Just hope Federer gets one last Wimbledon and hopefully an Olympic gold medal, he's basically just playing to try and get that Olympic gold medal which is the only thing that he hasn't won in his career.
Tennis 2015
- Thread starter Sean_RedDevil
- Start date
It kind of is. Since in 20 years time....people will see a lopsided head to head in favour of both Djokovic and Nadals favour. Obviously it depends on who's looking at it and whether they really break it down.
Those that will actually know the sport well will realize that it's genuinely an achievement to be making these finals at his age at be the world number 2.
The Nadal/Fed H2H needs to be looked at in context. Firstly, Nadal's game is built to beat Federer. If Nadal was right-handed I have no doubt that Federer would have many more victories against him. Second, the fact that most of their meetings have been on Rafa's best surface (clay) has helped him significantly.
So any educated tennis fan should realise that using it to judge GOAT status is not the best indicator.
So any educated tennis fan should realise that using it to judge GOAT status is not the best indicator.
Even if you take away all the results on Clay Nadal would still have the better of their head to head.
Nadal's game is just perfectly suited against Federer, particularly on the surfaces these days. I don't think one can argue with the record being skewed that much due to clay. Slightly maybe but Nadal would still come out ahead due to their styles.
It's a funny old trio.
Federer had an incredible peak and period of domination, and is showing longevity that is bewildering, but is rigid in his desire to always move forward and errors did creep into his game big time as he grew older.
Nadal was the ultimate defensive baseliner, is great in head-to-heads, could break the GS record, but this spell of being so very average will hurt him.
Djokovic is the best right now and could rack up GS's given the run he seems to have in every one these days. At the same time he is on 10, and with his game built on long rallies I'm not sure he'll be that good post 30.
I obviously have a favorite I regard as the greatest, but I don't see this lot being replaced well by the game itself.
It's a funny old trio.
Federer had an incredible peak and period of domination, and is showing longevity that is bewildering, but is rigid in his desire to always move forward and errors did creep into his game big time as he grew older.
Nadal was the ultimate defensive baseliner, is great in head-to-heads, could break the GS record, but this spell of being so very average will hurt him.
Djokovic is the best right now and could rack up GS's given the run he seems to have in every one these days. At the same time he is on 10, and with his game built on long rallies I'm not sure he'll be that good post 30.
I obviously have a favorite I regard as the greatest, but I don't see this lot being replaced well by the game itself.
It is a lot closer though.
Things that count against Federer as I see it being regarded as the greatest, he never beat Nadal in the French Open Final whereas Nadal beat Federer (at his peak) in the Wimbledon Final. And if Nadal and Djokovic had come through at the same time Federer would not be on 17 Slams nor would he have had that streak at number 1 in the World. He had a period of dominance before genuine challengers emerged.
That said the way he is playing this year is incredible and I was really surprised he didn't win on Sunday. The way he is playing right now does count for a lot.
That said the way he is playing this year is incredible and I was really surprised he didn't win on Sunday. The way he is playing right now does count for a lot.
I'm not too keen on these GOAT debates.
There was a period Nadal was beating Djokovic non stop until obviously 2011. Then Djokovic was beating Nadal non stop that year and I am convinced he'd have beat Nadal at the French if it wasn't for Federer. He beat Nadal in 3 grand slam finals and like four master finals in one year. Nadal came back the following year and started beating Djokovic. He started to gain the upper hand and in recent times Djokovic has turned it around
The same can be said about Djokovic and Federer. How many semi finals or finals did Djokovic lose to Federer. I don't believe Djokovic was lacking talent wise back then to beat Federer. It was the mental side, which is affecting Federer now against Djokovic in grand slams. Their rivalry is like 22-22.
The only thing you can have a go at Federer is that he's never had a sustained period where he has beaten Nadal. But I'm convinced if Nadal did not get upset so much in the last year when they were due to meet, I think Federer would have beaten him quite a few times.
There was a period Nadal was beating Djokovic non stop until obviously 2011. Then Djokovic was beating Nadal non stop that year and I am convinced he'd have beat Nadal at the French if it wasn't for Federer. He beat Nadal in 3 grand slam finals and like four master finals in one year. Nadal came back the following year and started beating Djokovic. He started to gain the upper hand and in recent times Djokovic has turned it around
The same can be said about Djokovic and Federer. How many semi finals or finals did Djokovic lose to Federer. I don't believe Djokovic was lacking talent wise back then to beat Federer. It was the mental side, which is affecting Federer now against Djokovic in grand slams. Their rivalry is like 22-22.
The only thing you can have a go at Federer is that he's never had a sustained period where he has beaten Nadal. But I'm convinced if Nadal did not get upset so much in the last year when they were due to meet, I think Federer would have beaten him quite a few times.
This is the worst part of their rivalry as a Federer fan. Nadal reached a level where I didn't think one of the greats of the game could reach, but he's so bad he doesn't reach Federer in the draw. No chance he would have beaten Federer at this US open or Wimbledon for example. He's getting taken apart by bang average players ffs. I bet he now meets Federer at every GS once his age finally catches up with him
Oh well.
This is the worst part of their rivalry as a Federer fan. Nadal reached a level where I didn't think one of the greats of the game could reach, but he's so bad he doesn't reach Federer in the draw. No chance he would have beaten Federer at this US open or Wimbledon for example. He's getting taken apart by bang average players ffs. I bet he now meets Federer at every GS once his age finally catches up with him
Oh well.
They were due to meet in quite a few events this year. Before every draw people were saying Nadal and Federer possibly in the quarters. Nadal ended up getting knocked out in most of them.
Nadal should qualify for the o2 finals, so hopefully they meet there or before that in Shanghai or Paris.
It's been way too long since they last played each other.
Djokovic is probably the first person going into an Olympic year with a half realistic chance of a Golden Year....first to be massive favourite at them all since I've known anyway given Federer wasn't fully clay ready in 04(though was also likely favoured to win them all), and Nadal pretty much owned RG in 08/12 while sharing the favouritism rights elsewhere.
That argument works both ways though, you could say that if Nadal and Djokovic had come through at the same time as Federer it's possible that neither of them would ever have won Wimbledon. Or maybe Nadal wouldn't have won the Australian Open either, since Federer and Djokovic have much better records there.
News today that Kyle Edmund is having a scan to determine the extent of an ankle injury picked up in training for the Davis Cup tie against Australia this weekend.
I'd be surprised if they picked Edmund ahead of James Ward regardless, after Ward's heroics against the USA. I know he was beaten in straight sets in his only singles match against France but I still think he is the way to go. I fancy our chances because assuming Andy Murray wins his 2 singles matches (which I think he will), a doubles victory will clinch it and we have his brother Jamie who is right up there with the very best at doubles.
I'd be surprised if they picked Edmund ahead of James Ward regardless, after Ward's heroics against the USA. I know he was beaten in straight sets in his only singles match against France but I still think he is the way to go. I fancy our chances because assuming Andy Murray wins his 2 singles matches (which I think he will), a doubles victory will clinch it and we have his brother Jamie who is right up there with the very best at doubles.
Asked PaddyPower for odds on Golden Slam - Djokovic 16/1, Serena 50/1 and both to do it 750/1.
Randomly enough, I'd be more primed to bet on Serena than Djokovic, don't get the massive difference there.
Randomly enough, I'd be more primed to bet on Serena than Djokovic, don't get the massive difference there.
Britain - Australia gone to five sets in the crucial doubles match. Andy Murray served for the match in the fourth.
Very exciting doubles match. Congrats to the Murray brothers and also the Aussie's to make it good to watch too!
2-1 to Britain. If Andy's got enough energy left to win his second singles match then they're in the final.
So we are in the final. Murray is such a credit to British sports. One of the best athletes Britain has ever had.
Let me guess the final will be in scotland again?
Depends on the opposition.
Scotland was chosen because the courts are slower. So would help deal with the big servers Australia have.
Belgium and they're at home.
Andy Murray, a credit to your country.
Jamie's pretty vital, as well, I think. Really handy to have a proper doubles player, given we only have one capable in the singles.
Anyone got a view on Britain's chances, in the final?
Don't know much about Belgium. Beeb says they'll have it on clay.
Don't know much about Belgium. Beeb says they'll have it on clay.
It will come down to the doubles game again. I can't see any of their players beating Murray.
50/50, really. Goffin and Darcis (15 and 64 in the world) shouldn't beat Murray or lose to Evans/Ward. I don't think they have an expect doubles team, and Darcis+Bemelmans just lost to Argentina.
He had almost nothing to defend the second half of this season as well. Didn't go too well...
Or perhaps he was so good that players who nowadays would be genuine contenders, like Roddick and Hewitt, were reduced to bystander status due to his dominance. Personally, I think Roddick, Safin and Hewitt were all as good as Murray, and to a certain extent, were unlucky to be hitting their peaks at the same time as Federer was playing at another level (2003-2007.) The funny thing about Federer is that I don't think he's ever come close to the level he achieved during those years, and yet he's still managed to keep up with the very best for the last 8 years. There are some interesting angles to the Federer story: all-time great increasingly recognized for his longevity, who nevertheless, enjoyed a relatively short (compared to the overall length of his career,) of absolute dominance.
Well I think it's debateable whether they were as good as Murray but they obviously weren't as good as Nadal or Djokovic which was my point. Had those two arrived on the scene at the same time as Federer he wouldn't have had that period of dominance.
It's really tough not to feel for Roddick of all people....without Federer, 4 Wimbledon titles, a couple US titles, a couple aussie titles....it took it quite well to be fair to him.
Theres very few players who have been dinted so much one singular problem.
Theres very few players who have been dinted so much one singular problem.
I disagree on Roddick-Hewitt being at same level of Murray. Murray is lot more consistent & better player. Safin, ya could have won more, but he had other issues. Also one, I don't think without Federer, Roddick would have won that much and second, Nadal-Djokovic and even Murray pretty beat Federer and ended his monopoly while he was still at top of his game. So, if Roddick couldn't beat Federer, just means he wasn't good enough to be a multiple or 4-5+ slam winner. If you look at the 5+ slam winners in men's, they are big names and better players than Roddick. I used to like Roddick and he was likeable kind of guy and a sporting guy, but a level below the names who have 5+ slams.
Roddick never moved past 4th round in French open in 10 attempts, going out at first round 5 times out of those 10. Even in surfaces where he did better, on grass and hard court, the consistency is nowhere good enough. Compared that to Murray who is playing in same era as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, 3 who will be among all time best, and he still has won 2 slams and has amazing consistency levels. Before the 4th round exit this US open, Murray had reached quarter finals or further on 18 consecutive times (excluding french open in 2013 which he missed through injury). Also, this when there are many other good players around like Stan and few others. Roddick is more comparable to Ferrer etc.
Roddick never moved past 4th round in French open in 10 attempts, going out at first round 5 times out of those 10. Even in surfaces where he did better, on grass and hard court, the consistency is nowhere good enough. Compared that to Murray who is playing in same era as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, 3 who will be among all time best, and he still has won 2 slams and has amazing consistency levels. Before the 4th round exit this US open, Murray had reached quarter finals or further on 18 consecutive times (excluding french open in 2013 which he missed through injury). Also, this when there are many other good players around like Stan and few others. Roddick is more comparable to Ferrer etc.
I also used to like Roddick, but no, there's no way he's comparable to Murray. he was just too limited and one dimensional to ever trouble the best. I don't think he was much better than Raonic for example.
Put peak Roddick in the current field and he would probably have won the last two Wimbledons, comparing him to Raonic and Ferrer is way off the mark.
What exactly is 'peak Roddick'? 2003 only? He never had a peak period like the big 3 currently or even like Murray. In 12 attempts at Wimbledon, he reached quarters and beyond on only 5 occasions. Forget winning 2 Wimbledons, he won't make past quarters in current field. Also, if you have to put 'peak Roddick', then you have to put peak of every player and then he stands even less chance. There are 3 guys around currently who have won slams in double figures and Wimbledon multiple times. I have no idea how anyone can think Roddick can win multiple wimbledons in current field, even if at his peak, when he never won it in easier era than current one.
Well he went 31-3 on grass from 2003 to 2005, so I'd go with that. No prizes for guessing who all three of those defeats came against.
He was pretty good in 2009 too, when he made the final in a stronger field than the current one.
Ya he had a good period in those 2-3 years but if you call those years his peak, you have stronger peaks of players who are around. Ya he lost only to Fed in those 3 years but also look at the players he beat en route to meeting Federer and compare it to current circuit. I am not saying he was average player but he was lot less consistent than the level current guys show.
Roddick, Safin and Hewitt weren't better than Murray.
It's not all grandslams. Murrays consistency in the masters events is head and shoulders above those guys. He's won 11 masters 1000 events. Hewitt won about 2 in a weak era. Roddick and Safin won 5.
Hewitt wasn't great. The only reason he won two grandslams is because he got lucky that Sampras and Agassi were coming to a end, whilst Federer wasn't quite ready yet. The likes of Costa, Gaudio and Johansson won a grandslam in that era. Those guys would not come close, if they played currently.
It's not all grandslams. Murrays consistency in the masters events is head and shoulders above those guys. He's won 11 masters 1000 events. Hewitt won about 2 in a weak era. Roddick and Safin won 5.
Hewitt wasn't great. The only reason he won two grandslams is because he got lucky that Sampras and Agassi were coming to a end, whilst Federer wasn't quite ready yet. The likes of Costa, Gaudio and Johansson won a grandslam in that era. Those guys would not come close, if they played currently.
yeah but given how well he's aged, Federer may well have won more later (given that your premise would have them at the same age, and I doubt Nadal nor even Djokovic will be as good at 34 as Federer currently is.)