Peak Federer Vs Peak Djokovic

[ClayDeath]

I am the only objective fellow around.

 

[Billie]

I am the only objective fellow around.

Negative general!!!  Nobody is completely objective, it is not in human nature. 

 

[ClayDeath]

I am so objective that people often accuse me of being a fan of other players.

 

I have to call it like I see it.

 

 

[brokenshoelace]

I'm still waiting to understand the following logic: 2005-2007 Nadal would apparently not beat post 2011 Djokovic on clay despite being undefeated (until his loss to Fed in Hamburg), because he struggled with Mathieu and Davydenko. But, post 2011 Djokovic would absolutely beat 2005-2007 Nadal despite losing plenty of matches, to Nadal and others, and struggling in plenty others, all the while amassing zero French Open titles? I'm confused.

I still think it's inevitable that Novak wins Roland Garros though. And I'd narrowly take his best on clay over Roger's.

 

[MikeOne]

I’m still waiting to understand the following logic: 2005-2007 Nadal would apparently not beat post 2011 Djokovic on clay despite being undefeated (until his loss to Fed in Hamburg), because he struggled with Mathieu and Davydenko. But, post 2011 Djokovic would absolutely beat 2005-2007 Nadal despite losing plenty of matches, to Nadal and others, and struggling in plenty others, all the while amassing zero French Open titles? I’m confused. I still think it’s inevitable that Novak wins Roland Garros though. And I’d narrowly take his best on clay over Roger’s.

it's obvious you didn't bother to read my post carefully, evident by how you have dumbed down and twisted my argument, no point in responding.

 

[ClayDeath]

Clay Death wrote:
I am the only objective fellow around.

Negative general!!! Nobody is completely objective, it is not in human nature.

 

did I say I was a human?

I am a superhuman. ha ha ha ha ha ha. from some distant planet.

 

[ClayDeath]

I’m still waiting to understand the following logic: 2005-2007 Nadal would apparently not beat post 2011 Djokovic on clay despite being undefeated (until his loss to Fed in Hamburg), because he struggled with Mathieu and Davydenko. But, post 2011 Djokovic would absolutely beat 2005-2007 Nadal despite losing plenty of matches, to Nadal and others, and struggling in plenty others, all the while amassing zero French Open titles? I’m confused. I still think it’s inevitable that Novak wins Roland Garros though. And I’d narrowly take his best on clay over Roger’s.

 

negative. it is not inevitable. he is probably going to take the next 6 of 8 slams at the current rate but RG is not inevitable for him.

I am just going to have to see that to believe it.

 

next.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Broken_shoelace wrote:
I’m still waiting to understand the following logic: 2005-2007 Nadal would apparently not beat post 2011 Djokovic on clay despite being undefeated (until his loss to Fed in Hamburg), because he struggled with Mathieu and Davydenko. But, post 2011 Djokovic would absolutely beat 2005-2007 Nadal despite losing plenty of matches, to Nadal and others, and struggling in plenty others, all the while amassing zero French Open titles? I’m confused. I still think it’s inevitable that Novak wins Roland Garros though. And I’d narrowly take his best on clay over Roger’s.

negative. it is not inevitable. he is probably going to take the next 6 of 8 slams at the current rate but RG is not inevitable for him. I am just going to have to see that to believe it. next.

ok