PDA

View Full Version : Comparing Federer and Nadal's First 10 Grand Slam Championships


McEnroeisanartist
06-11-2011, 12:18 PM
I thought it would be interesting to compare how Federer and Nadal did in each of their first 10 Grand Slam Championships.

Each Grand Slam Won
Federer - 3 Australian Opens, 4 Wimbledons, and 3 US Opens
Nadal - 1 Australian Open, 6 French Opens, 2 Wimbledons, and 1 US Open.

Number of players Ranked in the Top 10 Defeated
Federer - 21
Nadal - 18
Note: If you take each other out, then it is Federer - 19, Nadal - 11
Note: Federer had three Grand Slams where he defeated 3 Top 10 Ranked Players in one Grand Slam. Nadal accomplished this once at the 2011 French Open defeating the 5th Ranked, 4th Ranked, and 3rd Ranked players. Federer would achieve this at the 2007 US Open.

Total Sets Lost in Grand Slams
Federer - 20
Nadal - 23

Total Sets Lost in Grand Slam Semifinals and Finals
Federer - 7
Nadal - 12

Number of Bagels (6-0 Sets) Delivered in Grand Slams
Federer - 21
Nadal - 9

Number of Bagels (6-0 Sets) Delivered in Grand Slams
Federer - 7
Nadal - 1

AM95
06-11-2011, 01:25 PM
Number of Bagels (6-0 Sets) Delivered in Grand Slams
Federer - 21
Nadal - 9

Number of Bagels (6-0 Sets) Delivered in Grand Slams
Federer - 7
Nadal - 1

unless im misreading something...

aren't these the same stats.

tennis_pro
06-11-2011, 01:38 PM
unless im misreading something...

aren't these the same stats.

maybe the second stat is GS finals? On top of my head Federer has bageled Hewitt (x2), Baghdatis, Nadal, Nadal has bageled Federer

Hood_Man
06-11-2011, 01:49 PM
Those are some terrific stats, and they really show off how dominant Federer was during his reign. I especially like the variety of his wins, 3-4-3.

Although for Nadal, I'm wondering if his 6 French Opens are skewing some of those "wins against top 10" stats. Possibly a lot of the top 10 weren't clay court specialists and didn't get far enough in the draw to reach Nadal. I'm sure some of the statisticians here will confirm or correct me on this.

21 bagels in Grand Slam matches... incredible...

...LikeTheWorld
06-11-2011, 01:53 PM
Those are some terrific stats, and they really show off how dominant Federer was during his reign. I especially like the variety of his wins, 3-4-3.

Although for Nadal, I'm wondering if his 6 French Opens are skewing some of those "wins against top 10" stats. Possibly a lot of the top 10 weren't clay court specialists and didn't get far enough in the draw to reach Nadal. I'm sure some of the statisticians here will confirm or correct me on this.

21 bagels in Grand Slam matches... incredible...

A Number 1 or 2 can't get a top-10 player before the QF.

Heracles
06-11-2011, 02:06 PM
What is impressive from Nadal side is that he had to beat Federer 7 times in his 10 slams won.

PSNELKE
06-11-2011, 02:11 PM
Wow, he found all the stats in which Fed´s superior to Ralph, good job.

However I think I´ll give you one that outweighs all of them. - Ralph beat Fed in 7 times in his 10 GS wins.

TheTruth
06-11-2011, 02:13 PM
I don't understand why people take the time to compute these type of statistics. Especially ranking, all that matters is how each opponent played on the day.

For example, Murray is highly ranked, but plays horrible in major finals, so that to me is not a barometer for comparison, and then you can get someone in the top 100, who comes in and plays lights out, well beyond their ranking.

Other factors include experience, in fact experience can be the biggest measure. Are you playing an experienced player, or someone who's never been there?

Guess they have to write something.

JasonPlaysTennis
06-11-2011, 02:20 PM
3, 1 and 0 in 2008 RG, most dominant GS final win over a World No. 1 ever, that's for sure.

nikdom
06-11-2011, 02:25 PM
What is impressive from Nadal side is that he had to beat Federer 7 times in his 10 slams won.

Its not. Its just proof Nadal was lucky that the dominant guy in tennis had a matchup problem with him.

Otherwise, Nadal should have been beating everyone else Fed was beating and won the rest of the slams too.

Heracles
06-11-2011, 02:29 PM
Its not. Its just proof Nadal was lucky that the dominant guy in tennis had a matchup problem with him.

Otherwise, Nadal should have been beating everyone else Fed was beating and won the rest of the slams too.

Nadal beat Djokovic 5 times, Murray 3 times, Soderling 5 times if you ask for the other members of the current top 5.

When Nadal won these slams, he beat everyonelse to get to Federer and to beat him.

Beating 7 times the guy who has the record of slams won and who was in his primes is an unreal statistics.

nikdom
06-11-2011, 02:35 PM
Nadal beat Djokovic 5 times, Murray 3 times, Soderling 5 times if you ask for the other members of the current top 5.

When Nadal won these slams, he beat everyonelse to get to Federer and to beat him.

Beating 7 times the guy who has the record of slams won and who was in his primes is an unreal statistics.

And how many of those times was it on clay?

Also, how many of those times Nadal beat Roger did Roger go on to win 2 or more slams for the year?

If Nadal was indeed that dominant (and not just had a matchup advantage over a Roger who kept showing up at the FO) how come Roger was cleaning up the other slams at that rate?

...LikeTheWorld
06-11-2011, 02:46 PM
Compare the opponents in the final
Federer:
2003 Wim - Mark Philippoussis (unseeded, 0 GS)
2004 AO - Marat Safin (unseeded, 2 GS)
2004 Wim - Andy Roddick (2. Seed, 1 GS)
2004 USO - Lleyton Hewitt (4. Seed, 2 GS)
2005 Wim - Andy Roddick (2. Seed, 1 GS)
2005 USO - Andre Agassi (with 35 years) (7. Seed, 8 GS)
2006 AO - Marcos Baghdatis (unseeded, 0 GS)
2006 Wim - Rafael Nadal (2. Seed, 10 Slams)
2006 USO - Andy Roddick (9. Seed, 1 GS)
2007 AO - Fernando González (10. Seed, 0 GS)

Nadal:
2005 FO - Mariano Puerta (Unseeded, 0 GS)
2006 FO - Roger Federer (1. Seed, 16 GS)
2007 FO - Roger Federer (1. Seed, 16 GS)
2008 FO - Roger Federer (1. Seed, 16 GS)
2008 Wim - Roger Federer (1. Seed, 16 GS)
2009 AO - Roger Federer (2. Seed, 16 GS)
2010 FO - Robin Söderling (5. Seed, 0 GS)
2010 Wim - TomᚠBerdych (12. Seed, 0 GS)
2010 USO - Novak Djokovic (3. Seed, 2 GS)
2011 FO - Roger Federer (3. Seed, 16 GS)


Fed won against:
6 non Top-4 players (3 unseeded)
A 35 year old Agassi
3 times against Roddick
8 different players in 10 GS

Nadal won against:
3 non Top-4 players (1 unseeded)
6 times against Federer
5 different players in 10 GS

pc1
06-11-2011, 02:51 PM
You forget one very important fact. Nadal has ten majors and he is only 25.

...LikeTheWorld
06-11-2011, 03:00 PM
Federer never beat a Number 1 in a GS-final (Nadal 4 times).

OK, it's hard if you are 280 weeks on top

TheNatural
06-11-2011, 04:23 PM
Compare the opponents in the final
Federer:
2003 Wim - Mark Philippoussis (unseeded, 0 GS)
2004 AO - Marat Safin (unseeded, 2 GS)
2004 Wim - Andy Roddick (2. Seed, 1 GS)
2004 USO - Lleyton Hewitt (4. Seed, 2 GS)
2005 Wim - Andy Roddick (2. Seed, 1 GS)
2005 USO - Andre Agassi (with 35 years) (7. Seed, 8 GS)
2006 AO - Marcos Baghdatis (unseeded, 0 GS)
2006 Wim - Rafael Nadal (2. Seed, 10 Slams)
2006 USO - Andy Roddick (9. Seed, 1 GS)
2007 AO - Fernando González (10. Seed, 0 GS)

Nadal:
2005 FO - Mariano Puerta (Unseeded, 0 GS)
2006 FO - Roger Federer (1. Seed, 16 GS)
2007 FO - Roger Federer (1. Seed, 16 GS)
2008 FO - Roger Federer (1. Seed, 16 GS)
2008 Wim - Roger Federer (1. Seed, 16 GS)
2009 AO - Roger Federer (2. Seed, 16 GS)
2010 FO - Robin Söderling (5. Seed, 0 GS)
2010 Wim - Tomáš Berdych (12. Seed, 0 GS)
2010 USO - Novak Djokovic (3. Seed, 2 GS)
2011 FO - Roger Federer (3. Seed, 16 GS)


Fed won against:
6 non Top-4 players (3 unseeded)
A 35 year old Agassi
3 times against Roddick
8 different players in 10 GS

Nadal won against:
3 non Top-4 players (1 unseeded)
6 times against Federer
5 different players in 10 GS

So in 10 slam finals, Nadal beat guys who ended their careers being the winner of 98 slams(equivalent), and Fred beat winners of 25 slams(equivalent).

Conclusion: Fed faced chumps in slam finals relative to Nadal, who faced champs.

Nadal gets a LOT of bonus Goat points for dominating Fed in slam finals, and these numbers are why the dominance of Fred in slam finals is a big factor in the GOAT discussion, even if he ends up with less slams than Fred.

fundrazer
06-11-2011, 04:28 PM
Mate, that is a really dumb way to look at things. If you can't figure that out then I can't help your blinded fanboy eyes.

Cup8489
06-11-2011, 04:47 PM
Gentlemen, let the **** war begin!

I liked looking at those stats, but I'll be leaving this thread to avoid annoying posters like the ones coming out of the woodwork..

Carry on, Roger.

MichaelNadal
06-11-2011, 05:00 PM
And how many of those times was it on clay?

Also, how many of those times Nadal beat Roger did Roger go on to win 2 or more slams for the year?

If Nadal was indeed that dominant (and not just had a matchup advantage over a Roger who kept showing up at the FO) how come Roger was cleaning up the other slams at that rate?

I get so sick of hearing that. How many of Roger's slams are on HIS best surface? :oops: it goes both ways. One surface isn't better than another.

nikdom
06-11-2011, 05:05 PM
I get so sick of hearing that. How many of Roger's slams are on HIS best surface? :oops: it goes both ways. One surface isn't better than another.

Yes, it goes every which way. That is precisely the question..... why wasn't Nadal frequenting Roger on HIS best surface, just like Roger was on Nadal's?

Huh? huh?

MichaelNadal
06-11-2011, 05:10 PM
Yes, it goes every which way. That is precisely the question..... why wasn't Nadal frequenting Roger on HIS best surface, just like Roger was on Nadal's?

Huh? huh?

Uh because Federer is a more dominant tennis player? Why do we have to have this discussion every day all day just bc like 3 *********s act like Federer isn't a better player? You don't have to convince anyone on this board except the 3 ******o's that will never be convinced. No one has been as dominant or successful as Federer, but when Nadal DID get to finals, he always beat Federer with the exception of 2 occasions. 90% of Nadal fans won't argue the point that Federer is the goat. Some of you hardcore Federer fans need to start giving Nadal some credit too. Out of the 4 times they met in a slam OFF clay, Nadal won 2. It's not all about clay.

sunnyIce
06-11-2011, 05:13 PM
statistics can make one sing.

nikdom
06-11-2011, 05:13 PM
Here's how the chips fall down

1. Roger's best surface is HC and worst is clay

2. Nadal's best surface is Clay and worst is HC

3. Roger gets deep into tournaments on Nadal's surface but loses to him.

4. Nadal rarely ever gets deep enough on Roger's best surface to challenge him.

5. So by NOT being a real challenge to Roger on HC, Nadal gets to look good with his lopsided H2H

sunnyIce
06-11-2011, 05:13 PM
Since 2004, how many F, SF, QF has each made in the majors?

MichaelNadal
06-11-2011, 05:15 PM
Here's how the chips fall down

1. Roger's best surface is HC and worst is clay

2. Nadal's best surface is Clay and worst is HC

3. Roger gets deep into tournaments on Nadal's surface but loses to him.

4. Nadal rarely ever gets deep enough on Roger's best surface to challenge him.

5. So by NOT being a real challenge to Roger on HC, Nadal gets to look good with his lopsided H2H

Lmao. It's about the matchup. Had they met, whether it was first round or in the final, Nadal would have won at least half of the matches. The clay H2H between the two is FAR in Nadal's favor, but on HC and Grass there's not a big difference. Nadal can beat Federer more easily on HC and Grass than Federer can on clay. With more matches on HC and Grass the H2H would still be in Rafa's favor. Sorry.

Bud
06-11-2011, 05:18 PM
Here's how the chips fall down

1. Roger's best surface is HC and worst is clay

2. Nadal's best surface is Clay and worst is HC

3. Roger gets deep into tournaments on Nadal's surface but loses to him.

4. Nadal rarely ever gets deep enough on Roger's best surface to challenge him.

5. So by NOT being a real challenge to Roger on HC, Nadal gets to look good with his lopsided H2H

Roger should be thankful. Otherwise, he'd have fewer HC majors ;)

We were all hoping for a Nadal/Federer USO final in 2010... however, Federer failed to make the final, losing to Djokovic :cry:

Cup8489
06-11-2011, 05:18 PM
Uh because Federer is a more dominant tennis player? Why do we have to have this discussion every day all day just bc like 3 *********s act like Federer isn't a better player? You don't have to convince anyone on this board except the 3 ******o's that will never be convinced. No one has been as dominant or successful as Federer, but when Nadal DID get to finals, he always beat Federer with the exception of 2 occasions. 90% of Nadal fans won't argue the point that Federer is the goat. Some of you hardcore Federer fans need to start giving Nadal some credit too. Out of the 4 times they met in a slam OFF clay, Nadal won 2. It's not all about clay.

Thank goodness! A Rafa fan who has NOT lost his mind! More and more of you are falling to the crazy side.. glad to see a strong holdout.

nikdom
06-11-2011, 05:19 PM
Lmao. It's about the matchup. Had they met, whether it was first round or in the final, Nadal would have won at least half of the matches. The clay H2H between the two is FAR in Nadal's favor, but on HC and Grass there's not a big difference. Nadal can beat Federer more easily on HC and Grass but Federer can't on clay.

Now you're talking hypotheticals.

If Nadal was so good that he COULD beat Federer on HC, why wasn't he in the finals of the 2005 USO, 2006 AO, 2006 USO, 2007 AO, 2007 USO?

The same years he was dominating the French open.

You guys keep going to the 2 times he did beat Roger on his favorite surface... that's not the question. The question is why did he not show up more often to challenge him similarly? What was stopping him?

MichaelNadal
06-11-2011, 05:19 PM
Roger should be thankful. Otherwise, he'd have fewer HC majors ;)


Exactly. We have a winner.
Federer is more dominant overall NO DOUBT about it. The undisputed GOAT imo. But had he met Rafa in more GRAND SLAM FINALS, he'd be missing a few trophies, reguardless of the surface, so I don't think you guys should keep running to bring that up.

sunnyIce
06-11-2011, 05:21 PM
I keep hearing Rafa is winning at a faster rate than Roger. Can somebody show me pls. thx

Bud
06-11-2011, 05:21 PM
Now you're talking hypotheticals.

If Nadal was so good that he COULD beat Federer on HC, why wasn't he in the finals of the 2005 USO, 2006 AO, 2006 USO, 2007 AO, 2007 USO?

The same years he was dominating the French open.

Lol!

Errr.. Nadal was 19-21 in 2005-07... you can do the math on the other years.

You (always) conveniently forget that Nadal is 5 years younger than Federer.

MichaelNadal
06-11-2011, 05:21 PM
Thank goodness! A Rafa fan who has NOT lost his mind! More and more of you are falling to the crazy side.. glad to see a strong holdout.

Thanks man, don't worry I know who the GOAT is.

Now you're talking hypotheticals.

If Nadal was so good that he COULD beat Federer on HC, why wasn't he in the finals of the 2005 USO, 2006 AO, 2006 USO, 2007 AO, 2007 USO?

The same years he was dominating the French open.

I just said it's about matchups. Federer is more dominant over the FIELD on HC and Grass, without a doubt. What im saying though is you can't say bc Federer reached more finals that he would beat Nadal had Nadal made said finals.

sunnyIce
06-11-2011, 05:22 PM
i dont understand. looked up the atp page.

at the end of 10 yrs on Tour, Rog had 12 slams, and rafa only 9. so how......?

nikdom
06-11-2011, 05:25 PM
Thanks man, don't worry I know who the GOAT is.



I just said it's about matchups. Federer is more dominant over the FIELD on HC and Grass, without a doubt. What im saying though is you can't say bc Federer reached more finals that he would beat Nadal had Nadal made said finals.

Why not? Roger was cleaning up those titles. And if Nadal was good enough to beat Roger, why wasn't he even in those finals?

So you want me to imagine that Nadal magically placed in the finals without having to face those he actually lost to, would beat Roger because of a matchup issue?

So matchup is not important when Roger is losing to Rafa in the FO finals, but because of matchup, in a hypothetical HC final that Nadal makes, he would win? Gimme a break...

OTMPut
06-11-2011, 05:27 PM
Wow, he found all the stats in which Fed´s superior to Ralph, good job.

However I think I´ll give you one that outweighs all of them. - Ralph beat Fed in 7 times in his 10 GS wins.

Of course! Fed was so dominant that if you wanted a GS title, you had to go through him.
Who do you except Rafa to beat in his 10 GS wins? Murray? Hewitt? Gonzalez?

sunnyIce
06-11-2011, 05:28 PM
other stats. from 10 yrs on Tour.

RF - F 14, SF 16, QF 16

RN - F 12, SF 15, QF 16

so they are pretty close, no way is rafa 'much' faster than rog.

sunnyIce
06-11-2011, 05:29 PM
RF did not win till 6th yr on tour
RN did not win till 5th yr on tour

MichaelNadal
06-11-2011, 05:30 PM
Why not? Roger was cleaning up those titles. And if Nadal was good enough to beat Roger, why wasn't he even in those finals?

So you want me to imagine that Nadal magically placed in the finals without having to face those he actually lost to, would beat Roger because of a matchup issue?

So matchup is not important when Roger is losing to Rafa in the FO finals, but because of matchup, in a hypothetical HC final that Nadal makes, he would win? Gimme a break...

Uh who said that? Their entire H2H is based on a matchup no? And im only turning YOUR logic against you. YOU'RE the one saying Rafa didn't get to the finals and BECAUSE OF THAT the H2H is skewed. So by that logic, yes, if we put Rafa in the finals of more HC matches and slams, you're telling me you'd put your mortgage on Federer beating Nadal? :confused: I have no problem admitting Federer is a better player overall, but even I wouldn't do that.

sunnyIce
06-11-2011, 05:31 PM
I used data from ATPtennis.com

2010 is RN 10th yr
2007 was RF 10th

Bud
06-11-2011, 05:32 PM
i dont understand. looked up the atp page.

at the end of 10 yrs on Tour, Rog had 12 slams, and rafa only 9. so how......?

I used data from ATPtennis.com

2011 is RN 10th yr
2007 was RF 10th

2011 isn't over yet ;)

And Rafa has 10 GS's not 9

- - -

The bottom line is they are very close in their rate of racking up slams.

PSNELKE
06-11-2011, 05:33 PM
Of course! Fed was so dominant that if you wanted a GS title, you had to go through him.
Who do you except Rafa to beat in his 10 GS wins? Murray? Hewitt? Gonzalez?

You dot get the point. How many times did Fed beat Ralph in a GS final??
Compare this to Ralph and how many times he beat Fed.

nikdom
06-11-2011, 05:37 PM
Uh who said that? Their entire H2H is based on a matchup no? And im only turning YOUR logic against you. YOU'RE the one saying Rafa didn't get to the finals and BECAUSE OF THAT the H2H is skewed. So by that logic, yes, if we put Rafa in the finals of more HC matches and slams, you're telling me you'd put your mortgage on Federer beating Nadal? :confused:

Yes, but the matchup includes the characteristics of the surface. Fed's BH doesn't match up well with Nadal's FH on a high-bouncing surface. The same Fed who lost to Nadal at the FO faced Nadal on a fast indoor court in the year end masters and beat him easily. (2006 shanghai if I'm not incorrect)


I respect Nadal's achievements. Even outside of his H2H with Roger, Nadal has become an all-around champ. I have no problem if folks want Nadal to be appreciated for what he has done. He deserves it. But when the H2H is used to belittle Roger's achievements, that's when I think its being used unfairly as a sole yardstick of Roger's greatness or lack of it.

sunnyIce
06-11-2011, 05:38 PM
i changed it. my mistake. 2010 was 10th yr. and it was 9.

Bud
06-11-2011, 05:39 PM
Yes, but the matchup includes the characteristics of the surface. Fed's BH doesn't match up well with Nadal's FH on a high-bouncing surface. The same Fed who lost to Nadal at the FO faced Nadal on a fast indoor court in the year end masters and beat him easily.


I respect Nadal's achievements. Even outside of his H2H with Roger, Nadal has become an all-around champ. I have no problem if folks want Nadal to be appreciated for what he has done. He deserves it. But when the H2H is used to belittle Roger's achievements, that's when I think its being used unfairly as a sole yardstick of Roger's greatness or lack of it.

Nobody is belittling Federer's achievements. We're merely pointing out that he's not the GOAT since he's not even the greatest in his era :)

Nadal owns Federer in and out of slams and always has. Federer has never had a positive H2H against Nadal on tour or in slams ;)

MichaelNadal
06-11-2011, 05:42 PM
Yes, but the matchup includes the characteristics of the surface. Fed's BH doesn't match up well with Nadal's FH on a high-bouncing surface. The same Fed who lost to Nadal at the FO faced Nadal on a fast indoor court in the year end masters and beat him easily. (2006 shanghai if I'm not incorrect)


I respect Nadal's achievements. Even outside of his H2H with Roger, Nadal has become an all-around champ. I have no problem if folks want Nadal to be appreciated for what he has done. He deserves it. But when the H2H is used to belittle Roger's achievements, that's when I think its being used unfairly as a sole yardstick of Roger's greatness or lack of it.


That I can agree with, and don't even get why so many commentators and analysts are using it. It's really stupid actually. It's like everytime he loses to Rafa his achievements matter less and less. They are like OH MY, Rafa is really closing in now, etc etc. I watched the end of the AO-2009 yesterday and when it was over the commentators and analysts were REALLY laying into Federer about the whole Nadal thing, and I didn't get it at all.

nikdom
06-11-2011, 05:43 PM
Nobody is belittling Federer's achievements. We're merely pointing out that he's not the GOAT since he's not even the greatest in his era :)

Nadal owns Federer in and out of slams and always has. Federer has never had a positive H2H against Nadal on tour or in slams ;)


All I can wish for is that you guys get the same medicine you are doling out today.

Somewhere, somehow I hope when Nadal is at the twilight of his career, he gets thumped around by Djokovic or whoever else, ends up with a bad H2H, and you guys get the same disrespect from Djoker fans that you're doling out now.

;)

Enjoy it while it lasts...

Bud
06-11-2011, 05:46 PM
All I can wish for is that you guys get the same medicine you are doling out today.

Somewhere, somehow I hope when Nadal is at the twilight of his career, he gets thumped around by Djokovic or whoever else, ends up with a bad H2H, and you guys get the same disrespect from Djoker fans that you're doling out now.

;)

Enjoy it while it lasts...

Lol! Don't be like that :)

The bottom line is nobody is arrogantly and constantly spouting off about Nadal being some GOAT while completely discounting reality and past champions' achievements.

If Nadal passes Federer he will still not be the GOAT since Federer is not the GOAT.

- - -

Want another reality check??

Federer has a negative H2H against 21 other players versus 5 for Nadal ;)

sunnyIce
06-11-2011, 05:49 PM
Summary - First 10 Yrs on Tour

Turned Pro - RF 1998, RN 2001

RF - W 12, F 14, SF 16, QF 16

RN - W 9, F 12, SF 15, QF 16

Summary - First 11.5 Yrs on Tour (Present Day)

RF - W 12, F 15, SF 18, QF 18

RN - W 10, F 13, SF 16, QF 18

Not too different, with Rog slightly ahead.

nikdom
06-11-2011, 05:50 PM
Lol! Don't be like that :)

The bottom line is nobody is arrogantly and constantly spouting off about Nadal being some GOAT while completely discounting reality and past champions' achievements.

If Nadal passes Federer he will still not be the GOAT since Federer is not the GOAT.

This is not about GOAT.

You have to give respect to Roger for his 16 GS titles and the way he achieved them. If it doesn't mean GOAT for you, that's fine... but accept that it is a remarkable achievement that has its merits.

Same way you will want respect for Nadal's achievements at the end of his career, whether or not he passes 16.

The GOAT debate is useless. You can find some flaw or the other in every GOAT candidate. There is never going to be a 'perfect' GOAT who never lost to anyone.

Bud
06-11-2011, 05:51 PM
Summary - First 10 Yrs on Tour

Turned Pro - RF 1998, RN 2001

RF - W 12, F 14, SF 16, QF 16

RN - W 9, F 12, SF 15, QF 16

Summary - First 11.5 Yrs on Tour (Present Day)

RF - W 12, F 15, SF 18, QF 18

RN - W 10, F 13, SF 16, QF 18

Not too different, with Rog slightly ahead.

Nadal played 1 match on tour in 2002... and no GS matches

Why are you stating he started in 2001?

- -

Nadal started playing GS matches in 2003
Federer started playing GS matches in 1999

At the very least, use accurate information

McEnroeisanartist
06-11-2011, 05:54 PM
unless im misreading something...

aren't these the same stats.

Sorry, the second number was Bagel Sets in Grand Slam Semifinals and finals. Remarkable dominance by Federer.

sunnyIce
06-11-2011, 05:57 PM
Nadal played 1 match on tour in 2002... and no GS matches

Why are you stating he started in 2001?

- -

Nadal started playing GS matches in 2003
Federer started playing GS matches in 1999

At least you accurate information

what do you mean accurate stats? i'm not sitting here recording data. i have to go by what ATP shows. so what do you want me to do if he didnt play GS?!?!? Obviously he thought and his team thought he was good enough to go pro at 15. Most players play challengers and futures the first 2-3 yrs of their pro careers anyways. its nadals problem he couldnt get into GS.

Sharpshooter
06-11-2011, 05:59 PM
Its not. Its just proof Nadal was lucky that the dominant guy in tennis had a matchup problem with him.


Fed's lucky Roddick had a matchup problem with him. Nice try but two can play that game, thanks for losing.

tennis_pro
06-11-2011, 06:02 PM
Fed's lucky Roddick had a matchup problem with him. Nice try but two can play that game, thanks for losing.

And Davydenko, and Hewitt, and Soderling and....

Was Federer a bad match-up for everyone on tour? Thanks for playing, you lose.

Bud
06-11-2011, 06:03 PM
what do you mean accurate stats? i'm not sitting here recording data. i have to go by what ATP shows. so what do you want me to do if he didnt play GS?!?!? Obviously he thought and his team thought he was good enough to go pro at 15. Most players play challengers and futures the first 2-3 yrs of their pro careers anyways. its nadals problem he couldnt get into GS.

Here's the proper way to conduct an analysis.

Grand Slam wins (based on the year when each player started participating in GS tournaments)

Nadal:
2003 - 0 (age 17) - first major was Wimbledon 2003
2004 - 0
2005 - 1
2006 - 1
2007 - 1
2008 - 2
2009 - 1
2010 - 3
2011 - 1
2012 -

Federer:
1999 - 0 (age 17) - first major was the FO 1999
2000 - 0
2001 - 0
2002 - 0
2003 - 1
2004 - 3
2005 - 2
2006 - 3
2007 - 3
2008 - 1

Based on this, you can't compare their first 10 years playing slams until the end of 2012 since 2011 is only Nadal's 9th year (season) since playing his first slam in 2003.

At 9 years (seasons) playing slams, Federer had a total of 12 slams

At 8.5 years (seasons) playing slams, Nadal has a total of 10 slams and is the defending champ at the two remaining slams in 2010.

However, Nadal started playing slams on tour nearly a year sooner than Federer.

IvanisevicServe
06-11-2011, 06:05 PM
So none of the overzealous Nadal fans see the contradiction in basically saying Federer was a lucky "paper champion" who racked up all his slams against guys who weren't "real competition?"

But Nadal's greatness hinges on him having beaten that same paper champion, Roger Federer.

Unless Federer is the second greatest of all-time, Nadal beating Federer doesn't build an argument for him as the GOAT.

And what's more, Nadal was never as dominant against the field as Federer was in 04-07. So that "weak competition" Federer always beat still gave Nadal more problems than Federer.

And it's interesting Bud points out Federer's losing H2H against 21 other players. The vast majority of those guys are now retired and built their lead on Federer in 99-03. What's that tell you about the pattern of development for Federer, as opposed to the 18-19 year old Nadal who won the French Open, 4 Masters titles, and lost only 10 matches in 2005?

We need to stop talking about "age." Nadal matured as a tennis player at a much younger age than Federer.

nikdom
06-11-2011, 06:05 PM
Fed's lucky Roddick had a matchup problem with him. Nice try but two can play that game, thanks for losing.

Not having any talent is not a match up problem.

There is a specific tactical issue with Fed-Nadal which is the Nad FH vs Fed BH.

It wasn't like Roddick was beating everyone in sight but ran into Fed who kept targeting something specific in Roddick's game.

The only place where Roddick was even a factor to Roger was at Wimby where the serve kept Roddick in play. Everywhere else, he didn't even get far enough to challenge Roger.

Roddick just got hammered like Blake, Ferrer, and a whole host of folks who couldn't hold a candle to Roger.

sunnyIce
06-11-2011, 06:06 PM
Here's the proper way to conduct an analysis.

Grand Slam wins (based on the year when player started participating in GS tournaments)

Nadal:
2003 - 0
2004 - 0
2005 - 1
2006 - 1
2007 - 1
2008 - 2
2009 - 1
2010 - 3
2011 - 1
2012 -

Federer:
1999 - 0
2000 - 0
2001 - 0
2002 - 0
2003 - 1
2004 - 3
2005 - 2
2006 - 3
2007 - 3
2008 - 1

Based on this, you can't compare their first 10 years playing slams until the end of 2012 since 2011 is only Nadal's 9th year since he played his first slam in 2003.

At 9 years playing slams, Federer had a total of 12 slams

At 8.5 years playing slams, Nadal has a total of 10 slams and is the defending champ at the two remaining slams in 2010.

However, Nadal started playing slams on tour a year younger than Federer.


correct? why? bcoz you say so? why does rafa get his first 3 yrs on tour exempted?

he still played a ton of matches. his 2002 schedule (2nd yr) is very comparable to Fed's 1999 (2nd yr)

sunnyIce
06-11-2011, 06:07 PM
Here's the proper way to conduct an analysis.

Grand Slam wins (based on the year when each player started participating in GS tournaments)

Nadal:
2003 - 0 (age 17)
2004 - 0
2005 - 1
2006 - 1
2007 - 1
2008 - 2
2009 - 1
2010 - 3
2011 - 1
2012 -

Federer:
1999 - 0 (age 17)
2000 - 0
2001 - 0
2002 - 0
2003 - 1
2004 - 3
2005 - 2
2006 - 3
2007 - 3
2008 - 1

Based on this, you can't compare their first 10 years playing slams until the end of 2012 since 2011 is only Nadal's 9th year since he played his first slam in 2003.

At 9 years playing slams, Federer had a total of 12 slams

At 8.5 years playing slams, Nadal has a total of 10 slams and is the defending champ at the two remaining slams in 2010.

However, Nadal started playing slams on tour a year younger than Federer.

i see what you are doing. you are trying to show he took fewer majors to get his wins. nicely done.

Bud
06-11-2011, 06:11 PM
i see what you are doing. you are trying to show he took fewer majors to get his wins. nicely done.

No, I simply started the clock at the year that each played their first major.

They both started playing majors at 17 years of age. Federer started in 1999 (at the French Open) and Nadal started in 2003 (at Wimbledon).

Do you have an issue with that?

Sharpshooter
06-11-2011, 06:12 PM
And Davydenko, and Hewitt, and Soderling and....

Was Federer a bad match-up for everyone on tour? Thanks for playing, you lose.

No he can beat Hewitt and Davydenko and Sod, BUT if Roddick was a bad match up for him, perhaps he wouldn't have won as many Wimbledons, AO's and USO's so Fed was lucky that Roddick was a bad matchup for him because he basically went through Roddick in most of his slam wins. So it is again you who loses HAHAHAHA!

tennis_pro
06-11-2011, 06:14 PM
No, I simply started the clock at the year that each played their first major.

They both started playing majors at 17 years of age. Federer started in 1999 and Nadal started in 2003.

Do you have an issue with that?

Why is starting playing majors the best indicator? Because it fits your arguement?

You can turn around all the stats you want, know one thing though - Nadal started winning earlier than Federer and he will start losing earlier than Federer. Mark my words.

sunnyIce
06-11-2011, 06:15 PM
No, I simply started the clock at the year that each played their first major.

They both started playing majors at 17 years of age. Federer started in 1999 and Nadal started in 2003.

Do you have an issue with that?

dude, you are conveniently manipulating the info to suit your argument. you are using the age argument to show rafa is doing more earlier. when in fact you should look at the total matches played and time on tour.

i dont know why rafa did not play majors earlier. maybe his team decided to hold him back, may he wanted to wait, maybe he was not good enough to get to qualies. whatever it may be he still had full schedules and played ton of matches before he entered slams. how can you discount that by using age. what does that have to do with anything?

MichaelNadal
06-11-2011, 06:15 PM
Why is starting playing majors the best indicator? Because it fits your arguement?

You can turn around all the stats you want, know one thing though - Nadal started winning earlier than Federer and he will start losing earlier than Federer. Mark my words.

Whooooooooo caresssssssss? It's like this board is one big circle of Nadal fans vs Federer fans throwing stones in glass houses. You're not going to make Bud a Federer fan and he isn't going to make you a Nadal fan.

tennis_pro
06-11-2011, 06:17 PM
No he can beat Hewitt and Davydenko and Sod, BUT if Roddick was a bad match up for him, perhaps he wouldn't have won as many Wimbledons, AO's and USO's so Fed was lucky that Roddick was a bad matchup for him because he basically went through Roddick in most of his slam wins. So it is again you who loses HAHAHAHA!

Wtf are you smoking? He beat Hewitt, Davydenko and the others just as often as he did Roddick. And as far as I remember Roddick is dead even in the h2h against Hewitt. So you got nothing to support your arguement besides the fact that you just took it out of your a**.

You lose even more so cause you fail to realize that you did, sucka!:) Mouhahaha!

Bud
06-11-2011, 06:18 PM
dude, you are conveniently manipulating the info to suit your argument. you are using the age argument to show rafa is doing more earlier. when in fact you should look at the total matches played and time on tour.

i dont know why rafa did not play majors earlier. maybe his team decided to hold him back, may he wanted to wait, maybe he was not good enough to get to qualies. whatever it may be he still had full schedules and played ton of matches before he entered slams. how can you discount that by using age. what does that have to do with anything?

Wow... are you telling me I conducted that analysis unfairly?

Rafa started playing GS tournaments in 2003 at the age of 17
Federer started playing GS tournaments in 1999 at the age of 17

Yet, for some unknown reason, you want to start Rafa's career in 2001 (age 14-15), when he hadn't even played a single match on tour. In 2002 (age 15-16), he only played 1 match on tour and zero GS tournaments.

Then, you have the nerve to insinuate I'm manipulating information to suit my purposes :confused:

Are you insane? :)

sonicare
06-11-2011, 06:21 PM
Nobody is belittling Federer's achievements. We're merely pointing out that he's not the GOAT since he's not even the greatest in his era :)

Nadal owns Federer in and out of slams and always has. Federer has never had a positive H2H against Nadal on tour or in slams ;)

Oh mighty one, then please aware all of us who the greatest player is of rogers era? Obviously it is not roger, so who is it?

All of us are waiting with bated breath to be enlightened by your knowledge.. you son of god.

sunnyIce
06-11-2011, 06:22 PM
Wow... are you telling me I conducted that analysis unfairly?

Rafa started playing GS tournaments in 2003 at the age of 17
Federer started playing GS tournaments in 1999 at the age of 17

Yet, for some unknown reason, you want to start Rafa's career in 2001 (when Nadal was 15), when he hadn't even played a single match on tour. In 2002, he only played 1 match on tour and zero GS tournaments.

Then, you have the nerve to insinuate I'm manipulating information to suit my purposes :confused:

Are you insane? :)

where am i...? hahahaha....unbelievable. i'm outta here, no thanks.

tennis_pro
06-11-2011, 06:22 PM
No he can beat Hewitt and Davydenko and Sod, BUT if Roddick was a bad match up for him, perhaps he wouldn't have won as many Wimbledons, AO's and USO's so Fed was lucky that Roddick was a bad matchup for him because he basically went through Roddick in most of his slam wins. So it is again you who loses HAHAHAHA!

I'm reading this for the 20th time and still can't see how this makes sense.

Besides, Federer played Hewitt 5 (FIVE) times in Slams in 2004-2005, more often than he did against Roddick. So is Hewitt also a bad match-up for Federer? Heck, Hewitt had a 7-2 lead in the h2h over Federer before 2004, so what happened? Suddenly became a bad match-up or what :) ? You're such a mental cripple:)

mcr619619
06-11-2011, 06:23 PM
Its not. Its just proof Nadal was lucky that the dominant guy in tennis had a matchup problem with him.

Otherwise, Nadal should have been beating everyone else Fed was beating and won the rest of the slams too.

he's right...and his 5 wins is in his fave court, FO CLay court, which he's the best in History, and Fed's weakest surface, yet he met Nadal in 4 FO finals...

and the Grand slams ain't being played by only Nadal and Fed, it's about winning to other players, consecutive records of Fed proved it, 23 SFs, 10 consecutive Finals, appeared in all GS finals, it's just that fed can't really beat Nadal in FO.. though he beaten Fed in Wimby, and AO, he's somewhat past his prime, and if Prime VS Prime, i don't think Nadal can beat more than once Fed other than FO,..but if Nadal and Fed in FO, it's gonna be like Nadal will win 9/10..

Sharpshooter
06-11-2011, 06:23 PM
Not having any talent is not a match up problem.

Hey pea brain, Roddick has more talent in his little finger than you will ever have. Show some damn respect yourself you keep whining that Fed gets no respect, if Roddick wasn't in the Fed era he'd have at least 6 majors by now.


There is a specific tactical issue with Fed-Nadal which is the Nad FH vs Fed BH.


WTF, Fed always has the same tactic against Roddick, just block the serve back into play and use the slice to unsettle him.


It wasn't like Roddick was beating everyone in sight but ran into Fed who kept targeting something specific in Roddick's game.

No, he wasn't beating everyone in sight but he was good enough to make it to 3 Wimbledon finals and a Semi where he lost to Federer in each of those encounters. He was good enough to make it to 2 Australian Open semi's in which he lost to Federer and met him twice in the US open and lost to him twice there as well, one being a Final.



The only place where Roddick was even a factor to Roger was at Wimby where the serve kept Roddick in play. Everywhere else, he didn't even get far enough to challenge Roger.

Wrong. I just proved it so I won't type it again.


Roddick just got hammered like Blake, Ferrer, and a whole host of folks who couldn't hold a candle to Roger.

LOL Roddick wasn't a factor in majors but Blake and Ferrer were now I've heard it all :rolleyes:

Out of all the names you could have brought up you had to bring up the 2 most insignificant, you might wanna throw Davydenko in there as well yeah?

Bud
06-11-2011, 06:24 PM
where am i...? hahahaha....unbelievable. i'm outta here, no thanks.

Yeah, thanks for playing ;)

Next time, use the correct information and conduct a fair analysis :)

Here's the proper way to conduct an analysis (see below)


Grand Slam wins (based on the year when each player started participating in GS tournaments)

Nadal:
2003 - 0 (age 17) - first major was Wimbledon 2003
2004 - 0
2005 - 1
2006 - 1
2007 - 1
2008 - 2
2009 - 1
2010 - 3
2011 - 1
2012 -

Federer:
1999 - 0 (age 17) - first major was the FO 1999
2000 - 0
2001 - 0
2002 - 0
2003 - 1
2004 - 3
2005 - 2
2006 - 3
2007 - 3
2008 - 1

Based on this, you can't compare their first 10 years playing slams until the end of 2012 since 2011 is only Nadal's 9th year (season) since playing his first slam in 2003.

At 9 years (seasons) playing slams, Federer had a total of 12 slams

At 8.5 years (seasons) playing slams, Nadal has a total of 10 slams and is the defending champ at the two remaining slams in 2010.

However, Nadal started playing slams on tour nearly a year sooner than Federer.

tennis_pro
06-11-2011, 06:24 PM
where am i...? hahahaha....unbelievable. i'm outta here, no thanks.

This is TW, mate :)

illuminati
06-11-2011, 06:25 PM
nadal is 4-1 vs federer on outdoor hardcourt.

thats incredible dominance.

fed_rulz
06-11-2011, 06:26 PM
Hey pea brain, Roddick has more talent in his little finger than you will ever have. Show some damn respect yourself

Out of all the names you could have brought up you had to bring up the 2 most insignificant, you might wanna throw Davydenko in there as well yeah?

:confused::confused:

mcr619619
06-11-2011, 06:27 PM
No he can beat Hewitt and Davydenko and Sod, BUT if Roddick was a bad match up for him, perhaps he wouldn't have won as many Wimbledons, AO's and USO's so Fed was lucky that Roddick was a bad matchup for him because he basically went through Roddick in most of his slam wins. So it is again you who loses HAHAHAHA!

you do know a lot ha...do know a lot of stupidity....hahaha

Semi-Pro
06-11-2011, 06:27 PM
This thread is turning into ANOTHER sh1tshow. Good god.

Bud
06-11-2011, 06:28 PM
nadal is 4-1 vs federer on outdoor hardcourt.

thats incredible dominance.

Federer's single win was in the 2005 Miami final, when he was down 2 sets to 18 year-old Nadal... and then came back to win in 5 sets :)

Nadal really choked that match away. Luckily, he was able to leave it in the past.

sonicare
06-11-2011, 06:29 PM
Federer's single win was in the 2005 Miami final, when he was down 2 sets to a 17 year-old Nadal... and then came back to win in 5 sets :)

Nadal really choked that match away. Luckily, he was able to leave it in the past.

Answer this

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=5739582&postcount=67

Sharpshooter
06-11-2011, 06:31 PM
I'm reading this for the 20th time and still can't see how this makes sense.

Besides, Federer played Hewitt 5 (FIVE) times in Slams in 2004-2005, more often than he did against Roddick. So is Hewitt also a bad match-up for Federer? Heck, Hewitt had a 7-2 lead in the h2h over Federer before 2004, so what happened? Suddenly became a bad match-up or what :) ? You're such a mental cripple:)

Dud your using Hewitt to explain how great Fed is? Stop embarrassing yourself, Hewitt is a pusher. Anyway, Roddick has encountered Fed more times throughout their careers, don't just count 2 years. Both Roddick and Hewitt have met Fed in majors 8 times. BTW Hewitt's 7-2 h2h lead was before they even played at a major LOL it doesn't even matter.

And LOL at how what I wrote doesn't make sense, that's all you've got, pathetic.

It makes perfect sense you just don't want it to. You ****s keep flapping your gums about how Nadal is "just a bad matchup" for Fed and that's the reason he owns him. Well if that is the case then Fed is "just a bad matchup" for Roddick.

tennis_pro
06-11-2011, 06:31 PM
Federer's single win was in Miami when he was down 2 sets to a 17 year-old Nadal... and then came back to win in 5 sets :)

Nadal really choked that match away. Luckily, he was able to leave it in the past.


First of all you 2, this is the wrong thread to post h2h on hard courts.

Second of all, for such a stat freak get your stats right. Nadal in Miami 2005 was NOT 17, he was 2 months short of his 19th birthday. I can't believe such a smelly little kiddo like you is 43 years old, the amount of tardism you post here and the way you're always manipulating stats is just hilarious.

I remember once reading a thread about you proving that Nadal is better volleyer than Federer based on some skewed stats :D I was like please more of this goof! :D

Sharpshooter
06-11-2011, 06:32 PM
:confused::confused:

Man come on they were always insignificant when it came to majors. Roddick is in another league.

fed_rulz
06-11-2011, 06:34 PM
why has nadal never beaten Federer after the first week of july? Can someone answer this? That's 1 slam, 4 masters and 1 yr end championship every year.

Actually, Nadal has beaten Federer only ONCE in the last 6 months of the tennis tour from 2004 till now -- that's roughly 50% of the touring season!!!

fed_rulz
06-11-2011, 06:35 PM
Man come on they were always insignificant when it came to majors. Roddick is in another league.

yes, but do you claim to have more talent than the pinkies of Ferrer or Blake?

Sharpshooter
06-11-2011, 06:38 PM
yes, but do you claim to have more talent than the pinkies of Ferrer or Blake?

Do not twist words, I said they were insignificant at the majors and they were, I did not say they had no talent like he did about Roddick. Learn to read.

tennis_pro
06-11-2011, 06:38 PM
Dud your using Hewitt to explain how great Fed is? Stop embarrassing yourself, Hewitt is a pusher. Anyway, Roddick has encountered Fed more times throughout their careers, don't just count 2 years. Both Roddick and Hewitt have met Fed in majors 8 times. BTW Hewitt's 7-2 h2h lead was before they even played at a major LOL it doesn't even matter.

And LOL at how what I wrote doesn't make sense, that's all you've got, pathetic.

It makes perfect sense you just don't want it to. You ****s keep flapping your gums about how Nadal is "just a bad matchup" for Fed and that's the reason he owns him. Well if that is the case then Fed is "just a bad matchup" for Roddick.

There are 3 kinds of people.

1) - cool bros
2) - idiots who realize they are idiots
3) - idiots who don't realize they are idiots

This is why - you said that Federer was a bad match-up for Roddick, I responded that Davydenko, Soderling, Hewitt (and tons of more) have also a paethetic record against Fed especially in 2004-2007, I proved it by providing some data. Now you come up with "Hewitt is a pusher" hahaha I mean how dumber can you get :D?

So if pushers don't count => Nadal doesn't count => game over you lose haha:)


It makes perfect sense you just don't want it to. You ****s keep flapping your gums about how Nadal is "just a bad matchup" for Fed and that's the reason he owns him. Well if that is the case then Fed is "just a bad matchup" for Roddick.

Lol you smelly little fart :D let me explain this to you since your brain is too small to put simple pieces of information into pieces

You can be a bad match-up against ONE player, TWO at most. If you're starting to be a bad match-up against 4, 5, 6, etc. you can consider yourself as sucky since tons of players can beat you.

Federer has ONE Nadal who is a bad match-up for him, he's dealing with the rest of the tour just fine.
Nadal has ONE Davydenko who is also a bad match-up for him, he's dealing with the rest of the tour perfectly fine.

Now Hewitt, Davydenko, Roddick, Gonzalez, Blake all having a 0-something record against Federer means that they are 2 leagues behind Federer.

Sharpshooter
06-11-2011, 06:39 PM
why has nadal never beaten Federer after the first week of july? Can someone answer this? That's 1 slam, 4 masters and 1 yr end championship every year.

Actually, Nadal has beaten Federer only ONCE in the last 6 months of the tennis tour from 2004 till now -- that's roughly 50% of the touring season!!!

How many times have they played after July. Let me guess the 3 WTF meetings?

NadalAgassi
06-11-2011, 06:42 PM
why has nadal never beaten Federer after the first week of july?

Well last year it is because Federer blew 2 match points vs Djokovic in the U.S Open semis and thus did get to the U.S Open final to lose to Nadal. Just like how he lost to Berdych at Wimbledon and thus did get to lose the Wimbledon final to Nadal. A strategy to preserve the head to head from getting even worse perhaps? :shock:

Sharpshooter
06-11-2011, 06:42 PM
There are 3 kinds of people.

1) - cool bros
2) - idiots who realize they are idiots
3) - idiots who don't realize they are idiots

This is why - you said that Federer was a bad match-up for Roddick, I responded that Davydenko, Soderling, Hewitt (and tons of more) have also a paethetic record against Fed especially in 2004-2007, I proved it by providing some data. Now you come up with "Hewitt is a pusher" hahaha I mean how dumber can you get :D?

So if pushers don't count => Nadal doesn't count => game over you lose haha:)

Nadal is no pusher pal. His game is miles above the level Hewitt ever reached.

And yes you certainly fall into category number 3.

Roddick played Fed in more finals than those guys combined you half wit. Maybe your data failed to show you that.

tennis_pro
06-11-2011, 06:45 PM
Nadal is no pusher pal. His game is miles above the level Hewitt ever reached.

And yes you certainly fall into category number 3.

Roddick played Fed in more finals than those guys combined you half wit. Maybe your data failed to show you that.

It's a 2-time Slam champion, a former world no 1 you're talking about. You can't take him out of the equation just like that.

As for Roddick, it's not like you take out Federer and he collects those Slams on hard courts and grass court since there would be at least 3-4 guys who'd have as good of a chance as Roddick like Davydenko, Hewitt, Nadal, Djokovic, Gonzalez. Many times it was the luck of the draw.

2004 Wimbledon - Federer beat Hewitt in the QF and Roddick in the FINAL
2005 Wimbledon - Federer beat Hewitt in the SF and Roddick in the FINAL

What's the difference if you put Roddick in the QF/SF and Hewitt in the final? None. There's your answer. Hewitt was there to challenge Federer, even more so than Roddick.

TheTruth
06-11-2011, 06:47 PM
Nobody is belittling Federer's achievements. We're merely pointing out that he's not the GOAT since he's not even the greatest in his era :)

Nadal owns Federer in and out of slams and always has. Federer has never had a positive H2H against Nadal on tour or in slams ;)

That's a great point. Mentioning a great stat of Nadal's does not belittle Federer, or vice versa.

It's similar to the many times I've seen 16>9 in this board. That's not belittling Rafa. That's one of Roger's great achievements.

Of course some people don't think Roger is the GOAT. I don't even believe in that GOAT stuff. I don't think anyone deserves that title, because there are too many factors that would have to be factored in.

fed_rulz
06-11-2011, 06:49 PM
How many times have they played after July. Let me guess the 3 WTF meetings?

and that's Federer's fault?

Federer has won 5 slams, 7 masters and 5 WTF after the 1st week of july, and nadal hasn't beaten him even ONCE?

if you factor in the last 6 months, then make it 10 slams, 7 masters etc, since 2004, and you're telling me that Nadal has beaten him only ONCE in the last 6 months of the season?

what;s nadal's record in the last 6 months of each year since 2004?

tennis_pro
06-11-2011, 06:50 PM
Well last year it is because Federer blew 2 match points vs Djokovic in the U.S Open semis and thus did get to the U.S Open final to lose to Nadal. Just like how he lost to Berdych at Wimbledon and thus did get to lose the Wimbledon final to Nadal. A strategy to preserve the head to head from getting even worse perhaps? :shock:

LOL and how many times did Nadal fail to play Federer in the second half of the year because someone else took care of him?

fed_rulz
06-11-2011, 06:51 PM
Well last year it is because Federer blew 2 match points vs Djokovic in the U.S Open semis and thus did get to the U.S Open final to lose to Nadal. Just like how he lost to Berdych at Wimbledon and thus did get to lose the Wimbledon final to Nadal. A strategy to preserve the head to head from getting even worse perhaps? :shock:

what about before that? Nadal was a 7-time slam champion + 18-time master's title holder.... and you're telling he hasn't beaten Federer even ONCE after the month of july, EVER in his career?

mcr619619
06-11-2011, 06:52 PM
LOL at Sharpshooter..

Inborn Stupidity...

tennis_pro
06-11-2011, 06:53 PM
LOL at Sharpshooter..

Inborn Stupidity...

Some Nadal fans and their logic is just beyond imagination. I wouldn't think of such retarted comments if I tried.:)

Sharpshooter
06-11-2011, 06:55 PM
Lol you smelly little fart :D let me explain this to you since your brain is too small to put simple pieces of information into pieces


BWHAHAHAHA LOL I'm getting to you aren't I?


You can be a bad match-up against ONE player, TWO at most. If you're starting to be a bad match-up against 4, 5, 6, etc. you can consider yourself as sucky since tons of players can beat you.

Federer has ONE Nadal who is a bad match-up for him, he's dealing with the rest of the tour just fine.
Nadal has ONE Davydenko who is also a bad match-up for him, he's dealing with the rest of the tour perfectly fine.

Now Hewitt, Davydenko, Roddick, Gonzalez, Blake all having a 0-something record against Federer means that they are 2 leagues behind Federer.

Which is further proof of Fed's weak era.

The h2h between Rafa and Davydenko is 4-6, hardly the signs of a bad match up. In fact if that makes Davydenko a bad matchup for Rafa then Murray is another "bad matchup" for Fed.

sonicare
06-11-2011, 07:03 PM
Now you've lost all credibility Davydenko and Gonzalez as good a chance as Roddick? Seriously get you head examined.

You talk about 2004 and 2005 Wimby again. What about 2003 and 2009 Wimby? Did Fed have to beat them both back then as well?

He won 2003 wimby by serving and volleying. Something rafa cant even do in practice, never mind at wimbledon..LMAO.

Sharpshooter
06-11-2011, 07:06 PM
Sure, I can't take it anymore:)



Lol at that logic again, once I think you can't think of anything dumber, you never fail to do better each time :D

Let me put it this way - are Roddick, Federer, Hewitt, Safin all bad match-ups for Sampras because of the h2h? Murray is 6 years younger than Federer, if he's the part of this "new tough generation" he should win more than lose, right :D? Too bad he can't even take a set off Federer when it really matters.

I believe a couple years from now when Nadal will lose more matches than win against the new hungry generation we can easily say that it's all bad match-ups LOL

Again you guys try and put words into my "posts". Never said they were a bad matchup for Sampras, just going by your 6-4 h2h logic which is only 2 more wins being a bad matchup then Murray must be a bad matchup for Fed going by that logic.

As for your "new tough generation" comment about how Murray "should" be beating Fed, that's really not the case, Fed is far more experienced than Murray and should actually have a leading h2h against him.

Surely you could've found somebody with a dominating h2h against Nadal to backup your bad matchup story ...oh wait :-D

tennis_pro
06-11-2011, 07:08 PM
Now you've lost all credibility Davydenko and Gonzalez as good a chance as Roddick? Seriously get you head examined.

You talk about 2004 and 2005 Wimby again. What about 2003 and 2009 Wimby? Did Fed have to beat them both back then as well?

1) Davydenko, Gonzalez - I'm not saying they would do better than Roddick IN EVERY CASE. But look at 2007 AO - Roddick takes I believe 6 games from Federer, Gonzalez really pushes him hard though. So take out Fed and that Slam belongs to Gonzalez.

2) You can take whichever Slam you like, Federer doesn't give a f if he has to beat Hewitt, Roddick in the SF, F or Roddick, Hewitt in the SF, F. The fact that he faced Roddick in the final more has to do with the draw mostly.

Further proof = Roddick played Federer 10 times in 04-07 (5 times in Slams) but Hewitt played him 11 (6 times in Slams). H2h between Roddick and Hewitt at the end of 2007 was 6-3 Hewitt (2-1 in Slams for Hewitt), even at 2009 Wimbledon a cripple Hewitt took an in-form Roddick to 5 sets. It's always been Hewitt>Roddick

Sharpshooter
06-11-2011, 07:08 PM
He won 2003 wimby by serving and volleying. Something rafa cant even do in practice, never mind at wimbledon..LMAO.

So? Does Rafa HAVE to do that? I think not, he's doing okay with his current game plan.

sonicare
06-11-2011, 07:17 PM
So? Does Rafa HAVE to do that? I think not, he's doing okay with his current game plan.

my point is..he CANT do it even if he wanted.. hes not as talented.

tennis_pro
06-11-2011, 07:18 PM
Ok this is my last reply cause this is getting boring. You're starting to sound serious and I lose all fun :)

Again you guys try and put words into my "posts". Never said they were a bad matchup for Sampras, just going by your 6-4 h2h logic which is only 2 more wins being a bad matchup then Murray must be a bad matchup for Fed going by that logic.

Davydenko has a winning formula for Nadal, he's 6-1 on hard courts (5-0 on OUTDOOR as some of you like to point out) against the Spaniard (only 1 loss in the very first meeting in 2006 and even there Davydenko should've won), besides Nadal's 3 other wins came on clay (and 1 of them Davydenko also had his chance to win - 2007 Rome).

Look at Sampras-Krajicek now, also a rather small margin of 6-4 for Krajicek but out of 10 matches they played he had a chance to win nearly all of them. And now compare their achievements...(also Davydenko to Nadal).

As for your "new tough generation" comment about how Murray "should" be beating Fed, that's really not the case, Fed is far more experienced than Murray and should actually have a leading h2h against him.

So Federer at 30-years old is supposed to beat a 24-year old Murray on hard courts, just as 30-year old Sampras was supposed to beat 21-year old Hewitt? I'm not making any excuses for Federer but how many matches Murray won was a best-of-3 format on a hard court? 8 out of 8. Federer never really cares about Murray cause he can't trouble him when it matters.

Surely you could've found somebody with a dominating h2h against Nadal to backup your bad matchup story ...oh wait :-D

Oh just wait and see, just as Federer is 5 years older than Rafa, Nadal will find someone 5 younger than him who might well find a solution. Unless Nadal keeps his promise and does a "win as much as possible in a short period of time and then retire!" not giving any players a chance to beat his post-prime self, just like post-prime Federer allows Djokovic, Murray, Nadal and Del Potro to beat him when he's nearly 30 years old.

That's why the h2h means nothing.

tennis_pro
06-11-2011, 07:21 PM
OMG Gonzalez pushed Fed really hard in AO 07!? kthxbye no point continuing against a complete moron.

Well 7-6 6-4 6-4 (serving for the set and having 2 consecutive set points) is better than being bageled and losing like 14 of the last 16 games. Nobody pushed Federer harder than Gonzalez in AO 2007, therefore the conclusion is simple. Besides Gonzalez himself was owning everyone en route to the final, he smashed Nadal, then pwned Haas in the semi.

illuminati
06-11-2011, 07:31 PM
federer is definitelyt not GOAT. u cant get murdered by ur biggest rival 17 times and claim ur the best ever.

illuminati
06-11-2011, 07:33 PM
federer simply not good enough to beat nadal when it matters.

powerangle
06-11-2011, 08:02 PM
Nadal started winning majors earlier (age-wise) and had the luxury of a head start in that case. But Fed really started to pick up the pace very soon and kept up that pace for some years...and had overcome Nadal even with Nadal's initial lead. (12 slams to Roger compared to 9 or 10 slams to Rafa). Nadal really "needed" his 3-slam year last year to keep it close to Federer.

Federer looked pretty good for 3 slams a year for awhile there (as Agassi had said, you would bet on Fed winning 3 slams in a year over him winning "just" 1 slam a year....which is crazy in the big picture).

That said, Rafa was and still is a bigger "lockdown" to win RG year after year, even more so than Roger at Wimby or US Open. So if Nadal keeps trodding along winning RG every year or most of time for the remainder of his career...and just picks up a few slams between all the remaining AO, Wim, or USO he will play...he can pass Roger's tally. Not so far-fetched at all.

IvanisevicServe
06-11-2011, 08:57 PM
Djokovic is a bad matchup for Nadal. Nadal = toast at Wimbledon 2007 if he doesn't get hurt.

Djokovic leads hardcourt H2H.

Only reason Nadal has the lead is all their clay meetings, which Djokovic finally won this year.

Prepare for the swing. :)

illuminati
06-11-2011, 09:14 PM
Djokovic is a bad matchup for Nadal. Nadal = toast at Wimbledon 2007 if he doesn't get hurt.

Djokovic leads hardcourt H2H.

Only reason Nadal has the lead is all their clay meetings, which Djokovic finally won this year.

Prepare for the swing. :)

only reason djokovic is even close to nadal in the h2h is because of all thr hardcourt. u take away the hardcourt matches and djokovic is nowhere near nadal.

djokovic is yet to beat nadal at a slam.

Spider
06-11-2011, 09:16 PM
Exactly. We have a winner.
Federer is more dominant overall NO DOUBT about it. The undisputed GOAT imo. But had he met Rafa in more GRAND SLAM FINALS, he'd be missing a few trophies, reguardless of the surface, so I don't think you guys should keep running to bring that up.

Keep telling yourself that. A player owned in his own era in all of the biggest stages, against his biggest rival, cannot be the GOAT. Never.

ledwix
06-11-2011, 09:36 PM
Keep telling yourself that. A player owned in his own era in all of the biggest stages, against his biggest rival, cannot be the GOAT. Never.

Who's the greatest tennis player?

And if Federer was owned in his own era, why does he have the most grand slams of all time and have the most #1 rankings of his era?

The answer is "he played in a weak era," which contradicts the idea that Federer didn't dominate his own era.

Spider
06-11-2011, 09:43 PM
Who's the greatest tennis player?

And if Federer was owned in his own era, why does he have the most grand slams of all time and have the most #1 rankings of his era?

The answer is "he played in a weak era," which contradicts the idea that Federer didn't dominate his own era.

The idea that Federer is the greatest is false because he cannot beat a guy from his own era at the biggest stages. This doesn't increase his chances for claiming something as prestigious as GOAT.

There is no GOAT, I repeat you cannot compare era's. And if we ever have to declare someone GOAT, he needs to have absolutely no weakness in his resume.

zasr4325
06-11-2011, 09:56 PM
Every single one of these threads is basically:
http://tehresistance.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/602__image_091.jpg

With just a little bit of:
http://island-adv.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/banghead.gif

EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Sharpshooter
06-11-2011, 10:02 PM
Djokovic is a bad matchup for Nadal. Nadal = toast at Wimbledon 2007 if he doesn't get hurt.

Djokovic leads hardcourt H2H.

Only reason Nadal has the lead is all their clay meetings, which Djokovic finally won this year.

Prepare for the swing. :)

Hate to bring this to you, but it's now 2011.

So welcome to 2011 buddy

ledwix
06-11-2011, 10:02 PM
The idea that Federer is the greatest is false because he cannot beat a guy from his own era at the biggest stages. This doesn't increase his chances for claiming something as prestigious as GOAT.

There is no GOAT, I repeat you cannot compare era's. And if we ever have to declare someone GOAT, he needs to have absolutely no weakness in his resume.

There's a difference between the greatest player and a perfect player. I think if the GOAT has to have absolutely no weaknesses, then logically no player deserves to win a grand slam title unless they win it without losing a set. Why would you have a grand slam champion if they didn't play a perfect tournament? We should only award a title to those who won it without losing a set. Same concept.

Magnus
06-11-2011, 10:02 PM
LOL at all the *******s who suddenly hate stats when they don't work in their favour. Especially hypocrite when they bring up the stupid H2H stat ALL THE TIME.

Spider
06-11-2011, 10:05 PM
There's a difference between the greatest player and a perfect player. I think if the GOAT has to have absolutely no weaknesses, then logically no player deserves to win a grand slam title unless they win it without losing a set. Why would you have a grand slam champion if they didn't play a perfect tournament? We should only award a title to those who won it without losing a set. Same concept.

No, when we say someone is the greatest ever it also depends upon if he was able to dominate his era and his rival. Federer is no where close to dominating his biggest rival when it matters.

There are many holes in Federer's resume due to Nadal for something as prestigious as GOAT.

TheNatural
06-11-2011, 10:14 PM
Who's the greatest tennis player?

And if Federer was owned in his own era, why does he have the most grand slams of all time and have the most #1 rankings of his era?

The answer is "he played in a weak era," (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/pat-cash-questions-federer-quality/story-e6frexni-1225820392000) which contradicts the idea that Federer didn't dominate his own era.

Correct, he grabbed the majority of his slams in the weak era (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/pat-cash-questions-federer-quality/story-e6frexni-1225820392000), its only now that the era has become stronger.so we are seeing how good Fed REALLY is now.

Bud
06-12-2011, 12:10 AM
LOL at all the *******s who suddenly hate stats when they don't work in their favour. Especially hypocrite when they bring up the stupid H2H stat ALL THE TIME.

What stats are those? I owned an earlier poster who tried making up some stats about Nadal :lol:

He/she said Nadal was active on the tour playing grand slam tournaments at 14-15 years old :shock:

Messarger
06-12-2011, 12:21 AM
And how many of those times was it on clay?

Also, how many of those times Nadal beat Roger did Roger go on to win 2 or more slams for the year?

If Nadal was indeed that dominant (and not just had a matchup advantage over a Roger who kept showing up at the FO) how come Roger was cleaning up the other slams at that rate?

Because Roger was in his prime at that time, and pre prime Rafa was still figuring out how to play on grass and hard?

Sharpshooter
06-12-2011, 12:21 AM
What stats are those? I owned an earlier poster who tried making up some stats about Nadal :lol:

He/she said Nadal was active on the tour playing grand slam tournaments at 14-15 years old :shock:

Here's an interesting stat:

first round losses in majors = 0 for Nadal.

Not sure what Federer's is but I'm certain he lost in the first round at WImbledon in 2002 against Ancic...

Messarger
06-12-2011, 12:42 AM
Correct, he grabbed the majority of his slams in the weak era (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/pat-cash-questions-federer-quality/story-e6frexni-1225820392000), its only now that the era has become stronger.so we are seeing how good Fed REALLY is now.

Disagree. Because with that, we have to assume the Federer that played in the weak era is the exact same Federer that is playing now, which is not true. Fed since 2007 AO has declined significantly from his peak years, even though he still won Wimby and the US Open that year.

ledwix
06-12-2011, 12:46 AM
So 29 year old Federer with slower movement and a shanky backhand is how good he REALLY was all along? I could have sworn he was explosive and godly in 2007 and earlier, and he almost never shanked the backhand.

People who want to discredit Federer's achievements should keep their story straight. Federer clearly dominated his prime, which is why he was top-ranked for five out of seven years, second-ranked for the other two years, and racked up the most grand slams of all time. From his extended prime of 2003 to 2010, he was clearly the best player. Nadal is not the best player of that period, because he was too young when it started. He might (might) end up being the best player from 2005-2013, though. They overlap but don't totally share eras...

Their primes do not match up. It's a different era. Nadal can be the master of his era while at the same time, Federer can be the master of his.



Also, we should probably judge Michael Jordan by how weak his last season was with the Wizards, because that's who he REALLY was.

ninman
06-12-2011, 02:00 AM
Here's an interesting stat:

first round losses in majors = 0 for Nadal.

Not sure what Federer's is but I'm certain he lost in the first round at WImbledon in 2002 against Ancic...

You could just check on wikipedia. But you know that Federer has never withdrawn from any GS due to injury.

feetofclay
06-12-2011, 02:36 AM
You could just check on wikipedia. But you know that Federer has never withdrawn from any GS due to injury.

Then he should thank the 'Tennis Gods' for his very good fortune.

mcr619619
06-12-2011, 03:38 AM
Correct, he grabbed the majority of his slams in the weak era (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/pat-cash-questions-federer-quality/story-e6frexni-1225820392000), its only now that the era has become stronger.so we are seeing how good Fed REALLY is now.

some say the era of Claycourt now is weak, because only one guy really dominates it, Nadal... while in 2004-2007, which Fed is in his prime and almost won all the tournamnts he played,which some idiots considered the WEAK YEARS of tennis because one guy, Roger,dominated the game.. that's plainly stupid, if you watched 2003-2007. watch great players like Roddick, Davydenko, and others, you really never thought they'll end up in 2011 like this, roddick in slump and i think he's done, and Davydenko, is sleeping... they're great players back then, they're just good now, but 2004-2007 were great years, it's just most of the great players back then declined too fast now..and Fed's was just amazing when he was 24-27..

and Fed is declining, at almost 30, it's obvious,in a NEW game where athleticism and stamina[nadal and younger guys excels than fed ] has become greater factors than before and Shotmaking[federer really excels] is almost a secondary,with a slower movement, having more commitments[being a father..LOL] still, he's still a threat to win a GS and be no.1 at 30,

mcr619619
06-12-2011, 03:42 AM
So 29 year old Federer with slower movement and a shanky backhand is how good he REALLY was all along? I could have sworn he was explosive and godly in 2007 and earlier, and he almost never shanked the backhand.

People who want to discredit Federer's achievements should keep their story straight. Federer clearly dominated his prime, which is why he was top-ranked for five out of seven years, second-ranked for the other two years, and racked up the most grand slams of all time. From his extended prime of 2003 to 2010, he was clearly the best player. Nadal is not the best player of that period, because he was too young when it started. He might (might) end up being the best player from 2005-2013, though. They overlap but don't totally share eras...

Their primes do not match up. It's a different era. Nadal can be the master of his era while at the same time, Federer can be the master of his.



Also, we should probably judge Michael Jordan by how weak his last season was with the Wizards, because that's who he REALLY was.

this just justified that Sharpshooter is....stupid...and i mean it with all my heart.

mandy01
06-12-2011, 03:45 AM
Then he should thank the 'Tennis Gods' for his very good fortune.Or he should get credit for not quitting in extenuating circumstances or because 'he didn't think he could win'.Afterall it's not just slams.Roger has never quit from a single match in his entire career .

mcr619619
06-12-2011, 03:51 AM
Here's an interesting stat:

first round losses in majors = 0 for Nadal.

Not sure what Federer's is but I'm certain he lost in the first round at WImbledon in 2002 against Ancic...

i really don't find that interesting..

zagor
06-12-2011, 04:01 AM
Then he should thank the 'Tennis Gods' for his very good fortune.

Fortune has hardly that much to do with it,think about it,it will come to you eventually(I hope).

Sharpshooter
06-12-2011, 05:03 AM
this just justified that Sharpshooter is....stupid...and i mean it with all my heart.

Hahaha LOL April 2011 join date and all you can do is call me stupid because you can't provide anything to argue with what I say. What an inbred loser you are... and I mean that with all my heart.

Sharpshooter
06-12-2011, 05:06 AM
i really don't find that interesting..

Why? Can't you handle that your dream "grand slam king" boyfriend got beat in the first round at a major he's supposed to be "dominant" in amongst other first round major losses while Rafa has always gotten past at least the first opponent at all the majors.

DjokovicForTheWin
06-12-2011, 05:48 AM
Here's an interesting stat:

first round losses in majors = 0 for Nadal.

Not sure what Federer's is but I'm certain he lost in the first round at WImbledon in 2002 against Ancic...

This is very interesting to me. In so many ********* posts, the person says something and then immediately contradicts themselves. Does this have to do with age or education or something of the sort? Quite bemusing.

mcr619619
06-17-2011, 03:11 AM
Hahaha LOL April 2011 join date and all you can do is call me stupid because you can't provide anything to argue with what I say. What an inbred loser you are... and I mean that with all my heart.

so what's with my Join Date? is it relevant? LOL, i read a lot of threads now, i always come across to some of your NON SENSE, IRRELEVANT posts, you always have a fight with REASONABLE people, bec they analyzed your posts IRRELEVANT, UNREASONABLE, and IRRATIONAL.i just agreed to ledwix, and then i realized how stupid you are.. you can't even COUNTER-PUNCH of what ledwix post about Jordan...and you're the one who's loser, keep posting irrelevant when you can't support what have you just posted, like your very own idea,

"FEDERER, 29 years of age, is the same of FEDERER, 25 years old."
(pretty genius post huh)...

LOL

mcr619619
06-17-2011, 03:29 AM
Why? Can't you handle that your dream "grand slam king" boyfriend got beat in the first round at a major he's supposed to be "dominant" in amongst other first round major losses while Rafa has always gotten past at least the first opponent at all the majors.

that was 2002, Federer Underestimated Ancic back then... it was obviously Federer fault,but it was 2002, he'd never won a GS in that time so i don't think it's pretty interesting, if it happens twice at wimby, then i would consider it interesting,he was one of the favorite, he underestimated the opponent, and that cause him. and if you want to talk about a GS a player supposed to "dominate," do Nadal made 7 Straight RG finals? oppose to 7 straight finals of Fed in Wimby?,

i know you will come up with "BECAUSE NADAL IS INJURED."

but why Nadal was injured? because he was like a COMPUTER PROCESSOR, he overclocked himself, always having a risk to be injure..

and like always, i respect Nadal, and thinks that he'll surpass Fed in GS count, but GOAT, it's Fed...

DeShaun
07-01-2011, 09:52 PM
Exactly. We have a winner.
Federer is more dominant overall NO DOUBT about it. The undisputed GOAT imo. But had he met Rafa in more GRAND SLAM FINALS, he'd be missing a few trophies, reguardless of the surface, so I don't think you guys should keep running to bring that up.

Something seems wrong with this contention...maybe it's the fact that Rafa would have had greater difficulty getting his shots to bounce as high to Roger's backhand off of clay as on, depending on how bouncy those hard courts would have been playing. Look, a 29 yo Federer flicked Rafa like lint off his shoulder at the WTO seven months ago because the courts did not provide Rafa that extra bounce his matchup advantage depends on, and I'm not sure the faster playing balls and hardcourts from 5-7 years ago when Roger was snagging three slams per year would have offered Rafa much extra bounce with which to moonball Roger's backhand and you can almost see Rafa playing fetch until his wheels fell off if he had had to deal with Federer more often on the hardcourts from 04-06. I'm sorry but I really am not flaming right now. Roger was a fire breathign dragon from the baseline on hardcourts back then.

chatters
07-01-2011, 10:52 PM
Federer is lucky that he won most of his grandslams before nadal started dominating otherwise he would have <10 gs
you can only beat the players that are put in front of you, but none of federers opponents he beat in gs were the quality of nadal/djoko

Russeljones
07-01-2011, 11:35 PM
Federer is lucky that he won most of his grandslams before nadal started dominating otherwise he would have <10 gs
you can only beat the players that are put in front of you, but none of federers opponents he beat in gs were the quality of nadal/djoko

I am fairly new here, but this has to be the most useless comment I have seen here to date.

Ray Mercer
07-01-2011, 11:38 PM
All I know is this:

US Open: 5 vs. 1
Aussie: 4 vs. 1
Wimbledon 6 vs. 2

How is Nadal a better hardcourt and grass player than Federer?

The end

TheTruth
07-01-2011, 11:44 PM
Yes, it goes every which way. That is precisely the question..... why wasn't Nadal frequenting Roger on HIS best surface, just like Roger was on Nadal's?

Huh? huh?

Age, perhaps? Five years is a huge difference. It's like comparing even someone as good as del Po, 20 to Nadal at 25. It doesn't compute, nor does it assign superiority. It would be unfair to del Potro to say Nadal is better because he has 10-1 and not give del Po five years to make up the difference.

That's blatantly unfair, no matter how you slice it.

Sid_Vicious
07-01-2011, 11:52 PM
Age, perhaps? Five years is a huge difference. It's like comparing even someone as good as del Po, 20 to Nadal at 25. It doesn't compute, nor does it assign superiority. It would be unfair to del Potro to say Nadal is better because he has 10-1 and not give del Po five years to make up the difference.

That's blatantly unfair, no matter how you slice it.

Good point. Age was definitely a factor that played a part in the Federer-Nadal rivalry.

However, Del Potro is not a great example. He is only 2 years younger than Rafa. There is not much of a generation gap there.

Rob_C
07-02-2011, 01:05 AM
Here's the proper way to conduct an analysis.

Grand Slam wins (based on the year when each player started participating in GS tournaments)

Nadal:
2003 - 0 (age 17) - first major was Wimbledon 2003
2004 - 0
2005 - 1
2006 - 1
2007 - 1
2008 - 2
2009 - 1
2010 - 3
2011 - 1
2012 -

Federer:
1999 - 0 (age 17) - first major was the FO 1999
2000 - 0
2001 - 0
2002 - 0
2003 - 1
2004 - 3
2005 - 2
2006 - 3
2007 - 3
2008 - 1

Based on this, you can't compare their first 10 years playing slams until the end of 2012 since 2011 is only Nadal's 9th year (season) since playing his first slam in 2003.

At 9 years (seasons) playing slams, Federer had a total of 12 slams

At 8.5 years (seasons) playing slams, Nadal has a total of 10 slams and is the defending champ at the two remaining slams in 2010.

However, Nadal started playing slams on tour nearly a year sooner than Federer.

One important fact you're leaving out is that Nadal missed the French Open two years in a row, IIRC, because of injury.

One year he had a stress fracture in his foot playing against Gasquet in Estoril. He won the match but then pulled out, and had to take a few wks off, missing the French.

Another yr, I think he fractured an elbow clowning around trying to jump over the net. Not 100% sure about this one.

Edit: Wasnt Monte Carlo, but Estoril.

Re-Edit: I guess this is more about him winning the French the 1st time he played it, rather than when he started playing Slams.

nithya
07-02-2011, 01:31 AM
Hahaha LOL April 2011 join date and all you can do is call me stupid because you can't provide anything to argue with what I say. What an inbred loser you are... and I mean that with all my heart.

Are you aware that one can read the forums without joining?

I don't think the join date translates to meaning much. For instance, I have been following the forums from much before until I registered in April 2008. And I really didn't need to join unless I wanted to discuss, debate or find specific answers.

nithya
07-02-2011, 01:40 AM
This is very interesting to me. In so many ********* posts, the person says something and then immediately contradicts themselves. Does this have to do with age or education or something of the sort? Quite bemusing.

I am not sure how there was a contradiction in what was said. If you read carefully, sharpshooter said he/she is not sure what the total number of times Federer has exited in the first round is but is certain that he did it once in 2002 against Ancic in Wimbledon.

Your comment would amount to saying many *********s have a problem with reading, comprehension and understanding the context and then go on to question one's maturity or education. I am certain this is not the case with you and other Djokovic fans.

TheTruth
07-02-2011, 11:34 AM
Good point. Age was definitely a factor that played a part in the Federer-Nadal rivalry.

However, Del Potro is not a great example. He is only 2 years younger than Rafa. There is not much of a generation gap there.



Right, a little less than three years difference. For some reason I keep thinking he's younger. They seem like a tennis generation apart since Nadal had already established himself as a force on clay when JMDP just turned pro (2005).

I guess it could go either way, depending on one's perspective. Do you consider him to be a part of the Nadal, Novak, Murray generation?

aphex
07-02-2011, 12:08 PM
Right, a little less than three years difference. For some reason I keep thinking he's younger. They seem like a tennis generation apart since Nadal had already established himself as a force on clay when JMDP just turned pro (2005).

I guess it could go either way, depending on one's perspective. Do you consider him to be a part of the Nadal, Novak, Murray generation?

Great point!

Nadal will reach 27 slams next year. Completely agree.
Great point, great poaster!

Tammo
07-02-2011, 12:36 PM
All I know is this:

US Open: 5 vs. 1
Aussie: 4 vs. 1
Wimbledon 6 vs. 2

How is Nadal a better hardcourt and grass player than Federer?

The end

the H2H is 4-4 on hard courts. So they are =

Mansewerz
07-02-2011, 01:52 PM
I used data from ATPtennis.com

2010 is RN 10th yr
2007 was RF 10th

i gave this very argument, that it shouldn't be measured in age, and rather in years on tour. But, the ***** would not accept it.

ledwix
07-02-2011, 01:57 PM
the H2H is 4-4 on hard courts. So they are =

Wow, great argument. Davydenko > Nadal > Federer > Davydenko. So Davydenko > Davydenko.

Povl Carstensen
07-03-2011, 01:49 PM
Nobody is belittling Federer's achievements. We're merely pointing out that he's not the GOAT since he's not even the greatest in his era :)

Nadal owns Federer in and out of slams and always has. Federer has never had a positive H2H against Nadal on tour or in slams ;)

All I can wish for is that you guys get the same medicine you are doling out today.

Somewhere, somehow I hope when Nadal is at the twilight of his career, he gets thumped around by Djokovic or whoever else, ends up with a bad H2H, and you guys get the same disrespect from Djoker fans that you're doling out now.

;)

Enjoy it while it lasts...
Interesting...

OrangePower
07-03-2011, 02:18 PM
Exactly. We have a winner.
Federer is more dominant overall NO DOUBT about it. The undisputed GOAT imo. But had he met Rafa in more GRAND SLAM FINALS, he'd be missing a few trophies, reguardless of the surface, so I don't think you guys should keep running to bring that up.

Thanks man, don't worry I know who the GOAT is.

I just said it's about matchups. Federer is more dominant over the FIELD on HC and Grass, without a doubt. What im saying though is you can't say bc Federer reached more finals that he would beat Nadal had Nadal made said finals.

Bingo, we have a winner.

Fed has been more dominant versus the field than Rafa. This is fact, and evidenced by his larger number of slams and weeks at #1. (Of course their careers are not over yet, so it's possible Rafa will catch up, although I don't personally think it's likely.)

Rafa is head-to-head a better player than Fed. This is fact - they are about even on non-clay surfaces, and Rafa has an overwhelming advantage on clay. (As above, since their careers are not over yet, it's possible Fed will catch up, but I don't personally think it's likely.)

Give them both credit for being all-time greats. As for which is greater, it depends on how much weight you give to who is better one-on-one versus who has been more dominant vs the field.

Personally I think dominance vs the field is the more significant, so I rate Fed higher than Rafa (but will change my mind if Rafa wins several more slams and/or spends a lot more time at #1).

FitzRoy
07-03-2011, 04:47 PM
Bingo, we have a winner.

Fed has been more dominant versus the field than Rafa. This is fact, and evidenced by his larger number of slams and weeks at #1. (Of course their careers are not over yet, so it's possible Rafa will catch up, although I don't personally think it's likely.)

Rafa is head-to-head a better player than Fed. This is fact - they are about even on non-clay surfaces, and Rafa has an overwhelming advantage on clay. (As above, since their careers are not over yet, it's possible Fed will catch up, but I don't personally think it's likely.)

Give them both credit for being all-time greats. As for which is greater, it depends on how much weight you give to who is better one-on-one versus who has been more dominant vs the field.

Personally I think dominance vs the field is the more significant, so I rate Fed higher than Rafa (but will change my mind if Rafa wins several more slams and/or spends a lot more time at #1).


Good post, and well said. More people need to reach this conclusion.

msc886
07-03-2011, 06:01 PM
I don't understand why people take the time to compute these type of statistics. Especially ranking, all that matters is how each opponent played on the day.

For example, Murray is highly ranked, but plays horrible in major finals, so that to me is not a barometer for comparison, and then you can get someone in the top 100, who comes in and plays lights out, well beyond their ranking.

Other factors include experience, in fact experience can be the biggest measure. Are you playing an experienced player, or someone who's never been there?

Guess they have to write something.

Yes. But Federer is highly ranked but plays badly against Nadal. I agree with annoying statistics. A win is a win.

Povl Carstensen
07-04-2011, 11:59 AM
Bingo, we have a winner.

Fed has been more dominant versus the field than Rafa. This is fact, and evidenced by his larger number of slams and weeks at #1. (Of course their careers are not over yet, so it's possible Rafa will catch up, although I don't personally think it's likely.)

Rafa is head-to-head a better player than Fed. This is fact - they are about even on non-clay surfaces, and Rafa has an overwhelming advantage on clay. (As above, since their careers are not over yet, it's possible Fed will catch up, but I don't personally think it's likely.)

Give them both credit for being all-time greats. As for which is greater, it depends on how much weight you give to who is better one-on-one versus who has been more dominant vs the field.

Personally I think dominance vs the field is the more significant, so I rate Fed higher than Rafa (but will change my mind if Rafa wins several more slams and/or spends a lot more time at #1).
Ofcourse dominance against the field is more significant. What would have happened if Nadal had made finals is speculation.

DownTheLine
07-04-2011, 12:11 PM
Hahaha LOL April 2011 join date and all you can do is call me stupid because you can't provide anything to argue with what I say. What an inbred loser you are... and I mean that with all my heart.

Cool guy right here.

I really don't see any comparison here. Federer wins by a country mile.

Agassifan
07-04-2011, 12:25 PM
What is impressive from Nadal side is that he had to beat Federer 7 times in his 10 slams won.

Twice out of RG