Federer is 3rd on the all time list of consecutive majors played with his current streak at 48. He has 5 to go to take over 2nd from Stefan Edberg and 8 to go to take over 1st from Wayne Ferreira. Nadal and Djok are not even in the top 10. Djok could get there but Nadal probably has no chance

It is like you haven't read the thread.

Novak played exceptional in the semi's, less errors, his shots were clean, but he didn't have the angles opened up that Rafa allowed because of his terribly short shots bringing Novak up and through each shot - Fed's shots were much deeper and forced Novak to pass or play defense with much tougher shots. Rafa did not play great, not bad but not as well as Fed. Novak did not play particularly 'lights out' either and committed an astounding amount of unforced errors that really let Rafa hang around. Novak was still Novak, even his B game is probably the best tennis right now but the point stands that you have no proof that Nadal would have ran Fed off the court, Fed looked so good all tournament.

tdarko,

Realize that you're arguing with a guy who claimed that one of the rivals for Federer during his prime was James Blake. I think he started watching tennis regularly only recently and is incapable of understanding that a Federer at age 30(when he only won 1 title in 2011) has the talent and skill that is good enough to compete and beat(French open and US open semis) Djokovic at his absolute peak. If you look at his post history, he has a habit of minimizing Federer's greatness and will go to great lengths to trivialize whatever he has accomplished.

KB24,

James Blake beat Federer in the olympics, which is why I said that.

Will a Federer fanboy concede that his competition is much worse? I need them to do that before I go further with this discussion because if they're not even going to concede essentially a fact, the delusion and irrationality will make this thread not worth posting then.

Tdarko,

I never said Federer didn't play great in the semis, not sure why you directed that at me. He almost won, it wouldn't have been a decent upset. He didn't win though. Novak is much better than him at this point. I'm not sure what you're even arguing other than herp more grand slam titles derp.

Would have*

In the end, the only arguments against Federer are that:

1) he has a hard time dealing with the heavy top spin shoulder high shots with his backhand against Nadal.

2) during his decline, he blew some big matches he should've won (del potro final leading 2-1, tsonga while leading 2-0 and djok leading 2-0)

But if you look at his overall record, he maximized his talent as much as humanly possible. During his peak, he used every opportunity to the max. Only player he lost in a grandslam final before the Del Potro match was Nadal, who's an all-time great.

His overall achievements are staggering and will be hard to repeat. 23 consecutive grandslam semis, 237 straight weeks as #1, 18 out of 19 grandslam finals reached. 23-0 in finals during a stretch in his prime. 30 straight consecutive QFs and counting. And of course, the most grandslams in history with a potential to add to it. In my opinion, he's the GOAT until someone sustains excellence for as long as he did.

Bitchface,

Nadal lost to Ivan Dodig in Montreal. Would you consider him a rival to Nadal? Do you believe great players sometimes play bad matches for variety of reasons and that one win doesn't make that player a rival? If you agree with all this and still think Blake is a rival to Federer during his peak, then I'd hope that you're simply trolling.

You keep pointing out that Federer had weak competition during his prime. But conveniently ignoring the fact is Nadal was the #2 player for 4 years during Federer's prime and Djokovic was the #3 for a year. Nadal might have been young but he was too good too early. Agassi was playing at a decent level for 2 of the years Federer was playing. Players like Safin and Hewitt and Roddick would've looked much better overall had Federer not absolutely crushed them. If Federer was playing in Sampras's era, I'm sure you'd have said players like courier, becker, chang are weak because he'd have destroyed them just like he did with the 3 former #1's. Those players look good because Sampras wasn't as dominant as Federer and he was weak sauce on clay where guys like Courier won their trophies.

Oh dear.

You said:

So I said:

Then you said:

...it didn't make sense, so I showed my work (my previous post) to explain to you why your original point: which I also bolded for clarity at the top as well.

doesn't make sense and I need you to explain to me why you said what you did.

WTF is the matter with you? I don't think ANYONE has said that Federer at his peak had competition as good as Nadal is today. I even specifically stated in a recent post that Federer's competition was inferior, it was was just a question of how inferior. Do you not even read what other people say?

And that his peak was against historically weak competition

I agree competition looks a little better today than Federer's competition. But it isn't by much. You have to jump the logic loops to convince me that an era where Mardy Fish and David Ferrer are in the top 10 and Andy Murray is the perennial #4 is somehow significantly better than what Federer was facing. Only the #2 and #3 are stronger today than in Federer's era but that's expected considering their names are Nadal and Federer. You don't get these quality players every 5 years. So of course, top 3 is a little more stronger today than in 2004.

Go look at Nadal's results this year and tell me he was in his "prime". He got took to 5 at the French by John Isner! Lost to Dodig in Canada, lost to Fish in Cincinnati. If you watched him in previous years just on clay and then compared it to this year you can clearly tell he hasn't been on form.

Nadal in 2011 was not in his prime.

Nadal has a habit of struggling in the early rounds of a grandslam. I remember when he won wimbledon in 2010, he was down to no-name players in both first and second rounds. He usually works his rhythm up during a tournament and he's usually at his best in the later rounds. If you look at his clay results, he only lost 2 matches: in the finals against Djokovic.

While I agree that he's probably not at his absolute peak, I feel his results(3 slam finals) and play(beat Federer 3 times this year and crushed Murray in 3 gs semis) show that he wasn't far off.

Yeah, but Im essentially talking about the clay court swing this year. It was pretty clearly visible that Nadal was nowhere near his peak on his best surface. That then transcends itself onto the other surfaces. Call me crazy but I was more impressed with 2010 Nadal's play than I was with 2011 Novak's.

Peak Nadal wipes the floor with anyone and that includes Novak on the red stuff. Are we all agreed on that?

He looked dominant on clay until the first loss to Djokovic in straight sets. Maybe the seeds of doubt that Djokovic planted in Nadal's head after 2 clay final defeats(and 2 hard court final defeats earlier) in part explains him struggling in june against Isner(who's tricky to handle when his first serves start going in consistently). It will be hard to explain why Nadal isn't in his prime this year after he looked at his absolute best in 2010(sept) US open by completely ignoring the Novak factor. Afterall, age isn't a factor for Nadal. He's only 25. And he wasn't injured this year. So, what would explain the drop between ATP finals in december and french open(which he won for the 6th time, lol insane) in june? The big factor I see are the 4 final defeats he suffered.

Murray pushed him in Monte Carlo

Federer pushed him in Madrid

Paolo Lorenzi & Richard Gasquet pushed him in Rome (Lorenzi should have won that match)

Isner & Pablo Andujar in Paris

Come on, listing that Murray and Federer pushed him wasn't even necessary. Federer pushed him many times. He won on clay twice against Nadal and even got a 6-0 set in the French open final against him. Murray had a fantastic clay court season and even pushed Djokovic.

Gasquet is an excellent player and he's capable of pushing Nadal or Federer when they're not at least at their B+ game. I just think you're overanalyzing. He pushed but he still won. Which means he wasn't at his A game 100% of the time this clay court season. Can you imagine getting yourself psyched up for a match against Pablo Andujar or Paolo Lorenzi? To win so consistently for so long, I'm sure Nadal does psych himself up but I'm pretty sure there will be times when he fails to do that and the other guy plays great because it's the match of his career.

Hey but it's lol Murray and a 30yr old Fed.

Novak beat Nadal on clay because Nadal wasn't really on top of his game.

lol Murray almost beat Djokovic in one of the clay court semis and a 30 yr old Fed beat Djokovic who was undefeated on clay.

I agree that Nadal's probably not on top of his game but I don't think it's by much and I also think the reason for him not being at the top of his game is because Djokovic started beating him easily and it caused a dip in his confidence in general.

Sorry, I was just going down the route of Novak only loses sets because he was playing poorly which was apparently the case in this years US Open Semi. If Novak wins sets against Nadal/Fed it's because he is playing his best as is his opponent. Their level doesn't drop at all.

Yeah, that is pretty irrational thing to say. It's just a coincidence that when Djokovic reaches a grandslam semi and plays Federer, his level drops. It has nothing to with Federer playing well. Just a random coincidence. The lengths that a few posters here go to discredit the GOAT is amusing to see.

kb,

Novak is clearly saving up energy for a grueling final against Rafa ldo.

+1

Confidence is so important and is probably the main difference between Djoko last year and this year. It's not like Djoko all of a sudden has added different elements to his game, he just believes, no he KNOWS that he can win. And completely agree that Nadal is close to the top of his game, he played really well in the final, Djoko was just better but that was some sensational tennis.

Who knows, maybe we will see Murray do something similar. I know, I know, LOL Murray but you never know. He is such a huge talent, he just loses all the time when it matters the most and it's like he knows it will happen before it does. I'm not saying this will ever change but still, if he ever does win a GS watch out.

I like the earlier proposed theory that Djoko was just bored.

2010 Nadal definitely has a case for being >2011 Novak. Those are two of the best years. Its also why Nadal>Fed.