Wimbledon 2012

[Jaz]

They'd have a couple of slams more because the lack of competition was a joke back then. Federer, Roddick, Hewitt and a rarely functioning Safin. Put Djokovic in that time (in place of Fed) and he'd be sitting on 15 Slams right now.

Disagree, Djokovic was a relatively late developer in Tennis terms, he didn't have the temperament. He's talented, but so was Hewitt and Roddick. The point being made is this conversation about weak players over a certain time is nonsense.

The same could be said that other than Federer and Nadal, there has been absolutely no really good clay-courters. Nadal shouldn't be near anywhere near his multiple RG crowns. If there were strong clay-courters like in past years. Lets talk about the future: when Federer retires, there will virtually be no real competition to Djokovic for the Hardcourt slams. In 2-3 years time Nadals injuries will catch-up with him. Djokovic will be winning at least 2 slams a year.

This argument is purely nonsense, this is Tennis, players come and players go. Ultimately you still have to win all your matches, stay fit and healthy and motivated. Federer did this, and continues.

 

[Enigma_87]

They'd have a couple of slams more because the lack of competition was a joke back then. Federer, Roddick, Hewitt and a rarely functioning Safin. Put Djokovic in that time (in place of Fed) and he'd be sitting on 15 Slams right now.

given the fact Djokovic is 3-5 against Roddick, 4 of Roddick wins came in straights and given their meetings came when Roddick is off his prime I think this claim is laughable.

The numbers make guys like Roddick, Hewitt and Safin look bad because Federer and Nadal swept everything away during that time. You put their prime a bit later, and Djokovic and Murray would look just as bad.

 

[Jaz]

given the fact Djokovic is 3-5 against Roddick, 4 of Roddick wins came in straights and given their meetings came when Roddick is off his prime I think this claim is laughable.

The numbers make guys like Roddick, Hewitt and Safin look bad because Federer and Nadal swept everything away during that time. You put their prime a bit later, and Djokovic and Murray would look just as bad.

Also:

Nadal against Nalbandian 6-2.
Nadal against Hewitt 6-4
Nadal against Roddick 7-3

Clearly they weren't easy to beat.

 

[crappycraperson]

No. Apparently everything is set in stone and we are not to take anything into consideration when forming our opinion. Courts getting extremely slow favoring baseline runners? Ignore it despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. How long was Federer's peak? Obviously as long as we can assume it to be so as to include when his form clearly dipped even against players other than his main rivals.

I mean it's silly. People are getting retardedly worked up in this thread over someone else holding an alternate viewpoint.

Ok, lets cut out the silliness.

1) you can talk as much as you want about changed courts. But lets keep in mind that Fed himself won all these slams on the same courts so unless as pointed out before, if you wish to indulge in fantasy tennis about how federer would have fared on different courts, it serves no purpose.

2) Peak of players is a subjective issue. But it is a clear as a day that to claim Fed lost his peak as soon as he got beat by Nadal in the W final is agenda ridden. i just hope Fed himself does not indulge in such non sense. Mcenroe was man enough to own up his 5 set defeat in french final to lendl, Fed hopefully will be the same in his autobiography.

3) Funny how Fed fanbois ignore all other 'sillyness' which help to perpetuate their myths. you had someone claim that Fed would have won more Wimbldeon in 90s when Sampras was around, no one tried to correct it. Now you have a fool saying Hewitt is as good as Djokovic. Others like you seem to subtly push the same opinion. I don need any mindless stats or scenarios to know Hewitt is no where near as good as Djoko. Seen Tennis enough since the days of Agassi. The fact that Hewitt was no.1 for 80 weeks is THE proof of weak competition when fed first started winning, but I am not going to try to explain this to dim wits like the one you quoted. What is unfortunate but very much expected is that you yourself, make no attempt to correct such non sense.

Last few pages represent everything wrong about modern day fans. Agenda here for Fed fans is not to enjoy the quality Tennis on display but create inane myths to establish Fed as GOAT and disparage his two great competitors at the same time. Fed is probably the GOAT, you don't need such bull shit to prove it. More displays like his semi against Djoko will achieve it on its own.

I wanted to avoid more posting on this issue but subtle digs by few on here is pathetic especially when it contains such crap.

 

[wr8_utd]

Also:

Nadal against Nalbandian 6-2.
Nadal against Hewitt 6-4
Nadal against Roddick 7-3

Clearly they weren't easy to beat.

Most of those defeats (and the ones against Davedenko) are probably from back when he was rubbish at hard courts. He's made a tremendous improvement over the last 2-3 years on the hards. That's why a said a better all court player like Djokovic would have loads of Slams if he was around instead of Fed when the likes of Hewitt and Roddick were the toughest guys to beat.

And Djokovic isn't exactly a late bloomer. He won his first Slam at 20 and gave an in form Federer a real run for his money the year before that in New York.

 

[wr8_utd]

Ok, lets cut out the silliness.

1) you can talk as much as you want about changed courts. But lets keep in mind that Fed himself won all these slams on the same courts so unless as pointed out before, if you wish to indulge in fantasy tennis about how federer would have fared on different courts, it serves no purpose.

2) Peak of players is a subjective issue. But it is a clear as a day that to claim Fed lost his peak as soon as he got beat by Nadal in the W final is agenda ridden. i just hope Fed himself does not indulge in such non sense. Mcenroe was man enough to own up his 5 set defeat in french final to lendl, Fed hopefully will be the same in his autobiography.

3) Funny how Fed fanbois ignore all other 'sillyness' which help to perpetuate their myths. you had someone claim that Fed would have won more Wimbldeon in 90s when Sampras was around, no one tried to correct it. Now you have a fool saying Hewitt is as good as Djokovic. Others like you seem to subtly push the same opinion. I don need any mindless stats or scenarios to know Hewitt is no where near as good as Djoko. Seen Tennis enough since the days of Agassi. The fact that Hewitt was no.1 for 80 weeks is THE proof of weak competition when fed first started winning, but I am not going to try to explain this to dim wits like the one you quoted. What is unfortunate but very much expected is that you yourself, make no attempt to correct such non sense.

Last few pages represent everything wrong about modern day fans. Agenda here for Fed fans is not to enjoy the quality Tennis on display but create inane myths to establish Fed as GOAT and disparage his two great competitors at the same time. Fed is probably the GOAT, you don't need such bull shit to prove it. More displays like his semi against Djoko will achieve it on its own.

I wanted to avoid more posting on this issue but subtle digs by few on here is pathetic especially when it contains such crap.

Exactly. It's not like the courts were slowed down after Nadal started playing tennis. Ridiculous excuses by Federer fans in general to downplay Nadal's and Djokovic's achievements.

And agree with the Hewitt point as well. He was a good player but a guy like him being #1 for that long is a joke. And Andy Roddick who was the #2 for ages and he had an incredibly poor record against Fed. What sort of #2 has one win in some 20 odd attempts against the #1?

Look at the rivalries now : Nadal vs Djokovic, Federer vs Nadal and Federer vs Djokovic. Not one of these rivalries has ridiculous stats like the Fed vs Roddick which stands at 21-3 (one of the Roddick wins was this year)

 

[Jaz]

Most of those defeats (and the ones against Davedenko) are probably from back when he was rubbish at hard courts. He's made a tremendous improvement over the last 2-3 years on the hards. That's why a said a better all court player like Djokovic would have loads of Slams if he was around instead of Fed when the likes of Hewitt and Roddick were the toughest guys to beat.

And Djokovic isn't exactly a late bloomer. He won his first Slam at 20 and gave an in form Federer a real run for his money the year before that in New York.

He went off the boil for 2 years. Winning the 1st slam and winning the 2nd are two different things. Winning AO2008 didn't make Djokovic a world-beater. He only really came good last year, I'd say.

Like I said, I don't think Nadal would have beaten Roddick or Hewitt in their primes.

For Djokovic, his all court game has only really taken off in the last 1-2 years. He's only really developed his winning clay game since last year. Only won his Wimbledon last year (grass). His outdoor game is good, and has been decent for 4-5 years now, but he doesn't have the slams or MS titles against a dodgy and aging Federer, and a Nadal who is not a natural hardcourter to prove that he would have easily have dismissed Hewitt, Nalby, Roddick with ease.

The fact is this:

Federer, despite playing Roddick more, has lost fewer games against him than Djokovic or Nadal have, and this is years after Roddick was successful.

 

[wr8_utd]

Okay so here's what you're saying. Nadal has lost just twice in ten matches in Slams vs the apparent GOAT (spread across all surfaces) and yet he wouldn't be able to beat One Weapon wonder Andy and Lleyton Hewitt? I don't know what to say...

 

[Enigma_87]

And Djokovic isn't exactly a late bloomer. He won his first Slam at 20 and gave an in form Federer a real run for his money the year before that in New York.

real run for his money? He lost in straights...

Also Djokovic has negative H2H against Roddick. And this is Roddick who is off his prime for some years now, yet Djokovic kept losing to him, much closer to his prime.

When Roddick was in the zone he had a monster forehand, not the loopy topspin he has now.

Roddick would be a bad matchup for Djokovic as he would trouble him to get into some sort of a rhythm on faster courts(at AO and RG is not the case).

And the claim that Djokovic would beat prime Roddick is complete bullshit as he couldn't even beat him 2 years ago...

Okay so here's what you're saying. Nadal has lost just twice in ten matches in Slams vs the apparent GOAT (spread across all surfaces) and yet he wouldn't be able to beat One Weapon wonder Andy and Lleyton Hewitt? I don't know what to say...

Ever heard of matchups? Sampras is 4-6 against Krajicek. Nadal has losing H2H against Davy...

 

[Ole's_toe_poke]

Like I said, I don't think Nadal would have beaten Roddick or Hewitt in their primes.

What crap. Nadal is one of the greatest of all time. Roddick is a one trick pony and Hewitt's only advantage over Rafa is that he can yell 'come on' louder than any player in history.

Rafa would crap all over them. Prime or not prime.

 

[Ole's_toe_poke]

Ever heard of matchups? Sampras is 4-6 against Krajicek. Nadal has losing H2H against Davy...

Not sure what Roddick has that would trouble Nadal. He's a power player and Rafa has beaten those sorts of players consistently over his career.

Hewitt could be a challenge as he was a similar baseline grappler to Novak. But even then apart from the last year Rafa has dealt with him Ok.

 

[wr8_utd]

Yes Nadal has a poor record against Davy but those defeats have almost all come in Masters series tourneys. When it comes to the Slams Rafa is a much much better player. And I'm sure if he'd play Roddick and Hewitt enough number of times during their prime, he'd have no trouble beating them. Nadal's dealt well enough with Murray, Djokovic and Federer who have far far more to their games than Hewitt and Roddick ever did.

 

[CheadleBeagle]

Nadal has only beaten Roger twice in GS finals off clay and I still think in 2008 Roger had the after effects of mono. Nadal has only won 4 GS off clay, his favourite surface, while Roger has won 10 off grass which is his best surface. Nadal is a great grinder and clay suits his game but he is not good indoors on fast courts and he would never have won Wimbledon if the bounce was low and fast as it used to be. I think if Djokovic stays healthy he should win a few more yet but I sincerely hope some young guys step up and start showing what they can do - players like Del Potro, Tomic, Dmitrov etc.

 

[Ole's_toe_poke]

Nadal has only beaten Roger twice in GS finals off clay and I still think in 2008 Roger had the after effects of mono.

What's your point? By the same token Federer has only beaten Nadal in a GS final on his favorite surface. And even in those Rafa competed well barring perhaps 06.

Fed's never even gotten close to matching Nadal at RG. Rafa has beaten him on grass and hard courts.

 

[CheadleBeagle]

Fed's never even gotten close to matching Nadal at RG. Rafa has beaten him on grass and hard courts.

Roger played Rafa tough a couple of times at least at RG and if that drop shot on set point in the final last year had been on the line I think Roger could have won that match. Rafa has been manufactured to be unbeatable on clay and if the courts at the other GS events were not so slow I doubt Rafa would have won other than on clay. He has never won the year end finals and does not do well indoors as the courts are not so tailored to his game.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

1) you can talk as much as you want about changed courts. But lets keep in mind that Fed himself won all these slams on the same courts so unless as pointed out before, if you wish to indulge in fantasy tennis about how federer would have fared on different courts, it serves no purpose.

It's irrelevant that Federer won on the same courts. That just goes to show his all round quality if anything. Not sure why you make such an unimportant point.

Making the courts slower and suited to defensive baseliners and longer rallies would obviously give a slight edge to, you guessed it, defensive baseliners. And at the very highest level these small margins make all the difference.

2) Peak of players is a subjective issue. But it is a clear as a day that to claim Fed lost his peak as soon as he got beat by Nadal in the W final is agenda ridden. i just hope Fed himself does not indulge in such non sense. Mcenroe was man enough to own up his 5 set defeat in french final to lendl, Fed hopefully will be the same in his autobiography.

I actually remember feeling at the time that his level had dropped from the beginning of 08 onwards. I doubt that had an impact on the 08 final given the level of play that day. But in general I did think his overall game dipped a little. It is subjective. Whether it's 2007 or 2008, it really doesn't matter. His peak was a level I've never seen since. Phenomenal stuff.

3) Funny how Fed fanbois ignore all other 'sillyness' which help to perpetuate their myths. you had someone claim that Fed would have won more Wimbldeon in 90s when Sampras was around, no one tried to correct it. Now you have a fool saying Hewitt is as good as Djokovic. Others like you seem to subtly push the same opinion. I don need any mindless stats or scenarios to know Hewitt is no where near as good as Djoko. Seen Tennis enough since the days of Agassi. The fact that Hewitt was no.1 for 80 weeks is THE proof of weak competition when fed first started winning, but I am not going to try to explain this to dim wits like the one you quoted. What is unfortunate but very much expected is that you yourself, make no attempt to correct such non sense.

It's obvious Hewitt and co. weren't as good as Djokovic. It's also stupid to claim that Djokovic, after one super year, would have 15 grandslams right now had he arrived a few years earlier. That's a huge disrespect to Federer's achievements IMO. In fact, the whole "lack of competition" thing is overblown. Last year Djokovic won 3 Grandslams. In that year, Federer had his worst since he actually became a Grandslam winner. Of the two that Djokovic actually won he beat a hapless Nadal in the final of Wimbledon who put up little fight and Murray who couldn't even take a set off him. I don't see how those two finalists on the day were any better than Andy Roddick at Wimbledon who stormed the first set against Federer only for the latter to strike back and take the match. I'm not implying that Roddick is better than Nadal and Murray (not sure about Murray actually). But downplaying Federer's utter dominance as something the other two would easily do without breaking a sweat is also another height of "fanboism". There's a reason he has broken all sorts of records of consistency of making finals and semi finals.

Last few pages represent everything wrong about modern day fans. Agenda here for Fed fans is not to enjoy the quality Tennis on display but create inane myths to establish Fed as GOAT and disparage his two great competitors at the same time. Fed is probably the GOAT, you don't need such bull shit to prove it. More displays like his semi against Djoko will achieve it on its own.

Pretty much everything I've said is far from a myth. It's an opinion based on facts or events in the last decade. Most of them are reasonably formed opinions as well.

 

[Ole's_toe_poke]

Roger played Rafa tough a couple of times at least at RG and if that drop shot on set point in the final last year had been on the line I think Roger could have won that match. Rafa has been manufactured to be unbeatable on clay and if the courts at the other GS events were not so slow I doubt Rafa would have won other than on clay. He has never won the year end finals and does not do well indoors as the courts are not so tailored to his game.

A lot wrong in this post. The 'manafactured' bit taking the cake.

This argument is getting a bit boring. Seems after every GS we have it.

The courts are the same for everyone that's playing. Rafa has adjusted to them. He has the career GS. The rest of you can cry your eyes all you like it isn't going to change the fact that he will go down as one of the greats.

 

[wr8_utd]

Nadal has only beaten Roger twice in GS finals off clay and I still think in 2008 Roger had the after effects of mono. Nadal has only won 4 GS off clay, his favourite surface, while Roger has won 10 off grass which is his best surface. Nadal is a great grinder and clay suits his game but he is not good indoors on fast courts and he would never have won Wimbledon if the bounce was low and fast as it used to be. I think if Djokovic stays healthy he should win a few more yet but I sincerely hope some young guys step up and start showing what they can do - players like Del Potro, Tomic, Dmitrov etc.

They've met twice in Australia and Nadal has won both.
They've met thrice at SW19 and Nadal won one.
They've met 5 times at RG and Nadal has won all.

So Nadal has won 3 times out of 5 on surfaces Federer owns whereas Fed has taken around 2 or 3 sets off Nadal in their 5 meetings on Clay.

Oh and the hard courts are just as much Fed's favorite surfaces as much grass is.

 

[wr8_utd]

A lot wrong in this post. The 'manafactured' bit taking the cake.

This argument is getting a bit boring. Seems after every GS we have it.

The courts are the same for everyone that's playing. Rafa has adjusted to them. He has the career GS. The rest of you can cry your eyes all you like it isn't going to change the fact that he will go down as one of the greats.

You get used to it after a while. It's the standard Federer fanboi excuse to explain away Nadal's all court dominance. People can't come to terms with the fact that a Spaniard and supposed clay courter has managed to work hard enough and is good enough to win on all surfaces.

 

[crappycraperson]

It's irrelevant that Federer won on the same courts. That just goes to show his all round quality if anything. Not sure why you make such an unimportant point.

Making the courts slower and suited to defensive baseliners and longer rallies would obviously give a slight edge to, you guessed it, defensive baseliners. And at the very highest level these small margins make all the difference.



I actually remember feeling at the time that his level had dropped from the beginning of 08 onwards. I doubt that had an impact on the 08 final given the level of play that day. But in general I did think his overall game dipped a little. It is subjective. Whether it's 2007 or 2008, it really doesn't matter. His peak was a level I've never seen since. Phenomenal stuff.



It's obvious Hewitt and co. weren't as good as Djokovic. It's also stupid to claim that Djokovic, after one super year, would have 15 grandslams right now had he arrived a few years earlier. That's a huge disrespect to Federer's achievements IMO. In fact, the whole "lack of competition" thing is overblown. Last year Djokovic won 3 Grandslams. In that year, Federer had his worst since he actually became a Grandslam winner. Of the two that Djokovic actually won he beat a hapless Nadal in the final of Wimbledon who put up little fight and Murray who couldn't even take a set off him. I don't see how those two finalists on the day were any better than Andy Roddick at Wimbledon who stormed the first set against Federer only for the latter to strike back and take the match. I'm not implying that Roddick is better than Nadal and Murray (not sure about Murray actually). But downplaying Federer's utter dominance as something the other two would easily do without breaking a sweat is also another height of "fanboism". There's a reason he has broken all sorts of records of consistency of making finals and semi finals.



Pretty much everything I've said is far from a myth. It's an opinion based on facts or events in the last decade. Most of them are reasonably formed opinions as well.

How is it irrelevant? There is simply no guarantee that Fed would won similar amount in 90s. It is pure fantasy to imagine he would have won similar or more slams then. Fed has thrived in the changed conditions you bemoan.

I don't agree with someone who said Djoko would have won same as Fed in his place. Clearly wrong IMO, still a gulf between the two. Also Nadal was not hapless at all last season, Djoko made him look so. Anyone who reaches 3 slam finals in a year is not hapless.

You have indulged in a lot of fantasy, delusion and assumptions. Delusion being the refusal to accept that Tennis field was utterly weak when Fed was winning slams in his sleep. Fantasy and assumption being imagining Federer winning even more slams in different conditions.

Again what is sad is people do not need to indulge in such crap. Fed was magnificent against Djoko in the semi. That should be used as evidence towards him being the best of all time rather than crap being written here. In fact, acknowledging Djoko as a good player only strengthens Fed's claim as well. Instead his fan bois are so blinded by whatever agenda they are pursuing, they can't even recognise some simple truths.

All this seems an exact copy of the Messi fanboi talk from football forum. I don't think I have the energy anymore to correct any more non sense so you all can carry on with your circle jerk.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

How is it irrelevant? There is simply no guarantee that Fed would won similar amount in 90s. It is pure fantasy to imagine he would have won similar or more slams then. Fed has thrived in the changed conditions you bemoan.

It's completely irrelevant considering I'm talking about the relative advantage derived from the courts changing. The slower courts would suit Federer more than a Sampras. But they'd suit a Nadal/Murray much more than a Federer too. If you can't understand such simple logic then I can't help.

I'm not sure where you pulled out this "guarantee" rubbish as well. I don't guarantee people things. I give my opinion and that's that. I think he's got the ability to succeed in most conditions. He's got more of an all round game than anyone I've seen. Don't know about exact number of slams. That's a bit too specific to get into.

I don't agree with someone who said Djoko would have won same as Fed in his place. Clearly wrong IMO, still a gulf between the two. Also Nadal was not hapless at all last season, Djoko made him look so. Anyone who reaches 3 slam finals in a year is not hapless.

You're very biased it seems. I specifically highlighted the words "on the day" so you don't take the criticism of Nadal's Wimbledon 2011 final performance for a broader one but you did. That kind of defensive reaction seems more fanboi like to me than anything I've said.

Anyhow I was specifically talking about the performances of the two finalists, Andy Murray and Rafael Nadal in the finals of the Australian Open and Wimbledon of 2011 respectively, just to be clear. Both were pretty tame attempts at toppling Djokovic who was of course excellent. My point is that despite Roddick not being as good as Nadal for sure, he put up just as good a fight in a Wimbledon final against Federer. In fact one other year he took Federer to 5 sets as well. My point being that, sure, Federer's competition wasn't top quality. But let's not go way overboard here. Djokovic hammered his two final opponents just as easily last year UNLESS you're suggesting Djokovic is that much better than Federer at his prime and his performances were so much greater. Which of the two is your opinion? Either Djokovic's final performances were far far superior to Federer's or Murray and Nadal put up no better fight than Roddick on the day. Your choice.

You have indulged in a lot of fantasy, delusion and assumptions. Delusion being the refusal to accept that Tennis field was utterly weak when Fed was winning slams in his sleep. Fantasy and assumption being imagining Federer winning even more slams in different conditions.

It was a little weak. But his level was higher than I've ever seen from a tennis player so it made them look worse. I think he would have stood apart on that form anyway no matter who was around him. Maybe not winning pretty much everything but definitely the standout top player.

So clearly the delusion accusation fell flat. As usual, I'm sure someone else said it and you're misdirecting your frustration. Seriously, stop lumping together 5 people and taking your frustration with their collective opinions on everyone. It's getting strange.

Again what is sad is people do not need to indulge in such crap. Fed was magnificent against Djoko in the semi. That should be used as evidence towards him being the best of all time rather than crap being written here. In fact, acknowledging Djoko as a good player only strengthens Fed's claim as well. Instead his fan bois are so blinded by whatever agenda they are pursuing, they can't even recognise some simple truths.

The simple truths are evading you it seems who is being extremely defensive. Djokovic is an excellent tennis player as is Nadal. I just happen to think Federer is a notch above and the greatest ever. Simples.

 

[CheadleBeagle]

A lot wrong in this post. The 'manafactured' bit taking the cake.

This argument is getting a bit boring. Seems after every GS we have it.

The courts are the same for everyone that's playing. Rafa has adjusted to them. He has the career GS. The rest of you can cry your eyes all you like it isn't going to change the fact that he will go down as one of the greats.

Nadal is a great player but why take someone who is naturally right-handed and have him play left-handed and develop such extrreme spins other than to make life as difficult as possible for everyone else? It's fair game but there is an element of the unnatural in it. Also the slower courts and the higher bounce at Wimbledon play right into Nadal's game and other baseliners. Let's face it Nadal only goes to the net when he has an absolutely safe volley or to shake hands. He would not have done so well 15 years ago whereas I think Roger would have as his game is a lot more naturally attacking rather than grinding away at the baseline for hours. But we all have our opinions and I think Roger is the greatest of all time and has such grace and style I could watch him forever. He is the classic and complete player.

 

[crappycraperson]

It's completely irrelevant considering I'm talking about the relative advantage derived from the courts changing. The slower courts would suit Federer more than a Sampras. But they'd suit a Nadal/Murray much more than a Federer too. If you can't understand such simple logic then I can't help.

I'm not sure where you pulled out this "guarantee" rubbish as well. I don't guarantee people things. I give my opinion and that's that. I think he's got the ability to succeed in most conditions. He's got more of an all round game than anyone I've seen. Don't know about exact number of slams. That's a bit too specific to get into.



You're very biased it seems. I specifically highlighted the words "on the day" so you don't take the criticism of Nadal's Wimbledon 2011 final performance for a broader one but you did. That kind of defensive reaction seems more fanboi like to me than anything I've said.

Anyhow I was specifically talking about the performances of the two finalists, Andy Murray and Rafael Nadal in the finals of the Australian Open and Wimbledon of 2011 respectively, just to be clear. Both were pretty tame attempts at toppling Djokovic who was of course excellent. My point is that despite Roddick not being as good as Nadal for sure, he put up just as good a fight in a Wimbledon final against Federer. In fact one other year he took Federer to 5 sets as well. My point being that, sure, Federer's competition wasn't top quality. But let's not go way overboard here. Djokovic hammered his two final opponents just as easily last year UNLESS you're suggesting Djokovic is that much better than Federer at his prime and his performances were so much greater. Which of the two is your opinion? Either Djokovic's final performances were far far superior to Federer's or Murray and Nadal put up no better fight than Roddick on the day. Your choice.



It was a little weak. But his level was higher than I've ever seen from a tennis player so it made them look worse. I think he would have stood apart on that form anyway no matter who was around him. Maybe not winning pretty much everything but definitely the standout top player.

So clearly the delusion accusation fell flat. As usual, I'm sure someone else said it and you're misdirecting your frustration. Seriously, stop lumping together 5 people and taking your frustration with their collective opinions on everyone. It's getting strange.



The simple truths are evading you it seems who is being extremely defensive. Djokovic is an excellent tennis player as is Nadal. I just happen to think Federer is a notch above and the greatest ever. Simples.

More drivel. I am on the defensive. fecking hell. It is clear from this very thread and others who is a fanboi and who is not. I don't start crying when Nadal or Djoko or even Fed lose unlike yourself with Federer.

- The changed courts stuff is rubbish because it was never brought up when Fed was dominating. Some one could have easily said that they were the very reason he was dominating. In 90s he may have needed to concentrated on serve/volley much more to win on grass like Sampras and this could have hampered him on French. But it only came to the fore when Nadal started to compete with him.

- Nadal was very poor against Djoko in 2 finals last year. Should have won the Aussie one this year. Djoko was in the form his life and actually did have a better year than even Federer ever had. Does not make him better than Fed, no where near close but he was pretty much unbeatable last season. Roddick's 5 setter against Fed was more down to latter not being top of his game rather than the other way around. Roddick had a freak day that final as far as his serving is concerned, especially in the fifth set which contributed as well.

- It is not about lumping 5 people together. But yeah all do feed each other's delusions and myths which wanking over your hero. Sad but there you go.

- This was never about Nadal or Djoko being better than Fed. That argument will be settled after 10 years looking back at how it was. Fed is obviously clearly ahead now. Point was and remains that Fed fanbois clearly have a chip on their shoulder for whatever reason and continue to indulge in myths/lies to achieve their holy grail of Fed being crowned GOAT.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Now you're just repeating yourself and making lame attempts at belittling using words like crying (feck knows where that came from) given you can't counter those points with any decent logic.

 

[Cheesy]

I thought I'd seen some bad stuff in this thread but it seriously looks like some people have gone above and beyond to make themselves look clueless. Nadal and Djokovic on the same level as Roddick and Hewitt? Is that some sort of unfunny joke?

In my opinion Federer is the greatest of all-time but it's not by so much of a distance that he's in a league of his own. Nadal will definitely go down as an all-time legend and probably the greatest player on clay of all-time. If he continues the way he has been going for the past year or so, Djokovic will probably win at least 10 slams and will be up there as well.

Some Federer fans are frustrating. He's already the GOAT, yet they try to make him look like he's in a league of his own compared to all other greats, while degrading his rivals at the same time.

 

[Revan]

If someone is arguing that Federer is not the best player of all time he really needs to watch again Federer's game at his best (also look at his stats). Federer was a beast (and still is although is not the same player anymore). Literally he dominated the games like Barca did in football.

About the two others I think that Nadal is on the Top 10 male players of all time, while Djokovic is not yet but has a good chance of getting in that list in next 5 year. Djokovic's case is pretty interesting, he doesn't look to me that he is the best at one ability. He doesn't have a powerful shot like some others, is not that precise like Federer and of course that is not that fast and with that stamina like Nadal but still is awesome (for 52 weeks was Nr.1 if I am correct). All of them wonderful players, and one of them is cryptonite to other (Nadal to Federer, Djokovic to Nadal, Federer to Djokovic). About this year, Federer deserved the title in Wimbledon, although I doubt that he will win more than 3 other GS in his career.

About some saying that Roddick or Hewit were as good as Nadal and Djokovic, that is far far away from reality.

 

[Enigma_87]

I thought I'd seen some bad stuff in this thread but it seriously looks like some people have gone above and beyond to make themselves look clueless. Nadal and Djokovic on the same level as Roddick and Hewitt? Is that some sort of unfunny joke?

In my opinion Federer is the greatest of all-time but it's not by so much of a distance that he's in a league of his own. Nadal will definitely go down as an all-time legend and probably the greatest player on clay of all-time. If he continues the way he has been going for the past year or so, Djokovic will probably win at least 10 slams and will be up there as well.

Some Federer fans are frustrating. He's already the GOAT, yet they try to make him look like he's in a league of his own compared to all other greats, while degrading his rivals at the same time.

I don't think anyone implied that Hewitt and Roddick are on the same level as Djokovic and Nadal. I for one just implied that Federer prevented them both from winning at least couple of slams more. According to some posters Roddick and Hewitt were right bums and Nadal and Djokovic won't have problems with them in their prime, which is laughable because Hewitt was beating greats like Agassi, Sampras and Federer and Roddick is pretty good match for Djokovic as can be seen in their matches...

 

[Cheesy]

I don't think anyone implied that Hewitt and Roddick are on the same level as Djokovic and Nadal. I for one just implied that Federer prevented them both from winning at least couple of slams more. According to some posters Roddick and Hewitt were right bums and Nadal and Djokovic won't have problems with them in their prime, which is laughable because Hewitt was beating greats like Agassi, Sampras and Federer and Roddick is pretty good match for Djokovic as can be seen in their matches...

It wasn't implied; it was said. Jaz said that he didn't think Nadal or Djokovic would beat Hewitt in their primes, which is absolute nonsense. Both are far superior players.

It's not that they're not good players. They were, but Nadal and Djokovic at their best would've beaten players like Hewitt and Roddick at their best. I don't mean it would've happened every time, because all good players sometimes lose to inferior players, but generally, Nadal and Djokovic would've wiped the floor with them. If you put the four of them in their primes at the same time and took out Federer, Nadal and Djokovic would be the more dominant pair and would win more grand slams.

It's not an insult to the other two who were good players, however they don't go down among the all-time greats, like Federer undoubtedly is, like Nadal probably is now and certainly will be, and like Djokovic could be if he keeps up his form from the past couple of years. Some Federer fans wrongfully like to degrade some of his toughest competitors.

 

[Revan]

I don't think anyone implied that Hewitt and Roddick are on the same level as Djokovic and Nadal. I for one just implied that Federer prevented them both from winning at least couple of slams more. According to some posters Roddick and Hewitt were right bums and Nadal and Djokovic won't have problems with them in their prime, which is laughable because Hewitt was beating greats like Agassi, Sampras and Federer and Roddick is pretty good match for Djokovic as can be seen in their matches...

Agassi and Sampras were in the end of their careers, while Hewitt record to Federer is bad.

 

[surf]

Not sure who else was ever as great or as dominant as Federer. Not Sampras, who was never anywhere near winning the French open and had a weaker overall record. Laver is the only realistic rival for GOAT.

Federer's overall record, racket ability, and completeness as a player stand alone.

 

[peterstorey]

Yep, Laver would beat Federer but they are the two best tennis players I've seen on grass (and nothing else really counts IMO).

 

[Cheesy]

Yep, Laver would beat Federer but they are the two best tennis players I've seen on grass (and nothing else really counts IMO).

What?

 

[peterstorey]

Lawn tennis, not clay or any-old-shit-surface tennis.

 

[Cheesy]

So basically, you exclude any other type of tennis when talking about great players?

 

[peterstorey]

Yes, I'm not interested in clay court borefests and less interested in slugged grass too.

 

[Liam147]

So basically, you exclude any other type of tennis when talking about great players?

The fact he said a player from decades ago would beat Federer would tell you he's on the wum.

 

[peterstorey]

The fact he said a player from decades ago would beat Federer would tell you he's on the wum.

Look pal, you never saw Rod Laver and have no fecking idea what you're talking about have you?

 

[Enigma_87]

Agassi and Sampras were in the end of their careers, while Hewitt record to Federer is bad.

Not so long Djokovic record to Federer was just as bad. And Agassi and Sampras were still winning slams, much alike Federer now.

 

[EricaNo7]

Look pal, you never saw Rod Laver and have no fecking idea what you're talking about have you?

He was an exceptional player

 

[Revan]

Not so long Djokovic record to Federer was just as bad. And Agassi and Sampras were still winning slams, much alike Federer now.

Hewitt defeated Federer where both of them were young, and Federer wasn't formed as player. In the last 14 meetings since 2003 the record is 13-1 for Federer. In 8 times they meet in GS Federer won all the games. So, really Hewitt record against Federer is catastrophic after Federer was formed as a player.

About Sampras and Agassi, in that time there weren't winning that much GS, both were in their thirtieth when Hewitt defeated them so that's not that much. Don't get me wrong, Hewitt was a great player and I really liked him but he was not even near greats of this century like Federer, Nadal or even Djokovic. About Rodick he was even more far of their level.