Moxie
Multiple Major Winner
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2013
- Messages
- 43,778
- Reactions
- 14,946
- Points
- 113
You pollute your argument by insisting that anyone who doesn't agree with it is a "Djokovic hater."The Djokovic haters will point to Djokovic dominated 11-21 when Federer was past his prime. They will ignore any high level Federer attained between 11-21 and just double down that he was just not at his best. Djoker haters will also make excuses for Nadal in 2011, a year he battled Djokovic for 6 major titles, in finals (IW, MIA,MC, Rome, W, USO) and after a 2010 season where he won 3 slams.
As a Rafa fan, I've never said his "prime" was 06-10. I'm not sure who you think has. I'm not also clear if you mistake "peak" and "prime." I think Nadal's began in '07. '08 was a "peak" year, but '09 was an injury year. '10 was definitely a "peak" year. And maybe you missed the whole discussion about '11 and the "Novak problem," but it was a sneak attack, and had a cumulative effect on his confidence. A problem he needed to work out in the off-season. And then I'd say "prime" through '13. Post-prime, you can hit great performance, and sustained, but to a lesser degree. Enough to win Majors, if you are that great, as Roger and Rafa and Novak are.They will claim Rafa's prime was 06-10... and totally ignore Rafa's 13 season and fact that he even became #1 as late as 2019. The power of rationalizing is extremely powerful in us humans, we first decide what the outcome is (what we feel comfortable) and then rationalize, point to what we think is evidence that supports our wishful scenarios and ignore anything to the contrary.
You are comparing the theoretical with the actual, which you tend to do, and I think that is a basic problem with your argument. The point that is made by Fed fans and Rafa fans has to do with the bottom-heavy time they spent in the hard-yards when Novak wasn't doing as much of the heavy lifting, and that coming in later with the 2.0 version of himself was a benefit. You don't like that, but it will always look true for some people.Here's how this becomes such a circular argument.
So Djokovic was lucky 04-07 Federer wasn't around between 11-21? Ok. Now where was peak Djokovic between 04-07? So right back at you... now we are back to square #1, we have reached a dead end here.
So 'past' his best Federer was able to beat 11 Djokovic in FO semis so 'imagine' peak Federer! Well, 'baby' Novak beat 07 Federer in finals of a master, imagine peak Novak!
'15-'16 were rather fallow years for Rafa, clearly. And by '15 Roger was 33-34, so there is that. Sure, Novak benefitted from that. I have never said, however, that when Murray (#1) and Novak (#2) fell down hard that Roger and Rafa didn't benefit from that. But credit to them that they walked through the door that opened and split the Majors that year. I will however say that I don't think that Djokovic's 2 years in the wilderness were all about injury. But in any case, sure, there was some payback in opportunity.So Djokovic dominated 15-16 during period when Rafa was injured? Okay, so, what about 2017? Djokovic had a nagging injury that year, didn't play after Wimbledon and guess who ended up #!1 that year? Rafa. Meanwhile, Federer, who had been dominated bu Djokovic at AO and even Wimbledon (14,15 finals) sneaked in AO and Wimbledon wins. So coincidence that Federer won 17,18 AOs whilst Novak was dealing with injury after being owned by Novak at AO for years? Coincidence that Federer won 17 Wimbledon whilst Novak was struggling after Novak had beaten him in 14,15 finals? And Rafa takes over as #1, in 17, nice timing.
As per my above, indeed. But you do have to understand that Novak had some pretty good ride when it was late Fedal. To me, it doesn't 100% balance. And look at him coasting now.So, here's the deal. We can point to periods where all 3 benefited from the others being injured or not being at their best. it's not just one way traffic, this goings around in circles.
I totally agree with this. Fed fans do like to think that the top of the mountain was '04-'06 or '07 and that it was lesser after that. Yes, I have a problem with that, too.We never saw 04-07 Federer face off against 11, 15-16, 21 Novak. However, here's a fact. Federer was able to summon his peak level after 07, he just wasn't able to dominate day in day out as he did.
I've addressed most of this.Federer didn't just suddenly drop in 08.... and never was able to play his peak level again. This is just extremely dumb. The man was winning majors in 17, 18! Same, Novak in 08 was playing great tennis, he beat 07 Federer in finals of a masters and dominated Fed in 08 AO. He wasn't as consistent as he was in 11, 15-16, 21 but could play his best on occasion. Rafa, same. Rafa was playing high level in 19, re-gained #1. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever that Nadal's highest level was 06-08, make ZERO sense. He started his career in 05 and 06, 07 was only the beginning. Rafa's best years were 08, 10, 13 and in 19 re-gained #1. Those who say he was at his best in 07 are either Federer fanatics (Darth) or Nadalites (broken used to say this), as they are laying the foundation to make excuses as to why Rafa was subpar during Djokovic's dominance.
Actually, Rafa beat Fed on HC in '04. But, again, you are trading in alternate universe tennis, above. And, as to the bolded, I think that you're wrong that it means little.In the end, all these 3 faced each other all 3 playing their highest level, on more than just a few occasions. Just because they may not have faced each other during each other's best years, means little actually. Would've Federer dominated 04-07 facing peak Novak? LIKLEY NOT. If in 07 Novak was already starting to beat Federer, why couldn't have 11-21 Novak bested 04-07 federer? because we saw Federer dominate Roddick, Hewitt? what kind of evidence is this? Even Nadal was beating Federer on hardcourt in 06!
You're asking the wrong question, or you're asking it of the perceived fan base that you don't like. It wasn't that Fed was "invincible" (your word, I'd say,) but that the Big 3 were emerging, and at different rates. It's true that Novak was a creditable #3-4 from '07, but he took a long time to break through the glass ceiling of #2 and #1.Take 08, Federer's 'mono' year and sudden decline from dominance. So...who did Fed lose at slams in 08? AO - Novak, FO - Nadal, W - Nadal, USO - WIN. So, take 08 Rafa/Novak out, Federer wins all 4 slams?? At least 3, same as he did in 07. In 07, baby rafa took him to 5 sets at wimbledon and baby novak beat him in a masters so how invincible was he really?
It does goes in circles, but it doesn't help if you refuse to address the nuances. You can be happy to let the stats settle the debate, but you do ignore some of the history, or insist on "what-if"-ing about it. In an extremely complicated and amazing era in men's tennis, you can leave it to the charts and figures, if you like, (and it seems that it suits your purposes,) but I, for one, will always believe their story will be best told in prose.So these go around in circles and circles and circles and circles and circles. The Fed vs Novak debate is the hardest to assess. Yes, Federer was able to take down 11-21 novak on occasion, not surprising because although he wasn't as dominant as he was 04-07, he could absolutely still play his very best from time to time and was too good to just be dusted aside by Novak. Novak beat 07 Federer and 08 Federer? so what, Novak was too good , even back then, to be dusted aside by peak Federer and could still play his peak level, just not day in day out.
Rafa and Novak are a bit easier to address. Arguably, they faced off during their peak years. Yes, 11 was peak vs peak.... its obvious, Novak won that battle in 11. In 13, they were both arguably at their best too, Nadal edged him out.... Then with Nadal out, Novak dominated 15-16 and with Novak out, Rafa came back and ascended to top again in 2017; meanwhile, so did Federer get 3 slams during Djokovic's struggles.
on and on and on.... and so we really need to let the stats settle the debates.
Last edited: