swish, you don't get anything people say because nothing gets through your impenetrable bubble.
Fed went into decline in 2007 because he didn't go 85-6? You're a fool. That's the problem with you tards. You've been looking for a narrative that would account for losses to Nadal for years. And you point to 2006 as the end of his prime because he lost matches.
You know what's wrong with your boy Fed, and that's plain to see to anyone who didn't stick a fork in him in 2007? (but he's still pretty good
you're a clown, swish) Of course you don't, because you're Fedtarded and nothing gets through your bubble.
What ails Fed is the same thing that ails Del Porto, and therein lies your blind spot. monster tried, anyway, to explain to you that Delpo's problem lies in his low confidence. You didn't consider it even after monster explained it to you because you made up your mind and carried on about "precision"
(which monster noted again, that's about confidence). But you didn't get that because nothing gets through your impenetrable bubble.
Delpo isn't past his prime simply because he's losing to players he should be beating, and neither is Roger. Roger's one of the greatest players of all time and is still! playing that way as evidenced by his 24 match winning streak at the end of 2011 and up to the semis of 2012 AO, which included wins over Nadal, Tsonga, Del Potro, Ferrer--a veritable who's who.
But he accumulated all that hardware because he was the beneficiary of timing, just as you had noted earlier in this very thread: he racked up major titles against players from the weak era.
Now you're going to have to do a rewrite to figure out how, what's plainfully obvious to you and others, that fact couldn't possibly be the case.
Good luck, with that, swish! It ain't happenin'
You guys are so fickle when it comes to Roger. He beats Rafa in London during his 17-0 finish and, to you and Fedtard Nation, he's back! and he follows that with 7 more wins! Then he loses to Rafa again, and suddenly he's past his prime because Rafa beat him. People, Rafa had already beaten Federer 6 times before 2007!!!H2H prior to 2007
2006 Tennis Masters Cup
China Hard S Federer, Roger
6-4, 7-5 Stats
England Grass F Federer, Roger
6-0, 7-6(5), 6-7(2), 6-3 Stats
2006 Roland Garros
France Clay F Nadal, Rafael
1-6, 6-1, 6-4, 7-6(4) Stats
2006 ATP Masters Series Rome
Italy Clay F Nadal, Rafael
6-7(0), 7-6(5), 6-4, 2-6, 7-6(5) Stats
2006 ATP Masters Series Monte Carlo
Monaco Clay F Nadal, Rafael
6-2, 6-7(2), 6-3, 7-6(5) Stats
U.A.E. Hard F Nadal, Rafael
2-6, 6-4, 6-4 Stats
2005 Roland Garros
France Clay S Nadal, Rafael
6-3, 4-6, 6-4, 6-3 Stats
2005 ATP Masters Series Miami
FL, U.S.A. Hard F Federer, Roger
2-6, 6-7(4), 7-6(5), 6-3, 6-1 Stats
2004 ATP Masters Series Miami
FL, U.S.A. Hard R32 Nadal, Rafael
17 y/o and on HC
6-3, 6-3 Stats
H2H they were 2-2 on HC
Gee, swish, I'd say he was past his prime in 2003 because he started losing to a player he'd never lost to before 2004
Roger's not past his prime - he's just losing to a better player in Nadal, the #1 player in the world for a time and holder of all 4 majors. And, similarly, Rafa's not past his prime - he's just losing to a better player in Nole, the #1 player in the world and holder of 4 of the last 5 major titles.
Roger's one of the greatest of all time, but that trophy count is misleading.