PDA

View Full Version : Nadals Clay Dominance vs. Federer's Grass Dominance


serve/and/volley
05-02-2008, 12:43 PM
From examining the stats on Nadal's clay dominance:
- http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=195188

and Federer's grass dominance:
- http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=195327

I find some striking similarities:

Nadal's clay stats from from 2005 Monte Carlo through 2008 Barcelona QF:
Matches won: 101
Matches lost: 1
Match winning percentage: 99.02%
Sets won: 231
Sets lost: 26
Set winning percentage: 89.88%

Only players to have taken multiple sets off of Nadal:
- Federer: 8 sets
- Coria: 3 sets
- Hewitt: 2 sets

Federer v. Nadal on clay:
1-8 head-to-head
Won 8 sets out of 28: 28.57%
(Nadal won 20 sets out of 28: 71.43%)

Federer's grass stats from 2003 Halle through 2007 Wimbledon:
Matches won: 55
Matches lost: 0
Match winning percentage: 100%
Sets won: 142
Sets lost: 16
Set winning percentage: 89.87%

Only player to have taken multiple sets off of Federer:
- Nadal: 3 sets

Nadal v. Federer on grass:
0-2 head-to-head
Won 3 sets out of 9: 33.33%
(Federer won 6 out of 9: 66.66%)

gj011
05-02-2008, 12:50 PM
Nadal. 10 chars.

mfischer
05-02-2008, 12:54 PM
here is a good article featuring Sampras opinion about Nadals clay court performance

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/justin_gimelstob/05/02/nadal.french/?eref=sircrc

Nadal_Freak
05-02-2008, 01:08 PM
Nadal easily clay dominance. Fed is almost done.

BigT
05-02-2008, 01:09 PM
Nadal gets the nod. The clay court season is much longer and demanding. Grass season is what...2 tournaments?

fastdunn
05-02-2008, 01:12 PM
i think fed's 5 straight season is bigger than nadal's 3 straight, currently.

Gizo
05-02-2008, 01:12 PM
In my opinion Federer's hardcourt domination from the Masters Cup 2003 - Masters Cup 2007 tops both his own domination on grass and Nadal's on clay. Hardcourts are easily the most dominant surface nowadays, and there is many, many times more strength in depth on hard, than either clay or grass. Most of the current generation play hardcourt tennis on clay and grass anyway.

veroniquem
05-02-2008, 01:16 PM
Sorry but 101 is more impessive than 55. If Roger can double his number then I'll be equally impressed and if he gets to 100 with 0 match lost, I will definitely be more impressed. Hopefully it won't happen because Rafa will finally manage to snatch one this year! (and make my dream come true in the process...)

edberg505
05-02-2008, 02:00 PM
Nadal easily clay dominance. Fed is almost done.

It didn't take a genius to figure out who you'd vote for.

quest01
05-02-2008, 02:10 PM
Nadal has obviously accomplished more on one surface compared to Federer. The clay court season is much longer with more tournaments being played so Nadal should be held at a higher level then Federer in this regard because of the length of the clay season compared to grass.

[d]ragon
05-02-2008, 02:11 PM
tough choice, i like both players but i voted nadal because hes had almost double the amount of matches fed has

boredone3456
05-02-2008, 03:20 PM
I said Nadal...although both are amazing achievements the clay court season is much longer and potentially more draining, and the fact that nadal can do what he does on the dirt so continously is amazing. Much credit to fed...but Nadals just takes it for me

Vision84
05-02-2008, 03:34 PM
Grass because Federer would be much more dominant if there were grass events.

Grass is harder to dominate on because the points are so short so favor players who are really in the zone and it is hard to maintain this level than on clay. Sampras said something to this effect. Grass also welcomes much greater variety than clay.

fer
05-02-2008, 03:56 PM
I voted for Nadal s dominance, he has won more matches and clay is more physically demanding.

zagor
05-02-2008, 04:16 PM
I'm leaning towards Federer's record because he won five Wimbledons in a row while Nadal still has three in a row but losing 1 match out of 100 on clay is just insane so I'll just go with both.

willgonase10
05-02-2008, 06:37 PM
Nadal wins...KO!?!?!?

Tempest344
05-02-2008, 07:14 PM
Can't compare
there are a lot more clay tournaments than grass

latinking
05-02-2008, 07:24 PM
Nadal has more wins because of the length of the season his record is sick. Fed has got 5 grass slams which is just crazy.

Both very impressive! We are all lucky to see both these guys.

BlahDow
05-02-2008, 08:06 PM
Both are amazing but i'll give Nadal thumbs up here...100+ wins and the only loss coming to the #1 player in the world.

deme08
05-03-2008, 01:56 AM
The field of players are much stronger on Grass than Clay. Hardly any decent dirtballers these days, except Fed/Nadal. On grass you have Djokovic, Roddick, Nadal, Gasquet, just to name a few. Fed's competition is better that makes his record more impressive.

The balls in your court.
05-03-2008, 02:11 AM
grass court season is only like a month long. Clay is far longer.

joeri888
05-03-2008, 06:06 AM
Both dominances are extremely impressive. I wonder if they'd settle for winning a wimby/RG of the other in the same year. If their year stayed the same for the rest of it, would they be happy? I think after Roger's 5 in a row at wimbledon, he defenitely would, although I think he wouldn't last year.

You could say Nadal's dominance is more impressive, because he plays many more matches on the surface. On the other hand, Federer is doing it 5 years in a row, never lost a match, and his percentage of Grand Slam matches, the podium where every player tries to shine, is higher, while Nadal plays more events like Barcelona on clay as well.

However, I think both dominances are great, both are equally impressive.

flyer
05-03-2008, 06:40 AM
Nadals got more matches to boost about but thats because the clay season is longer, I think Federer would have similar stats if grass season was longer.....so Im picking Federer because hes won Wimby for more years running than Nadal has won the FO

deme08
05-03-2008, 06:46 AM
Nadals got more matches to boost about but thats because the clay season is longer, I think Federer would have similar stats if grass season was longer.....so Im picking Federer because hes won Wimby for more years running than Nadal has won the FO

Now thats a sound and rational post.

Thor
05-03-2008, 07:12 AM
On one hand Nadal played almost double the amount Fed has.
On the other hand,he "only" has 3 FO.
For now Federer,if Nadal clips the Next French he'll have my vote

Aabye
05-03-2008, 07:15 AM
Both dominances are extremely impressive. I wonder if they'd settle for winning a wimby/RG of the other in the same year. If their year stayed the same for the rest of it, would they be happy? I think after Roger's 5 in a row at wimbledon, he defenitely would, although I think he wouldn't last year.

You could say Nadal's dominance is more impressive, because he plays many more matches on the surface. On the other hand, Federer is doing it 5 years in a row, never lost a match, and his percentage of Grand Slam matches, the podium where every player tries to shine, is higher, while Nadal plays more events like Barcelona on clay as well.

However, I think both dominances are great, both are equally impressive.

Nice. ten chars

tennis_hand
05-03-2008, 07:21 AM
Federer, because wimbledon is the most prestigous of all 4, if you ask any ATP pro. Tennis players regard Wimbledon as the ultimate prize.

Nadal does have more match wins, but most of them are not GS matches.
even if he wins 5 FO consecutively, that still can't compare to 5 wimbledons. 6FOs would match that feat.

and considering the fact that wimbledon surfaces keep on changing year by year, Federer's dominance on the changing surface is the greatest feat. even Sampras 7 Wimbies also didn't happen on a changing grass surface.

dima
05-03-2008, 08:45 AM
5 Wimbledons> 3 FO

ufg8r
05-03-2008, 10:10 AM
Nadal's impresses me much more. I believe that Federer is in grave danger of his grass winning streak being broken this year.

GasquetGOAT
05-03-2008, 10:23 AM
Federer, because wimbledon is the most prestigous of all 4, if you ask any ATP pro. Tennis players regard Wimbledon as the ultimate prize.

Nadal does have more match wins, but most of them are not GS matches.
even if he wins 5 FO consecutively, that still can't compare to 5 wimbledons. 6FOs would match that feat.

and considering the fact that wimbledon surfaces keep on changing year by year, Federer's dominance on the changing surface is the greatest feat. even Sampras 7 Wimbies also didn't happen on a changing grass surface.

The field of players are much stronger on Grass than Clay. Hardly any decent dirtballers these days, except Fed/Nadal. On grass you have Djokovic, Roddick, Nadal, Gasquet, just to name a few. Fed's competition is better that makes his record more impressive.

Federer by far! Nadal needs at least 2 more FO to match it.

edmondsm
05-03-2008, 11:32 AM
You assuming Fed would be just as dominant (without losing) in Master Series on grass to Slams on grass are ridiculous. Yes the superior clay courter usually beats the lesser player. In Master Series, you get challenging matches right from the get go. I guess winning 5 matches isn't as much as winning 7 matches but I don't see how you can argue against that it is easier for Fed to win 3 out of 5 set matches than 2 out of 3 set matches. Over an extended period time, Nadal's wins on in Master Series vs. Fed's wins in the tune up tournament and Wimbledon were against much tougher opponents for Nadal. How many of the top 10 or 20 players actually like grass? Not many. Nadal definitely enjoys that as well as he got to the last 2 Wimbledon finals and almost (should've) beat Fed on his best surface.

You can't fault Federer because there aren't any masters events on grass. And you also can't just blindly assume that he would be losing matches on grass if there were more tourneys on the surface. He has been just as dominant on grass as Nadal has been on clay and you're opinion that he would not carry a record like Nadal's clay record on grass is just pure biased speculation.

There are plenty of players that like grass, and they don't have to be in the top 10-20 either. At Wimbledon you can run into an Ancic, Johannson, Hewitt, Karlovic, Mirnyi, very early in the tournament and have very tough match. But to say that there aren't very many players in the top 20 that don't like grass is ridiculous. Roddick, Hewitt , Nalbandian, Baghdatis, Djokovic, Gasquet, Nadal....all have been to the semis or better of Wimbledon. Then there are a bunch of others who have had success on the surface.

Nadal_Freak
05-03-2008, 12:02 PM
Davydenko, Ferrer, Almagro, Djokovic, Andreev, Nalbandian on clay>Roddick, Djokovic, Gasquet, Baghdatis, and whoever else you consider tough opponents on grass. It seems like a lot of those players have faded lately as well to make Wimbledon even easier for Federer. At least until the Semifinals. Nadal had to take down Federer 7 times while Fed only had to take Nadal 2 times. The quality of opponents Nadal faced on clay is lopsided to what Fed faced on grass. Hopefully Djokovic can make things interesting on grass but I assume that is not a comfortable surface for him similar to clay.

joeri888
05-03-2008, 12:10 PM
I think there's no real answer to the question. It's totally different and there are factors to suggest that Fed's been more dominant (more of his matches GS, Grass harder to dominate, 5 years, no loss) and others to suggest Nadal's been better..(more matches played, more matches a season, tougher opponents). They've both been awesome, and everybody's just defending their idol again.

TheTruth
05-03-2008, 12:59 PM
Both feats are equally impressive. The factors, which can't be changed, make it difficult to announce a clear winner. If I had my druthers I'd go with Nadal's 101 matches at age 21. That's the most impressive thing to me!

edmondsm
05-03-2008, 05:52 PM
Davydenko, Ferrer, Almagro, Djokovic, Andreev, Nalbandian on clay>Roddick, Djokovic, Gasquet, Baghdatis, and whoever else you consider tough opponents on grass. It seems like a lot of those players have faded lately as well to make Wimbledon even easier for Federer. At least until the Semifinals. Nadal had to take down Federer 7 times while Fed only had to take Nadal 2 times. The quality of opponents Nadal faced on clay is lopsided to what Fed faced on grass. Hopefully Djokovic can make things interesting on grass but I assume that is not a comfortable surface for him similar to clay.

Nalbandian would be at least as tough for Fed on grass as he would be for Nadal on clay. It's to bad that Nadal doesn't grow a pair and play Halle so that maybe Fed can get more then one match a year against Nadal on grass. But he probably wouldn't make the finals, just like he never makes the finals in any of the hardcourt tourneys that they both play. Kind of funny how that works.

Nadal_Freak
05-03-2008, 05:55 PM
Nalbandian would be at least as tough for Fed on grass as he would be for Nadal on clay. It's to bad that Nadal doesn't grow a pair and play Halle so that maybe Fed can get more then one match a year against Nadal on grass. But he probably wouldn't make the finals, just like he never makes the finals in any of the hardcourt tourneys that they both play. Kind of funny how that works.
Nadal gets 2 days of rest before Queens which is faster than Halle. I think Nadal would do better in Halle.

Cup8489
05-03-2008, 06:17 PM
Davydenko, Ferrer, Almagro, Djokovic, Andreev, Nalbandian on clay>Roddick, Djokovic, Gasquet, Baghdatis, and whoever else you consider tough opponents on grass. It seems like a lot of those players have faded lately as well to make Wimbledon even easier for Federer. At least until the Semifinals. Nadal had to take down Federer 7 times while Fed only had to take Nadal 2 times. The quality of opponents Nadal faced on clay is lopsided to what Fed faced on grass. Hopefully Djokovic can make things interesting on grass but I assume that is not a comfortable surface for him similar to clay.

how can you claim that the claycourters you mentioned are better than the players who follow? the plain and simple truth is that more players are more successful on grass than they are on clay. the fact that federer doesnt have as many matches is explained by the lack of grass tournaments. just like it was said before, you can't assume fed would lose at any new grass tournaments all the time, when his record suggests the complete opposite. you should consider adopting a less biased opinion on federer - nadal topics. it's cool you like nadal, but don't belittle federer so that you can claim nadal is better on his particular specialty court than federer, because the evidence in numbers is dependant entirely on the fact that the clay season is much larger. it's a fair assumption federer would be just as dominant on grass, if the grass season were just as long as the clay.

again, drop the bias before making an argument, and you wont have as many people chewing you out about it.

serve/and/volley
05-03-2008, 07:01 PM
Also remember that:

The only players to have taken multiple sets off of Nadal on clay are:
(From 2005 Monte Carlo through 2008 Barcelona SF)
- Federer: 8 sets
- Coria: 3 sets
- Hewitt: 2 sets

The only player to have taken multiple sets off of Federer on grass is:
(From 2003 Halle through 2007 Wimbeldon)
- Nadal: 3 sets

Nadal and Federer have virtually no competition on their respective dominant surfaces other than ... each other!

MEAC_ALLAMERICAN
05-03-2008, 07:20 PM
I am a huge fan of clay court tennis, and Nadal's streak on clay is more impressive to me. Roger is the best in my book, but sustaining that type of streak on such a demanding surface is plain out crazy or not human. :shock:

Nadal_Monfils
05-03-2008, 07:27 PM
I'd say Nadal's clay court performance is more impressive because he is not always well rested for every match on clay, whereas Federer is always well rested for matches on grass because there are only a couple of tournaments. Nadal has to maintain his level over the course of more matches, while Federer only has to dominate for a couple of weeks and not be exhausted for any matches on grass.

Mansewerz
05-03-2008, 09:02 PM
Nadal I'd say, but at the same time, Fed doesn't have tennis to even play on grass, so it's hard to decide.

edmondsm
05-03-2008, 09:06 PM
Nadal gets 2 days of rest before Queens which is faster than Halle. I think Nadal would do better in Halle.

Alright! Why don't you e-mail your homeboy and tell him to play Halle. I hope he does.

flyer
05-03-2008, 09:35 PM
I'd say Nadal's clay court performance is more impressive because he is not always well rested for every match on clay, whereas Federer is always well rested for matches on grass because there are only a couple of tournaments. Nadal has to maintain his level over the course of more matches, while Federer only has to dominate for a couple of weeks and not be exhausted for any matches on grass.

Very good point

jackson vile
05-04-2008, 08:38 AM
I would vote for Roger on Grass, but the thing is that there just is not enough grass tournaments. Far far more clay and Nadal plays 99% of them.

Fries-N-Gravy
05-04-2008, 08:51 AM
there arent enough grass tournaments the season is less than a month long. even as a fed fan who wants to see him accomplish the impossible, at this point nadal is slightly more dominant on clay. he almost took wimbledon last year and fed has only been able to take nadal to 4 setters so far at RG.

fed is already getting a good start on the clay season, getting to the final at monte carlo. If not this year, maybe next year he will take RG from nadal.

just seeing the way nadal destroys everyone on clay is amazing. his movement and anticipation are godlike

Nadal_Freak
05-04-2008, 09:16 AM
Ferrer is now Nadal's biggest threat on clay this year. He proved that today. Fed has yet to win a set on Nadal.

Nadal_Monfils
05-04-2008, 09:21 AM
^^^ I still think Federer is Nadal's biggest threat. Ferrer might be able to take a set off Nadal or play a close set with him but I don't think he is able to sustain a high enough level to win a match. Federer has more firepower and a better ability to hurt Nadal on clay. Ferrer has shown he can't keep up a very high level of play throughout the entirity of a match, evidenced by the score of the third set.

edmondsm
05-04-2008, 09:29 AM
For now I think Federer is still the toughest opponent for Nadal. He gave Nadal the toughest match on the slow clay of Monte Carlo. If in the next two weeks Ferrer continues to play at this level then I would consider him to possibly be a bigger threat to Nadal but overall Federer is still his biggest test at Roland Garros.

jgreen06
05-04-2008, 09:53 AM
with the clay season being so much longer its hard not to say nadal, simply more matches hes won on that surface.

dh003i
05-04-2008, 02:50 PM
It's hard not to say Fed, for anyone who understands what makes history. Grand Slams are what is important as individual entities, not Masters series events (which are only important secondarily in determining rank, record, and total # won). I suppose Nadal_Freak would say Agassi was a greater player than Sampras because he won more Masters series events than Sampras? LOL.

zagor
05-04-2008, 02:53 PM
Ferrer is now Nadal's biggest threat on clay this year. He proved that today. Fed has yet to win a set on Nadal.

Chela was also very close in winning a set against Nadal as he had 4-2 and was serving.If he had won that set would you consider him a bigger threat then Federer? Ferrer also received two breadsticks in the final,don't forget that.

Nadal_Freak
05-04-2008, 03:32 PM
Chela was also very close in winning a set against Nadal as he had 4-2 and was serving.If he had won that set would you consider him a bigger threat then Federer? Ferrer also received two breadsticks in the final,don't forget that.
Ferrer had 3 set points in their prior matchup. This time he comes through and wins a set. Something Fed hasn't done this year yet. I'm just talking about this year as Fed was clearly the better clay courter in years past to Ferrer.

zagor
05-04-2008, 04:30 PM
Ferrer had 3 set points in their prior matchup. This time he comes through and wins a set. Something Fed hasn't done this year yet. I'm just talking about this year as Fed was clearly the better clay courter in years past to Ferrer.

Okay,I still think that regardless how much Ferrer troubles Nadal that Federer is a bad match-up for him.Hope they meet in Rome so we can see how it turns out.

zachattack698
05-04-2008, 06:56 PM
You guys have to remember that Nadal is much younger then Federer. Federer won his first wimbeldon in 2003, Nadal was hardly known then. If Nadal was the same age as Federer I almost gurantee you hed have 5 straight FO by now.

Babb
05-04-2008, 06:58 PM
Who's the complete idiot who says that neither is impressive? OR should I say the TWO idiots?!

player2409
05-06-2008, 08:29 AM
Sorry but 101 is more impessive than 55. If Roger can double his number then I'll be equally impressed and if he gets to 100 with 0 match lost, I will definitely be more impressed. Hopefully it won't happen because Rafa will finally manage to snatch one this year! (and make my dream come true in the process...)

.. yeah.. you are totally right!! :) i don't understand why those fed fans are all so afraid and do all these comparisons in order that fed stands in a better light.. guys.. fed is 27.. but RAFA is only 21.. so there are 5 years left, and lets see how the statistics will be when rafa is 27.. i can not remember that federer had a (ONE )grand slam when he was 21?! =)
djokovic i think will definitely become number 1, since he is a very good player in all surfaces.. for rafa, i don't know, i hope so.. he must be much better on hard court, or much more consistent..

ksbh
05-06-2008, 09:45 AM
Rafael Nadal's achievement is more impressive!

ksbh
05-06-2008, 09:46 AM
Anyone who does make that claim will have a pretty good case ... Andre Agassi won all the 4 four slams, something that Pete Sampras never managed.

It's hard not to say Fed, for anyone who understands what makes history. Grand Slams are what is important as individual entities, not Masters series events (which are only important secondarily in determining rank, record, and total # won). I suppose Nadal_Freak would say Agassi was a greater player than Sampras because he won more Masters series events than Sampras? LOL.

scineram
05-06-2008, 12:47 PM
Agassi is overrated.

Lendl and Federer Fan
05-06-2008, 12:55 PM
This is too close to call, but if I have to pick, I would go with Federer since he won 5 or 6 Wimbledon titles V.S. Nadal's 3 Frech Open titles.

Babb
05-06-2008, 12:57 PM
Agassi is overrated.
Making $31,152,975 in prize money (not counting all of his endorsements) is definitely overrated.

Vision84
05-06-2008, 01:41 PM
Who's the complete idiot who says that neither is impressive? OR should I say the TWO idiots?!

Probably 2 trolls who didn't feel like responding properly to the thread. I have to admit sometimes I feel like ticking the stupid answer when I don't like the poll.

MEAC_ALLAMERICAN
05-06-2008, 01:51 PM
Agassi is overrated.

You're trolling and there's nothing more to add to your post. :roll:

veroniquem
05-06-2008, 04:42 PM
.. yeah.. you are totally right!! :) i don't understand why those fed fans are all so afraid and do all these comparisons in order that fed stands in a better light.. guys.. fed is 27.. but RAFA is only 21.. so there are 5 years left, and lets see how the statistics will be when rafa is 27.. i can not remember that federer had a (ONE )grand slam when he was 21?! =)
djokovic i think will definitely become number 1, since he is a very good player in all surfaces.. for rafa, i don't know, i hope so.. he must be much better on hard court, or much more consistent..
I agree, having that kind of record at 21 years old, that's what so impressive, even unprecedented.

MEAC_ALLAMERICAN
05-06-2008, 07:05 PM
Roger is 26 and will be 27 in August. Rafa is 21 and will be 22 in a few weeks, not sure of the actual date.

veroniquem
05-06-2008, 07:08 PM
yes and 5 years difference is a lot in a tennis career. Agassi and Sampras were easier to compare, only 1 year difference. if you really want to compare Nadal to someone , it should be Djoko because they are the same generation and then you would truly see how phenomenal Nadal's results are as Djoko's do not even come close despite the evidence that he's a great player too.

Nadal_Freak
05-06-2008, 07:15 PM
yes and 5 years difference is a lot in a tennis career. Agassi and Sampras were easier to compare, only 1 year difference. if you really want to compare Nadal to someone , it should be Djoko because they are the same generation and then you would truly see how phenomenal Nadal's results are as Djoko's do not even come close despite the evidence that he's a great player too.
That's right. You are very smart. Vamos Rafa!

quest01
05-06-2008, 07:17 PM
In my opinion, Nadal is the best so far to have ever played on clay and nobody even comes close including Kuerten and Borg. I think Borg is up there as one of the best clay courters of all time but the competition now is much more competitive on clay then during his playing days when baseline bashing wasn't as prevalent. Federer is clearly the second best player on clay even though I don't see him winning RG if Nadal faces him in the Finals.

Polaris
05-06-2008, 07:49 PM
I voted for Nadal's clay dominance. In terms of numbers, that is truly impressive.

Results-wise,
Nadal is the best slow-court player of the last 25 years.
Sampras is the best fast-court player of the last 25 years.
Federer is the best all-round player of the last 25 years.

iamke55
05-06-2008, 08:11 PM
Why even bother adding the 4th option?

scineram
05-07-2008, 09:42 AM
People keep saying as if Andre was GOAT or greater than Fed or Pete because he won in the dirt against a choker.

dh003i
05-07-2008, 12:44 PM
yes and 5 years difference is a lot in a tennis career. Agassi and Sampras were easier to compare, only 1 year difference. if you really want to compare Nadal to someone , it should be Djoko because they are the same generation and then you would truly see how phenomenal Nadal's results are as Djoko's do not even come close despite the evidence that he's a great player too.

That's a good point, true...but Nadal came into his prime and developed faster. Players don't develop at the same rate. If you take that to mean Nadal's going to play this way until he's Federer's age and beyond, I doubt it. He has more wear already at his young age than Fed does at 27.

DonBudge
10-10-2009, 04:12 AM
both immpresive ten char

mandy01
10-10-2009, 04:20 AM
I genuinely feel they're both impressive.
Pretty insane stuff from both of them.

TMF
10-10-2009, 01:14 PM
I genuinely feel they're both impressive.
Pretty insane stuff from both of them.

Still, Roger's ahead....7 straight SW19 finals and 6 titles. Nadal still has alot of work to reach Roger's massive success.

Jason Vorhees
10-10-2009, 01:31 PM
^^^nadal is 23. Federer is ancient.

TMF
10-10-2009, 01:42 PM
^^^nadal is 23. Federer is ancient.

Still, Nadal needs to alot of works, he's not there yet.

An ancient Federer doesn't have a 33 years old knees.

edmondsm
10-10-2009, 02:38 PM
^^^nadal is 23. Federer is ancient.

Haha. Sure doesn't seem like that in health terms. Nadal, constantly injured. Federer, rarely injured. Nadal has possibly until he's 25 to win slams. After that, the wheels will have fallen off and be laying in ditch along the tennis highway.

Baikalic
10-10-2009, 02:40 PM
Still, Roger's ahead....7 straight SW19 finals and 6 titles. Nadal still has alot of work to reach Roger's massive success.

ahead in Grand Slam surface specific success yeah. In terms of responding to the thread topic, surface specific success only, they're equally impressive IMO.

World Beater
10-10-2009, 03:37 PM
they are both monsters.

both guys have a little catching up to do ...borg and sampras are still ahead.
but federer and nadal are arguably already more impressive.

Chelsea_Kiwi
10-10-2009, 03:46 PM
Nadal easily clay dominance. Fed is almost done. If he is almost done how is that relevant to how he played two years ago?

flyinghippos101
10-10-2009, 04:42 PM
I give the edge in this case to Nadal. Not only are clay courts so much more physically demanding, but to be consistant over such a long period is amazing. Of course, had Fed been given more opportunities, it might look equally as impressive but at this point, with only one loss at the french, you can't help but think, "Holy ****"

kOaMaster
10-10-2009, 05:09 PM
well I'm sure if there were more grass tournaments, fed could've made about the same big dominating serie as nadal did. but there aren't and we will never know.
I just know that nadal's dominance on clay was AWESOME, there's almost nothing else like that. voted for equally impressive

sh@de
10-10-2009, 06:42 PM
They're equally impressive. End of story.

lawrence
10-10-2009, 08:24 PM
why did someone bump a year old thread

Baikalic
10-10-2009, 08:58 PM
why did someone bump a year old thread

Seems like the posters here don't have much else to do this time of year.