Wilander "You have to say that the era Federer dominated was the worst of all time"

[ksbh]

Sharma G, always good to see your moniker in here! Yes, too many Federer fanboys running rampant here, so I thought that perhaps the others could use some assistance?!

- Zeeshan

I see Zeeshan is back in full flow after a long sabbatical.

 

[rickson33]

He didn't win Wimbledon.

doesn't matter. he still dominated the sport like no one has ever done before or since. he's the greatest tennis player of all time, and it's not close

 

[mike danny]

The 6-10 players were actually much better in 2004-2007. Of all those years, only 2006 was a really weak year. The rest were plenty strong.

Agree. Hewitt, Roddick and Federer finished in the top four 2 years in a row 2004 and 2005. And they did well to reach Roger in the later stages of slams (QF and beyond).

2006 was the wealest because everybpdy that was playing in 2004-2005 was either injured or in a slump

In 2007 things became decent again with Nadal improving and Djokovic rising into a top 3 player

 

[Crose]

doesn't matter. he still dominated the sport like no one has ever done before or since. he's the greatest tennis player of all time, and it's not close

And he'd still get crushed by Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Agassi, etc.

 

[NatF]

doesn't matter. he still dominated the sport like no one has ever done before or since. he's the greatest tennis player of all time, and it's not close

You said he won all the slams. You were wrong I pointed it out. Rosewall never dominated, he had a couple of years where he was uncontested number #1 inbetween Gonzalez and Laver's primes. He has a losing h2h with both his older and younger rivals. His contempories don't rate him that highly either. He's the GOAT of longevity and deserves a mention in the conversation but not even close? Don't make me laugh.

 

[rickson33]

You said he won all the slams. You were wrong I pointed it out. Rosewall never dominated, he had a couple of years where he was uncontested number #1 inbetween Gonzalez and Laver's primes. He has a losing h2h with both his older and younger rivals. His contempories don't rate him that highly either. He's the GOAT of longevity and deserves a mention in the conversation but not even close? Don't make me laugh.

no one has come close to dominating tennis like rosewall has. that makes him the greatest tennis player of all time.

 

[NatF]

no one has come close to dominating tennis like rosewall has. that makes him the greatest tennis player of all time.

Getting anything resembling sense from you is starting to seem like trying to get blood from a stone. Get back to me if you feel like backing up your views...

 

[Crose]

Getting anything resembling sense from you is starting to seem like trying to get blood from a stone. Get back to me if you feel like backing up your views...

LOL considering he got banned with less than 30 posts, looks like your first sentence wasn't far off.

 

[gsharma]

Sharma G, always good to see your moniker in here! Yes, too many Federer fanboys running rampant here, so I thought that perhaps the others could use some assistance?!

- Zeeshan

LOL, yes, we could always count on you for that! How's middle earth treating you? How's your old friend Paes?

 

[fighting123]

Worst in term of what? Competitiveness? Excitement? Height Average? Weight Average?

Is 2011 the worst year of all time because of Novak's dominance? Is 1984 is the worst of all time because of McEnroe's dominance?

No!

Same for the era Federer dominated!

 

[shakes1975]

And yet he'd already achieved as much as Becker and Edberg. An AO and a Wimbledon is not getting started by anyone's books. If anything you could say he's only had the success outside of clay since then because of Federer declining, Murry having significant periods where he was playing poorly or injured etc. He's succeeded outside of clay mostly when his competition has been limited/lacking. (the weak-era Fed topic can apply perfectly to Nadal's success too. What is good for the goose is good for the gander)

Nadal's improvement outside of clay was gradual. Unlike Fed who came on to the tour with a fast court ready game, Nadal came on the tour as primarily a clay courter. His first improvement came on grass because the competitive pool on grass is generally a smaller pool than the competition on HC (premium on movement, footwork and/or serve + flatter hitting). So, I would say he became a good grass court player in 2007 - at which point he had 3 slams (3 FOs). He became a good HC player around 2008 - at which point he had 5 slams.

And , PLEASE, don't attribute Nadal's success outside of clay to Fed's decline. Fed didn't decline until 2010 (equivalent to Sampras' 2000). Nadal never struggled against Fed on any outdoor surface, even outside of clay, during Fed's prime. He beat Fed in 2006 Dubai F, nearly beat Fed in Miami in 2005 etc.

Nadal had problem with the field in general outside of clay. He was prone to be hit off the court on faster surfaces. It took him a few yrs before he could get the hang of it. So Nadal's problem was never Fed except indoors.

Even on grass, the trend was clear. 4 sets in 2006, 5 sets loss in 2007, 5 sets win in 2008. Any future Wim F's between the two would've gone in Nadal's favour (just like on HC - AO in 2009, 2012). It's to Fed's fortune that they never played at Wim after 2008.

He certainly tried different tactics which, on occasion, worked but for the most part his higher risk game couldn't keep error-free enough more often than not. He tried not hitting it to Nadal's forehand (kinda obvious), had success with hitting it to his forehand after keeping him pinned on the backhand side (a tactic which has increasingly worked for other players vs Nadal also). He tried keeping Nadal well back by almost moonballing his backhand down the line to Nadal's backhand which also worked, esp at the WTF. Overall though it's a poor match-up for Federer. His declining movement from about 2010 onwards has seen him increasingly vulnerable to where Nadal is best.

I don't agree that Fed had match-up issues with Nadal. Allowing your opponent to target your BH is not a match-up issue. It could only mean two things - 1. You're too stubborn and/or foolish to keep allowing that pattern to play out every time, or 2. Your own game is not strong enough in other aspects that you can prevent that particular pattern from playing out. I believe it is 2.

If Fed is the "all court magician" that many of his fans claim him to be, it's surprising how he couldn't do anything to prevent Nadal from targetting his BH.

 

[mike danny]

Nadal's improvement outside of clay was gradual. Unlike Fed who came on to the tour with a fast court ready game, Nadal came on the tour as primarily a clay courter. His first improvement came on grass because the competitive pool on grass is generally a smaller pool than the competition on HC (premium on movement, footwork and/or serve + flatter hitting). So, I would say he became a good grass court player in 2007 - at which point he had 3 slams (3 FOs). He became a good HC player around 2008 - at which point he had 5 slams.

And , PLEASE, don't attribute Nadal's success outside of clay to Fed's decline. Fed didn't decline until 2010 (equivalent to Sampras' 2000). Nadal never struggled against Fed on any outdoor surface, even outside of clay, during Fed's prime. He beat Fed in 2006 Dubai F, nearly beat Fed in Miami in 2005 etc.

Nadal had problem with the field in general outside of clay. He was prone to be hit off the court on faster surfaces. It took him a few yrs before he could get the hang of it. So Nadal's problem was never Fed except indoors.

Even on grass, the trend was clear. 4 sets in 2006, 5 sets loss in 2007, 5 sets win in 2008. Any future Wim F's between the two would've gone in Nadal's favour (just like on HC - AO in 2009, 2012). It's to Fed's fortune that they never played at Wim after 2008.



I don't agree that Fed had match-up issues with Nadal. Allowing your opponent to target your BH is not a match-up issue. It could only mean two things - 1. You're too stubborn and/or foolish to keep allowing that pattern to play out every time, or 2. Your own game is not strong enough in other aspects that you can prevent that particular pattern from playing out. I believe it is 2.

If Fed is the "all court magician" that many of his fans claim him to be, it's surprising how he couldn't do anything to prevent Nadal from targetting his BH.

You have no proof whatsoever Nadal would have beaten Federer in every grass meeting from there on. Their last match could have gone either way and Nadal barely won it.

Grass is still the only surface besides indoors at which i still give fed the edge. 7>2 and 2>1.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

rosewall is the greatest tennis player of all time, and it's not close

Stop it. Gonzalez was beating Rosewall consistently in his early 40s.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

Sharma G, always good to see your moniker in here! Yes, too many Federer fanboys running rampant here, so I thought that perhaps the others could use some assistance?!

- Zeeshan

You can be certain of that. Too many loonies running amock trying to salvage their dreams of Federer being the greatest ever. The last craze is Weeks at #1.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

I don't agree that Fed had match-up issues with Nadal. Allowing your opponent to target your BH is not a match-up issue. It could only mean two things - 1. You're too stubborn and/or foolish to keep allowing that pattern to play out every time, or 2. Your own game is not strong enough in other aspects that you can prevent that particular pattern from playing out. I believe it is 2.

If Fed is the "all court magician" that many of his fans claim him to be, it's surprising how he couldn't do anything to prevent Nadal from targetting his BH.

Great post. But I think it was a combination of 1 and 2.

 

[shakes1975]

You have no proof whatsoever Nadal would have beaten Federer in every grass meeting from there on. Their last match could have gone either way and Nadal barely won it.

Grass is still the only surface besides indoors at which i still give fed the edge. 7>2 and 2>1.

You're right, I don't. But seeing the trend on grass, and on HC (AO), I think it would be hard to argue for Fed beating Nadal in slam F's after 2008 (Nadal was well and truly entrenched in Fed's head by then).

No, I don't think Nadal barely won the 2008 Wim F. If anything, Fed barely escaped losing in straights first, then in 4. Nadal only got broken once in the entire match (2nd set). That's not barely winning it.

 

[Chanwan]

You're right, I don't. But seeing the trend on grass, and on HC (AO), I think it would be hard to argue for Fed beating Nadal in slam F's after 2008 (Nadal was well and truly entrenched in Fed's head by then).

No, I don't think Nadal barely won the 2008 Wim F. If anything, Fed barely escaped losing in straights first, then in 4. Nadal only got broken once in the entire match (2nd set). That's not barely winning it..........

So, I would say he became a good grass court player in 2007 - at which point he had 3 slams (3 FOs). He became a good HC player around 2008 - at which point he had 5 slams.

9-7 in the fifth is by definition barely winning it - even if you had chances to close it out earlier than that.

And what about Nadal's 2005 HC success. Didn't he win two Masters on HC + a RU? If anything, Nadal underperformed in HC slams the first few years. The level was there to beat both Fed and Agassi in 2004-2005. But somehow, he failed to reach the last rounds of the slams.

 

[mike danny]

You're right, I don't. But seeing the trend on grass, and on HC (AO), I think it would be hard to argue for Fed beating Nadal in slam F's after 2008 (Nadal was well and truly entrenched in Fed's head by then).

No, I don't think Nadal barely won the 2008 Wim F. If anything, Fed barely escaped losing in straights first, then in 4. Nadal only got broken once in the entire match (2nd set). That's not barely winning it.

By that logic Nadal was lucky to win AO because Federer had plenty of chances to win it in 4.

 

[shakes1975]

9-7 in the fifth is by definition barely winning it - even if you had chances to close it out earlier than that.

Well, when I saw the match, Nadal always appeared in control of the match. it reminded me of some of the Sampras-Ivanisevic matches. You just knew that Nadal/Sampras would pull it out in the end.

And what about Nadal's 2005 HC success. Didn't he win two Masters on HC + a RU? If anything, Nadal underperformed in HC slams the first few years. The level was there to beat both Fed and Agassi in 2004-2005. But somehow, he failed to reach the last rounds of the slams.

Well, Master's are best-of-3 until the F's. Seven best-of-5 matches over 2 weeks is a different scenario, IMO. Plus Murray, Djok etc. were not there in 2005 even to beat him in Master's on HC. I think the only good HC players he beat in that time period were Ljubicic and Agassi.

 

[shakes1975]

By that logic Nadal was lucky to win AO because Federer had plenty of chances to win it in 4.

2009 ? No, because Nadal was never behind in the match. Was leading 1-0 in sets, then 2-1 in sets. In any case, it was clear watching that and the Wim 2008 F match that it was Nadal who was in control of the match (was never behind in either of those two matches).

Reminds me of Sampras-Ivanisevic.

 

[tacou]

When a player like Gilles Simon is/was consistently in or around the top ten, you have to question the quality of competition. Just one example.

Roddick would have been smoked in previous era's and he was Roger's "rival" for a while until Rafa showed up.

It's so easy to say that, but 1) look back at any month of any year and there will surely be 1-2 guys in the top 10 that "don't belong there." Sure, there are some "ultimate year end top 10s" but random guys have random streaks of form and find themselves in the top 10
2) Ask anyone who has ever played Gilles Simon if they would like to play him again anytime soon

I find it hilarious that Rafa is a "weak #2." Andy Roddick? He's a weak top 10 staple? Whatever Wilander, getting old is really depressing isn't it?

 

[timnz]

Stop it. Gonzalez was beating Rosewall consistently in his early 40s.

Yes Gonzales was amazing. From the year Gonzales turned 40 (nineteen sixty eight) until 2 years later when they last played Gonzales beat Rosewall 7 times out of the 19 times they played. That is no mean feat! Yes, he was behind in the H2H those years - but for his age that is incredible.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

Yes Gonzales was amazing. From the year Gonzales turned 40 (nineteen sixty eight) until 2 years later when they last played Gonzales beat Rosewall 7 times out of the 19 times they played. That is no mean feat! Yes, he was behind in the H2H those years - but for his age that is incredible.

It is absolutely incredible, timnz. Gonzalez was also notorious for no taking care of himself (often drinking a Coke during changeovers, smoking, and sleeping poorly). This guy was just made out of a different stuff.

 

[ksbh]

Sharma G! Speaking of middle-earth, I look forward to the next installment of the Hobbit ... and it's less than 2 weeks away!

As for Mr. Paes, boy did I hate him during my playing days. Not only did he beat me regularly, he also had this habit of rubbing it in to his opponents during the match! But well I look back upon it now and it all just looks comical, so no more hatred. Yes I can call hima friend now

LOL, yes, we could always count on you for that! How's middle earth treating you? How's your old friend Paes?

 

[ksbh]

True that, FOD! The way it's all going, straws is all they'll be left to clutch, in a couple of years or so!

You can be certain of that. Too many loonies running amock trying to salvage their dreams of Federer being the greatest ever. The last craze is Weeks at #1.

 

[Crisstti]

You have no proof whatsoever Nadal would have beaten Federer in every grass meeting from there on. Their last match could have gone either way and Nadal barely won it.

Grass is still the only surface besides indoors at which i still give fed the edge. 7>2 and 2>1.

Nadal dominated the whole match.

I don't agree that Fed had match-up issues with Nadal. Allowing your opponent to target your BH is not a match-up issue. It could only mean two things - 1. You're too stubborn and/or foolish to keep allowing that pattern to play out every time, or 2. Your own game is not strong enough in other aspects that you can prevent that particular pattern from playing out. I believe it is 2.

If Fed is the "all court magician" that many of his fans claim him to be, it's surprising how he couldn't do anything to prevent Nadal from targetting his BH.

This.

 

[helloworld]

I don't agree that Fed had match-up issues with Nadal. Allowing your opponent to target your BH is not a match-up issue. It could only mean two things - 1. You're too stubborn and/or foolish to keep allowing that pattern to play out every time, or 2. Your own game is not strong enough in other aspects that you can prevent that particular pattern from playing out. I believe it is 2.

If Fed is the "all court magician" that many of his fans claim him to be, it's surprising how he couldn't do anything to prevent Nadal from targetting his BH.

I think it's a combination of both 1 and 2, but 2 certainly has more weight. Fed is not good enough to handle Nadal, period.

 

[abmk]

You're right, I don't. But seeing the trend on grass, and on HC (AO), I think it would be hard to argue for Fed beating Nadal in slam F's after 2008 (Nadal was well and truly entrenched in Fed's head by then).

No, I don't think Nadal barely won the 2008 Wim F. If anything, Fed barely escaped losing in straights first, then in 4. Nadal only got broken once in the entire match (2nd set). That's not barely winning it.

9-7 in the 5th is barely winning it.

If you call that match as not barely winning it ... I wonder what words you'd have for what Krajicek did to Sampras in 96. :lol:

Atleast federer took it 9-7 in the 5th ....

 

[abmk]

2009 ? No, because Nadal was never behind in the match. Was leading 1-0 in sets, then 2-1 in sets. In any case, it was clear watching that and the Wim 2008 F match that it was Nadal who was in control of the match (was never behind in either of those two matches).

Reminds me of Sampras-Ivanisevic.

federer was up a break in the 1st set. He had 3 BPs at the tail end of the 3rd set. There was a BP chance on which he barely missed ( rafa reviewed and got saved ) ...nadal wasn't 'in control' in the AO 09 match.

federer won a point more overall , this was with the collapse in the 5th set. till the end of the 4th set, he had clearly more points.

I find the sampras ivanisevic comparision a bit ironical, because game-wise rafa was the better player in wim 08 and federer could've win it in 5th after saving MPs in the 4th ( rafa having blown a 5-2 lead in the 4th set breaker )

in that case, rafa would've been ivanisevic and well .......

 

[abmk]

Nadal dominated the whole match.

good to know a 'dominating' nadal needs 9-7th in the 5th to oust a slightly below par federer :twisted:

reality is that nadal was better in the 1st set, then federer got on a roll in the 2nd at the start and then blew it. the last 3 sets were closely contested ones ...

 

[abmk]

Nadal's improvement outside of clay was gradual. Unlike Fed who came on to the tour with a fast court ready game, Nadal came on the tour as primarily a clay courter. His first improvement came on grass because the competitive pool on grass is generally a smaller pool than the competition on HC (premium on movement, footwork and/or serve + flatter hitting). So, I would say he became a good grass court player in 2007 - at which point he had 3 slams (3 FOs). He became a good HC player around 2008 - at which point he had 5 slams.

And , PLEASE, don't attribute Nadal's success outside of clay to Fed's decline. Fed didn't decline until 2010 (equivalent to Sampras' 2000). Nadal never struggled against Fed on any outdoor surface, even outside of clay, during Fed's prime. He beat Fed in 2006 Dubai F, nearly beat Fed in Miami in 2005 etc.

Nadal had problem with the field in general outside of clay. He was prone to be hit off the court on faster surfaces. It took him a few yrs before he could get the hang of it. So Nadal's problem was never Fed except indoors.

Even on grass, the trend was clear. 4 sets in 2006, 5 sets loss in 2007, 5 sets win in 2008. Any future Wim F's between the two would've gone in Nadal's favour (just like on HC - AO in 2009, 2012). It's to Fed's fortune that they never played at Wim after 2008.

given how close the wim 08 and AO 09 matches were, all that was needed for federer was a slightly higher level and more confidence, which is what the case would be at his peak ( 08-09 were at his prime, not peak )

as far as outdoor courts ( outside of clay ) :

2004 miami - fed was sick, main reason for the loss
2005 miami - federer won in 5
2006 dubai - nadal won in 3
2006 wimbledon - federer won in 4 sets, convincing win
2007 wimbledon - federer won in 5 sets, vs the best version of rafa on grass

so yeah, a peak federer would definitely hurt big time rafa outside of clay , he'd have the edge...it hilarious to say nadal didn't struggle vs fed on any outdoor surface ..

hell federer in his worst form in 10+ years nearly beat him in cincy 13 ....

not to forget he dominated him in IW 12 , winning in straight sets ...

 

[helloworld]

given how close the wim 08 and AO 09 matches were, all that was needed for federer was a slightly higher level and more confidence, which is what the case would be at his peak ( 08-09 were at his prime, not peak )

as far as outdoor courts ( outside of clay ) :

2004 miami - fed was sick, main reason for the loss
2005 miami - federer won in 5
2006 dubai - nadal won in 3
2006 wimbledon - federer won in 4 sets, convincing win
2007 wimbledon - federer won in 5 sets, vs the best version of rafa on grass

so yeah, a peak federer would definitely hurt big time rafa outside of clay , he'd have the edge...it hilarious to say nadal didn't struggle vs fed on any outdoor surface ..

hell federer in his worst form in 10+ years nearly beat him in cincy 13 ....

not to forget he dominated him in IW 12 , winning in straight sets ...

Baby Nadal has been beating your so called peak Fed since day 1.

 

[Omega_7000]

Baby Nadal has been beating your so called peak Fed since day 1.

Good logical counter argument. :roll:

 

[TMF]

Baby Nadal has been beating your so called peak Fed since day 1.

Baby Fed beat a 4 times Wimbledon champion Sampras in 2001.

 

[helloworld]

Baby Fed beat a 4 times Wimbledon champion Sampras in 2001.

In a 5 sets thrilling match, while Federer on his arguably best year lost to Nadal in straight sets on hard court. :lol:

 

[Deleted member 307496]

In a 5 sets thrilling match, while Federer on his arguably best year lost to Nadal in straight sets on hard court. :lol:

Sampras also lost to Safin the year before and Hewitt a couple of months later, who else did Fed lose to?

 

[Dedans Penthouse]

He didn't win Wimbledon.

doesn't matter. he still dominated the sport like no one has ever done before or since. he's the greatest tennis player of all time, and it's not close

Well lookie there......a Rosetard......don't see too many of those...

.....hey!....where'd ya go??!.....

 

[rdis10093]

oldschool. some of his slices are sick though

 

[shakes1975]

given how close the wim 08 and AO 09 matches were, all that was needed for federer was a slightly higher level and more confidence, which is what the case would be at his peak ( 08-09 were at his prime, not peak )

How about Rome 2006 ? That was during his prime and peak, right ? Fed was leading 4-1 in the 5th set, was also ahead in the t/b with MPs.

They are two great players, so the matches will be close. But it's also almost certain that Nadal usually pulls those matches out. Fed lacks confidence against his arch rival, Nadal. That's sad for a GOAT.

as far as outdoor courts ( outside of clay ) :
2004 miami - fed was sick, main reason for the loss
2005 miami - federer won in 5

Nadal was still a newbie in this match and he choked, pure and simple. Any other yr, he would've won it.

2006 dubai - nadal won in 3
2006 wimbledon - federer won in 4 sets, convincing win
2007 wimbledon - federer won in 5 sets, vs the best version of rafa on grass

2008 Wim - Fed lost in 5
2009 AO - Fed lost in 5.

I don't accept this peak/prime in 2009. 2010, I can see Fed being past his peak/prime, but not in 2009.

It's ironical that you don't give Nadal the same leeway. You guys put Nadal as peak right from 2005, even though his career graph clearly showed that he was a clay courter who improved on other surfaces between 2007-2009.

yeah, a peak federer would definitely hurt big time rafa outside of clay , he'd have the edge...it hilarious to say nadal didn't struggle vs fed on any outdoor surface ..

No, I never said Nadal didn't struggle against Fed off clay. He did, but he also still won most of their F's outdoors once he was at his peak.

hell federer in his worst form in 10+ years nearly beat him in cincy 13 ....

not to forget he dominated him in IW 12 , winning in straight sets ...

Not best-of-5 matches.

 

[Egoista]

okay so a wilander uneducated trash comment has morphed into nadal vs federer

what a surprise

 

[Chanwan]

Well, when I saw the match, Nadal always appeared in control of the match. it reminded me of some of the Sampras-Ivanisevic matches. You just knew that Nadal/Sampras would pull it out in the end.

Well, Master's are best-of-3 until the F's. Seven best-of-5 matches over 2 weeks is a different scenario, IMO. Plus Murray, Djok etc. were not there in 2005 even to beat him in Master's on HC. I think the only good HC players he beat in that time period were Ljubicic and Agassi.

I disagree. If people had been so certain on the outcome the entire match, I doubt it would have been dubbed as the best match ever.

As for who Nadal beat on hard:
2004: Fed, Sjeng Schalken (ranked 16), Jiri Novak (ranked 14), Ivanisevic. Plus Karlovic and Stepanek (both on carpet).

2005:
First HC Masters win: Carlos Moya, Ricardo Mello, Sebastien Grosjean, Mariano Puerta, Paul-Henri Mathieu, Andre Agassi (USA)
Second win (Madrid): Robredo, Stepanek, Ginepri, Ljubicic - all ranked between 12-21

Also, Schuettler, Fernando Verdasco, Ivan Ljubicic, Thomas Johansson David Ferrer, Coria, Ferrero.

And he was leading finalist Hewitt 2-1 in sets at the Australian only to lose the fourth in a TB and then the fifth. And Federer 2-0 and a break before losing the third set TB and subsequently the match.

2006 (two years before he got good on HC according to you):
Davydenko, Robredo, Haas, Fish (all indoor HC even!), Philippoussis, Haas (again), Jiri Novak, Baghdatis, Grosjean, Fish, Matthieu, Henman, Rochus, Simon, Federer.

2007: Djokovic, Baghadis, Wawrinka, Youshny, Gasquet, Murray, Bagdhatis, Tsonga, Safin, Matthieu, Delpo, Roddick, Djokovic, Ferrero, Verdasco, Bagdhatis, Kohlschreiber, Youshny, Murray.

I say, starting with Fed in 2004 and especially the amount of good players, he beat in 2005, he had plenty of talent to compete well in the HC slams before 2008.

And yes, a slam is different from a masters. But Nadal has always been good in best of five, even at a very young age. So the results from the Masters could, and perhaps should, have translated into more HC slam semis and the like earlier.

 

[NatF]

I disagree. If people had been so certain on the outcome the entire match, I doubt it would have been dubbed as the best match ever.

As for who Nadal beat on hard:
2004: Fed, Sjeng Schalken (ranked 16), Jiri Novak (ranked 14), Ivanisevic. Plus Karlovic and Stepanek (both on carpet).

2005:
First HC Masters win: Carlos Moya, Ricardo Mello, Sebastien Grosjean, Mariano Puerta, Paul-Henri Mathieu, Andre Agassi (USA)
Second win (Madrid): Robredo, Stepanek, Ginepri, Ljubicic - all ranked between 12-21

Also, Schuettler, Fernando Verdasco, Ivan Ljubicic, Thomas Johansson David Ferrer, Coria, Ferrero.

And he was leading finalist Hewitt 2-1 in sets at the Australian only to lose the fourth in a TB and then the fifth. And Federer 2-0 and a break before losing the third set TB and subsequently the match.

2006 (two years before he got good on HC according to you):
Davydenko, Robredo, Haas, Fish (all indoor HC even!), Philippoussis, Haas (again), Jiri Novak, Baghdatis, Grosjean, Fish, Matthieu, Henman, Rochus, Simon, Federer.

2007: Djokovic, Baghadis, Wawrinka, Youshny, Gasquet, Murray, Bagdhatis, Tsonga, Safin, Matthieu, Delpo, Roddick, Djokovic, Ferrero, Verdasco, Bagdhatis, Kohlschreiber, Youshny, Murray.

I say, starting with Fed in 2004 and especially the amount of good players, he beat in 2005, he had plenty of talent to compete well in the HC slams before 2008.

And yes, a slam is different from a masters. But Nadal has always been good in best of five, even at a very young age. So the results from the Masters could, and perhaps should, have translated into more HC slam semis and the like earlier.

Nadal underpreformed in the hardcourt slams up till 2009. He was generally beaten by inform players even in his early years. In his runs to the USO finals of 2010/2013 he didn't run into a guy playing as well as Blake in 05 or even Youzhny of 2006. If he ran into those guys in 08-13 aside from the certain slams he was in excellent form for he may not have made the semi's or finals.

In 2007 he could have made the finals of the AO had it not been for Gonzales who was in incredible form. Nadal almost lost to Verdasco in 2009 and was crushed in 2008 by Tsonga. So I don't see a huge amount of change for Nadal. Even in 2005 he won Montreal and was expected to make the semi's of the USO but Blake was too strong.

Nadal was a good hardcourt player in 2005-2008. He did well at the masters and was generally beaten by players in excellent form. He's obviously improved but not every slam he plays on hardcourt is done so in the form of the USO 2010...

 

[Crisstti]

No huge change?, he hasn't been losing before semis just out of chance, now not meeting on fire players like before...? :-?
Surely a pretty huge coincidence...

Of the top of my head, I can think of Berdych, Agassi and Blake saying how he used to play like a clay courter on hard courts at the time, and how that changed later on.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Baby Nadal has been beating your so called peak Fed since day 1.

Good logical counter argument. :roll:

In a 5 sets thrilling match, while Federer on his arguably best year lost to Nadal in straight sets on hard court. :lol:

Prime Fed was 5-2 against Nadal off clay.

 

[chandu612]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...dal-goat-talk-unfairly-dismisses-pete-sampras

http://www.insidetennis.com/2011/01/sampras-my-game-hold-generation/

The article talks about the Greatness of Pete Sampras, which people seem to forget, & dismiss him when having GOAT debates!


The article fairly ends with "The G.O.A.T. argument is intriguing conversation for tennis fans, provided it is academic and without name calling. Yet, to claim it has anything to do with reality is pure fantasy."

Who is Wilander? Is he more qualified than most of the posters here?


10 weak eras

 

[Mustard]

Prime Fed was 5-2 against Nadal off clay.

Peak Federer going into 2006 Wimbledon had the following against Nadal:

4 losses in 2006, all to Nadal
A 1-6 head-to-head against Nadal

 

[kiki]

Who is Wilander? Is he more qualified than most of the posters here?


10 weak eras

How many posters do you know that are around here with 7 GS titles?

 

[kiki]

Yes, absolutely. Wilander is bright enough to crack a joke and make an incendiary comment ... at the same time. He knows the fed era was not actually the worst of all time. Saying so, in the right tone, and having intelligent discourse about it brings him attention and relevance. Very smart, Mats. As always, well played.

He is not Rod Laver (pure class and humility....and a true all-timer) or John McEnroe (always going to be famous). He is Wilander, and, as he did in matches, he is going to what he can to hang in there. Game, set and Mats.

He is not going to be prompt to the bandwagooning disease of mc Enroe, to say the least.

 

[kiki]

if Fed´s era is not the weakest it is only due to the jet facilities out there...

 

[NatF]

No huge change?, he hasn't been losing before semis just out of chance, now not meeting on fire players like before...? :-?
Surely a pretty huge coincidence...

Of the top of my head, I can think of Berdych, Agassi and Blake saying how he used to play like a clay courter on hard courts at the time, and how that changed later on.

You misunderstand me, I'm talking about his average level. He had wins over tons of great hardcourters up to 2007 - Federer being amongst them. So his level on hardcourts was obviously still potentially very high even in 2005. Obviously his USO 2010 level was substantially higher but he wasn't playing like that on hardcourts all year.

If you look at 2008/2009 at the USO I think if he ran into an inform Blake or even Youzhny from 05/06 he may well have been knocked out. Even in 2011 I think Blake from 05 would have given him hell. Look at Nadal's up to the finals in 10/13 he didn't meet any inform players. Not that it would have probably mattered those years but if he wasn't in his best form? Yes I think he may not have gotten through. I don't think the Rafa of the USO 2009 was in better form than the one who had just won Montreal in 2005.