Who is better at their worst slam: Fed at RG or Nadal at AO?

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Was weak relative to last 5 years....if prime Federer had to contend with Prime Thiem as well on clay, I doubt he would be reaching as many finals

Thiem is meh, all he did was beat old Windovic in messy 5 and stealing a set off Oldal while getting crushed in all the other sets like a good boy (got crushed by Peakovic in their first meeting too).

 

[abmk]

Not even close. Nadal beat an ATG for his lone AO, instead of Soderling. Nadal lost 2 epic 5-set AO finals, in '12 and '17. Federer has never even gone 5-set at RG against an ATG.

No, he just beat an ATG in his best ever season in 4 sets in 2011, even if it wasn't in a final.

 

[StilltheGOAT]

You shouldn't, and I wish you don't, but how don't you get banned for posting irrelevant content?
I genuinely wish you don't get banned, and you should know that cuz I keep remarking on the chicken nuggets you post, but the curiosity has got the better of me so I had to ask

 

[King No1e]

You shouldn't, and I wish you don't, but how don't you get banned for posting irrelevant content?
I genuinely wish you don't get banned, and you should know that cuz I keep remarking on the chicken nuggets you post, but the curiosity has got the better of me so I had to ask

It's always in the tennis context. It's basically "grab some food and enjoy the show"

 

[abmk]

Federer has a 40% win % vs top 10 ranked opponents at RG while Novak has 52 %
Only Sampras with 33.33% at RG is a worse than Federer on Clay.

Vs top 5 ranked opponents ..... Federer's win% drops to 33% while Djokovic is still on 43.75%
Only Sampras with 0% is worse than Federer on Clay.

Cope with this Mr @abmk

We're talking prime to prime. Djoko has a little better longevity.

Like I said:

Djokovic couldn't even beat Stan (forget prime Nadal) at RG. Fed beat prime delpo in RG 2009. This apart from Djoko losing RG 2011 semi to fed.
Djoko had to work with a weak dream draw in RG 16 with Murray collapsing in the final after set1.
Also Murray had to take out Stan for him in RG 2016

Fed at RG > djoko at prime to prime.

That peak of Federer happened because of a sweet spot created by nature due to no ATGs born for 15 years except Federer.

1970 - Agassi
1971- Sampras

1981 - Federer

1986 - Nadal
1987 - Djokovic

Federer's 04-07 is actually a direct result of this, Federer too a lot of time to mature and wasn't talented early on like Hewitt/Safin or else he could have completed made a mockery of Tennis from 01-07 itself ...... When his rivals grew up in 07-08 Federer's invincibility was over finally

You put on ignore because you tried to brainwash me and you failed

fed had nadal from 2005 onwards.
past his prime fed went 2-3 (a point away from 3-2) in slams vs 2 of the 3 best years of Djoko (11 and 12). only one to beat him and come close again in 11 in slams. No one else even came including prime Nadal.
You can't brainwash someone who doesn't have a b....

 

[MichaelNadal]

You shouldn't, and I wish you don't, but how don't you get banned for posting irrelevant content?
I genuinely wish you don't get banned, and you should know that cuz I keep remarking on the chicken nuggets you post, but the curiosity has got the better of me so I had to ask

Because we can choose whatever pics and gifs we want lol. Mine just have a consistent theme.

It's always in the tennis context. It's basically "grab some food and enjoy the show"

And this.

 

[RS]

Thiem has beaten Novak twice at RG.. A peak Thiem on clay would definitely challenge Fed

If a peak Federer and Thiem played 10 matches at RG peak for peak how many do you see each guy winning?

 

[xFedal]

In terms of level? Probably equal. Beating Djokovic in 4 should be the equivalent of pushing Nadal to 5.

Fed ended up going down 2 sets 0 in 11 rg final, didn't push Rafa to 5. But it would have been the best RG win if he had defeated Rafa in 2011 final.

 

[Adam Copeland]

We're talking prime to prime. Djoko has a little better longevity.

Like I said:

Djokovic couldn't even beat Stan (forget prime Nadal) at RG. Fed beat prime delpo in RG 2009. This apart from Djoko losing RG 2011 semi to fed.
Djoko had to work with a weak dream draw in RG 16 with Murray collapsing in the final after set1.
Also Murray had to take out Stan for him in RG 2016

Fed at RG > djoko at prime to prime.




fed had nadal from 2005 onwards.
past his prime fed went 2-3 (a point away from 3-2) in slams vs 2 of the 3 best years of Djoko (11 and 12). only one to beat him and come close again in 11 in slams. No one else even came including prime Nadal.
You can't brainwash someone who doesn't have a b....

Why Federer lost 3 times at wimbledon in finals to Novak ?
Federer is the better player for sure peak for peak but why did he lose 3-0 ?
In the last match he wasn't able to deliver even 1 ace when it was required.

With such a weak Mind you expect Federer to be called the GOAT ?

I am sorry, Federer has lost the GOAT Race to Nole because of Mental Toughness aspect.


Coming back to Federer having Nadal from 05, that will only be counted for Clay and on Grass.

HCs are held twice an year, it was only in 2009 that Nadal mature on HCs, if they were from same age group then Nadal would have been a threat on HCs from 2004 itself and this would hjave made it very tough for Federer to have 3 slam years (04, 06 and 07).

 

[abmk]

Why Federer lost 3 times at wimbledon in finals to Novak ?
Federer is the better player for sure peak for peak but why did he lose 3-0 ?
In the last match he wasn't able to deliver even 1 ace when it was required.

With such a weak Mind you expect Federer to be called the GOAT ?

I am sorry, Federer has lost the GOAT Race to Nole because of Mental Toughness aspect.

fed beat djoko easily in 4 sets in Wim 12 semi even though he was past his prime and djoko was at his prime.
fed lost to djoko in 14/15/19 mainly because he was 33+.

that game, fed hit 2 or 3 unreturnables to go up 40-15 in the first place which you ignore. that Djoko allowed ~38 year old fed to get that close itself is telling.

give me examples of ~33+ year old players beating prime ATGs (fed had to face prime Djoko Wim 14/Djoko Wim 15). You will find very very few, if at all.

Djoko, Nadal of course have no prime ATGs to contend with at that age.
sampras was retired.
Agassi lost to fed in USO 04, AO 05, USO 05 as expected.
Borg was retired.
Wilander irrelevant by that age, as was Becker, Edberg, Mac.
Connors last great year was 84. when he was 32.

Coming back to Federer having Nadal from 05, that will only be counted for Clay and on Grass.

HCs are held twice an year, it was only in 2009 that Nadal mature on HCs, if they were from same age group then Nadal would have been a threat on HCs from 2004 itself and this would not made it very tough for Federer to have 3 slam years (04, 06 and 07).

fed-nadal met 5 times in slams in 05-07.
nadal-djoko met 6 times in slams in 11-13. big difference. whoppity do.


if they were of same age, nadal might grab 1/2 wins on HC earlier, but fed would make up for that later on. winning Wim 08/AO 09 for example.

 

[RS]

Wawrinka RG 15 final vs Djokovic RG 16 final?

 

[ibbi]

Take away Djoker and Nadal has 2012 and 2019 for sure at AO. He also wins Wimbledon and the U.S. in 2011, Wimbledon in 2018, and the FO last year, at a minimum.

This thread is specifically about Federer at Roland Garros and Nadal in Australia, what does any of that have to do with anything?

 

[Adam Copeland]

fed beat djoko easily in 4 sets in Wim 12 semi even though he was past his prime and djoko was at his prime.
fed lost to djoko in 14/15/19 mainly because he was 33+.

that game, fed hit 2 or 3 unreturnables to go up 40-15 in the first place which you ignore.

give me examples of ~33+ year old players beating prime ATGs (fed had to face prime Djoko Wim 14/Djoko Wim 15). You will find very very few.



they met 5 times in slams in 05-07.
nadal-djoko met 6 times in slams in 11-13.
big difference? whoppity do.

Federer should have taken 14 and 19 Wimbledon, he would have been on 10 Wimbledons today and on 22 slams which would have made some difference in his final standings .... His legacy would have been very different had he taken these 2.... His pet slam hold should not have weakened you know. Nole and Novak never weakened their hold on their pet slams, you might say there are no ATGs below them so they don't have to lose it, but then then way they held off Thiem is commendable.

Nole did not Meet Nadal as many times in slams as he should have because Nadal isn't that great outside Clay and he managed to dodge Nole on many occasions after 2013 when a proper spanking was due but he escaped with weak draws.

Think about it, IF Nadal was of Federer generation then on HCs he is a threat from 2004 itself instead of 2009, doesn't this ruin Fed's chances of having 3 slam years ?? Hard Courts are where Federer has not been as good as he should have, even the USO was Fed's pet slam till 09 but what happened from 2010 till now ? AO obviously Novak happened and at USO Federer has been bad for too long a period.

Federer's title count on HCs is definetly inflated due to a weak 04-08 period where there was no young/same aged ATG on HCs ......

 

[abmk]

Federer should have taken 14 and 19 Wimbledon, he would have been on 10 Wimbledons today and on 22 slams which would have made some difference in his final standings .... His legacy would have been very different had he taken these 2.... His pet slam hold should not have weakened you know. Nole and Novak never weakened their hold on their pet slams, you might say there are no ATGs below them so they don't have to lose it, but then then way they held off Thiem is commendable.

Fed at 36.5 years beat Cilic in AO 18. Who was in similar form to Thiem in AO 2020. So what? Isn't that more impressive than djoko doing it at 32.5 years?

fed at his pet slam was slamming Nole and Murray in Wim 12, in case you forgot. Even slammed Murray in Wim 15.

Federer should've won Wim 19, but Wim 14?
In the 2014 Wim final, Djoko was the clearly superior player in general, physically and he could've closed it out in 4 sets. Djoko was serving for the match in the 4th set.

They have no prime ATGs after them. If fed didn't have prime djoko in 14/15, he'd have won Wim 14/Wim 15/USO 15/AO 16.
that's like how DJoko is winning now without a prime ATG, give or take a bit here and there.

Nole did not Meet Nadal as many times in slams as he should have because Nadal isn't that great outside Clay and he managed to dodge Nole on many occasions after 2013 when a proper spanking was due but he escaped with weak draws.

ditto for fed vs nadal. nadal dodged fed in AO 07/AO 10, USO 06-09.
Point is djoko didn't have it any tougher than fed.

Think about it, IF Nadal was of Federer generation then on HCs he is a threat from 2004 itself instead of 2009, doesn't this ruin Fed's chances of having 3 slam years ?? Hard Courts are where Federer has not been as good as he should have, even the USO was Fed's pet slam till 09 but what happened from 2010 till now ? AO obviously Novak happened and at USO Federer has been bad for too long a period.

Federer's title count on HCs is definetly inflated due to a weak 04-08 period where there was no young/same aged ATG on HCs ......

Already addressed:

if they were of same age, nadal might grab 1/2 wins on HC earlier, but fed would make up for that later on. winning Wim 08/AO 09 for example.

Fed had Djoko on HC in USO 07/AO 08/USO 08.
Fed had Safin/Hewitt/Roddick/Agassi/Nalby/Davy on HC from 04-07.

Nadal/Djoko have had no one even at safin/hewitt/roddick/wawa/murray level from players born from 89 onwards on any surface, LOLOLOL.

Its actually Djoko's count on HC that is inflated with AO 20/21. Thiem could've put him away in AO 20. and fritz the mentally weak couldn't even take advantage of a hampered nole in the 5th set and rao/Z couldn't even take advantage of djoko not even playing well.

Still waiting for this:

give me examples of ~33+ year old players beating prime ATGs (fed had to face prime Djoko Wim 14/Djoko Wim 15). You will find very very few.

 

[Tsongerer]

You can't be serioys.

Nadal lost to guys like Tsonga, Ferrer, Murray, Berdych over there in his 20s. Fed in his 20s lost to peak Nadal, peak Djokovic and peak Soderling.

If Nadal didn't exist, Fed would have like 5 or 6 RG's, if Fed didn't exist Nadal would have maybe 1 more AO.

 

[roysid]

Federer's legacy will be crushed completely by Novak and Nadal by the time all 3 are retired.
He will look like a connors kind of guy holding some longevity records (that are a result of sticking around for too long) and nothing else.
Next generation of kids won't drool over Fed.... our gen will be the last.

Partially agree. Feds 20 slams is not a small number to be overshadowed like that

 

[roysid]

Since its federer vs nadal comparision and both won 1 title each, the h2h holds prominence.

At AO, Nadal is 3-1 vs Fed. Even the 1 he lost, he was abreak ahead in 5th set

At FO, Nadal is 6-0 over Fed. At no match, Fed was close to winning.

 

[duaneeo]

Easily Federer. He lost only to Nadal 4 consecutive times before winning his first RG, then lost to Soderling and Nadal afterwards.

Nadal lost to Hewitt, Gonzalez, and Tsonga before winning his only AO title, then lost to Murray and Ferrer afterwards. How he's receiving any votes is beyond me.

 

[darthrafa]

fed can win more fo without rafa
but rafa may not do so at ao without fed
so fed takes my vote

 

[TheNachoMan]

You expect TTW to admit Nadal is great on HC? Lol

Nadal is criminally underrated on HC. I think Djokovic, Federer, Sampras, Agassi, and Lendl are the only ones with more HC slams than him.

 

[mike danny]

You can't be serioys.

Nadal lost to guys like Tsonga, Ferrer, Murray, Berdych over there in his 20s. Fed in his 20s lost to peak Nadal, peak Djokovic and peak Soderling.

If Nadal didn't exist, Fed would have like 5 or 6 RG's, if Fed didn't exist Nadal would have maybe 1 more AO.

Nadal has by far a more impressive win at the AO than Fed at RG. And in 2012 he also pushed the AO GOAT to 5, which Fed couldn't do at RG against Rafa.

It's a no contest really. Fed does have that Djoko win in 2011, but he didn't win the title in the end so meh.

 

[mike danny]

Since its federer vs nadal comparision and both won 1 title each, the h2h holds prominence.

At AO, Nadal is 3-1 vs Fed. Even the 1 he lost, he was abreak ahead in 5th set

At FO, Nadal is 6-0 over Fed. At no match, Fed was close to winning.

Wrong.

They both took 1 AO title from each other.

And Fed should have won in 2009 if you wanna go down that route.

 

[NatF]

Nadal is criminally underrated on HC. I think Djokovic, Federer, Sampras, Agassi, and Lendl are the only ones with more HC slams than him.

HC is a relatively recent surface in tennis, many former greats had limited play on HC or only had one HC major for some of their careers etc...It's not exactly like for like with the Big 3 era.

 

[RS]

@The Guru

What do you think?

 

[mike danny]

HC is a relatively recent surface in tennis, many former greats had limited play on HC or only had one HC major for some of their careers etc...It's not exactly like for like with the Big 3 era.

I'd say from about the mid 80's it should be like for like.

 

[NatF]

I'd say from about the mid 80's it should be like for like.

First year on HC was 1988 for the AO.

 

[duaneeo]

Federer only came short to RG GOAT in his prime. OTOH Nadal lost to Wawrinka, Murray, Tsonga, Ferrer at AO in his prime. Remove Djokovic - Nadal gets 3 AOs. Remove Nadal - Federer wins 5 FOs. Hence Federer..

Remove Nadal and Djokovic - peak/prime/post-prime Federer wins 8 RG titles.
Remove Federer and Djokovic - peak/prime/post-prime Nadal wins 4 AO titles

 

[Third Serve]

I'd say from about the mid 80's it should be like for like.

90's, the AO was still grass for a long time during the 80's

 

[TheNachoMan]

You can argue Fed at RG is better than Nadal at Wimbledon. I wouldn't agree with it, because 2 > 1. But Fed has been more consistent and has the better record.

 

[zagor]

You expect TTW to admit Nadal is great on HC? Lol

His 2009 AO level was certainly great, no possible argument against it. One of the best back-to-back wins (SF + F) on a slam level I've ever seen, from any player.

 

[TheNachoMan]

His 2009 AO level was certainly great, no possible argument against it. One of the best back-to-back wins (SF + F) on a slam level I've ever seen, from any player.

I’d probably say the final is my favorite match ive seen if it wasn’t for that egg Fed laid in the 5th. It was like a great movie with a s#it ending

 

[aman92]

If a peak Federer and Thiem played 10 matches at RG peak for peak how many do you see each guy winning?

Slight edge to Federer at 6-4

 

[aman92]

Remove Nadal and Djokovic - peak/prime/post-prime Federer wins 8 RG titles.
Remove Federer and Djokovic - peak/prime/post-prime Nadal wins 4 AO titles

In no universe is Fed winning 8 RG titles.. You are assuming no one else would be there to thwart Fed apart from those 2 at RG.. Post 2012 Fed has only reached one semi with a lucky draw at RG

 

[abmk]

vs the 2 top non-Nadal players fed faced at RG in a non early round, Fed did his job - delpo RG 09, djoko at RG 11.

• Lendl - Just too steady - the only one not named Borg or Nadal to notch a 65+% CC season, and two of 'em to boot - and he's got enough weapons of his own to fall back on. 4 sounds about right, though we could see an occasional 5-setter.

given peak Mac took him to 5 sets in RG 84 final with Lendl being pretty much at his prime. I see fed pretty much being able to do the same if not go one better.
As good as peak Mac was in 84 on clay, he was worse than peak fed on clay.

• Kuerten - He's the one dirtballer who can out-Federer Federer. OTOH he yields to Fed or almost every other dirtballing great in consistency, so the Q is whether he would bring/sustain his A game often/long enough. I say yes, because the two are likely to face each other in the SF/F and that's where Guga usually shines. If he keeps up his intensity a la the '04 shocker or his demolition of career-best Ferrero in the '01 SF 4 is the best that be expected of even TMF.

Kuerten went 5 vs Kafel multiple times, 4 vs Norman/Corretja. All QF or later. If both are at their best, Kuerten takes this in 4 tight sets or a 5th set.
Fed of RG 05-07 or 09 QF-F, 11 etc definitely up there to challenge.

• Wilander - Almost as steady as Ivan, but it's not unwise to bet against him vs. Fred... provided that he sticks to his default grinding. But we know what a chameleon he is, hence my usual "game plan" qualifier. I suspect he'd show up those of us who keep underrating him, yes including Fed, though a tight 4-setter or a 5-fer seems likely.

this is probably the matchup that depends most on tech I think. without poly, Mats obviously does better than with poly.

• Bruguera - '93 Sergi was on a mission and I honestly don't see anyone but 78/80 Borg or 08/17 Nadal beating him at RG that year. '94 would be more doable, but I'd still back the Spaniard who averaged a career-high 63.3% for the season, including a sensational 46.4% in RGW.

yeah, I don't see this. I see peak Kuerten beating peak Bruguera for one. Ditto for 07/10/12 nadal for sure. Borg RG 79 as well defo.
If Courier was up a break in the 5th set, other versions of Nadal could beat him as well.
See the last part about the %s

• Courier - '92 Jim is another one who topped the 65% ceiling if we focus on the CC season proper, which coupled with his historic 67.5% at RG gives him the decisive edge. The '93 version is more beatable and I might even favor Fed with his '11 SF serving (Jim doesn't handle big serves as well as Sergi, as you know), but for the entire series? Doubtful, though here I can see an average 5-setter.

See the last part about the %s

• Djokovic - I do think this matchup would be quite close, but I can't agree that Fed would win the H2H. More like 50-50, and of course Novak would have the edge vs. the rest of the field.

I don't see this.
RG 2009 - fed took out red hot delpo.
RG 2015 - djoko failed to do the same vs red hot wawa

RG 2011 - fed took out djoko

RG 2009 final - fed came out firing vs Sod in 1st set and absolutely closed the door with that unsurpasable TB perf in the 2nd set when Sod threatened to come back in the 2nd set.
RG 2016 final - djoko started off with the same passive/nervous play vs 2nd non-Nadal final opponent in 1st set vs Murray. Murray crumbled after that enabling Djoko to free himself. Who knows what would've happened otherwise.

the only thing Djoko gets the edge prime to prime is the 5-setter vs rafa in RG 2013.
So both in the matchup and vs the field in general, gotta go with prime Fed over prime Djoko at RG. djoko is a little better vs nadal, but not enough to make a difference at RG.

Djoko just doesn't have a win over a prime form good CCer that comes close to RG 2009 semi delpo or RG 2011 semi djoko himself.

you are reading too much into the % #s. fed at times doesn't bother breaking so many times vs sub top 20 opponents for example.
I don't give a damn that Murray was nearly 60% or whatever on clay in 15. delpo in RG 09 was 10x scarier and much better than Murray at RG 15.
Only match of Murray at RG that comes close is when he was able to frustrate Stan in RG 16 semi.

And all of the above reinforces my favorite maxim that history has a way of evening things out. Novak's CC "peak" may not be as high as that of his fellow 2/3-timers, but it would've been almost criminal if he failed to notch his 2nd FO given his crazy reliability and longevity. Novak in the same company as Courier and Bruguera w/2 FOs sounds about right. So do Lendl, Wilander and Kuerten with 3 apiece due to their greater consistency, tactical genius and unparalleled artillery respectively.

it really doesn't in many cases. Else fed would've had a 2nd FO for example.
Becker would've had a CC title somewhere.

 

[duaneeo]

In no universe is Fed winning 8 RG titles.. You are assuming no one else would be there to thwart Fed apart from those 2 at RG.. Post 2012 Fed has only reached one semi with a lucky draw at RG

Federer wins 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012, and 2019 without Nadalovic.

 

[TheNachoMan]

Federer wins 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012, and 2019 without Nadalovic.

2008 and 2012 are debatable. Especially 2012.

 

[duaneeo]

Federer wins 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012, and 2019 without Nadalovic.

Hell, without Nadalovic, Federer would've played in 2017 and 2018 and won those as well.

 

[NatF]

2008 and 2012 are debatable. Especially 2012.

He means without Nadal AND Djokovic.

 

[Third Serve]

Federer wins 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012, and 2019 without Nadalovic.

not 100% sure on 2012. Tsonga could beat him.

 

[abmk]

In no universe is Fed winning 8 RG titles.. You are assuming no one else would be there to thwart Fed apart from those 2 at RG.. Post 2012 Fed has only reached one semi with a lucky draw at RG

8 is too much. 6-7 is more accurate. But in which world is facing an in-form Wawa in RG 2019 QF a lucky draw?

 

[TheNachoMan]

He means without Nadal AND Djokovic.

Oh, my bad.

 

[RS]

vs the 2 top non-Nadal players fed faced at RG in a non early round, he did his job - delpo RG 09, djoko at RG 11.



given peak Mac took him to 5 sets in RG 84 final with Lendl being pretty much at his prime. I see fed pretty much being able to do the same if not go one better.
As good as peak Mac was in 84 on clay, he was worse than peak fed on clay.



Kuerten went 5 vs Kafel multiple times, 4 vs Norman/Corretja. All QF or later. If both are at their best, Kuerten takes this in 4 tight sets or a 5th set.
Fed of RG 05-07 or 09 QF-F, 11 etc definitely up there to challenge.



this is probably the matchup that depends most on tech I think. without poly, Mats obviously does better than with poly.



yeah, I don't see this. I see peak Kuerten beating peak Bruguera for one. Ditto for 07/10/12 nadal for sure. Borg RG 79 as well defo.
If Courier was up a break in the 5th set, other versions of Nadal could beat him as well.
See the last part about the %s



See the last part about the %s



I don't see this.
RG 2009 - fed took out red hot delpo.
RG 2015 - djoko failed to do the same vs red hot wawa

RG 2011 - fed took out djoko

RG 2009 final - fed came out firing vs Sod in 1st set and absolutely closed the door with that unsurpasable TB perf in the 2nd set when Sod threatened to come back in the 2nd set.
RG 2016 final - djoko started off with the same passive/nervous play vs 2nd non-Nadal final opponent in 1st set vs Murray. Murray crumbled after that enabling Djoko to free himself. Who knows what would've happened otherwise.

the only thing Djoko gets the edge prime to prime is the 5-setter vs rafa in RG 2013.
So both in the matchup and vs the field in general, gotta go with prime Fed over prime Djoko at RG. djoko is a little better vs nadal, but not enough to make a difference at RG.

Djoko just doesn't have a win over a prime form good CCer that comes close to RG 2009 semi delpo or RG 2011 semi djoko himself.

you are reading too much into the % #s. fed at times doesn't bother breaking so many times vs sub top 20 opponents for example.
I don't give a damn that Murray was nearly 60% or whatever on clay in 15. delpo in RG 09 was 10x scarier and much better than Murray at RG 15.
Only match of Murray at RG that comes close is when he was able to frustrate Stan in RG 16 semi.



it really doesn't in many cases. Else fed would've had a 2nd FO for example.
Becker would've had a CC title somewhere.

Do you think Murray of the SF would have had a shot at winning vs that Djokovic?

 

[abmk]

Slight edge to Federer at 6-4

8-2 fed.
thiem laid an egg vs past his prime Nadal in RG 18 final and couldn't play well after 2 sets in RG 19 final vs past his prime Nadal again. Also got beat badly in RG 17 semi where nadal was a level below his final level (final was exceptional, but semi was just very good from Nadal)

fed's done a lot more vs nadal himself (05,06,07,11) not to forget wins over prime good CCers in delpo RG 2009 and djoko RG 2011 - which Thiem can only dream of.

what's Thiem's best win at RG - a meh, past his prime Djoko at RG 19? He took 5 sets for that, lol. with mental issues in the 5th.
fed beat a MUCH better peak Djoko in RG 11 in 4 tight sets

Thiem can look impressive for a set or two on clay, but he can't sustain that level like prime Fed can.

 

[The Guru]

@The Guru

What do you think?

Federer at RG. Nadal has two top level runs with a fantastic level but the cupboard gets really bare after that. You have 14 Nadal who was getting worked by Stan even pre injury (and there's strong evidence to suggest 14 Stan was lesser than 14 Novak who's obviously a below average Novak). You have 17 Nadal who is very solid but not great and on a surface that really did not suit him. There's a real case to be made for 20 Nadal as perhaps the 3rd best AO Nadal and it seems to certainly be top 5. Roger on the other hand has a lot more top drawer consistency on offer with his 05-11 runs which vary from good to fantastic with some other ok runs where he was at least able to navigate into the latter stages of the tournament. Competition being equal I think FO Roger has the edge in terms of expected titles won imo.

 

[RS]

Federer at RG. Nadal has two top level runs with a fantastic level but the cupboard gets really bare after that. You have 14 Nadal who was getting worked by Stan even pre injury (and there's strong evidence to suggest 14 Stan was lesser than 14 Novak who's obviously a below average Novak). You have 17 Nadal who is very solid but not great and on a surface that really did not suit him. There's a real case to be made for 20 Nadal as perhaps the 3rd best AO Nadal and it seems to certainly be top 5. Roger on the other hand has a lot more top drawer consistency on offer with his 05-11 runs which vary from good to fantastic with some other ok runs where he was at least able to navigate into the latter stages of the tournament. Competition being equal I think FO Roger has the edge in terms of expected titles won imo.

Thanks for your take. Other thread is about your guy Hewitt btw

 

[duaneeo]

8 is too much. 6-7 is more accurate.

2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2019 for sure. But again, as a 6-time RG champion, Federer would have no reason to skip 2017 and 2018, and with no Nadalovic, who would beat him?

 

[abmk]

Do you think Murray of the SF would have had a shot at winning vs that Djokovic?

definitely.
I mean if Djoko plays his best tennis, he wins no matter how well Murray plays including 2016 RG semi. But djoko had a nervous start in RG 2016 final and the pressure of winning RG might get to him.

 

[abmk]

2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2019 for sure. But again, as a 6-time RG champion, Federer would have no reason to skip 2017 and 2018, and with no Nadalovic, who would beat him?

fed skipped RG 17 because of surgery in 16. not sure what he'd do in RG 18 without djokodal though.

without djokodal, fed wins 05,06,07,08,09,11 - although Puerta of RG 05 would be tough.

19 could go either way - Thiem has the physical edge for sure, but given his final under-performing.

 

[The Guru]

Thanks for your take. Other thread is about your guy Hewitt btw

I see you did not vote. What's your take?

I don't find that thread interesting because too much has changed about the game to say where he would fit in with a time warp of prime Hewitt into today's age. For example. Hewitt was still playing with gut in 01-02 if memory serves. The court speeds have slowed movement has changed as well as what goes into match prep. Peak level with respect to era he's second to Novak and probably Med on hard and that's it but because ranking is more of a measure of consistency it's possible he could slide as far as 6 depending on what Nadal produces this year. He could probably go as high as 2 and because of the Novak deportation possibly even 1. Because of all the differences though I just don't find it a very interesting question honestly.

 

[RS]

I see you did not vote. What's your take?

I don't find that thread interesting because too much has changed about the game to say where he would fit in with a time warp of prime Hewitt into today's age. For example. Hewitt was still playing with gut in 01-02 if memory serves. The court speeds have slowed movement has changed as well as what goes into match prep. Peak level with respect to era he's second to Novak and probably Med on hard and that's it but because ranking is more of a measure of consistency it's possible he could slide as far as 6 depending on what Nadal produces this year. He could probably go as high as 2 and because of the Novak deportation possibly even 1. Because of all the differences though I just don't find it a very interesting question honestly.

Similar for now but hopefully that will change by the end of AO

I was only suggesting the other thread it’s not to interesting tbh.