Novak Djokovic - the player of the decade

[Nadalfan2013]

Not required since dull is 5 years younger than Fed.

AO 17 has surpassed any prior Fedull match.

Congratulations you are now officially the worst troll of all-time :cuckoo:

 

[monfed]

Congratulations you are now officially the worst troll of all-time :cuckoo:

I'm sorry I didn't mean to jive you. Just presenting the facts as they are.

 

[DarthFed]

I'm over the Fedal MYTH! I was sucked in making it seem like Rafa was only winning over Roger on clay! I've been immersed in tennis history since '73, but even I was believing it! Finally after 2011 when Roger stopped Nole's unbeaten winning streak, I figured this was his chance and he went down like a poisoned dog yet again to Rafa! Where was that superb serving from the SF? Where was all that attack that overwhelmed Nole who had to be mentally spent playing perfect tennis from AO thru the FO SF! I've been the last person giving Roger a break when it comes to his 2 best rivals who literally own him! For some reason, Rafa's had a little trouble of late, but I wouldn't bet on Roger continuing this roll!

Djoker owns early to mid-30's Federer. It'd be kind of pathetic if the geriatric was getting the better of Nole all these years just as it was pathetic that Rafa got molested by the old man last year. It helps being 5 and 6 years younger when you're talking athletes in their 30's.

 

[DarthFed]

For Fed to have become the undisputed GOAT he would have had to beat Nadal at the French Open at least once. He is 0-5 against him there while Nadal beat him at Wimbledon in only his 3rd try in the greatest match in history... THAT match decided who the GOAT is, dear monfraud.

That ain't worth 3 extra slams and a far superior non-slam resume. Your boy has no extended era of dominance and just has shown to be an opportunistic sniper off clay. I'm still waiting for him to defend a church tournament off clay...

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Djoker owns early to mid-30's Federer. It'd be kind of pathetic if the geriatric was getting the better of Nole all these years just as it was pathetic that Rafa got molested by the old man last year. It helps being 5 and 6 years younger when you're talking athletes in their 30's.

A new low on this forum. Be careful what you write as this is very offensive and disrespectful and shouldn't be used lightly.

Meanwhile according to Federer fans, Federer has been old since 2008.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

That ain't worth 3 extra slams and a far superior non-slam resume. Your boy has no extended era of dominance and just has shown to be an opportunistic sniper off clay. I'm still waiting for him to defend a church tournament off clay...

It's normal that Federer leads Nadal since he has played way more years and entered way more slams. In fact by being 5 years older and lucky with injuries, he should lead by much more than 3 slams. We'll see what happens 5 years from now. We'll probably be wondering whether Rafa will pass Federer's 20 career slams.... with his RG titles alone. And Rafa is better off-clay than Federer is on clay, so the weakest link will always be Federer on clay.

 

[DarthFed]

It's normal that Federer leads Nadal since he has played way more years and entered way more slams. In fact by being 5 years older and lucky with injuries, he should lead by much more than 3 slams. We'll see what happens 5 years from now. We'll probably be wondering whether Rafa will pass Federer's 20 career slams.... with his RG titles alone. And Rafa is better off-clay than Federer is on clay, so the weakest link will always be Federer on clay.

Debatable that Roger is weaker on clay than Nadal is on grass. Rafa has two Wimbledon's played on the most beneficial grass imaginable for his game and he has won 1 garbage Queens and 1 garbage Stuttgart. Roger meanwhile doesn't lose to mega scrubs at RG in the first or second round and has over 10 titles on clay including 6 MS events.

And the weakest link is Nadal on indoor hards where he is completely harmless. Hasn't even won a YEC, something Dimitrov and Davydenko have to their names.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Debatable that Roger is weaker on clay than Nadal is on grass. Rafa has two Wimbledon's played on the most beneficial grass imaginable for his game and he has won 1 garbage Queens and 1 garbage Stuttgart. Roger meanwhile doesn't lose to mega scrubs at RG in the first or second round and has over 10 titles on clay including 6 MS events.

And the weakest link is Nadal on indoor hards where he is completely harmless. Hasn't even won a YEC, something Dimitrov and Davydenko have to their names.

Yet even Massu managed to win the Olympics and not Federer. That's thanks to your amazing logic. And indoor is not a surface, it's just hardcourt. You fedtards are really something else, the level of trolling is so weak, zero legit arguments. :sleep:

 

[DarthFed]

Yet even Massu managed to win the Olympics and not Federer. That's thanks to your amazing logic. And indoor is not a surface, it's just hardcourt. You fedtards are really something else, the level of trolling is so weak, zero legit arguments. :sleep:

Yeah it's not like indoor surfaces play different to outdoor surfaces right? The ball doesn't bounce so high indoors which is what renders your favorite twat so helpless there. Given the retardedly slow and high bouncing hard courts and retardedly high bouncing grass it gives the greatest variety there is in the sport today,

The Olympics in tennis weren't taken too seriously until the last few times which led to a scrub winning it when Fed blew it in 2004 (yes he blew it bad that year). YEC is certainly taken serious by Nadal since he cries repeatedly that it's not on clay.

 

[monfed]

It's normal that Federer leads Nadal since he has played way more years and entered way more slams. In fact by being 5 years older and lucky with injuries, he should lead by much more than 3 slams. We'll see what happens 5 years from now. We'll probably be wondering whether Rafa will pass Federer's 20 career slams.... with his RG titles alone. And Rafa is better off-clay than Federer is on clay, so the weakest link will always be Federer on clay.

How was Fred supposed to win RG when dull was winning it almost every year?

 

[Horsa]

A new low on this forum. Be careful what you write as this is very offensive and disrespectful and shouldn't be used lightly.

Meanwhile according to Federer fans, Federer has been old since 2008.

Have you actually read a lot of what has been said on this forum including old posts & non-tennis sections? If you had you would realise that this is just banter compared to some old posts both in tennis & non-tennis sections & this is mostly a friendly forum where people generally respect each other & have fun. I think the comment you're having problems with is not as offensive as you make it out to be especially compared to some things which were said in the past. I also think that your 1st comment cannot hold out as the truth unless you've actually read all the comments made on all the posts in this forum altogether.

 

[Moxie]

Fiero isn't a Federer fan, and I don't see any of us discounting any part of the rivalry. I take 2017 as the obvious confirmation that Fed failed miserably in dealing with Nadal off clay for over 10 years. As I've said before, the 2008 Wimbledon and 2009 AO finals in particular get more pathetic every year, and they were weak enough to begin with. Roger also lost to Nadal at Dubai, Cincy and YEC. All debacles on paper...and otherwise.

You take 2017 as "obvious confirmation" that Roger failed miserably v. Nadal. Same as you've always claimed that Roger's losing to Nadal in 2008 W. as proof that he didn't play well. What arrogant twaddle. Given the H2H, it would make more logical sense to say that 2017 proves that Nadal wasn't playing as well as in the past. You are beyond blinkered.

 

[DarthFed]

You take 2017 as "obvious confirmation" that Roger failed miserably v. Nadal. Same as you've always claimed that Roger's losing to Nadal in 2008 W. as proof that he didn't play well. What arrogant twaddle. Given the H2H, it would make more logical sense to say that 2017 proves that Nadal wasn't playing as well as in the past. You are beyond blinkered.

Yeah Nadal played so bad that he won 2 majors and got to the final of another one and finished 67-7 aside from matches against Federer. Federer turned the tables by not having a passive as hell backhand and return against Nadal like the past and by not folding mentally. Those were all the staples of his pathetic losses vs Nadal off clay, miss a million BP chances, blow numerous leads in sets, fold as soon as things didn't go his way, etc. It goes without saying that with Rafa's relative lack of game off clay that Roger should have done a lot better. Mediocre would be winning 70-75% of non-clay matches vs Nadal. People overstated the matchup advantage way too much, tons of it was mental baggage from clay. Nadal earned that but Roger let him take way too much advantage. 13-10 off clay is laughably terrible.

 

[Moxie]

Yeah Nadal played so bad that he won 2 majors and got to the final of another one and finished 67-7 aside from matches against Federer. Federer turned the tables by not having a passive as hell backhand and return against Nadal like the past and by not folding mentally. Those were all the staples of his pathetic losses vs Nadal off clay, miss a million BP chances, blow numerous leads in sets, fold as soon as things didn't go his way, etc. It goes without saying that with Rafa's relative lack of game off clay that Roger should have done a lot better. Mediocre would be winning 70-75% of non-clay matches vs Nadal. People overstated the matchup advantage way too much, tons of it was mental baggage from clay. Nadal earned that but Roger let him take way too much advantage. 13-10 off clay is laughably terrible.

You're just stating what you think and wish Roger would have done v. Nadal. What happened in 2017 doesn't prove that. I'm not saying that Nadal wasn't good in 2017 and '18, but you can't say that he wasn't better when he was beating Roger regularly from '05-'14. You make too much of the clay advantage, since the advantage on other surfaces existed, as well. And you make too much of it being "mental baggage." Rafa won their first encounter...on HCs and in 2. Rafa got into his game early and often. I will give you that Roger was probably too arrogant to make a change until way past time. But that's really not all of it. Nadal was trouncing Roger in his heyday in a way that no one else was. You can try to diminish that if you want, but it's just true.

 

[Jelenafan]

You're just stating what you think and wish Roger would have done v. Nadal. What happened in 2017 doesn't prove that. I'm not saying that Nadal wasn't good in 2017 and '18, but you can't say that he wasn't better when he was beating Roger regularly from '05-'14. You make too much of the clay advantage, since the advantage on other surfaces existed, as well. And you make too much of it being "mental baggage." Rafa won their first encounter...on HCs and in 2. Rafa got into his game early and often. I will give you that Roger was probably too arrogant to make a change until way past time. But that's really not all of it. Nadal was trouncing Roger in his heyday in a way that no one else was. You can try to diminish that if you want, but it's just true.

Wasn’t 2004 considered by some “peak Federer” arguably his best year ever, with the 22 year old Federer winning 3 Majors, his best W-L record (74-6) ,11 titles, a whopping 91.6 % service games won.

Their first encounter? 2004 HC Miami, 6-3, 6-3 in favor of Nadal.

Throughout most of their career, that is to say 12 out of 14 years Nadal simply matched well versus Federer.

It happens.

 

[DarthFed]

You're just stating what you think and wish Roger would have done v. Nadal. What happened in 2017 doesn't prove that. I'm not saying that Nadal wasn't good in 2017 and '18, but you can't say that he wasn't better when he was beating Roger regularly from '05-'14. You make too much of the clay advantage, since the advantage on other surfaces existed, as well. And you make too much of it being "mental baggage." Rafa won their first encounter...on HCs and in 2. Rafa got into his game early and often. I will give you that Roger was probably too arrogant to make a change until way past time. But that's really not all of it. Nadal was trouncing Roger in his heyday in a way that no one else was. You can try to diminish that if you want, but it's just true.

Roger was better during most of the 05-14 timeframe than he was in 2017 as well. Nadal was still hitting high topspin in 2017 just like other years, he obviously doesn't move like his early 20's but neither does Roger. And need I remind you Roger kicked his ass at age 35-36. What was his excuse for special ed results before 2017 vs a guy who has often lost early to nobodies off clay?

Fed just allowed his backhand to be bullied, chipped back every mediocre Nadal serve and engaged Nadal in long rallies while losing every big point in the matches. Rafa won the first meeting on HC and then Roger won 5 of the next 6 vs him off clay. After the mental scars of RG 08 he ended up being an easy out at Wimbledon and it went downhill from there.

 

[DarthFed]

Wasn’t 2004 considered by some “peak Federer” arguably his best year ever, with the 22 year old Federer winning 3 Majors, his best W-L record (74-6) ,11 titles, a whopping 91.6 % service games won.

Their first encounter? 2004 HC Miami, 6-3, 6-3 in favor of Nadal.

Throughout most of their career, that is to say 12 out of 14 years Nadal simply matched well versus Federer.

It happens.

2004 was his 3rd best year and Roger won 5 of the next 6 off clay after their first meeting.

Also your breakdown of years is quite misleading,

2004: 0-1
2005: 1-1
2006: 2-4
2007: 3-2
2008: 0-4
2009: 1-1
2010: 1-1
2011: 1-3
2012: 1-1
2013: 0-4
2014: 0-1
2015: 1-0
2017: 4-0

Difference in the H2H is 8 and 2008 and 2013 are that difference, the excessive years of stench.

 

[Moxie]

2004 was his 3rd best year and Roger won 5 of the next 6 off clay after their first meeting.

Also your breakdown of years is quite misleading,

2004: 0-1
2005: 1-1
2006: 2-4
2007: 3-2
2008: 0-4
2009: 1-1
2010: 1-1
2011: 1-3
2012: 1-1
2013: 0-4
2014: 0-1
2015: 1-0
2017: 4-0

Difference in the H2H is 8 and 2008 and 2013 are that difference, the excessive years of stench.

That doesn't take into account that '08 and '13 were excellent years for Nadal, and would likely have been. Along with 2010. The one you most resent is '08, let's face it, and going into the '09 AO. But there's nothing about Nadal winning all of that that doesn't make sense. You can resent it all you want, but Nadal was a trending player in '08, hitting his stride at 22, because he was our last best teenager. You can pretend that Rafa beating him in '04 didn't mean much, but that was a good year for Roger. You can keep slicing it up however much you want, but Rafa still has the lead by a lot, and for good reason.

 

[Moxie]

Roger was better during most of the 05-14 timeframe than he was in 2017 as well. Nadal was still hitting high topspin in 2017 just like other years, he obviously doesn't move like his early 20's but neither does Roger. And need I remind you Roger kicked his ass at age 35-36. What was his excuse for special ed results before 2017 vs a guy who has often lost early to nobodies off clay?

Fed just allowed his backhand to be bullied, chipped back every mediocre Nadal serve and engaged Nadal in long rallies while losing every big point in the matches. Rafa won the first meeting on HC and then Roger won 5 of the next 6 vs him off clay. After the mental scars of RG 08 he ended up being an easy out at Wimbledon and it went downhill from there.

It's not like Roger hasn't had some "special ed" losses, as you call them. It doesn't matter who else they've lost to...Rafa has kicked Roger's ass on many surfaces, and big-time at Majors. Just because Roger has turned the tables since 2017 doesn't mean you get to re-write the history. That's BS and you know it.

 

[Jelenafan]

It's not like Roger hasn't had some "special ed" losses, as you call them. It doesn't matter who else they've lost to...Rafa has kicked Roger's ass on many surfaces, and big-time at Majors. Just because Roger has turned the tables since 2017 doesn't mean you get to re-write the history. That's BS and you know it.

2017 is the only year that matters apparently.