PDA

View Full Version : The Myth that Nadal has done much more than Fed at the same point in their careers


Mansewerz
06-21-2009, 01:29 PM
Many people like to claim that Nadal has done much more in his career than Federer because he has 6 slams by the age of 23 while Federer only had 3 slams (freshly turned 23).

Here's a couple of things to keep in mind:
-Federer was a late bloomer. He didn't begin his domination until late
-Nadal was an early bloomer. He began his domination in his teens

Still, many people still believe that Nadal is still much, much faster than Federer.

Here are some numbers then:

-Nadal turned pro at age 15 (2001)
-Federer turned pro at age 17 (1998)

In his 8 year long career, Nadal has accumulated 6 slams. Federer, in his first 8 years (being fair to Nadal here), accumulated 7 slams, and this is not counting all of 2006 because we are still in 2009.

Therefore, Federer had more slams than Nadal at this point in their careers. The only difference was that Nadal turned pro at an age 2 years younger than Federer.

Also, Nadal had his breakthrough in his 4th year on tour (first GS title), while Federer broke through in his 5 year. Both men won their first MS titles in their 4th year.

If anything, Federer and Nadal are pretty even, with Federer having a slight edge in slams while Nadal has a slight edge in MS titles.

But, the bottom line is, Nadal's achievements at this point in his career do NOTcompletely overshadow Federer's achievements at the same point in their respective careers.

Cesc Fabregas
06-21-2009, 01:31 PM
What did Nadal do between 15-17?

Tennis_Bum
06-21-2009, 01:40 PM
Many people like to claim that Nadal has done much more in his career than Federer because he has 6 slams by the age of 23 while Federer only had 3 slams (freshly turned 23).

Here's a couple of things to keep in mind:
-Federer was a late bloomer. He didn't begin his domination until late
-Nadal was an early bloomer. He began his domination in his teens

Still, many people still believe that Nadal is still much, much faster than Federer.

Here are some numbers then:

-Nadal turned pro at age 15 (2001)
-Federer turned pro at age 17 (1998)

In his 8 year long career, Nadal has accumulated 6 slams. Federer, in his first 8 years (being fair to Nadal here), accumulated 7 slams, and this is not counting all of 2006 because we are still in 2009.

Therefore, Federer had more slams than Nadal at this point in their careers. The only difference was that Nadal turned pro at an age 2 years younger than Federer.

Also, Nadal had his breakthrough in his 4th year on tour (first GS title), while Federer broke through in his 5 year. Both men won their first MS titles in their 4th year.

If anything, Federer and Nadal are pretty even, with Federer having a slight edge in slams while Nadal has a slight edge in MS titles.

But, the bottom line is, Nadal's achievements at this point in his career do NOTcompletely overshadow Federer's achievements at the same point in their respective careers.

That is exactly my point from another post. Here it is. Since NameRanger is so good at digging all of the craps up, I was hoping he would.

Here is what I wrote:

Nadal turned pro at 15? Fed turned pro at 17? So Nadal, if you start at 15 to 23, that is a good 8 years on the pro. If you take that 8 years on the pro circuit, then Fed had accomplished a lot. I will have to refer NameRanger to do all of the references, accomplishments for me because he's good at it. NameRanger can dig a lot of that craps up much better than I can do.

The point is if you look at Nadal as a 23 years old person, yes, that's young. But if you look at the # of years on the pro, then he's a veteran for sure. Fed has accomplished a lot at 25.

I am not saying Nadal hasn't by 23, but what I am saying is don't look at the age to compare the two. Look at how long they been a pro and compare it that way. Then you have more of a orange to orange comparison as opposed to apple to orange comparison. For example, when people compare Fed and Sampras' slam accomplishments, they don't compare the ages, although some do, but it's not a good comparison. Most will look at the # of slams they played to accomplish their 14 wins. If Fed accomplished the same # of slams as Pete in shorter period played on the tour, regardless of the age that he accomplished that, because some people turn pro early, whether they are ready, or they have financial backing from their families, or whatever reason, you have to look at the duration of their pro career not their age to make valid comparison.

Nadal_Freak
06-21-2009, 01:41 PM
Well Nadal has done more by 23. So it isn't a myth.

Tennis_Bum
06-21-2009, 01:42 PM
What did Nadal do between 15-17?

Learning how to pick his *** to waist his opponent time, learning how to call trainer, learning how to jump around before a match to act like a monkey because he thinks that by jumping around like a money he will distract and/or intimidate his opponents.

BreakPoint
06-21-2009, 01:42 PM
What did Nadal do between 15-17?
What did Federer do between 17-19?

cuddles26
06-21-2009, 01:44 PM
Well Nadal has done more by 23. So it isn't a myth.

From hereon in is when he is certain to lose alot of ground with Federer's pace though.

Federer had won 8 slams before his 25th birthday

Nadal would be lucky to have won 9 slams at the time of his 25th birthday (which will be during the 2011 French)

Federer had won 11 slams before his 26th birthday

Nadal's last slam at the latest would probably be on his 26th birthday at the 2012 French, and if it is even his 11th it will be a bit of a miracle (more likely 9th or 10th).

Tennis_Bum
06-21-2009, 01:44 PM
What did Federer do between 17-19?

Fed took out at the time, the best grass court player at Wimbledon in 4th round? Can't remember exactly the round but that sounds about right.

Nadal_Freak
06-21-2009, 01:46 PM
From hereon in is when he is certain to lose alot of ground with Federer's pace though.

Federer had won 8 slams before his 25th birthday

Nadal would be lucky to have won 9 slams at the time of his 25th birthday (which will be during the 2011 French)

Federer had won 11 slams before his 26th birthday

Nadal's last slam at the latest would probably be on his 26th birthday at the 2012 French, and if it is even his 11th it will be a bit of a miracle (more likely 9th or 10th).
Wishful thinking. Nadal will be fully recovered in 3 or 4 weeks.

Mansewerz
06-21-2009, 01:47 PM
Well Nadal has done more by 23. So it isn't a myth.

At this point in his career, no, he has not. It is a myth.

Point in his life is a totally different topic.

cuddles26
06-21-2009, 01:47 PM
Fed took out at the time, the best grass court player at Wimbledon in 4th round? Can't remember exactly the round but that sounds about right.

Federer didnt even make his first slam semifinal until Wimbledon 2003 when he was almost 22. Beating an old Sampras at Wimbledon 2001 means nothing, George Bastl even beat Sampras at Wimbledon around then. Federer would lose in the 1st or 4th round of every slam he played until Wimbledon 2 years later. Sampras was probably 50% the player in his prime at that point, Federer 45% or something. Two greats who were nowhere near the top of their or the mens game at that exact moment. The most overrated match ever.

cuddles26
06-21-2009, 01:49 PM
Wishful thinking. Nadal will be fully recovered in 3 or 4 weeks.

You are the one who is wishful thinking if you believe Nadal will ever be on a 3 slams per year pace to keep his current edge on Federer at the same age, or that Nadal will be winning any slams past his 26th birthday (I feel almost generous giving him that when his body is falling apart around his 23rd birthday). Delusional in fact if you believe that. My estimates for him were perfectly fair and within reason. Then again what can I expect from someone who calls himself Nadal_Freak, LOL!

tudwell
06-21-2009, 01:50 PM
Fed took out at the time, the best grass court player at Wimbledon in 4th round? Can't remember exactly the round but that sounds about right.

And at 17 Nadal straight setted number 1 in the world Roger Federer.

cuddles26
06-21-2009, 01:51 PM
And at 17 Nadal straight setted number 1 in the world Roger Federer.

That is the point of this topic though. Nadal began to peak at a much earlier age than Federer, and even began his career at an earlier age.

Cesc Fabregas
06-21-2009, 01:51 PM
What did Federer do between 17-19?

He beat Sampras and got to the quarters of Wimbledon.

Nadal_Freak
06-21-2009, 01:52 PM
You are the one who is wishful thinking if you believe Nadal will ever be on a 3 slams per year pace to keep his current edge on Federer at the same age, or that Nadal will be winning any slams past his 26th birthday (I feel almost generous giving him that when his body is falling apart around his 23rd birthday). Delusional in fact if you believe that. My estimates for him were perfectly fair and within reason. Then again what can I expect from someone who calls himself Nadal_Freak, LOL!
I guess you know more than Nadal's doctor. I'm glad you are such an expert in other players careers. Tell me how long will Fed last?

ChanceEncounter
06-21-2009, 01:54 PM
Wishful thinking. Nadal will be fully recovered in 3 or 4 weeks.
So you think it's "wishful thinking" to believe that Nadal won't have 11 grand slams by the 2012 French? So he'll win at least 5 of the next 12 slams for sure (5 of 11 actually, since he's skipping Wimbledon)?

TennisandMusic
06-21-2009, 01:54 PM
It really depends on how you want to look at it apparently. Years on the tour vs direct age comparison? What about how many majors they have played in? How many majors has Nadal played in and how many of those has he won. At the same point of majors played in Federer's career, how many of them had he won? That would be an interesting comparison.

However if you want to talk accomplishments, I'm pretty sure Nadal will never catch Federer on that front. It will simply be too hard to do, unless he completely changes his mindset and plays every surface how he does on grass. I just don't think he will do it. And even then it would be hard to catch him with players like Murray getting better. Federer simply never had a Murray type to contend with during his best years, 04-07.

Not trying to take anything from Federer at all by saying that, I'm simply saying it will be hard for Nadal to ever match Federer's overall tennis achievements.

cuddles26
06-21-2009, 01:56 PM
I guess you know more than Nadal's doctor. I'm glad you are such an expert in other players careers. Tell me how long will Fed last?

Yeah since Nadal's doctor has gauranteed Nadal will be able to run like he is now at 30. After all saying he will be recovered enough from yet another injury (how many has it been already) to play tennis again in a few weeks is the equivalent of saying that. :rolleyes: You are clearly a biased Nadal fanatic, probably some teenaged girl. I actually like Nadal, but am just being realistic in my breakdown. I would actually be very happy for him if he ever reaches 10 slams. i hope Nadal atleast wins more than 8 as I would like to see him surpass Agassi's count, and if he breaks double digts it would be tremendous.

The fact is around now is when Federer begins to win at a 3 slams per year pace. If you think Nadal will keep pace with that with his playing style already taking a toll on his body, an improving field mostly with contenders his age or younger (plus that Federer guy still going strong), and that he has only once his career even won 2 slams in the same year you are insane. Not to mention thinking he will be winning slams into his late 20s, that is a laugher.

Mansewerz
06-21-2009, 01:57 PM
And at 17 Nadal straight setted number 1 in the world Roger Federer.

3rd year of his professional career. In the 4th year of his professional career, Federer took out Sampras on his favorite court on his favorite surface in an epic match.

zagor
06-21-2009, 01:58 PM
I actually agree with N_F here,Nadal has accomplished more at the same age.However what matters is the finish line,not the start and I think Fed will have better resumee when all is said and done,just my personal opinion.

flying24
06-21-2009, 01:59 PM
You are clearly a biased Nadal fanatic, probably some teenaged girl.

Scary as it is Nadal_Freak is a man. :?

kOaMaster
06-21-2009, 02:00 PM
What did Federer do between 17-19?

trained hard for a big career. that is probably the age where teh decision for your future falls. during the first 2-3 years you turn pro.

it's not only about preparing your matches, also about preparing your career. something obviously martina hingis did wrong. (among some others)
nadal probably too.

zagor
06-21-2009, 02:04 PM
It really depends on how you want to look at it apparently. Years on the tour vs direct age comparison? What about how many majors they have played in? How many majors has Nadal played in and how many of those has he won. At the same point of majors played in Federer's career, how many of them had he won? That would be an interesting comparison.

However if you want to talk accomplishments, I'm pretty sure Nadal will never catch Federer on that front. It will simply be too hard to do, unless he completely changes his mindset and plays every surface how he does on grass. I just don't think he will do it. And even then it would be hard to catch him with players like Murray getting better. Federer simply never had a Murray type to contend with during his best years, 04-07.

Not trying to take anything from Federer at all by saying that, I'm simply saying it will be hard for Nadal to ever match Federer's overall tennis achievements.

Murray has so far been a huge factor in only one slam-USO 2008 and Fed beat him there,however I do expect he'll get better and better.I definitely think he'll end up as a multiple slam winner and is future #1.

The main reason Nadal is unlikely to catch up to Fed's accomplishments is not Murray(not yet)but his playing style,Federer is much more agressive and has a much bigger serve while the main foundation of Nadal's game is still his amazing defense and that translates to spending much more energy to win matches.I do think Nadal has the tools be more offensive(he's actually a talented shotmaker and can hit his FH very big when he wants to)but his defensive mindset is holding him back,he doesn't take high-risk high-reward approach Fed does.

Mick
06-21-2009, 02:04 PM
nadal fans should not be upset. most tennis experts (including mcenroe and borg) have stated that think federer is the greatest ever but nadal is constantly being compared with federer. this means that nadal is not far behind the greatest player of all time :)

flying24
06-21-2009, 02:05 PM
However if you want to talk accomplishments, I'm pretty sure Nadal will never catch Federer on that front. It will simply be too hard to do, unless he completely changes his mindset and plays every surface how he does on grass. I just don't think he will do it. And even then it would be hard to catch him with players like Murray getting better. Federer simply never had a Murray type to contend with during his best years, 04-07.

Murray has shown almost nothing in the slams so far though. OK one slam final and a couple quarters that is it. I sort of agree with you but at the same time even Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin (Federer contemporaries) had done alot more in slams by this age than Murray. He is about to turn 22 remember.

Clydey2times
06-21-2009, 02:08 PM
So you think it's "wishful thinking" to believe that Nadal won't have 11 grand slams by the 2012 French? So he'll win at least 5 of the next 12 slams for sure (5 of 11 actually, since he's skipping Wimbledon)?

The poster made a number of statements. How can you possibly know which one he was responding to? My guess is that it was the poster's assertion that Nadal will win his last slam at 26.

BreakPoint
06-21-2009, 02:09 PM
Fed took out at the time, the best grass court player at Wimbledon in 4th round? Can't remember exactly the round but that sounds about right.
Yes, but Federer didn't win his first big tournament until a year later at the Hamburg Masters, when he was 20.

zagor
06-21-2009, 02:10 PM
Murray has shown almost nothing in the slams so far though. OK one slam final and a couple quarters that is it. I sort of agree with you but at the same time even Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin (Federer contemporaries) had done alot more in slams by this age than Murray. He is about to turn 22 remember.

That is correct,however Murray had to go through both Nadal and Fed to win USO which is pretty difficult,almost impossible to do.We'll see how he does at Wimbledon this year,but he strikes me as a future #1.

Jchurch
06-21-2009, 02:11 PM
And at 17 Nadal straight setted number 1 in the world Roger Federer.

And Prime Nadal was straight setted by Juan Carlos Ferrero in 2008 at Rome.

TennisandMusic
06-21-2009, 02:12 PM
Murray has shown almost nothing in the slams so far though. OK one slam final and a couple quarters that is it. I sort of agree with you but at the same time even Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin (Federer contemporaries) had done alot more in slams by this age than Murray. He is about to turn 22 remember.

I think Murray just shows huge potential and it will come to fruition soon. Here is a guy with talent, speed, hunger, an apparently strong work ethic, and more importantly no fear. I love what he said about the hometown advantage regarding Wimbledon. When did Henman ever take that attitude?

Agreed that Murray hasn't really been a factor in majors aside from the last US Open, but I expect that to change pretty soon. If not, bummer for him.

I also agree with Zagor, Nadal's mindset is just wrong if longevity is the goal. This is why I wouldn't be too disappointed if he flames out. Yeah I will greatly miss not being able to see him play his best, but it's hard to be disappointed when the guy is obviously just making bad choices that are harming him and his career. If you're going to complain about hard courts, don't play so many small HC tournaments. Be more of a shotmaker, which he IS capable of being. There are times when he is playing aggressive, and it's just brutal for the other guy. Why not do that all the time? So Nadal should quit whining, be a man, strengthen those legs, and get down to business. If he can't do that, that is his own fault.

Don't get me wrong, hard courts are atrocious but you deal with what you have too.

PrinceMoron
06-21-2009, 02:14 PM
What is his blood type? I'm B+ and going strong aged 47, so if he needs a transfusion...

flying24
06-21-2009, 02:14 PM
That is correct,however Murray had to go through both Nadal and Fed to win USO which is pretty difficult,almost impossible to do.We'll see how he does at Wimbledon this year,but he strikes me as a future #1.

That is nice but what are his excuses for all the other slams. The event you are referring to was where he made the final anyway, which I acknowledged was his one really good slam showing so far as it is. What about the other slams. At Wimbledon last year he lost to Nadal but he was lucky to survive even the flaky Gasquet in the 4th round before being brutalized by Nadal, so certainly would not have fared better than that with any draw. In Australia Verdasco takes him down. At the French Gonzo takes him down. Before Wimbledon last year he just isnt that good a player and doesnt produce any real slam results. So really for now it is what it is. I agree he will improve his slam results but Federer and Nadal cant be a valid excuse for the up to now.

All-rounder
06-21-2009, 02:16 PM
I think Murray just shows huge potential and it will come to fruition soon. Here is a guy with talent, speed, hunger, an apparently strong work ethic, and more importantly no fear. I love what he said about the hometown advantage regarding Wimbledon. When did Henman ever take that attitude?

Agreed that Murray hasn't really been a factor in majors aside from the last US Open, but I expect that to change pretty soon. If not, bummer for him.

I also agree with Zagor, Nadal's mindset is just wrong if longevity is the goal. This is why I wouldn't be too disappointed if he flames out. Yeah I will greatly miss not being able to see him play his best, but it's hard to be disappointed when the guy is obviously just making bad choices that are harming him and his career. If you're going to complain about hard courts, don't play so many small HC tournaments. Be more of a shotmaker, which he IS capable of being. There are times when he is playing aggressive, and it's just brutal for the other guy. Why not do that all the time? So Nadal should quit whining, be a man, strengthen those legs, and get down to business. If he can't do that, that is his own fault.

Don't get me wrong, hard courts are atrocious but you deal with what you have too.
Great post :)

Clydey2times
06-21-2009, 02:18 PM
That is nice but what are his excuses for all the other slams. The event you are referring to was where he made the final anyway, which I acknowledged was his one really good slam showing so far as it is. What about the other slams. At Wimbledon last year he lost to Nadal but he was lucky to survive even the flaky Gasquet in the 4th round before being brutalized by Nadal, so certainly would not have fared better than that with any draw. In Australia Verdasco takes him down. At the French Gonzo takes him down. Before Wimbledon last year he just isnt that good a player and doesnt produce any real slam results. So really for now it is what it is. I agree he will improve his slam results but Federer and Nadal cant be a valid excuse for the up to now.

All the other slams? Which slams are you referring to? He has only played 14 of them.

cuddles26
06-21-2009, 02:19 PM
I think Murray just shows huge potential and it will come to fruition soon. Here is a guy with talent, speed, hunger, an apparently strong work ethic, and more importantly no fear. I love what he said about the hometown advantage regarding Wimbledon. When did Henman ever take that attitude?

Agreed that Murray hasn't really been a factor in majors aside from the last US Open, but I expect that to change pretty soon. If not, bummer for him.

I also agree with Zagor, Nadal's mindset is just wrong if longevity is the goal. This is why I wouldn't be too disappointed if he flames out. Yeah I will greatly miss not being able to see him play his best, but it's hard to be disappointed when the guy is obviously just making bad choices that are harming him and his career. If you're going to complain about hard courts, don't play so many small HC tournaments. Be more of a shotmaker, which he IS capable of being. There are times when he is playing aggressive, and it's just brutal for the other guy. Why not do that all the time? So Nadal should quit whining, be a man, strengthen those legs, and get down to business. If he can't do that, that is his own fault.

Don't get me wrong, hard courts are atrocious but you deal with what you have too.

I actually agree with alot of what you are saying too. Nadal is a brute, he is so big, so strong, so athletic, and contrary to what some say he has the offnsive talent. So why isnt he exploiting his offensive potential more, being more of a shotmaker, more of a point finisher. There is no reason he shouldnt be ripping huge winners early in points as often as almost anyone out there combined with already nearly unmatched defensive and mental games. It is the style of play he chooses to play in many ways which causes much of the wear and injuries his body has already suffered, and will make an especialy long career nearly impossible. He doesnt have to be just much superior, much more talented and zouped up Michael Chang. With his size and strength, and flexability, he should be able to have a stronger serve too IMO.

In addition his schedule is ridiculous. He does not need to play all these smallish events, especialy the small hard court events. He already plays enough without some of those, especialy if he insists on continuing with his playing style.

Do you think he needs a different coach than his uncle? I have a feeling if he had a different coach that person would be telling him all of this but since it is family he cant bring himself to. It is perhaps time for a new voice for Rafa.

zagor
06-21-2009, 02:20 PM
That is nice but what are his excuses for all the other slams. The event you are referring to was where he made the final anyway, which I acknowledged was his one really good slam showing so far as it is. What about the other slams. At Wimbledon last year he lost to Nadal but he was lucky to survive even the flaky Gasquet in the 4th round before being brutalized by Nadal, so certainly would not have fared better than that with any draw. In Australia Verdasco takes him down. At the French Gonzo takes him down. Before Wimbledon last year he just isnt that good a player and doesnt produce any real slam results. So really for now it is what it is. I agree he will improve his slam results but Federer and Nadal cant be a valid excuse for the up to now.

I agree,but he had a damn good excuse for USO but in the other slams he proabably should have done better.However bare in mind that Murray's gametype takes a bit longer to mature,he's not just another baseline basher,the guy has a pretty multi-faceted game and plenty of options to choose from on court,those type players take a bit longer to really come into their own.Fed was like that as well.

veroniquem
06-21-2009, 02:23 PM
Yeah since Nadal's doctor has gauranteed Nadal will be able to run like he is now at 30. After all saying he will be recovered enough from yet another injury (how many has it been already) to play tennis again in a few weeks is the equivalent of saying that. :rolleyes: You are clearly a biased Nadal fanatic, probably some teenaged girl. I actually like Nadal, but am just being realistic in my breakdown. I would actually be very happy for him if he ever reaches 10 slams. i hope Nadal atleast wins more than 8 as I would like to see him surpass Agassi's count, and if he breaks double digts it would be tremendous.

The fact is around now is when Federer begins to win at a 3 slams per year pace. If you think Nadal will keep pace with that with his playing style already taking a toll on his body, an improving field mostly with contenders his age or younger (plus that Federer guy still going strong), and that he has only once his career even won 2 slams in the same year you are insane. Not to mention thinking he will be winning slams into his late 20s, that is a laugher.
Nadal reached his 15th master shield at 22. Federer reached his at 27. Nadal managed a slam win on every surface (hard, clay and grass) at 22, Federer at 27, Nadal won the Olympics (singles) at 22, Federer is still waiting. Nadal won RG-W back to back at 22, Federer is hoping to do it at 27. So of course Nadal has achieved more at 23 than Fed, doesn't mean it will continue but as of now he has.

cuddles26
06-21-2009, 02:26 PM
Nadal reached his 15th master shield at 22. Federer reached his at 27. Nadal managed a slam win on every surface (hard, clay and grass) at 22, Federer at 27, Nadal won the Olympics (singles) at 22, Federer is still waiting. Nadal won RG-W back to back at 22, Federer is hoping to do it at 27. So of course Nadal has achieved more at 23 than Fed, doesn't mean it will continue but as of now he has.

and I disputed that where exactly? :confused: I merely pointed out the obvious, being that this is the point where Nadal's edge on Federer at the same age is bound to start to fall off drastically and will be lost altogether.

Give me a break on the Olympics btw. A Masters title is even bigger in tennis than the Olympics. I dont know why tennis is even in the Olympics, is becomes a little barely noticed side show there in the face of the true marquee Olympic sports and as a tennis fan I find it embarassing to see the sport demeaned there in that way when it isnt even an important or neccessary event in our sport to begin with.

フェデラー
06-21-2009, 02:28 PM
Well lets put it like this, Nadal's chances of ever winning the US Open are slim to none, since Federer and Murray and even Djokovic are much better on hard courts, so thats 3-4 years of no slams there. How he will do at the other three is yet to be seen, but Murray and Federer wil probably dominate.

bruce38
06-21-2009, 02:32 PM
Bottom line is it is unlikely Nadal will achieve anything close to Fed. Anybody can quote at this point in time and that point in time, when it's all said and done, Nadal will be in the realm of Mac, Connors, Agassi, players like that. I'm sure most Nadal fans know this deep inside of them, but of course they wish for more - what you hear on the boards are wishes. It won't happen. Fed is in a different league altogether.

TennisandMusic
06-21-2009, 02:36 PM
Do you think he needs a different coach than his uncle? I have a feeling if he had a different coach that person would be telling him all of this but since it is family he cant bring himself to. It is perhaps time for a new voice for Rafa.

Not really sure. Toni has volunteered to step down in the past and Nadal said no. Also I have read in interviews Toni saying Nadal needs to play everywhere like he does on grass and it's merely a mental problem. However that was awhile ago, so I am not sure where we are on those results yet. :-P

It's easy for us armchair critics/coaches to say we know what is best for this pro or that pro. It's always easier to criticize than to do. However if I were in charge of Nadal's operations there are a few things I would change immediately and I personally believe he would be better off for it. First would be the schedule without question. There are a number of other things, but don't need to list them here. But there are a few obvious things that I'm sure most understand.

Nadal should change his habits or shutup with the whining. It's getting a little old.

TennisandMusic
06-21-2009, 02:41 PM
Bottom line is it is unlikely Nadal will achieve anything close to Fed. Anybody can quote at this point in time and that point in time, when it's all said and done, Nadal will be in the realm of Mac, Connors, Agassi, players like that. I'm sure most Nadal fans know this deep inside of them, but of course they wish for more - what you hear on the boards are wishes. It won't happen. Fed is in a different league altogether.

In achievements, most likely. Quality of play? Ehhh...Nadal has 6 majors. He has beaten Federer in all 6. Federer has only beaten Nadal for 2 of his 14. Not exactly a great record.

Also, Nadal has won majors on all surfaces. This is something McEnroe, Sampras, Borg, Lendl, Becker, Edberg etc. have not been able to do. Federer would not have done it, had he had not had three choking opponents or a healthy Nadal in the mix. Haas, or Del Potro do not lose those matches against any other player playing the exact same way not named Roger Federer. Complete choke jobs to name alone. Nadal also has the gold medal in singles. I understand that puts him up there with Massu (:-P) however combined with the rest it's quite a nice bonus.

So in a way Nadal has achieved quite a bit more than most of the all time greats. The fact that he has taken just about ALL of it from Federer himself, makes it even more impressive. What has Federer taken from Nadal? Not much really, in comparison. What does that say? I guess it is open to debate, but saying Federer is in "another league" is not entirely accurate, in my unimportant opinion.

pame
06-21-2009, 02:52 PM
Nadal reached his 15th master shield at 22. Federer reached his at 27. Nadal managed a slam win on every surface (hard, clay and grass) at 22, Federer at 27, Nadal won the Olympics (singles) at 22, Federer is still waiting. Nadal won RG-W back to back at 22, Federer is hoping to do it at 27. So of course Nadal has achieved more at 23 than Fed, doesn't mean it will continue but as of now he has.

But isn't the OP doing a comparison based on similar length of pro careers, and not a comparison based on calendar ages?

bruce38
06-21-2009, 02:53 PM
In achievements, most likely. Quality of play? Ehhh...Nadal has 6 majors. He has beaten Federer in all 6. Federer has only beaten Nadal for 2 of his 14. Not exactly a great record.

Also, Nadal has won majors on all surfaces. This is something McEnroe, Sampras, Borg, Lendl, Becker, Edberg etc. have not been able to do. Federer would not have done it, had he had not had three choking opponents or a healthy Nadal in the mix. Haas, or Del Potro do not lose those matches against any other player playing the exact same way not named Roger Federer. Complete choke jobs to name alone. Nadal also has the gold medal in singles. I understand that puts him up there with Massu (:-P) however combined with the rest it's quite a nice bonus.

So in a way Nadal has achieved quite a bit more than most of the all time greats. The fact that he has taken just about ALL of it from Federer himself, makes it even more impressive. What has Federer taken from Nadal? Not much really, in comparison. What does that say? I guess it is open to debate, but saying Federer is in "another league" is not entirely accurate, in my unimportant opinion.

That Federer would not have won the FO with a healthy Nadal is conjecture, a good bet mind you, but conjecture all the same. He could have (he had in fact beaten Nadal on clay in their last meeting). That those matches against Fed were choke jobs is your biased interpretation. I disagree.

I would agree Nadal's accomplishments put him ahead of Agassi if he wins 2 or 3 more slams (which he likely will), but until then no.

That Nadal has won more against Fed, is back to the old argument of the H2H being skewed since Nadal was not good enough to make hardcourts and grass finals in the early years, where as Fed was good enough to make clay court finals. I would say the H2H actually speaks in favor of Fed even though it is lopsided.

So I disagree, Fed is an entirely different league from Nadal, and my bet is that is how it will end. Even more so now that Nadal is getting injured and will likely continue to do so because without playing as hard as he does, he cannot keep up with more naturally talented players.

bruce38
06-21-2009, 02:58 PM
Quality of play?

And you want to question quality of play? Fed would never have lost to a guy like Soderling so early in a Major. Nadal had done it many many times in majors (Not just Soderling this past FO). Only now in his later years will it begin to happen to Fed that he loses in earlier rounds against lesser players (although it hasn't happened yet). Nadal's game is completely geared towards Fed in order to beat him, Fed's game his geared towards the world and he his much more versatile. His 20 consecutive semi's is a testament to that. Nadal will never accomplish this. This is the true indicator of quality of play. Again no comparison. Different league for Fed.

TennisandMusic
06-21-2009, 03:01 PM
That Federer would not have won the FO with a healthy Nadal is conjecture, a good bet mind you, but conjecture all the same. He could have (he had in fact beaten Nadal on clay in their last meeting). That those matches against Fed were choke jobs is your biased interpretation. I disagree.

I would agree Nadal's accomplishments put him ahead of Agassi if he wins 2 or 3 more slams (which he likely will), but until then no.

That Nadal has won more against Fed, is back to the old argument of the H2H being skewed since Nadal was not good enough to make hardcourts and grass finals in the early years, where as Fed was good enough to make clay court finals. I would say the H2H actually speaks in favor of Fed even though it is lopsided.

So I disagree, Fed is an entirely different league from Nadal, and my bet is that is how it will end. Even more so now that Nadal is getting injured and will likely continue to do so because without playing as hard as he does, he cannot keep up with more naturally talented players.

I don't think my interpretation is biased since I watched the matches. In fact when they were leading I explained to one of my friends there was no way they would pull it out. They would mentally fold as they are known to do. It played out exactly as I had supposed it would. That kind of predictability is only a result of tried and true results by those particular players, and capitulation is the name of the game unfortunately. Also Nadal was clearly below his best for most of this year, going back to even the AO. Do you really think he played great in Madrid? Almost no one who watched thinks so.

Continuing to suggest that Nadal is not as naturally talented as "other players" is insulting to Nadal, as well as to the players he is beating. How on Earth is Federer losing so much to a less talented player then? That doesn't speak too well for him either!

I am not sure how you can say the H2H speaks in favor of Federer when Nadal has a 75% win ratio across all surfaces in majors, and Federer has a 25% win ratio in majors, and only on one surface. The H2H clearly speaks in favor of Nadal in almost every meaningful way.

You are free to disagree of course, however I am just basing my opinion on the pure numbers here, and on the level of play seen in their matches.

TennisandMusic
06-21-2009, 03:03 PM
And you want to question quality of play? Fed would never have lost to a guy like Soderling so early in a Major. Nadal had done it many many times in majors (Not just Soderling this past FO). Only now in his later years will it begin to happen to Fed that he loses in earlier rounds against lesser players (although it hasn't happened yet). Nadal's game is completely geared towards Fed in order to beat him, Fed's game his geared towards the world and he his much more versatile. His 20 consecutive semi's is a testament to that. Nadal will never accomplish this. This is the true indicator of quality of play. Again no comparison. Different league for Fed.

You realize Nadal has been below his best for awhile right? He would have lost to plenty of guys on that day. He even said in an interview the day before that match "for sure I am going to lose" when they were talking about how he was unbeaten up until that point at the French. He knew he wasn't doing well.

If you are going to examine results, please do so by the facts and not what you wish the situation to be.

bruce38
06-21-2009, 03:11 PM
I don't think my interpretation is biased since I watched the matches. In fact when they were leading I explained to one of my friends there was no way they would pull it out. They would mentally fold as they are known to do. It played out exactly as I had supposed it would. That kind of predictability is only a result of tried and true results by those particular players, and capitulation is the name of the game unfortunately. Also Nadal was clearly below his best for most of this year, going back to even the AO. Do you really think he played great in Madrid? Almost no one who watched thinks so.

Continuing to suggest that Nadal is not as naturally talented as "other players" is insulting to Nadal, as well as to the players he is beating. How on Earth is Federer losing so much to a less talented player then? That doesn't speak too well for him either!

I am not sure how you can say the H2H speaks in favor of Federer when Nadal has a 75% win ratio across all surfaces in majors, and Federer has a 25% win ratio in majors, and only on one surface. The H2H clearly speaks in favor of Nadal in almost every meaningful way.

You are free to disagree of course, however I am just basing my opinion on the pure numbers here, and on the level of play seen in their matches.

Who cares if you saw the matches, I saw them too, my biased interpretation is that they did not fold and Fed pulled it out. I explained to one of my friends the Fed would pull it out without the other guy folding and he did! Gee, fancy that. Yes I think he played well in Madrid but was outclassed by a better Federer. That he was not as his best at the AO is insulting to Fed.

I am not insulting Nadal, I am pointing out the truth, sometimes the truth hurts (i.e. insults).

Federer is losing to a much less talented player because Nadal's whole game is geared towards Fed's game. If Fed did that to Nadal, he would beat Nadal, but would also lose sporadically like Nadal and not claim as many Majors in the long run. I guess Fed chose to have a game that can defeat the world rather than just a few players.

If you are not sure how the H2H speaks in favor of Fed then you simply have not understood it, try reading it a few more times and see if that helps. I am also basing my opinions on the pure numbers and you are free to disagree with them,

bruce38
06-21-2009, 03:13 PM
You realize Nadal has been below his best for awhile right? He would have lost to plenty of guys on that day. He even said in an interview the day before that match "for sure I am going to lose" when they were talking about how he was unbeaten up until that point at the French. He knew he wasn't doing well.

If you are going to examine results, please do so by the facts and not what you wish the situation to be.

You also realize Fed has been below his best for a while too right? Problem with Nadal is he will never have the consistency of Fed, which is the hardest thing to maintain over a long period of time. His loss to Soderling and others proves that. That he said he was for sure going to lose proves he is not as ******** as some of his fans.

bruce38
06-21-2009, 03:16 PM
If you are going to examine results, please do so by the facts and not what you wish the situation to be.

The numbers say Fed has 14 Majors and counting. Nadal has 6 Majors and temporarily stopped. Those are the numbers. That is the bottom line. Period. Different league.

Madhoshi22
06-21-2009, 04:02 PM
Haas, or Del Potro do not lose those matches against any other player playing the exact same way not named Roger Federer. Complete choke jobs to name alone.

Haas choked obviously, however, I think DelPo was more a fitness problem, rather than a choking one, regardless, Fed won, that's all that counts. When all is said and done, he had to beat 7 players to win the title, and he did.

lambielspins
06-21-2009, 04:07 PM
Haas choked obviously, however, I think DelPo was more a fitness problem, rather than a choking one, regardless, Fed won, that's all that counts. When all is said and done, he had to beat 7 players to win the title, and he did.

Haas did not choke. Federer simply woke up just in time. Federer is the far better player to even if we were talking a prime Haas on a hard court, so an aging Haas on clay does not control his destiny in anyway unless he has a huge lead in the deciding set. Where did Haas choke? The break point Federer saved with a winner. The last 2 sets where Federer stopped making errors which Haas is reliant on to have any chance vs Federer at any point in their careers.

Del Potro also didnt choke. Like you said he ran out of gas, and despite badly outplaying Federer in the first 3 sets since Federer snuck out that one close set he was only up 2 sets to 1. Not a fitting reward for his vastly superior play the first 3 sets, but how it went, and from that point forward Federer again raised his game, while Del Potro had put so much energy into hitting ever ball full out for 3 full sets plus was playing out of his skin for 3 sets anyway so a letdown of his level and a Federer comeback was inevitable.

Madhoshi22
06-21-2009, 04:10 PM
Haas did not choke. Federer simply woke up just in time. Federer is the far better player to even if we were talking a prime Haas on a hard court, so an aging Haas on clay does not control his destiny in anyway unless he has a huge lead in the deciding set. Where did Haas choke? The break point Federer saved with a winner. The last 2 sets where Federer stopped making errors which Haas is reliant on to have any chance vs Federer at any point in their careers.

Del Potro also didnt choke. Like you said he ran out of gas, and despite badly outplaying Federer in the first 3 sets since Federer snuck out that one close set he was only up 2 sets to 1. Not a fitting reward for his vastly superior play the first 3 sets, but how it went, and from that point forward Federer again raised his game, while Del Potro had put so much energy into hitting ever ball full out for 3 full sets plus was playing out of his skin for 3 sets anyway so a letdown of his level and a Federer comeback was inevitable.

Federer's inside out forehand to save that bp was definitely the turning point of the match, in Fed's favor, and against Haas. You can see it, Fed loosened up, and Haas tightened up. It resulted in a 6-0 fourth set in Fed's favor, and Federer rolling through the fifth.
In essence, yes Haas did choke.

P_Agony
06-21-2009, 04:16 PM
Murray has so far been a huge factor in only one slam-USO 2008 and Fed beat him there,however I do expect he'll get better and better.I definitely think he'll end up as a multiple slam winner and is future #1.

The main reason Nadal is unlikely to catch up to Fed's accomplishments is not Murray(not yet)but his playing style,Federer is much more agressive and has a much bigger serve while the main foundation of Nadal's game is still his amazing defense and that translates to spending much more energy to win matches.I do think Nadal has the tools be more offensive(he's actually a talented shotmaker and can hit his FH very big when he wants to)but his defensive mindset is holding him back,he doesn't take high-risk high-reward approach Fed does.

I think Nadal has some of the tools, but not all of them. His serve is still a weakness IMO. He needs more free points from his serve if he wants to hold his service games without investing a lot of energy. I don't think Nadal is a great shotmaker, he is good, but not great. There are quite a few players with better touch (at the net, for example) than Nadal.

He does have the ability to go for big forehand shots more occasionally, but somehow he just stays with the defensive approach. Nadal, IMO, needs to mix it up more - serve bigger, go for winners more often, and make an occasional approach to the net. Even if he gets one more easy point per game, it's already a huge improvment.

zagor
06-21-2009, 04:17 PM
Federer's inside out forehand to save that bp was definitely the turning point of the match, in Fed's favor, and against Haas. You can see it, Fed loosened up, and Haas tightened up. It resulted in a 6-0 fourth set in Fed's favor, and Federer rolling through the fifth.
In essence, yes Haas did choke.

That depends on what is your definition of a choke.For me it means you're in a winning position and you give it away with UFE or doublefaults or similar.By being in a winning position I mean:

-serving for the match
-having MPs
-being up a break or two in the deciding set

Haas,Del Potro and Acasuso were never in that position IMO.A real choke for example is Todd Martin against Washington in Wimbledon 2006(served twice for the match and still ended up losing).

NamRanger
06-21-2009, 04:18 PM
I don't think my interpretation is biased since I watched the matches. In fact when they were leading I explained to one of my friends there was no way they would pull it out. They would mentally fold as they are known to do. It played out exactly as I had supposed it would. That kind of predictability is only a result of tried and true results by those particular players, and capitulation is the name of the game unfortunately. Also Nadal was clearly below his best for most of this year, going back to even the AO. Do you really think he played great in Madrid? Almost no one who watched thinks so.

Continuing to suggest that Nadal is not as naturally talented as "other players" is insulting to Nadal, as well as to the players he is beating. How on Earth is Federer losing so much to a less talented player then? That doesn't speak too well for him either!

I am not sure how you can say the H2H speaks in favor of Federer when Nadal has a 75% win ratio across all surfaces in majors, and Federer has a 25% win ratio in majors, and only on one surface. The H2H clearly speaks in favor of Nadal in almost every meaningful way.

You are free to disagree of course, however I am just basing my opinion on the pure numbers here, and on the level of play seen in their matches.



A. You are biased; period. It does not take a genius to figure out you loathe Federer. Not hate, you loathe him. You attack him as a human being, calling him a "petulant spoiled crybaby". The most hilarious part is that you are allowed to make judgments about Federer's psyche (you, an armchair critic) while Darren Cahill, who is a world renown coach is not allowed to make an educated guess about Nadal's psyche. Double standard #1.


B. It is impossible for you to say Nadal has been playing poorly for most of the year. He has won 1 slam, 3 Master Shields, and was in the final of many other tournaments. It is simply stupid to say he has been playing poorly, when his results are better than what most players achieve throughout their entire career. He LEADS the tour with 5 titles. I think that alone speaks for itself.


C. There are alot of players who have bad match-ups against other players. Are you going to say Sampras is an inferior player because he lost to Wayne Ferreria so many times?

Madhoshi22
06-21-2009, 04:22 PM
That depends on what is your definition of a choke.For me it means you're in a winning position and you give it away with UFE or doublefaults or similar.By being in a winning position I mean:

-serving for the match
-having MPs
-being up a break or two in the deciding set

Haas,Del Potro and Acasuso were never in that position IMO.A real choke for example is Todd Martin against Washington in Wimbledon 1996(served twice for the match and still ended up losing).

Fixed it :)

In any case, you're right, I guess everybody has their own definition of choking, mine happens to include playing some of the best tennis, on what happens to be your worst surface, and play the complete opposite of what got you ahead in the match.

zagor
06-21-2009, 04:23 PM
I think Nadal has some of the tools, but not all of them. His serve is still a weakness IMO. He needs more free points from his serve if he wants to hold his service games without investing a lot of energy. I don't think Nadal is a great shotmaker, he is good, but not great. There are quite a few players with better touch (at the net, for example) than Nadal.

He does have the ability to go for big forehand shots more occasionally, but somehow he just stays with the defensive approach. Nadal, IMO, needs to mix it up more - serve bigger, go for winners more often, and make an occasional approach to the net. Even if he gets one more easy point per game, it's already a huge improvment.

I honestly think Nadal's shotmaking and power is underrated because he plays so defensive all the time.When he's really agressive with his FH it can be one of the biggest on tour.When he first played Fed back in 2004 in Miami he blew Fed off court,he didn't grind him down,granted Fed probably wasn't having his best day but still Nadal overpowered him and that's not an easy thing to do.I remember Becker answering the question sometimes in that period(when Nadal was younger)which today's player reminds him most of himself,he said Nadal because of his power.

It would of course help Nadal if he improves his serve further no question but the guy can hit big from the baseline,he just doesn't because he prefers to grind people down.

kimbahpnam
06-21-2009, 04:24 PM
Well Nadal has done more by 23. So it isn't a myth.

for you to say that, you've missed the point of the OP completely.

zagor
06-21-2009, 04:25 PM
Fixed it :)

In any case, you're right, I guess everybody has their own definition of choking, mine happens to include playing some of the best tennis, on what happens to be your worst surface, and play the complete opposite of what got you ahead in the match.

LOL,yeah I meant 1996.The year Krajicek upset Sampras and won.I get your definition but sometimes dropping level of play isn't solely mental.Sometimes underdogs play far above their level against top players for a while and they usually come back to earth at some point and the top player takes advantage of that.

lambielspins
06-21-2009, 04:26 PM
Federer's inside out forehand to save that bp was definitely the turning point of the match, in Fed's favor, and against Haas. You can see it, Fed loosened up, and Haas tightened up. It resulted in a 6-0 fourth set in Fed's favor, and Federer rolling through the fifth.
In essence, yes Haas did choke.

In that case he would have lost even if he didnt choke. Federer playing better is all that matters, Haas becoms irrelevant to a Federer truly playing well. Haas cant come close to matching Federer in winners like an on fire Del Potro did in the semis, nor can he force Federer in alot of errors by his own doing like Nadal can. Haas relies on alot of sloppy errors from Federer to even stay in their matches, I know this having seen many of their matches the last 7-8 years. Like I said prime Federer >>> prime Haas on hard courts so forget an aging Haas on clay dictating his own fate once Federer is even still on serve in a potentialy deciding set and starts to feel confident.

The only match either won because the other choked was Haas in the 2002 AO 4th round where an absolute peak Haas needed a pre-prime then little known Federer to choke at the end of the 5th set to come through. It was the last time Haas would ever beat Federer too.

Madhoshi22
06-21-2009, 04:30 PM
In that case he would have lost even if he didnt choke. Federer playing better is all that matters, Haas becoms irrelevant to a Federer truly playing well. Haas cant come close to matching Federer in winners like an on fire Del Potro did in the semis, nor can he force Federer in alot of errors by his own doing like Nadal can. Haas relies on alot of sloppy errors from Federer to even stay in their matches, I know this having seen many of their matches the last 7-8 years. Like I said prime Federer >>> prime Haas on hard courts so forget an aging Haas on clay dictating his own fate once Federer is even still on serve in a potentialy deciding set and starts to feel confident.

The only match either won because the other choked was Haas in the 2002 AO 4th round where an absolute peak Haas needed a pre-prime then little known Federer to choke at the end of the 5th set to come through. It was the last time Haas would ever beat Federer too.

Prime Federer would beat a lot of other players..

Madhoshi22
06-21-2009, 04:32 PM
LOL,yeah I meant 1996.The year Krajicek upset Sampras and won.I get your definition but sometimes dropping level of play isn't solely mental.Sometimes underdogs play far above their level against top players for a while and they usually come back to earth at some point and the top player takes advantage of that.

That's true, like they realize exactly "who it is" they're about to beat, and well then come the nerves, and they tighten up. Though, with Haas being a veteran player, and former world no.2, I wouldn't expect it from him.

lambielspins
06-21-2009, 04:37 PM
Prime Federer would beat a lot of other players..

yes and he is certainly closer to his prime than a 31 year old injury riddled Haas (who I actually like also btw). I guess I watched the match and I cant agree with the view Haas choked it away when while I saw his level of play drop significantly in the 4th and 5th sets (especialy 4th) it is not like he would have won either anyway with Federer now playing better, and he certainly did not choke the end of the 3rd. To each their own though I guess. I remind though Haas hasnt beaten Federer since way way back in January 2002, and that when Haas was at his absolute peak and Federer was a virtual nobody newbie, and Federer had to choke away that match (the end of the 5th set from when Federer had a match point was a bigtime choke) for Haas to beat Federer even back THEN. So there is kind of probably a good reason he wasnt able to beat Federer.

zagor
06-21-2009, 04:38 PM
I honestly think Nadal's shotmaking and power is underrated because he plays so defensive all the time.When he's really agressive with his FH it can be one of the biggest on tour.When he first played Fed back in 2004 in Miami he blew Fed off court,he didn't grind him down,granted Fed probably wasn't having his best day but still Nadal overpowered him and that's not an easy thing to do.I remember Becker answering the question sometimes in that period(when Nadal was younger)which today's player reminds him most of himself,he said Nadal because of his power.

It would of course help Nadal if he improves his serve further no question but the guy can hit big from the baseline,he just doesn't because he prefers to grind people down.

I think Nadal has some of the tools, but not all of them. His serve is still a weakness IMO. He needs more free points from his serve if he wants to hold his service games without investing a lot of energy. I don't think Nadal is a great shotmaker, he is good, but not great. There are quite a few players with better touch (at the net, for example) than Nadal.

He does have the ability to go for big forehand shots more occasionally, but somehow he just stays with the defensive approach. Nadal, IMO, needs to mix it up more - serve bigger, go for winners more often, and make an occasional approach to the net. Even if he gets one more easy point per game, it's already a huge improvment.

I found that quote from Becker:

http://www.mywire.com/a/Tennis/************-BORIS-BECKER/1703410?&pbl=49

Who has the best chance to challenge Federer? “Rafael Nadal. The style and power of his game gives Federer trouble.”

Which player reminds you of a young Boris Becker? “Again, Nadal— with his power, emotions, and enthusiasm, even though he's a lefty. It's like me when I was 18 or 19.”

So Nadal obviously has the ability to overpower opponents with his FH and blow them off court but his defensive mindset is holding him back.He doesn't want to take risks but instead is more comfortable grinding people down,he would benefit in the long run IMO if he went for more off his FH and kept points shorter(like he actually did when he was much younger in 2004-2005).

Madhoshi22
06-21-2009, 04:42 PM
yes and he is certainly closer to his prime than a 31 year old injury riddled Haas (who I actually like also btw). I guess I watched the match and I cant agree with the view Haas choked it away when while I saw his level of play drop significantly in the 4th and 5th sets (especialy 4th) it is not like he would have won either anyway with Federer now playing better, and he certainly did not choke the end of the 3rd. To each their own though I guess. I remind though Haas hasnt beaten Federer since way way back in January 2002, and that when Haas was at his absolute peak and Federer was a virtual nobody newbie, and Federer had to choke away that match (the end of the 5th set from when Federer had a match point was a bigtime choke) for Haas to beat Federer even back THEN. So there is kind of probably a good reason he wasnt able to beat Federer.

I agree with what you have to say here. The thing that stands out for me, is Haas being a former world no.2, has gone through his fair share of tight matches with world-class opponents. So in my eyes, him tightening up and basically giving away the 4th set was a sign of choking, especially after being so dominant over Federer, granted Fed hadn't 'hit his stride' so to speak.

Nadal_Freak
06-21-2009, 04:43 PM
for you to say that, you've missed the point of the OP completely.
Not really. Nadal was born 23 years ago and is very young. Thus he still has plenty of opportunities to pass Federer. A lot of things have to go right for that to happen but it is possible.

World Beater
06-21-2009, 04:43 PM
yes and he is certainly closer to his prime than a 31 year old injury riddled Haas (who I actually like also btw). I guess I watched the match and I cant agree with the view Haas choked it away when while I saw his level of play drop significantly in the 4th and 5th sets (especialy 4th) it is not like he would have won either anyway with Federer now playing better, and he certainly did not choke the end of the 3rd. To each their own though I guess. I remind though Haas hasnt beaten Federer since way way back in January 2002, and that when Haas was at his absolute peak and Federer was a virtual nobody newbie, and Federer had to choke away that match (the end of the 5th set from when Federer had a match point was a bigtime choke) for Haas to beat Federer even back THEN. So there is kind of probably a good reason he wasnt able to beat Federer.

federer is much better than haas. but haas winning halle shows that he was playing well.

also, haas being 31 years old does not automatically mean he is past his peak/prime. haas could very well have some outstanding results waiting for him. very often it is motivation that kills players as they age, not age itself.

haas like agassi could produce very respectable results for a player of his calibre. not saying haas will win like agassi but that haas could produce prime level performance at this age too.

World Beater
06-21-2009, 04:44 PM
Not really. Nadal was born 23 years ago and is very young. Thus he still has plenty of opportunities to pass Federer. A lot of things have to go right for that to happen but it is possible.

anything is possible. but do you think its likely..lets see you put a number behind your bold claims.

30%, 80% likelyhood?

Madhoshi22
06-21-2009, 04:44 PM
Not really. Nadal was born 23 years ago and is very young. Thus he still has plenty of opportunities to pass Federer. A lot of things have to go right for that to happen but it is possible.

Including the hardest for him, staying injury-free. His biggest problem is his injuries, which *knocks on wood* Federer has so far stayed away from. I wish Rafa all the best, and hope he can recover fully, he's a great gem in this sport, and I look forward to many years of watching him compete.

lambielspins
06-21-2009, 04:45 PM
I agree with what you have to say here. The thing that stands out for me, is Haas being a former world no.2, has gone through his fair share of tight matches with world-class opponents. So in my eyes, him tightening up and basically giving away the 4th set was a sign of choking, especially after being so dominant over Federer, granted Fed hadn't 'hit his stride' so to speak.

Fair enough. I see your point. Probably the fact he hadnt beaten Federer in so long made him nervous. Actually until his win over Djokovic in Halle he hadnt had a win even close to that big in awhile now AFAIK, so that probably had alot to do with some of the very surprising nerves came from.

lambielspins
06-21-2009, 04:46 PM
Not really. Nadal was born 23 years ago and is very young. Thus he still has plenty of opportunities to pass Federer. A lot of things have to go right for that to happen but it is possible.

Nadal is 23 going on 27 in tennis years. That might be kind. If he reaches 10 slams I am sure he will be thrilled to the moon at this point.

Nadal_Freak
06-21-2009, 04:48 PM
Nadal is 23 going on 27 in tennis years. That might be kind. If he reaches 10 slams I am sure he will be thrilled to the moon at this point.
Whatever your tennis years theory is, I'm not buying it. He still has aged 23 years. He had some great results this year and last year when healthy. His best in his career actually. I'm looking forward to this years US Open. Everyone has injuries.

lambielspins
06-21-2009, 04:49 PM
Whatever your tennis years theory is, I'm not buying it. He still has aged 23 years. He had some great results this year and last year when healthy. His best in his career actually. I'm looking forward to this years US Open. Everyone has injuries.

OK keep living in la la land my friend. I dont doubt Nadal has some wonderful days still ahead but if you could see him winning more than 14 slams (which is less than Federer will end up with anyway) than you are deluded at this point.

Serendipitous
06-21-2009, 04:50 PM
I hope we can revive all of these threads when Nadal stops getting injured. :cry::cry::cry::cry:


Unfortunately, I doubt he will ever stop getting injured.

Nadal_Freak
06-21-2009, 04:51 PM
I hope we can revive all of these threads when Nadal stops getting injured. :cry::cry::cry:

Unfortunately, I doubt he will ever stop getting injured.
It felt good to prove them wrong at Australian Open 2009 though. ;)

tacou
06-21-2009, 04:52 PM
the fact that you use Fed being a late bloomer as some sort of defense defeats the purpose of your thread. he was a late bloomer which is WHY nadal has accomplished more at same points in career

Serendipitous
06-21-2009, 04:52 PM
It felt good to prove them wrong at Australian Open 2009 though. ;)


Yay! :cry::cry::cry:

lambielspins
06-21-2009, 04:52 PM
Nadal winning a hard court slam didnt prove "most people" wrong. Most people figured he was talented and determined enough, and not owned by Federer or anyone else on hard courts the way Federer was by Nadal on clay that he would probably get atleast one at some point.

kimbahpnam
06-21-2009, 04:54 PM
Not really. Nadal was born 23 years ago and is very young. Thus he still has plenty of opportunities to pass Federer. A lot of things have to go right for that to happen but it is possible.

again, if you read the post, he's not talking about their age, but how many years they were pro.

here's the main point again since you seem to miss it

But, the bottom line is, Nadal's achievements at this point in his career do NOT completely overshadow Federer's achievements at the same point in their respective careers.

ChanceEncounter
06-21-2009, 04:55 PM
Federer's inside out forehand to save that bp was definitely the turning point of the match, in Fed's favor, and against Haas. You can see it, Fed loosened up, and Haas tightened up. It resulted in a 6-0 fourth set in Fed's favor, and Federer rolling through the fifth.
In essence, yes Haas did choke.

No, it wasn't a choke. Even if Haas continued to play the level he did in winning the first two sets, it's still likely he would have gone home, simply because Federer raised his level (and his old level was still good to be very competitive in the first two sets). If that's what you call a "choke" then it's impossible for anyone to win while coming from behind without the other guy 'choking.' You could be up a set, or up a break, and lose and have 'choked' under your definition.

He wasn't "so dominant" over Federer. He won the first set in a tiebreak despite not winning a single point on Federer's serve through six games. He won the second set despite being a break down. If that's "dominant," then you definitely have a funny definition, along with your definition of 'choke.'

I am not sure how you can say the H2H speaks in favor of Federer when Nadal has a 75% win ratio across all surfaces in majors, and Federer has a 25% win ratio in majors, and only on one surface. The H2H clearly speaks in favor of Nadal in almost every meaningful way.

You are free to disagree of course, however I am just basing my opinion on the pure numbers here, and on the level of play seen in their matches.

If that was the case, how come Nadal hasn't met Federer at the US Open? How come it took until 2009 for Nadal to meet Federer at the Australian Open? Of course Nadal had to beat Federer for all 6 of his majors, because Federer is always waiting at the semi-finals or finals of a major, so he sets himself up to lose more often. Nadal has only gotten to the semifinals of the US Open once and got blasted off the court by Murray.

Nadal's H2H record is saved because he doesn't even get deep enough into certain majors to lose to Federer. Do you really think it's a coincidence that 11 of their 20 matches have been on clay?

Nadal_Freak
06-21-2009, 04:58 PM
again, if you read the post, he's not talking about their age, but how many years they were pro.

here's the main point again since you seem to miss it
And Fed was playing a ton of tennis on a lower level as well at that age. It all evens out or close to it. Nadal is supposed to be the better player but injuries have held him back.

lawrence
06-21-2009, 04:58 PM
Wishful thinking. Nadal will be fully recovered in 3 or 4 weeks.

just in time to SMS fed some congratulations on his 15th slam

Nadal_Freak
06-21-2009, 05:00 PM
just in time to SMS fed some congratulations on his 15th slam
It's post like these why I hate Fed fans. So arrogant.

grafrules
06-21-2009, 05:08 PM
Nadal is supposed to be the better player but injuries have held him back.

You use this tired excuse yet you are the same one who berates anyone who suggests Nadals playing style causes more injuries, holds him back, will shorten his career and limit his effectiveness as years goes on. Make up your mind, you cant have your cake and eat it too.

bruce38
06-21-2009, 05:14 PM
And Fed was playing a ton of tennis on a lower level as well at that age. It all evens out or close to it. Nadal is supposed to be the better player but injuries have held him back.

Fed has more talent in his pinky than Nadal and Uncle Tony have combined. Nadal had a lucky 08, I'm afraid the Fed express is back, the worst is yet to come for Nadal and you. Suffer.

nfor304
06-21-2009, 05:44 PM
I dont think its a myth.... They both started playing tennis at around the same age, its just Nadal decided not to play many junior events and focus on the mens tour while Fed concentrated onthe junior tour. Just because they turned pro at different ages doesnt mean they were vastly different in terms of skill or talent at the same ages.
Trying to differentiate between the world no.1 junior who is 16 (fed), and a player ranked in the 400's who is 16 (nadal) is just splitting hairs

nfor304
06-21-2009, 05:47 PM
And Fed was playing a ton of tennis on a lower level as well at that age.

Fed played his first satellite events at 16... thats only a year later than Nadal.

ambro
06-21-2009, 05:49 PM
It's post like these why I hate Fed fans. So arrogant.
It's delusional posts like you're writing in this thread that makes me hate Nadal fans.

Seriously, you think Nadal will be fully healed in 3-4 weeks and that will be the end of his knee problems for his career? Even if he lightens up on his schedule, his knees will NEVER be back to 100%. I had patellar tendinitis in my right knee in 8th grade. I am now between my freshman and sophomore year in college, and I can still feel pain from time to time. And I haven't had nearly the amount of mileage on them that Nadal will.

Another thing, you are just unwilling to accept that Nadal might be behind Fed at the same point in their CAREERS. You keep saying the age thing, but that's not what is being discussed. It's like you just don't understand.

No wonder people are posting threads wondering if you're a troll...

Serve_Ace
06-21-2009, 05:50 PM
It felt good to prove them wrong at Australian Open 2009 though. ;)

Yeah, it was nice to prove Nadal fans wrong at Roland Garros too.

nfor304
06-21-2009, 05:50 PM
Fed played his first sattellite event at 15.
Switzerland I Sat. Week 1 Qual Switzerland
SA 24 Aug 1996 to 26 Aug 1996 Entry: WC Clay (O)
64 W Kazushi TAKESHITA (JPN) 6-4 7-5
32 L Gabriel CZOBA (GER) 6-7 2-6

grafrules
06-21-2009, 05:57 PM
It's delusional posts like you're writing in this thread that makes me hate Nadal fans.

Seriously, you think Nadal will be fully healed in 3-4 weeks and that will be the end of his knee problems for his career? Even if he lightens up on his schedule, his knees will NEVER be back to 100%. I had patellar tendinitis in my right knee in 8th grade. I am now between my freshman and sophomore year in college, and I can still feel pain from time to time. And I haven't had nearly the amount of mileage on them that Nadal will.

Yes Nadal has had injury problems galore his career up to now and are getting worse than ever at only just turning 23 and he will mysteriously never be hurting again once he returns to action and be able to play and be more dominating than ever in his career up until now up to even age 30. His doctor saying he should be good to return to tennis in a few weeks is the enternal proof of all that. Anyone who denies this must be a troll or a Nadal hater. Welcome to N_F logic.

Nadal_Freak
06-21-2009, 06:09 PM
Yeah, it was nice to prove Nadal fans wrong at Roland Garros too.
Well Nadal came back after an injury to win the Australian Open. He could do it again at the US Open. I guess anything pro-Nadal is trolling on this forum surrounded by *******s.

The-Champ
06-21-2009, 06:16 PM
Fed has more talent in his pinky than Nadal and Uncle Tony have combined. Nadal had a lucky 08, I'm afraid the Fed express is back, the worst is yet to come for Nadal and you. Suffer.


How arrogant. Yet the "less talented" Nadal made Federer cry like a little biatch this year.


Lucky 2008? Maybe Federer is lucky not to face Nadal in every slam final... what is it 5-2?

Nadal_Freak
06-21-2009, 06:17 PM
How arrogant. Yet the "less talented" Nadal made Federer cry like a little biatch this year.


Lucky 2008? Maybe Federer is lucky not to face Nadal in every slam final... what is it 5-2?
Complete ownage. Vamos!

bruce38
06-21-2009, 06:19 PM
How arrogant. Yet the "less talented" Nadal made Federer cry like a little biatch this year.


Lucky 2008? Maybe Federer is lucky not to face Nadal in every slam final... what is it 5-2?

Fed cries after every slam, not always in front of the crowd, he said so himself. So what if he cried. Yes Nadal was lucky, we'll see how many more slams he wins now :). Father time has caught up with him, it's almost over. Fed reigns supreme.

Leublu tennis
06-21-2009, 06:20 PM
What did Nadal do between 15-17?Went from #816 to #76 in the rankings.

Nadal_Freak
06-21-2009, 06:21 PM
Fed cries after every slam, not always in front of the crowd, he said so himself. So what if he cried. Yes Nadal was lucky, we'll see how many more slams he wins now :). Father time has caught up with him, it's almost over. Fed reigns supreme.
Nadal 23 and Fed 27 (soon to be 28). Am I missing something but it seems like Fed's time is almost up.

bruce38
06-21-2009, 06:22 PM
Nadal 23 and Fed 27 (soon to be 28). Am I missing something but it seems like Fed's time is almost up.

Fed is playing, Nadal is not --> bottom line. Yes you are missing something, look into getting some grey matter.

Nadal_Freak
06-21-2009, 06:23 PM
Fed is playing, Nadal is not --> bottom line. Yes you are missing something, look into getting some grey matter.
Temporary. Nadal will be back as he always is. 28 is old for a tennis player. Not much time left for Fed.

ambro
06-21-2009, 06:23 PM
How arrogant. Yet the "less talented" Nadal made Federer cry like a little biatch this year.


Lucky 2008? Maybe Federer is lucky not to face Nadal in every slam final... what is it 5-2?
5-2, because Nadal couldn't make it to the rest of the finals. He was too busy losing in the 2nd and 3rd rounds! Nice logic there bud.

The-Champ
06-21-2009, 06:24 PM
Fed cries after every slam, not always in front of the crowd, he said so himself. So what if he cried. Yes Nadal was lucky, we'll see how many more slams he wins now :). Father time has caught up with him, it's almost over. Fed reigns supreme.


Never seen Sampras cry after losing a slam final to Edberg or Agassi for that matter. Never seen Agassi cry after a slam final loss, or Becker or Edberg.

yeah..Fed would probably win 20 slams now that Nadal's injury is getting worse. He should really take advantage of that, that's the only way he would win a final.

drakulie
06-21-2009, 06:25 PM
Nadal is 5??? years younger than Federer, yet he is the one who is pulling out of slams, and can never finish a whole year without crashing and burning.

ambro
06-21-2009, 06:26 PM
Nadal 23 and Fed 27 (soon to be 28). Am I missing something but it seems like Fed's time is almost up.
Nadal 23 and already his knees are falling apart. Am I missing something, or does it seem like Nadal's time is almost up? Moreso than Fed, I'd say. Fed's body is as healthy as it's ever been. Nadal's is at its worst.

Shaolin
06-21-2009, 06:26 PM
When all is said and done, Fed's career>Nadal's career, thats all that matters.

bruce38
06-21-2009, 06:26 PM
Temporary. Nadal will be back as he always is. 28 is old for a tennis player. Not much time left for Fed.

Hahaha, we'll see about that. He may not be back for a long time. He's got a mental block too he has to get over, not just tendonitis. He did lose to a nothing guy in Soderling as everyone says. No knee problems before that as demonstrated in the demolition of Hewitt.

Mansewerz
06-21-2009, 06:26 PM
Nadal reached his 15th master shield at 22. Federer reached his at 27. Nadal managed a slam win on every surface (hard, clay and grass) at 22, Federer at 27, Nadal won the Olympics (singles) at 22, Federer is still waiting. Nadal won RG-W back to back at 22, Federer is hoping to do it at 27. So of course Nadal has achieved more at 23 than Fed, doesn't mean it will continue but as of now he has.

At what age do you expect Nadal to make more than 10 gs semis in a row? When do you expect him to win 5 US opens in a row? When do you expect him to complete the career slam? When do you expect him to win a YEC?

You're picking and choosing achievements that set Nadal apart from others and ask when Fed will or has achieved them.

The-Champ
06-21-2009, 06:26 PM
5-2, because Nadal couldn't make it to the rest of the finals. He was too busy losing in the 2nd and 3rd rounds! Nice logic there bud.


Lucky for Fed he didn't. But those finals he did make, he most of the time made your boy look mediocre! 5-2 vamooooooooooooossss

bruce38
06-21-2009, 06:27 PM
When all is said and done, Fed's career>Nadal's career, thats all that matters.

Agreed. Game, set and match!

JoshDragon
06-21-2009, 06:27 PM
Many people like to claim that Nadal has done much more in his career than Federer because he has 6 slams by the age of 23 while Federer only had 3 slams (freshly turned 23).

Here's a couple of things to keep in mind:
-Federer was a late bloomer. He didn't begin his domination until late
-Nadal was an early bloomer. He began his domination in his teens

Still, many people still believe that Nadal is still much, much faster than Federer.

Here are some numbers then:

-Nadal turned pro at age 15 (2001)
-Federer turned pro at age 17 (1998)

In his 8 year long career, Nadal has accumulated 6 slams. Federer, in his first 8 years (being fair to Nadal here), accumulated 7 slams, and this is not counting all of 2006 because we are still in 2009.

Therefore, Federer had more slams than Nadal at this point in their careers. The only difference was that Nadal turned pro at an age 2 years younger than Federer.

Also, Nadal had his breakthrough in his 4th year on tour (first GS title), while Federer broke through in his 5 year. Both men won their first MS titles in their 4th year.

If anything, Federer and Nadal are pretty even, with Federer having a slight edge in slams while Nadal has a slight edge in MS titles.

But, the bottom line is, Nadal's achievements at this point in his career do NOTcompletely overshadow Federer's achievements at the same point in their respective careers.

No, Nadal has done far more than any player in the history of the ATP has done, at this young of an age. The only player that even comes close to Nadal's accomplishment is Borg.

Nadal_Freak
06-21-2009, 06:27 PM
Nadal 23 and already his knees are falling apart. Am I missing something, or does it seem like Nadal's time is almost up? Moreso than Fed, I'd say. Fed's body is as healthy as it's ever been. Nadal's is at its worst.
Tendinitis does not mean his knees are falling apart. It means he needs a break. His doctor didn't make it sound that serious.

bruce38
06-21-2009, 06:28 PM
Never seen Sampras cry after losing a slam final to Edberg or Agassi for that matter. Never seen Agassi cry after a slam final loss, or Becker or Edberg.

yeah..Fed would probably win 20 slams now that Nadal's injury is getting worse. He should really take advantage of that, that's the only way he would win a final.

Yeah never seen Sampras cry, cuz Sampras is not as good as Fed, never was, and never will be. Maybe Nadal should try crying? He might not then lose against nothings like Soderling.

drakulie
06-21-2009, 06:28 PM
Nadal reached his 15th master shield at 22. Federer reached his at 27. Nadal managed a slam win on every surface (hard, clay and grass) at 22, Federer at 27, Nadal won the Olympics (singles) at 22, Federer is still waiting. Nadal won RG-W back to back at 22, Federer is hoping to do it at 27. So of course Nadal has achieved more at 23 than Fed, doesn't mean it will continue but as of now he has.


Nadal had his knees burn out at age 23. Fed has yet to achieve this.

JoshDragon
06-21-2009, 06:30 PM
Temporary. Nadal will be back as he always is. 28 is old for a tennis player. Not much time left for Fed.

Unfortunately you are wrong. Nadal's knees aren't going to get any better. I also think that Fed could stay on tour for another 3 or 4 years if he wanted to without dropping out of the top 10.

Fed still has some time, plenty left to finish his career.

The-Champ
06-21-2009, 06:30 PM
We all know that when Nadal comes back the only thing Federer would be winning is the Crying Game.

bruce38
06-21-2009, 06:30 PM
Lucky for Fed he didn't. But those finals he did make, he most of the time made your boy look mediocre! 5-2 vamooooooooooooossss

Yeah but too bad he couldn't get by some of the worst players on the way to the final. Fed's game beats ALL, Nadal's game is geared towards Fed's. Severely limited. It will show.

Nadal_Freak
06-21-2009, 06:30 PM
Nadal had his knees burn out at age 23. Fed has yet to achieve this.
Fed had his back burn out during the end of last year though. He also got mono. Neither happened to Nadal.

Leublu tennis
06-21-2009, 06:30 PM
Bottom line is it is unlikely Nadal will achieve anything close to Fed. Anybody can quote at this point in time and that point in time, when it's all said and done, Nadal will be in the realm of Mac, Connors, Agassi, players like that. I'm sure most Nadal fans know this deep inside of them, but of course they wish for more - what you hear on the boards are wishes. It won't happen. Fed is in a different league altogether.I'm with you. Kinda a shame. He was #2 for how many years? And Roger was #1 all that time. History does not forget the #1 status but being #2 is worth a bucket of warm pi*s. Can't remember which VP said that.

bruce38
06-21-2009, 06:31 PM
We all know that when Nadal comes back the only thing Federer would be winning is the Crying Game.

Too bad Nadal isn't coming back. Soderling knocked him out for good :).

Nadal_Freak
06-21-2009, 06:32 PM
Unfortunately you are wrong. Nadal's knees aren't going to get any better. I also think that Fed could stay on tour for another 3 or 4 years if he wanted to without dropping out of the top 10.

Fed still has some time, plenty left to finish his career.
Unfortunately, it's not up to Fed on when and how much he will decline. He relies a ton on quickness so I expect his decline will come fast. There are already signs of that happening. See the hard court season and barely getting through RG. Soon he will be losing those battles instead of squeaking by.

BreakPoint
06-21-2009, 06:33 PM
Never seen Sampras cry after losing a slam final to Edberg or Agassi for that matter. Never seen Agassi cry after a slam final loss, or Becker or Edberg.

yeah..Fed would probably win 20 slams now that Nadal's injury is getting worse. He should really take advantage of that, that's the only way he would win a final.
Oh, really? Then how did Federer manage win 12 Grand Slams when Nadal was NOT in the final? :oops:

bruce38
06-21-2009, 06:33 PM
Fed had his back burn out during the end of last year though. He also got mono. Neither happened to Nadal.

And he still managed to play the USO and win it. Unlike Nadal, who doesn't even play. What a wimp. Your boy is scared.

drakulie
06-21-2009, 06:35 PM
Nadal has finally made it to the Fall of Fame:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2237/2304668497_eb9646eb3d.jpg

BreakPoint
06-21-2009, 06:35 PM
We all know that when Nadal comes back the only thing Federer would be winning is the Crying Game.
Federer has nothing to worry about when Nadal comes back because when Nadal returns, he will never make it to another Grand Slam final ever again. :(

JoshDragon
06-21-2009, 06:38 PM
Unfortunately, it's not up to Fed on when and how much he will decline. He relies a ton on quickness so I expect his decline will come fast. There are already signs of that happening. See the hard court season and barely getting through RG. Soon he will be losing those battles instead of squeaking by.

That's not true. Federer's biggest asset is his shot making and timing, those are the things he relies on the most and he doesn't have the injuries that Nadal does. At this point I think Federer is in better shape than Nadal, despite being 5 years older. Federer, hasn't missed any grand slams and only one or two tournaments in the last 4 or 5 years due to injuries.

Nadal, will miss more tournaments in the near future unless he radically changes his game.

Rafa's my favorite player and still remains that way, despite the injury but I'm not feeling good about his run at the US Open this year.

Fandango
06-21-2009, 06:39 PM
Many people like to claim that Nadal has done much more in his career than Federer because he has 6 slams by the age of 23 while Federer only had 3 slams (freshly turned 23).

Here's a couple of things to keep in mind:
-Federer was a late bloomer. He didn't begin his domination until late
-Nadal was an early bloomer. He began his domination in his teens

Still, many people still believe that Nadal is still much, much faster than Federer.

Here are some numbers then:

-Nadal turned pro at age 15 (2001)
-Federer turned pro at age 17 (1998)

In his 8 year long career, Nadal has accumulated 6 slams. Federer, in his first 8 years (being fair to Nadal here), accumulated 7 slams, and this is not counting all of 2006 because we are still in 2009.

Therefore, Federer had more slams than Nadal at this point in their careers. The only difference was that Nadal turned pro at an age 2 years younger than Federer.

Also, Nadal had his breakthrough in his 4th year on tour (first GS title), while Federer broke through in his 5 year. Both men won their first MS titles in their 4th year.

If anything, Federer and Nadal are pretty even, with Federer having a slight edge in slams while Nadal has a slight edge in MS titles.

But, the bottom line is, Nadal's achievements at this point in his career do NOTcompletely overshadow Federer's achievements at the same point in their respective careers.

Nadal possessed the raw physicality the tour demanded significantly earlier than most pros. Federer needed time to grow into his body and become the talented shot maker he is today. One thing is for certain: at their primes, Nadal will always win.

The-Champ
06-21-2009, 06:40 PM
Nadal vs Federer


5-2 in slam finals..that says it all!!

BreakPoint
06-21-2009, 06:41 PM
Never seen Sampras cry after losing a slam final to Edberg or Agassi for that matter. Never seen Agassi cry after a slam final loss, or Becker or Edberg.

Well, that's why none of those guys are the GOAT and Federer IS! :wink:

bruce38
06-21-2009, 06:41 PM
at their primes, Nadal will always win.

Only on clay.

bruce38
06-21-2009, 06:42 PM
Nadal vs Federer


5-2 in slam finals..that says it all!!

Nadal 6 slams, Fed 14 slams....THAT says it all.:)

BreakPoint
06-21-2009, 06:43 PM
Nadal vs Federer


5-2 in slam finals..that says it all!!
So you're admitting that Nadal is unable to beat anyone else other than Federer in Slam finals while Federer has beaten 12 different guys in Slam finals?

OK, thanks for clearing that up. :-?

Nadal_Freak
06-21-2009, 06:44 PM
That's not true. Federer's biggest asset is his shot making and timing, those are the things he relies on the most and he doesn't have the injuries that Nadal does. At this point I think Federer is in better shape than Nadal, despite being 5 years older. Federer, hasn't missed any grand slams and only one or two tournaments in the last 4 or 5 years due to injuries.

Nadal, will miss more tournaments in the near future unless he radically changes his game.

Rafa's my favorite player and still remains that way, despite the injury but I'm not feeling good about his run at the US Open this year.
You are not much of a Nadal fan knee-jerking like that. I don't like fans like that. Keep your pessimistic thoughts to yourself. And he already has changed his game.

The-Champ
06-21-2009, 06:45 PM
Nadal 6 slams, Fed 14 slams....THAT says it all.:)


Bring in those Fed wins against slam less people and his record is AMAZINGGGGGGG. Bring in his h2h in slams against Nadal and he becomes third rate. :oops:

Mansewerz
06-21-2009, 06:45 PM
Haas did not choke. Federer simply woke up just in time. Federer is the far better player to even if we were talking a prime Haas on a hard court, so an aging Haas on clay does not control his destiny in anyway unless he has a huge lead in the deciding set. Where did Haas choke? The break point Federer saved with a winner. The last 2 sets where Federer stopped making errors which Haas is reliant on to have any chance vs Federer at any point in their careers.

Del Potro also didnt choke. Like you said he ran out of gas, and despite badly outplaying Federer in the first 3 sets since Federer snuck out that one close set he was only up 2 sets to 1. Not a fitting reward for his vastly superior play the first 3 sets, but how it went, and from that point forward Federer again raised his game, while Del Potro had put so much energy into hitting ever ball full out for 3 full sets plus was playing out of his skin for 3 sets anyway so a letdown of his level and a Federer comeback was inevitable.

Del Potro was still hitting winner after winner in the 5th set. Fed simply delivered the goods at the right time (and it took numerous break points to get there, showing Del Potro was alive and kicking!)

I think Nadal has some of the tools, but not all of them. His serve is still a weakness IMO. He needs more free points from his serve if he wants to hold his service games without investing a lot of energy. I don't think Nadal is a great shotmaker, he is good, but not great. There are quite a few players with better touch (at the net, for example) than Nadal.

He does have the ability to go for big forehand shots more occasionally, but somehow he just stays with the defensive approach. Nadal, IMO, needs to mix it up more - serve bigger, go for winners more often, and make an occasional approach to the net. Even if he gets one more easy point per game, it's already a huge improvment.

His first serve is good now, it's the second serve that can be attacked, as Jason Goodall mentioned in Madrid.

for you to say that, you've missed the point of the OP completely.
Yes, he did.

I found that quote from Becker:

http://www.mywire.com/a/Tennis/************-BORIS-BECKER/1703410?&pbl=49

Who has the best chance to challenge Federer? “Rafael Nadal. The style and power of his game gives Federer trouble.”

Which player reminds you of a young Boris Becker? “Again, Nadal— with his power, emotions, and enthusiasm, even though he's a lefty. It's like me when I was 18 or 19.”

So Nadal obviously has the ability to overpower opponents with his FH and blow them off court but his defensive mindset is holding him back.He doesn't want to take risks but instead is more comfortable grinding people down,he would benefit in the long run IMO if he went for more off his FH and kept points shorter(like he actually did when he was much younger in 2004-2005).

NamRanger actually said the same. He flattened it out a lot more in 04-05. But when did his knee issues start? I didn't watch as much back then.

Not really. Nadal was born 23 years ago and is very young. Thus he still has plenty of opportunities to pass Federer. A lot of things have to go right for that to happen but it is possible.

No, you did miss the point. I said "point in their careers", not "point in their lives"

the fact that you use Fed being a late bloomer as some sort of defense defeats the purpose of your thread. he was a late bloomer which is WHY nadal has accomplished more at same points in career

Actually no, it is used to defend how Nadal has done more at the same point in their lives.

again, if you read the post, he's not talking about their age, but how many years they were pro.

here's the main point again since you seem to miss it

Thank you! Some sense!

It's post like these why I hate Fed fans. So arrogant.

Their uncalled for, but so are many of Nadal fans posts. I'm not condoning it, but just saying.

I dont think its a myth.... They both started playing tennis at around the same age, its just Nadal decided not to play many junior events and focus on the mens tour while Fed concentrated onthe junior tour. Just because they turned pro at different ages doesnt mean they were vastly different in terms of skill or talent at the same ages.
Trying to differentiate between the world no.1 junior who is 16 (fed), and a player ranked in the 400's who is 16 (nadal) is just splitting hairs

Yes, but i'm using official years turned pro (as given by the ATP). I'm guessing these are the years they actually dedicated themselves to a single tour.

How arrogant. Yet the "less talented" Nadal made Federer cry like a little biatch this year.


Lucky 2008? Maybe Federer is lucky not to face Nadal in every slam final... what is it 5-2?

It is arrogant. No way is Nadal much less talented than Fed, but it's possible one is more than the other. Besides, who cares about talent. It's what you do with it. I'd rather be respected for my hard work than hated for having everything come easy to me.

Went from #816 to #76 in the rankings.

Please, I always wondered what your avatar is of. What is it?

No, Nadal has done far more than any player in the history of the ATP has done, at this young of an age. The only player that even comes close to Nadal's accomplishment is Borg.

Do you and Nadal_Freak not have any reading comprehension what so ever?!!!!!!

I said point in their careers (number of years pro), NOT point in their lives (years living and breathing).

bruce38
06-21-2009, 06:50 PM
Bring in those Fed wins against slam less people and his record is AMAZINGGGGGGG. Bring in his h2h in slams against Nadal and he becomes third rate. :oops:

Those slamless people prevented Nadal from getting to the final! :twisted: Explain THAT! :) hahaha I win.

JoshDragon
06-21-2009, 06:51 PM
You are not much of a Nadal fan knee-jerking like that. I don't like fans like that. Keep your pessimistic thoughts to yourself. And he already has changed his game.

Lol, Just read some of my comments, or my blog. I'm a huge Rafa fan but I'm also realistic. I'd love it if he won all of the slams this year but I'm not sure how long he'll be able to play with bad knees. At some point it will be too painful for him and he'll have to have surgery.

He's made some changes to his game but he's going to have to be even more aggressive, and he's got to go for placement more, in order to avoid wearing his knees out again.

The-Champ
06-21-2009, 06:58 PM
Those slamless people prevented Nadal from getting to the final! :twisted: Explain THAT! :) hahaha I win.


Nadal vs Federer in slams

6-2

That explains it.

You can always take comfort in the fact that Roger wins the Crying Game.

Crying Game (Federer vs Nadal)

2-0

Mansewerz
06-21-2009, 07:01 PM
Nadal vs Federer in slams

6-2

That explains it. you can always take comfort in the fact that Roger wins the Crying Game.

Crying Game (Federer vs Nadal)

2-0

2-1. Rafa cried after Wimby 07 :D

bruce38
06-21-2009, 07:02 PM
Nadal vs Federer in slams

6-2

That explains it. you can always take comfort in the fact that Roger wins the Crying Game.

Crying Game (Federer vs Nadal)

2-0

Federer --> good knees
Nadal ---> no knees --> cry baby can't play Wimbledon

It's over....:)

The-Champ
06-21-2009, 07:04 PM
2-1. Rafa cried after Wimby 07 :D



Not in public, like some freakin' drama queen.

Lsmkenpo
06-21-2009, 07:08 PM
Wishful thinking. Nadal will be fully recovered in 3 or 4 weeks.

Do you believe all the crap you read in the media, Nadal will not be fully recovered, thought you said you have tendinitis, guess you lied, otherwise you would know it is a chronic injury and will return especially during the hardcourt season.

bruce38
06-21-2009, 07:12 PM
Do you believe all the crap you read in the media, Nadal will not be fully recovered, thought you said you have tendinitis, guess you lied, otherwise you would know it is a chronic injury and will return especially during the hardcourt season.

I don't think NF lied, he's just a little mentally challenged. He probably banged his knee into a table and thought that is "tendonitis". Innocent mistake.

JoshDragon
06-21-2009, 07:26 PM
Do you and Nadal_Freak not have any reading comprehension what so ever?!!!!!!

I said point in their careers (number of years pro), NOT point in their lives (years living and breathing).

Do you have anger management problems? Please control your anger and I'll explain this to you.

I realize that given the same amount of time on the tour their accomplishments are pretty similar but that's not really all that important. Nadal has done much more at an earlier age than Federer. At 23 Nadal has won far more titles than Federer had.

It isn't a myth that Rafa has done more. He has done it and deserves the praise that he gets for his accomplishments. We'll see how he ranks against Federer when his career is over but right now he's ahead of where Federer was.

bruce38
06-21-2009, 07:32 PM
Do you have anger management problems? Please control your anger and I'll explain this to you.

I realize that given the same amount of time on the tour their accomplishments are pretty similar but that's not really all that important. Nadal has done much more at an earlier age than Federer. At 23 Nadal has won far more titles than Federer had.

It isn't a myth that Rafa has done more. He has done it and deserves the praise that he gets for his accomplishments. We'll see how he ranks against Federer when his career is over but right now he's ahead of where Federer was.

If a guy starts his pro career at age 30, you can't even speak of his achievements at age 23. It's not age that matters, but how long they've been on tour.

World Beater
06-21-2009, 07:34 PM
If a guy starts his pro career at age 30, you can't even speak of his achievements at age 23. It's not age that matters, but how long they've been on tour.

miles are more important than age..so yes you are correct...sir

JoshDragon
06-21-2009, 07:34 PM
If a guy starts his pro career at age 30, you can't even speak of his achievements at age 23. It's not age that matters, but how long they've been on tour.

That's true in that particular case, however Roger and Nadal have both been on tour since they were in their teens. Rafa only started a few years earlier than Roger did, so it's fair to compare what they had done at 23.

ESP#1
06-21-2009, 07:35 PM
Wow!! are you really going to count Nadals pro career when he was 15 and 16? Name any pro male that did anything by that age. I like Federer as much as the next guy but you guys are really reaching on this point

bruce38
06-21-2009, 07:37 PM
That's true in that particular case, however Roger and Nadal have both been on tour since they were in their teens. Rafa only started a few years earlier than Roger did, so it's fair to compare what they had done at 23.

Sure as long as you take into account those "few years" earlier that Rafa started. So compare Rafa at 23 with Fed at 23 + "few years".

theagassiman
06-21-2009, 10:54 PM
OK keep living in la la land my friend. I dont doubt Nadal has some wonderful days still ahead but if you could see him winning more than 14 slams (which is less than Federer will end up with anyway) than you are deluded at this point.

Another person who does not watch much tennis....

boojay
06-21-2009, 11:03 PM
For sure Nadal has had a quicker start, but he will have a quicker fall as well (it's already begun.) Nadal will never dominate the way Fed has and will continue to fall. Nadal's short-lived reign is over.

Federer essentially began his career @ 23, Nadal's will begin to crumble.

malakas
06-22-2009, 12:58 AM
I don't think NF lied, he's just a little mentally challenged. He probably banged his knee into a table and thought that is "tendonitis". Innocent mistake.

haha you could be right :mrgreen:

malakas
06-22-2009, 01:03 AM
But, the bottom line is, Nadal's achievements at this point in his career do NOTcompletely overshadow Federer's achievements at the same point in their respective careers.

Yes,the bottom line is that Nadal's achievements don't COMPLETELY overshadow Federer's but still there are bigger at this age.

But as previous posters say,not only age matters but miles and no. of matches.Fed said so himself,after you reach no.600 matches in your carreer problems start to come up.So we shouldn't only look at nadal as someone of 23 years with a taxing for the knees style of play.But as someone who is a veteran already at 23 with a taxing for the knees style of play.Nadal played behind Nole more matches that anyone in the tour..

Also,Nadal's fall from the top will be much quicker than someone's like Fed.If he loses a step,becomes slower it will affect his game so much more than Fed's and will be beatable from many players.
Physio experts who have TESTED him,have said he has maximum 3 years.and I 'm not sure that these 3 years will be on the top.

malakas
06-22-2009, 01:05 AM
Not in public, like some freakin' drama queen.

only insecure immature males feel threatened by watching a guy cry in public.

Dilettante
06-22-2009, 01:14 AM
only insecure immature males feel threatened by watching a guy cry in public.

He didn't say he felt threatened, actually.

malakas
06-22-2009, 01:25 AM
He didn't say he felt threatened, actually.

he didn't have to say,for it to show.:)

Halba
06-22-2009, 01:25 AM
3rd year of his professional career. In the 4th year of his professional career, Federer took out Sampras on his favorite court on his favorite surface in an epic match.

nadal can play until 32. provided he cuts out a few unnecessary MS and MM tournaments and just 'plays' for the slams at 100% capacity

then he can bag many many more slams...why doesn't he cut out clay masters and a lot of hardcourt tourneys

he can play a light schedule - all 4 majors plus 1 or 2 tournaments each side MAX, as he is bloody good anyway.

sh@de
06-22-2009, 01:30 AM
Do you have anger management problems? Please control your anger and I'll explain this to you.

I realize that given the same amount of time on the tour their accomplishments are pretty similar but that's not really all that important. Nadal has done much more at an earlier age than Federer. At 23 Nadal has won far more titles than Federer had.

It isn't a myth that Rafa has done more. He has done it and deserves the praise that he gets for his accomplishments. We'll see how he ranks against Federer when his career is over but right now he's ahead of where Federer was.

You haven't explained that bit. OP's explanation > yours.

malakas
06-22-2009, 01:31 AM
nadal can play until 32. provided he cuts out a few unnecessary MS and MM tournaments and just 'plays' for the slams at 100% capacity

then he can bag many many more slams...why doesn't he cut out clay masters and a lot of hardcourt tourneys

he can play a light schedule - all 4 majors plus 1 or 2 tournaments each side MAX, as he is bloody good anyway.

of course he can.He will be more than welcomed to join the seniors tour if he desires.:)

Dilettante
06-22-2009, 01:31 AM
he didn't have to say,for it to show.:)

I don't think it did show that much, to be honest. I guess this has been discussed ad nauseam, but the guy has a point with the AO "drama queen" stuff. Not enough basis to call the guy insecure and immature, IMO.

I'm a Fed fan but imagine his AO final's attitude would've been shown by someone like Serena Williams, instead of him.

malakas
06-22-2009, 01:40 AM
I don't think it did show that much, to be honest. I guess this has been discussed ad nauseam, but the guy has a point with the AO "drama queen" stuff. Not enough basis to call the guy insecure and immature, IMO.

I'm a Fed fan but imagine his AO final's attitude would've been shown by someone like Serena Williams, instead of him.

Dilettante,that has nothing to do with being a Fedfan or not.I would say the same if Serena cried,or if Nadal cried or if Murray cried.

He had just been through a heartbreaking extremely painful 5 set defeat.He felt terrible.He tried but could not control his tears.
Clearly some people find it inappropriate,childish,gay or no manly enough,according to the macho man who drinks beers and bangs chicks,prototype that is imposed on us by western culture.

zagor
06-22-2009, 02:06 AM
Dilettante,that has nothing to do with being a Fedfan or not.I would say the same if Serena cried,or if Nadal cried or if Murray cried.

He had just been through a heartbreaking extremely painful 5 set defeat.He felt terrible.He tried but could not control his tears.
Clearly some people find it inappropriate,childish,gay or no manly enough,according to the macho man who drinks beers and bangs chicks,prototype that is imposed on us by western culture.

Well said,I also honestly wouldn't mind it if any tennis player cried in the trophy award ceremony after a tough loss like that.Fed has always been a very emotional guy,he cries when he wins,he cries when he loses,he cries when Laver awards him the trophy etc. That's just the way he is,not everyone has to like it of course but to label him a girl,gay,wuss etc. because of that is pretty ridiculous IMO.The guy who dominates the game as much as Fed did for like 5 years now is very,very strong willed and has amazing work ethic,talent is just one part of the equation.I have followed tennis for a long while and rarely I have seen someone bounce back so strongly and so quickly from bad losses like Fed does,the guy shows amazing persistence.

joeri888
06-22-2009, 02:42 AM
I can leave here, Malakas and Zagor always write down my exact thoughts.

Mansewerz
06-22-2009, 07:52 AM
Do you have anger management problems? Please control your anger and I'll explain this to you.

I realize that given the same amount of time on the tour their accomplishments are pretty similar but that's not really all that important. Nadal has done much more at an earlier age than Federer. At 23 Nadal has won far more titles than Federer had.

It isn't a myth that Rafa has done more. He has done it and deserves the praise that he gets for his accomplishments. We'll see how he ranks against Federer when his career is over but right now he's ahead of where Federer was.

Why would you assume I have anger management issues? They started 2 years apart. Those years count. You can't just not count them for Nadal and count them for Fed, or vice versa.

If a guy starts his pro career at age 30, you can't even speak of his achievements at age 23. It's not age that matters, but how long they've been on tour.

Agree

miles are more important than age..so yes you are correct...sir

Agree

That's true in that particular case, however Roger and Nadal have both been on tour since they were in their teens. Rafa only started a few years earlier than Roger did, so it's fair to compare what they had done at 23.

I could say they're both in their 20s, so Roger has achieved more. Fail at logic here.

Wow!! are you really going to count Nadals pro career when he was 15 and 16? Name any pro male that did anything by that age. I like Federer as much as the next guy but you guys are really reaching on this point

I'm counting them for Fed as well.

Sure as long as you take into account those "few years" earlier that Rafa started. So compare Rafa at 23 with Fed at 23 + "few years".

Exactly!

Another person who does not watch much tennis....

Why would you say that?

tahiti
06-22-2009, 07:55 AM
Well Nadal has done more by 23. So it isn't a myth.

True. And no one can say Fed has done more because Nadal is still 5 years behind him in age.

galactico
06-22-2009, 08:03 AM
roddick at 21

15 titles overall
1 slam
1 slam runner up
2 semi's
3 Qtr's
3MS
2MS RU
11 ATP events
handful of ATP RU.

Murray

5 ATP events

roddick is the superior player to everyone not named nadal at the age of 21, and look what he is doing now????

Guru
06-22-2009, 08:12 AM
It's no myth. At 22 Federer had done nowhere near as much as Nadal has. It's fact.

malakas
06-22-2009, 08:14 AM
I thought Nadal was 23??

also this thread isn't about IF Nadal has done more..it is if Nadal's achievements are SOOO much more than Fed's like everyone was claiming.and it's not.

navratilovafan
06-22-2009, 08:30 AM
Federer won his 12th slam in 2007, the year he turned 26 in August. Nadal turns 26 in 2012 in June so 2 months earlier than Federer in fact. For Nadal to even be equal to Federer's pace at that point (minus 2 months of being older) he would need to win 6 of the next 13 slams. Good luck with that. Of course Federer after that point is still winning slams. Whether Nadal wins anything after 2012 is hugely unlikely. If Federer begins to slow at 26, imagine Nadal at that point.

drakulie
06-22-2009, 08:32 AM
Honestly, who cares what they both had accomplished at age 22??? Important thing is that at age 22, Federer's knees weren't falling apart and behaving like knees of a 60 year old.

tahiti
06-22-2009, 08:39 AM
Honestly, who cares what they both had accomplished at age 22??? Important thing is that at age 22, Federer's knees weren't falling apart and behaving like knees of a 60 year old.

A 60 year old's knees who won the Australian Open and 3 other titles until June. Pretty damn good :twisted:

drakulie
06-22-2009, 08:45 AM
^^^Amazing what steroids do.

Mansewerz
06-22-2009, 08:50 AM
^^^Amazing what steroids do.

Funny, but I doubt it's true.

And many people in here don't seem to understand the difference between age and years on tour.

If I joined the tour when I was 11, and you joined when you were 20, does it matter that at 15 i'd done more than you did at 22? No, because I had 4 years to do it!

navratilovafan
06-22-2009, 08:51 AM
Like I said, good luck to Rafa trying to win 6 slams over only the next 3 years, or 9 or 10 slams over the next 5 years taking him to when he turns 28. Rafa is ahead of pace for now but the falling behind for good is just around the corner. Navratilova was behind about 30 players pace at 25 and ended up as maybe the female GOAT

Nadal_Freak
06-22-2009, 08:55 AM
^^^Amazing what steroids do.
Amazing that you consider yourself a Nadal fan and saying he is a cheater at the same time.

galactico
06-22-2009, 08:58 AM
WTF, nadal isn't on steroids, my friend have been taking steroids for about 6 weeks only, and there 100x bigger than nadal.

nikdom
06-22-2009, 09:07 AM
Its definitely not a good sign that Nadal has knee trouble at this age. He may be able to come back soon from the current injury but the chances of his career being affected by knee issues in future has increased.

It could be that the very style that won Nadal so much, the play-every-point-like-its-your-last, is cause for an early retirement, or so-so results. One thing I do know is that there's no way he's recovering from this with just rest. I'm sure his doctors are pumping him with all kinds of drugs for pain and recovering faster.

As far as steroids is concerned, who knows? I've never seen a tennis player so pumped up. He certainly cannot be accused without proof so its all really up to our imaginations.

drakulie
06-22-2009, 09:08 AM
Funny, but I doubt it's true.



I was joking of course, but.,,,,,,,

I was reading an atricle over the weekend from a Spanish Newspaper, in where the author states there is much specualtion the reason for the recent knee problems, which seemed to have deteriorated so quickly over the course of the last 4-5 weeks is because Rafa has stopped doing the roids.

I can't imagine it's true because of the number of times he gets tested, but one has to think it is a possibility. I for one don't believe it, but one never really knows what the heck is going on.

For him to pull out of Wimbledon though, it has to be much worse than what is being reported.

drakulie
06-22-2009, 09:09 AM
Amazing that you consider yourself a Nadal fan and saying he is a cheater at the same time.

Shouldn't you be somewhere posting about fed's arrogance, or providing up to date excuses on Nadal's progress???

jackson vile
06-22-2009, 11:09 AM
Like it or not Nadal has done far far more than Roger has at the same age, not only that but Nadal is playing in much much stronger group for a larger portion of his career.

Hate all you want it won't change anything, the ****s are always wrong and it will never change.

#1 Nadal is finished every single year for some 5 years and counting
#2 Nadal can't win on hard courts
#3 Nadal is one dimensional only having a basline game ie no net game etc.

boojay
06-22-2009, 11:34 AM
A 60 year old's knees who won the Australian Open and 3 other titles until June. Pretty damn good :twisted:

Yup, also the same 60-year old knees that got him knocked out early from his absolute best surface soon after and to subsequently withdraw from his (supposedly) second best surface, and has seemingly marked his abrupt downfall into the abyss for the rest of the year and likely career.

You're referring to those knees, right?

Because those are the ones I'm talking about.

The ones Nadal has.

At age 23.

That are like a 60-year old's.

LuckyR
06-22-2009, 05:49 PM
Many people like to claim that Nadal has done much more in his career than Federer because he has 6 slams by the age of 23 while Federer only had 3 slams (freshly turned 23).

Here's a couple of things to keep in mind:
-Federer was a late bloomer. He didn't begin his domination until late
-Nadal was an early bloomer. He began his domination in his teens

Still, many people still believe that Nadal is still much, much faster than Federer.

Here are some numbers then:

-Nadal turned pro at age 15 (2001)
-Federer turned pro at age 17 (1998)

In his 8 year long career, Nadal has accumulated 6 slams. Federer, in his first 8 years (being fair to Nadal here), accumulated 7 slams, and this is not counting all of 2006 because we are still in 2009.

Therefore, Federer had more slams than Nadal at this point in their careers. The only difference was that Nadal turned pro at an age 2 years younger than Federer.

Also, Nadal had his breakthrough in his 4th year on tour (first GS title), while Federer broke through in his 5 year. Both men won their first MS titles in their 4th year.

If anything, Federer and Nadal are pretty even, with Federer having a slight edge in slams while Nadal has a slight edge in MS titles.

But, the bottom line is, Nadal's achievements at this point in his career do NOTcompletely overshadow Federer's achievements at the same point in their respective careers.


You are missing the most important difference in their early careers. Nadal had Fed to contend with while he was winning his slams, Fed won his first slams without a Nadal (or anyone else of substance) to compete against.

drakulie
06-22-2009, 07:17 PM
You are missing the most important difference in their early careers. Nadal had Fed to contend with while he was winning his slams, Fed won his first slams without a Nadal (or anyone else of substance) to compete against.


Agassi, safin, roddick, hewitt.

Those guys were all much better players than Murray and Joker. Other than fed,,,, who has Nadal had to contend with???

Youzhny? Del Potro? Tsonga???

bruce38
06-22-2009, 07:30 PM
You are missing the most important difference in their early careers. Nadal had Fed to contend with while he was winning his slams, Fed won his first slams without a Nadal (or anyone else of substance) to compete against.

What about 2005 to 2007? Rafa was around. In this time Rafa won 3 slams, Fed won 8. Rafa was around all those years, he just failed to make it to most of those finals that Fed won. Meanwhile Fed made it all of Rafa's finals wins.

boojay
06-22-2009, 07:34 PM
Other than fed,,,, who has Nadal had to contend with???

Actually Drak, you probably have to give this one to him. When you ask, "who has Nadal had to contend with.....other than Fed?", there's no harder thing to do than to beat Fed. That's the ultimate, hardest thing to do in sports. So by default, Fed will never be able to say he's had competition harder than everyone else in his era because he's never had to play himself.....that lucky *******.

drakulie
06-22-2009, 07:35 PM
^^LOL. Good point! :)

lambielspins
06-22-2009, 07:38 PM
Other than fed,,,, who has Nadal had to contend with???

Youzhny? Del Potro? Tsonga???

Well Tsonga and Youzhny are obviously tough for Nadal to contend with too. Remember the smackdown by Tsonga down under. Youzhny blasting Nadal off the court at he U.S Open, and would have done it again at Wimbledon 2007 without a back injury midmatch. Sure for Federer these guys might be cupcakes but for king Rafa they are quite the challenge indeed. :)

OTMPut
06-22-2009, 07:41 PM
Well Tsonga and Youzhny are obviously tough for Nadal to contend with too. Remember the smackdown by Tsonga down under. Youzhny blasting Nadal off the court at he U.S Open, and would have done it again at Wimbledon 2007 without a back injury midmatch. Sure for Federer these guys might be cupcakes but for king Rafa they are quite the challenge indeed. :)

Lol, you crack me up.

Nadal_Freak
06-22-2009, 07:45 PM
This thread has been hijacked by trolls. Another thread ruined.

ESP#1
06-22-2009, 07:58 PM
This thread has been hijacked by trolls. Another thread ruined.

Thread ruined? This thread was pointless from the beginning. One thing is for sure. No matter how annoyed i become with other Fed fans I will never stop being a fan myself. Looking forward to seeing him at wimbly, i just hope andy or djoko can step up to the plate and make it interesting

Oh yea a Dimitrov run would be nice

malakas
06-22-2009, 10:05 PM
A 60 year old's knees who won the Australian Open and 3 other titles until June. Pretty damn good :twisted:

yeah amazing...withdrawing from Wimbledon as a defending champion because of bump knees some days after he turned 23..:neutral: truly amazing..

Brned
06-22-2009, 10:07 PM
Actually Drak, you probably have to give this one to him. When you ask, "who has Nadal had to contend with.....other than Fed?", there's no harder thing to do than to beat Fed. That's the ultimate, hardest thing to do in sports. So by default, Fed will never be able to say he's had competition harder than everyone else in his era because he's never had to play himself.....that lucky *******.

flawless logic

Mansewerz
08-06-2009, 06:43 PM
I just have to laugh at people's inability to distinguish between age and years on tour.

theroleoftheunderdog
08-06-2009, 07:07 PM
where has the infamous nadal freak gone??

Mansewerz
08-06-2009, 07:08 PM
I think he's in hiding

Mansewerz
07-02-2011, 02:39 PM
Bump to this for the lulz

Nadalgaenger
07-02-2011, 02:52 PM
I don't see the point in arguing about this stuff. They are quite possibly the two greatest players of all time. The only question is how they rank all time respective to each other.

aceX
06-23-2012, 08:53 PM
Yeah it's dumb. People don't go around saying "who is the GOAT, steve jobs or bill gates?"

tlm
06-23-2012, 09:35 PM
Agassi, safin, roddick, hewitt.

Those guys were all much better players than Murray and Joker. Other than fed,,,, who has Nadal had to contend with???

Youzhny? Del Potro? Tsonga???

Please this group you show to be better is a joke right? Lets see burned out old man agassi, roddick was hot for a year or so and hewitt you have to be kidding. Safin the guy with great talent that was a complete idiot that would be out chasing pu$$y and drinking the night before matches.

tlm
06-23-2012, 09:38 PM
What about 2005 to 2007? Rafa was around. In this time Rafa won 3 slams, Fed won 8. Rafa was around all those years, he just failed to make it to most of those finals that Fed won. Meanwhile Fed made it all of Rafa's finals wins.

What was nadal like 19 years old then?

tlm
06-23-2012, 09:40 PM
Well Tsonga and Youzhny are obviously tough for Nadal to contend with too. Remember the smackdown by Tsonga down under. Youzhny blasting Nadal off the court at he U.S Open, and would have done it again at Wimbledon 2007 without a back injury midmatch. Sure for Federer these guys might be cupcakes but for king Rafa they are quite the challenge indeed. :)

Really then why don't you list their h-h records against nadal then? Oh thats right rafa owns them both. So i guess you have to cherry pick a couple of matches to try and pass off your BS.

beast of mallorca
06-23-2012, 10:49 PM
From hereon in is when he is certain to lose alot of ground with Federer's pace though.

Federer had won 8 slams before his 25th birthday

Nadal would be lucky to have won 9 slams at the time of his 25th birthday (which will be during the 2011 French)

Federer had won 11 slams before his 26th birthday

Nadal's last slam at the latest would probably be on his 26th birthday at the 2012 French, and if it is even his 11th it will be a bit of a miracle (more likely 9th or 10th).

Wooohoo, it's a miracle !!!!!!!

aceX
06-24-2012, 01:31 AM
Yea haha what a prediction.

The Dark Knight
06-24-2012, 03:09 AM
What did Federer do between 17-19?

He was able to lose on all surfaces to rafter...or was he 20?

above bored
06-24-2012, 03:49 AM
What was nadal like 19 years old then?
Being young is not a disadvantage if you develop early. Hewitt and Safin were the No.1 players in the world at 20 years old. Plenty of others were top 5 in their teens, such as Chang [17], Borg [18], Agassi [18], Sampras [19], Becker [19], Edberg [19], Wilander [19], McEnroe [19]. They all also won Slams as teens, with the exception of Agassi [22] and McEnroe [20].

Mike Tyson was World Champion at 20, he wasn't given a handicap or special concessions because of that fact.

Nadal falls into this same category. He was No.2 at 19 and probably would have been No.1, but for the existence of this guy called Roger Federer. He wasn't a Tomic or Dimitrov still in the development stage.

analysis_king
06-24-2012, 04:36 AM
Agassi, safin, roddick, hewitt.

Those guys were all much better players than Murray and Joker. Other than fed,,,, who has Nadal had to contend with???

Youzhny? Del Potro? Tsonga???
if we are to accept this argument from you, that means implicitly you are also claiming that federer's achievements was attained in an "easier" era than the ones preceding. is that your point?

Cup8489
06-24-2012, 06:50 AM
if we are to accept this argument from you, that means implicitly you are also claiming that federer's achievements was attained in an "easier" era than the ones preceding. is that your point?

Um... fail?

aceX
06-24-2012, 01:55 PM
if we are to accept this argument from you, that means implicitly you are also claiming that federer's achievements was attained in an "easier" era than the ones preceding. is that your point?

No, I would postulate that the argument being put forth is of the opposite persuasion.

beast of mallorca
06-24-2012, 02:08 PM
No, I would postulate that the argument being put forth is of the opposite persuasion.

But the persuasiveness of this discussion is a myth.

The Dark Knight
06-24-2012, 03:01 PM
Um... fail?

No he won.

aceX
06-24-2012, 08:16 PM
I won.

Omg there is a myth going around. He won!