Rolex Paris Masters 2018, ATP 1000

[Denis]

And add the second loss at USO to Nadal too.
However, I think your statement will trigger an uproar from Fedfans.

The 2013 final? I don’t know, Nadal was a beast that summer, won those hc masters too.

 

[The_Grand_Slam]

The 2013 final? I don’t know, Nadal was a beast that summer, won those hc masters too.

Djokovic was up a break in the third set.

 

[Denis]

Djokovic was up a break in the third set.

So? Have you just started watching tennis?

I would have liked to see it differently but the 2013 final was not lost by Djokovic but won by Nadal.

 

[The_Grand_Slam]

So? Have you just started watching tennis?

I would have liked to see it differently but the 2013 final was not lost by Djokovic but won by Nadal.

I haven't seen it live but I watched it afterwards.Djokovic was very passive on the big points though he usually tends to choke a little in New York even in years he won like 2015.Heck even this year he was very close to losing the 2nd.

 

[Front242]

My opinion is that Novak is a better player than Federer. Fed has more slams because he is older and thus benefitted from the 2003-2007 era. Novak has also underperformed at times, losing to Stan and Murray at the usopen in finals.

Always laugh my ass off reading this tripe about Federer "benefitted from the 2003-2007" era. Fact, prime Nalbandian, Gozalez and Hewitt were beasts and Roddick in his prime had Novak's number and Djokovic luckily for him never faced most of them in their primes. Davydenko was also quite a player before his wrist injury. The reality is Djokovic is actually moping up the floor in a much, much weaker era than some Djokovic fans like to incorrectly allude to regarding Federer. A frequently injured Nadal and 37 year old Federer are his only challenge these days ffs. There were a lot more guys capable of beating the top guys in 2003-2007. Nalbandian made monkies out of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic in 2007 just for starters..

 

[GSMSampras]

Always laugh my ass off reading this tripe about Federer "benefitted from the 2003-2007" era. Fact, prime Nalbandian, Gozalez and Hewitt were beasts and Roddick in his prime had Novak's number and Djokovic luckily for him never faced most of them in their primes. Davydenko was also quite a player before his wrist injury. The reality is Djokovic is actually moping up the floor in a much, much weaker era than some Djokovic fans like to incorrectly allude to regarding Federer. A frequently injured Nadal and 37 year old Federer are his only challenge these days ffs. There were a lot more guys capable of beating the top guys in 2003-2007. Nalbandian made monkies out of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic in 2007 just for starters..

Guys like Nalbandian,Davydenko,Hewitt and Roddick would give Djokovic much tougher battles than Boterson,Chokekori,Mugonic.

 

[DarthFed]

Seems pretty evenly distributed. Novak was 22 in 2010. You wanted them to play 30 matches when Novak was 17?

You're not following clearly. The vast majority of the matches have been played when Novak has enjoyed the age advantage. He should have a much more commanding H2H lead than he has.

 

[Denis]

I haven't seen it live but I watched it afterwards.Djokovic was very passive on the big points though he usually tends to choke a little in New York even in years he won like 2015.Heck even this year he was very close to losing the 2nd.

Yeah true, he’s definitely underperformed there tho was very clutch in 2010 and 2011.
Not saying you are wrong on 2013, but don’t want to take it away from Nadal who was simply unbeatable that summer.

 

[DarthFed]

My opinion is that Novak is a better player than Federer. Fed has more slams because he is older and thus benefitted from the 2003-2007 era. Novak has also underperformed at times, losing to Stan and Murray at the usopen in finals.

You don't think Novak has benefitted from the 2014-2018 period. Name me the big time competition he's up against compared to 2004-2007. And losses to guys like Murray and Wawrinka in his prime are big hits to your theory that Novak is the better player. Roger didn't lose so frequently to guys like that at majors in his prime.

 

[DarthFed]

And add the second loss at USO to Nadal too.
However, I think your statement will trigger an uproar from Fedfans.

Roger has underperformed on a ton of occasions too, losing to weak Del Po in 2009 and all the awful Wimbledon losses he's had in finals and earlier rounds.

 

[The_Grand_Slam]

Guys like Nalbandian,Davydenko,Hewitt and Roddick would give Djokovic much tougher battles than Boterson,Chokekori,Mugonic.

Mugic is trying a lot though.Three back to back 3-setters.

Bendikori has become the ultimate pigeon

 

[Fiero425]

I'm nauseated by this idiotic conversation! Novak can't win; either Federer's too old and past it or he embarrassed himself by even allowing this match to be a contest! Get a fk'n life people because most of you obviously have none! I know how boring I am, but not this lame at least! :cuckoo: :suicide:

 

[monfed]

My opinion is that Novak is a better player than Federer. Fed has more slams because he is older and thus benefitted from the 2003-2007 era. Novak has also underperformed at times, losing to Stan and Murray at the usopen in finals.

2003-07 was one the strongest eras ever clown. The surfaces were still varied, Nadull was young and unplayable on clay, Safin Agassi Nalbandian were lethal on HC, way better than fucking Nishikori, Botnic, Dimitrov and Mugray LOL!

faker is like a kid compared to Federer. Can't even beat a semi-retirer 37 YO man. Needs all 3 sets and 2 TBs to win. Fucking pushing scum should break his shin and retire and you faker tards should piss off from this sport for good.

 

[Denis]

Always laugh my ass off reading this tripe about Federer "benefitted from the 2003-2007" era. Fact, prime Nalbandian, Gozalez and Hewitt were beasts and Roddick in his prime had Novak's number and Djokovic luckily for him never faced most of them in their primes. Davydenko was also quite a player before his wrist injury. The reality is Djokovic is actually moping up the floor in a much, much weaker era than some Djokovic fans like to incorrectly allude to regarding Federer. A frequently injured Nadal and 37 year old Federer are his only challenge these days ffs. There were a lot more guys capable of beating the top guys in 2003-2007. Nalbandian made monkies out of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic in 2007 just for starters..

It’s not about those journeymen. It’s about the fact that Fed didn’t face Djokovic (or Nadal for that matter) for most of that period. On the other hand, Djokovic (and Nadal for most of it) have always have to contend with each other. That’s the difference. Yes Fed is getting really old now, but he still won the AO. So I can see the weak era argument if Fedal both retire this year and Novak wins all the slams.

 

[DarthFed]

It’s not about those journeymen. It’s about the fact that Fed didn’t face Djokovic (or Nadal for that matter) for most of that period. On the other hand, Djokovic (and Nadal for most of it) have always have to contend with each other. That’s the difference. Yes Fed is getting really old now, but he still won the AO. So I can see the weak era argument if Fedal both retire this year and Novak wins all the slams.

Feds first dominant year was 2004 and Nadal came on the scene in 2005 and was already dominant on clay. In fact he was clearly stronger on clay in 2005-2007 than he has been the past 6-7 years for most of Novak's prime. So this dream where Roger won 10 slams before ever facing Nadal is just not how it went down. And both naturally have faced a progressively weaker Roger by 2010 when he started losing to tons of people. Novak's prime has been against an old and mostly washed up Fed so he's really only had Nadal to deal with and even he has gotten notably weaker.

 

[Front242]

It’s not about those journeymen. It’s about the fact that Fed didn’t face Djokovic (or Nadal for that matter) for most of that period. On the other hand, Djokovic (and Nadal for most of it) have always have to contend with each other. That’s the difference. Yes Fed is getting really old now, but he still won the AO. So I can see the weak era argument if Fedal both retire this year and Novak wins all the slams.

Afraid it actually is about those "journeymen" because they were not journeymen at all but made to look so because prime Federer was so damn good. The unfortunate reality is that they would have kicked Djokovic's ass multiple times (Roddick did - he was shite by the time Djokovic started beating him easily) if their primes coincided with his and it took 3 sets and 2 tiebreaks for your supposed GOAT you claim Djokovic to be to beat a 37 year old with absolute hideous ROS and who hit almost every second backhand into the net. Seriously...

And Federer won the AO because, as I stated, this is a weak as shit era and Djokovic and Nadal both lost before the final which made things much easier for him.

 

[atttomole]

My opinion is that Novak is a better player than Federer. Fed has more slams because he is older and thus benefitted from the 2003-2007 era. Novak has also underperformed at times, losing to Stan and Murray at the usopen in finals.

I can concede that Djokovic may be the best returner of serve, but when you look at their respective games, Federer is better than Djokovic. Even with his excellent return, Federer playing good tennis takes Djokovic to the cleaners. Apart from Federer's aging, Djokovic has also benefited from slower surfaces, which negate Federer's serve.

You can see that now Djokovic has the luxury to go to Federer's forehand because it has become innocuous. In the past, Federer would burn him with running diagonal forehands. Federer no longer moves fast enough to get to the forehand when he is being moved side to side, and Djokovic is exploiting that. Not to mention that Federer can hardly win long rallies now, so it is about prolonging the points

 

[monfed]

Afraid it actually is about those "journeymen" because they were not journeymen at all but made to look so because prime Federer was so damn good. The unfortunate reality is that they would have kicked Djokovic's ass multiple times (Roddick did - he was shite by the time Djokovic started beating him easily) if their primes coincided with his and it took 3 sets and 2 tiebreaks for your supposed GOAT you claim Djokovic to be to beat a 37 year old with absolute hideous ROS and who hit almost every second backhand into the net. Seriously...

And Federer won the AO because, as I stated, this is a weak as shit era and Djokovic and Nadal both lost before the final which made things much easier for him.

I like how these fed hating retards specially fakertards like to spit on Fed's competition as a way to discredit his dominance. I've been watching tennis since the 90s and there has never been a weaker era since late 2014 to now.

 

[britbox]

Highlights / Interviews

 

[britbox]

Couldn't watch the match as it was during the night. First thoughts when I saw the score... the old man gave it a good go! I thought he might be dangerous in this one.