FEDERER v NADAL V DJOKOVIC (etc) - MOD NOTE 1ST POST

walshb

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Nadal fans bitterness is due to the fact that the one weapon in their armour, H2H, is now being eroded. Nadal is the computer No 1 but now cannot even take a set from Federer. It would be way better for them if Nadal was No 20 and they could claim he was in decline, but the opposite is the case and this leaves them up sh1t creek without a paddle! Sad really.

He took two sets in Oz last year...

Anyway, Fed sure has closed the gap, and it would be great for the Fed brigade if this H2H was based on the last 18 months, but it’s not. Through the whole 14/15 years span it has been Nadal the clear leader.

The Golden Miller

Chivito550 wrote: »

Explain why Nadal has lost early in many slams while Federer hit at least the semi finals for 23 consecutive slams and the quarter finals for 36 consecutive slams. Federer would generally only lose to Nadal and Djokovic with the occasional other loss. Nadal would lose to guys Federer always beat. Explain how Nadal is the better man when he falls to guys Federer beats, or why he struggles past nobodies in early rounds at Wimbledon in 5 sets?

At times he's just not good enough, at times he's hampered with his knee's, he lacks the fluid consistency of Federer in general so even the lesser guys are a bigger uphill battle for Nadal. None of this means that when Nadal is on his game though, that Federer is an objectively better player. By some metrics sure, but by others he ain't

Finished nitpicking the Murray point, seeing as your credibility here is hitting rock bottom?

Chivito550

The Golden Miller wrote: »

At times he's just not good enough, at times he's hampered with his knee's, he lacks the fluid consistency of Federer in general so even the lesser guys are a bigger uphill battle for Nadal. None of this means that when Nadal is on his game though, that Federer is an objectively better player. By some metrics sure, but by others he ain't

Finishing nitpicking the Murray point, seeing as your credibility here is hitting rock bottom?

Yeh you happen to conveniently pick a date range that overlaps with Federer having the worst year of his career, but ignoring the years where Murray starts losing to Djokovic. Cherry picking. Pathetic. You've an agenda here and you come across very bitter.

mickmackey1

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Except no one here is a Nadal fan, and no one cares if Federer is beating him or not

Somebody above asked their housemates if Nadal would beat Fed at his peak. He did not tell us if he asked whether a 36yo Fed would beat a 31yo Nadal... I wonder why not?? Nadal worshipper detected

The Golden Miller

Chivito550 wrote: »

Yeh you happen to conveniently pick a date range that overlaps with Federer having the worst year of his career, but ignoring the years where Murray starts losing to Djokovic. Cherry picking. Pathetic. You've an agenda here and you come across very bitter.

No someone else brought up the fact Murray competed well against Djokovic, and he did hold his own and even surpassed him in periods over the course of 3 years. You had to dispute this, trying to imply Federer was equally as strong a force or threat over this period when he simply wasn't. The years Murray started losing aren't relevant, no one is trying to claim Murray is better than Federer. That's your insecurity complex, needing to prove that Federer was better than everyone at every point in their career

Chivito550

The Golden Miller wrote: »

No someone else brought up the fact Murray competed well against Djokovic, and he did hold his own and even surpassed him in periods over the course of 3 years. You had to dispute this, trying to imply Federer was equally as strong a force or threat over this period when he simply wasn't. The years Murray started losing aren't relevant, no one is trying to claim Murray is better than Federer. That's your insecurity complex, needing to prove that Federer was better than everyone at every point in their career

The poster didn’t make any specifics. He just said H2H in general. He didn’t mention years, and acknowledged how far off the mark he was when I posted the head to heads. He has already said that he posted this as a compliment to Federer and Nadal anyway.

Something about Federer seems to grind your gears. You’ve been posting non stop about him the last week. You are obsessed with him.

The Golden Miller

Chivito550 wrote: »

The poster didn’t make any specifics. He just said H2H in general. He didn’t mention years, and acknowledged how far off the mark he was when I posted the head to heads. He has already said that he posted this as a compliment to Federer and Nadal anyway.

Something about Federer seems to grind your gears. You’ve been posting non stop about him the last week. You are obsessed with him.

Anyone who follows tennis can remember Murray done quite well against Novak, to the point one could argue he surpassed him for a period, whereas Federer simply wasn't in contention at this time generally. Under the context, I think it's as clear as day that the poster was referring to this period, as Murray's drop off in form and defeats to Novak subsequently didn't make headlines in the British press, so many people aren't aware of how many defeats followed for Murray.

But yes, hopefully that poster can clarify

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

Something about Federer seems to grind your gears. You’ve been posting non stop about him the last week. You are obsessed with him.

No, you're obsessed with him not getting a "fair shake" in this debate...

And you are the only one making excuse after excuse for his losses to Nole and Nadal

If it's not "clay courts clay courts" it's "glandular fever glandular fever" or "he was past his prime past his prime."

Face it...career wise Fed is the leader. One on one when all on their strongest day it's not at all clear. Quit the silly excuses for the H2H scores.....

Overall they were all playing at or close to peak, and Fed is behind to both. Close to Nole, but not so close to Nadal, and in slams match he is a bit behind both.

dominatinMC

mickmackey1 wrote:

Somebody above asked their housemates if Nadal would beat Fed at his peak. He did not tell us if he asked whether a 36yo Fed would beat a 31yo Nadal... I wonder why not?? Nadal worshipper detected

Do you have trouble reading? If not, please read my previous post correctly and do not misquote me. I simply asked my housemates who they would put their money on in a Nadal Vs Fed match. No mention of "peaks", I didn't specify a surface, didn't specify and age, they don't even know the age difference between Fed and Nadal. All they know is that Fed is older, and is after winning the AO. But they also know a fact which, unfortunately for Fed fans, has transcended tennis, into general sports. That fact being that Nadal has had the better of Federer for the majority of their careers. Casual observers know this. Christ, the numbers don't lie! I don't see why Fed fans are so upset about this.

And I'm not a Nadal worshipper. I like all 3, but am annoyed by the denial of the Federer "worshippers" here. The excuses are quite sad, and nothing original. "He could have beaten him on clay but was mentally weak", " he has a bigger racquet now", "Nadal lost to weak players in the opening rounds", etc, etc. All of this rubbish is circumstantial. The fact is the h2h is 23-15! There is no arguing with that. It says that Nadal beats Fed more regularly. End of. And so does Djokovic for that matter!

This is not debating who is the better player, overall. At this moment in time, that is clearly Fed. However, that argument won't be over until all 3 retire.

mickmackey1

dominatinMC wrote: »

Do you have trouble reading? If not, please read my previous post correctly and do not misquote me. I simply asked my housemates who they would put their money on in a Nadal Vs Fed match. No mention of "peaks", I didn't specify a surface, didn't specify and age, they don't even know the age difference between Fed and Nadal. All they know is that Fed is older, and is after winning the AO. But they also know a fact which, unfortunately for Fed fans, has transcended tennis, into general sports. That fact being that Nadal has had the better of Federer for the majority of their careers. Casual observers know this. Christ, the numbers don't lie! I don't see why Fed fans are so upset about this.

And I'm not a Nadal worshipper. I like all 3, but am annoyed by the denial of the Federer "worshippers" here. The excuses are quite sad, and nothing original. "He could have beaten him on clay but was mentally weak", " he has a bigger racquet now", "Nadal lost to weak players in the opening rounds", etc, etc. All of this rubbish is circumstantial. The fact is the h2h is 23-15! There is no arguing with that. It says that Nadal beats Fed more regularly. End of. And so does Djokovic for that matter!

This is not debating who is the better player, overall. At this moment in time, that is clearly Fed. However, that argument won't be over until all 3 retire.

I hope you understand that repeating the same point over and over doesn't make it true. Federer LEADS the H2H 13-10 off clay, despite being half a tennis lifetime older. They have met THREE times on grass because Nadal kept getting beaten by inferior opponents. They have met FIVE times more often on Nadal's favourite surface because Fed kept getting to finals.
Therefore the reasons for the H2H are completely skewed which even the most casual tennis fan understands.

So tell your mates to quit whatever it is they're smoking.

ballyargus

The Golden Miller wrote: »

No someone else brought up the fact Murray competed well against Djokovic, and he did hold his own and even surpassed him in periods over the course of 3 years. You had to dispute this, trying to imply Federer was equally as strong a force or threat over this period when he simply wasn't. The years Murray started losing aren't relevant, no one is trying to claim Murray is better than Federer. That's your insecurity complex, needing to prove that Federer was better than everyone at every point in their career

Which is patently untrue. They played 29 times since the Aus Open in 2011. Murray wononly 8

Of the 21 matches Novak beat him, only 3 could be classed as really tight. Rome SF 2011. The 2012 Aus Open SF and the 2015 RG semi final.

Even that Roland Garros is generous to Murray as he was soundly beaten 6-1 in the fifth.

He was soundly beaten again and again and the notion that they were evenly matched is laughable.

walshb

mickmackey1 wrote: »

I hope you understand that repeating the same point over and over doesn't make it true. Federer LEADS the H2H 13-10 off clay, despite being half a tennis lifetime older. They have met THREE times on grass because Nadal kept getting beaten by inferior opponents. They have met FIVE times more often on Nadal's favourite surface because Fed kept getting to finals.
Therefore the reasons for the H2H are completely skewed which even the most casual tennis fan understands.

So tell your mates to quit whatever it is they're smoking.

More excuses

Clay clay clay....

Nadal also beat Fed on hards and grass....

On hard, which is really the best surface to select as it is fair to all, it is 11-9 Federer. 5 wins in the past 3 of years

Slam hard court it's 3-1 Nadal....

mickmackey1

walshb wrote: »

On hard, which is really the best surface to select as it is fair to all, it is 11-9 Federer.

Thanks very much. End of discussion.

The Golden Miller

ballyargus wrote: »

Which is patently untrue. They played 29 times since the Aus Open in 2011. Murray wononly 8

Of the 21 matches Novak beat him, only 3 could be classed as really tight. Rome SF 2011. The 2012 Aus Open SF and the 2015 RG semi final.

Even that Roland Garros is generous to Murray as he was soundly beaten 6-1 in the fifth.

He was soundly beaten again and again and the notion that they were evenly matched is laughable.

Ye that's great and all, except I was talking about the 11, 12 and 13 seasons, a point I'm going to assume you've willfully ignored. As you say, even some of the matches Novak won during this period were tight. Murray was reaching Novaks level, particularly from mid 2012, to a point where many would argue he surpassed Novak by the end of 2013. Either way, Novak generally had the upper hand over Federer throughout this period, matches with Murray were finely balanced.

eagle eye

For me Nadal at his peak beats the other two. His peak didn't last long due to injury but before the injuries he was incredible.
I thought I'd seen the best when Federer hit his peak but I think Nadal was better. I believe Federer was still at his peak when Nadal went to no.1 in the world, it was simply that a better player came along.
No doubt that Roger is the GOAT though.

The Golden Miller

mickmackey1 wrote: »

I hope you understand that repeating the same point over and over doesn't make it true. Federer LEADS the H2H 13-10 off clay, despite being half a tennis lifetime older. They have met THREE times on grass because Nadal kept getting beaten by inferior opponents. They have met FIVE times more often on Nadal's favourite surface because Fed kept getting to finals.
Therefore the reasons for the H2H are completely skewed which even the most casual tennis fan understands.

So tell your mates to quit whatever it is they're smoking.

Skewed? You could argue the fact a pretty fresh Federer's recent victories on hardcourts against a struggling Nadal skew the stats, considering Federer had a 7-3 losing record to Nadal on hardcourts between 08-14 before his form fell off a cliff. By the same metric, had they met more on hardcourts between 08-14 and going by the form at the time, Nadal would have stretched his hardcourt hth v Federer. Keep clutching

walshb

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Thanks very much. End of discussion.

What if I use clay?:P

dominatinMC

mickmackey1 wrote: »

I hope you understand that repeating the same point over and over doesn't make it true. Federer LEADS the H2H 13-10 off clay, despite being half a tennis lifetime older. They have met THREE times on grass because Nadal kept getting beaten by inferior opponents. They have met FIVE times more often on Nadal's favourite surface because Fed kept getting to finals.
Therefore the reasons for the H2H are completely skewed which even the most casual tennis fan understands.


So tell your mates to quit whatever it is they're smoking.

:D:D Good man...exactly the response I was expecting! I was getting annoyed at these Fed posts, but this one has me in stitches...thanks!

You have just re-emphasised my earlier point, whether you did that wittingly or unwittingly , it doesn't matter. You are still reverting to the same tried and trusted (and stale) excuses which are the hallmark of Fed "fanboys" (I hate that word, but it is patently clear you are one). "Leads off clay", "Nadal got beaten by inferior opponents", etc, etc. Yet again the same old excuses. What matters is when Nadal and Federer actually played each other - Nadal beat Fed more often than not. Simple as. Last time I checked a clay court was still classified as a tennis court, hence it is the same sport, at which Nadal was more dominant over Fed.

And yes, I do have to keep making the same point, as it doesn't seem to be sinking in yet. Leaving all the circumstances (which you love to refer to) aside, when Nadal and Djokovic have come up against Federer in a tennis match, they beat him more often than he beat them. They have had the upper hand over Fed in tennis. I can't understand how you are not seeing this.

Chivito550

Lads, Federer was not at his peak in 2008. You make it sound like Nadal stepped up and that was the only reason Federer lost matches. Why not have a look at who he lost to in 2008?

Mardy Fish
Andy Roddick
Radek Stephanek
Giles Simon x 2
Ivo Karlevic
James Blake

These are the type of chumps he was beating easily in previous years.

He lost 15 times in 2008, and only 4 of those were against Rafa.

In 2005 he lost just 4 times all season. In 2006 he lost just 5 times. In these seasons he had a 95% win percentage. In 2008 it was just 81%.

If he only lost say 8 times (the 4 against Rafa and 4 others) there would be a case, but 11 loses against guys other than Rafa? It is laughable that people say this was Federer at peak.

Chivito550

dominatinMC wrote: »

:D:D Good man...exactly the response I was expecting! I was getting annoyed at these Fed posts, but this one has me in stitches...thanks!

You have just re-emphasised my earlier point, whether you did that wittingly or unwittingly , it doesn't matter. You are still reverting to the same tried and trusted (and stale) excuses which are the hallmark of Fed "fanboys" (I hate that word, but it is patently clear you are one). "Leads off clay", "Nadal got beaten by inferior opponents", etc, etc. Yet again the same old excuses. What matters is when Nadal and Federer actually played each other - Nadal beat Fed more often than not. Simple as. Last time I checked a clay court was still classified as a tennis court, hence it is the same sport, at which Nadal was more dominant over Fed.

And yes, I do have to keep making the same point, as it doesn't seem to be sinking in yet. Leaving all the circumstances (which you love to refer to) aside, when Nadal and Djokovic have come up against Federer in a tennis match, they beat him more often than he beat them. They have had the upper hand over Fed in tennis. I can't understand how you are not seeing this.

To be fair, Rafa kept failing to make the final of the US Open when Federer was dominant there. Now I can’t say for certain Federer would have beaten him all the time there but it is likely the head to head would be closer. Federer kept his side of the bargain and made clay final after clay final, but for a long time Nadal couldn’t do likewise on his least favorite surface (at the time).

If Federer was dreadful on clay then Nadal and Federer would not have met 15 times on that surface, and Nadal wouldn’t have 13 wins to his name.

These are not excuses. They are just limitations of using head to head to determine who is a better player. It is just one aspect. Otherwise Davydenko may as well be called a better player than Nadal. Had they played more on clay then that H2H would be in Nadal’s favour.

WickIow Brave

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Anyone who follows tennis can remember Murray done quite well against Novak, to the point one could argue he surpassed him for a period, whereas Federer simply wasn't in contention at this time generally. Under the context, I think it's as clear as day that the poster was referring to this period, as Murray's drop off in form and defeats to Novak subsequently didn't make headlines in the British press, so many people aren't aware of how many defeats followed for Murray.

But yes, hopefully that poster can clarify

Yeah I was referring to around Wimbledon 2011 until USO 2013. It was mainly an observation on Murray.

WickIow Brave

Chivito550 wrote: »

To be fair, Rafa kept failing to make the final of the US Open when Federer was dominant there. Now I can’t say for certain Federer would have beaten him all the time there but it is likely the head to head would be closer. Federer kept his side of the bargain and made clay final after clay final, but for a long time Nadal couldn’t do likewise on his least favorite surface (at the time).

If Federer was dreadful on clay then Nadal and Federer would not have met 15 times on that surface, and Nadal wouldn’t have 13 wins to his name.

'Rafa kept failing to make the US Open final when Federer was dominatant there'.

Nadal was a teenager and not yet near his peak during this period.

'Federer kept his side of bargain'.

Federer didn't keep his side of the bargain at Wimbledon 2010, 2011 and USO 2010, 2011, 2013 and 2017. On his favourite surfaces.

'If Federer was dreadful on clay'.

You make it sound like Nadal is dreadful on grass and HC. He's won Wimbledon twice, beat Federer there. He's made 4 Australian Open finals, beat Fed there three times. He's won 3 US Opens and made 4 finals. All 4 times Nadal kept his side of the bargain but Federer couldn't. On Federer's favourite surface.

The Golden Miller

Chivito550 wrote: »

Lads, Federer was not at his peak in 2008. You make it sound like Nadal stepped up and that was the only reason Federer lost matches. Why not have a look at who he lost to in 2008?

Mardy Fish
Andy Roddick
Radek Stephanek
Giles Simon x 2
Ivo Karlevic
James Blake

These are the type of chumps he was beating easily in previous years.

He lost 15 times in 2008, and only 4 of those were against Rafa.

In 2005 he lost just 4 times all season. In 2006 he lost just 5 times. In these seasons he had a 95% win percentage. In 2008 it was just 81%.

If he only lost say 8 times (the 4 against Rafa and 4 others) there would be a case, but 11 loses against guys other than Rafa? It is laughable that people say this was Federer at peak.

Again, Nadal was breaking through as a top all-courter by 08 and had Federer rattled. Rattled confidence and doubt comes with the territory of having competition on your level. So a pre-McEnroe Borg is the GOAT I take it, seeing as he had the highest winning percentages? But no, you'll spin the argument another way and winning percentages won't matter all of a sudden. How on earth can you say the form of an athlete with no competition to prove himself against is worth talking about in this debate? It's laughable.

Chivito550 wrote: »

To be fair, Rafa kept failing to make the final of the US Open when Federer was dominant there. Now I can’t say for certain Federer would have beaten him all the time there but it is likely the head to head would be closer. Federer kept his side of the bargain and made clay final after clay final, but for a long time Nadal couldn’t do likewise on his least favorite surface (at the time).

If Federer was dreadful on clay then Nadal and Federer would not have met 15 times on that surface, and Nadal wouldn’t have 13 wins to his name.

These are not excuses. They are just limitations of using head to head to determine who is a better player. It is just one aspect. Otherwise Davydenko may as well be called a better player than Nadal. Had they played more on clay then that H2H would be in Nadal’s favour.

Most of Federer's US open wins came before Nadal became the finished article on all courts. So yes, he would of beaten a 16 and 17 year old Nadal most probably. All this "keeping his side of the bargain" stuff might carry some weight if he proved he could regularly beat Nadal on hardcourts when they did meet. Otherwise the form suggests a wider gap on hardcourts between 08-14

WickIow Brave

It's funny aswell when it's said during the 2005-2008 period that 'Nadal didn't keep his side of the bargain'. I'd actually wager that had Nadal got through to those finals he'd very well have won his share of them and this well before he even reached his peak. When you consider how close the 2005 Miami final was for example. Federer should be glad he didn't have to play Nadal in those finals!

The Golden Miller

WickIow Brave wrote: »

It's funny aswell when it's said during the 2005-2008 period that 'Nadal didn't keep his side of the bargain'. I'd actually wager that had Nadal got through to those finals he'd very well have won his share of them and this well before he even reached his peak. When you consider how close the 2005 Miami final was for example. Federer should be glad he didn't have to play Nadal in those finals!

Wimbledon 07 too. Nadal won 5 games on the bounce in the 4th set before being stretchered on the ground if memory serves me right. All over Federer before the interruption halted proceedings and gave Federer time to regroup and stop the rot

WickIow Brave

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Wimbledon 07 too. Nadal wonXS 5 games on the bounce in the 4th set before being stretchered on the ground if memory serves me right. All over Federer before the interruption halted proceedings and gave Federer time to regroup and stop the rot

Yes, and this before Nadal was at his best on all surfaces. Sure if Nadal had won, Federer's peak would have been 2004 to 2006 instead!

The Golden Miller

WickIow Brave wrote: »

Yes, and this before Nadal was at his best on all surfaces.

And on Fed's favourite surface no less

WickIow Brave wrote: »

Sure if Nadal had won, Federer's peak would have been 2004 to 2006 instead!

The goalposts do tend to change alot with Federer fans.

Chivito550

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Again, Nadal was breaking through as a top all-courter by 08 and had Federer rattled. Rattled confidence and doubt comes with the territory of having competition on your level. So a pre-McEnroe Borg is the GOAT I take it, seeing as he had the highest winning percentages? But no, you'll spin the argument another way and winning percentages won't matter all of a sudden. How on earth can you say the form of an athlete with no competition to prove himself against is worth talking about in this debate? It's laughable.



Most of Federer's US open wins came before Nadal became the finished article on all courts. So yes, he would of beaten a 16 and 17 year old Nadal most probably. All this "keeping his side of the bargain" stuff might carry some weight if he proved he could regularly beat Nadal on hardcourts when they did meet. Otherwise the form suggests a wider gap on hardcourts between 08-14

We are not going to agree. When Nadal was at peak in 2010, Federer wasn’t at his peak. Results show this.

And Nadal was 19 in 2005, so he’d have been 23 in 2009 US Open when he was smashed by Del Porto, 22 in 2008 when he lost to Murray.

16 or 17? Go ahead, keep exaggerating.

WickIow Brave

Chivito550 wrote: »

Lads, Federer was not at his peak in 2008. You make it sound like Nadal stepped up and that was the only reason Federer lost matches. Why not have a look at who he lost to in 2008?

Mardy Fish
Andy Roddick
Radek Stephanek
Giles Simon x 2
Ivo Karlevic
James Blake

These are the type of chumps he was beating easily in previous years.

He lost 15 times in 2008, and only 4 of those were against Rafa.

In 2005 he lost just 4 times all season. In 2006 he lost just 5 times. In these seasons he had a 95% win percentage. In 2008 it was just 81%.

If he only lost say 8 times (the 4 against Rafa and 4 others) there would be a case, but 11 loses against guys other than Rafa? It is laughable that people say this was Federer at peak.

It's far more laughable you believe Federer wasn't at his peak! He made the finals of the French Open and Wimbledon in 2008 and he won the US Open, how tf was he not at his peak??!! Why are you counting a few losses in Masters events? Roddick is hardly a chump and his losses to Simon the second time and Karlovic were after his loss to Nadal at Wimbledon and Nadal was closing in on the number one so Federer was feeling the pressure of Nadal taking over.

What about in 2009?? Was Fed not at his peak? He won the FO and Wimbledon and made the finals of the AO where he lost to... Nadal. He was 1000000% at his peak for the AO in 2009. What's your excuse for that one?

The Golden Miller

Chivito550 wrote: »

We are not going to agree. When Nadal was at peak in 2010, Federer wasn’t at his peak. Results show this.

Ye if only Federer could have kept having that free ride. I wonder did Borg fans cry like this when McEnroe showed up?

Chivito550 wrote: »

And Nadal was 19 in 2005, so he’d have been 23 in 2009 US Open when he was smashed by Del Porto, 22 in 2008 when he lost to Murray.

16 or 17? Go ahead, keep exaggerating.

Ye Del Potro beat Nadal because he was better. He also beat Federer. Too bad he's been consistently injured, could have been a super player