Roger should send Novak flowers

[Front242]

Last few years it's not a great achievement playing a guy who bent over for you since 2008 and these days doesn't even win a set.

See...THIS is exactly my issue with these argument. We are taking one of the greatest achievements of Nadal's career (having such a resounding record against arguably the greatest player to have ever played the game) and acting like it's not a big deal.

Now, why has Roger not "bent over" to anyone else, ever? What does it say that he "bends over" to Nadal? What does that say about Nadal's greatness?

We're talking about Roger Federer, a man who had a reign of terror over tennis. A man who nobody could touch. And here we are, with someone who holds TWENTY THREE wins over him, and we're acting like it's no big deal. Give me a break.

Of course it's a big deal but that gap is only going to get larger as clearly if he was going to find a long term solution to beating him it wouldn't be in 2014 here he fails to even win a set. Beating him in his peak was of course a major achievement, but like I said, Federer is way past his best and not expected to beat Nadal at this stage. And that's why it's no longer a great achievement to beat him. Hell, ask Robredo, Berdych, Tsonga. Robredo in particular. Not to mention the nobodies beating him outside slams.

 

[Riotbeard]

Last few years it's not a great achievement playing a guy who bent over for you since 2008 and these days doesn't even win a set.

See...THIS is exactly my issue with these argument. We are taking one of the greatest achievements of Nadal's career (having such a resounding record against arguably the greatest player to have ever played the game) and acting like it's not a big deal.

Now, why has Roger not "bent over" to anyone else, ever? What does it say that he "bends over" to Nadal? What does that say about Nadal's greatness?

We're talking about Roger Federer, a man who had a reign of terror over tennis. A man who nobody could touch. And here we are, with someone who holds TWENTY THREE wins over him, and we're acting like it's no big deal. Give me a break.

It's a big deal, but exists in a context.

Nadal's "dominance" of Federer begins when he is arguably in minor decline, 2008. Prior to that Rafa was the better of the rivalry but not dominant. From 04-07, Nadal led the series 8-6, with 6 wins on clay (1 of Fed's on clay at hamburg).

2008 is where the extreme drop-off begins (arguably the beginning of Rafa's peak and the end of Fed's), Rafa wins all four matches played that year (3 on clay). After that, Fed would only win four more matches. This is probably due to a combination of Fed. decline and rafa peaking.

What it says about Rafa is. Even at Fed's best, Rafa was much better on clay (before Rafa was at his best). Rafa was capable of beating Roger on other surfaces, but it was a rarity. Overall, Rafa got the better of the rivalry even at Roger's peak, but his dominance would not come until Roger was in his late 20s what most people would agree is at least the beginning of a player's decline. I think based on this, we can say it's likely Rafa would have always led the rivalry, even if they were the same age, but it would most likely have been closer, because when Fed was forced to re- "crack" the Rafa problem in 08, he was in physical decline, albeit at the beginning of said decline. Additionally, Roger had to conquer the problem of one of, if not the athletically strongest players in the history of the game. A very difficult task, even had they peaked simultaneously.

 

[Front242]

Last few years it's not a great achievement playing a guy who bent over for you since 2008 and these days doesn't even win a set.

See...THIS is exactly my issue with these argument. We are taking one of the greatest achievements of Nadal's career (having such a resounding record against arguably the greatest player to have ever played the game) and acting like it's not a big deal.

Now, why has Roger not "bent over" to anyone else, ever? What does it say that he "bends over" to Nadal? What does that say about Nadal's greatness?

We're talking about Roger Federer, a man who had a reign of terror over tennis. A man who nobody could touch. And here we are, with someone who holds TWENTY THREE wins over him, and we're acting like it's no big deal. Give me a break.

It's a big deal, but exists in a context.

Nadal's "dominance" of Federer begins when he is arguably in minor decline, 2008. Prior to that Rafa was the better of the rivalry but not dominant. From 04-07, Nadal led the series 8-6, with 6 wins on clay (1 of Fed's on clay at hamburg).

2008 is where the extreme drop-off begins (arguably the beginning of Rafa's peak and the end of Fed's), Rafa wins all four matches played that year (3 on clay). After that, Fed would only win four more matches on clay. This is probably due to a combination of Fed. decline and rafa peaking.

What it says about Rafa is. Even at Fed's best, Rafa was much better on clay (before Rafa was at his best). Rafa was capable of beating Roger on other surfaces, but it was rarity. Overall, Rafa got the better of the rivalry even at Roger's peak, but his dominance would not come until Roger was in his late 20s what most people would agree is at least the beginning of a player's decline. I think based on this, we can say it's likely Rafa would have always led the rivalry, even if they were the same age, but it would most likely have been closer, because when Fed was forced to re- "crack" the Rafa problem in 08, he was in physical decline, albeit at the beginning. Additionally, Roger had to conquer the problem of one of, if not the athletically strongest players in the history of the game. A very difficult task, even had they peaked simultaneously.

Great post. Cheers

 

[Front242]

In any one on one sport when one player peaks while the other declines the head the head is naturally going to get ugly. It's neither's fault that one peaked while the other is at the end of his career and it is what it is. It's also why the degree of it is overstated by Nadal fans, since Fed is way past his peak. Nadal would always be ahead as Riotbeard pointed out, mostly because of wins on clay, but there's no way there's a gap this big if they were the same age or one wasn't miles past his best/peak.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Last few years it's not a great achievement playing a guy who bent over for you since 2008 and these days doesn't even win a set.

See...THIS is exactly my issue with these argument. We are taking one of the greatest achievements of Nadal's career (having such a resounding record against arguably the greatest player to have ever played the game) and acting like it's not a big deal.

Now, why has Roger not "bent over" to anyone else, ever? What does it say that he "bends over" to Nadal? What does that say about Nadal's greatness?

We're talking about Roger Federer, a man who had a reign of terror over tennis. A man who nobody could touch. And here we are, with someone who holds TWENTY THREE wins over him, and we're acting like it's no big deal. Give me a break.

It's a big deal, but exists in a context.

Nadal's "dominance" of Federer begins when he is arguably in minor decline, 2008. Prior to that Rafa was the better of the rivalry but not dominant. From 04-07, Nadal led the series 8-6, with 6 wins on clay (1 of Fed's on clay at hamburg).

2008 is where the extreme drop-off begins (arguably the beginning of Rafa's peak and the end of Fed's), Rafa wins all four matches played that year (3 on clay). After that, Fed would only win four more matches. This is probably due to a combination of Fed. decline and rafa peaking.

What it says about Rafa is. Even at Fed's best, Rafa was much better on clay (before Rafa was at his best). Rafa was capable of beating Roger on other surfaces, but it was a rarity. Overall, Rafa got the better of the rivalry even at Roger's peak, but his dominance would not come until Roger was in his late 20s what most people would agree is at least the beginning of a player's decline. I think based on this, we can say it's likely Rafa would have always led the rivalry, even if they were the same age, but it would most likely have been closer, because when Fed was forced to re- "crack" the Rafa problem in 08, he was in physical decline, albeit at the beginning of said decline. Additionally, Roger had to conquer the problem of one of, if not the athletically strongest players in the history of the game. A very difficult task, even had they peaked simultaneously.

I agree, in general. But the "past his peak" argument -- while valid, don't get me wrong -- is extremely selective. In other words, Nadal beats Federer 4 times in 2008 (and I don't deny that there was a slight dip in Roger's level that year), and it's Federer is no longer at his peak. Fair enough. Then Federer wins the US Open, crushing Djokovic and Murray through breathtaking tennis, reaches the final of the AO (also while playing tremendous, destroying DP and Roddick), loses to Nadal...and it's: oh, he's past his peak. Fine. Then Federer wins the FO and Wimbledon, and reaches the final of the US Open (a match he should have won). So is he back at his peak or not? Or is he at his peak when he's winning but not when he's losing? It becomes difficult to draw the line. Obviously, nobody's going to say Fed is at his peak now, but did he not play great to beat Murray and Tsonga? So Nadal beating him so soundly while Federer was playing so well counts for something... Ditto for the AO in 2012, after Federer crushed Tomic and Del Potro, and went on to have a marvelous run a few months later.

What is better to look at is simply his level. In other words, we can argue about 2008 till the cows go home, but in Wimbledon in particular, he was having a great tournament leading up to the final. He was looking every bit as great as he normally does. He was looking good at the AO in 2009. The AO in 2012. Hell didn't he play probably his greatest ever clay court match against Djokovic at the FO in 2011, two days before playing Nadal?

On the whole, yes their absolute peaks didn't exactly coincide, and that's normal given the age difference. But to simply shrug everything off as "Yeah, Fed is past his peak" is lazy. Last year for instance, he was playing dreadful. Nadal's wins over him at IW, Rome or London are hardly an amazing achievement. But you always gotta look at context. You can say Fed was past his peak in 2008 and 2009, but he was still beating everyone else... so clearly, he was still absolutely tremendous.

 

[Front242]

On the whole, yes their absolute peaks didn't exactly coincide, and that's normal given the age difference. But to simply shrug everything off as "Yeah, Fed is past his peak" is lazy. Last year for instance, he was playing dreadful. Nadal's wins over him at IW, Rome or London are hardly an amazing achievement. But you always gotta look at context. You can say Fed was past his peak in 2008 and 2009, but he was still beating everyone else... so clearly, he was still absolutely tremendous.

The thing is while he was still great enough to beat everyone else, none of everyone else was as good as Nadal and Fed clearly needs to be at his absolute best to beat him in best of 5, which clearly he's not since 2008/2009. Yesterday was an embarrassment and I can't believe all the hype that people said he might actually win. The result may well have been the same in 2008/2009 and we'll never know but back then he at least got to 5 sets not losing in 3.

 

[Riotbeard]

Last few years it's not a great achievement playing a guy who bent over for you since 2008 and these days doesn't even win a set.

See...THIS is exactly my issue with these argument. We are taking one of the greatest achievements of Nadal's career (having such a resounding record against arguably the greatest player to have ever played the game) and acting like it's not a big deal.

Now, why has Roger not "bent over" to anyone else, ever? What does it say that he "bends over" to Nadal? What does that say about Nadal's greatness?

We're talking about Roger Federer, a man who had a reign of terror over tennis. A man who nobody could touch. And here we are, with someone who holds TWENTY THREE wins over him, and we're acting like it's no big deal. Give me a break.

It's a big deal, but exists in a context.

Nadal's "dominance" of Federer begins when he is arguably in minor decline, 2008. Prior to that Rafa was the better of the rivalry but not dominant. From 04-07, Nadal led the series 8-6, with 6 wins on clay (1 of Fed's on clay at hamburg).

2008 is where the extreme drop-off begins (arguably the beginning of Rafa's peak and the end of Fed's), Rafa wins all four matches played that year (3 on clay). After that, Fed would only win four more matches. This is probably due to a combination of Fed. decline and rafa peaking.

What it says about Rafa is. Even at Fed's best, Rafa was much better on clay (before Rafa was at his best). Rafa was capable of beating Roger on other surfaces, but it was a rarity. Overall, Rafa got the better of the rivalry even at Roger's peak, but his dominance would not come until Roger was in his late 20s what most people would agree is at least the beginning of a player's decline. I think based on this, we can say it's likely Rafa would have always led the rivalry, even if they were the same age, but it would most likely have been closer, because when Fed was forced to re- "crack" the Rafa problem in 08, he was in physical decline, albeit at the beginning of said decline. Additionally, Roger had to conquer the problem of one of, if not the athletically strongest players in the history of the game. A very difficult task, even had they peaked simultaneously.

I agree, in general. But the "past his peak" argument -- while valid, don't get me wrong -- is extremely selective. In other words, Nadal beats Federer 4 times in 2008 (and I don't deny that there was a slight dip in Roger's level that year), and it's Federer is no longer at his peak. Fair enough. Then Federer wins the US Open, crushing Djokovic and Murray through breathtaking tennis, reaches the final of the AO (also while playing tremendous, destroying DP and Roddick), loses to Nadal...and it's: oh, he's past his peak. Fine. Then Federer wins the FO and Wimbledon, and reaches the final of the US Open (a match he should have won). So is he back at his peak or not? Or is he at his peak when he's winning but not when he's losing? It becomes difficult to draw the line. Obviously, nobody's going to say Fed is at his peak now, but did he not play great to beat Murray and Tsonga? So Nadal beating him so soundly while Federer was playing so well counts for something... Ditto for the AO in 2012, after Federer crushed Tomic and Del Potro, and went on to have a marvelous run a few months later.

What is better to look at is simply his level. In other words, we can argue about 2008 till the cows go home, but in Wimbledon in particular, he was having a great tournament leading up to the final. He was looking every bit as great as he normally does. He was looking good at the AO in 2009. The AO in 2012. Hell didn't he play probably his greatest ever clay court match against Djokovic at the FO in 2011, two days before playing Nadal?

On the whole, yes their absolute peaks didn't exactly coincide, and that's normal given the age difference. But to simply shrug everything off as "Yeah, Fed is past his peak" is lazy. Last year for instance, he was playing dreadful. Nadal's wins over him at IW, Rome or London are hardly an amazing achievement. But you always gotta look at context. You can say Fed was past his peak in 2008 and 2009, but he was still beating everyone else... so clearly, he was still absolutely tremendous.

You are putting words in everybody's mouth. Fed was obviously physically past his peak in 09. It so happened that his main competition was injured. I also said that Rafa began his peak, so I think that is giving Nadal some due credit.

The past his peak argument isn't selective, at least not the one I was giving. In 09 Federer beat his contemporary in the wimbledon final, and he beat Soderling at RG. Great achievments yes, but something undoubtedly, a post-peak Federer could due. Heck he beat Murray two years ago in the Wimbledon final, he was certainly capable of beating Andy Roddick, while being slightly over the hill.

Everybody also agrees (I think) that Rafa got the better of Fed. during Fed's peak. I have little doubt that if Rafa and Fed peaked at the same time, Rafa would have the h2h advantage, but it would be more like 20-15, not 23-10. Fed would have benefited (overall in my opinion) in h2h from a rafa who made it deeper in hard courts, but he might have less Wimby's. It's speculation for sure.

It's also worth noting that I barely like Fed more than Rafa.

 

[DarthFed]

Ahh, typical case where someone won't admit they are wrong. Roger had 4 slams before Rafa won his first not 9. And yes Rafa took a few years to hit his peak and now we have the reverse where Roger is way out of his prime and Rafa is at his peak.

That's literally what I said in my very first post about the topic.

However, answer this, why are we acting like the first 4 years of Roger's career never took place? Or is it Nadal's fault he was good enough to win his first slam at 19?

Who said they weren't relevant? I am talking about winning slams, not going out early. Roger has been WAY better at winning slams vs. Non-Rafa players than Rafa has been at winning slams vs. Non-Fed players. We could look at the losses part too where Rafa has lost often to clowns in early rounds.

Because when we're talking about how each player is doing against the field, you can't simply limit it to the slams they won. In fact, the slams they lost are in many ways more telling. Roger wasn't doing so well against the field before 2003 now was he?

It seems like you're punishing Nadal for always having to face Roger in many of the slams he won, which makes no sense. And yeah, you'll say that the fact that Roger didn't have to play Nadal in most of the slams he won shows that Nadal wasn't there to meet him (so Nadal wasn't doing well against the field), but that's due to Nadal not having peaked yet. And if you're going to say "Oh, well tough luck" then I can point out to Roger's first four years where he wasn't reaching the finals of anything to play anyone, but Nadal was not even a pro back then to capitalize...once again highlighting the age discrepancy, which is, again, literally the first point I emphasized in this discussion.

No, I think it makes sense to focus on the tournament wins instead of winning %. If you tally up the match winning % in majors for Roger vs. everyone but Rafa and do the same for Rafa vs. everyone but Fed, then Rafa MAY still have a better %. But what that indicates is Rafa was better at a younger age and was therefore better at winning the first few rounds than a Federer who was almost always mincemeat early on in the first 2 rounds until 2003. But the fact still remains when talking tournament wins, Roger has been way better than Rafa against "the others". And they have done it mostly on even grounds with Rafa taking a good 4-5 years to reach his peak and Roger being 5+ years past it now. If he wasn't better than Rafa vs. the rest he would have probably 10 less slams than Rafa at this point given their head to head.

 

[brokenshoelace]

You are putting words in everybody's mouth. Fed was obviously physically past his peak in 09. It so happened that his main competition was injured. I also said that Rafa began his peak, so I think that is giving Nadal some due credit.

Settle down. How did I put anything in anybody's mouth? I never said you weren't giving Nadal credit, nor did I say that you're giving Federer a pass for being old. However, if you've been around these boards long enough, and you have, you'd have noticed how often the "Fed hasn't been at his peak since 2008" is used as justification. I never said YOU say that, and I'm not sure where I accused you of not giving Nadal credit. What did say the majority is guilty of, is simply diminishing the magnitude of this resounding H2H lead, because while Fed is past his peak, up until last year (where he played like garbage), he was still doing very well, and as I mentioned, in 2008-2009, he was beating everyone else. It's called making an argument.

For the record, you clearly haven't been around Fed fans here if you think what I said is putting words in their mouths. Anyway, I digress.

The past his peak argument isn't selective, at least not the one I was giving. In 09 Federer beat his contemporary in the wimbledon final, and he beat Soderling at RG. Great achievments yes, but something undoubtedly, a post-peak Federer could due. Heck he beat Murray two years ago in the Wimbledon final, he was certainly capable of beating Andy Roddick, while being slightly over the hill.

Ok, then it's not selective, but shortsighted, because you're not factoring in how well Federer was playing. Yeah, it's something a post-peak Fed could do because...he actually did. My point is, while he was past his peak (which we'll all agree was 04-07), in some of his losses to Nadal, he was playing terrific tennis right before. And your post above exactly shows that I'm not putting any words in anybody's mouth. In fact, you're pretty much highlighting exactly what I mean: the line of thinking that Fed is past his prime for every loss since 2008, while TRUE (see, I'm admitting it is, because it seems to me like you're trying to convince me), only tells half the story. You're not accounting for Federer's level leading up to these wins. So if Fed is past his prime, but during a particular tournament, plays like he's close to his prime, only to lose to Nadal, is the "past his prime" argument significant for THAT PARTICULAR LOSS? That's the question.

Everybody also agrees (I think) that Rafa got the better of Fed. during Fed's peak. I have little doubt that if Rafa and Fed peaked at the same time, Rafa would have the h2h advantage, but it would be more like 20-15, not 23-10. Fed would have benefited (overall in my opinion) in h2h from a rafa who made it deeper in hard courts, but he might have less Wimby's. It's speculation for sure.

I'm not sure where I accused anyone of saying Fed would have led Rafa in the H2H under different circumstances. The above is pretty much agreed on by most, I hope.

It's also worth noting that I barely like Fed more than Rafa.

I never accused you of bias so you have no reason to justify your allegiances. Plus, you're a Novak fan, why would you like either?

 

[brokenshoelace]

Ahh, typical case where someone won't admit they are wrong. Roger had 4 slams before Rafa won his first not 9. And yes Rafa took a few years to hit his peak and now we have the reverse where Roger is way out of his prime and Rafa is at his peak.

That's literally what I said in my very first post about the topic.

However, answer this, why are we acting like the first 4 years of Roger's career never took place? Or is it Nadal's fault he was good enough to win his first slam at 19?

Who said they weren't relevant? I am talking about winning slams, not going out early. Roger has been WAY better at winning slams vs. Non-Rafa players than Rafa has been at winning slams vs. Non-Fed players. We could look at the losses part too where Rafa has lost often to clowns in early rounds.

Because when we're talking about how each player is doing against the field, you can't simply limit it to the slams they won. In fact, the slams they lost are in many ways more telling. Roger wasn't doing so well against the field before 2003 now was he?

It seems like you're punishing Nadal for always having to face Roger in many of the slams he won, which makes no sense. And yeah, you'll say that the fact that Roger didn't have to play Nadal in most of the slams he won shows that Nadal wasn't there to meet him (so Nadal wasn't doing well against the field), but that's due to Nadal not having peaked yet. And if you're going to say "Oh, well tough luck" then I can point out to Roger's first four years where he wasn't reaching the finals of anything to play anyone, but Nadal was not even a pro back then to capitalize...once again highlighting the age discrepancy, which is, again, literally the first point I emphasized in this discussion.

No, I think it makes sense to focus on the tournament wins instead of winning %. If you tally up the match winning % in majors for Roger vs. everyone but Rafa and do the same for Rafa vs. everyone but Fed, then Rafa MAY still have a better %. But what that indicates is Rafa was better at a younger age and was therefore better at winning the first few rounds than a Federer who was almost always mincemeat early on in the first 2 rounds until 2003. But the fact still remains when talking tournament wins, Roger has been way better than Rafa against "the others". And they have done it mostly on even grounds with Rafa taking a good 4-5 years to reach his peak and Roger being 5+ years past it now. If he wasn't better than Rafa vs. the rest he would have probably 10 less slams than Rafa at this point given their head to head.

"Even grounds" is debatable since Federer at the height of his dominance never had to deal with baby Jesus Novak, for example. Nadal's record vs "the field" and his grand slam tally would have been different (and the GOAT debate settled) had Novak not turn into Achilles in 2011.

 

[Riotbeard]

I hear ya. But you are arguing with old threads at times, not what Front and I were saying in this discussion IMO.

You are right that Fed and Rafa are both awful heathens :snigger

 

[DarthFed]

That's literally what I said in my very first post about the topic.

However, answer this, why are we acting like the first 4 years of Roger's career never took place? Or is it Nadal's fault he was good enough to win his first slam at 19?

Who said they weren't relevant? I am talking about winning slams, not going out early. Roger has been WAY better at winning slams vs. Non-Rafa players than Rafa has been at winning slams vs. Non-Fed players. We could look at the losses part too where Rafa has lost often to clowns in early rounds.

Because when we're talking about how each player is doing against the field, you can't simply limit it to the slams they won. In fact, the slams they lost are in many ways more telling. Roger wasn't doing so well against the field before 2003 now was he?

It seems like you're punishing Nadal for always having to face Roger in many of the slams he won, which makes no sense. And yeah, you'll say that the fact that Roger didn't have to play Nadal in most of the slams he won shows that Nadal wasn't there to meet him (so Nadal wasn't doing well against the field), but that's due to Nadal not having peaked yet. And if you're going to say "Oh, well tough luck" then I can point out to Roger's first four years where he wasn't reaching the finals of anything to play anyone, but Nadal was not even a pro back then to capitalize...once again highlighting the age discrepancy, which is, again, literally the first point I emphasized in this discussion.

No, I think it makes sense to focus on the tournament wins instead of winning %. If you tally up the match winning % in majors for Roger vs. everyone but Rafa and do the same for Rafa vs. everyone but Fed, then Rafa MAY still have a better %. But what that indicates is Rafa was better at a younger age and was therefore better at winning the first few rounds than a Federer who was almost always mincemeat early on in the first 2 rounds until 2003. But the fact still remains when talking tournament wins, Roger has been way better than Rafa against "the others". And they have done it mostly on even grounds with Rafa taking a good 4-5 years to reach his peak and Roger being 5+ years past it now. If he wasn't better than Rafa vs. the rest he would have probably 10 less slams than Rafa at this point given their head to head.

"Even grounds" is debatable since Federer at the height of his dominance never had to deal with baby Jesus Novak, for example. Nadal's record vs "the field" and his grand slam tally would have been different (and the GOAT debate settled) had Novak not turn into Achilles in 2011.

Funny I think 30 year old Roger took baby Jesus out at RG and was a point away at USO. No Nole we've seen is a favorite vs. prime Roger at Wimbledon or USO. Not even close.

 

[Riotbeard]

Who said they weren't relevant? I am talking about winning slams, not going out early. Roger has been WAY better at winning slams vs. Non-Rafa players than Rafa has been at winning slams vs. Non-Fed players. We could look at the losses part too where Rafa has lost often to clowns in early rounds.

Because when we're talking about how each player is doing against the field, you can't simply limit it to the slams they won. In fact, the slams they lost are in many ways more telling. Roger wasn't doing so well against the field before 2003 now was he?

It seems like you're punishing Nadal for always having to face Roger in many of the slams he won, which makes no sense. And yeah, you'll say that the fact that Roger didn't have to play Nadal in most of the slams he won shows that Nadal wasn't there to meet him (so Nadal wasn't doing well against the field), but that's due to Nadal not having peaked yet. And if you're going to say "Oh, well tough luck" then I can point out to Roger's first four years where he wasn't reaching the finals of anything to play anyone, but Nadal was not even a pro back then to capitalize...once again highlighting the age discrepancy, which is, again, literally the first point I emphasized in this discussion.

No, I think it makes sense to focus on the tournament wins instead of winning %. If you tally up the match winning % in majors for Roger vs. everyone but Rafa and do the same for Rafa vs. everyone but Fed, then Rafa MAY still have a better %. But what that indicates is Rafa was better at a younger age and was therefore better at winning the first few rounds than a Federer who was almost always mincemeat early on in the first 2 rounds until 2003. But the fact still remains when talking tournament wins, Roger has been way better than Rafa against "the others". And they have done it mostly on even grounds with Rafa taking a good 4-5 years to reach his peak and Roger being 5+ years past it now. If he wasn't better than Rafa vs. the rest he would have probably 10 less slams than Rafa at this point given their head to head.

"Even grounds" is debatable since Federer at the height of his dominance never had to deal with baby Jesus Novak, for example. Nadal's record vs "the field" and his grand slam tally would have been different (and the GOAT debate settled) had Novak not turn into Achilles in 2011.

Funny I think 30 year old Roger took baby Jesus out at RG and was a point away at USO. No Nole we've seen is a favorite vs. prime Roger at Wimbledon or USO. Not even close.

Maybe not favorite, but 2011 novak is capable of beating prime roger at either venue.

 

[DarthFed]

Because when we're talking about how each player is doing against the field, you can't simply limit it to the slams they won. In fact, the slams they lost are in many ways more telling. Roger wasn't doing so well against the field before 2003 now was he?

It seems like you're punishing Nadal for always having to face Roger in many of the slams he won, which makes no sense. And yeah, you'll say that the fact that Roger didn't have to play Nadal in most of the slams he won shows that Nadal wasn't there to meet him (so Nadal wasn't doing well against the field), but that's due to Nadal not having peaked yet. And if you're going to say "Oh, well tough luck" then I can point out to Roger's first four years where he wasn't reaching the finals of anything to play anyone, but Nadal was not even a pro back then to capitalize...once again highlighting the age discrepancy, which is, again, literally the first point I emphasized in this discussion.

No, I think it makes sense to focus on the tournament wins instead of winning %. If you tally up the match winning % in majors for Roger vs. everyone but Rafa and do the same for Rafa vs. everyone but Fed, then Rafa MAY still have a better %. But what that indicates is Rafa was better at a younger age and was therefore better at winning the first few rounds than a Federer who was almost always mincemeat early on in the first 2 rounds until 2003. But the fact still remains when talking tournament wins, Roger has been way better than Rafa against "the others". And they have done it mostly on even grounds with Rafa taking a good 4-5 years to reach his peak and Roger being 5+ years past it now. If he wasn't better than Rafa vs. the rest he would have probably 10 less slams than Rafa at this point given their head to head.

"Even grounds" is debatable since Federer at the height of his dominance never had to deal with baby Jesus Novak, for example. Nadal's record vs "the field" and his grand slam tally would have been different (and the GOAT debate settled) had Novak not turn into Achilles in 2011.

Funny I think 30 year old Roger took baby Jesus out at RG and was a point away at USO. No Nole we've seen is a favorite vs. prime Roger at Wimbledon or USO. Not even close.

Maybe not favorite, but 2011 novak is capable of beating prime roger at either venue.

No argument there but I bet you a dime to a dollar Roger would gladly trade in 2011 Novak and leave out 2005-2007 Rafa. It would mean one or 2 less AO's and likely 1 or 2 more RG's.

 

[Ricardo]

The record is in the bag for Rafa. People don't realize that he will be the #1 or #2 favorite at the French for the next 5+ years. He doesn't even need to move well on that surface to be overwhelming favorite over everyone except Nole. 3 slams is nothing, that's just 1 great year or 2 good ones. The record is done and dusted, this was Roger's last stand. And what a pathetic effort it was.

Only himself to blame, the stupendous 2-9 in slams vs. Rafa and all the other countless late slam disasters (Safin 05, DP 09, Djoker 2010 and 2011 USO, Berd 2012 USO). Roger should have reached 20+ in his career but wasn't tough in the biggest moments when it came to crunch time.

agreed that Fed wasn't as tough as some made him out to be, losing many matches where he was obviously in control or close to winning. Nadal on the other hand has never lost in a slam where he was two sets up or holding match points, and rarely lost any when he was in control. however i don't believe he'd be a fav 5 years later when he is 32 yo, that's just blatant exaggeration.

 

[Ricardo]

Serious question:

Has there ever been a Federer loss at a Grand Slam in the past 6 years that Federer fans didn't deem "pathetic"?

The only one I can think of is his loss to Novak at the Australian Open in 2011, where people accepted that he played a good match but was just outplayed.

Fed fans' comeback to the above question: Has there been any Nadal loss at a slam that wasn't blamed on injuries?

Broken_Shoelace: Yes, his losses to Novak.

So, back to my original question

i thought they also accepted Nadal's victories over him in those RG final, that Nadal was simply better on clay.... undebatable by anyone really.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Who said they weren't relevant? I am talking about winning slams, not going out early. Roger has been WAY better at winning slams vs. Non-Rafa players than Rafa has been at winning slams vs. Non-Fed players. We could look at the losses part too where Rafa has lost often to clowns in early rounds.

Because when we're talking about how each player is doing against the field, you can't simply limit it to the slams they won. In fact, the slams they lost are in many ways more telling. Roger wasn't doing so well against the field before 2003 now was he?

It seems like you're punishing Nadal for always having to face Roger in many of the slams he won, which makes no sense. And yeah, you'll say that the fact that Roger didn't have to play Nadal in most of the slams he won shows that Nadal wasn't there to meet him (so Nadal wasn't doing well against the field), but that's due to Nadal not having peaked yet. And if you're going to say "Oh, well tough luck" then I can point out to Roger's first four years where he wasn't reaching the finals of anything to play anyone, but Nadal was not even a pro back then to capitalize...once again highlighting the age discrepancy, which is, again, literally the first point I emphasized in this discussion.

No, I think it makes sense to focus on the tournament wins instead of winning %. If you tally up the match winning % in majors for Roger vs. everyone but Rafa and do the same for Rafa vs. everyone but Fed, then Rafa MAY still have a better %. But what that indicates is Rafa was better at a younger age and was therefore better at winning the first few rounds than a Federer who was almost always mincemeat early on in the first 2 rounds until 2003. But the fact still remains when talking tournament wins, Roger has been way better than Rafa against "the others". And they have done it mostly on even grounds with Rafa taking a good 4-5 years to reach his peak and Roger being 5+ years past it now. If he wasn't better than Rafa vs. the rest he would have probably 10 less slams than Rafa at this point given their head to head.

"Even grounds" is debatable since Federer at the height of his dominance never had to deal with baby Jesus Novak, for example. Nadal's record vs "the field" and his grand slam tally would have been different (and the GOAT debate settled) had Novak not turn into Achilles in 2011.

Funny I think 30 year old Roger took baby Jesus out at RG and was a point away at USO. No Nole we've seen is a favorite vs. prime Roger at Wimbledon or USO. Not even close.

I agree. Still wouldn't make it an easy task though.

 

[Denis]

I think fed needs to consider buying a flower shop. He should decorate Stan's house with them now too.

 

[Front242]

I think fed needs to consider buying a flower shop. He should decorate Stan's house with them now too.

He'll be out on the tear tonight for sure with Stan. Beered right up. Both probably take off their wedding rings and go ape$hit for the night :snigger

 

[Denis]

I think fed needs to consider buying a flower shop. He should decorate Stan's house with them now too.

He'll be out on the tear tonight for sure with Stan. Beered right up. Both probably take off their wedding rings and go ape$hit for the night :snigger

Lol, watch for Mirka though, she might be on patrol tonight :snigger