Review of the Year; a Federer fans perspective

First topic message reminder :

So it's all done and what do I think about 2012? How do I mark it?

Well it has to get 9/10 against a "par" score of 5. I fancied he might recapture the #1, maybe, but I didn't dream he'd have it done by Wimbledon. My idea was that maybe by the US Open he could have got it back; instead he went into that tournament already assured of exiting it as the top player. To get past the 300 weeks mark was even better; there's a reason why cricketers raise their bats at the one extra run that clicks over another set of three figures, and it applies here too.

He also secured his 17th Slam, and 7th Wimbledon. There's no question that this was the one he'd have most wanted - it brought him level with Pete Sampras as the most successful Wimbledon champion ever. The manner of victory would be just as satisfying, taking out his two in-prime challengers in the semi and final. Wonderful stuff.

Anyway, how did the year pan out?

He started with a depressingly familiar loss to Nadal at the Australian. While not what he'd wanted, the AO is a far cry from the fast surface it was until 2007 and nobody was too shocked at that. At least no ranking points were lost.

The first sign of things to come came at Rotterdam where he was slipping to defeat against Davydenko until pulling out the first good turnaround of the season; something that became a feature of the year. In Dubai he got the better of Andy Murray in the final and then headed to Indian Wells to make a hat-trick of tournament wins. There we got a real look at his level when he defeated Nadal en route to the win. An early loss to Roddick in Miami (Andy thereby securing bragging rights as the winner of their final professional match!) wasn't so smart, and then he skipped Monte Carlo in favour of an abbreviated clay campaign. This was hugely successful as his superior adaptability allowed him to win on the slippy blue clay of Madrid, followed by semi appearances in Rome and Roland Garros.

Onto grass where he experienced his only defeat against a 30+ year old player in a zillion years, to Tommy Haas in Halle. The sound clay effort, combined with Djokovic losing three times to Nadal on clay in a big turnaround from their 2011 form meant that he could get the #1 position by winning Wimbledon, so long as Djokovic fell before the final. The draw made these two birds hittable by one stone, by putting them in the same half. The omens weren't good as Federer was striken with back problems in barely scraping past Benneteau from two sets down, then literally limped past Malisse in the next round. However he recovered with a beat-down on perrenial punching bag Youzhny before a semi-final appointment with Djokovic, who had looked dominant through the event until then. Their semi-final simmered for two sets but then Federer was able to sprint awat from 4-4 in the 3rd set. The final followed and the records were set to tumble.

The Olympics may, in retrospect, have been a bridge too far; certainly the Del Potro semi-final can't have helped, but Murray gave him a bit of a pasting in the final, and he pulled out of Toronto (which was more or less a walkover for Djokovic sans top 4 rivals) missing out on another chance to extend his lead at the top of the rankings.

Cincinnatti saw a return to resurgence and he set a remarkable new record; the first Masters Trophy won without dropping serve throughout the tournament (and not many break points either), including a bagel set over Djokovic in the final. In hindsight this was the last high point of the season as a disappointing US Open was ended in the quarters by Berdych, followed by poor showings in Shanghai and Basel. He pulled out of Paris to muster resources for a 7th year-end event but came up short by the narrowest of margins.

So he ends the year with not much left to go for in terms of records; an 8th Wimbledon is probably the only realistic mark left. He does end the year looking a bit knackered, but that's understandable after the big push for #1; 2013 should see a less extravagent schedule, including no Olympics to mess things up, and a few key events skipped.

2012 was a great year for the 31 year old, coming back after Djokovic's dominant 2011 to head the rankings for a while and get a share of the Slam pie plus three more masters events. It could have been even better, but not by much. I think 2013 could still be worth turning up for.

Two great shots there Lags, thanks for the links!!

Personally I loved Nadal's passing shot more, probably my favourite shot of the year!

Lags, check your inbox

Awesome wasn´t it... moments to remember

this tops the lot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HAJskxVBF4&feature=related

LuvSports! wrote:this tops the lot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HAJskxVBF4&feature=related

Holy sh*t that forehand was a bullet.

Still prefer the Rafa one though (for the fact his position was so far out if not anything)

btw for me greatest rally of all time was Nadal vs Fed AO 2009, take a look at this:
https://www.606v2.com/t36156-which-is-the-best-shot
(Choice number 1 in the best rally category)

im guessing its the one where nadal hits the forehand up the line after amazing slice gets from both.

LuvSports! wrote:im guessing its the one where nadal hits the forehand up the line after amazing slice gets from both.

Yessss

Loving the vids guys, awesome shots. Thanks for posting them!

hawkeye wrote:Couldn't agree more! That was a GREAT match. It makes me wonder if some actually watch matches rather than looking at scores or going along with the hype of the moment. Like you say the quality was immense and so was the tension. The scoreline hides many of twists and turns and the outcome was anything but straightforward. I know this because I have recently re-watched it. Match of the year... and yet it gets overlooked even as match of the AO. Quality beats quantity any day.

Yeah, definitely a cracker - I thought it really could've gone either way, right until the end. Even on MP I didn't feel Fed was out of it, unlike some other occasions against Nadal. Very absorbing contest, and certainly the best of the tournament! I'm glad others agree I'm not sure why it's been overlooked!

Probably because of the scoreline - I didn't see the match and the outcome seemed to be depressingly (to a Fed fan) obvious so hadn't realised it was of great quality.

Time Please it was a really great match

I was sad for Federer, even though i am a rafa fan, because i thought he deserved to take the match to 5 sets given the fantastic tennis he was playing.

It Must Be Love wrote:I was sad for Federer, even though i am a rafa fan, because i thought he deserved to take the match to 5 sets given the fantastic tennis he was playing.

It was a great match but ultimately not a very reassuring one from a Federer fan perspective. To me, this match, perhaps more than any other the two of them played, showed that Federer just likely does not have a way to really trouble Rafa. I would say that:

Federer was in great form and played extremely well throughout the whole tournament up to and including the SF, and he - for once - played what I thought were the right tactics against Rafa.

Yet, in the end, the match never really looked like Fed might win it. As well as he played, you always had the feel that, when the going got tough, Rafa would be able to find a level high enough to better Roger.

Fed started well in that match as usual and perhaps his tactics were right but his execution just got poorer and poorer as the match went on. Not really a quality match as a whole for me.

Yes I agree. Fed played an awful match from the middle of the first set.

His game fell apart.

He was making suicidal net rushes and generally looked clueless out there.

Nadal was solid as ever.

Deffo not one of the best matches of the year.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Fed started well in that match as usual and perhaps his tactics were right but his execution just got poorer and poorer as the match went on. Not really a quality match as a whole for me.

Perhaps, though I think it is slightly misleading to blame these things on Fed's execution. I think the problem is that in order to get through Rafa's defences, Fed needs to execute at a level that is higher than what he can sustain over five sets.

There will always be stretches where he executes well enough so that Rafa will not have any answers and it is tempting to view those stretches as Roger's best play and conclude that if only Roger could sustain his best level he would win. However, I do not think it is a fair assessment. Roger, being the more aggressive player, will always tend to "roll the die" more and, in my mind, the good stretches are more comparable to runs of sixes - i.e., through luck he will have stretches where he plays better than what he can sustain over five sets. To suggest those stretches are Fed's "real top level" overestimates his real top level. His real top level is an average of what he can expect to get over five sets when he plays well - not the best stretches that he can get.

Maybe, but I also think he starts well until Rafa gets into his head at times. AO 2012 was nowhere near the match they had in A0 2009, the first set was good but once Rafa started to turn the tide Fed was not at his best and the match had an inevitability feeling about it.

summerblues wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Fed started well in that match as usual and perhaps his tactics were right but his execution just got poorer and poorer as the match went on. Not really a quality match as a whole for me.

Perhaps, though I think it is slightly misleading to blame these things on Fed's execution. I think the problem is that in order to get through Rafa's defences, Fed needs to execute at a level that is higher than what he can sustain over five sets.

There will always be stretches where he executes well enough so that Rafa will not have any answers and it is tempting to view those stretches as Roger's best play and conclude that if only Roger could sustain his best level he would win. However, I do not think it is a fair assessment. Roger, being the more aggressive player, will always tend to "roll the die" more and, in my mind, the good stretches are more comparable to runs of sixes - i.e., through luck he will have stretches where he plays better than what he can sustain over five sets. To suggest those stretches are Fed's "real top level" overestimates his real top level. His real top level is an average of what he can expect to get over five sets when he plays well - not the best stretches that he can get.

I think that is spot on SB. Nadal is just tremendous in defence and you won't roll a 6 every time you throw the die. It is sad to see every court play so slow so Fed has to try and hit four winners to make one point. How much more enjoyable this rivalry between two immense champions would have been if the courts had been more varied. I am not saying the h2h would definitely be a little more balanced but I think it may just have been and so the competitiveness between the two and the interest for the audience would have remained red hot because it is, potentially the best match up because of the difference in styles and personality between the two and the charisma and saleability of both.

summerblues wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Fed started well in that match as usual and perhaps his tactics were right but his execution just got poorer and poorer as the match went on. Not really a quality match as a whole for me.

Perhaps, though I think it is slightly misleading to blame these things on Fed's execution. I think the problem is that in order to get through Rafa's defences, Fed needs to execute at a level that is higher than what he can sustain over five sets.

There will always be stretches where he executes well enough so that Rafa will not have any answers and it is tempting to view those stretches as Roger's best play and conclude that if only Roger could sustain his best level he would win. However, I do not think it is a fair assessment. Roger, being the more aggressive player, will always tend to "roll the die" more and, in my mind, the good stretches are more comparable to runs of sixes - i.e., through luck he will have stretches where he plays better than what he can sustain over five sets. To suggest those stretches are Fed's "real top level" overestimates his real top level. His real top level is an average of what he can expect to get over five sets when he plays well - not the best stretches that he can get.

Meh I saw Fed on several occasions missing the lines by feet with his forehand. Those so called stretches were maintainable for much longer than 3 games when he was at his best and if you want to use the rolling a die analogy, his die used to have an extra 6 on it where the 1 would be but now or at least in that match it's the opposite. Besides I don't view Fed's attacking game as rolling the die that much, he's just that good that what's a risky shot for another player is a much safer shot for him (I guess I kind of addressed that with the die thing). I believe it's as another poster used to say that everything is retrievable so being pushed that far off the court is an advantage because of the angle you can get from being that far out.

By the way I understand what you are saying about taking the period of time where a player is at his best and assuming that that is his level, I just don't think I've done that with this match. He played well then he played badly in a pretty digital kind of way.

time please wrote:

summerblues wrote:

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Fed started well in that match as usual and perhaps his tactics were right but his execution just got poorer and poorer as the match went on. Not really a quality match as a whole for me.

Perhaps, though I think it is slightly misleading to blame these things on Fed's execution. I think the problem is that in order to get through Rafa's defences, Fed needs to execute at a level that is higher than what he can sustain over five sets.

There will always be stretches where he executes well enough so that Rafa will not have any answers and it is tempting to view those stretches as Roger's best play and conclude that if only Roger could sustain his best level he would win. However, I do not think it is a fair assessment. Roger, being the more aggressive player, will always tend to "roll the die" more and, in my mind, the good stretches are more comparable to runs of sixes - i.e., through luck he will have stretches where he plays better than what he can sustain over five sets. To suggest those stretches are Fed's "real top level" overestimates his real top level. His real top level is an average of what he can expect to get over five sets when he plays well - not the best stretches that he can get.

I think that is spot on SB. Nadal is just tremendous in defence and you won't roll a 6 every time you throw the die. It is sad to see every court play so slow so Fed has to try and hit four winners to make one point. How much more enjoyable this rivalry between two immense champions would have been if the courts had been more varied. I am not saying the h2h would definitely be a little more balanced but I think it may just have been and so the competitiveness between the two and the interest for the audience would have remained red hot because it is, potentially the best match up because of the difference in styles and personality between the two and the charisma and saleability of both.

TP I remember the commentators, after Fed had hit several pin point backhands after some other good shots just to get a point, stating with excitement "that's what you need to do just to win a point"

Good points made by all. We also have to recognise the game never stands still, the top 3 outside Federer are formidable, and in Nadal he's had someone yanking his chain since 2004 at Miami...and that was a fairly fast court back then too. Similarly Dubai 2006, we shouldnt assume Federer always wins when its faster. When Federer throws a 6 it's mighty good, the problem is the same is now true when the other 3 throw their 6's too. Best of 3 formats are better for Federer now as he tends to come out of the blocks quickly. However, over the best of 5 he was dismissed fairly routinely in 3 out of the 4 slams this year. I agree the surfaces don't help and we need more variety...this has to be the focus of the ATP ahead.

lydian wrote:Good points made by all. We also have to recognise the game never stands still, the top 3 outside Federer are formidable, and in Nadal he's had someone yanking his chain since 2004 at Miami...and that was a fairly fast court back then too. Similarly Dubai 2006, we shouldnt assume Federer always wins when its faster. When Federer throws a 6 it's mighty good, the problem is the same is now true when the other 3 throw their 6's too. Best of 3 formats are better for Federer now as he tends to come out of the blocks quickly. However, over the best of 5 he was dismissed fairly routinely in 3 out of the 4 slams this year. I agree the surfaces don't help and we need more variety...this has to be the focus of the ATP ahead.

I don't see Nadal as just one of the top three who has been "yanking Federer's chain". Nadal is more than that. I see him as Federer's equal. We are lucky to have 2 all time greats playing in the same era. Not one with Nadal as just one of a few of the irritating players making things difficult for him. I like both players so have no grudge against either and no axe to grind but from my neutral position I have to say if I had to pick one I would say that Nadal is the better player.

My point HE was that Nadal proved he could take the game to Federer, and on faster surfaces, since being a 17yr old rookie. Nadal, like Federer, is a breed apart. These players just dont come along often.

We're pretty aligned on viewpoints re: Nadal, I see him at the very least as Federer's equal in terms of place in the game. Given Nadal had to win many of his slams (including all 3 surface finals - RG, AO, Wimb) getting through Federer whereas Federer didnt have to get through Nadal outside Wimbledon for any of his kind of speaks for itself. But then we have to admire what Federer has done on faster surfaces at Wimb and USO before Nadal (and Djokovic) came along. That's just old news and its not Federer's fault what time period he excelled in slam-wise. It just is what it is and a lot of how you balance their results depends on your viewpoint of the quality Federer faced across 03-07 when amassing slams compared to the quality Nadal faced across 07-11 when amassing his.

What is clear is that its always been obvious all the OTT vitriol towards Nadal is because many Federer fans have simply hated that a player like Federer who plays the game in a way the Tennis Manual says it should be played has been blunted by such a raw and unorthodox competitor as Nadal. But then again, perhaps it was always going to take somebody unorthodox to do that...you cant out-Federer Federer. So in that respect the 2 players are rightly aloft as standing at the polar pinnacles of their brands of tennis...orthodox and unorthodox. Everybody else just lies on the continuum in-between them.

lydian wrote:I'm not getting into the 03-07 vs 07-11 period comparisons....

You could just stick to 2006 -2012 and remind me who spent more weeks at No 1 and who won more GS in that period

I'm not going to remind you of anything JHM.
The post is more balanced than that one-liner return from you.

Besides which, when was #1 weeks the determinant of overall greatness in the game?
+ Connors spent 268 weeks at #1 and got 8 slams.
+ Borg spent 109 weeks at #1 and got 11 slams.

Perhaps you can remind me - who is judged to be the greater player?
Point being, its not as simple as just looking at metrics.

lydian, a couple of observations;

* that Federer won many Slams without beating Nadal after Nadal became prominant only suggests that Nadal couldn't make the final. It doesn't enhance Nadals legacy to recognise this, quite the reverse. It's one of the reasons I can't agree that Nadal sits at Federers level; take away the h2h - which is as much about clay and match-up as anything - and you have a great player (Nadal) with 11 Slams driven by 7 on clay and 4 others, essentially a clay mega-legend who did well on others. Federer is an all-court legend, even on clay (5 RG finals, losing only to the mega-great)

* You're right about weeks @ #1 and Slams being often disassociated; that Federer owns both records is one of the things (alongside a boatload of other important records) what singles him out as extra-extra-special.

I don't think records are that important when comparing the two of them. For me you just have watch them both play to see which one is miles ahead of the other in everything tennis.

I'm certain that, as things stand (unless Rafa wins several more slams), once they've both retired, Fed will be recognised as a greater player than Rafa.

In 10, 20, 50 years time, the H2H, which is the only area Rafa holds the advantage in, will barely be mentioned. Rafa will of course be considered a greater clay court player than Fed

Lots of ifs and buts can be added, although they nearly always include events that didn't actually happen.

The whole "arguement" is pointless .. its a point scoring exercise between fans-
Roger already knows he´s the "greatest" doesn´t he ?? and do you ever I mean EVER hear Rafa deny it. ?? Rafa has never claimed to be the better player and even if he ever had believed it Uncle T was there to make sure he was reminded that Roger was better than him. Whenever either of them are remembered... the history books will show that one will not be mentioned without the other... so Rafa´s claim to fame may be that this debate will rumble on and on and on !!!! and his name will be alongside the one that you believe to be the GOAT

you couldn't resist another cheap shot at feds could ya HN?

I didnt think it was cheap.. its a fact .. But you illustrate my point... another chance to to score points ...
Take what you want from it LS coz I make no apologies. if you dont realise by now that Fed is the greatest and knows it (he has been told often enough) then you haven´t been following the game or him come to that. Ever since Ive been on Tennis forums the subject has been Federer the GOAT so that being recognised is a cheap shot ???

I think there is some misunderstanding of my position.

I carefull said above "I see him at the very least as Federer's equal in terms of place in the game". I believe they'll both have a similar profile/legacy moving forwards. You cant really discuss Federer anymore without discussing Nadal, and vice-versa. They have become woven into each other's career tapesty. They both defined the 00's and their rivalry has produced some of the best matches ever seen.

In terms of metric achievements in the game. Federer has achieved more. He simply has. You'll not see me deny that. His achievements across all surfaces are broader, albeit with some differences when these were achieved. As I said Federer won 80% of his slams and weeks up to Aug 2008...and we see the other Top3 emerge across all surfaces since then. Nadal has beaten Federer in just about all slams from that time. The game has moved on, he's moved on too with notable successes. But nonetheless its hard to compare the two when 80% of their successes come from different time periods.

But is Fed the greatest? I'll never agree to that, nor for any other players. He simply has the best results...which is something Becker always sticks to as well.
However, is Nadal broadly his equal in terms of tennis ability? Well, its hard to deny when they have played such intense finals across Wimb08 (grass), AO09 (hard) and many RGs (clay) all leading to Nadal wins.
In terms of greatness in the game moving forwards, I also see little difference. But lets see...if Nadal bombs when he comes back that may harm his legacy, if he goes on to win 2-3 more slams he'll be seen as the phoenix that rose out of the ashes to meet the new challenge of prime Djoko/Murray and his stock will rise further.

lydian wrote:I think there is some misunderstanding of my position.

I carefull said above "I see him at the very least as Federer's equal in terms of place in the game". I believe they'll both have a similar profile/legacy moving forwards. You cant really discuss Federer anymore without discussing Nadal, and vice-versa. They have become woven into each other's career tapesty. They both defined the 00's and their rivalry has produced some of the best matches ever seen.

Would you say the same aboput Sampras and Agassi? Would you see Agassi at the very least as Sampras' equal in terms of place in the game.

(Btw the way, the logical inference from what you say is that Fed at most is Rafa's equal i.e. that there is no way that Fed can be above Rafa, but Rafa could be above Fed)

Haddie-nuff wrote:I didnt think it was cheap.. its a fact .. But you illustrate my point... another chance to to score points ...
Take what you want from it LS coz I make no apologies. if you dont realise by now that Fed is the greatest and knows it (he has been told often enough) then you haven´t been following the game or him come to that. Ever since Ive been on Tennis forums the subject has been Federer the GOAT so that being recognised is a cheap shot ???

he has said on numerous occasions he doesn't feel like he is the best (true or not who knows) and he doesn't believe he is in the company of borg, laver, sampras etc.
Maybe you haven't been following the game hmmm?

Yes I say that because Nadal's career can still grow further - although probably unlikely to a significant degree IMO. I think Roger's career is now pretty much done. Personal opinion of course. Nonetheless I see their place in the game as being roughly equal. They have both set amazing records...Federer on hard/grass...Nadal on clay and other areas, e.g. being the only guy in Open Era to win 3 different surface slams in a calendar year.

That's what is different with Sampras and Agassi. No I wouldnt say the two guys had equal places in the game. Agassi achieved the career slam but what else? Sampras set records in terms of Wimb wins, US Open (at the time), YE #1, and some other areas. He also led the H2H with Agassi.

But hey, just my opinion.

Oh but I have LS and you know I have. Say what else you like (and it isn´t a cheap shot either) but Roger does not hide his little lighty under a bushell does he ????:

But I will return to my original statement it really matters not in terms of Rafa and Roger... when one of them is mentioned its automatic to mention the other.
In my honest opinion they have literally MADE each other.. their careers would never have been the same without each other. No matter who follows them in the future, no matter what rivalries are to come... they can fight on the hard courts, they can fight on the grass courts and even on the clay courts... BUT WE WILL REMEMBER THEM

Not denying Federer isnt extra special BB...I just believe Nadal also is. How can that be denied after Wimb08/AO09/RGs? You cant have 1 guy lauded as the best ever when the guy stood right next to him has beaten him across just about all slams but not vice-versa.

lydian makes some very interesting points in his post at 11.30, and subsequently. And perhaps some folk have misinterpreted the thrust of his argument.

Specifically on his assessment that "I see him (Nadal) at the very least as Federer's equal in terms of place in the game" ..... well, in fairness to lydian his careful choice of words is an acknowledgement that ultimately such a view is of course highly subjective. Many will share lydian's perspective ; others may not. Certainly on most conventional measurements (total Slams won, weeks at Number 1, sheer consistency year-in year-out etc ….) nobody would dispute that Nadal’s record currently falls some way short, but it would seem worth waiting to see what he can achieve in the remainder of his career once back on the tour. He might well go on to set all sorts of new records.

Although I feel that lydian is anxious to put forward a balanced argument, what does perplex me is the implication that Federer’s best achievements happened in some sort of Nadal-free and Djokovic-free zone, and that once they arrived on the scene Federer’s dominance was swiftly ended ……..

“But then we have to admire what Federer has done on faster surfaces at Wimb and USO before Nadal (and Djokovic) came along”.

Even forgetting about surface types & changes, the reality is that neither Nadal nor Djokovic have - thus far at least - been able to dominate the men's game in the way that Federer did for so long. Given that Rafa won his first Slam as far back as 2005 (and ended that year ranked World No.2) we can safely say that by then he was already a mature player and a major force to be reckoned with. And yet it was after that win that Federer went on to claim the majority of his Slams - 13 in fact.

A similar pattern followed with Djokovic, who won his first Slam in 08, and has since gone on to take another four. Yet in that same period Federer himself has won just as many.

Andy Murray became a firm fixture in the top four back in 2008 but in three Slam meetings with Federer since then he has only taken one set.

None of this in any way discredits the achievements of Nadal, Djokovic or Murray. But it’s worth remembering that although these three have, for many years, been performing head & shoulders above all other players outside the top four, they have had significant difficulty in finding the consistency necessary to dislodge Federer from the coveted Number One spot. Counting from the time of his first Slam win it took Nadal three full years to do it. He was then dislodged by Djokovic in July 2011, who in turn lost it to Federer for a few months a year later. But he regained it in impressive fashion and ended 2012 as the best player of the year. Murray as we know has yet to make it to the summit. I feel he has the game to do so. We shall see if he has the consistency.

In summary I would expect to see Nadal, Djokovic and Murray performing at a higher level than all others for the next couple of years. Which of them - if indeed any - can go on to achieve the sort of extended dominance that Federer enjoyed for so long remains to be seen.

lydian wrote:Not denying Federer isnt extra special BB...I just believe Nadal also is. How can that be denied after Wimb08/AO09/RGs? You cant have 1 guy lauded as the best ever when the guy stood right next to him has beaten him across just about all slams but not vice-versa.

Possibly not, and not something I've personally done (laud Fed as the best ever), but I think you can still rate him higher than the guy stood next to him (Rafa), because tennis is far more about achievement than about H2H match-ups, and Fed has achieved a good deal more.
But, like you, it's just my opinion.

Oh I agree they are inextrictably linked, to the extent that discussion of one will require the other, to an extent I can't recall previously.

My bet is that when the dust settles they will be caricatured; Nadal will be the mega-determined super-grinder and Federer will be the balletic artist beyond compare. Effective versus Virtuous.

lydian

Some truly balanced observations.

lags72

Sorry I don't agree with your attempt to elevate Djokovic and even Murray? to Nadals leval and then at the same time dismiss all three as mere irritants to Federer. Admittedly Djokovic is a bit of a nuisance to both Nadal and Federer but Murray is just one of the many players both describe as "nice" and "a great player" and someone who they "hope wins a slam".

Federer AND Nadal are a class apart. Not often do we see players of such class. In fact years can pass without such quality. Maybe the likes of laverfan could argue the case for players in the past but for me personally I have never seen players of their quality (and I'm not THAT young Ha ha!). If Federer was a bit older or Nadal a bit younger they wouldn't have had each other to contend with and I believe both would have been equally dominant. If Nadal had been the older he would be ahead in slams. Just imagine if they were the same age? (sigh...) But we are lucky that for at least part of their careers they have had each other as rivals.

Also Nadal may say Federer is the best but Federer has never said he is better than Nadal. Both show nothing but respect for each other. I think they recognise in each other what should be obvious to anyone who watches both play.

Bogbrush

Effective versus virtuous? Pfft!

Both are effective, virtuous and beautiful to watch.

TBH, this conversation re GOAT is old news. I don't believe in a GOAT but if any man has the credentials, then it's Federer. Nadal is one of the greatest players of all time but nowhere near being THE GOAT.

The ONLY criteria Nadal has in his favour is the positive H2H against Roger which we all know is based on a huge clay advantage and a massive matchup advantage. Strangely enough if Roger had only reached half of those clay finals the H2H would have been basically even. So Roger gets penalised for being the greatest all surface player of all time whilst Nadal never had the capacity to regularly make it to the finals of HC tourneys when Roger was at his peak. If Roger had been as bad on clay as Rafa is indoors, he would be leading the H2H.

H2H at best can act as a tie breaker. Having a positive H2H does not make Rafa a better player than Roger. Even at his absolute peak, coming off a career year, Rafa was owned by Djokovic. It was only Roger that gave Novak a tough challenge in 2011 despite being five years past his best, which just proves how important the matchup aspect is. If we take Roger out of the equation Nadal's achievements don't put him at the top of the GOAT list so how can he stand next to Federer when the latter's achievements far surpass all the other GOAT candidates (bar Laver)?

The final thing I would say (to paraphrase Jon Wertheim in 2012):

'sometimes it's more than just the numbers, even though Federer has them. Sometimes it's about what you see with the naked eye. Federer has produced more magic moments on a tennis court than anyone else; I watch him play and can't escape the feeling that I have never seen anyone play the game better'.

Rafa is a great player but ultimately he does not have the variety or virtuosity of Federer. To give a footballing analogy, it's like comparing a great holding midfielder to a great attacking flair midfielder. Both are great but you know from instinct, common sense and appreciation of brilliance that the latter is the more unique and natural talent - the genius if you like.

Anyway, it's accepted wisdom now that Federer leads the GOAT debate. Here's another article from Sports Illustrated debating this issue:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/tennis/news/20121120/atp-2012-roundtable/



emancipator

hawkeye wrote:Bogbrush

Effective versus virtuous? Pfft!

Both are effective, virtuous and beautiful to watch.

Pfft! HE you've obviously never watched me play. Long, flowing locks, elegant and graceful footwork, yet muscles that ripple like the surface of a wind-blown lake.....don't wake me up yet, I'm enjoying this dream.

Mmm. I'm not that easy to please you know. You've said nothing about beautifully placed serves, beautiful net play, beautiful passing shots, beautiful topspin forehands, beautiful agressive backhands, beautifully constructed points etc etc etc..... Ha ha! If you can do all that you may be worth watching.

Well, there's a good reason why I didn't say anything about all those.
However, I am genuinely a candidate for the Stefan Edberg Sportsmanship Award.

Oh well I'll stick with watching Nadal and Federer then...

A bit of advice if you want to enhance your chances of winning that Edburg award. Tone down the boasting about the flowing locks... Nobody likes a show off.

hawkeye wrote:lydian

Some truly balanced observations.

lags72

Sorry I don't agree with your attempt to elevate Djokovic and even Murray? to Nadals leval and then at the same time dismiss all three as mere irritants to Federer. Admittedly Djokovic is a bit of a nuisance to both Nadal and Federer but Murray is just one of the many players both describe as "nice" and "a great player" and someone who they "hope wins a slam".

..............................................................................................

Hawkeye - I have no issue whatever if you wish to disagree with things I have actually written but I don't think it's a good idea for you to come up with theories of your own and then attribute them to me.

Nowhere in my post did I "attempt to elevate Djokovic and even Murray ? to Nadal's level." Those are your words, but not mine.

I referenced Djokovic because I was responding to the fact that lydian (whose observations you clearly approve of) had specifically mentioned him along with Nadal.

I then went on to say that Djokovic took approximately the same time as Nadal to reach the Number One spot, starting from the date of their respective maiden Slams.

Murray was later mentioned in my post because he is the other member of the quartet who have now occupied the top four spots since 2008.

If you yourself wish to dismiss all three as "mere irritants to Federer" then feel free.

But you won't find any quote - or even implication - from me that I share such a view. Or anything remotely close.

lags72

Fair enough for clarifying. I must have misinterpreted.

You say Djokovic took the same time as Nadal to reach the number one spot from the time of winning his first slam. I think that a simplistic way of looking at things. It negates what Nadal achieved in the intervening years and also doesn't allow for the fact that he had to get through Federer at his very best when he was so young.

Djokovic is number one at the moment but only holds one slam. When Nadal was number two for a few years he was in a similar (if not stronger position because of the number of masters titles he held) but Federer held all of the other 3. Djokovic's has been helped by the fact that all the slams have different winners. Divide and rule... Also by the fact that his biggest adversary hasn't played for 6 months. Djokovic is a great player but he isn't in the league of Nadal and Federer. Points don't describe everything.

hawkeye wrote:Bogbrush

Effective versus virtuous? Pfft!

Both are effective, virtuous and beautiful to watch.

Pffarrt!

I said they'd be caricatured. Y'know, the thing where a slightly large nose gets drawn 18 inches long?

An interesting debate here, good points raised on both sides

Personally I feel due to injury Nadal will not be able to amass stats like Federer as, irrelevant of how good he is.

In my eyes, and having watched both Federer and Nadal live numerous times, I recognise it is very difficult to compare these two unique game styles. However I would give the edge to Nadal if I was forced to make a judgement on who is the better tennis player.