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

WickIow Brave

Chivito550 wrote: »

2009 US Open when he was smashed by Del Porto

If you want to use excuses for Federer in 2008 about glandular fever then you can excuse Nadal for being injured in 2009.

I'm not going to use that excuse though, del Potro was unbelievable in that match and better than Nadal.

And what's this glandular fever bullsh*t about anyway?? If you have glandular fever you can barely get out of bed not play a 5 hour epic in a Wimbledon final. Lame excuse for getting beat by the superior player.

lostcat

ok, so I post the below link in a 'who is the best goat' thread once a year or so, here goes for this one:


One objective way of comparing stats, weak eras (which I don't put much store in in nay case) and so on is what this guy did, similar to the elo model used for chess. it takes the quality of opponent into account (so somewhat accounts for 'weak' era arguments)

http://tennisabstract.com/reports/atp_elo_ratings.html


The guys findings are that while djokovic has the highest peak elo rating ever, Federers consistent excellence over a prolonged period is out of the park.
So, djokovics peak is peakier than anyone else (so the 'best' player of all time? certainly looking at some of the head to heads quoted above he had Nadal, Federer and everyone else in his pocked for a couple of years)
Federer is out of the park in terms of a constant extremely high level (but interestingly, according to this his highest peak is in 2007, before Djokovic made the breakthrough..so Fed is the GOAT?

I find the system reasonably useful in replacing opinion (fun?) with stats

more interestingly it also allows comparison historically, for instance it rated Borg and McEnroe as having higher peaks than Nadal (in a list made sometime in 2015). this is probably the nearest we will get any time soon to a virtual reality time machine

WickIow Brave

I'm spending way too much arguing on here ffs, I'm getting way too deep into this LMAO!!

WickIow Brave

lostcat wrote: »

ok, so I post the below link in a 'who is the best goat' thread once a year or so, here goes for this one:


One objective way of comparing stats, weak eras (which I don't put much store in in nay case) and so on is what this guy did, similar to the elo model used for chess. it takes the quality of opponent into account (so somewhat accounts for 'weak' era arguments)

http://tennisabstract.com/reports/atp_elo_ratings.html


The guys findings are that while djokovic has the highest peak elo rating ever, Federers consistent excellence over a prolonged period is out of the park.
So, djokovics peak is peakier than anyone else (so the 'best' player of all time? certainly looking at some of the head to heads quoted above he had Nadal, Federer and everyone else in his pocked for a couple of years)
Federer is out of the park in terms of a constant extremely high level (but interestingly, according to this his highest peak is in 2007, before Djokovic made the breakthrough..so Fed is the GOAT?

I find the system reasonably useful in replacing opinion (fun?) with stats

more interestingly it also allows comparison historically, for instance it rated Borg and McEnroe as having higher peaks than Nadal (in a list made sometime in 2015). this is probably the nearest we will get any time soon to a virtual reality time machine

That's pretty cool. Interesting it has Nadal's peak in 2013. I would have had it 2010, 2011 and up to FO 2012. Not surprising Djokovic has the highest peak. I said in an earlier post I would have my life's saving on peak Djokovic against anyone on any surface. Unbeatable at his best.

lostcat

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.

A
s the poster who brought Murray into this, and not really a fan of his, I feel I have to defent his honour a bit. A lot of his matches with Djokovic were very very tight (Esp at masters level.)
That FO semi, he fought back to win the fourth set, therefor pushing the last set to the next day, and while djokovic won the 5th, he had a day less to prepare for the final which certainly didn't help him against Stan in the final. So Murray strongly influenced that slam.
They played an amazing final in shanghai in 2012, where Murray had a few MPs for instance. Djokovic generally won the matches, but the scoreboard rarely told the tale of how tight many of the them were.

ballyargus

ICX WTC wrote: »

Well he was beatable, Federer beat him in 2011 French Semi Final.

Peak Djokovic playing at his beat beaten by past it Federer.

Maybe he just wasn't "peak peak" in that particular match?

walshb

This insistence that Fed was not at peak in 2008 ruins any debating credibility...

Looking at only losses compared to other years is pathetic.

Makes 3 slam finals and wins one...think he lost ‘08 Oz semi to Nole

But no, couldn’t have been at or close to peak , because guess what? Loses two slam finals back to back vs. Nadal, and that doesn’t suit this Fed narrative...

And of course, losing all his 2008 matches to Nadal. How can we cope with this? Yes, bloody glandular fever and not at his peak.

WickIow Brave

ICX WTC wrote: »

I don't think you understand the severity of glandular fever. Robin Soderling's career was ended by it.

I understood the severity of glandular fever. You don't play a 5 hour epic and play some of your best ever tennis while suffering the effects of glandular fever.

walshb

ICX WTC wrote: »

Well he was beatable, Federer beat him in 2011 French Semi Final.

Peak Djokovic playing at his beat beaten by past it Federer.

One match. Lost the other 4/5 that year..

And a much younger yet to peak Nole beat a 2007 Fed I believe...

WickIow Brave

Federer also beaten by Nadal on hardcourts in Dubai in 2006.


Overall Greatness/legacy
Federer > Nadal > Djokovic

At their peaks
Djokovic > Nadal > Federer



And that's fax.

walshb

ICX WTC wrote: »

You are blind, go onto any tennis forum and you will be ridiculed.

He lost to Roddick in 2008 ffs, he lost to Stepanek. His winning percentage dropped to 81% that year. Wake up.

Percentages don’t always tell the whole story

Think outside the box and don’t be so obtuse...

Example: 2006 season, one of his supposed best, he lost to a scrawny 20 year old Murray...

Unless that Murray was so much better than 2008 Roddick?

WickIow Brave

In all seriousness, Federer should have called it a day after he won the US Open in 2007. Should have gone out at the top. Dunno why he's still carrying on 11 years later destroying his legacy while he's so clearly past it all these years.

mickmackey1

WickIow Brave wrote: »

And what's this glandular fever bullsh*t about anyway??

Clearly you know even less about medicine than you do about tennis. Which is saying something.

The Golden Miller

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Clearly you know even less about medicine than you do about tennis. Which is saying something.

So we can discount Federers 07 Wimbledon crown, seeing as Nadal was hampered by an actual niggling injury? Funny how no Federer fan has yet to mention the effect this had on the 07 final, but lame excuses in abundance for the 08 final are fine?

WickIow Brave

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Clearly you know even less about medicine than you do about tennis. Which is saying something.

Yeah, you've been blowing me away with contributions thus far tbf. I bow to your superior knowledge. Federer was at his peak in 2004 until 2007, had a dip in 2008 and beginning of 2009, back to his peak again from May 2009 until Feb 2010 and again for 2 weeks in 2012. Way below his best end of 2012, all of 2013 and 2014, he peaked for a couple of weeks at Wimbledon and USO in 2015 but was past it by the time the finals rolled around. Dipped in 2016 and peaking again in 2017 and 2018. Federer has literally never lost while in form.

mickmackey1

The Golden Miller wrote: »

So we can discount Federers 07 Wimbledon crown, seeing as Nadal was hampered by an actual niggling injury? Funny how no Federer fan has yet to mention the effect this had on the 07 final, but lame excuses in abundance for the 08 final are fine?

we all know that Nadal has only ever lost a match when he was injured, tired, unhealthy, overplayed and generally unwell. Or his bottles were not properly arranged. He has never ever lost a match to a better player.

Honestly his fanboys spout such nonsense that they must all be suffering worse OCD than their idol.

WickIow Brave

To give Federer fans an idea of their ludicrous argument, I'll ignore Federer for a minute and focus solely on Nole and Nadal.

Imo, both at their peak Djokovic would beat Nadal. Now, Nadal fans could argue 'Nadal's peak was 2010, he was past it in 2011' or they could argue 'but Nadal beat Djokovic in the 2013 USO'. Nonsense. Nadal was in peak form in 2010 and continued until he crashed out of Wimbledon in 2012. Djokovic was beating him in 2011 while both at their peak. Would be convenient for Nadal to be past it after 2010 wouldn't it?

This is basically yere argument.

WickIow Brave

mickmackey1 wrote: »

we all know that Nadal has only ever lost a match when he was injured, tired, unhealthy, overplayed and generally unwell. Or his bottles were not properly arranged. He has never ever lost a match to a better player.

Honestly his fanboys spout such nonsense that they must all be suffering worse OCD than their idol.

Christ, you are so dense light must bend around you.

ballyargus

This is great. I'm actually surprised you all have connectivity underneath those bridges!

WickIow Brave

WickIow Brave wrote: »

Christ, you are so dense light must bend around you.

Sorry that was uncalled for mick. I apologise.

The Golden Miller

mickmackey1 wrote: »

we all know that Nadal has only ever lost a match when he was injured, tired, unhealthy, overplayed and generally unwell. Or his bottles were not properly arranged. He has never ever lost a match to a better player.

Honestly his fanboys spout such nonsense that they must all be suffering worse OCD than their idol.

Wtf? I've literally only stated he lost to Del Potro a few posts back because Del Potro was the better man? I've also stated anytime Federer beat him up until 2014 Federer was the better player, as after 2014 Nadal's form fell off a cliff with a slight resurgence recently as the competition at the top fell away. I've repeatedly stated he lost to Novak as Novak was simply better? I've stated he had many first round exits as he simply wasn't good enough at the time. I'm a fanboy alright

Now, where have you once accepted Federer was beaten by Nadal, simply because Nadal was better? Either not at peak post 2008, clay this or that, "Glandular fever" and every other excuse you can think off. Always a mitigating factor. So I queried if it's OK to use excuses for Federer's lose in the 2008 Wimbledon final, surely we can use excuses for Nadals loss in the 2007 final?

WickIow Brave

ballyargus wrote: »

This is great. I'm actually surprised you all have connectivity underneath those bridges!

Game of opinions innit. What's your own view?

mickmackey1

WickIow Brave wrote: »

Sorry that was uncalled for mick. I apologise.

Hey no worries. I'm the Fed fan, it's you who have problems

Those Nadal/Nole finals were absolutely epic, no doubt. But now we see the consequences... Djoker is crippled and Nadal not much better, This is what it takes to take on Fed, while he merrily keeps piling up the Slams. GOAT.

The Golden Miller

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Hey no worries. I'm the Fed fan, it's you who have problems

Those Nadal/Nole finals were absolutely epic, no doubt. But now we see the consequences... Djoker is crippled and Nadal not much better, This is what it takes to take on Fed, while he merrily keeps piling up the Slams. GOAT.

Except they weren't taking on Fed, they were repeatedly besting him and facing each other. In terms of longevity Federer is the GOAT, no one is disputing that

ballyargus

WickIow Brave wrote: »

Game of opinions innit. What's your own view?

I thought I gave mine very early on. It's a game of very fine margins. At their physical peaks I said Rafa beats Fed, Fed beat Novak, and Novak beats Rafa.

I still stand by the fact that almost all great players taper off beyond the age of 26. Sampras stoppped being dominant then, Borg, McEnroe, Edberg and many more. Most of the players we see as being great scooped most of their slams in the 5 years from 21-26.

mickmackey1

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Except they weren't taking on Fed, they were repeatedly besting him and facing each other. In terms of longevity Federer is the GOAT, no one is disputing that

But peak level will simply not be remembered. In 50 years the only fact that matters will be Fed 20, Nadal 16, Djoker 12. Everything else is fluff.

WickIow Brave

ballyargus wrote: »

I thought I gave mine very early on. It's a game of very fine margins. At their physical peaks I said Rafa beats Fed, Fed beat Novak, and Novak beats Rafa.

I still stand by the fact that almost all great players taper off beyond the age of 26. Sampras stoppped being dominant then, Borg, McEnroe, Edberg and many more. Most of the players we see as being great scooped most of their slams in the 5 years from 21-26.

Fair enough. Probably right there.

WickIow Brave

This debate has run its course now I think.



So where do ye stand on the eight amendment folks?

walshb

ballyargus wrote: »

I thought I gave mine very early on. It's a game of very fine margins. At their physical peaks I said Rafa beats Fed, Fed beat Novak, and Novak beats Rafa.

I still stand by the fact that almost all great players taper off beyond the age of 26. Sampras stoppped being dominant then, Borg, McEnroe, Edberg and many more. Most of the players we see as being great scooped most of their slams in the 5 years from 21-26.

Stopped being dominant does not have to mean you are less the player..

Maybe, just maybe you are less dominant because two monsters start challenging your game, and that game, which was more successful against lesser players is less successful against ATG players...this is what happened to RF...

He was less successful because of two exceptionally brilliant players happened to find form in his era. RF was still very successful, just he had to share the dominance. That does not mean he was less a player or less brilliant during the sharing...

The big issue is that Fed fanboys cannot entertain this. They constantly want to trot out lame excuses for his dip in success, not form, as they’d like you to think.

mickmackey1

walshb wrote: »

Stopped being dominant does not have to mean you are less the player..

Maybe, just maybe you are less dominant because two monsters start challenging your game, and that game, which was more successful against lesser players is less successful against ATG players...this is what happened to RF...

He was less successful because if two exceptionally brilliant players happened to find form in his era. RF was still very successful, just he had to share the dominance. That does not mean he was less a player or less brilliant during the sharing...

And 'World No 1' Nadal would have continued to dominate had he not been beaten 5 times in a row by a certain 35 year old...