We’ve been through this before

[El Dude]

never have dumped Nadal, just man enough to admit when he's dominated, just as Stan made Novak look pedestrian in RG final. I'm man enough to admit it, you girls can't admit your player ever is made to look pedestrian.

I think the issue is with the word "pedestrian." I mean, sure, Novak made Rafa look pedestrian at the AO. But that is one match. It happens. Usually their matches are closer. And Roger-Novak matches are usually very close. Or to put it another way:

 

[Moxie]

never have dumped Nadal, just man enough to admit when he's dominated, just as Stan made Novak look pedestrian in RG final. I'm man enough to admit it, you girls can't admit your player ever is made to look pedestrian.

I think I admitted it above. Or it could be on another thread, as they're all mixed up at this point. What you are enthralled with, at this moment, is the Djokovic train. And the repetitive notion that someone is being made to look "pedestrian." You're looking for something that is equivalent to Alpha dominance. Which I would argue is not only small-minded in the Fedalovic conversation, it's a red herring. Their dominance, one over the other, has been a moveable feast. If you want to make it about now, I still say that Djokovic barely won Wimbledon. If you take the long view, it's very complicated.

 

[backhandslapper]

Are you 15 years old? Not meaning to offend but this is the type of stuff I'd read on a basketball board from Kobe fans who almost certainly had never watched the game before Kobe was playing. Sorry but the recency bias is a huge factor. Djokovic was off the map a year ago and people were just talking Federer and Nadal. Now they are scrubs again and someday probably soon Djokovic will be a scrub

Are you sure he makes Federer look pedestrian. Last I checked he just had a lot of trouble knocking off the version that is 10 years past his prime.

Exactly. It took Djokovic to be off the map for masses to relive their carefree days of Fedal summer once again, and quite possibly for the last time. Which just underlines that Djokovic is better. The fact even he will likely be surpassed one day has nothing to with anything here.

Federer made him work really, really hard. And that's because Novak was not playing his best tennis. Which -- again -- only shows he's better. Fed fans clinging to this loss with such a gratitude -- yet again -- underscores that Djokovic is better.

Pedestrian was a slight hyperbole, and Djokovic is still on his way to come down as the best of all time.

Roger at his best was 2004-07...we don't know how that version would have faired against Novak at his best. For instance, imagine 2006 Roger vs. 2015 Novak.

Well, we know that even the peak version of Federer was 2-4 against a nineteen/twenty-year-old Nadal in 2006. And we know what peak Novak did to peak Nadal, even on clay (with exception of RG ofc). It is no guarantee, but a decent indicator at least.

 

[El Dude]

Well, we know that even the peak version of Federer was 2-4 against a nineteen/twenty-year-old Nadal in 2006. And we know what peak Novak did to peak Nadal, even on clay (with exception of RG ofc). It is no guarantee, but a decent indicator at least.

It doesn't work that way. In 2006, Roger Federer was 2-4 vs Nadal, 90-1 against everyone else (90-1!!!). Nadal was 4-2 vs Roger, 55-10 vs everyone else. Roger was much better than Rafa in 2006, despite losing the H2H.

Matchups matter. You can't directly compare players by how they fared against each other, otherwise Nikolay Davydenko was better than Rafael Nadal and, well, Nick Kyrgios is better than Novak Djokovic.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Djokovic = GOAT.

...annnnnnnnnnnd Mike shows his hand, and thus, his agenda.

 

[backhandslapper]

It doesn't work that way. In 2006, Roger Federer was 2-4 vs Nadal, 90-1 against everyone else (90-1!!!). Nadal was 4-2 vs Roger, 55-10 vs everyone else. Roger was much better than Rafa in 2006, despite losing the H2H.

Matchups matter. You can't directly compare players by how they fared against each other, otherwise Nikolay Davydenko was better than Rafael Nadal and, well, Nick Kyrgios is better than Novak Djokovic.

You can definitely compare players in any way you want, and trying to present weaknesses of each method as a generally nuclear no-no, especially using ridiculously nonsensical examples, is demagogy.

I've never claimed that to be a guarantee of anything. A decent indicator it is though, yeah, because when Novak began having the upper hand against peak Nadal, he also began having the upper hand against Federer (2011), and he was beating everyone else.

And if the 2006 Federer (who lost the other match against a nineteen-year-old Murray) struggled against a 55-10 Nadal, I just won't trust him against the guy who trounced the 68-15 Nadal and even beat him on clay twice in a row.

If matchups matter, and they do, it's time to remember that by the time Federer looked his best, the second best player in the world was twenty years old.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Well, we know that even the peak version of Federer was 2-4 against a nineteen/twenty-year-old Nadal in 2006. And we know what peak Novak did to peak Nadal, even on clay (with exception of RG ofc). It is no guarantee, but a decent indicator at least.

LMAO at "on clay except for RG." Yeah, on clay, except the tournament that matters way more than any other clay tournament, where he got owned.

Also, what's prime Novak? Was he in his prime in 2012? Because if I recall correctly, he barely won the 2012 AO final vs. Nadal and lost in the FO final. Was he in his prime in 2013? Because if I recall correctly, he lost to Nadal at RG and at the US Open (not to mention being straight setted by Murray at Wimbledon). Was it 2014? Because if I recall correctly, he lost to Nadal at RG and barely beat Fed at Wimbledon.

Or is prime Novak 2011 only?

It's a very interesting and carefully selected prime in that case.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I think I admitted it above. Or it could be on another thread, as they're all mixed up at this point. What you are enthralled with, at this moment, is the Djokovic train. And the repetitive notion that someone is being made to look "pedestrian." You're looking for something that is equivalent to Alpha dominance. Which I would argue is not only small-minded in the Fedalovic conversation, it's a red herring. Their dominance, one over the other, has been a moveable feast. If you want to make it about now, I still say that Djokovic barely won Wimbledon. If you take the long view, it's very complicated.

He's enthralled with any train that clashes with the Federer train. Don't let any of his nonsense cloud that. He's literally the most transparent poster here, at least Cali is smarter about his agenda, and has stopped with the Nalbandian nonsense.

 

[backhandslapper]

LMAO at "on clay except for RG." Yeah, on clay, except the tournament that matters way more than any other clay tournament, where he got owned.

Also, what's prime Novak? Was he in his prime in 2012? Because if I recall correctly, he barely won the 2012 AO final vs. Nadal and lost in the FO final. Was he in his prime in 2013? Because if I recall correctly, he lost to Nadal at RG and at the US Open (not to mention being straight setted by Murray at Wimbledon). Was it 2014? Because if I recall correctly, he lost to Nadal at RG and barely beat Fed at Wimbledon.

Or is prime Novak 2011 only?

It's a very interesting and carefully selected prime in that case.

Get the prime/peak thing sorted out, start reasoning coherently and I might bother.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Get the prime/peak thing sorted out, start reasoning coherently and I might bother.

I'm all for condescension, honestly...but not when you're this stupid.

 

[backhandslapper]

I'm all for condescension, honestly...but not when you're this stupid.

It's definitely easier than being for sound logic. Especially, to quote your surprisingly snug self-assessment "when you're this stupid." So don't complain. Unearned smugness and faux "LMAOs" is all you'll ever have, at all times. Flash it.

To the rest of Fedaliacs Anonymous:

Djokovic's H2H against the rest of Big4 since 2011:

Murray 21-8

Federer 9-3

Nadal 21-10

(11-3 against Wawrinka)

We can nickle or dime whether it does or does not make them look pedestrian, whether it dwarfs them or not -- but this is how it's been. No-one in the history of the sport has likely forced so many tennis fans to create so many new coping mechanisms like Novak forced the maniacal Fedal fans in denial.

 

[brokenshoelace]

It's definitely easier than being for sound logic. Especially, to quote your surprisingly snug self-assessment "when you're this stupid." So don't complain. Unearned smugness and faux "LMAOs" is all you'll ever have, at all times. Flash it.

To the rest of Fedaliacs Anonymous:

Djokovic's H2H against the rest of Big4 since 2011:

Murray 21-8

Federer 9-3

Nadal 21-10

(11-3 against Wawrinka)

We can nickle or dime whether it does or does not make them look pedestrian, whether it dwarfs them or not -- but this is how it's been. No-one in the history of the sport has likely forced so many tennis fans to create so many new coping mechanisms like Novak forced the maniacal Fedal fans in denial.

I wonder if this has to do with Federer being past his prime, Nadal declining post 2013... Jeez, I mean, if only Novak was around in 2017 and he played Nadal a bunch of times. I wonder what would have happened.

Djokovic has been the best player in the world, on average, since 2011. That's not debatable. The stupid narrative that he "dwarves" Fedal is beyond stupid however. If he dwarves them how is he STILL behind Nadal on major titles? I mean, he's been winning majors since 2008. He's been winning majors consistently since 2011. So what gives?

Why did prime 2011 Djokovic lose to Federer at RG and almost lost to him again at the US Open?

 

[DarthFed]

Exactly. It took Djokovic to be off the map for masses to relive their carefree days of Fedal summer once again, and quite possibly for the last time. Which just underlines that Djokovic is better. The fact even he will likely be surpassed one day has nothing to with anything here.

Federer made him work really, really hard. And that's because Novak was not playing his best tennis. Which -- again -- only shows he's better. Fed fans clinging to this loss with such a gratitude -- yet again -- underscores that Djokovic is better.

Pedestrian was a slight hyperbole, and Djokovic is still on his way to come down as the best of all time.



Well, we know that even the peak version of Federer was 2-4 against a nineteen/twenty-year-old Nadal in 2006. And we know what peak Novak did to peak Nadal, even on clay (with exception of RG ofc). It is no guarantee, but a decent indicator at least.

And Roger was at his best apparently? You think a 38 year old who has lost a lot of movement and no longer has a great forehand is capable of playing like he did 10+ years ago? Or how about RG 2011 when Roger easily handled 45-0 Novak at his worst major and then 3 months later had to choke like a dog for Novak to survive total humiliation. And this was generally considered Novak's best year and it was a crap year for Roger.

Bottom line, it's a silly exercise when people start picking matches and say "see, " at their best", They've all had the rare occasions where they make each other look pedestrian. There's this little thing called "on average" in which they all are pretty darn close except for Fed and Novak because their primes never intersected. Roger was beating up on pre-prime Novak and Novak has beaten up on post-prime Roger. The difference is he's had a lot more matches, particularly at majors, than Roger had against him in his good days.

 

[Front242]

There's your GOAT right there. Djokovic couldn't pull off these shots if his life depended on it.

 

[monfed]

I've already gone on record saying that I like the idea of a "three-headed GOAT" - and that's pretty much no matter how their final resumes look, unless one is far ahead of the others. But each has their own "flavor of greatness." I also give a nod to Britbox's sentiment.

That said, I have no problem with the idea that Novak's peak form was better than Roger's or Rafa's, except with a couple caveats: One, Rafa on clay is the most fearsome player in tennis history; if we were to split players into their surface components, "Clay Rafa" is the easy call for GOAT. Secondly, Roger at his best was 2004-07...we don't know how that version would have faired against Novak at his best. For instance, imagine 2006 Roger vs. 2015 Novak.

Anyhow, Novak from Paris in 2014 (October) to Roland Garros in 2016 (May) was probably the most indomitable run I've ever seen: 134-9, a 93.7 Win% over a year and a half. Three of his nine losses were to Roger at non-Slams; he also beat Roger six times, with a walkover. Meaning, Roger in good but not his best ever form held his own against Novak at his very best. How would Roger at his very best have faired? We'll never know. But if 2015 Roger didn't embarass himself against Novak at his very best, maybe 2006 Roger would have at least equalled him? I would have favored peak Roger on grass and fast hards against anyone, ever; Novak would have the edge on clay and slow hards.

On what basis would faker have an edge over Fed on clay? And on what basis is peak faker better than peak Federer? You mean faker's vulturing of 2015? This pusher was Mr AOvic AFTER 2011 his peak year for 3 freaking years. Fed never had an aberration like that in his prime.

Post prime Fed beat the peakest of peak fakervic at RG 11. If anything it would be 60-40 for prime Federer.

Look I don't care what fakertards say about faker, but he was never a problem for prime Federer. It was always Nadal and Fed has solved that problem now with his improved BH. Faker is just vulturing on grandpa Fed, it's clear as day.

fakertards like to pretend like faker didn't exist pre 2011 but they have to accept his pre 2011 beatdowns too as he was a legit slam contender after winning AO 08.

faker is the most opportunistic vulture tennis has ever seen, possibly worse than Nadal. I mean how the fuck else do you explain this pusher winning 3 slams in 2011 and then back to Mr AOvic for 3 bloody years and then suddenly peaking from 2015?

Is it possible that maybe just maybe dull was completely done in 2015 and Fed was a different player without his FH in 2015?

I mean give me a break. So sick of this untrue "analysis."

 

[backhandslapper]

When Federer retires, it will be a huge loss. I'll miss his game and I will miss arguably the third greatest player of all time, but I know his insecure fans will keep amusing me for years, possibly even decades, as by now, they have definitely overtaken Nadal's fanbase in terms of mental disability.

Can you imagine all the nonsense they will spew as Nadal and then Djokovic finally butcher their sacred cow in the GOAT race?

It will be sweeter than Roger's skill ever was.

"Roger is still the GOAT!"

"No, Roger is a salami."

 

[DarthFed]

^ Clearly this is MikeOne's second handle.

 

[Front242]

We’ve been through this before. Every time one of the big three wins a slam people say that he’s the goat. And then the next time another one of them wins, people jump again on the bandwagon.

At the U.S. Open, the player between the 3 who wins will again be backed to be the goat. If Roger wins it and extends his lead then people will again treat him like God, if Rafa gets #19 then wow he’s back and will end with the record. If Djoko picks it up then he’s again seen as unstoppable.

I think it’s time to just except that all 3 are the goats and have different arguments. It happens over and over that people jump from one to another, depending on the latest thing happening. I expect it to happen over and over and at the end they will probably all have different arguments.

Had to revisit this cos it's funny how quickly you changed your tune. You and nadalgoatsex or whatever have been proclaiming Nadal GOAT since the USO ended. Fake humility like your hero in your original post and true colours the last month plus.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

Had to revisit this cos it's funny how quickly you changed your tune. You and nadalgoatsex or whatever have been proclaiming Nadal GOAT since the USO ended. Fake humility like your hero in your original post and true colours the last month plus.

If my post was met with respect and agreement from Federer and Djokovic fans, you would have a point. But my post was dismissed and Fedovic fans still insult Nadal and his achievements all over the web, so of course we will fight back.

 

[Front242]

If my post was met with respect and agreement from Federer and Djokovic fans, you would have a point. But my post was dismissed and Fedovic fans still insult Nadal and his achievements all over the web, so of course we will fight back.

You didn't even agree with your own post so why the hell would anyone else be expected to lol. Like I said, you made this Mr saint post and then showed your true colours the last month. There's also a difference between fighting back and being made to look stupid cos as I pointed out you completely ignored everything you said in your first post on this thread the moment Nadal won the USO this year.