Forums
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
now wheres that switch!!!
07 Jul 21 18:16
Joined:
Date Joined: 10 Sep 09
| Topic/replies: 1,582 | Blogger: now wheres that switch!!!'s blog
Decision made for Roger it appears. Sad, but if he can’t compete against a bang average player like Hurkacz then surely will not go through the motions. Top guys out of reach now.. nothing left to prove.

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
Page 1 of 2  •  Previous 1 | 2 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 79
By:
DanielKoellerer
When: 07 Jul 21 18:22
Hurkacz clearly ain’t bang average.

Federer will go down as the most popular player ever and the second greatest ever. Should be proud.
By:
unitedbiscuits
When: 07 Jul 21 18:37
Second to who, DK?
By:
now wheres that switch!!!
When: 07 Jul 21 18:43
Hurkacz is no better than average IMO. Would struggle to take 8 games off top players.
By:
Wesdag
When: 07 Jul 21 19:06

Jul 7, 2021 -- 12:37PM, unitedbiscuits wrote:


Second to who, DK?


Djoker I would imagine.

By:
DanielKoellerer
When: 08 Jul 21 14:38
Djokovic without doubt. Doesn’t even 20 slams to be considered that by unbiased people with greater knowledge of the sport, but for the media and your regular simpletons I guess he does.
By:
Jumping-cuckoo-monk
When: 09 Jul 21 00:10
Don't eat gluten kids Laugh
By:
unitedbiscuits
When: 09 Jul 21 11:13
DanielKoellerer, you are correct in saying Federer is the more popular figure but I would suggest most people also consider Federer the greater player. As one with an ocassional though lifetime interest, I think Federer was the best of all time.

To me it is no contest although head to head stats could be used by either side to argue for their champion:

https://www.atptour.com/en/players/atp-head-2-head/roger-federer-vs-novak-djokovic/F324/D643
By:
DanielKoellerer
When: 09 Jul 21 14:19
It’s not about who people ‘consider’ as Federer fans (or more to the point anti djokovic types) will never claim Djokovic is the greatest.

Can only look at such a thing objectively and once djokovic gets to 20+ there is not even a debate.

Djokovic has absolutely dominated Federer in their rivalry in the important ones.

80% slam finals
70% all finals
70% all grand slam matches.

Or thereabouts.
By:
DanielKoellerer
When: 09 Jul 21 14:23
You can factor in year end number 1s, weeks at no.1, masters series wins etc if you like. All slams x2 as the only player to do so as well.

Then there’s the subjective stuff too like coming up and taking on an already established Federer and nadal. The fact he’s dominated fed on the court that was supposed to be his. Fact he’s done something fed never managed and beaten nadal x2 at Roland Garros. And of course fairly claiming he’s the most all round player ever with not one weakness (barring maybe the smash). Across all surfaces the best.
By:
unitedbiscuits
When: 09 Jul 21 15:07
It may be that I imagine Federer was at his best before Djokovic could challenge him.

But Federer c 2005 against Djokovic at his best? The Fed Express every time for me.

I am sympathetic to the case of Djokovic because the crowd has mostly been against him and there is nothing wrong with his tennis.

But Federer had the higher threshold to his play.
By:
Wesdag
When: 09 Jul 21 15:23
But Federer had the higher threshold to his play.

How is this measured please?

Subjective nonsense, the type spouted by Fed fans.
By:
Jumping-cuckoo-monk
When: 09 Jul 21 15:35
How can people have such hatred towards Federer?
He's a class guy who plays a beautiful form of tennis that real tennis fans should enjoy?
Such an immature attitude towards the man. Must be envy
By:
Jumping-cuckoo-monk
When: 09 Jul 21 15:36
While he was dominating for a long time did they not watch him  to save their sanity?
By:
scandanavian_haven
When: 09 Jul 21 15:38
you have to factor in age, Novak started to dominate Federer when Federer  was past 30 and Novak was mid 20's, RF became noticeably slower, Djokovic even commented on that prior to one of their matches, and Federer even had Championship point against ND in the Wimbledon final 2 years ago age 37, it was a real 50/50 match.

They are the 3 best ever, don't know why there has to be just 1, it's not a simple equation of most slams means the greatest of most weeks at number 1, many other factors that dictate those stats such as time out through injury
By:
Jumping-cuckoo-monk
When: 09 Jul 21 15:38
I remember Novak giving up through tiredness a few years back. Poor conditioning
There's not a bead of sweat on him when he walks off after 5 setters should they happen nowadays
I just cannot be behind him
By:
unitedbiscuits
When: 09 Jul 21 15:40
How is this measured please?

Their early encounters.

Sure, Dvokovic ground him down in later encounters but it would be a mistake to measure a declining Federer against Dvokovic.

Lies, lies and statistics.

The most ridiculous statistic is prizemoney won.
By:
johnnythebull
When: 09 Jul 21 15:41
Fedex is without doubt the most elegant,aesthetically pleasing player who ever lived..beautiful to watch at his best

but Djoko is the best athlete,retriever and as has been stated has beaten the best at their best(or close to it)

whichever way you spin it,Fed's initial wins were against way lesser opposition that Rafa and Djok would have equally beaten

what is unequivocal is we have been so lucky to have the 3 of them around for so long and fair play to Andy Murray to have been able to win slams in their era when few others have been capable of so doing
By:
johnnythebull
When: 09 Jul 21 15:45
Also at the end of the day men are not machines

they are naught but mere sheep to try out experimental gene therapy vaccines onDevil
By:
Jumping-cuckoo-monk
When: 09 Jul 21 15:47
If wimbledon had left the grass alone instead of changing the seed to produce a slower surface to accommodate baseliners
then Federer would've been unbeatable there imo and picked up a few more slams
I miss the serve and volley game he had.
He had to adapt his game to the strengths of others (baseliners) which doesn't seem fair.
By:
Wesdag
When: 09 Jul 21 16:53
No hating of Fed here.

Just fed up of all the subjective nonsense.

I guess a one-handed backhand counts for a lot.
By:
Wesdag
When: 09 Jul 21 16:57

Jul 9, 2021 -- 9:40AM, unitedbiscuits wrote:


How is this measured please?Their early encounters. Sure, Dvokovic ground him down in later encounters but it would be a mistake to measure a declining Federer against Dvokovic.Lies, lies and statistics. The most ridiculous statistic is prizemoney won.


As s_h has said elsewhere, a prime Fed beat a pre-prime Djoko.

A prime Djoko, beats a post-prime Fed.

By:
brain dead jockeys
When: 09 Jul 21 21:56
Federer beat nadal for the first time at aus open in 2017 final when he was 35......nadal had beaten him in their 3 previous meetings downunder beginning in 2009. Fed was just as good 2013-2018 as he was 2003-2012......its just that joko had the better of him totally from 2011 onwards. FED only won majors (3) after 2012 when novak was injured. prior to joko injury, joko had the better of fed and when he came back he began beating him again. FED at his peak could never beat nadal at french, monte carlo and rome. DJOKOVIC COULD.
Fed had all the time in the world to win all masters titles but he didnt get it done. JOKO DID DO IT, and by beating nadal at all clay tournaments. that is a massive plus for novak in the goat debate. i am a nadal fan but winning 13 of the 20 on clay is not a good mix of slams.

joko needs to be carefull.........i fully expect him to win on sunday but after that, the USO has to be the priority.........winning the calender slam is so more important than winning the olympics.
By:
scandanavian_haven
When: 09 Jul 21 22:58
. Fed was just as good 2013-2018 as he was 2003-2012...

absolute pure waffle, you trot out statistics like there's no tomorrow, I don't think you actually watch tennis

post 2012 he was being knocked out of slams by Stakhovsky, Robredo, Gulbis, Seppi, Anderson, Millman, Dimitrov and now Hurcacz - contrast that to the period between his first slam win til 2012 where the only players that KO'd him from slams were slam winners or slam finalists, Novak-Nadal-Soderling-Berdych-Tsonga, a different class to the mugs who KO'd him post 2012

he simply became older and slower post 30 and took long periods off which coincided with Peak/prime Novak taking over,

I'm pretty sure Federer would also have beaten the 2015 version of Nadal at the French if he was 28 as well, Novak was short odds, 1.4 or so, it was expected, when have you ever seen odds like that for him at Roland Garros? Nadal must have lost more matches on clay that year then any other.


The comparison is much fairer between Novak and Nadal because there around 12-14 months apart in age, Federer is nearly 6 years older, that's a massive difference, t's actually impressive Federer was able to compete with him.


No doubt Novak will dominate all the stats in the end but the actual differences between their level of ability / talent is thinner than wafer thin.
By:
Giuseppe
When: 10 Jul 21 00:19
Federer won most of his titles in a weaker era, before Nadal and Novak peaked

Rafa clearly had the edge over Federer, on all surfaces, for years
By:
scandanavian_haven
When: 10 Jul 21 00:35
Federer's beaten Nadal 5 times out of the last 6 and he's a tennis pensioner
Nadal clearly didn't have an edge on him over grass, most of losses to Nadal were on clay
By:
Giuseppe
When: 10 Jul 21 00:47
between 2008 and 2014 Nadal and Federer played 6 grand slam finals, on three different surfaces, and Nadal won them all
By:
Giuseppe
When: 10 Jul 21 00:48
anyone who think Federer was better than Nadal during those years is nuts
By:
Giuseppe
When: 10 Jul 21 00:53
those were Nadal's peak years

when fit he was the best player in the world

sometime around 2015 / 2016 Novak overtook him

Federer hasn't been the best player since 2008, at the latest
By:
Giuseppe
When: 10 Jul 21 00:55
it was clear that Nadal also had a psychological edge over Federer, in addition to skill / fitness
By:
scandanavian_haven
When: 10 Jul 21 00:56
why are you cherry picking dates? just as bad as bdj

Nadal won his first slam in 2005, which tells you he was ready to wins slams, because he'd won a slam. He then lost slams or slam matches to Federer after this including on grass and hard courts between 2006 up until 2019. Nadal completely dominated Federer on clay courts, but he dominated everyone on clay courts including Djokovivc who he's knocked out of the French 6 times.

we can all find and chose stats to suit our own arguments, but it goes back to what I originally said, their talent level is very similar.
By:
Giuseppe
When: 10 Jul 21 00:59
because those were Nadal's peak years

he hasn't been the same since

at his peak Nadal was clearly better than Federer on all three surfaces
By:
Giuseppe
When: 10 Jul 21 01:01
Nadal was just a kid, and a clay court specialist, in those early Wimbledon losses to Federer

he improved over time and overtook Federer, the 2008 Wimbledon final being a clear inidication of that
By:
Giuseppe
When: 10 Jul 21 01:04
"Nadal completely dominated Federer on clay courts"

Federer never dominated Nadal, Djokovic or Murray on any surface, at any time
By:
scandanavian_haven
When: 10 Jul 21 01:07
so you conveniently chose his peak year starting 2008 which would then only include 1 single grass match which was 5 sets and then deduce 'clearly better than him on all surfaces' Laugh

Federer was way past his peak in 17 and 19 when he knocked Nadal who's 5 years younger, out of hard and grass slams, also a better record indoors, at any time, we can do this all day but it's cherry picking.
By:
Giuseppe
When: 10 Jul 21 01:09
are you disputing that Nadal was better than Federer between 2008 and 2014?
By:
Giuseppe
When: 10 Jul 21 01:14
Federer only won Wimbledon twice in those years, once when Nadal was absent
By:
Giuseppe
When: 10 Jul 21 01:15
they only met once on grass during that period
By:
Giuseppe
When: 10 Jul 21 01:18
"Federer was way past his peak in 17 and 19 "

they were both past their peak at this point

picking 2008-14 is not cherry picking, it is the period when both were at, or near, their best

and Nadal won 6 out of 6, on all three surfaces
By:
Giuseppe
When: 10 Jul 21 01:47
I never got this Federer greatest of all time malarkey

how many times do Nadal and Djokovic need to beat him?
Page 1 of 2  •  Previous 1 | 2 | Next
sort by:
Show
per page

Post your reply

Text Format: Table: Smilies:
Forum does not support HTML
Insert Photo
Cancel
‹ back to topics
www.betfair.com