World Tour Finals Day 2 - Nadal, Federer and Djokovic

First topic message reminder :

Tennis fans it is a marquee day today. I can't help but think what a jammy git Danny is to be able view both matches today and also CAS will be there later on when Federer and Djokovic lock horns.

Well today looks to be a bit special.

We have Nadal v Ferrer a rematch from Paris. Can the terrier sink his teeth into Nadal once again and produce another upset? Or will Nadal show up and inflict defeat number 21?

We then have for the main event Federer v Djokovic again another rematch from Paris. Can Roger at the tournament he has dominated Serbinate the Serbinator? Or will Djokovic crush the Swiss maestro.

The sad thing is I won't be able to watch either so a live commentary will be much appreciated and do feel free to discuss all things related to today's place.

Dodgy knees, dodgy backs, dodgy breathing, dodgy racquets. Anything dodgy goes. As the song goes if it is good enough for you, it's good enough for me

It is painfully slow, i think its the conditions in the 02 that do it. Its no surprise theyve about 30 errors each,

Wasnt a bad match. Fed should of got the first set, relax on second and go all in on third.

Sure a lot of silly mistakes dont help.

done and dusted, 6-2 in the third

the fed- del potro match looks like deciding the other person going through now

Current head to head is 16-15 to Federer
Djokovic can tie the head to head by winning the next match, all to play for in terms of who's ahead when Federer retires.

9-3 to Djokovic since the start of 2011.

I thought the match wasn't great by their high standards. Their rivalry peaked in 2011 with some great quality matches.

quite remarkable considering how dominant the h2h was in favour of fed back around 09

Federer's BH was pummeled today. He should consider a DHBH (like the net volley he was trying).

Head to Head means nothing, especially when you are catching up against a man in his 30s.  Nadal and Djokovic will both have negative h2hs against people in the future when decline sets in.  It really isn't all that significant to point out H2H past prime.  Djokovic and Nadal couldn't muster a leading H2H on grass or hard courts during Fed's peak 04-07 and that's the point.

Real greatness in tennis is measured by Slams, Tour end titles, Weeks at number 1, and a lot of other criteria, and one man sits firmly on top.

Not really true Leonard, I think H2H tells quite an accurate picture. When fed was dominating djokovic you could argue Novak was a kid and was half the player he is now. That being said Novak gave federer a real battle in us open final 2007. It was straight sets but djokovic had set points in both 1st and 2nd sets before losing tie breaks. That was prime fed against a kid! I think 2011 us open was them both in their prime.

Federer obviously has achieved most of everybody, no doubting that but he did win a lot of his slams in weaker era. No doubt about that.

There's the n word who will have a lot to say about that argument too

Yes slasher good point over young djoko, but no way was 2011 peak feds. 05-06 was peak feds, but he was still one heck of a player as evidence by his fo'11 win vs djoko.

slashermcguirk wrote:
Federer obviously has achieved most of everybody, no doubting that but he did win a lot of his slams in weaker era. No doubt about that.

Is this the same Federer who beat Djokovic and Murray (so called stronger era) way way past his prime at Wimbledon and returned to WN1?  I don't buy that weak draw crap (especially when you have Nadal losing to Darc and Ros).  If this was 04-07 only clay against Nadal would be beyond him. He's shown he would win any era.  That's how good he was.  The Federer post 2007 is not the same Federer, and the Federer after 2010 was not close.

Federer is the greatest of this era, it's not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of overwhelming facts.

slashermcguirk wrote:Not really true Leonard, I think H2H tells quite an accurate picture. When fed was dominating djokovic you could argue Novak was a kid and was half the player he is now. That being said Novak gave federer a real battle in us open final 2007. It was straight sets but djokovic had set points in both 1st and 2nd sets before losing tie breaks. That was prime fed against a kid! I think 2011 us open was them both in their prime.

Federer obviously has achieved most of everybody, no doubting that but he did win a lot of his slams in weaker era. No doubt about that.

I don't think you can honestly pick out one match and say thats them both playing in their prime, 2011 was certainly not Federer's prime, how can one be 23 and the other be 29 and say they are both at their prime?  Also why the US Open? What about their French Open match that same year which Federer won? Federer was better in that match and arguably so was Novak.

I take the point about Federer getting a lot of wins over a young Novak but the favour has been returned when Novak at the peak of his powers is getting an ageing and physically weakening Federer. Novak did push Federer close in that US Open final, but he was already a very good player then, he won the Australian Open just a few months later after all! Calling him some 'kid' is a bit harsh, he had already won 2 masters 1000s by then.

However, again the same has been reversed, Djokovic who hadn't lost a match in 5 months (that last being to Federer...) then lost to a guy who leading into the tournament lost to Jurgen Melzer and Richard Gasquet, you can't tell me they are stronger than his 'Weak era" too? So it wasn't peak Federer, but again he was also still a very good player. So to use your phrasing, an old man beat a guy 6 years his junior who was playing the tennis if his life!

I personally don't think they ever clashed both in their prime, the problem Federer has is he is still playing at a very high level that people think, 'maybe he hasn't dropped off its just that others have caught up?' I don't think people will realise how well Federer is doing to keep up until he's gone, he grew up in a different generation with fast courts and serve and volleying, he has had to adjust and adapt, we saw how Novak and Rafa reacted in Madrid 2012 reacted when conditions suddenly changed.

When some youngster starts beating on Novak, I will stick up for him when someone says in 4 years time that so and so are both playing in their prime

Peak Djokovic played a passed peak Federer in the 2011 FO semi. Both played well (lots of winners few unforced errors) and it was a match that really mattered (not some silly exhibition where losing can sometimes be a good thing ) Federer won that match... just saying.

I don't think players 6 years apart in age can really have overlapping primes. In fact, I'd say the period of 08-10 saw neither player at their prime!

I also think there's a difference between being young and on the rise and older and in decline, so I don't think 'prime Fed v young Novak' and 'prime Novak v old Fed' are totally equivalent.

The H2H is a tribute to both players really. Peak Fed was able to dominate the young Novak who was a slam-winning world number 3 capable of regularly beating most of the tour.

Prime Novak is good enough to regularly beat an older Fed who still has/had enough talent and ability to win big events and was until recently a top 3 player.

Why are primes mainly associated with winning all the time?? This what I find so infuriating. I am in the camp of Federer's best years were yes 2004-2007. Then the field caught up. Federer's prime for me was 2004-2009. Take 08. He had mono and that would explain physically why he couldn't repeat the feats of previous years. Nadal caught him up on Grass. Nadal found a way of beating Federer which was the pummel the BH and everyone started doing it. Look at McEnroe. Are we really saying that Roger's peak was nearly as short as what McEnroe's peak was? McEnroe didn't win another Slam after his peak years. Federer did. A decline in prime is when you stop winning completely, not dribs and drabs.

It's about maturity and yes what happens to the rest of the field. Feds was nearly 22 when he started winning Slams and that at the time could be considered a late bloomer, but boy did he make up for it with what he has achieved. Some would argue he won in a weak era, but I don't buy that. Any sport is about what happens in transitions. You had Agassi and Sampras coming to the end of their careers when Roger burst on the scene and players like Hewitt and Roddick became absolutely overwhelmed by how good Roger had become and no-one was able to come into the fray and challenge him until Nadal burst on the scene.

Djokovic and Murray are prime examples now of late bloomers. They have come in just as Federer and Nadal weakened. Federer more so than Nadal. What we are seeing now is a field which will be dominated by late bloomers and Djokovic, Nadal and Murray look to be the sole beneficiaries because of the lack of young talent coming through.

Federer I would say has had the perfect storybook career. Came on the scene, dominated, fought off the challengers to his throne for a while, had a few quiet years, the superb comeback. What a career and hard one to follow at that. It is difficult to see Nadal, Djokovic or Murray winning Slams in their 30's and retaining number 1 spot. However, if the lack of young talent continues this might be something we see more often.

The 'weaker era' theory has so many flaws in it, it's just a waste of time pointing it all out.

Johnyjeep wrote:The 'weaker era' theory has so many flaws in it, it's just a waste of time pointing it all out.

 absolutely

LK, I half agree.

There seem to be two schools of thought.

The first is that Fed's peak was 04-07 and his decline brought him down to the level of others.

The second is that Fed's prime lasted perhaps as late as 2010/2011 but other players ascended to his level.

The truth is probably somewhere inbetween.

Personally, I think 2007 was the high water mark of Federer's career. From 2008 onwards, I think his speed, resilience and consistency began to tail off. But it was such a slow decline, he was still outstanding for years afterward. RG09 to AO10 saw him go W, W, F, W!

By the same standard though, it's not as if the likes of Djokovic have stayed at the same level whilst Federer came down to them. They've blossomed into truly outstanding players. It's impossible to make a scientific assessment but I firmly believe that the Rafa, Novak and Andy of the present day are level above anyone challenging Federer in his 04-07 heyday.

Does that make 04-07 a (do I dare say the words?!) weaker period? Perhaps. But the fact that Federer (past his physical prime) has won 5 slams and regained number 1 twice since 2007, beating this best of this era along the way, makes it tricky to argue he wouldn't have been the dominant player whoever he had played at his peak.

Had a tremendous day yesterday. The Ferrer v Rafa match was a little bit of a letdown, though great to say I saw Rafa play. His forehand is great to watch live. So much whip and dip but the mind blowing thing live was how accurate it was. He really can put it anywhere.

What surprised mr about Rafa was how good his slice is. It really does die on the bounce and is impossible to attack.

With Fed v Novak the atmosphere was unbelievable. Particularly that second set. I never thought Fed would win though. He lacked patience, trying to hit everything. On the rare occasions he defended with the slice it worked as Novak doesn't attack slice very well. He should have done it more. A few moments of Federer genius though which was great to see live.

The crowd is so cosmopolitan. Not that many Brits there at all really. Perhaps because of Murray not being there. Massively pro Federer. Novak looked imperious at times, he's tremendous when given an angle to attack, he's a bit more inventive than I thought in that sense.

Highlight was the second set of Roger Novak. Tremendous tension and when Roger took the tie break it erupted like a football stadium. Tremendous day.

HM Murdoch wrote:LK, I half agree.

There seem to be two schools of thought.

The first is that Fed's peak was 04-07 and his decline brought him down to the level of others.

The second is that Fed's prime lasted perhaps as late as 2010/2011 but other players ascended to his level.

The truth is probably somewhere inbetween.

Personally, I think 2007 was the high water mark of Federer's career. From 2008 onwards, I think his speed, resilience and consistency began to tail off. But it was such a slow decline, he was still outstanding for years afterward. RG09 to AO10 saw him go W, W, F, W!

By the same standard though, it's not as if the likes of Djokovic have stayed at the same level whilst Federer came down to them. They've blossomed into truly outstanding players. It's impossible to make a scientific assessment but I firmly believe that the Rafa, Novak and Andy of the present day are level above anyone challenging Federer in his 04-07 heyday.

Does that make 04-07 a (do I dare say the words?!) weaker period? Perhaps. But the fact that Federer (past his physical prime) has won 5 slams and regained number 1 twice since 2007, beating this best of this era along the way, makes it tricky to argue he wouldn't have been the dominant player whoever he had played at his peak.

The thing is HM he was still winning. Take the McEnroe example. Equipment changed dramatically when he declined and yet he was able to still compete at the Slams in a strong era but not actually win. The issue I have with the Federer argument is that to explain the success of others is simply down to a failure of someone else. I don't buy it. 2008 he was knackered by the mono which normally destroys careers. The fact he won a Slam suggests to me that he had some peak left in him to do it on top of that it was on the back of 2 tough defeats to Nadal at the FO and Wimbledon and losing the number 1.

I just feel Rogers prime years deserve a bit more nnumbers to them.

It's easy to see how good Federer used to be, all you do is go look at his matches and look at things like 1st serve %. That guy yesterday was not even close to how he used to be and you have to be blind not to see it.

Thanks for that, Danny, I've been looking forward to hearing what you thought of it!

Interesting about the crowd. I thought in last year's final Federer and Djokovic got similar levels of support but it did seem that they were very pro-Fed last night.

Given Fed's popularity now has "support for the underdog" added to to it as well, I think he is going to own every crowd from now until his retirement!

The absolute level of tennis will always move forward. In general, the best players of the year 20nn won't play at as high a level as the best players of the year 20nn+10.
At some point the law of diminishing returns will set in and limits of human tennis ability/tennis technology will be reached, but for now you just need to compare the level of 2013 against the level of 2003 to see a big difference. Not because the players are inherently better/more talented, but because the game moves forward - standing on the shoulders of it's predecessors, as it were.

Players are also motivated by what came before. Fed's aim becameto surpass Sampras' record of 14 GS. At some point Player X will have the aim of surpassing 17 GS. But if Fed had not been around, that same Player X would be motivated to reach 15, not 18.

Younger players also strive to reach the level of the current top players. The best of them can reach that and surpass it, and their youth is a large part of being able to improve their game significantly. But the top players, being 5 or 6 years older, have reached an age where significant improvements are no longer possible. When they are surpassed, they might be able to make smaller improvements and keep up for a while, but the generation B will always surpass generation A. Again, it's not because B are better players - indeed, if the fates had led generation B to be born 10 years earlier, it would have been generation A surpassing generation B.
That's just the nature of tennis. That's why it's impossible to say that e.g. Federer was a better player than Laver or Gonzales or Perry, or that Rafa was better than Borg. Or vice versa.
We can all have our opinions, but let's not kid ourselves hat there is a definitive answer. Nor should we need a definitive answer!

LK, yes, you're right, he was.

I just think he began to slow a little post-2007, which is pretty normal for an athlete I'd say. Age 26 would normally be in someone's physical peak, age28/29 (years 2009/2010 for Fed) would be when when age slowly starts to reel someone in.

It's not as if he became a has-been on 1st January 2008 though! He was great for years afterward.

Good post JHM. The only part I disagree with is the next generation always surpassing the current one as a result of improvements.

I would be stunned if the Raonic, Dimitrov, Nishikori etc generation overtake Rafa, Novak and Andy as the result of anything but the decline of the older generation. They haven't even reeled in the guys like Federer, Ferrer and Haas who are two generations above them!

Maybe they'll surprise me though!

Possibly not HM. I started off putting 'in general', then changed to 'always'.
But maybe the next 'surpassing' generation are a few years younger than Raonic et al and we've yet to see them emerge.

Murdoch - what is abundantly clear live is that Federer can't move as well as he used to. The floating like a butterfly is now gone. Forward and backwards is still pretty good but the lateral movement was exposed over and over again.

Call it forced errors if you like, but the fact is Federer is now pretty average on the stretch. The only exception to this is the slice on the BH side, but he doesn't utilise it enough.

I would recommend anyone who gets the chance to go to the 02 to do it though. Great venue, great atmosphere.

Federer is a great champion but clearly Nadal has shown that he is the GOAT, and Roger in the next tier with Sampras, Laver, and Borg. We can't keep cutting excuses for the rollover generation of the early to mid 2000s, they were relatively soft and Roger padded his stats. Nadal has had to accomplish his 13 slams against much tougher competition and in the face of massive adversity from injuries. And I don't even like Nadal's game that much and he just took the number 1 ranking from my favorite player. But I have always given the man his due despite his on the court coaching and unseemly habit of digging for gold in his crack after every point. Facts are facts anyone who can't see that fed's 04-07 competition was softer than a creampuff has rose tinted shades on.

As for all this nonsense about the court being too slow this is the same court the man won the title on two years ago. If Fed loses the courts all of sudden seem to slow down. By the way why is it that Ferrer at one year younger than fed is having the best days of his career and Roger is so far off, 32 is not a broken down age in the modern game, since winning wimby he just again he just has not had the hunger to train in the same manner.

socal1976 wrote:Federer is a great champion but clearly Nadal has shown that he is the GOAT

Hurray - socal's back with a classic WUM statement to start off with. He's not happy unless he's upsetting Fed fans - it's his raison d'etre
There's no way to prove Rafa is better than Borg or Laver, but if you want to get into a Rafa vs. Laver debate, we could all join in. It wouldn't include Fed though, so maybe you'd rather not?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Federer is a great champion but clearly Nadal has shown that he is the GOAT

Hurray - socal's back with a classic WUM statement to start off with. He's not happy unless he's upsetting Fed fans - it's his raison d'etre
There's no way to prove Rafa is better than Borg or Laver, but if you want to get into a Rafa vs. Laver debate, we could all join in. It wouldn't include Fed though, so maybe you'd rather not?

It is not a wum statement, it is what I believe. Federer fans say lots of things that annoy me all the time and certain Nadal fans as well. I simply don't dismiss them as Wums if that is what they believe and they can make a rational argument for said statement. I have provided massive evidence of how Federer in 04-07 beat up on the sisters of the weak and blind aka the Rollover generation. I don't feel like rehashing those arguments. I don't discuss Laver that much because honestly have not seen the man play much and therefore I am going off of just stats, same goes with Borg. No shame in being a distant second place in the GOAT race. Up till this season I rated Fed higher, but due Rafa coming back better than ever and beating an all time great at the USO (his supposedly weakest slam) I moved Nadal ahead of Fed. I have to give credit to Amiritia for accurately seeing this and documenting this in the face of massive and sometimes nasty opposition.

So if you are unable compare Rafa to Borg or Laver, how can you say definitively Rafa is the GOAT?

The match was stunning, shame Federer lost it but I'm glad I am now able to say IMO I watched the greatest player that ever lived live. Danny where were you sitting? I was in block 113 just to the right of the Umpire. You are so right about federers slice it was devastating and should have used it more.

Djokovics athletic ability is outrageous, he can get everything, this unique ability to defend but stay offensive is incredible. I grow more fond of him the more I watch him

The crowd was very football like buy much more respectful, felt for Novak sometimes, with everyone cheering your opponent but if anything it makes him play better. It was a fascinating feeling, I go to a lot of football matches, and I'm used to having everyone around me supporting the same side, it was quite strange cheering for Federer than having an avid Novak fan sitting next to me!

Love reading HM Murdochs comments about Federer because he as a Novak fan can be unbiased when judging Rogers play, I love these debates until they get a bit nasty and I just zone out as opinions will rarely change regarding Federer whether you love him or hate him

To be fair Julius that's his opinion and he's allowed to state it. Though maybe not as irrefutable fact. Long as he's not attacking anyone it's ok. Of course we know what's probably gona happen soo be careful. For what it's worth in the debate. It is a difficult question to consider as devils advocate How can fed be the GOAT when his greatest and closest rival has always dominated him? Not saying its a no bit it's a tricky one

socal1976 wrote:Federer is a great champion but clearly Nadal has shown that he is the GOAT, and Roger in the next tier with Sampras, Laver, and Borg. We can't keep cutting excuses for the rollover generation of the early to mid 2000s, they were relatively soft and Roger padded his stats. Nadal has had to accomplish his 13 slams against much tougher competition and in the face of massive adversity from injuries. And I don't even like Nadal's game that much and he just took the number 1 ranking from my favorite player. But I have always given the man his due despite his on the court coaching and unseemly habit of digging for gold in his crack after every point. Facts are facts anyone who can't see that fed's 04-07 competition was softer than a creampuff has rose tinted shades on.

As for all this nonsense about the court being too slow this is the same court the man won the title on two years ago. If Fed loses the courts all of sudden seem to slow down. By the way why is it that Ferrer at one year younger than fed is having the best days of his career and Roger is so far off, 32 is not a broken down age in the modern game, since winning wimby he just again he just has not had the hunger to train in the same manner.

Truffin will deal with ye!

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Federer is a great champion but clearly Nadal has shown that he is the GOAT

Hurray - socal's back with a classic WUM statement to start off with. He's not happy unless he's upsetting Fed fans - it's his raison d'etre
There's no way to prove Rafa is better than Borg or Laver, but if you want to get into a Rafa vs. Laver debate, we could all join in. It wouldn't include Fed though, so maybe you'd rather not?

It is not a wum statement, it is what I believe. Federer fans say lots of things that annoy me all the time and certain Nadal fans as well. I simply don't dismiss them as Wums if that is what they believe and they can make a rational argument for said statement. I have provided massive evidence of how Federer in 04-07 beat up on the sisters of the weak and blind aka the Rollover generation. I don't feel like rehashing those arguments. I don't discuss Laver that much because honestly have not seen the man play much and therefore I am going off of just stats, same goes with Borg. No shame in being a distant second place in the GOAT race. Up till this season I rated Fed higher, but due Rafa coming back better than ever and beating an all time great at the USO (his supposedly weakest slam) I moved Nadal ahead of Fed. I have to give credit to Amiritia for accurately seeing this and documenting this in the face of massive and sometimes nasty opposition.

When Nadal won the FO socal you said you would give him goathood if he reached 15 slams. He's on 13, still behind Pete.

falzy21 wrote:To be fair Julius that's his opinion and he's allowed to state it. Though maybe not as irrefutable fact. Long as he's not attacking anyone it's ok. Of course we know what's probably gona happen soo be careful.   For what it's worth in the debate. It is a difficult question to consider as devils advocate   How can fed be the GOAT when his greatest and closest rival has always dominated him?  Not saying its a no bit it's a tricky one

Of course, it's tricky - that's why I said it's not possible to reach a definitive answer
I can say 'clearly Connors is the GOAT' if I want to. But if I then said that I haven't compared him to Fed because I stopped watching tennis in 1990, then I might expect people to question whether I'm over-stating the case.

socal1976 wrote:We can't keep cutting excuses for the rollover generation of the early to mid 2000s...

...But I have always given the man his due despite his on the court coaching and unseemly habit of digging for gold in his crack after every point. Facts are facts anyone who can't see that fed's 04-07 competition was softer than a creampuff has rose tinted shades on.  

I've missed this.

HM Murdoch wrote:

socal1976 wrote:We can't keep cutting excuses for the rollover generation of the early to mid 2000s...

...But I have always given the man his due despite his on the court coaching and unseemly habit of digging for gold in his crack after every point. Facts are facts anyone who can't see that fed's 04-07 competition was softer than a creampuff has rose tinted shades on.  

I've missed this.

Me too. I want to read socal's description of Rafa's current habit of adjusting the front of his shorts.

Granted, for what its worth I dont like the very idea of a GOAT. I feel its unintentionally disrespectful to take all the great players over the history f the sport, isolate one and go "hes th best, noone else matters".
You cant really even do GOTE either, you cant define the 80's without Connor, Becker, Lendl ,Mac Bord etc, you cant just take one you think is the best and leave it at that.
To me theres "the greats" the guys whove mostly defined their era in the sport, you cant take one away, he saem with Federer, him and Nadal are batman and the joker (no idea which is which), you cant take one an ignore the other, they are sporting superstars because of each other.

Well Julius, Rafas a man, they need to readjust, maybe Rafa needs a lot of adjustment... if you get my drift.
Maybe hes just dug the goldmine dry from the back and has moved to a new mine...

Adjusting one's self in front of the camera and then holding a childs hand to walk on court afterwards will lead unsavoury thinking from the thought police  

socal1976 wrote:Federer is a great champion but clearly Nadal has shown that he is the GOAT, and Roger in the next tier with Sampras, Laver, and Borg.

Clearly. Although maybe it is clearer to some than others. And not at all clear to the majority.

There's a lot of arguments against Nadal being the "goat".  The fact he is so lousy on the very fastest of surfaces or when you remove his defence tactics.  He has won just 2(?) indoor hard court titles in his whole career.  Federer is a MUCH better all rounder than Nadal could ever hope to be, and so was Borg.  Nadal simply hasn't done enough to ever be given the "greatest" accolade.  We can start talking when Nadal has 300 weeks WN1, 17 slams (7 of them of the best slam), 20+ consecutive Slam semi finals and a huge range of other records (including reaching finals of all slams 5 times, and winning the ATP finals 6 times, which Nadal hasn't done ONCE).  

He has been supremely lucky that this is the era that suits his play down to the ground and that all diversity is removed.  Socal, if you want to start chanting nonsense about h2h you need to realize Federer didn't lose in his prime against 2 unknowns in r1 and r2 of Wimbledon (the greatest slam) or ANY slam.  

Greatness is more than titles anyway, it is about how you play. Style, all round game, technique, adapting to circumstances and change.  Nadal isn't close.

Glad you enjoyed the experience CAS, I went to the world tour finals for the first time last year and it is an amazing atmosphere, mind you I did get a pretty dull match, Murray vs Tsonga. Amazing to see the top players in action, the movement and ball striking is amazing.

I think we need to enjoy these top players while we still have them. Let me be clear as well that I was not taking a dig at Federer by saying he did play weaker players in his heyday. The guy is phenomenal and I was a big fan up until about US open 2011 when I thought he came across as a real bad sport. He was taking digs at Djokovic style of play and hitting a "slap shot" on match point and how lucky he was. Didnt like that and really put me off him, how you handle yourself is as important if not more than how you handle yourself winning.

That being said, i am still a huge fan of the way Federer plays the game. He has amazing variation and is capable of shots that nobody else can hit. The fact that he is still testing the best at his age along with his career achievements to date tell you everything about the champion that he is. I may have gone off Federer slightly off the court but am still blown away but some of his shotmaking.

We could argue all day about what all these guys would have achieved if all playing each other in their prime. We will never know but what cannot be argued is that the competition of today is far higher than it was during Federer's early years. I am sure he would acknowedge that himself if he could.

In my opinion, Federer is the most naturally gifted player of this generation and one of the most talented of all time. I think Nadal is the most incredible competitor and his consistency and record against his top rivals might never be matched. Djokovic I see as a mix of the two, he has incredible talent and hits far more winners than the likes of Nadal but also has that dogged never say die attitude and ability to slog out a rally like nadal.

I would see Murray at a level below them but on his day he is capable of the sublime. The big one missing for him is any kind of record on clay. Amazing to think he has never made a single final on clay in his career. The other three have consistently competed at the highest level on all surfaces but Murray has been found wanting here.

Respect to them all though, great champions that we should enjoy while we have them

But you must understand. He isn't close. To You Other people like me think he's a magnificent ball striker with a great defence to boot tennis isn't all peaches and cream fast court gentlemanly tennis a lot of people admire the grit. To overcome a more talented guy with ones own graft. It's a subjective thing soo people will disagree

socal1976 wrote: Nadal has had to accomplish his 13 slams against much tougher competition and in the face of massive adversity from injuries. And I don't even like Nadal's game that much and he just took the number 1 ranking from my favorite player. But I have always given the man his due despite his on the court coaching and unseemly habit of digging for gold in his crack after every point. Facts are facts anyone who can't see that fed's 04-07 competition was softer than a creampuff has rose tinted shades on

Well hang on Socal, inbetween 04 and 07, Nadal won 3 Grand Slams. So by your rationale we should say that Nadal has won 10 GS if discounting GS during that period. He's padded his numbers to against this weak era? Does that place him as GOAT then? Only 10 GS's? You see that is just one flaw to the garbarge theory.

You could argue that Nadal has kept on winning the FO after that - so the opposition quality was moot. Ok then. But Nadal was not winning (or getting to the finals) of GS away from FO against this same creampuff opposition in the same period. Why not? He was a Grand Slam Champion at the time. So it's not like he wasn't good enough. And that's the point. Federer and Nadal have been playing against the same opposition. 25 months seperate their first grand slam wins.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that the quality of opposition changes radically in the period of 2 years and 1 month? Of course it doesn't.

OMG we are off on the "My Dad is bigger than your Dad" line of discussion are we

I certainly agree with JJ´s last comment. Like em or hate em they are some of the finest tennis players I have been privileged to watch
and Ive seen all the greats in the pro world over many years.
Dont like em fine ...then turn off the tv.

Fight fight fight!