Tennis 2017

[Enigma_87]

The h2h isn't skewed. Nadal was leading on hard courts up until this season. It was 2-1 on grass to Fed and 13-2 to Nadal on clay. Hardly Nadals fault that he's superior on Clay. Federer didn't show that dominance on his favourite surfaces.

It kinda is. Federer is 5 years older than Nadal which some people are forgetting and also Nadal is a very early bloomer - his peak years are more likely to overlap with Federer's peak as it showed rather than later in Fed's career.

During Federer's peak(04/07) their H2H was 6-8 in Nadal's favor with half of those matches on clay(6-1 for Nadal there). Off clay Federer was leading 5-2.

If half of their matches happened in the end of the season and indoors the H2H would be upside down in Fed's favor. He's 5-1 indoors.

 

[Mrs Smoker]

Points race!

Andy Murray 7,750
Rafael Nadal 7,465
Novak Đoković 6,325
Stan Wawrinka 6,140
Roger Federer 5,265 (+1,280 still available)
Marin Čilić 4,595 (+1,280 still available)

 

[NK86]

The h2h isn't skewed. Nadal was leading on hard courts up until this season. It was 2-1 on grass to Fed and 13-2 to Nadal on clay. Hardly Nadals fault that he's superior on Clay. Federer didn't show that dominance on his favourite surfaces.

It clearly shows it is skewed. They have met only 3 times on grass. Just goes to point out that the grass season is so short and the clay season is very long.

 

[Raees]

All my favourites are out before the semi's which is a massive downer. What was building up to be a classic wimbo is now limping towards a poor finish. Nevertheless I would still be over the moon if Federer wins it, what a great story that would be to be winning 2 out of the 3 slams at his age.

Shame though, I really wanted to see the big 4 have one last hurrah at Wimbledon. When was the last time the big 4 all made it to the semis?

 

[Bojan11]

How many times Nadal flunked out of HC or grass tournament in Fed's prime prior to the final? Fed often upheld his end of the bargain reaching the final in RG and Clay master to be beaten by Nadal, who is undoubtedly the better player on that surface.

When did he flunk out?

He made like 5 Wimbledon finals in row between 2006-11 which was Feds prime. That's hardly flunking out. That's more french open finals than Federer made. He's also made Australian open and US open finals. Mostly losing to Djokovic. Obviously he hasn't done well on Grass since 2011, but Federer himself hasn't exactly been in his prime since then. Only this year he has looked like winning majors.

 

[Mrs Smoker]

When was the last time the big 4 all made it to the semis?

Has it ever happened?

edit
It has! 2011 FO.

yep, 4 times
2012 Aus. Open
2011 US Open
2008 US Open

 

[Raees]

Has it ever happened?

Just researched it, surprisingly enough they have only ever all made it to semis at same time - 4 times!

I thought it would be alot more than that.. but I guess, there is always one or two that fail to make it out of the four.

 

[Bojan11]

It clearly shows it is skewed. They have met only 3 times on grass. Just goes to point out that the grass season is so short and the clay season is very long.

That's because grass court is more expensive to look after. They also play different warm up events, so the only time they'd ever meet is at Wimbledon. Is that Nadals fault? No. You making it sound like Rafa has been always hopeless at Grass.

And it's not really skewed. Nadal went on grass and beat Federer. He also came close in 2007, which Federer won two sets in tie breaks. Where as Federer struggled to take a set off Rafa at RG. The only time he won it was when Soderling had to do him the favour. Atleast Nadal could say he came to Federers home and won his trophy.

 

[wr8_utd]

Why would you want someone to beat Fed if it's not Nadal. I am a Fed fan and still didn't mind Nadal winning his 10th RG. Why are you so bitter towards perhaps the GOAT?

I don't want Fed to pull further away from Nadal. I'd like their careers to end with a difference in Slams of not more than 2. If it goes up to 4 now, it's going to be difficult to close the gap to something more respectable.

 

[altodevil]

Outside of RG, Nadal has won 5 grand slams
Outside of Wimbledon, Federer had won 11.
Why do people think Nadal is better? I'm only a casual watcher so maybe I don't know the intricacies, but the results suggest Federer is a much better all-round player.

 

[wr8_utd]

Because he is a favourite of mine and I want him to go down as the undoubted GOAT. I like Djoko and Nadal too. Both are terrific players and personalities. I just have always loved Federer. I honestly think his alleged arrogance has been overstated anyway.

I agree that a final against one of the other big 4 would be great, but not a lot you can do about injuries and poor form.

He really has that arrogance. Also his snarky comments towards Murray and Djoko in earlier years was in pretty poor taste. He's never said anything against Rafa because well, there's nothing bad to say about the guy.

 

[Enigma_87]

When did he flunk out?

He made like 5 Wimbledon finals in row between 2006-11 which was Feds prime. That's hardly flunking out. That's more french open finals than Federer made. He's also made Australian open and US open finals. Mostly losing to Djokovic. Obviously he hasn't done well on Grass since 2011, but Federer himself hasn't exactly been in his prime since then. Only this year he has looked like winning majors.

Federer peak is 04-07 certainly not in 2011. From 2008 onward he was struggling with mono, back injuries and so forth. He was also 30 at the time, whilst Nadal much closer to peak level at 25. Nadal went on to beat Federer in a very narrow match in 2008. Federer went very close in his peak to beating him at Rome and MC - Rome missing match points and at MC making 1 BP out of 17. Federer always beat Nadal with ease indoors(apart from 2013 where he was pretty much off the races the whole year).

That's because grass court is more expensive to look after. They also play different warm up events, so the only time they'd ever meet is at Wimbledon. Is that Nadals fault? No. You making it sound like Rafa has been always hopeless at Grass.

And it's not really skewed. Nadal went on grass and beat Federer. He also came close in 2007, which Federer won two sets in tie breaks. Where as Federer struggled to take a set off Rafa at RG. The only time he won it was when Soderling had to do him the favour. Atleast Nadal could say he came to Federers home and won his trophy.

It's not just grass it's the indoor season where Nadal usually goes missing. Nadal after the USO has won 1 MS title(or YET) in 25 attempts and made it to just 3 finals.

 

[wr8_utd]

It's not just grass it's the indoor season where Nadal usually goes missing.

It doesn't help that Nadal's knees and body kind of struggle by the time the season is done and the indoors come around.

 

[Giggsy92]

That's because grass court is more expensive to look after. They also play different warm up events, so the only time they'd ever meet is at Wimbledon. Is that Nadals fault? No. You making it sound like Rafa has been always hopeless at Grass.

They both played Halle in 2012 and 2014.

That's more french open finals than Federer made.

It's exactly the same number actually.

 

[Enigma_87]

It doesn't help that Nadal's knees and body kind of struggle by the time the season is done and the indoors come around.

His schedule isn't helping that either playing every tournament on clay in the beginning of the year. A smarter schedule would have prevented the wheels to fall off come August.

 

[wr8_utd]

His schedule isn't helping that either playing every tournament on clay in the beginning of the year. A smarter schedule would have prevented the wheels to fall off come August.

I agree but I think he feels the momentum of all those clay tournaments going into RG. Even now, at 31, he still played the full clay schedule. 2 HC Masters and the USO and he's usually done with his fitness. That and plus the fact he's not very good at indoors either.

 

[Bojan11]

Outside of RG, Nadal has won 5 grand slams
Outside of Wimbledon, Federer had won 11.
Why do people think Nadal is better? I'm only a casual watcher so maybe I don't know the intricacies, but the results suggest Federer is a much better all-round player.

Federer would have won less than 11 slams if he had peak Djokovic to contend with.

Nadal lost like three or four finals in other slams where he didn't even play badly to Djokovic. Just Djokovic was better and I'm convinced Nadal would have beaten any other play on that day.

So that's where the argument comes in. Djokovic is the best hard courter out the three and sadly for Nadal he had to face him in finals at his peak.

 

[wr8_utd]

Federer would have won less than 11 slams if he had peak Djokovic to contend with.

Nadal lost like three or four finals in other slams where he didn't even play badly to Djokovic. Just Djokovic was better and I'm convinced Nadal would have beaten any other play on that day.

So that's where the argument comes in. Djokovic is the best hard courter out the three and sadly for Nadal he had to face him in finals at his peak.

How many Slams has Fed won in the last 7 years? I think it's just 2-5? He won a lot of his Slams in a much easier. Not using it to downplay his achievements but it's just true. Djoko has had it most difficult to win his Slams and then Rafa. Djoko is a better all court player than Nadal and if he'd gotten those 3-4 years playing with Roddick as #2 he'd probably have another 4-5 Slams.

 

[Enigma_87]

I agree but I think he feels the momentum of all those clay tournaments going into RG. Even now, at 31, he still played the full clay schedule. 2 HC Masters and the USO and he's usually done with his fitness. That and plus the fact he's not very good at indoors either.

Probably for a bid at #1? Don't see the reason behind it otherwise. He was at top level in the beginning of the season either way don't think skipping Barcelona would have done him harm to his RG challenge.

 

[Giggsy92]

Outside of RG, Nadal has won 5 grand slams
Outside of Wimbledon, Federer had won 11.
Why do people think Nadal is better? I'm only a casual watcher so maybe I don't know the intricacies, but the results suggest Federer is a much better all-round player.

Not many people do to be fair. Since the arguments don't stack up I guess you have to say a lot of it is just down to personal preference.

 

[Enigma_87]

Federer would have won less than 11 slams if he had peak Djokovic to contend with.

Nadal lost like three or four finals in other slams where he didn't even play badly to Djokovic. Just Djokovic was better and I'm convinced Nadal would have beaten any other play on that day.

So that's where the argument comes in. Djokovic is the best hard courter out the three and sadly for Nadal he had to face him in finals at his peak.

Federer was beating Djokovic at slams well beyond his peak. I don't see Djokovic anywhere close at taking Wimbledon off peak Federer. Same goes for the USO, he needed to save match points to fend off 30 years old Federer.

Most of his wins over him at the AO came when they shifted from Reboud Ace to Plexicushion which goes to Djokovic favor.

They shifted from 2008 onwards. In 2007 at Rebound Ace Federer beat Djokovic in straights.

 

[Bojan11]

Probably for a bid at #1? Don't see the reason behind it otherwise. He was at top level in the beginning of the season either way don't think skipping Barcelona would have done him harm to his RG challenge.

Maybe because they named a court after him, so he's not going to skip Barcelona. His clay schedule and schedule in general has been fine.

 

[wr8_utd]

Probably for a bid at #1? Don't see the reason behind it otherwise. He was at top level in the beginning of the season either way don't think skipping Barcelona would have done him harm to his RG challenge.

Nadal has never seemed the type to be too bothered about his ranking. I think it's more a confidence thing for him He was extremely low on confidence for most of last season so I think that's why he played it all this time.
Also, what would he skip? He plays Barcelona for sentimental reasons if nothing else, he's not going to skip Monte Carlo, he won't skip Rome as it's too close to RG and a bit similar in conditions. I think Madrid is soething he could maybe let go next year onwards.

 

[wr8_utd]

Federer was beating Djokovic at slams well beyond his peak. I don't see Djokovic anywhere close at taking Wimbledon off peak Federer. Same goes for the USO, he needed to save match points to fend off 30 years old Federer.

Most of his wins over him at the AO came when they shifted from Reboud Ace to Plexicushion which goes to Djokovic favor.

They shifted from 2008 onwards. In 2007 at Rebound Ace Federer beat Djokovic in straights.

Don't thin Fed is affected by age like most of these other guys are. His style is way more relaxed, he's not constantly running and chasing like the other 3 and he has the best serve on the tour which also helps. So I don't think his age really affects how peak he should or should not be. Especially as he's been pretty lucky with injuries as well for most of his career.

 

[Enigma_87]

Maybe because they named a court after him, so he's not going to skip Barcelona. His clay schedule and schedule in general has been fine.

He has to drop at least two tournaments in his clay schedule if he wants to be competitive. Playing full clay schedule at 30+ is mental. He's not 20 anymore.

Nadal has never seemed the type to be too bothered about his ranking. I think it's more a confidence thing for him He was extremely low on confidence for most of last season so I think that's why he played it all this time.
Also, what would he skip? He plays Barcelona for sentimental reasons if nothing else, he's not going to skip Monte Carlo, he won't skip Rome as it's too close to RG and a bit similar in conditions. I think Madrid is soething he could maybe let go next year onwards.

He has to skip Madrid definitely - it's the tournament where conditions suit him the least. Barcelona IMO he should skip as well. He has to be smart in his schedule and not sentimental.

 

[Enigma_87]

Don't thin Fed is affected by age like most of these other guys are. His style is way more relaxed, he's not constantly running and chasing like the other 3 and he has the best serve on the tour which also helps. So I don't think his age really affects how peak he should or should not be. Especially as he's been pretty lucky with injuries as well for most of his career.

Yes of course, but Federer in his peak was a different beast. He adjusted his game due to losing a step or two. His court coverage and forehand were mental in his peak. He shifted his forehand from winner machine from everywhere on the court to shot that dictates rallies.

At rebound ace, wimbledon and the USO I don't see any version of Djokovic beating him at his peak. The only player that can go toe to toe with him at the USO during that time is IMO Delpo from 2009 and of course Safin in 2005.

 

[Bojan11]

Federer was beating Djokovic at slams well beyond his peak. I don't see Djokovic anywhere close at taking Wimbledon off peak Federer. Same goes for the USO, he needed to save match points to fend off 30 years old Federer.

Most of his wins over him at the AO came when they shifted from Reboud Ace to Plexicushion which goes to Djokovic favor.

They shifted from 2008 onwards. In 2007 at Rebound Ace Federer beat Djokovic in straights.

Why are you making excuses and always trying to belittle other players achievements when they beat Federer. Both played on the same court. Pretty sure you were moaning a few pages back to someone how they shouldn't moan about Fed playing on centre court always.

Oh no he saved match point against a 30 year old Fed who was in a wheelchair. For Christ sakes man he won the match. Not like Fed came out in a wheelchair and Djokovic struggled to beat him.

Oh and 2007, Novak was nowhere near his peak. Even when he won AO in 2008 he wasn't near his peak.

 

[Enigma_87]

Why are you making excuses and always trying to belittle other players achievements when they beat Federer. Both played on the same court. Pretty sure you were moaning a few pages back to someone how they shouldn't moan about Fed playing on centre court always.

Oh no he saved match point against a 30 year old Fed who was in a wheelchair. For Christ sakes man he won the match. Not like Fed came out in a wheelchair and Djokovic struggled to beat him.

Oh and 2007, Novak was nowhere near his peak. Even when he won AO in 2008 he wasn't near his peak.

Not really making excuses just putting some background into the discussion. RA to plexicusion is a lot different. You said that Federer would've won less than 11 slams if he was to play peak Djokovic during his peak which I disagree. There is a fair big difference from how Federer was playing in his mid 20's and late 20's early 30's.

People tend to forget how dominant he was at his peak. I don't think Djokovic was anywhere close to be honest. Federer rarely went to 4 sets in any of the majors and was regularly bagelling top guys on the road.

Djokovic had a lot of competition and he's obviously a great player, but I can't see how he's the better player on hard courts given that Federer has a fair few slams more than him.

 

[wr8_utd]

He has to drop at least two tournaments in his clay schedule if he wants to be competitive. Playing full clay schedule at 30+ is mental. He's not 20 anymore.


He has to skip Madrid definitely - it's the tournament where conditions suit him the least. Barcelona IMO he should skip as well. He has to be smart in his schedule and not sentimental.

I think he compensates by dropping the grass warmups completely. Barcelona, MC and Rome he's not going to drop I think. He'll have to let go off Madrid next year. I think he needs to drop those random tournaments he plays in South America as well next year onwards.

 

[Bojan11]

Not really making excuses just putting some background into the discussion. RA to plexicusion is a lot different. You said that Federer would've won less than 11 slams if he was to play peak Djokovic during his peak which I disagree. There is a fair big difference from how Federer was playing in his mid 20's and late 20's early 30's.

People tend to forget how dominant he was at his peak. I don't think Djokovic was anywhere close to be honest. Federer rarely went to 4 sets in any of the majors and was regularly bagelling top guys on the road.

Djokovic had a lot of competition and he's obviously a great player, but I can't see how he's the better player on hard courts given that Federer has a fair few slams more than him.

Djokovic would have won more if he had 50 year old Agassi on one leg, Hewitt, Baghdatis and Gonzalez in finals.

But he no doubt played in a tougher era at his peak. He lost US open finals to Nadal, Murray and Wawrinka. Not really the same field as facing Hewitt, Baghdatis or Gonzalez.

 

[saivet]

The only viable reason seems to be that Federer is climbing higher on the ladder of GOAT leaving behind Nadal and he cannot take it.

And even so, why does that matter? It's not something unique to any set of tennis fans. I get some Nadal fans never want to see Federer win anything vice versa.

With Djoko, one thing in particular what led to me backing him over Federer in particular in certain matches was because I felt for him with some of the crowds he was playing in front of, combined with the under appreciation I think he's received in comparison to both him and Nadal.

 

[MemphisDepay]

It's impossible to compare them all directly. Federer swotted away terrible competition, Djokovic only started winning once Federer and Nadal went off the radar for a while and Nadal only won 20 million French opens against Federer on Fed's weakest surface.

They all suck. I bet I could win more grand slams than them put together if God lets me be reborn as a great tennis player 7 times.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the greatest tennis player of all time, me. (Bows to the applause)

 

[Enigma_87]

Djokovic would have won more if he had 50 year old Agassi on one leg, Hewitt, Baghdatis and Gonzalez in finals.

But he no doubt played in a tougher era at his peak. He lost US open finals to Nadal, Murray and Wawrinka. Not really the same field as facing Hewitt, Baghdatis or Gonzalez.

Funny you would mention Wawrinka as he was pretty much a journeyman before 2014 where his highest achievement was a USO SF. He lost before the QF's 31 out of 35 times. Yet in a much tougher era he's 3 times slam winner and a slam finalist. Federer is 20-3 against him, yet he's considered a tougher opponent than Agassi, Hewitt or Safin who have significantly better record against him?

A pretty much done Safin schooled #3 in the world Djokovic at Wimbey in 2008, he has a losing record to Gonzales and Roddick who most proclaim as weak competition.

Either way it's a bit irrelevant as Djokovic still had to go through a peak Federer at the time (or Safin) if he wanted to win a slam. And I don't like his chances tbh.

Edit: for the record, competition or not if Djokovic manages to equal Nadal in slams I'd put him in front of him in terms of greatness due to being more dominant #1, more weeks at #1 and of course YET titles.

 

[NK86]

That's because grass court is more expensive to look after. They also play different warm up events, so the only time they'd ever meet is at Wimbledon. Is that Nadals fault? No. You making it sound like Rafa has been always hopeless at Grass.

And it's not really skewed. Nadal went on grass and beat Federer. He also came close in 2007, which Federer won two sets in tie breaks. Where as Federer struggled to take a set off Rafa at RG. The only time he won it was when Soderling had to do him the favour. Atleast Nadal could say he came to Federers home and won his trophy.

Nadal is the undoubted king of clay. However, out of the 15 slams he has won, only 5 have come outside RG. It's not like he was consistently reaching grass court finals year after year and was getting beaten be Federer. The guy was getting out gunned by any big hitter. Says a lot about his pedigree on that surface. But for Rafa, Roger would have won multiple FO. The same cannot be said about Nadal and Wimbledon.

 

[NK86]

And even so, why does that matter? It's not something unique to any set of tennis fans. I get some Nadal fans never want to see Federer win anything vice versa.

With Djoko, one thing in particular what led to me backing him over Federer in particular in certain matches was because I felt for him with some of the crowds he was playing in front of, combined with the under appreciation I think he's received in comparison to both him and Nadal.

So nothing. You were trying to justify it as not being bitter which was ridiculous.

 

[Enigma_87]

I think he compensates by dropping the grass warmups completely. Barcelona, MC and Rome he's not going to drop I think. He'll have to let go off Madrid next year. I think he needs to drop those random tournaments he plays in South America as well next year onwards.

I don't think it equates to playing time as he usually enters one grass tournament and doesn't play that many matches either.

IMO he stands a chance at the USO and Wimbey still if he manages to get a decent draw and doesn't meet the top guys.

 

[NK86]

Don't thin Fed is affected by age like most of these other guys are. His style is way more relaxed, he's not constantly running and chasing like the other 3 and he has the best serve on the tour which also helps. So I don't think his age really affects how peak he should or should not be. Especially as he's been pretty lucky with injuries as well for most of his career.

Just points out that he is the best of the lot. The reason he does not have to chase around so much is because he is usually in position more often than not and dictating the points. Plus with the other three, they are mostly looking to keep the rally going than go for some really difficult shot - not that it is a drawback, but you can see why the crowds love Federer as he regularly goes for insane shots and more often than not pulls them off.

 

[Bojan11]

Funny you would mention Wawrinka as he was pretty much a journeyman before 2014 where his highest achievement was a USO SF. He lost before the QF's 31 out of 35 times. Yet in a much tougher era he's 3 times slam winner and a slam finalist. Federer is 20-3 against him, yet he's considered a tougher opponent than Agassi, Hewitt or Safin who have significantly better record against him?

A pretty much done Safin schooled #3 in the world Djokovic at Wimbey in 2008, he has a losing record to Gonzales and Roddick who most proclaim as weak competition.

Either way it's a bit irrelevant as Djokovic still had to go through a peak Federer at the time (or Safin) if he wanted to win a slam. And I don't like his chances tbh.

Wawrinka peaked at a different age. Let's not forget him hiring Magnus Norman made a big difference to his game. He would never have won a slam if he didn't make that appointment.

And once again 2008. Djokovic was not even at his peak back then. How many times? He was retiring nearly every other tournament and was losing in the semis nearly every tournament. Do you think Safin would have beaten him after 2011? No. Just like Federer and Nadal have losing records against him. The guy was a different animal after 2011. So not sure why you bringing losses into 2008 in this.

And are you really clinging on to Gonzalez having a 2-1 winning record against Djokovic when all three matches were in 2006 and Djokovic basically just started on tour. That's just ridiculous now. Also the fact Roddick jokes about his h2h against Djokovic because even he knows if he faced Djokovic after 2011 then that 5-4 would be 10-5 in Djokovics favour. Just like Federer and Nadal had winning records against Djokovic before his peak and now he has turned that around.

 

[MemphisDepay]

This first semi is extremely one sided. Rybarikova has completely frozen and Muguruza just isn't giving her anything.

 

[Mrs Smoker]

9-1, ouch.