An anomaly.
Nadal usually whips Federer and only for the tap in titles Federer won when Djokovic and Nadal were teens he would be ranked behind them in overall titles.
Ah here @Nembo_Kid give it up, your punch drunk. You’ve had your arse handed to you. Imagine dismissing agassi.
I thought you didn’t do conjecture?
1 Like
I don’t think it’s conjecture to say Federer’s first 6 slams were handy.
Au contraire
Are you attempting to argue facts?
If you look at the guys Federer was competing against when he won his first slams.
Roddick - won his only slam in 2003 at the age of 21.
Hewitt - won his second and last slam in 2002 at the age of 21.
Safin - won his second and last slam in 2005 at the age of 25.
He was regularly contesting finals and latter round slam matches against guys like Bagdathis, Gonzalez, Hewitt, Nalbaldian, Cilic, Roddick etc who rarely looked like winning a tournament when Djokovic and Nadal entered their prime.
Federer won his first slam at the age of 22 in Wimbledon 2003
Nadal’s first title was when he was 19 with the French Open in 2005, he was very much a clay specialist in his formative years and only really developed his all surface game when he was 21/22.
Djokovic won his first slam in 2008 at Australia when he was 21.
Federer had already picked up 5 slams against the dross by the time Nadal had picked up his first French Open. By the time bother Djokovic and Nadal had got to the age Federer was when he won his first slam which would have been 2010 for agument sake - Federer had already captured 12 of his 19 career slams.
The fact is in the ultra competitive era, Federer ranked behind both Nadal and Djokovic in terms of slam wins. The handy ones he picked up before they brought their A game was the meat in Federer’s legacy and as such should put an asterisk beside his legacy.
Even when Federer was in decline you had Djokovic and Nadal both in their prime and both as supreme adversaries to the other winning soft slams.
Nadal and Djokovic are the greatest tennis players of the past 20 years.
Could you present the real facts in support of your arguments, not distortions and untruths. You were doing the same yesterday in the Anthony Cunningham discussion. Federer had won four (not five) Grand Slams by the time Nadal picked up his first Grand Slam in beating Mariano Puerta in the 2005 French Open Final.
Its amusing how you lump Federer and Djokovic into the same ‘ultra competitive era’. Federer is six years older than Djokovic, practically different generation in tennis terms. By the time Djokovic got around to winning his 2nd Grand Slam at the Australian Open 2011, Federer was a few months shy of turning 30 and had a record breaking 16 Grand Slam single wins chalked up and his legacy as GOAT already secured.
Don’t get sucked in.
Thanks for agreeing Federer had little worthwhile competition when he was picking up the majority of slams and his decline corresponded with Nadal and Djokovic coming on the scene.
Nadal > Federer
Djokovic > Federer
In Grand Slam tournaments head to head:
Djokovic 9 Federer 6
Nadal 9 Federer 3
Nadal 9 Djokovic 4
1 Like
You said that, not me. Essentially you’re taking issue with Federer’s haul of Grand Slams in his veteran years, notwithstanding the fact that he’s picked up three Grand Slam wins in his 30’s and incredibly won a record breaking 8th Championship, three weeks before turning 36.
Federer’s rate of Grand Slam wins tailed off after turning 28. That’s a fairly typical career trajectory for all the great players. Borg and McEnroe won their last Grand Slams at 25, Edberg won his last at 26, Becker won the last of his six Grand Slam at 28 (the penultimate was won at 23), Lendl at 29, Sampras won the 13th of his 14 Grand Slams at 28 (winning his last in a big surprise as a 31 year old 17th seed at the 2002 US Open).
Its also worth noting that Nadal has only won one Grand Slam since turning 28 and going into this US Open, in 11 Grand Slams played since turning 28 had exited before the quarter final in 7 of and only made it as far as the semi final in 2. Djokovic looks washed up at 29.
Federer at 27 had already secured his legacy as the GOAT with 16 Grand Slam wins. In his veteran years Federer has maintained an unparalleled level of consistency and brilliance for a player in his 30’s. Since turning 30, Federer is a 14 time Grand Slam semi finalist, a 6 time finalist and a 3 time winner - beating Djokovic at 30 years 11 months to win the 2012 Championship and Nadal at 35 years 6 months to win the 2017 Australian Open.
they are quite startling facts
Thanks for agreeing with me that Federer started to really struggle for slams when Nadal and Djokovic entered their prime and for the first time Federer had worthwhile competition.
So just like Nadal is struggling for slams since he entered his prime?
Huh? Nadal has steadily won titles when he’s been fit and competing with Djokovic, Murray and Federer in their prime. Federer has not.
He’s won 13 of his 19 slams prior to Nadal capturing his first non clay slam and Djokovic winning his first slam. He couldn’t handle the competition. He was blessed to come on the scene when the tennis era was weak.
The last decade outside of the Top 2 or 3 players is possibly the weakest era in the history of tennis. Tennis is in crisis in its two traditional powerhouses of the US and Australia. The last great American superstars Sampras and Agassi emerged nearly 30 years ago, to a lesser extent Courier and Chang at the same time. Since then, nothing from the US, or at a real push Andy Roddick on his . Australia hasn’t produced a player of note since Hewitt and Rafter.
You’ve had journeymen like Berdych, Tsonga, Gasquet and Ferrer hanging around the Top 10 for the guts of a decade without remotely looking like winning a Grand Slam. Stan Wawrinka was a Top 10 journeyman for the guts of a decade as well. It took him until his 35th Grand Slam as a 28 year old, to reach his first semi final at the 2013 US Open. He’d only made 3 quarter finals out of those 35 as well. He’s won 3 Grand Slams as a slightly overweight 29, 30 and 31 year old these past few years because the standard is so bad.
Grass and hardcourts are slowed down to pedestrian pace as well. The likes of Djokovic if he was playing on those courts in the 80’s and 90’s wouldn’t have had the skill set or the reflexes to compete with a Becker, Edberg, McEnroe or Sampras.
Thanks for agreeing with me that Federer won most of his slams when there was little competition and they consequently dried up when the greatest players of his era (Nadal and Djokovic) hit their prime.
Hang on a sec. You are saying there was very little competition when Federer won his slams but Nadal also faced little competition as well. You have dismissed every single player from Borg to Djokovic to justify your bullshit about Nadal. So you are also saying that Nadal has face little competition for all of his slams. The players you have slated by saying they weren’t good competition for Federer are also the same players that Federer has faced.
Listen Kid, you were found out to be a bullshitter and you dont have a clue.
I’m not. I’m saying Nadal won the majority of his slams with peak Federer, Nadal and Murray in competition.
I’m saying Federer won 13 of his 19 slams outside of peak Murray, Djokovic and Nadal. The guys who Federer was picking up handy slams against in his early days were swatted aside by the likes of Nadal and Djokovic when they entered their prime years. It’s all backed up by fact.