Originally Posted by luie
I am just stating facts . Nadull predominantly wins when conditions favor him . Clay and slow bouncing HC. Is that to say . He can't beat fed on a favorable surface NO of course not. He could beat fed anywhere any time but generally does it on conditions that aid his retrieving and top spin .
Yes fed has won 4 AO . But they changed the surface from rebound ace before 2009. When fed had won 3/4 at the AO. The current surface is slower and higher bouncing favoring nadull and grinders. There is a reason grinders do good at the AO as well it HOT. So something skill takes a back seat to raw physicality.
So teenage nadull beat Prime fed so what? Old fed beat Prime nadull at IW on Nadulls best HC masters. Fed also beat nadull on clay in BO3. Fed also had match points against nadull at Rome in a best of 5 on clay before he choked the match away.
All time greats can compete against the best and win and vice versa. Fed is still 2-1 against nadull on Grass.
My point still stand nadull is a No-show on Feds "tour" conditions favor him.
From 2005- till present post RG they is like 6/7 compulsory tourneys.
Nadull was a GS champion in 2005 there have been like 50 + tournies played from 2005-2012.
Of that nadull has made a finals appearance and waited on fed who didn't show like 6/7 in like 8 years.
Notable Wimby 10/11 USO 10/11.
Madrid 05. Paris 07. Rogers cup 08. OG 08.
However while fed didn't play all these finals to wait for nadull he was at the business end of most with nadull not showing.
Of the 16 slams in that Period nadull was at 4 without fed.
It's a few give and take get the picture.
Now compare that to the first 2 slams of the year fed only missed RG 10 n 12. U see the disparity.
So even when fed is not at 100% he competes the same cant be said about nadull. When not at 100% he withdraws or loses early.
Nadull still is in decline whatever u say with 2 years with no title off clay u can dodge facts all you want, it remains the same.
There is nothing factual about making excuses for every instance of Federer losing to opponents who have outplayed him several times even when they were young.
And now you're saying Fed competes the same way even when he's not 100%, which is a convenient way of saying he's so much better than everyone else he barely has to try.
You can say Nadal is in decline, but I don't see how that's relevant if he can still beat Federer in slams and win Roland Garros, both of which he did this year.
Originally Posted by Singularity
You're missing the point. Lets agree with you that they were mugs. What does that prove about Federer's level? Nothing.
To repeat again:
If no one could challenge Federer, then we can't determine what his limits actually were.
To repeat again, he was getting owned by a teenage clay courter on hardcourts. What does that say about all the hardcourt players of the time? Mugs. His limits were being unable to solve the challenges in playing Nadal even when he was at his best. Safin showed a level of play that was just as good as Federer back then but didn't seem to care much about tennis.
Weak,weak,weak field of one slam wonders, 35 year old Agassi, mugs showing up in slam finals to be destroyed, teenage Rafa still learning the game etc...
It's easier to look good against a weaker opponent yet prime Federer still got owned in the 2nd round at the 2004 Olympics by teenage Berdych. Olderer still chasing that elusive singles gold medal. lol
Get over yourselves, greatness is not just number of slams, it's how you won & against who. The merit of success isn't equal for everyone especially those dominating mugs during their best years.
Originally Posted by luie
Everyone sees right though Greatness motive. " to make Novak look good"
All this era talk is just a smoke screen. Feds Prime ran currently to 04-07.
However she pushed it further back to 03-06 why . He pushed it back because fed beat Novak in USO. He was " young" but a few months later he won AO. He suddenly got good.
I am surprise he/she didn't state 1999/ 2003.
Yes, Novak was young, and the fact that he could beat Federer at the AO 2008 in straights is an indication of his strong desire to succeed leading to improvement. There is nothing shameful about making a slam final at the USO and giving a good match to in form Federer.
Novak doesn't need me to look good, he's doing great fine winning 5 slams and 12 masters.