PDA

View Full Version : Sure Federer - Nadal rivalry would be the GREATEST If FEDERER won a few???


wow246
02-26-2009, 02:35 AM
i mean yea you know you see good rally's and stuff but it's one sided. Federer has to start winning a few matches for it to be called a rivalry.

tennis-hero
02-26-2009, 03:32 AM
up untill 2008 it was 8-6 in favor of Nadal

in 07 Fed was really the only person to beat Rafa on clay (Rafa lost to Ferrerro afterwards but it was only because he was in a wheelchair)

up untill the start of the 2008 season, Federer really had a serious chance of beating Rafa in the h2h

Rog didn't just break Rafa's 81 game winning streak on clay- he bagled him doing it, it was amazing

the thing is, to win on other surfaces Rafa has had to become more agressive, thats counter productive to winning on clay- what im saying is that maybe by winning on HCs and grass his clay game is getting weaker and that 06 Federer (who took him to the epic 5 setter in rome 06) would beat Rafa at the FO

Rafa probably wont win the FO so easily in 09 as he did in 08 because it looks like he already is having severe knee problems and the season has just started

Gen
02-26-2009, 03:51 AM
Overall H2H: 13-6
Slam H2H: 4-2
2008-2009 H2H: 5-0.
Federer sure has all the weapons to beat Nadal. Statistics proves it. And 2008 thrashing in RG definitely proves that Nadal's clay game is deteriorating.

He doesn't have severe knee problems. Wishful thinking again. He had a minor wrick in Rotterdam final which took several hours to cure completely. It is published all over the world. Too bad that federer fans are limited even in terms of their reading.

MizunoMX20
02-26-2009, 04:08 AM
I agree that Federer has to start winning a few confrontations with Rafa soon to still call this a rivalry. But the fact remains that these two players stand head and shoulders above the rest come the big occasions, so for that reason, you may still call it a rivalry in my opinion.

shazbot
02-26-2009, 04:25 AM
Obvious troll is obvious.

DarthFed
02-26-2009, 04:32 AM
my definition of a Rivalry is different from all of yours, my definition of a rivalry is when the encounters are close (sans the french) and they've played more that 10 times

AVTENNIS
02-26-2009, 04:42 AM
Fed may not be winning many anymore but he is not in his prime anymore and he has had plenty of wins over nadal i wouldnt say he needs to start winning more.. i think nadal will soon have a new rival for the top possibly djoko or murray

pound cat
02-26-2009, 04:52 AM
i mean yea you know you see good rally's and stuff but it's one sided. Federer has to start winning a few matches for it to be called a rivalry.


I thought exactly like you, so I looked up the word rivalry and a rivalry occurs when 2 people are trying to achieve the same goal (s)


So Federer and Nadal are indeed rivals.


And technically speaking I guess so are all sports men who play individual sports.

cknobman
02-26-2009, 05:22 AM
i mean yea you know you see good rally's and stuff but it's one sided. Federer has to start winning a few matches for it to be called a rivalry.

Federer has already one a few not like its 12-2 or something.

GET A LIFE!!

heninfan99
02-26-2009, 05:22 AM
If you take away clay it is a great rivalry. It's not like Fed is getting blown away on the other surfaces. Of course, the five setters have been very close. Just a few points difference between the two.

vbranis
02-26-2009, 08:41 AM
http://thegrandnarrative.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/beating-a-dead-horse.gif

VivalaVida
02-26-2009, 08:47 AM
Overall H2H: 13-6
Slam H2H: 4-2
2008-2009 H2H: 5-0.
Federer sure has all the weapons to beat Nadal. Statistics proves it. And 2008 thrashing in RG definitely proves that Nadal's clay game is deteriorating.

He doesn't have severe knee problems. Wishful thinking again. He had a minor wrick in Rotterdam final which took several hours to cure completely. It is published all over the world. Too bad that federer fans are limited even in terms of their reading.
ROFL.
http://www.xbapodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/fanboi-anatomy.jpg
more annoying than anything on this forum is fan boy bragging about his players achievements as if they are his own. Epic fail

edmondsm
02-26-2009, 08:58 AM
ROFL.
http://www.xbapodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/fanboi-anatomy.jpg
more annoying than anything on this forum is fan boy bragging about his players achievements as if they are his own. Epic fail

LMFAO. That is a beautiful thing you just posted sir.

Anyway, the Federer Nadal rivalry can never be great because they are to far apart in age and they peaked at different times. When Federer was dominating, Nadal couldn't get far enough in the hardcourt slams to challenge. When Nadal finally got there (just this year) Federer was not quite his former self.

Kind of like if you compare say Becker and Agassi. On paper Andre dominated, but that's not really fair because Becker hit the scene before he did.

saram
02-26-2009, 09:15 AM
ROFL.
http://www.xbapodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/fanboi-anatomy.jpg


LMFAO. HILARIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gugafan
02-26-2009, 09:18 AM
LMFAO. That is a beautiful thing you just posted sir.

Anyway, the Federer Nadal rivalry can never be great because they are to far apart in age and they peaked at different times. When Federer was dominating, Nadal couldn't get far enough in the hardcourt slams to challenge. When Nadal finally got there (just this year) Federer was not quite his former self.

Kind of like if you compare say Becker and Agassi. On paper Andre dominated, but that's not really fair because Becker hit the scene before he did.

Fair point...but Federer is 27 not 30 and at times people are quick to undermine Nadals efforts by suggesting 'Federer is well past his prime'...You would expect a 27yr old considered GOAT by many, to be able claw back the head to head to make it more respectable, especially outside clay.

VivalaVida
02-26-2009, 09:37 AM
LMFAO. That is a beautiful thing you just posted sir.
LMFAO. HILARIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:p thanks guys! I find that picture to be a very accurate representation of hardcore fanboys.

miyagi
02-26-2009, 09:42 AM
up untill 2008 it was 8-6 in favor of Nadal

in 07 Fed was really the only person to beat Rafa on clay (Rafa lost to Ferrerro afterwards but it was only because he was in a wheelchair)

up untill the start of the 2008 season, Federer really had a serious chance of beating Rafa in the h2h

Rog didn't just break Rafa's 81 game winning streak on clay- he bagled him doing it, it was amazing

the thing is, to win on other surfaces Rafa has had to become more agressive, thats counter productive to winning on clay- what im saying is that maybe by winning on HCs and grass his clay game is getting weaker and that 06 Federer (who took him to the epic 5 setter in rome 06) would beat Rafa at the FO

Rafa probably wont win the FO so easily in 09 as he did in 08 because it looks like he already is having severe knee problems and the season has just started

LOL....I like your idea although I think it is wrong.

You may remember Nadal played his best EVER F.O last year and still managed to win Wimbledon. Not to mention the olympics which everyone forgets....

I think he is smart enough to be able to adjust his game back to suit clay as he has been playing on it since 4?

Most importantly Roger of 06 is no longer about and it is 09 I don't think he stands much chance of beating Rafa on anything right now, not down to ability or skill but rather pyschological issues.

Not to say that Fed could never win but at this stage it is unlikely.....but I can't wait to see them go at it again...

Would love to see another encounter like Rome

veroniquem
02-26-2009, 09:53 AM
Overall H2H: 13-6
Slam H2H: 4-2
2008-2009 H2H: 5-0.
Federer sure has all the weapons to beat Nadal. Statistics proves it. And 2008 thrashing in RG definitely proves that Nadal's clay game is deteriorating.

He doesn't have severe knee problems. Wishful thinking again. He had a minor wrick in Rotterdam final which took several hours to cure completely. It is published all over the world. Too bad that federer fans are limited even in terms of their reading.
The slam head to head is actually 6-2 (4 times at RG, 1 W, 1 AO for Rafa).

OddJack
02-26-2009, 10:06 AM
i mean yea you know you see good rally's and stuff but it's one sided. Federer has to start winning a few matches for it to be called a rivalry.

A fool goes back to its folly like a dog goes back to its vomit.

did your other id crapped out?

veroniquem
02-26-2009, 11:40 AM
Fair point...but Federer is 27 not 30 and at times people are quick to undermine Nadals efforts by suggesting 'Federer is well past his prime'...You would expect a 27yr old considered GOAT by many, to be able claw back the head to head to make it more respectable, especially outside clay.
By the way, only 17 players won a slam at 27 and older in open era, they are:
Rosewall 37,2
Gimeno 34,10
Agassi 32,8
Ashe 31,11
Laver 31,1
Sampras 31
Connors 31
Newcombe 30,7
Gomez 30,3
Korda 30
Lendl 29,10
Ivanisevic 29,9
Becker 28,2
Muster 27,8
Vilas 27,4
Kodes 27,4
Federer 27,2
The number after the coma is months, I gave the age at which they won their last slam. That leaves 32 players in open era who won slams but could never win any after 26 or younger. Not that easy in the end! (of course Federer's data will probably continue to evolve...)

edmondsm
02-26-2009, 11:52 AM
Fair point...but Federer is 27 not 30 and at times people are quick to undermine Nadals efforts by suggesting 'Federer is well past his prime'...You would expect a 27yr old considered GOAT by many, to be able claw back the head to head to make it more respectable, especially outside clay.

Yes, Federer is far from a helpless old lamb these days. However, one lost step makes a world of difference in the modern game. You have to admit that the rivalry probably would have been much juicier if Nadal had been making USO finals 04'-07'.

Take Sampras and Hewitt/Safin. Sampras was about Fed's current age when those two youngsters whooped his hiney in the USO final. He was still good enough to make GS finals, but in those instances youthful bodies and exhuberance prevailed. Now match up Hewitt/Safin against Pete in 93'-95', totally different story.

tahiti
02-26-2009, 11:59 AM
Interesting data on the ages.

veroniquem
02-26-2009, 12:02 PM
Thanks :). Now a quiz: who are the 7 players (open era) who won slams before the age of 20?

edmondsm
02-26-2009, 12:21 PM
Sampras
Hewitt
Safin
Nadal
Becker
Chang
Wilander

Did I get it?

veroniquem
02-26-2009, 12:29 PM
Sampras
Hewitt
Safin
Nadal
McEnroe
Becker
Chang
You're right about 4 of them! Not bad :). Here is the list:
Chang 17,3
Becker 17,7
Wilander 17,9
Borg 18
Nadal 19
Sampras 19,1
Edberg 19,10
Even though Hewitt was extremely precocious and won his first title at 16,11, he had to wait until 20,6 for his first slam. Safin won his at 20,7 (but first title at 19,7). McEnroe won his first slam at 20,6 (first title at 19,7).
Another quiz: which players won a slam as their first title ever?

danb
02-26-2009, 02:57 PM
i mean yea you know you see good rally's and stuff but it's one sided. Federer has to start winning a few matches for it to be called a rivalry.

Agreed.
13-6 down to Rafa doesn't go along with GOAT status nor with the term rivalry...
At this point Rafa owns Fed (spank-spank).

veroniquem
02-26-2009, 03:18 PM
It's not just who wins that makes a great rivalry. Even though the same player has won the last 5 encounters I still find their matches exciting and rewarding. Both W (2007 and 8) and AO finals were 5 setters with drama and tension. They also played Miami and Rome finals in 5 spellbinding sets in the past, several 3 setters on clay. I completely enjoy their matches.

380pistol
02-26-2009, 10:35 PM
You're right about 4 of them! Not bad :). Here is the list:
Chang 17,3
Becker 17,7
Wilander 17,9
Borg 18
Nadal 19
Sampras 19,1
Edberg 19,10
Even though Hewitt was extremely precocious and won his first title at 16,11, he had to wait until 20,6 for his first slam. Safin won his at 20,7 (but first title at 19,7). McEnroe won his first slam at 20,6 (first title at 19,7).
Another quizz: which players won a slam as their first title ever?

Wilander. And I think Chang as well. You should open a thread just to ask these type of questions.

tahiti
02-26-2009, 11:31 PM
We were around when Rafa won only RG.
Only on other forums. We hung in there...
And we accomplished :)

THERAFA
02-26-2009, 11:47 PM
up untill 2008 it was 8-6 in favor of Nadal

in 07 Fed was really the only person to beat Rafa on clay (Rafa lost to Ferrerro afterwards but it was only because he was in a wheelchair)

up untill the start of the 2008 season, Federer really had a serious chance of beating Rafa in the h2h

Rog didn't just break Rafa's 81 game winning streak on clay- he bagled him doing it, it was amazing

the thing is, to win on other surfaces Rafa has had to become more agressive, thats counter productive to winning on clay- what im saying is that maybe by winning on HCs and grass his clay game is getting weaker and that 06 Federer (who took him to the epic 5 setter in rome 06) would beat Rafa at the FO

Rafa probably wont win the FO so easily in 09 as he did in 08 because it looks like he already is having severe knee problems and the season has just started

He missed Rome last year with injury and:
We
Know
What
Happened
After
That

Aabye
02-27-2009, 05:02 AM
I thought exactly like you, so I looked up the word rivalry and a rivalry occurs when 2 people are trying to achieve the same goal (s)


So Federer and Nadal are indeed rivals.


And technically speaking I guess so are all sports men who play individual sports.

I prefer this definition better, from Dictionary.com:
a person or thing that is in a position to dispute another's preeminence or superiority

This is the case, because if Nadal wasn't there, everyone would probably say Fed's the GOAT. But because Nadal is here, a lot of people are starting to question whether Fed could ever be GOAT.

But as long as their matches keep us on the edge of our seats until the last point, I'll be happy to call it a rivalry.

henryshli
02-27-2009, 09:40 AM
Technically one could argue that Federer and Nadal belong to different generations. Let's see what Nadal does when he is 27.....

GameSampras
02-27-2009, 09:51 AM
Technically one could argue that Federer and Nadal belong to different generations. Let's see what Nadal does when he is 27.....

Ive said that for quite a while now. There is still a 5 years difference between them. Put 22-23 year old Nadal inthe 04-07 era and watch his dominance over not only the field by Fed himself

pound cat
02-27-2009, 02:55 PM
I prefer this definition better, from Dictionary.com:
a person or thing that is in a position to dispute another's preeminence or superiority

This is the case, because if Nadal wasn't there, everyone would probably say Fed's the GOAT. But because Nadal is here, a lot of people are starting to question whether Fed could ever be GOAT.

But as long as their matches keep us on the edge of our seats until the last point, I'll be happy to call it a rivalry.


Here's what the Oxford English dicitonary says... noun 1 a person or thing competing with another for superiority or the same objective. 2 a person or thing equal to another in quality:


And I always trust the OED. LOL


I'm not sure what Nadal wants. I think he is just one achievement at a time right now,

tennis_hand
02-27-2009, 07:56 PM
btw, i think some of us are bored of their matches,
including me.

THERAFA
02-27-2009, 08:38 PM
Rather than beating Federer I'd say beating Murray at the US Open would feel like a greater win:
For
Me
Personally