Is Federer the biggest choker among ATGs?

[DarthFed]

blah, blah, blah...

you say what? Didn't Roger win Wimbledon in 09, 12, 17? made finals 14,15,19? i'm confused.

No Darth, age is just a #. Being injury free, motivated, fit, Roger at 38, IS VERY CLOSE to Roger at 04,05,06,07, on any given day. Didn't Roger lose to Nadal in 08 Wimbledon and needed 5 sets vs Nadal in 07 Wimbledon? yet, in 19, against #2 ranked Rafa, a red-hot Rafa, beats him in 4, routinely? Shouldn't old Roger, on slow grass, have lost 1,1,1 against red-hot 19 Rafa if Rafa was beating him and taking him to 5 sets back in 07,08? explain

Yeah Roger has won 3 of 12 and only made 4 other finals since 2008. He's hardly done well at Wimbledon for a long period of time now.

We already know Roger plays differently now. He played like an idiot strategy-wise vs. Nadal, gladly chipping the weak serves back and engaging in long rallies. And of course a ton of mental baggage has been lifted, that's the main reason he lost in 2008 with an absolutely pathetic first couple of sets. The fact Roger is crushing Nadal off clay now just proves the point I was making all along, he was playing into Nadal's hands and Rafa maximized the space he rented in Roger's hand (space which he thoroughly deserved by beating him often).

It doesn't mean Roger is even comparable overall to his younger self. Common sense and his results say otherwise. In most matchups I'd prefer he still move great and have a historically good forehand, those components are long gone and would be extremely helpful against Djoker and others.

 

[DarthFed]

but why be a fan of Novak when Novak posed the bigger threat to Rafa, who was the one close to Fed in slams whilst Novak had 1 slam? you haven't explained this very well, yet. Try.

I don't believe you were a big fan of Novak until somewhat recently, when it became clear he had a decent shot at passing both of them. Also, if we are being real, Novak has been a bigger issue for Roger off clay than Rafa has for a long time (even before 2017) just because he was good enough to always be there at the end.

 

[MikeOne]

Yeah Roger has won 3 of 12 and only made 4 other finals since 2008. He's hardly done well at Wimbledon for a long period of time now.

We already know Roger plays differently now. He played like an idiot strategy-wise vs. Nadal, gladly chipping the weak serves back and engaging in long rallies. And of course a ton of mental baggage has been lifted, that's the main reason he lost in 2008 with an absolutely pathetic first couple of sets. The fact Roger is crushing Nadal off clay now just proves the point I was making all along, he was playing into Nadal's hands and Rafa maximized the space he rented in Roger's hand (space which he thoroughly deserved by beating him often).

It doesn't mean Roger is even comparable overall to his younger self. Common sense and his results say otherwise. In most matchups I'd prefer he still move great and have a historically good forehand, those components are long gone and would be extremely helpful against Djoker and others.

only won 3 and only made 4 finals? how terrible!

oh i see. So Roger is way worse today but doing much better vs a Nadal that is better than Rafa was back then because of tactics. If Roger had only used these tactics back then, Rafa would've been lucky to even beat him at RG.

 

[DarthFed]

only won 3 and only made 4 finals? how terrible!

oh i see. So Roger is way worse today but doing much better vs a Nadal that is better than Rafa was back then because of tactics. If Roger had only used these tactics back then, Rafa would've been lucky to even beat him at RG.

Lol, so silly. Rafa is not better now than 2008 clearly. And Roger has never been equipped to beat him at RG or on clay in general. Those changes wouldn't really pay off at all on clay but keep being sarcastic. I remember very well after 2009 AO when you were insisting that Roger was playing perfect tactically and Rafa wasn't in his head at all.

 

[MikeOne]

I don't believe you were a big fan of Novak until somewhat recently, when it became clear he had a decent shot at passing both of them. Also, if we are being real, Novak has been a bigger issue for Roger off clay than Rafa has for a long time (even before 2017) just because he was good enough to always be there at the end.

Then you weren’t on the boards back in 07-10. You also weren’t around when i got into heated debates with nadal fanboys during novak’s domination of rafa in 2011.

I am highly entertained by how some of you are obsessed with discrediting me, bringing up sampras and not believing i was a fan of novak.

Is this attacking the messenger cause you can’t attack the message?

 

[DarthFed]

Then you weren’t on the boards back in 07-10. You also weren’t around when i got into heated debates with nadal fanboys during novak’s domination of rafa in 2011.

I am highly entertained by how some of you are obsessed with discrediting me, bringing up sampras and not believing i was a fan of novak.

Is this attacking the messenger cause you can’t attack the message?

I was on the boards back then. By 2011 Fed had already left Sampras in the dust. I'm taking you to task on the idea that Novak was your favorite back in 07-10. Rafa was your boy, the chosen one to stop Roger from eclipsing Pete. I found you and the other Sampras nuts amusing then and still do given how alike their games are and all.

 

[MikeOne]

Lol, so silly. Rafa is not better now than 2008 clearly. And Roger has never been equipped to beat him at RG or on clay in general. Those changes wouldn't really pay off at all on clay but keep being sarcastic. I remember very well after 2009 AO when you were insisting that Roger was playing perfect tactically and Rafa wasn't in his head at all.

Roger has always been beatable, by nadal, on any surface. Evidence is there.. even roger at his best.

 

[MikeOne]

I was on the boards back then. By 2011 Fed had already left Sampras in the dust. I'm taking you to task on the idea that Novak was your favorite back in 07-10. Rafa was your boy, the chosen one to stop Roger from eclipsing Pete. I found you and the other Sampras nuts amusing then and still do given how alike their games are and all.

You’re lying now, desperation. You weren’t on the boards back then or if you were, lying. it was clear i was a big fan of djokovic when he had 1 slam. If you need to make stuff up to back your arguments, so be it.

 

[DarthFed]

Roger has always been beatable, by nadal, in any surface. Evidence is there.. even roger at his best.

Never have said Roger or anyone else is unbeatable. But he should've done a lot more damage to Nads off clay. Better late than never.

 

[DarthFed]

You’re lying now, desperation. You weren’t on the boards back then... it was clear i was a big fan of djokovic when he had 1 slam. If you need to make stuff up to back your arguments, so be it.

Already said you were a big fan of anyone who could beat Roger. You were definitely a bigger fan of Rafa's for quite some time, why deny it?

 

[MikeOne]

Already said you were a big fan of anyone who could beat Roger. You were definitely a bigger fan of Rafa's for quite some time, why deny it?

Because it’s a lie. If it’s true, why didn’t i favour nadal over djokovic in 2011? When djokovic started humiliating him? Did i just switch that fast? I just knew, early in 2011 that novak would get 15 slams between 2011-2019 so figured i would dump nadal back then? Lol

 

[MikeOne]

Never have said Roger or anyone else is unbeatable. But he should've done a lot more damage to Nads off clay. Better late than never.

He did pretty good vs rafa off clay back then, you just think he should’ve beaten him everytime.

 

[Moxie]

Early in his career I would say Novak carried the chjoker mantle. And he still gets tight. Roger is 37 years old. He's still fit. He still hits well, but he definitely gets tight at the wrong moments. The longer Roger plays, I don't see it getting better.

Let's be honest...bailing isn't choking. What Novak did early in his career, a lot, was retire. He didn't really start choking until he was a real contender, and that probably started with maybe Rome in 2013 v. Berdych. His problem early on was retiring a lot, but I don't think that's "choking."

 

[Moxie]

but why be a fan of Novak when Novak posed the bigger threat to Rafa, who was the one close to Fed in slams whilst Novak had 1 slam? you haven't explained this very well, yet. Try.

Why should anyone explain your fandom to you? I should think it was something clear that you could explain to us.

 

[DarthFed]

He did pretty good vs rafa off clay back then, you just think he should’ve beaten him everytime.

He did awful off clay against Rafa between 08-early 14, to the tune of 0-4 at majors and -5 in non-clay H2H overall.

 

[brokenshoelace]

but why be a fan of Novak when Novak posed the bigger threat to Rafa, who was the one close to Fed in slams whilst Novak had 1 slam? you haven't explained this very well, yet. Try.

At the time Rafa wasn't close to Roger's slam total, and it was never that realistic that he would approach him (he far exceeded expectations in that regard), so anyone who would stop Roger from winning slams was great in your book. Please don't pretend otherwise.

 

[Front242]

I agree it's all just a lot of baiting and tediousness from MikeOne and Cali. Where are those guys most of the rest of the year? I don't think that anyone believes for a second that either one is a Djokovic fan. Mike is a Fed-hater, and Cali...well, is just a contrarian, I guess. Or pot-stirrer. Of course I have to respond to your point about Rafa. If you think that him being able to beat Rafa on grass reflects poorly on Rafa, you undermine your own argument about Roger on grass, and however much you denigrate the current grass. Don't forget that Nadal beat Roger in straights a month ago. At least Rafa got a set on grass.

The awful conditions in that RG semi greatly favoured Nadal's loopy shots which have a lot more margin than Roger's flatter shots and 100% it would have been a totally different match except for that. For those that say it was the same wind for both of them, read above. Roger couldn't play his normal attacking tennis at all that day whereas Nadal's game was affected way less.

Conditions were good for both at Wimbledon.

 

[brokenshoelace]

The awful conditions in that RG semi greatly favoured Nadal's loopy shots which have a lot more margin than Roger's flatter shots and 100% it would have been a totally different match except for that..

Different as in Roger wins a set? Because that's the most he's managed to win against Nadal at Roland Garros, and God knows he's had enough attempts. Although you said 100% totally different. Well, if it had been 100% different it means Roger would have won the match. My question to you, on the spot, yes or no: Would Roger have won that match under different conditions?

 

[MikeOne]

At the time Rafa wasn't close to Roger's slam total, and it was never that realistic that he would approach him (he far exceeded expectations in that regard), so anyone who would stop Roger from winning slams was great in your book. Please don't pretend otherwise.

At the beginning of 2011, Djokovic had 1 slam, Nadal 9, Federer 16. In 2011, Djokovic was a much bigger problem to Nadal than Federer. Nadal had dominated in 2010 and in 2011 was his year to rule but lost to Novak in 6-7 straight important finals. Looking at the #s, Djokovic was 15 slams away from Fed, Nadal 7...pretty big difference. There was all the reason to hate Djokovic back then...

i expose you guys time and time again. You can't handle the heat i bring you, like when i called you out for claiming Nadal was not at his best in 2011 just because Novak was flattening him in those big finals, so you rush to the ad hominem tactic - you just a sampras fan, federer hater. Isn't it quite comical that none of you can accept i can be a fan of anyone, other than Sampras? think about that... how stupid is that. You will refuse to accept an actual fact, that i was a fan of Novak even when he was being ridiculed and during a period where he was no big threat to Federer 09-10. In many ways i feel vindicated, i always believed Novak was way underperforming whilst you all and commentaries claimed even Murray was better....

 

[brokenshoelace]

At the beginning of 2011, Djokovic had 1 slam, Nadal 9, Federer 16. In 2011, Djokovic was a much bigger problem to Nadal than Federer. Nadal had dominated in 2010 and in 2011 was his year to rule but lost to Novak in 6-7 straight important finals. Looking at the #s, Djokovic was 15 slams away from Fed, Nadal 7...pretty big difference. There was all the reason to hate Djokovic back then...

i expose you guys time and time again. You can't handle the heat i bring you, like when i called you out for claiming Nadal was not at his best in 2011 just because Novak was flattening him in those big finals, so you rush to the ad hominem tactic - you just a sampras fan, federer hater. Isn't it quite comical that none of you can accept i can be a fan of anyone, other than Sampras? think about that... how stupid is that. You will refuse to accept an actual fact, that i was a fan of Novak even when he was being ridiculed and during a period where he was no big threat to Federer 09-10. In many ways i feel vindicated, i always believed Novak was way underperforming whilst you all and commentaries claimed even Murray was better....

What the fuck are you exposing? You just want people to beat Federer. Whether it's Novak, Nadal or anyone else. When you say Novak was a bigger problem for Nadal, it implies you ever were a real Rafa fan, when you weren't. You're a Sampras fan/Fed hater, and whatever serves that agenda, you're on board with. This by the way, is NOT an ad hominem attack. I'm simply saying you like a certain player and hate another. An ad hominem would be calling you an idiot, which to be fair, you are.

PS: I HAVE NEVER EVER EVER EVER said Murray was better than Djokovic. In fact, @nehmeth and @imjimmy can attest that after Del Potro won the US Open there was a question as to who's the best among Djokovic, Murray and Del Potro and everyone was on board with the latter two and I said Novak is clearly better than both. So yeah, not only are you an idiot, you're full of shit.