was bad, which the evidence of those seasons prove. But 2008 and 2010 Murray was having good seasons.
2016 Nadal on clay was doing much better than 2015 on clay, to be fair. 2016 Nadal did win Monte Carlo and Barcelona (beating Murray in Monte Carlo), lost to Murray in Madrid, and then lost a close one to Djokovic in Rome, before injuring his wrist during the French Open and having to pull out before his third round match.
Ok let’s ignore off-days completely then. Nadal is 3-0 on grass vs Murray and 7-2 on clay. So how exactly do Murray’s two wins on clay prove the same thing as Nadal straight setting him on grass.
???
Yea because in large part Murray mentally didn't show up for those matches like he didn't against Djokovic as well in the 2011 AO final, however, no one loses 6 out of 8 matches if the opponent's game isn't bothering them.Tell that to Federer who stomped Murray in straight sets at the US open and Aus open like a mosquito in 2008 and 2010 respectively.
I don't agree with you and think your take is just ludicrous, but I'm not going to keep going in circles about it. I don't know what made you think I wasn't watching tennis in the 2000s. I've been watching it since the early 90s. With that said, I'm moving on from this conversation.
Murray once led Federer 6-2 in their head-to-head, but the biggest match was the 2008 US Open final which Federer won in 3 straight sets.
The point wasn't about if Federer won their biggest match in those years, which he did. It was a disagreement with Murray wasn't troubling him. Him beating Federer 4 times in a row says differently.
In best of 3, yes. In best of 5, people were more confident that Federer would deliver against Murray. Nadal was a nuisance to Federer everywhere.
Yes of course in BO3. He said their BO3 matches didn't matter though but the ones against Nadal did, which is ridiculous. Lol. At the end of 2013, the head to head was 11-9 to Murray including 2 BO5 wins. Federer didn't take over that head to head until 2014 when he was 33. So the idea that he wasn't at least troubling him is crazy.
I watched Federer's entire peak. Did you? Murray was not even in the conversation? Murray was being hyped more than Djokovic in the early days so to say he wasn't even in the conversation makes me question whether you were actually watching. I guess Tsonga leading Djokovic 4-1 up to 2009 Marseille and beating him 4 times in a row means he wasn't troubling him because Djokovic had won their only Slam match. Completely absurd.
Even Federer beat him twice. Had he got him in 2015 he would definitely have beaten him as well. It is not that Nadal NEVER lost on clay.
Thoughts? Sure. Go ask them. Seriously. You can look at stats or matches etc. all you want but what matters in your question is what THEY thought. Do you believe any of the three, when playing each other, ever thought, "Well, this will be easy." If they all feared each other, which I believe they did, it's all equal.
So you are going to tell me when I started watching tennis? For one, you are off completely off base and two you're completely wrong, which you are often as in an everyday occurrence. If the age is right in your profile then I'm older than you so just a guess but I'm willing to bet I've been watching tennis longer than you. You would have been in diapers when I watched Sampras/Becker in Wimbledon finals in the 90s or Graf/Vicario. Sorry to burst your bubble but you have no idea what you're talking about on that front and should stick to analyzing matches instead of trying to analyze someone's life half a world away.
Again, you’re bringing up his entire RG career which was never the point
Didn’t know Nadal was 38 when he did that and that Fed got the chance to face Djokovic previously at Wimb in his prime to gain some confidence.
Why? Because it explains why Fed lost to mediocre players and we have to stick to the narrative that he actually sucks?
GOATY AF
Can you list those please as id like to take a look.
3-0 I wouldn’t really call an anomaly especially not since they are close in achievements in grass. Had they played as often on grass as they did on other surfaces Murray surely had won a couple of matches given that it happened even on clay. Nevertheless the 3-0 shows that Nadal is better. What is an anomaly are Murray’s two wins on clay given that overall he is a) way less accomplished than Nadal on clay and b) trails him in overall H2H 2-7. By the same token, Murray’s straight set wins on grass against Djoko and Fed are anomalies since he again trails both in accomplishments on grass and at least Fed also in H2H.
Because Nadal wasn’t in his 30’s facing a 6 years younger Djokovic
Don’t know why Hewitt wouldn’t be able to become no.1 in mid 2016.
He may, but he was a little less consistent than Murray and Murray had to go to his limit to dethrone Djokovic. Hewitt would have gotten to No.1 as well eventually but not sure whether he would reached the 41 weeks that Murray did. There is not “much” that separates them but Murray is greater.
Murray’s 2-0 record vs Novak can’t be called an anomaly because when Murray beat him the second time, which was the Wimbledon final in 2013, their Wimbledon title count was 1-1.
Slapped him silly, as well.Murray fans still celebrating him picking up wins over exhausted Fed over 10 and nearly 20 years later
Ok "new user".
Fed has 8 Wimbledon Murray has two. Fed had just beaten him in the Wimbledon final, went on to beat him three years later after his prime. All this looks to me that Murray’s win at the Olympics was the real anomaly and mainly caused by Fed’s exhaustion. But even if we exclude such excuses, Fed more than proved that he is way better than Murray on grass both overall and also in direct matchup.
Well then the anomaly is Murray winning on clay not really Nadal winning on grass. Given that they played 9 times on clay, I don’t find it completely out of the norm especially given that the wins were in 2015/2016.
Oh, is that how it works?
I see you sidestepped my Novak argument, there.
