The Ultimate FEDAL (Wars) Thread

[DarthFed]

you know you will be challenged when you make such points. First, let's talk about Fed's 06 vs his 08 run and then talk about the inexplicable phenomenon of Federer always playing bad vs Nadal but not others, it being nothing to do with nadal's quality of tennis.

1. Roger's 06 vs 08 Wimbledon runs. In route to finals in 06, Roger beat Gasquet-Henman-Mahut-Berdych-Ancic-Bjorkman. In 08, Roger beat Hrbaty-Soderling-Gicquel-Hewitt-Ancic-Safin. When you claim that he faced a tougher slate of opponents in 06, as if it's not even debatable. prepare yourself to elaborate. I don't see it and if you will make your arguments, i will counter easily because it is quite easy to make an argument either way.... So i will call BS on this

2. Roger just happens to play poorly vs Nadal, every time. There are a couple of assumptions made here that are quite extraordinary
a. Roger is mentally weak. The fact is that Federer has won 20 slams because he has always been a mental giant, no-onem no matter how talented, does this without being a mental giant. Everyone faces players that matchup rather well against them, Nadal does several things that bother Roger.
b. Roger beats other players because he is able to summon his best all the time. One extraordinary assumption is that he just has dips in his level vs Nadal and no-one else. To believe that Federer has been able to summon his top level against everyone else, all the time, is absurd. Federer regularly beat the likes of Roddick, Hewitt and others on days when he wasn't at his top level, he couldn't do it vs Nadal. No tennis player can wake up every day and play their top top level, it is their ability to win when they are not at their top level that makes them great. There is this extraordinary bar set for when he faces Nadal, he must be at his uppermost level, but this same bar is not set against other players. In the 08 Wimbledon final, Federer didn't seem to be at his top level in first two sets but the level he displayed on that day could've been enough to beat 05 Roddick or 05 Hewitt, it wasn't against Nadal. Roger, did, however, reach his top level in the last 3 sets, he played at an incredibly high level and even so, barely got past Nadal 7-6, 7-6 and then lost 8-6.

Question - when Federer faced 18 year old Nadal for the very first time in their career, ON HARD COURTS, was he already intimidated by Nadal? he lost 3,3 on a masters tournament! This was a sign of things to come, Nadal's game had unique qualities to it that bothered Federer.

3. Nadal's serve was sh&t on grass and his game weak. For whatever reason, Rafa's serve was quite effective during his 08 Wimbledon run, there was no better example than when he faced Andy Murray in quarters. If i recall correctly, Murray couldn't even muster 1 break point! and Murray has always had a great return. I can't explain it but Nadal's serve has been a bit of a mystery throughout his career, he served lights out at USO 2010 (serving 135 bombs regularly) but then suddenly it went away. I will say that on grass, however, his serve has been quite effective, maybe the bounce was different than on hards. His major weakness, to me, has been his return of serve on grass, not his serve. Regarding Nadal's game on grass between 06-08, very underrated. In 06, Federer made finals without dropping a set but lost a set vs Nadal and i remember vividly that Nadal hit 20+ winners in that set, it has an incredible level. In 07 final, nadal pushed Roger to 5 and then in 08 beat him. No matter what you say, Nadal's level on grass during this streak was very high, higher than the level 03 Philipouisis, 05 Roddick showed, CLEARLY. The only exception may be 04 Roddick, who for a set was possessed but over entire match, 07-08 nadal played at a higher level than even 04 Roddick, CLEARLY. Nadal was hitting MANY more winners from the baseline than even 04 Roddick and serving effectively... plus doing things Roddick could never do - cover court and take winners away from Fed.

Roger's 06 draw was seen as brutal compared to 2008, Gasquet in the first round, and though Henman was already clearly past his prime that wasn't exactly a breeze of a 2nd round. Even Mahut is not a total pushover on grass, the only real break was the semi vs an ancient Bjorkman.

I think you may be confusing the guys in 08 a bit. Soderling had not broken out yet and was just seen as a semi-dangerous player. Ancic was at his best in 2006 and 2008 was after he got mono near the time he had to retire. Hewitt while still strong on grass was obviously already past his best days due to injury. Safin, while more dangerous than ancient Bjorkman, still was never that good on grass. That was his only good Wimbledon. Anyways it's kind of irrelevant anyways.

You can't really compare playing Miami vs Wimbledon. The ball bounces higher than it should at Wimbledon but we are not talking Miami here. The matchup issues off clay have always been overblown IMO. I think it's almost seen as an excuse on both sides. Fed fans even leaned on that as a crutch for a bit and Nadal fans saw it as an easy matchup simply because of the lefty spin to the 1HBH. But I think there was a lot more to it than that, especially when Roger was losing to him on faster, low-bouncing surfaces.

When we dissect their mental toughness H2H at that moment in 2008, note that we are talking H2H at that moment. I'm not talking their full careers. I think almost all Nadal fans would say Rafa was in Roger's head for many years and of course he earned his space there with all the big victories. If we go back to 2008 (when the ownership started) I think the RG beat down and even the other clay losses that year had an effect on that match. And after Wimbledon and AO heartbreak it just got worse and Rafa also got better on HC while Roger declined starting in 2010. But even then the matchup issues were overrated. Rafa was badly in his head and what may be lost in this is that Nadal was just overall a better player on HC than Roger was for many years (2010- AO 2014) when a lot of beatdowns took place.

We will always disagree about 2008. I don't think Roger was really ever lights out in that match aside from the 3rd set TB and the end of the 4th set TB after Nadal choked at 5-2. Roger just got a lot more aggressive after the 2nd set because that was his only chance. It worked a little bit but his play was quite erratic and then again we are talking 1-13 on BP's, broken 4 times to 1, and Rafa fans point out Roger's serve was amazing. It actually was fairly average for his standards. 65% first serve and 25 aces in a very long match on grass isn't exemplary for him. Roger's forehand was about the only thing he did well that day and even that deserted him at the end. ROS and net play were especially atrocious.

 

[MikeOne]

Roger's 06 draw was seen as brutal compared to 2008, Gasquet in the first round, and though Henman was already clearly past his prime that wasn't exactly a breeze of a 2nd round. Even Mahut is not a total pushover on grass, the only real break was the semi vs an ancient Bjorkman.

I think you may be confusing the guys in 08 a bit. Soderling had not broken out yet and was just seen as a semi-dangerous player. Ancic was at his best in 2006 and 2008 was after he got mono near the time he had to retire. Hewitt while still strong on grass was obviously already past his best days due to injury. Safin, while more dangerous than ancient Bjorkman, still was never that good on grass. That was his only good Wimbledon. Anyways it's kind of irrelevant anyways.

You look at everything from the lens of 'Federer was never at the top when losing to Nadal' and when you do that, you will go through extraordinary lengths to blow up competition between 04-07, exaggerate Roger's decline post 07, and find every excuse possible to explain why he lost to Nadal. It is absolutely preposterous to even dare to say 06 was so brutal vs 08, this is a joke. I showed you who he faced and you need to stop trying to blow up everyone in 06 and belittle everyone in 08, you would be doing the same exact thing if i inverted the draws - 'What a brutal draw in 06 MikeOne - DANGEROUS Soderling, seasoned Ancic, the great SAFIN (who was inspired and red hot) the great Lleyton Hewitt, a Wimbledon champ!, whew! brutal!' and then if the 06 draw would've been in 08, you would belittling Gasquet as baby who was inexperienced, OLD Henman, baby Ancic and joke Mahut and joke Bjorkman! you know it! You enter every analysis or debate WANTING to see it in a way that suits your arguments and when you do that, you will see things that don't make any sense.

You can't really compare playing Miami vs Wimbledon. The ball bounces higher than it should at Wimbledon but we are not talking Miami here. The matchup issues off clay have always been overblown IMO. I think it's almost seen as an excuse on both sides. Fed fans even leaned on that as a crutch for a bit and Nadal fans saw it as an easy matchup simply because of the lefty spin to the 1HBH. But I think there was a lot more to it than that, especially when Roger was losing to him on faster, low-bouncing surfaces.

It was all match-up and there is no stronger evidence than how Nadal, at 18, straight seated Fed at Miami. Nadal sucked in Miami, could never win that tournament but he won IW multiple times. He crushed Roger and it had nothing to do with Roger being mentally weak or intimidated because roger certainly didn't play Nadal for the first time already defeated. Without question, Nadal has always made it tough for Roger. Same as Stan makes it tough for Djokovic and Djokovic for Nadal. Styles make fights in boxing and also make matches in tennis. I always thought Roddick made Federer look like a god, because Roddick's strengths played well into Federer's strengths. Roddick was a poor mover and this allowed Roger to hit winners EASILY, at will. Roger has struggled more with Novak and Nadal due to their movement. Roddick also rarely hit winners off Roger from the baseline, yet Nadal, who you call defensive, has been able to hit MANY more winners off the baseline vs roger, even at Wimbledon. This is because Roddick had no angles and even lacked pace on his ground strokes. Roddick's main weapon was his serve but Roger was a good returner so he neutralized Roddick's weapon and left Roddick exposed from the baseline. Nadal always made Roger hit 2-3 extra shots than Roddick did, he also was better at attacking Roger's bh, which regularly broke down. Nadal also used acute angles to get Federer moving and open up the court, it's black and white. And without a doubt, Nadal's 08 level was higher than Roddick's in 04 or 05 Wimbledon final with exception of one set - first set of 04 final but Roddick couldn't sustain it as it was way above his capability to be ripping serves and fhs like he did for 3 sets.

When we dissect their mental toughness H2H at that moment in 2008, note that we are talking H2H at that moment. I'm not talking their full careers. I think almost all Nadal fans would say Rafa was in Roger's head for many years and of course he earned his space there with all the big victories. If we go back to 2008 (when the ownership started) I think the RG beat down and even the other clay losses that year had an effect on that match. And after Wimbledon and AO heartbreak it just got worse and Rafa also got better on HC while Roger declined starting in 2010. But even then the matchup issues were overrated. Rafa was badly in his head and what may be lost in this is that Nadal was just overall a better player on HC than Roger was for many years (2010- AO 2014) when a lot of beatdowns took place.

Nadal was in Roger's head due to his game, naturally. Stan is in Novak's head and Novak is in Nadal's head. Do you realize that Nadal fans claimed Novak started beating Nadal in 2011 because Nadal, all of sudden. became mentally weak? I remember broken making this argument, that Novak was in Nadal's head... As a Nadal fan, i had to take upon myself to stop the excuses. Nadal was extremely mentally tough during 2011, even when losing in 6 straight final vs Novak , it was Novak's game! Nadal couldn't find a weakness and his lefty fh to Novak's bh was disastrous, he couldn't use his angles effectively vs Novak and Novak's return took away Nadal's slice serve, Nadal was simply exposed. When even Nadal fans started making excuses for Nadal's losses, just like fed fans made excuses for Fed losses, you know something is up - rationalizing to create alternative universes.

We will always disagree about 2008. I don't think Roger was really ever lights out in that match aside from the 3rd set TB and the end of the 4th set TB after Nadal choked at 5-2. Roger just got a lot more aggressive after the 2nd set because that was his only chance. It worked a little bit but his play was quite erratic and then again we are talking 1-13 on BP's, broken 4 times to 1, and Rafa fans point out Roger's serve was amazing. It actually was fairly average for his standards. 65% first serve and 25 aces in a very long match on grass isn't exemplary for him. Roger's forehand was about the only thing he did well that day and even that deserted him at the end. ROS and net play were especially atrocious.

Roger, playing like he did in sets 3,4,5 would've CRUSHED Hewitt, Roddick and anyone from 04-08, he was playing a guy that had made finals 3 years in a row, improving every year, hungry and had a game well suited for Roger. Roger's level was insanely high in those last 3 sets.... Nadal just went through a tear that year on grass and it came down to a point, here and there. Roger's problem in 08 was that he started off cold in first 2 sets, he then couldn't fend off an incredible confident Nadal who was playing very high level, it happens and it could happen to Nadal at French too.

 

[DarthFed]

You look at everything from the lens of 'Federer was never at the top when losing to Nadal' and when you do that, you will go through extraordinary lengths to blow up competition between 04-07, exaggerate Roger's decline post 07, and find every excuse possible to explain why he lost to Nadal. It is absolutely preposterous to even dare to say 06 was so brutal vs 08, this is a joke. I showed you who he faced and you need to stop trying to blow up everyone in 06 and belittle everyone in 08, you would be doing the same exact thing if i inverted the draws - 'What a brutal draw in 06 MikeOne - DANGEROUS Soderling, seasoned Ancic, the great SAFIN (who was inspired and red hot) the great Lleyton Hewitt, a Wimbledon champ!, whew! brutal!' and then if the 06 draw would've been in 08, you would belittling Gasquet as baby who was inexperienced, OLD Henman, baby Ancic and joke Mahut and joke Bjorkman! you know it! You enter every analysis or debate WANTING to see it in a way that suits your arguments and when you do that, you will see things that don't make any sense.

It was all match-up and there is no stronger evidence than how Nadal, at 18, straight seated Fed at Miami. Nadal sucked in Miami, could never win that tournament but he won IW multiple times. He crushed Roger and it had nothing to do with Roger being mentally weak or intimidated because roger certainly didn't play Nadal for the first time already defeated. Without question, Nadal has always made it tough for Roger. Same as Stan makes it tough for Djokovic and Djokovic for Nadal. Styles make fights in boxing and also make matches in tennis. I always thought Roddick made Federer look like a god, because Roddick's strengths played well into Federer's strengths. Roddick was a poor mover and this allowed Roger to hit winners EASILY, at will. Roger has struggled more with Novak and Nadal due to their movement. Roddick also rarely hit winners off Roger from the baseline, yet Nadal, who you call defensive, has been able to hit MANY more winners off the baseline vs roger, even at Wimbledon. This is because Roddick had no angles and even lacked pace on his ground strokes. Roddick's main weapon was his serve but Roger was a good returner so he neutralized Roddick's weapon and left Roddick exposed from the baseline. Nadal always made Roger hit 2-3 extra shots than Roddick did, he also was better at attacking Roger's bh, which regularly broke down. Nadal also used acute angles to get Federer moving and open up the court, it's black and white. And without a doubt, Nadal's 08 level was higher than Roddick's in 04 or 05 Wimbledon final with exception of one set - first set of 04 final but Roddick couldn't sustain it as it was way above his capability to be ripping serves and fhs like he did for 3 sets.

Nadal was in Roger's head due to his game, naturally. Stan is in Novak's head and Novak is in Nadal's head. Do you realize that Nadal fans claimed Novak started beating Nadal in 2011 because Nadal, all of sudden. became mentally weak? I remember broken making this argument, that Novak was in Nadal's head... As a Nadal fan, i had to take upon myself to stop the excuses. Nadal was extremely mentally tough during 2011, even when losing in 6 straight final vs Novak , it was Novak's game! Nadal couldn't find a weakness and his lefty fh to Novak's bh was disastrous, he couldn't use his angles effectively vs Novak and Novak's return took away Nadal's slice serve, Nadal was simply exposed. When even Nadal fans started making excuses for Nadal's losses, just like fed fans made excuses for Fed losses, you know something is up - rationalizing to create alternative universes.

Roger, playing like he did in sets 3,4,5 would've CRUSHED Hewitt, Roddick and anyone from 04-08, he was playing a guy that had made finals 3 years in a row, improving every year, hungry and had a game well suited for Roger. Roger's level was insanely high in those last 3 sets.... Nadal just went through a tear that year on grass and it came down to a point, here and there. Roger's problem in 08 was that he started off cold in first 2 sets, he then couldn't fend off an incredible confident Nadal who was playing very high level, it happens and it could happen to Nadal at French too.

Again talking about the difference in draws is kind of irrelevant but you did nothing to dispel anything I said. Ancic had a career year in 06 and got mono in 07 which he never recovered from. Soderling was a tough 2nd rounder but he was not a break out player yet which is why they were meeting in the 2nd round. Gasquet was the #17 player so yes that was an incredibly unlucky first round draw. I will be generous and say Berdych in the 4th round of 2006 was not as much of a threat as washed up Hewitt in 08. And yes, that is being generous.

Roger was never at as great of a level as you haters make it seem that match. It just isn't based in reality whatsoever. You act as though you aren't biased at all which is funny. Roger played so brilliantly that match that he broke serve 1 time in 30 return games against an average at best server including 0-20 in the last 3 sets. So no, he wouldn't have blown away Roddick (see 2009). Roger hit 52 UFE's which has to be one of the highest totals in the history of that tournament given how kind their scoring is. He was barely 55% at net, his serve was average and he simply lost the vast majority of big points. We are talking a guy who had won 65 straight matches on grass. He wasn't going to be easy to beat even on a crap day.

 

[MikeOne]

Again talking about the difference in draws is kind of irrelevant but you did nothing to dispel anything I said. Ancic had a career year in 06 and got mono in 07 which he never recovered from. Soderling was a tough 2nd rounder but he was not a break out player yet which is why they were meeting in the 2nd round. Gasquet was the #17 player so yes that was an incredibly unlucky first round draw. I will be generous and say Berdych in the 4th round of 2006 was not as much of a threat as washed up Hewitt in 08. And yes, that is being generous.

Roger was never at as great of a level as you haters make it seem that match. It just isn't based in reality whatsoever. You act as though you aren't biased at all which is funny. Roger played so brilliantly that match that he broke serve 1 time in 30 return games against an average at best server including 0-20 in the last 3 sets. So no, he wouldn't have blown away Roddick (see 2009). Roger hit 52 UFE's which has to be one of the highest totals in the history of that tournament given how kind their scoring is. He was barely 55% at net, his serve was average and he simply lost the vast majority of big points. We are talking a guy who had won 65 straight matches on grass. He wasn't going to be easy to beat even on a crap day.

nadal had that 80 streak clay court streak between 05-07, so was he at his prime back then? suddenly got old? oh wait..

again, any reasonable/neutral observer would think it's utterly ridiculous to suggest 06 draw was much more brutal than 08 draw but bias gets people to see things the way they WANT to see them. Depending on which side you are, you can come up with compelling arguments either way.

At the end of the day, it's simply ludicrous and nonsensical to believe Federer, at 26, was past his prime. For a man to be winning slams and claiming #1 ranking at 35/36, it is absurd to even suggest he was past his prime in 10 years earlier! It is, of course, convenient for those who want to believe that Roger Federer was an unbeatable player who Nadal and Djokovic would've been lucky to beat between 04-07. It is a myth that Federer between 04-07 was so much better, tennis wise. How could baby 18 year old Nadal defeat Federer 3,3 at a hardcourt masters? If Federer in 04 was so much better, then surely he would've double bageled 18 year old little baby Nadal? He simply wasn't that unbeatable as you think back then. His competition DEFINITELY helped Federer amass an amazing record between 04-07. Once competition improved, Federer started to lose his confidence. You mention he lost to other players post 07, that makes sense. I mean, let's talk about Djokovic. You remember how in 2011 he dominated? then he went away in 2012-2013, then came back strong in 2015-2016, then went away, then came back strong in 2018/19. So what if i argue Djokovic was in his prime 2011? then past his prime after? and i will use same excuse you use for Federer, that Djokovic in 2012/13 was losing to nobodies that he wouldn't have lost to in 2011? Like it? THIS IS YOUR LOGIC.

I can use same logic for Nadal and claim that Nadal was in his prime in 2008-10 then past his prime once he started losing to Djokovic, even though Nadal was in his early/mid 20s. Why? just because he started to lose more.... but hey, Nadal came back in 2010, then went away again! and then came back again in 2013, then went away again, then came back AGAIN in 2017! So when was his prime? I can use all sorts of reasons/excuses to explain when his prime was and adjust my arguments to suit whatever narrative i want to push.

Federer is no GOD DAMN different. Just like Djokovic and Nadal had periods of dominance, went away, then came back... Federer did the same. It is incredibly difficult to impossible to sustain a stretch of 2-3 utterly dominant years, no-one can. Federer did it between 04-07, Djokovic in 2011, then 2015/16, then 18/19 and Nadal did in stages too. Look at how wasted Novak was after winning 4 slams in a row, he got injured and destroyed mentally, it takes it's toll.

It is simply UTTERLY ridiculous to think Federer was just washed up and wasted after just 4 years of dominance and at 26, his prime was DONE. BS! He had a nice run, aided by subpar competition and then once competition got really tough (as happens to every great player), he started losing more, lost confidence, dipped a bit, but he still had the same game, just went through ups/downs and even 10 years after 2008 was winning slams and retaking #1! you realize how crazy it sounds to say that 10 years before this he was past his prime?

Lastly, these arguments come down to silliness because we have 3 players who have won 20 slams, 17 and 15 and we keep arguing as if neither deserved to win against the other, IF the other had played their TOP LEVEL. Step back for a minute and think how utterly ridiculous it sounds to believe that any of these 3 could've just wasted the other two, if they had just played to their capabilities. To begin with, no-one can play their top level all the time, it's what they do below their very top level that counts. If we just talk about highest level each can achieve then i can point to matches where Novak looked unbeatable and say 'what if Novak had played like this every time against Roger?' JUST DUMB! We are talking about the 3 greatest players in the history and none of them had the game to consistently top the other.. they were simply too good and all good enough to beat each other in any surface, end of debate. The arguments about Federer SUDDENLY being washed up by 08 or Nadal by 11, in an effort to justify losses, is DUMB.... Djokovic and Nadal would've beaten Federer of 04-07 on ANY SURFACE and vice versa... it is absolute MYTH that 04-07 Federer would've wasted Djokovic and Nadal in their primes, it's even DUMB to suggest it given these guys have 17 and 15 slams!

 

[DarthFed]

nadal had that 80 streak clay court streak between 05-07, so was he at his prime back then? suddenly got old? oh wait..

again, any reasonable/neutral observer would think it's utterly ridiculous to suggest 06 draw was much more brutal than 08 draw but bias gets people to see things the way they WANT to see them. Depending on which side you are, you can come up with compelling arguments either way.

At the end of the day, it's simply ludicrous and nonsensical to believe Federer, at 26, was past his prime. For a man to be winning slams and claiming #1 ranking at 35/36, it is absurd to even suggest he was past his prime in 10 years earlier! It is, of course, convenient for those who want to believe that Roger Federer was an unbeatable player who Nadal and Djokovic would've been lucky to beat between 04-07. It is a myth that Federer between 04-07 was so much better, tennis wise. How could baby 18 year old Nadal defeat Federer 3,3 at a hardcourt masters? If Federer in 04 was so much better, then surely he would've double bageled 18 year old little baby Nadal? He simply wasn't that unbeatable as you think back then. His competition DEFINITELY helped Federer amass an amazing record between 04-07. Once competition improved, Federer started to lose his confidence. You mention he lost to other players post 07, that makes sense. I mean, let's talk about Djokovic. You remember how in 2011 he dominated? then he went away in 2012-2013, then came back strong in 2015-2016, then went away, then came back strong in 2018/19. So what if i argue Djokovic was in his prime 2011? then past his prime after? and i will use same excuse you use for Federer, that Djokovic in 2012/13 was losing to nobodies that he wouldn't have lost to in 2011? Like it? THIS IS YOUR LOGIC.

I can use same logic for Nadal and claim that Nadal was in his prime in 2008-10 then past his prime once he started losing to Djokovic, even though Nadal was in his early/mid 20s. Why? just because he started to lose more.... but hey, Nadal came back in 2010, then went away again! and then came back again in 2013, then went away again, then came back AGAIN in 2017! So when was his prime? I can use all sorts of reasons/excuses to explain when his prime was and adjust my arguments to suit whatever narrative i want to push.

Federer is no GOD DAMN different. Just like Djokovic and Nadal had periods of dominance, went away, then came back... Federer did the same. It is incredibly difficult to impossible to sustain a stretch of 2-3 utterly dominant years, no-one can. Federer did it between 04-07, Djokovic in 2011, then 2015/16, then 18/19 and Nadal did in stages too. Look at how wasted Novak was after winning 4 slams in a row, he got injured and destroyed mentally, it takes it's toll.

It is simply UTTERLY ridiculous to think Federer was just washed up and wasted after just 4 years of dominance and at 26, his prime was DONE. BS! He had a nice run, aided by subpar competition and then once competition got really tough (as happens to every great player), he started losing more, lost confidence, dipped a bit, but he still had the same game, just went through ups/downs and even 10 years after 2008 was winning slams and retaking #1! you realize how crazy it sounds to say that 10 years before this he was past his prime?

Lastly, these arguments come down to silliness because we have 3 players who have won 20 slams, 17 and 15 and we keep arguing as if neither deserved to win against the other, IF the other had played their TOP LEVEL. Step back for a minute and think how utterly ridiculous it sounds to believe that any of these 3 could've just wasted the other two, if they had just played to their capabilities. To begin with, no-one can play their top level all the time, it's what they do below their very top level that counts. If we just talk about highest level each can achieve then i can point to matches where Novak looked unbeatable and say 'what if Novak had played like this every time against Roger?' JUST DUMB! We are talking about the 3 greatest players in the history and none of them had the game to consistently top the other.. they were simply too good and all good enough to beat each other in any surface, end of debate. The arguments about Federer SUDDENLY being washed up by 08 or Nadal by 11, in an effort to justify losses, is DUMB.... Djokovic and Nadal could've beaten Federer of 04-07 in ANY SURFACE and vice versa... it is absolute MYTH that 04-07 Federer would've wasted Djokovic and Nadal in their primes, it's even DUMB to suggest it given these guys have 17 and 15 slams!

Man, take a deep breath and read my post where I said Roger's prime was 2004-2009 or even if we want to say up through 2010 AO. After that there was a pretty clear drop even if he's done well here and there since.

Aside from that I actually find myself agreeing with a lot of what you say. Of course they are all capable of beating one another on all surfaces and they all have had periods of complete dominance and periods where they are not at their highest level but still damn good. And now they've all had extended down periods too where they flat out stink for their standards.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

If Novak passes both Rafa and Roger, all these Fedal wars will look silly.

If Novak manages another (second) Nole slam on the way to it, it will look very silly.

If Novak manages to win a calendar slam this year on the way to it, it will look totally absurd.

 

[Moxie]

If Novak passes both Rafa and Roger, all these Fedal wars will look silly.

If Novak manages another (second) Nole slam on the way to it, it will look very silly.

If Novak manages to win a calendar slam this year on the way to it, it will look totally absurd.

Perhaps in terms of forums arguments, but not in terms of tennis history. The Federer-Nadal rivalry, in it's day, will always be one for the ages.

 

[mrzz]

If Novak passes both Rafa and Roger, all these Fedal wars will look silly.

If Novak manages another (second) Nole slam on the way to it, it will look very silly.

If Novak manages to win a calendar slam this year on the way to it, it will look totally absurd.

And how exactly they look now again?

 

[MikeOne]

Man, take a deep breath and read my post where I said Roger's prime was 2004-2009 or even if we want to say up through 2010 AO. After that there was a pretty clear drop even if he's done well here and there since.

Aside from that I actually find myself agreeing with a lot of what you say. Of course they are all capable of beating one another on all surfaces and they all have had periods of complete dominance and periods where they are not at their highest level but still damn good. And now they've all had extended down periods too where they flat out stink for their standards.

Periods of dominance are periods where everything falls into place but competition is key when it comes to acquiring the confidence necessary to sustain a dominant period. Tennis is a very mental sport, you can't rely on teammates or even a couch during the course of a match and when a player isn't confident, it makes a world of difference, even when physical abilities are the same. Without question, Federer's best period was 04-07 but it was due to many factors that together helped him sustain that level - extreme confidence, maturity, physical prowess and hunger to make a name for himself. I really believe his physical abilities were the same in 08 but what he lost was a bit of confidence and largely due to better rivals. When he was beating the likes of Roddick, Hewitt, Blake routinely, his confidence was at an all time high. When Djokovic started beating him, Federer's confidence was shattered. That straight set loss in 08 AO semis was big, i have no doubt Federer would've won 08 AO if it hadn't been for Djokovic. That match was mainly due to a very high level from Djokovic and i think less to do with Federer's dip in level, Djokovic has won 7 AOs and in 08 was in beast mode during that tournament. He then got crushed by Nadal at FO final, another demoralizing defeat. These losses, to better rivals, can completely change the flow of things as when a player is not as confident, it can really make a big difference.

again, what fanboys seem to do is always make excuses as to why their favorite players lose. Federer didn't age 10 years between 07 (when he won 3 slams) and 08, his main problem was the rise of Djokovic and Nadal improving. Same for Nadal, as a Nadal fan, i completely accepted that in 2011, Nadal was in his prime, Djokovic was just too good. Nadal had won 3 slams in 2010 and was in beast mode in 2011, he made IW, Miami, MC, Rome , Wimbledon, US Open finals and only lost to Djokovic in these big occasions. Some were claiming Djokovic was in his head, Nadal tactics were wrong or he was suddenly pas his best.

As a Djokovic fan, i also never made excuses when Stan beat Djokovic. To me, at their best, no player is unbeatable - Federer, Djokovic or Nadal. Stylistically, Nadal gave Federer problems and Djokovic has given Nadal problems. Wawrinka, to me, was stylistically tough for Djokovic as Stan is one of the very few players who can hit winners consistently off deep balls, which Djokovic is a master at doing. 04-07 Federer was beatable, 2011, 2015-2016 Djokovic was beatable and 08, 10, 13 Nadal was beatable...

 

[GameSetAndMath]

again, what fanboys seem to do is always make excuses as to why their favorite players lose. Federer didn't age 10 years between 07 (when he won 3 slams) and 08, his main problem was the rise of Djokovic and Nadal improving. Same for Nadal, as a Nadal fan, i completely accepted that in 2011, Nadal was in his prime, Djokovic was just too good. Nadal had won 3 slams in 2010 and was in beast mode in 2011, he made IW, Miami, MC, Rome , Wimbledon, US Open finals and only lost to Djokovic in these big occasions. Some were claiming Djokovic was in his head, Nadal tactics were wrong or he was suddenly pas his best.

..

Nobody claims he suddenly aged from 2007 from 2008. But, there was a legitimate issue of mono which prevented him to get ready for the slams properly. At the same time there is no question that both Novak and Rafa (on Non-clay surfaces) were becoming better in 2008.
While Roger would have any way lost to Rafa in RG, there is a reasonable chance that Fed might have won AO, if not for the mono.

 

[Moxie]

Nobody claims he suddenly aged from 2007 from 2008. But, there was a legitimate issue of mono which prevented him to get ready for the slams properly. At the same time there is no question that both Novak and Rafa (on Non-clay surfaces) were becoming better in 2008.
While Roger would have any way lost to Rafa in RG, there is a reasonable chance that Fed might have won AO, if not for the mono.

I find it really amusing that Federer fans have so willingly embraced the theory/excuse that mono prevented Roger from "preparing properly." This from a guy who admittedly didn't train super-hard anyway. I'm guessing that you mean 'might have won the 2008 AO?' At least you didn't say Wimbledon, though I know others have. Federberg subscribes to that theory, which, let's admit it, is not visible or quantifiable, and yet he's completely unwilling to believe that knee issues could have had anything to do with Rafa's loss to Soderling in RG '09, even though one could note that he'd bailed on DC due to knees, had a clear knee issue in the Rotterdam final in '09, and wore strapping on his knees for many months. Folks will believe what they want. That's as true as anything we know about forum discussions. But let's dispense with the tired old myth that Nadal fans are the only, or even the worst, excuse makers around.

 

[atttomole]

I find it really amusing that Federer fans have so willingly embraced the theory/excuse that mono prevented Roger from "preparing properly." This from a guy who admittedly didn't train super-hard anyway. I'm guessing that you mean 'might have won the 2008 AO?' At least you didn't say Wimbledon, though I know others have. Federberg subscribes to that theory, which, let's admit it, is not visible or quantifiable, and yet he's completely unwilling to believe that knee issues could have had anything to do with Rafa's loss to Soderling in RG '09, even though one could note that he'd bailed on DC due to knees, had a clear knee issue in the Rotterdam final in '09, and wore strapping on his knees for many months. Folks will believe what they want. That's as true as anything we know about forum discussions. But let's dispense with the tired old myth that Nadal fans are the only, or even the worst, excuse makers around.

Mono can be debilitating. Federer could have caught a milder form of the disease, which can still inhibit physical activity.

 

[Moxie]

Mono can be debilitating. Federer could have caught a milder form of the disease, which can still inhibit physical activity.

I understand that mono can be debilitating. That's the nature of it. It ended the careers of Ancic and Soderling, amongst others. Federer absolutely caught a milder form of the disease, evidenced by the fact that he didn't skip any tournaments, IIRC. It's not just a question of how tired you feel, it's a question of if the spleen or liver is enlarged. This would cause a doctor to call for no physical activity, due to danger of rupture. Clearly, this was not the case with Federer, since he kept playing. (Though this would be why he said, after the AO, that he wouldn't have played it, had he been diagnosed prior.) But this is why I say it's so spurious for Fed fans to drag out the effects of mono as the explanation for such a dip in his play. At a certain point, you have to stop. If he were so badly off, the doctors wouldn't have allowed him to play. I am no doctor, but based on the fact that he could play at all, I doubt seriously that it affected him longer than a couple of months. I'm just laughing at this later career theory that it "didn't allow him to prepare properly." That's a retroactive excuse if I ever heard one.

 

[Moxie]

Man, take a deep breath and read my post where I said Roger's prime was 2004-2009 or even if we want to say up through 2010 AO. After that there was a pretty clear drop even if he's done well here and there since.

Aside from that I actually find myself agreeing with a lot of what you say. Of course they are all capable of beating one another on all surfaces and they all have had periods of complete dominance and periods where they are not at their highest level but still damn good. And now they've all had extended down periods too where they flat out stink for their standards.

Let's be honest: over the years, you have actually made the argument that Roger's peak ended in 2007. Mike is right to call you out on that.

 

[Moxie]

@MikeOne: for the sake of accuracy, you have said several times that Rafa beat Roger in Miami when he was 18. He was 17.

 

[DarthFed]

Let's be honest: over the years, you have actually made the argument that Roger's peak ended in 2007. Mike is right to call you out on that.

Peak and prime are different. Clearly 2004-2007 were Roger's best years. Now Mike correctly points out how key confidence is and how losing it was a factor in Roger's weak 2008. Aside from that it is a partisan debate, Mike thinks the AO and Wimbledon and losses to nobodies that year were respectable performances whereas I don't.

 

[Moxie]

Peak and prime are different. Clearly 2004-2007 were Roger's best years. Now Mike correctly points out how key confidence is and how losing it was a factor in Roger's weak 2008. Aside from that it is a partisan debate, Mike thinks the AO and Wimbledon and losses to nobodies that year were respectable performances whereas I don't.

Agreed that peak and prime are different, but it's very convenient that you think that Roger fell so far off of peak in one year, especially because it coincides with a year when Rafa jumped up. And as Mike points out, it's very hard to say that a player who was so dominant in one year, fell so far off the ledge in the next, especially when he was capable of getting back to #1 a fair few times, and still winning several Majors. I know GSM and other keep trying to blame mono. But, realistically, no player drops that far off the mark in one year, at least not one as elite and talented as Roger. Any number of factors can come into play, but I think that it's not outrageous what @MikeOne says, which is that the competition also caught up to him. Surely the 8 Majors he's won since Nadal and Djokovic came to full flower are no joke, but the 12 he won before were rather without much challenge. Federer didn't fall off of "peak" in 2008 so much as he got more challenged from there on in.

 

[MikeOne]

Nobody claims he suddenly aged from 2007 from 2008. But, there was a legitimate issue of mono which prevented him to get ready for the slams properly. At the same time there is no question that both Novak and Rafa (on Non-clay surfaces) were becoming better in 2008.
While Roger would have any way lost to Rafa in RG, there is a reasonable chance that Fed might have won AO, if not for the mono.

The mono excuse is something i have shot down before. Federer got through a tough 5 set match with Tipseravic and then bounced back and destroyed a good player before he met Djokovic. A guy suffering from mono would not be able to even step on the court to play a competitive match. In fact, i vividly remember the commentators saying that after Federer won that 5 set battle vs Tipseravic, he went and did some cardio, right after the match.

If Federer had lost to someone else, MAYBE i would buy that. The problem you and your mono excuse run into is that Federer lost to Djokovic. Who is Djokovic? The greatest AO champ in history, with 7 AOs. Not only this, he was on a tear during AO 08 run, crushing opponents and had beaten federer for first time towards end of 2007, at a masters final. So the evidence suggests Federer was physically fine and Djokovic was rising fast, facts also show is possibly greatest ever at AO. Hard to argue Federer lost to him because of Mono, evidence is quite weak. It was a convenient excuse, after the loss.

Djokovic also straight setted Federer at 2011 AO and in 2016 was toying with Federer, won first two sets 1,2! Federer was no joke, remember he won AO in 2017 and 2018.

The facts and evidence show Djokovic was the problem, not mono.

 

[MikeOne]

@MikeOne: for the sake of accuracy, you have said several times that Rafa beat Roger in Miami when he was 18. He was 17.

lol, and even at 17, he was in Fed's head, wasn't he? so a teen Nadal was in Fed's head before they had even played their first match. That match says it all, really does.

 

[MikeOne]

You know, you're just an eternal sh$thead. I never used the excuse for Nalbandian that he didn't train hard. Other people did. My argument regarding Nalbandian was that he did not work on his weaknesses (particularly his serving). There was no excuse for such a talented player to hit so many double faults and have such a low first-serve percentage. Nalbandian did train intensively, and that was on his baseline game; it showed because this part of his game was consistently excellent.

But did Nalbandian ever improve his serve the way Murray or Nadal did? No, and that is because he didn't work on it sufficiently.

As for your indoor argument, again, you are just a complete moron. Nalbandian embarrassed Nadal for two sets at Indian Wells in 2009 when Nadal was #1 and coming off his only Australian Open title. Nalbandian had 5 match points to win in straights. If he was not a great outdoors player, the match never would have gotten to that point.

Nadal has never really improved his serve dramatically, it's still a a shot he can't quite master like Sampras or Federer could. If you think a player can just improve all their shots, you are wrong, everyone has a unique composition of physical traits and eye-hand coordination that limits upside. Nadal will never have Federer's serve, Djokovic will never volley like Edberg, etc..

It's is very sad that all you can point to with Nalbandian is that he was up vs Nadal in IW before Nadal came back and beat him. Then you point to Nalbandian great runs at Paris and Madrid or EOY at tour final. This is all you have on him for his entire career? What you are not mentioning are all the pathetic repeated losses, like Ferrero CRUSHING and overpowering him at AO, Djokovic beating him 1,0 on grass, the long list of Nalbandian being bullied and beaten by low quality players is miles long. Of course, you ignore all this and basically argue 'yes, but that's because he couldn't correct easy issues with his serve. He never lost because of the quality of his opponents, Nalbandian was just stupid and didn't train smartly. Had he trained smartly and corrected his serve, he would've been GOAT'

It is not even funny that you argue Nalbandian was so great when he couldn't even win 1 slam, not 5, or 2 , NOT EVEN ONE!!!!!! Safin, to me, worked half as hard as Nalbandian, the guy even had 3 girlfriends watching him at slams! he even managed to win a few slams... and i can also say Safin could've improved his shots. If Nalbandian was half as talented as you claim he was, he would've won at least 5 slams, even with a serve that was so so... but not even 1??? and when he made his only slam final was absolutely outclassed By Hewitt, of all people! Hewitt!

Nalbandian had more limitations in his game than Nadal, he simply couldn't play his top level on any surface but indoor carpet, he needed the surface to help him because he had limitations. I watched him once against Youzhny at USO and it was a forgettable match, i wasn't impressed with his shot making at all. I can honestly tell you that i recall i felt Youhzny was more talented than Nalbandian, he had control of 75% of the baseline rallies with his forehand; every time he got a forehand, he put Nalbandian on the run and Nalbandian seemed to lack weapons or anything to hurt Youzhny.

Nalbandian was limited, would've NEVER EVER won 15, 17 OR 20 slams even if he would've trained 5 times as hard and improved his serve.