The Ultimate FEDAL (Wars) Thread

[atttomole]

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 goiod 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.

I don’t think losing to Djokovic in 2008 is something that I would be ashamed of as a Federer fan. Dijokovic was already showing potential as an all round tennis player. How much the mono affected Federer is still debatable. However, I also remember that after that 2008 loss, Federer continued to dominate Djokovic until 2010. He had occasional important wins against him at RG in 2011 and at Wimbledon 2012. I think it would be fair to say that his losses to Djokovic after 2010 were a combination of Djokovic playing his best tennis and Federer getting older.

 

[Ricardo]

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.

Who told you that with mono you are always only good for bed? Get some clue!
And 2016 Federer wasn’t quarter as good as his 17 version or half as good as 2018 version, you been watching or just talk bs?

 

[DarthFed]

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.

The problem with your logic is you want to say Novak wasn't all that until 2011 if it suits your argument and here you are acting like the 2008 Novak was already an all-time great. Novak was playing at a high level that match and that tournament but this was not post 2010 Novak. Let's remember that Roger's AO the year before was probably his best ever major. Fast forward to 2008 and he had a dismal tournament, almost losing to a journeyman and then even in straight set wins over Berdych and Blake he looked out of sorts. Then he got beaten with great ease by a very young Djokovic who had no other notable slam success until 2010 USO.

I'm not sure where you can know for sure how Roger was feeling that tournament, when you're talking enormous tournaments/games, athletes often play through illness or injury. That's not exactly a foreign concept. And as someone who has probably complained about Rafa's injuries over the years it may be out there to think Roger invented an illness just because he lost to Djokovic in Australia.

Roger's start to 2008 was incredibly awful. On top of a weak AO he was bounced in straights by Murray at Dubai (before Andy broke out at all that year), got routed 2 and 3 by Mardy frickin Fish at IW and then lost to Roddick in Miami. His game on clay was still disappointing that year but he was significantly better and most would say he had recovered from mono by then. And by then the damage was done to the confidence which played a big role in further humiliation pretty much everywhere of note except the US Open.

 

[Ricardo]

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.

Looks like that’s the only thing you know a about Nalbandian, a crap match against Youzny.

 

[Ricardo]

The problem with your logic is you want to say Novak wasn't all that until 2011 if it suits your argument and here you are acting like the 2008 Novak was already an all-time great. Novak was playing at a high level that match and that tournament but this was not post 2010 Novak. Let's remember that Roger's AO the year before was probably his best ever major. Fast forward to 2008 and he had a dismal tournament, almost losing to a journeyman and then even in straight set wins over Berdych and Blake he looked out of sorts. Then he got beaten with great ease by a very young Djokovic who had no other notable slam success until 2010 USO.

I'm not sure where you can know for sure how Roger was feeling that tournament, when you're talking enormous tournaments/games, athletes often play through illness or injury. That's not exactly a foreign concept. And as someone who has probably complained about Rafa's injuries over the years it may be out there to think Roger invented an illness just because he lost to Djokovic in Australia.

Roger's start to 2008 was incredibly awful. On top of a weak AO he was bounced in straights by Murray at Dubai (before Andy broke out at all that year), got routed 2 and 3 by Mardy frickin Fish at IW and then lost to Roddick in Miami. His game on clay was still disappointing that year but he was significantly better and most would say he had recovered from mono by then. And by then the damage was done to the confidence which played a big role in further humiliation pretty much everywhere of note except the US Open.

With losses to Fish and Roddick, nobody buys that it was top form Federer.....mikeone does of course, for his obvious agenda.

 

[MikeOne]

With losses to Fish and Roddick, nobody buys that it was top form Federer.....mikeone does of course, for his obvious agenda.

between 04-07 Federer lost to some players who were worse than Fish and Roddick, look it up... even a 17 year old Nadal

 

[MikeOne]

The problem with your logic is you want to say Novak wasn't all that until 2011 if it suits your argument and here you are acting like the 2008 Novak was already an all-time great. Novak was playing at a high level that match and that tournament but this was not post 2010 Novak. Let's remember that Roger's AO the year before was probably his best ever major. Fast forward to 2008 and he had a dismal tournament, almost losing to a journeyman and then even in straight set wins over Berdych and Blake he looked out of sorts. Then he got beaten with great ease by a very young Djokovic who had no other notable slam success until 2010 USO.

I'm not sure where you can know for sure how Roger was feeling that tournament, when you're talking enormous tournaments/games, athletes often play through illness or injury. That's not exactly a foreign concept. And as someone who has probably complained about Rafa's injuries over the years it may be out there to think Roger invented an illness just because he lost to Djokovic in Australia.

Roger's start to 2008 was incredibly awful. On top of a weak AO he was bounced in straights by Murray at Dubai (before Andy broke out at all that year), got routed 2 and 3 by Mardy frickin Fish at IW and then lost to Roddick in Miami. His game on clay was still disappointing that year but he was significantly better and most would say he had recovered from mono by then. And by then the damage was done to the confidence which played a big role in further humiliation pretty much everywhere of note except the US Open.

Fed straight setted Berdych and then Blake in the two matches before he faced Djokovic. So were these two such clowns that they couldn't even manage 1 set vs mono striken Fed? you mean to tell me they were that pathetic?

First you say it was an easy match... it wasn't, here you lose credibility. I remember that match very well, i woke up to watch it because Djokovic was playing at a really high level and i thought he could win. Federer served for the first set! Djokovic broke him and took the set 7-5, this gave Djokovic BIG confidence and he took a 4-1 lead in second set... Federer couldn't stop him in 2nd set, go back and watch the level. In 3rd set, Federer was strong and it went 7-6. The match could've gone either way, had Fed served out that first set, match would've prob been different...

Remember, Djokovic arrived in 07. His first breakthrough was when he beat Nadal in Miami masters and won a masters for first time. This was the official arrival of Djokovic. He then went on to win another masters and beat Federer in that tournament. By the end of 07, Djokovic had arrived. His level during his AO run was incredibly high, i would argue close to his 2011 level. There is this notion that players only play their highest level when they become consistent, this is bogus. To me, Federer's 03 and Djokovic's 08 year were remarkably similar. They both reached incredibly high levels in spurts. You really think Federer's level during 03 Wimbledon was much lower than Federer's level during 04 Wimbledon? You remember the 03 W semis and finals? Federer was in GOD mode. The difference between his 03 and 04 seasons was consistency, Federer couldn't sustain that incredible level all year round in 03 but he did win eoy masters tournament. Similarly, Djokovic's 08 AO run was an insane level, he couldn't sustain it but just like Federer did, won eoy masters tournament too, playing a crazy high level.

No-one that knows tennis can say 11 Djokovic was much better than 08 Djokovic as he played in AO and similarly, no-one that knows tennis can tell me 04 Federer was much better than 03 Federer as he played during 03 Wimbledon... consistency week in/week out was the difference. You disagree? go back and watch highlights of 08 Djokovic during AO and 03 Federer during Wimbledon. Tell me you see a lower level than what these two displayed during their dominant years...

 

[DarthFed]

Fed straight setted Berdych and then Blake in the two matches before he faced Djokovic. So were these two such clowns that they couldn't even manage 1 set vs mono striken Fed? you mean to tell me they were that pathetic?

First you say it was an easy match... it wasn't, here you lose credibility. I remember that match very well, i woke up to watch it because Djokovic was playing at a really high level and i thought he could win. Federer served for the first set! Djokovic broke him and took the set 7-5, this gave Djokovic BIG confidence and he took a 4-1 lead in second set... Federer couldn't stop him in 2nd set, go back and watch the level. In 3rd set, Federer was strong and it went 7-6. The match could've gone either way, had Fed served out that first set, match would've prob been different...

Remember, Djokovic arrived in 07. His first breakthrough was when he beat Nadal in Miami masters and won a masters for first time. This was the official arrival of Djokovic. He then went on to win another masters and beat Federer in that tournament. By the end of 07, Djokovic had arrived. His level during his AO run was incredibly high, i would argue close to his 2011 level. There is this notion that players only play their highest level when they become consistent, this is bogus. To me, Federer's 03 and Djokovic's 08 year were remarkably similar. They both reached incredibly high levels in spurts. You really think Federer's level during 03 Wimbledon was much lower than Federer's level during 04 Wimbledon? You remember the 03 W semis and finals? Federer was in GOD mode. The difference between his 03 and 04 seasons was consistency, Federer couldn't sustain that incredible level all year round in 03 but he did win eoy masters tournament. Similarly, Djokovic's 08 AO run was an insane level, he couldn't sustain it but just like Federer did, won eoy masters tournament too, playing a crazy high level.

No-one that knows tennis can say 11 Djokovic was much better than 08 Djokovic as he played in AO and similarly, no-one that knows tennis can tell me 04 Federer was much better than 03 Federer as he played during 03 Wimbledon... consistency week in/week out was the difference. You disagree? go back and watch highlights of 08 Djokovic during AO and 03 Federer during Wimbledon. Tell me you see a lower level than what these two displayed during their dominant years...

Yes even a compromised Federer got by Blake and Berdych after almost losing to a nobody. Is it really that impossible to believe? You act like players never play hurt or sick or if they do they get blown out.

I remember the match well, yes Roger served for the first set and then was broken and barely mounted any challenge after. Easy 2nd set and then a tiebreak third, not exactly a fiercely competitive match. Sure it may have been a different match if he takes the first set but he didn't and it ended up being a straight set match. So basically it was close to being close (if Roger won the first set).

I do agree with your point that these guys can play peak level tennis even before and after their primes. I just don't think Djokovic at that point was at the level of the one we saw later. Ironically the 2011 semi with Roger was a very similar score line to 2008 but I thought both players were much much stronger. That is still one of the best matches I've seen Novak play, Roger was much better there than the 2008 AO and the 2010 USO match as well.

 

[Front242]

Luigi Gatto's articles where he quotes stuff in his often pathetic attempts at translating when there's no need to do so annoy the hell out of me but, anyway, found this earlier this morning. Jose Higueras who was training Federer prior to the French Open 2008 had this to say about Federer's mono. Sorry "mono" Carol.

"When I started working with Federer, he was coming from a mononucleosis, it was not the first time I faced such a situation, a tennis player coming from an illness, it's not an excuse, but you have to remember that it takes 18 months for the body to be clear again and he was a little-fatigued heading into that French Open. It was impossible to beat Rafa that year"

Just said I'd post this since there are plenty of clowns here claiming there was nothing wrong with him in 2008 despite him having some really poor losses compared to the year before.

https://www.tennisworldusa.org/tenn...-open-was-impossible-even-for-roger-federer-/

 

[Moxie]

between 04-07 Federer lost to some players who were worse than Fish and Roddick, look it up... even a 17 year old Nadal

I looked it up. In '04, he lost to Berdy, Hrbaty, Kuerten, Costa (Rome, R32,) Nadal and Henman.

In '05, he lost to Nalby (YEC), Nadal, Gasquet and Safin. Now, Gasquet starts to look a bit like Roddick in this equation: 17-2 in favor of Roger, in the h2h. Costa and Kuerten?

In '06: Murray in Cincy and 4 x Nadal.

In '07: He lost to Nalby 2 x, Nadal 2 x, Djokovic in Cincy, Cañas 2 x and Volandri (!!) in Rome (R16.) I can't believe I've let you guys go on this long being so appalled at Roger 2008. He has lost to lesser lights in basically all of those years that you champion him for. On this one, @MikeOne is kind of right.

Another point to make, on the Djokovic win over Roger in AO '08: Djokovic beat Roger in Cincy '07, and, while Roger won in straights over Novak at the USO a few weeks later, it was a tight match. However hampered Roger was at the AO in '08 Djokovic was nipping at his heels, so that wasn't a stunning upset.

 

[Moxie]

Luigi Gatto's articles where he quotes stuff in his often pathetic attempts at translating when there's no need to do so annoy the hell out of me but, anyway, found this earlier this morning. Jose Higueras who was training Federer prior to the French Open 2008 had this to say about Federer's mono. Sorry "mono" Carol.

"When I started working with Federer, he was coming from a mononucleosis, it was not the first time I faced such a situation, a tennis player coming from an illness, it's not an excuse, but you have to remember that it takes 18 months for the body to be clear again and he was a little-fatigued heading into that French Open. It was impossible to beat Rafa that year"

Just said I'd post this since there are plenty of clowns here claiming there was nothing wrong with him in 2008 despite him having some really poor losses compared to the year before.

https://www.tennisworldusa.org/tenn...-open-was-impossible-even-for-roger-federer-/

I'm not one of those that doesn't believe that Roger had mono. However, I will discuss how long it affected him. Not sure that Higueras is the last word on how long mono affects a person, but I think you should note the important full-stop between his sentences. When he said that "it was impossible to beat Nadal that year" at RG, he wasn't qualifying that Roger was hampered. Just to keep you honest on that one.

 

[Front242]

I'm not one of those that doesn't believe that Roger had mono. However, I will discuss how long it affected him. Not sure that Higueras is the last word on how long mono affects a person, but I think you should note the important full-stop between his sentences. When he said that "it was impossible to beat Nadal that year" at RG, he wasn't qualifying that Roger was hampered. Just to keep you honest on that one.

I realize that and it was Federer's strategy that match that was so poor. Btw, they were both really bad for much of set 1. The first few games in particular were awful from both of them and I find Nadal's level completely overrated in that match. Federer also gave up after set 2 and that was plain as day obvious to watch.

 

[Front242]

I looked it up. In '04, he lost to Berdy, Hrbaty, Kuerten, Costa (Rome, R32,) Nadal and Henman.

In '05, he lost to Nalby (YEC), Nadal, Gasquet and Safin. Now, Gasquet starts to look a bit like Roddick in this equation: 17-2 in favor of Roger, in the h2h. Costa and Kuerten?

In '06: Murray in Cincy and 4 x Nadal.

In '07: He lost to Nalby 2 x, Nadal 2 x, Djokovic in Cincy, Cañas 2 x and Volandri (!!) in Rome (R16.) I can't believe I've let you guys go on this long being so appalled at Roger 2008. He has lost to lesser lights in basically all of those years that you champion him for. On this one, @MikeOne is kind of right.

Another point to make, on the Djokovic win over Roger in AO '08: Djokovic beat Roger in Cincy '07, and, while Roger won in straights over Novak at the USO a few weeks later, it was a tight match. However hampered Roger was at the AO in '08 Djokovic was nipping at his heels, so that wasn't a stunning upset.

Cañas and Volandri were both dopers so it's no surprise. Any players who can run all day and night and not get tired trouble not only Federer as we all know.

 

[MikeOne]

Yes even a compromised Federer got by Blake and Berdych after almost losing to a nobody. Is it really that impossible to believe? You act like players never play hurt or sick or if they do they get blown out.

I remember the match well, yes Roger served for the first set and then was broken and barely mounted any challenge after. Easy 2nd set and then a tiebreak third, not exactly a fiercely competitive match. Sure it may have been a different match if he takes the first set but he didn't and it ended up being a straight set match. So basically it was close to being close (if Roger won the first set).

I do agree with your point that these guys can play peak level tennis even before and after their primes. I just don't think Djokovic at that point was at the level of the one we saw later. Ironically the 2011 semi with Roger was a very similar score line to 2008 but I thought both players were much much stronger. That is still one of the best matches I've seen Novak play, Roger was much better there than the 2008 AO and the 2010 USO match as well.

A compromised Federer straight seated Blake and Berdych? then you admit these two were clowns and weak competition? They must have because not only couldn't they beat a mono weakened Federer, they couldn't even get a set!

You can't have it both ways, you like to at times prop up his 04-07 competition but then when it suits you, make his competition out to be clowns, who couldn't even take a set off a weakened, mono-strike Federer.

the excuses here are pathetic, if he could straight set two of his main competition before facing Djokovic, Federer was playing at a high level, saying otherwise, is just dumb.

Again, that match could've gone either way, Federer served for first set and got broken, this pretty much sealed the deal as he was facing the greatest AO champ in history and after losing first set, he gave Djokovic the confidence and momentum he needed to seal the deal. You are wrong if you think Djokovic's level during 08 AO run was that much lower than what we saw in 2011. During his 08 run, he didn't drop a set in route to finals, crushing everyone.. Tsonga, who had demolished Nadal in semis, was the only one who managed to take a set. I would suggest you go back and watch highlights, Djokovic was in beast mode... In any event, are you arguing Federer should've won that match? Djokovic is arguably GOAT, he WOULD'VE HAD AN ADVANTAGE vs 04-07 Federer at AO... Prime vs Prime, i give Djokovic the edge at AO, FO, Federer the edge at W and a tie at USO... Djokovic is the most complete player ever, thus why he won 4 slams in a row and Federer never could. He's the only player to beat Nadal more than twice on clay (7 times!) and in his prime, has had the game best suited for all 4 surfaces, against any opponent. 04-07 Federer was dominant but look at who he beat on all those finals - Roddick, Hewitt, Ljubicic, baby teen Nadal, Blake. Djokovic was 10 times better than any of these guys, even better than teen nadal. Remember, even a 17 year old Nadal straight setted 04 Federer on hardcourts... Prime Djokovic would've probably beaten 04-07 Federer in all slams except Wimbledon... and who knows.

 

[atttomole]

A compromised Federer straight seated Blake and Berdych? then you admit these two were clowns and weak competition? They must have because not only couldn't they beat a mono weakened Federer, they couldn't even get a set!

You can't have it both ways, you like to at times prop up his 04-07 competition but then when it suits you, make his competition out to be clowns, who couldn't even take a set off a weakened, mono-strike Federer.

the excuses here are pathetic, if he could straight set two of his main competition before facing Djokovic, Federer was playing at a high level, saying otherwise, is just dumb.

Again, that match could've gone either way, Federer served for first set and got broken, this pretty much sealed the deal as he was facing the greatest AO champ in history and after losing first set, he gave Djokovic the confidence and momentum he needed to seal the deal. You are wrong if you think Djokovic's level during 08 AO run was that much lower than what we saw in 2011. During his 08 run, he didn't drop a set in route to finals, crushing everyone.. Tsonga, who had demolished Nadal in semis, was the only one who managed to take a set. I would suggest you go back and watch highlights, Djokovic was in beast mode... In any event, are you arguing Federer should've won that match? Djokovic is arguably GOAT, he WOULD'VE HAD AN ADVANTAGE vs 04-07 Federer at AO... Prime vs Prime, i give Djokovic the edge at AO, FO, Federer the edge at W and a tie at USO... Djokovic is the most complete player ever, thus why he won 4 slams in a row and Federer never could. He's the only player to beat Nadal more than twice on clay (7 times!) and in his prime, has had the game best suited for all 4 surfaces, against any opponent. 04-07 Federer was dominant but look at who he beat on all those finals - Roddick, Hewitt, Ljubicic, baby teen Nadal, Blake. Djokovic was 10 times better than any of these guys, even better than teen nadal. Remember, even a 17 year old Nadal straight setted 04 Federer on hardcourts... Prime Djokovic would've probably beaten 04-07 Federer in all slams except Wimbledon... and who knows.

You are being symplistic. After his loss to Djokovic in 2008, Federer still dominated Djokovic until around 2010. Even at the AO, prime vs prime, Federer can still beat Djokovic. You are stuck with the cliche that Federer is not as good as Djokovic at the AO because it has been considered historically slower than the UO. Surfaces have changed a lot these days these and you know who has benefited a lot from those changes.

As a ‘Djokovic/Nadal fan’, I can understand why you think the way you do.

 

[MikeOne]

I looked it up. In '04, he lost to Berdy, Hrbaty, Kuerten, Costa (Rome, R32,) Nadal and Henman.

In '05, he lost to Nalby (YEC), Nadal, Gasquet and Safin. Now, Gasquet starts to look a bit like Roddick in this equation: 17-2 in favor of Roger, in the h2h. Costa and Kuerten?

In '06: Murray in Cincy and 4 x Nadal.

In '07: He lost to Nalby 2 x, Nadal 2 x, Djokovic in Cincy, Cañas 2 x and Volandri (!!) in Rome (R16.) I can't believe I've let you guys go on this long being so appalled at Roger 2008. He has lost to lesser lights in basically all of those years that you champion him for. On this one, @MikeOne is kind of right.

Another point to make, on the Djokovic win over Roger in AO '08: Djokovic beat Roger in Cincy '07, and, while Roger won in straights over Novak at the USO a few weeks later, it was a tight match. However hampered Roger was at the AO in '08 Djokovic was nipping at his heels, so that wasn't a stunning upset.

take Djokovic and Nadal out of 2008 and Federer wins ALL 4 slams. Who did he lose to at AO? Djokovic, FO? Nadal.. W? Nadal? USO? he won it.

Djokovic had beaten Federer in a masters in 07 towards end of year, Fed then beat him in i think 3 tie breakers at USO. Djokovic was getting closer an closer and everyone knows he was on a tear during AO 08... In fact, it wasn't even a shock when he beat Federer, even commentators thought it was likely.

So during AO 08 mono suffering Federer straight sets Blake and Berdych before he faces and Djokovic, loses and it's 'mono'. During FO 08, Federer makes finals, who with mono makes finals of French open? the most physically demanding slam? Mono weakened/fatigued/wasted Federer then makes Wimbledon 08 final without dropping a SET... battles Nadal for a marathon match, showing no signs of fatigue; in fact, Federer got stronger as match progressed, played his best in last 3 sets. Then comes USO and Federer is all of sudden mono FREE. wins it. LOL

mono my a$$, without a rising confident Djokovic and a peak Nadal in 08, Federer would've won the calendar slam and 08 would've been considered his greatest year ever..no-one would've even mentioned mono...

 

[mrzz]

Without Nadal Federer would have won a calendar slam much before 2008, in years were he had much less losses against the rest of the field. Unless you take out Nadal and Djokovic only for 2008... the fact that he was still above the rest of the field in 2008 does not change the simple fact that his level in 2008 is bellow the previous years. He is losing more to everyone, this is an empirical fact.

The anomaly would be if he was exactly the same player level wise still in 2008. It would have meant a fifth consecutive year of dominance. It has never been done for a reason...

 

[atttomole]

take Djokovic and Nadal out of 2008 and Federer wins ALL 4 slams. Who did he lose to at AO? Djokovic, FO? Nadal.. W? Nadal? USO? he won it.

Djokovic had beaten Federer in a masters in 07 towards end of year, Fed then beat him in i think 3 tie breakers at USO. Djokovic was getting closer an closer and everyone knows he was on a tear during AO 08... In fact, it wasn't even a shock when he beat Federer, even commentators thought it was likely.

So during AO 08 mono suffering Federer straight sets Blake and Berdych before he faces and Djokovic, loses and it's 'mono'. During FO 08, Federer makes finals, who with mono makes finals of French open? the most physically demanding slam? Mono weakened/fatigued/wasted Federer then makes Wimbledon 08 final without dropping a SET... battles Nadal for a marathon match, showing no signs of fatigue; in fact, Federer got stronger as match progressed, played his best in last 3 sets. Then comes USO and Federer is all of sudden mono FREE. wins it. LOL

mono my a$$, without a rising confident Djokovic and a peak Nadal in 08, Federer would've won the calendar slam and 08 would've been considered his greatest year ever..no-one would've even mentioned mono...

You are right. Without Nadal and Djokovic, Federer could have won the calendar year slam 2008. Nadal and Djokovic are among the greatest players to ever play the game and they have always troubled Federer. You can take other scenarios. Without Djokovic, Nadal could be on 20 slams or more now. Without Nadal, Djokovic could be sitting on 18 or more slams now. Without Nadal, Federer could be on 25 slams. Djokovic could have won a calendar year slam in 2011 if Federer had not taken him out at RG in 2011. Without Nadal and Del Po, Federer could have won a calendar year slam in 2009. Without Wawrinka, Djokovic could have won a calendar year slam in 2015.

 

[DarthFed]

I looked it up. In '04, he lost to Berdy, Hrbaty, Kuerten, Costa (Rome, R32,) Nadal and Henman.

In '05, he lost to Nalby (YEC), Nadal, Gasquet and Safin. Now, Gasquet starts to look a bit like Roddick in this equation: 17-2 in favor of Roger, in the h2h. Costa and Kuerten?

In '06: Murray in Cincy and 4 x Nadal.

In '07: He lost to Nalby 2 x, Nadal 2 x, Djokovic in Cincy, Cañas 2 x and Volandri (!!) in Rome (R16.) I can't believe I've let you guys go on this long being so appalled at Roger 2008. He has lost to lesser lights in basically all of those years that you champion him for. On this one, @MikeOne is kind of right.

Another point to make, on the Djokovic win over Roger in AO '08: Djokovic beat Roger in Cincy '07, and, while Roger won in straights over Novak at the USO a few weeks later, it was a tight match. However hampered Roger was at the AO in '08 Djokovic was nipping at his heels, so that wasn't a stunning upset.

Heading into 08 it was 5-1 H2H and Djokovic hadn't done jack shit. MikeOne talking about him as the greatest AO player ever is true, what's absolutely hilarious is he is using this in the context of this argument when Djokovic was very young, unaccomplished and couldn't even breathe decently after a couple hours. I shouldn't even have to point out how dumb that is but here I am...

In 2008 Roger had a bunch of appalling losses and aside from USO he did nothing, won a few Mickey Mouse tourneys, and went 66-15. He lost to Simon twice, Blake at Olympics, Stepanek on clay, Karlovic at Cincy, fish, Roddick and Murray 3 times. So 10 pathetic losses, sure there were some in earlier years but not 10.

Only 5 of the losses that year were to Nadal and Djokovic and its generous to consider 08 AO and 08 Wimbledon as quality losses. Djokovic was a baby who struggled mightily starting in Wimbledon 08 for 2.5 years aside from a YEC playing nobodies. Again equating him to the robot we saw in 2011 and after that turned into one of the greatest ever is crazy. I'm guessing if I told MikeOne that Roger beating Pete at Wimbledon 2001 was due to Roger being best ever on grass he might have a problem with it.

Nadal on grass is a special ed loss from my viewpoint, the guy barely had a decent serve aside from a few HC tournaments. Nadal got to a bunch of Wimbledon finals but even then he pretty much always was shaky, going 5 vs many nobodies all those years. By the time Rafa was 26 he started losing to these puffballs. In 2008 we are talking average serve, he was allergic to net and barely could flatten out a forehand to save his life. It was a special ed two sets from Roger and then a mediocre 3 sets and Roger haters act like Fed was impeccable and put together such a great effort.

Anyways 2008 was just a very down year but Fed was still in his prime. Nadal deserves credit for getting in Roger's head, pounding him on clay especially 08 RG which was otherworldly and that's simply what led to losing on grass to him. But Mike is acting like Roger invented an illness after losing to Djokovic and that he was playing great for much of that year.

 

[Moxie]

take Djokovic and Nadal out of 2008 and Federer wins ALL 4 slams. Who did he lose to at AO? Djokovic, FO? Nadal.. W? Nadal? USO? he won it.

Djokovic had beaten Federer in a masters in 07 towards end of year, Fed then beat him in i think 3 tie breakers at USO. Djokovic was getting closer an closer and everyone knows he was on a tear during AO 08... In fact, it wasn't even a shock when he beat Federer, even commentators thought it was likely.

So during AO 08 mono suffering Federer straight sets Blake and Berdych before he faces and Djokovic, loses and it's 'mono'. During FO 08, Federer makes finals, who with mono makes finals of French open? the most physically demanding slam? Mono weakened/fatigued/wasted Federer then makes Wimbledon 08 final without dropping a SET... battles Nadal for a marathon match, showing no signs of fatigue; in fact, Federer got stronger as match progressed, played his best in last 3 sets. Then comes USO and Federer is all of sudden mono FREE. wins it. LOL

mono my a$$, without a rising confident Djokovic and a peak Nadal in 08, Federer would've won the calendar slam and 08 would've been considered his greatest year ever..no-one would've even mentioned mono...

I don't think there's any reason to disbelieve Roger when he said he had mono. The question becomes more about how much did it affect him, and for how long? If he lost a bit more often, and to players that he might otherwise have beaten, there's an argument there, but to Nadal and even Djokovic, it gets to be a stretch. Since he actually did have mono during the AO, it would explain poor results. But I think you make a good point that Novak might have beaten him anyway. The myth that Novak was nothing before 2011 doesn't hold water. And it has ended up being his best Slam. So that upset might have happened anyway.

Another point that you make, which I think is fair, has to do with the controversial notion of Fed having no decent competition before Nadal and Djokovic. If folks like Darth are going to call Blake and Berdy "clowns," to defend his mono issues, then they have to cop to him having not a decent crowd to fight, if those were the opponents on offer. He's also called Safin and Hewitt ridiculous competition, when we talk about the '08 Wimbledon. So really who, then? These are basically his contemporaries and his competition.

One more point: Darth likes to point out that Roger had only won 4 Majors when Rafa won his first. This is a distraction from the larger truth. Rafa was young and unformed, and Djokovic hadn't entered the scene. By the time Rafa won a Major off of clay, and Djokovic won his first, Roger had won 12 Majors, between '03 and '07. In the intervening 11 years, he's won 8 more, which is no joke, but he won a lot before he saw significant competition.