PDA

View Full Version : Nadal has officially lost the "age advantage" over Federer


Pages : [1] 2

tennis_pro
12-16-2011, 04:14 PM
Let's compare Nadal's achievements thus far (aged 25 years 6 months) with Federer at the same age (which was after the 2007 Australian Open):

Nadal - 10 majors, 1 olympic gold, 19 MS, 46 titles total, (yes I didn't include DC because it's not a singles competition + too many other factors)
Federer - 10 majors, 12 MS, 3 WTF's, 46 titles total

They have the same no of majors won (10), same no of titles won (46), Federer has an advantage in WTF (3>0) while Nadal has it in MS (19>12) and olympics (1>0).
That means if Nadal wins less than 2 majors in 2012, less than 7 titles total, he'll fall behind Federer for the first time.
It's fair to say that the "age card" can no longer be used.

Thanks for playing, it was just a matter of time.

sonicare
12-16-2011, 04:19 PM
great post.

Let the *******s present themselves. Are you not entertained?

kiki
12-16-2011, 04:29 PM
Nadal owns Federer in their head to head matches.By 3 times or so...

tennis_pro
12-16-2011, 04:35 PM
Nadal owns Federer in their head to head matches.By 3 times or so...

Federer owns Nadal in no of majors won. What does that have to do with anything? You just decided to come here and spit out whatever your brain associates with Federer and Nadal?

kiki
12-16-2011, 04:36 PM
Federer owns Nadal in no of majors won. What does that have to do with anything? You just decided to come here and spit out whatever your brain associates with Federer and Nadal?


Honestly, that Nadal beats Federer in the insane way he does at every major final they play, specially at RG, is really shocking, to say the less.

tennis_pro
12-16-2011, 04:40 PM
Honestly, that Nadal beats Federer in the insane way he does at every major final they play, specially at RG, is really shocking, to say the less.

Honestly, you're really this desperate to grasp at straws?

If you're so into h2h check the last match between Federer and Nadal. Federer made him look like a complete amateur.

dh003i
12-16-2011, 04:41 PM
Federer held his own on his own surfaces when his main rival came into his prime...a rival who was a bad matchup for him.

Nadal has failed to do the same re Djokovic.

Fate Archer
12-16-2011, 04:42 PM
Nadal owns Federer in their head to head matches.By 3 times or so...

LOL only 3 posts for the H2H card to be pulled... unfortunately for Rafito and his fans seems like age is finally catching up... :cry:

Hopefully the avid Nadalitos can still brush off reality in their La La Land and keep believing the "illusion" of Rafito being on his way to GOAThood and trumping all the tennis records.

It would get really boring without them here.

Vamos Rafa on his way to 50+ Slams on his 50's!!!! :)

kiki
12-16-2011, 04:43 PM
Honestly, you're really this desperate to grasp at straws?

If you're so into h2h check the last match between Federer and Nadal. Federer made him look like a complete amateur.

Nadal had no oil to burn his body.Like Djokovic.But I agree Federer has been the best player of the ending months of the year.No dispute.

fundrazer
12-16-2011, 04:44 PM
LOL only 3 posts for the H2H card to be pulled... unfortunately for Rafito and his fans seems like age is finally catching up... :cry:

Hopefully the avid Nadalitos can still brush off reality in their La La Land and keep believing the "illusion" of Rafito being on his way to GOAThood and trumping all the tennis records.

It would get really boring without them here.

Vamos Rafa on his way to 50+ Slams on his 50's!!!! :)

Vaaaamooooossss!

kiki
12-16-2011, 04:46 PM
Federer held his own on his own surfaces when his main rival came into his prime...a rival who was a bad matchup for him.

Nadal has failed to do the same re Djokovic.

That is about tennis, boy, about being a bad machup for your opponents...or you rather be a good matchup?

tennis_pro
12-16-2011, 04:48 PM
Federer held his own on his own surfaces when his main rival came into his prime...a rival who was a bad matchup for him.

Nadal has failed to do the same re Djokovic.

Nadal is actually meeting Djokovic in the finals. He just can't get a single win, that's all.:)

tennis_pro
12-16-2011, 04:49 PM
Nadal had no oil to burn his body.Like Djokovic.But I agree Federer has been the best player of the ending months of the year.No dispute.

Gimme a break, Nadal took 5 weeks off to prepare for WTF. You couldn't think of a dumber excuse or what?

dh003i
12-16-2011, 04:49 PM
That is about tennis, boy, about being a bad machup for your opponents...or you rather be a good matchup?

Sorry, I don't understand dumb hick speak.

kiki
12-16-2011, 04:52 PM
Sorry, I don't understand dumb hick speak.

Itīs easy: if you are a " bad matchup" it is easy for you to beat an rival than if you are a good " matchup".You should know it by now, since I figure you are a rookie or sophomore at college by now...

dh003i
12-16-2011, 04:55 PM
Anyways, the point of this thread is that now there is no excuse to fall back on for Nadal fans in comparing him to Federer. No "at the same age" nonsense. Age-for-age, Nadal is now level with Federer (whereas before, Nadal fans kept saying he had done more at the same age, as if that was a valid comparison between players who will likely have different career spans).

dh003i
12-16-2011, 04:57 PM
Itīs easy: if you are a " bad matchup" it is easy for you to beat an rival than if you are a good " matchup".

Your sentence is an abortion and illustrates nothing of value.

kiki
12-16-2011, 04:59 PM
Your sentence is an abortion and illustrates nothing of value.

I just tried to teach you the difference between " bad matchup" and " good matchup".I hope I was able to make you understand it.

cork_screw
12-16-2011, 05:00 PM
Other than the WTF we haven't seen fed and nadal go at it on a hard court surface lately. So it's hard to gauge how these two would go head to head at how they play in their current state. Fed did very well at WTF, but keep in mind WTF is a very slow surface. Fed put a beat down on Nadal last year as well and Nadal came this year and showed fed up on a couple of tournies, so I don't know if WTF is a good gauge of where they're at.

Nadal as is with most athletes hit their prime age at 26 years old. Nadal is nearing that, but he's so talented and works so hard that I feel he can still win tournies regardless if he's slows down with age. The only thing going against him is his health. If he can keep healthy he might out pace fed. A lot of guys on tour fear Nadal not just for his defensive gets, but the top spin he generates on the ball. It's kinda like fed's style of off-paced rhythm disrupting balls, both guys have that as their special variety card they can play that other players wish they possess and most find it hard to adapt to. But Nadal came really close to winning another wimbledon and he's pretty much a write in for Roland Garros, so I can't agree with all the negative criticism that Nadal is getting just because screech had a break out year. For me Nadal didn't drop, he just hit a wall that went from brick last year to granite this year; screech. If it wasn't for screech Nadal could have easily been the one with a calender slam. Think about it Nadal was almost in the finals of every slam event this year (aussie semis). He was playing lights out until he ran into the djokenator.

tennis_pro
12-16-2011, 05:06 PM
. But Nadal came really close to winning another wimbledon and he's pretty much a write in for Roland Garros, so I can't agree with all the negative criticism that Nadal is getting just because screech had a break out year.

You can look at it from a different perspective - the only reason Nadal won the French Open this year is because he avoided Djokovic. He wasn't ANYTHING CLOSE to beating him in the Wimbledon and the US Open finals this year. If Nadal is such a good bet to win another French - who would you bet for in the final if we had Nadal and Djokovic in it? That's right - Djokovic.

Think about it Nadal was in the finals of every slam event this year. He was playing lights out until he ran into the djokenator.

Nadal played in 3 major finals this year, he lost to Ferrer (got beat pretty handily btw) in the AO quarterfinals.

dudeski
12-16-2011, 05:49 PM
great post.

Let the *******s present themselves. Are you not entertained?

LOL :)

10*********s crying

OddJack
12-16-2011, 06:19 PM
Let's compare Nadal's achievements thus far (aged 25 years 6 months) with Federer at the same age (which was after the 2007 Australian Open):

Nadal - 10 majors, 1 olympic gold, 19 MS, 46 titles total, (yes I didn't include DC because it's not a singles competition + too many other factors)
Federer - 10 majors, 12 MS, 3 WTF's, 46 titles total

They have the same no of majors won (10), same no of titles won (46), Federer has an advantage in WTF (3>0) while Nadal has it in MS (19>12) and olympics (1>0).
That means if Nadal wins less than 2 majors in 2012, less than 7 titles total, he'll fall behind Federer for the first time.
It's fair to say that the "age card" can no longer be used.

Thanks for playing, it was just a matter of time.

Someone else posted a similar age advantage, but he said Nadal loses his age advantage if he doesnt win AO 2012, was it you?

Talker
12-16-2011, 06:22 PM
Fed was 10-2 in slam finals then at that age?

Crisstti
12-16-2011, 06:25 PM
Federer held his own on his own surfaces when his main rival came into his prime...a rival who was a bad matchup for him.

Nadal has failed to do the same re Djokovic.

Wimbledon 2008 and AO 2009...

I don't think Rafa needs to equal or surpass Fed's slam count anyway, to be better than him. The slam count is skewed because of the surface distribution...

You can look at it from a different perspective - the only reason Nadal won the French Open this year is because he avoided Djokovic. He wasn't ANYTHING CLOSE to beating him in the Wimbledon and the US Open finals this year. If Nadal is such a good bet to win another French - who would you bet for in the final if we had Nadal and Djokovic in it? That's right - Djokovic.



Nadal played in 3 major finals this year, he lost to Ferrer (got beat pretty handily btw) in the AO quarterfinals.

He was injured.

Agree I wouldn't, right now, consider Rafa the favourite to win RG next year.

Fate Archer
12-16-2011, 06:31 PM
Fed was 10-2 in slam finals then at that age?

10-1 if I'm not mistaken, at the age the OP is mentioning he had only lost to Nadal in the 2006 FO.

Nadal has a record of 10-4 in slam finals already. He's been in 3 more finals, obviously due to starting to appear in slam finals at a younger age.

So it seems that we've found another record where Federer is better at, he's also got a better ratio of Slam finals won at the same age.

TopFH
12-16-2011, 06:32 PM
It was a matter of time, IMO. Nadal just isn't as good as His Rogerness.

Bobby Jr
12-16-2011, 06:43 PM
That is about tennis, boy, about being a bad machup for your opponents...or you rather be a good matchup?
There is only one head to head statistic that matters: you vs the rest of the draw.

If you win a tournament and your nemesis does not, regardless of whether you had to beat him, you have achieved more than them.

That's why all manner of sporting almanacs over the decades have lists of who won tournaments and attained the top ranking, not lists of h2h comparisons. The only people who care about h2h comparisons are ******** or lazy sports journalists who can't see the bigger picture or internet fanboys whose memory seems to go back only as far as their idol's last tournament win.

TMF
12-16-2011, 07:12 PM
Let's compare Nadal's achievements thus far (aged 25 years 6 months) with Federer at the same age (which was after the 2007 Australian Open):

Nadal - 10 majors, 1 olympic gold, 19 MS, 46 titles total, (yes I didn't include DC because it's not a singles competition + too many other factors)
Federer - 10 majors, 12 MS, 3 WTF's, 46 titles total

They have the same no of majors won (10), same no of titles won (46), Federer has an advantage in WTF (3>0) while Nadal has it in MS (19>12) and olympics (1>0).
That means if Nadal wins less than 2 majors in 2012, less than 7 titles total, he'll fall behind Federer for the first time.
It's fair to say that the "age card" can no longer be used.

Thanks for playing, it was just a matter of time.

Fed is ahead in number of weeks at #1, and he ended year number one 3 times(2004, 05, 06) while Nadal only two(2008, 10).

Nojoke
12-16-2011, 08:01 PM
Fed is ahead in number of weeks at #1, and he ended year number one 3 times(2004, 05, 06) while Nadal only two(2008, 10).

What about 2007? Or 2009? More of a question than a comment. If nadal was not year end no. 1, it had to be fed. So that looks like 5 to 2.

Also the op says that wtf is 3 to 0 fed. Isn't it like 5 or 6 to 0?

MichaelNadal
12-16-2011, 08:11 PM
Only the most **** of ***** cares about stupid things like this. Federer is a greater tennis player than Nadal, im not sure why some people get so worked up over that. I still like Nadal better at the end of the day.

_maxi
12-16-2011, 08:17 PM
Only the most **** of ***** cares about stupid things like this. Federer is a greater tennis player than Nadal, im not sure why some people get so worked up over that. I still like Nadal better at the end of the day.
That's because you are not a fanatic, or are a rational one haha. But the real Nadal fanatics think he's better than Fed. They never say, like you, Fed is better but I like Nadal more. They say Nadal is better.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
12-16-2011, 08:19 PM
That is about tennis, boy, about being a bad machup for your opponents...or you rather be a good matchup?

Agreed. Nadal was a bad matchup for Federer. So what? Federer was a bad match up for the tour :evil:

Cup8489
12-16-2011, 08:26 PM
What about 2007? Or 2009? More of a question than a comment. If nadal was not year end no. 1, it had to be fed. So that looks like 5 to 2.

Also the op says that wtf is 3 to 0 fed. Isn't it like 5 or 6 to 0?

Theyre comparing achievements of Federer's to Nadal. Comparing Fed's achievements at the same age that Nadal currently is.

monfed
12-16-2011, 08:43 PM
Let's compare Nadal's achievements thus far (aged 25 years 6 months) with Federer at the same age (which was after the 2007 Australian Open):

Nadal - 10 majors, 1 olympic gold, 19 MS, 46 titles total, (yes I didn't include DC because it's not a singles competition + too many other factors)
Federer - 10 majors, 12 MS, 3 WTF's, 46 titles total

They have the same no of majors won (10), same no of titles won (46), Federer has an advantage in WTF (3>0) while Nadal has it in MS (19>12) and olympics (1>0).
That means if Nadal wins less than 2 majors in 2012, less than 7 titles total, he'll fall behind Federer for the first time.
It's fair to say that the "age card" can no longer be used.

Thanks for playing, it was just a matter of time.


While I don't dispute the facts that you've presented there are a few things that need to be considered -

1) Who's gonna stop Nadal at RG? Djokovic? Sure. But will Novak get past Federer this time? I don't think anyone apart from Novak can beat Nadal on clay and if for whatever reason Nole doesn't make it, Nadal takes it. Federer aint beating Nadal in RG imo.

In short - Nadal is more dominant at his best slam than Federer was at his(although both have 6 titles at their favourite slam). By this I mean , Nadal looks unstoppable at RG but as a Federer fan I always felt Roger could be toppled at Wimbledon. He didn't give off that feeling of invincibilty after the 2007 finals compared to Nadal at RG.Only Soderling has beaten Nadal at RG since 2005.


2) Novak MUST be fit and raring to go. If for ANY reason he falls off the wagon next year, Nadal picks up a slam. The only other players I think can beat Nadal at non-clay slams are Del Potro and Tsonga, but there's no guarantee. I just can't see Federer beating Nadal in a slam.

In other words - Even though Federer was making slam finals left,right n centre after the age of 25, Nadal was a constant thorn in the flesh. Will Djokovic be Nadal's thorn as he tries to rack up slams? This holds the key imo.


3) Nadal's game is yet to be truly unravelled imho. Yes,Novak has him nicely figured out and I do think Nadal is his pigeon but can we rely on him to take him out EVERY single time? Novak's injuries are a MAJOR concern so what happens if Novak goes out early at a slam, who stops Nadal then?


4) Delpotro's return to his 2009 self will be key in stopping Nadal in slams incase Novak doesn't do the job.

dh003i
12-16-2011, 08:46 PM
The match-up thing is idiotic double-counting. To the extent that Federer's greatness is diminished by his H2H with Nadal, that is reflected by him having "only" 16 slams and not more (vs. a hypothetical 23 Major wins, including the FO SF, which was really the final, because Puerta was using steroids and any victories he had didn't count).

Yes, Federer would be even greater if he had more slams. But because it seems silly to talk about him "only" having more slams than anyone else and points to an unrealistic standard, detractors don't say that. They look at the H2H.

The H2H, btw, is skewed by Federer being better on his worst surface than Nadal is on his (looking only at the surfaces Majors are played on). If we included "indoor" courts and if Federer and Nadal had met as many times indoor as they did on clay, I'm sure that H2H there would be equally favorable to Federer. Indeed, also the same at the USO. Regarding Wimbledon, Nadal was lucky that his prime did not coincide with Federer's, because there is no question who the better grasscourt player is (with Federer being one of the two best grasscourt players ever...and Nadal not being in that category).

dh003i
12-16-2011, 08:52 PM
Nadal's health is more of a concern than Djokovic's. And Nadal was quite lucky to win the FO in 2011, both on account of Federer outplaying him most of the first two sets and being in a winning position, and in account of being the fortunate beneficiary of Federer defeating Djokovic. That doesn't take anything away from his victory, but it would be dishonest to say he had a stranglehold on the match and couldn't have been beaten.

The difference between him and Federer should be greater now than it was in 2008, seeing as how Federer is 30 and Nadal is still in what should be his prime years. But it isn't. It is in fact closer than ever, partly due to Federer continuously working on his claycourt game -- Nadal said as much in saying his backhand was better this year at the FO than ever -- but also partly due to Nadal declining on clay; and of course due to Federer having a style of play that doesn't degrade rapidly.

While I don't dispute the facts that you've presented there are a few things that need to be considered -

1) Who's gonna stop Nadal at RG? Djokovic? Sure. But will Novak get past Federer this time? I don't think anyone apart from Novak can beat Nadal on clay and if for whatever reason Nole doesn't make it, Nadal takes it. Federer aint beating Nadal in RG imo.

In short - Nadal is more dominant at his best slam than Federer was at his(although both have 6 titles at their favourite slam). By this I mean , Nadal looks unstoppable at RG but as a Federer fan I always felt Roger could be toppled at Wimbledon. He didn't give off that feeling of invincibilty after the 2007 finals compared to Nadal at RG.Only Soderling has beaten Nadal at RG since 2005.


2) Novak MUST be fit and raring to go. If for ANY reason he falls off the wagon next year, Nadal picks up a slam. The only other players I think can beat Nadal at non-clay slams are Del Potro and Tsonga, but there's no guarantee. I just can't see Federer beating Nadal in a slam.

In other words - Even though Federer was making slam finals left,right n centre after the age of 25, Nadal was a constant thorn in the flesh. Will Djokovic be Nadal's thorn as he tries to rack up slams? This holds the key imo.


3) Nadal's game is yet to be truly unravelled imho. Yes,Novak has him nicely figured out and I do think Nadal is his pigeon but can we rely on him to take him out EVERY single time? Novak's injuries are a MAJOR concern so what happens if Novak goes out early at a slam, who stops Nadal then?


4) Delpotro's return to his 2009 self will be key in stopping Nadal in slams incase Novak doesn't do the job.

Mike Sams
12-16-2011, 08:53 PM
Novak's injuries are a MAJOR concern so what happens if Novak goes out early at a slam, who stops Nadal then?


Why does it matter who stops Nadal? Is that the only thing people watch tennis for nowadays? Just to see who stops Nadal or who stops Djokovic? There are great matches happening. And besides, there are many players who can stop those guys. Didn't Melzer, Tsonga, Berdych, Kohlschreibber, Haas all beat Djokovic in the Slams not that long ago?
Didn't Ferrer, Djokovic, Del Potro, Tsonga, Murray, Soderling all beat Nadal in Slams?
Players are going to rise eventually, maybe sooner than later, and put the screws on these top guys. It happens to everybody. For all we know, Tomic, Ferrer, Tsonga, Murray, Dolgopolov, Federer, Isner, etc might stop Nadal at the AO. One of those guys might stop Djokovic.
Lot of things can take place.

dh003i
12-16-2011, 08:55 PM
In short - Nadal is more dominant at his best slam than Federer was at his(although both have 6 titles at their favourite slam).

Seeing as how they have the same # of titles there, the rest is just purely your opinion, not facts. Most would say Federer is either with Sampras as the best grass-court player ever (he does have more consecutive Wimbledon victories) or right behind him.

Also, many would make the argument that Federer is clearly the bes hard court player ever, and it would be hard to dispute that, since the vast majority of players are excellent on hard-court. What he has done at the USO and the AO (and also YEC/WTF) is incredibly impressive.

adamX012
12-16-2011, 08:55 PM
Let's compare Nadal's achievements thus far (aged 25 years 6 months) with Federer at the same age (which was after the 2007 Australian Open):

Nadal - 10 majors, 1 olympic gold, 19 MS, 46 titles total, (yes I didn't include DC because it's not a singles competition + too many other factors)
Federer - 10 majors, 12 MS, 3 WTF's, 46 titles total

They have the same no of majors won (10), same no of titles won (46), Federer has an advantage in WTF (3>0) while Nadal has it in MS (19>12) and olympics (1>0).
That means if Nadal wins less than 2 majors in 2012, less than 7 titles total, he'll fall behind Federer for the first time.
It's fair to say that the "age card" can no longer be used.

Thanks for playing, it was just a matter of time.

OP, you can't be serious about your title right?

TMF
12-16-2011, 08:55 PM
What about 2007? Or 2009? More of a question than a comment. If nadal was not year end no. 1, it had to be fed. So that looks like 5 to 2.

Also the op says that wtf is 3 to 0 fed. Isn't it like 5 or 6 to 0?

We are comparing them at the exact same age. That's what the OP is comparing doing.

monfed
12-16-2011, 09:04 PM
Nadal's health is more of a concern than Djokovic's. And Nadal was quite lucky to win the FO in 2011, both on account of Federer outplaying him most of the first two sets and being in a winning position,

Federer has been in winning positions against Nadal at RG in 06 and Rome 06 but he just doesn't get over the line. I mean Federer played his best clay match against Nadal at Rome 06(with MPs) yet STILL lost. Fed won the first set 6-1 at RG 06 and then just fell away as if he forgot to play tennis. So unless Federer ACTUALLY beats Nadal at RG, my money is still on Novak to topple Nadal there.

If Nadal is truly toppled at RG, I think it'd be fair to write his obituary but till then hold your horses people.

Sentinel
12-16-2011, 09:20 PM
Once Rafito gonna get his mental strenth back over Chrismas.

monfed
12-16-2011, 09:24 PM
Why does it matter who stops Nadal? Is that the only thing people watch tennis for nowadays? Just to see who stops Nadal or who stops Djokovic? There are great matches happening. And besides, there are many players who can stop those guys. Didn't Melzer, Tsonga, Berdych, Kohlschreibber, Haas all beat Djokovic in the Slams not that long ago?
Didn't Ferrer, Djokovic, Del Potro, Tsonga, Murray, Soderling all beat Nadal in Slams?
Players are going to rise eventually, maybe sooner than later, and put the screws on these top guys. It happens to everybody. For all we know, Tomic, Ferrer, Tsonga, Murray, Dolgopolov, Federer, Isner, etc might stop Nadal at the AO. One of those guys might stop Djokovic.
Lot of things can take place.

I think you misunderstood my post. I was merely saying why this "at the same age both have the same slams" argument is moot because only Novak is beating Nadal at slams and if for whatever reason Novak gets injured or is eliminated then Nadal would end up winning that particular slam. I mean without Novak, Nadal would've had his career best year with 3 slams and many MS titles in 2011.

As far as other players stopping Nadal at slams is concerned ,till it starts happening consistently I ain't betting on it.

Oh and Fatherer beating Nadal at a slam these days is next to zilch considering Fatherer is friggin 30 with 2 kids and a lovely wife plus they've slowed down the courts to a pathetic extent using heavier balls and whatnot. The ball just isn't in Fatherer's court anymore.

dh003i
12-16-2011, 09:27 PM
Federer has been in winning positions against Nadal at RG in 06 and Rome 06 but he just doesn't get over the line. I mean Federer played his best clay match against Nadal at Rome 06(with MPs) yet STILL lost. Fed won the first set 6-1 at RG 06 and then just fell away as if he forgot to play tennis. So unless Federer ACTUALLY beats Nadal at RG, my money is still on Novak to topple Nadal there.

If Nadal is truly toppled at RG, I think it'd be fair to write his obituary but till then hold your horses people.

Your opinion is irrelevant to the facts. Nadal is not invincible on clay. Djokovic has beaten him time and again on clay, because with Djokovic playing consistently great tennis, Nadal has problems...against a player who's game does not fit into his strengths. The gap between Nadal and Federer on clay has not become wider, but narrower, and may continue to do so.

monfed
12-16-2011, 09:49 PM
Your opinion is irrelevant to the facts. Nadal is not invincible on clay. Djokovic has beaten him time and again on clay, because with Djokovic playing consistently great tennis, Nadal has problems...against a player who's game does not fit into his strengths. The gap between Nadal and Federer on clay has not become wider, but narrower, and may continue to do so.

Where did I say Novak can't beat Nadal on clay? I said ONLY Novak can beat Nadal on clay.

The gap between Nadal and Federer on clay getting narrower is your opinion and not fact either.
As far as RG 2011 goes, when Federer lost the first set, it was pretty much curtains even though he did pull out that 3rd set. And had he won that first set, a repeat of 2006 was ALSO on the cards. Looking at their history alone at RG(not to mention the massive matchup advantage that Nadal has) one would've have to be brave to say for sure that Roger would've beaten Nadal had he won that first set.

The gap imo(not fact btw) is still the same, it's still a herculean task for Fed to beat Nadal at RG.

Nathaniel_Near
12-17-2011, 12:26 AM
Wimbledon 2008 and AO 2009...

I don't think Rafa needs to equal or surpass Fed's slam count anyway, to be better than him. The slam count is skewed because of the surface distribution...



He was injured.

Agree I wouldn't, right now, consider Rafa the favourite to win RG next year.

This is absolute fallacy. The pros and coaches have known the score regarding the distribution of the surfaces at the Slams and can train and build appropriately. Both Federer and Nadal began the bulk of their careers on clay and one player built up better overall strengths for clay and the other for hard and grass, it is what it is. There is no skewing due to court surfaces, players and coaches knew the score, trained for the score, and one man has come out on top. That's called fair play.

nadalwon2012
12-17-2011, 12:28 AM
Nadal is far ahead, he has the Career Grand Slam. Also compare the Masters shields, Nadal far ahead. Nadal is ahead of Federer at the same age. And it's not even close. In fact Nadal is already tied with Borg in Roland Garros titles. He's only 25 and already the GOAT of a surface!
http://www.ravigadu.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/nadal-beats-federer-in-french-open.jpg

Nathaniel_Near
12-17-2011, 12:33 AM
It's trickier than just numbers to compare them at the same age because Roger had 2 incredible years by this point where as Nadal had 2 slightly less incredible years, but Nadal's career has shown much greater longevity of greatness by this point in his career and so I give him the clear edge right now, especially because of his unbelievable record at RG and that he had to go through a perceived possible GOAT for so many of his Major victories.

nadalwon2012
12-17-2011, 12:34 AM
The greatest slam year of all-time belongs to Nadal - 2010. Nadal the only man in history to win a slam on clay, grass and hard in a calendar year. Federer never had the ability to do that.

Nathaniel_Near
12-17-2011, 12:36 AM
The greatest slam year of all-time belongs to Nadal - 2010. Nadal the only man in history to win a slam on clay, grass and hard in a calendar year. Federer never had the ability to do that.

Wasn't dominant enough and had a dubious first few months but it's a fair point. It isn't an unreasonable opinion to hold, but many other people will argue it's unreasonable and don't seem to find the surface variety to be such a major point, for some reason.

merlinpinpin
12-17-2011, 01:08 AM
The "age advantage" theory is just bull anyway, it's just another skewed way of looking at things when your champion is on the losing end of an equation, kind of: "Sure, he's behind X at the moment, but his astral theme says he's still got time to overtake him." Only things don't work in such a clear and cut way.

If winning early was a guarantee of winning more than the others, Chang would be GOAT with 20+ GS, and I never saw that happening.

Same thing with the Lendl/Wilander rivalry. At the age of 24 years and one month, Wilander already had 7 GS, and Lendl 0. How did that turn out at the end of their respective careers? Right, Lendl 8, Wilander 7.

And Borg had won 11 GS at 25... and he finished at 25.

What we *can* say for sure at the moment about Nadal, is that he won 10 slams. When he wins another one (assuming he does, but the way things are going, he should, although nothing is ever 100% sure), we can say that he won 11, but there is no mathematical formula that says than a player who has won 10 GS at 25 will have 17 at 30. ;)

zagor
12-17-2011, 01:14 AM
Only the most **** of ***** cares about stupid things like this. Federer is a greater tennis player than Nadal, im not sure why some people get so worked up over that. I still like Nadal better at the end of the day.

At the moment no doubt he is, however the real comparison should wait until both of them hang their racquets. It's unfair to Nadal to compare his numbers to Fed as they stand now and draw definite conclusions when he's still 25 and I though the same for Fed when people were/are comparing him to past tennis greats.

You can't form the big picture when both of them are still playing and contending for slams(well obviously Fed to a lesser degree than Nadal currently but I don't think it's a stretch to say that he's still in the mix as well).

I agree with you that which player you prefer should have nothing to do with stats. I personally think that Nadal will catch Fed's slam count(unless Fed adds to it) but I still prefer Fed's game either way any day of the week.


While I don't dispute the facts that you've presented there are a few things that need to be considered -

1) Who's gonna stop Nadal at RG? Djokovic? Sure. But will Novak get past Federer this time? I don't think anyone apart from Novak can beat Nadal on clay and if for whatever reason Nole doesn't make it, Nadal takes it. Federer aint beating Nadal in RG imo.

In short - Nadal is more dominant at his best slam than Federer was at his(although both have 6 titles at their favourite slam). By this I mean , Nadal looks unstoppable at RG but as a Federer fan I always felt Roger could be toppled at Wimbledon. He didn't give off that feeling of invincibilty after the 2007 finals compared to Nadal at RG.Only Soderling has beaten Nadal at RG since 2005.


2) Novak MUST be fit and raring to go. If for ANY reason he falls off the wagon next year, Nadal picks up a slam. The only other players I think can beat Nadal at non-clay slams are Del Potro and Tsonga, but there's no guarantee. I just can't see Federer beating Nadal in a slam.

In other words - Even though Federer was making slam finals left,right n centre after the age of 25, Nadal was a constant thorn in the flesh. Will Djokovic be Nadal's thorn as he tries to rack up slams? This holds the key imo.


3) Nadal's game is yet to be truly unravelled imho. Yes,Novak has him nicely figured out and I do think Nadal is his pigeon but can we rely on him to take him out EVERY single time? Novak's injuries are a MAJOR concern so what happens if Novak goes out early at a slam, who stops Nadal then?


4) Delpotro's return to his 2009 self will be key in stopping Nadal in slams incase Novak doesn't do the job.

Completely agree. There's this tendency a number of Fed and Nadal fans have at the moment to write off Nadal because he was losing repeteadly to one player this year. There's no knowing whether Novak can sustain this level of play both mentally and physically and he's basically the only threat to Nadal at the moment, Del Potro is too injury prone, Murray has lost in 3 slams to Nadal this year, the last time Fed beat Nadal in a slam was way back in 2007

All that is also coupled wit the fact that the young up and comers are really lacking, I've never seen such shortage of promising young guns since I started following tennis, I mean as Sampras-Agassi era was slowly coming to an end you had Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero all showing much potential very early, then you had Nadal(though he's a special case), Novak and Murray etc. and now you have....Tomic I guess? I mean I like Raonic's game for example but he doesn't have the build for the modern slowed down conditions.

In short despite all the pessimistic whining from Nadal fans and gloating/celebrating from Fed fans the reality is that Nadal is still in an excellent position to add more slams to his tally, he's still arguably the best player against the field at the moment.

Your opinion is irrelevant to the facts. Nadal is not invincible on clay.

Invincible? No but losing one best of five match in RG in your entire career(so far)is pretty damn close to it.

Djokovic has beaten him time and again on clay, because with Djokovic playing consistently great tennis, Nadal has problems...against a player who's game does not fit into his strengths.

By time and again you mean two times exactly, right? Thing is the way rankings are at the moment Novak will have to reach the FO final if he's to beat Nadal, something he has failed to so far in his career.

Don't get me wrong Novak's triumphs over Nadal in Rome and Madrid were very impressive(I've never seen anyone handle Nadal so well on clay) but they don't change the fact that Nadal retained his clay throne by winning RG.

The gap between Nadal and Federer on clay has not become wider, but narrower, and may continue to do so.

Aside from their 2008 FO final which was an exception to the rule the gap between Nadal and Fed on clay has always been roughly the same. Looking at their RG matches since 2005 the score, flow of the match, tactics etc. has been very similar in their every FO encounter aside from 2008.

The gap is not narrower, it just reverted to what it was before 2008.

aphex
12-17-2011, 01:21 AM
The nadal has more humor in his game at the same age.

zagor
12-17-2011, 01:24 AM
Where did I say Novak can't beat Nadal on clay? I said ONLY Novak can beat Nadal on clay.

The gap between Nadal and Federer on clay getting narrower is your opinion and not fact either.
As far as RG 2011 goes, when Federer lost the first set, it was pretty much curtains even though he did pull out that 3rd set. And had he won that first set, a repeat of 2006 was ALSO on the cards. Looking at their history alone at RG(not to mention the massive matchup advantage that Nadal has) one would've have to be brave to say for sure that Roger would've beaten Nadal had he won that first set.

The gap imo(not fact btw) is still the same, it's still a herculean task for Fed to beat Nadal at RG.

At the moment I'd say it's a herculean task for Fed to beat Nadal in non clay slams while FO is almost mission impossible.

I agree that the 1st in FO final this year was absolutely crucial for Fed, not for Nadal. Winning the 1st would have given Fed an actual chance to win the match(still a small chance)losing it meant the match was over, even the pessmistic Nadal camp whiners were deep down aware of that fact.

Povl Carstensen
12-17-2011, 02:02 AM
The greatest slam year of all-time belongs to Nadal - 2010. Nadal the only man in history to win a slam on clay, grass and hard in a calendar year. Federer never had the ability to do that.
Yes but there are many more things that Federer has done that Nadal has not had the ability to do.

vernonbc
12-17-2011, 02:04 AM
Other than the WTF we haven't seen fed and nadal go at it on a hard court surface lately. So it's hard to gauge how these two would go head to head at how they play in their current state.

Guess you've forgotten the Miami debacle last spring. Rafa made Fed look old and broken.

At the moment no doubt he is, however the real comparison should wait until both of them hang their racquets. It's unfair to Nadal to compare his numbers to Fed as they stand now and draw definite conclusions when he's still 25 and I thought the same for Fed when people were/are comparing him to past tennis greats.

Well said. The endless Fedal fight is very tedious. Why can't everyone just agree that we're very fortunate to be able to watch two legends of tennis compete in this era and enjoy the magic they have both brought to the game.

sbengte
12-17-2011, 02:11 AM
Guess you've forgotten the Miami debacle last spring. Rafa made Fed look old and broken.


That one doesn't count :

http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/fateful_feast_cb2pF7ul7nJ0ZUdHLe7MLN

Federer Picks Wife Over Nadal

A face-off against top-ranked Rafael Nadal couldn't keep tennis hunk Roger Federer from feting his wife Mirka's birthday. The night before his semifinal match against Nadal at the Sony Ericsson Open in Miami, Federer took Mirka and friends to Jeffrey Chodorow's Asia de Cuba, where they snacked on short ribs, strip steak, avocado rice and various seafood dishes. For a finale, the Swiss stud ordered Asia de Cuba's entire dessert menu complete with candles. The crew had to escape through the backdoor to dodge a throng of Federer fans out front. The feast didn't do him any good: Nadal crushed Federer on Friday.

Nathaniel_Near
12-17-2011, 02:14 AM
That one doesn't count :

http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/fateful_feast_cb2pF7ul7nJ0ZUdHLe7MLN

Federer Picks Wife Over Nadal

A face-off against top-ranked Rafael Nadal couldn't keep tennis hunk Roger Federer from feting his wife Mirka's birthday. The night before his semifinal match against Nadal at the Sony Ericsson Open in Miami, Federer took Mirka and friends to Jeffrey Chodorow's Asia de Cuba, where they snacked on short ribs, strip steak, avocado rice and various seafood dishes. For a finale, the Swiss stud ordered Asia de Cuba's entire dessert menu complete with candles. The crew had to escape through the backdoor to dodge a throng of Federer fans out front. The feast didn't do him any good: Nadal crushed Federer on Friday.

LOL. :D


This reminds of MJ blaming the colour of his skin on a 'strict vegetarian diet'! Indeed I would have to concur, the loss doesn't count due to Federer's exuberant diet. Of course, I jest!

SLD76
12-17-2011, 02:18 AM
Wimbledon 2008 and AO 2009...

I don't think Rafa needs to equal or surpass Fed's slam count anyway, to be better than him. The slam count is skewed because of the surface distribution...



He was injured.

Agree I wouldn't, right now, consider Rafa the favourite to win RG next year.


Man, if I had a nickel for every time......

nadalwon2012
12-17-2011, 02:21 AM
LOL the writer of that article called Federer a 'tennis hunk' :lol:

tennis_pro
12-17-2011, 05:16 AM
Wimbledon 2008 and AO 2009...

I don't think Rafa needs to equal or surpass Fed's slam count anyway, to be better than him. The slam count is skewed because of the surface distribution...


I think the slam count is skewed because there are no majors played indoors, if we had 4 indoor slam championships, Nadal would've never beaten him.

Thanks for playing.

Btw if Nadal was injured in the last 2 Australian Opens it's fair to say he'll be injured again in 2012, ain't that right :)?

tennis_pro
12-17-2011, 05:17 AM
Someone else posted a similar age advantage, but he said Nadal loses his age advantage if he doesnt win AO 2012, was it you?

I also remember that post but don't think it was mine. I've been checking the stats for the last 2 years just waiting for the right moment to make a separate thread and there she is :)

Hitman
12-17-2011, 05:20 AM
Let's compare Nadal's achievements thus far (aged 25 years 6 months) with Federer at the same age (which was after the 2007 Australian Open):

Nadal - 10 majors, 1 olympic gold, 19 MS, 46 titles total, (yes I didn't include DC because it's not a singles competition + too many other factors)
Federer - 10 majors, 12 MS, 3 WTF's, 46 titles total

They have the same no of majors won (10), same no of titles won (46), Federer has an advantage in WTF (3>0) while Nadal has it in MS (19>12) and olympics (1>0).
That means if Nadal wins less than 2 majors in 2012, less than 7 titles total, he'll fall behind Federer for the first time.
It's fair to say that the "age card" can no longer be used.

Thanks for playing, it was just a matter of time.

I was thinking the same thing. It will be interesting to see how now Nadal goes from here, already with the talks of having played for hundred years, the mental, physical and emotional burnout. Can he sustain such a high level of excellence, and continually ask more of himself, especially knowing that one player is superior to him, and others are slowing catching up?

I look forward to his response.

Fate Archer
12-17-2011, 05:42 AM
That one doesn't count :

http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/fateful_feast_cb2pF7ul7nJ0ZUdHLe7MLN

Federer Picks Wife Over Nadal

A face-off against top-ranked Rafael Nadal couldn't keep tennis hunk Roger Federer from feting his wife Mirka's birthday. The night before his semifinal match against Nadal at the Sony Ericsson Open in Miami, Federer took Mirka and friends to Jeffrey Chodorow's Asia de Cuba, where they snacked on short ribs, strip steak, avocado rice and various seafood dishes. For a finale, the Swiss stud ordered Asia de Cuba's entire dessert menu complete with candles. The crew had to escape through the backdoor to dodge a throng of Federer fans out front. The feast didn't do him any good: Nadal crushed Federer on Friday.

LOL didn't know that one... thanks for posting, now we know how much stock we can put in that win... :lol: :lol:

nadalwon2012
12-17-2011, 06:26 AM
I think the slam count is skewed because there are no majors played indoors, if we had 4 indoor slam championships, Nadal would've never beaten him.

Thanks for playing.

Btw if Nadal was injured in the last 2 Australian Opens it's fair to say he'll be injured again in 2012, ain't that right :)?

You know what's skewed the most? The 4 slams they play each year. 2 are on hardcourt. Imagine if 2 were on clay..... and there were no hardcourt slams during Laver's back-to-back Calendar Year Grand Slams. There was clay and grass, so hardcourt really is the imposter and never deserved 2 slams.

tennis_pro
12-17-2011, 06:30 AM
You know what's skewed the most? The 4 slams they play each year. 2 are on hardcourt. Imagine if 2 were on clay..... and there were no hardcourt slams during Laver's back-to-back Calendar Year Grand Slams. There was clay and grass, so hardcourt really is the imposter and never deserved 2 slams.

http://www.shootingatbubbles.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/cry_me_a_river.jpg

mattennis
12-17-2011, 07:37 AM
Aged 25 years and 6 months:

Federer: 10 GS + 3 WTF + 46 titles overall + 3 Year End nš1 + 159 weeks nš1

Nadal: 10 GS + 0 WTF + 46 titles overall + 2 Year End nš1 + 102 weeks nš1

Sampras: 9 GS + 3 WTF + 45 titles overall + 4 Year End nš1 + 160 weeks nš1


Quite similar, Nadal a bit behind in time spent at nš1 and WTF, though has won more M-1000 than them; (but M-1000 only started to be mandatory in 2000, so before it was not that important to skip or not perform that well in those tournaments because you were not getting a ZERO penalty and you could gain your poinst in other tournaments).

My guess: we know that, from that age on, Federer did a bit better than Sampras, and my belief is that Nadal from now on is not going to do as well as Federer did (or even Sampras).

But we will see, because as someone has already said, there are not many young stars coming.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
12-17-2011, 07:51 AM
The greatest slam year of all-time belongs to Nadal - 2010. Nadal the only man in history to win a slam on clay, grass and hard in a calendar year. Federer never had the ability to do that.

2004, 2006, 2011 > 2010.

OddJack
12-17-2011, 07:56 AM
Aged 25 years and 6 months:

Federer: 10 GS + 3 WTF + 46 titles overall + 3 Year End nš1 + 159 weeks nš1

Nadal: 10 GS + 0 WTF + 46 titles overall + 2 Year End nš1 + 102 weeks nš1

Sampras: 9 GS + 3 WTF + 45 titles overall + 4 Year End nš1 + 160 weeks nš1


Quite similar, Nadal a bit behind in time spent at nš1 and WTF, though has won more M-1000 than them; (but M-1000 only started to be mandatory in 2000, so before it was not that important to skip or not perform that well in those tournaments because you were not getting a ZERO penalty and you could gain your poinst in other tournaments).

My guess: we know that, from that age on, Federer did a bit better than Sampras, and my belief is that Nadal from now on is not going to do as well as Federer did (or even Sampras).

But we will see, because as someone has already said, there are not many young stars coming.

Yes, quite similar. That's the logical conclusion from those data.

Let's take a look at after they reach 25 1/2

You could still say quite similar. Rodge with 6 and Pete with 5.
But then Nadal is expected to win 5-6 more to keep up with the pace of other two.
The question is how likely that is.

One suggestion would be to look at players that won most of their majors on clay and how they did after they reached 26.

Would that make sense? But how many of those types of players have we had?

DjokovicForTheWin
12-17-2011, 08:22 AM
You know what's skewed the most? The 4 slams they play each year. 2 are on hardcourt. Imagine if 2 were on clay..... and there were no hardcourt slams during Laver's back-to-back Calendar Year Grand Slams. There was clay and grass, so hardcourt really is the imposter and never deserved 2 slams.

Wait a second, doesn't Nadal have an advantage on outdoor HC? Aren't 2 of the slams outdoor HC, and then you have his beloved clay. So 3/4 slams are biased towards Nadal no?

See below for evidence testifying towards Federer only being good on indoor:

Did Henman/Newk say the same stuff after 2010 World Tour Finals? These guys are strangely unaware of the difference between indoor and outdoor tennis. Federer will always be great indoors.

Crisstti
12-17-2011, 08:26 AM
I think the slam count is skewed because there are no majors played indoors, if we had 4 indoor slam championships, Nadal would've never beaten him.

Thanks for playing.


It depends. On what surface would those indoor slams be? :)

That's because you are not a fanatic, or are a rational one haha. But the real Nadal fanatics think he's better than Fed. They never say, like you, Fed is better but I like Nadal more. They say Nadal is better.

Oh, I see. So who the best player is is some kind of unarguable mathematical fact?. Please.

The H2H, btw, is skewed by Federer being better on his worst surface than Nadal is on his (looking only at the surfaces Majors are played on). If we included "indoor" courts and if Federer and Nadal had met as many times indoor as they did on clay, I'm sure that H2H there would be equally favorable to Federer. Indeed, also the same at the USO. Regarding Wimbledon, Nadal was lucky that his prime did not coincide with Federer's, because there is no question who the better grasscourt player is (with Federer being one of the two best grasscourt players ever...and Nadal not being in that category).

We could also say that Fed was lucky Nadal's prime didn't coincide with his on grass.

And yes, sure, the H2H is skewed too. Just like the slam count.

This is absolute fallacy. The pros and coaches have known the score regarding the distribution of the surfaces at the Slams and can train and build appropriately. Both Federer and Nadal began the bulk of their careers on clay and one player built up better overall strengths for clay and the other for hard and grass, it is what it is. There is no skewing due to court surfaces, players and coaches knew the score, trained for the score, and one man has come out on top. That's called fair play.

I don't see how it's a fallacy at all. Sure, players and coaches knew the distribution of the slam surfaces, but that doesn't mean you can just decide what surface your game is going to fit better in. It doesn't work like that, or every player's strongest surface would be HC.

For that matter, Nadal preferred grass and HCs and yet his game works better on clay.


Aside from their 2008 FO final which was an exception to the rule the gap between Nadal and Fed on clay has always been roughly the same. Looking at their RG matches since 2005 the score, flow of the match, tactics etc. has been very similar in their every FO encounter aside from 2008.

The gap is not narrower, it just reverted to what it was before 2008.

Yeah, agree.

Man, if I had a nickel for every time......

Are you saying he wasn't actually injured in the AO this year?. Because if that's what you want to say, please go ahead and say it.

tennis_pro
12-17-2011, 08:27 AM
Yes, quite similar. That's the logical conclusion from those data.

Let's take a look at after they reach 25 1/2

You could still say quite similar. Rodge with 6 and Pete with 5.
But then Nadal is expected to win 5-6 more to keep up with the pace of other two.
The question is how likely that is.

One suggestion would be to look at players that won most of their majors on clay and how they did after they reached 26.

Would that make sense? But how many of those types of players have we had?

Players who won 2 or more French Opens should be a decent comparison:

Bruguera - both French Opens at 22,23 years of age, won his last career title in 1994 aged 23

Courier - last peak year 1993 at 23 years of age, decent 1994-1996 but dissapeared after that, retired at 30

Kuerten - 2001 last good year he was 25 at the time

Wilander - after winning 3 majors in 1988 (24 years old at the time) he completely lost it

Lendl - not much of a clay court specialist but an all-courter. He's the only player from the list who played very well until his late 20's/early 30's but let's not forget he won his first major aged 24 so had plenty of good tennis left in him afterwards

Borg - virtually retired at 25 years of age

Nadal - ?

tlm
12-17-2011, 08:33 AM
I also remember that post but don't think it was mine. I've been checking the stats for the last 2 years just waiting for the right moment to make a separate thread and there she is :)


Wow you have been checking the stats for the last 2 years just waiting for the right moment. I have a phone # for you 1-800-get a life. What kind of loser has nothing better to do than check stats to compare fed and rafa?

It is hilarious that according to so many *******s there is no comparison between fed and any other player, but they have to keep coming up with more stats to show their case. If it is so obvious and such common knowledge then why must you have to spend endless hours trying to prove it?

tennis_pro
12-17-2011, 08:35 AM
It depends. On what surface would those indoor slams be? :)

I thought indoors is a surface, isn't it? :)



We could also say that Fed was lucky Nadal's prime didn't coincide with his on grass.


Gimme a break...for a guy who "peaked" in 2008 aged 22 by the time he hit 25 in 2011 he's already in decline, not to mention he skipped the championships in 2009. Compare that to Federer who was the king of grass in 2003-2010 (except 2008 but he played very well on grass that season - didn't get broken once in Halle and lost 0 sets en route to the Wimbly final)

Now fathom this - if Djokovic played on grass in 2008-2010 as well as he did this year Nadal would still be looking for a first Wimbledon title.
Or this - if Federer didn't struggle with his game BIG TIME in 2008 compared to 04-07 he would have 7 Wimbledons in a row.



I don't see how it's a fallacy at all. Sure, players and coaches knew the distribution of the slam surfaces, but that doesn't mean you can just decide what surface your game is going to fit better in. It doesn't work like that, or every player's strongest surface would be HC.


If we had 2 or 3 majors played on clay you can bet 90 % of the players would be clay courters. It would completely change the whole dynamic of the sport, it's not just oh, Rafa is so unlucky there's only 1 major on clay - Nadal wouldn't be half as dominant on the surface. Come on who are his biggest rivals apart from Federer who doesn't even like clay so much and Djokovic only lately? Ferrer, Almagro, Verdasco? Yea whatever.

OddJack
12-17-2011, 08:40 AM
Players who won 2 or more French Opens should be a decent comparison:

Bruguera - both French Opens at 22,23 years of age, won his last career title in 1994 aged 23

Courier - last peak year 1993 at 23 years of age, decent 1994-1996 but dissapeared after that, retired at 30

Kuerten - 2001 last good year he was 25 at the time

Wilander - after winning 3 majors in 1988 (24 years old at the time) he completely lost it

Lendl - not much of a clay court specialist but an all-courter. He's the only player from the list who played very well until his late 20's/early 30's but let's not forget he won his first major aged 24 so had plenty of good tennis left in him afterwards

Borg - virtually retired at 25 years of age

Nadal - ?

That's a very good comparison and makes sense imo.


But there is one variable that could have changed that, and that's racket technology. One could argue that it could've helped the group of Lendl, Kuerten, Borg, courier and wilander, as it may help Nadal now.

_maxi
12-17-2011, 08:41 AM
Oh, I see. So who the best player is is some kind of unarguable mathematical fact?. Please.
Federer has proved to be great in all surfaces. 6 FO finals, without Nadal, he wins at least 4 FO.

Nadal has proved to be supergreat in clay, and great on slowgrass. On HC and Indoors which is a big part of tennis, he is good, he won 2 slams there, but he isn't near as good as Federer is on his worst surface. Nadal numbers are 80% due to clay. Federer stats don't rely on one surface like Nadal's.

Pretty easy to see for everyone, except for you.

PS: 14 of 26 matches played between Fed and Rafa, were on clay.

tennis_pro
12-17-2011, 08:43 AM
Wow you have been checking the stats for the last 2 years just waiting for the right moment. I have a phone # for you 1-800-get a life. What kind of loser has nothing better to do than check stats to compare fed and rafa?

By saying I have been following it for the last 2 years doesn't mean I spent 10 hours a day analysing every detail. What, if I said I have been following tennis for the last 10 years does it mean I keep watching it over and over again? Flawless logic.

It is hilarious that according to so many *******s there is no comparison between fed and any other player, but they have to keep coming up with more stats to show their case. If it is so obvious and such common knowledge then why must you have to spend endless hours trying to prove it?

LOL, *********s were the first group to even bring up the whole idea of age comparison. Now when it means nothing, it's a reply to them (and you I guess) as if to say: In yo' face!

merlinpinpin
12-17-2011, 08:53 AM
What this comparison really means (but then, everybody already knew that) is that Nadal started winning younger but couldn't sustain the same rhythm that Federer did. It just says that, even though Federer won his first slam aged 22 (against 18 for Nadal), at 25, he's caught up with him, ie he won as many in four years as Nadal did in eight. Will the trend continue or will Nadal be able to pick up his rhythm so as not to be left behind? We'll soon have the answer to that, I guess, as it looks like 2012 is make or break for Nadal.

Next year looks very interesting at the moment. Let's hope it delivers... :)

OddJack
12-17-2011, 08:55 AM
Wow you have been checking the stats for the last 2 years just waiting for the right moment. I have a phone # for you 1-800-get a life. What kind of loser has nothing better to do than check stats to compare fed and rafa?

It is hilarious that according to so many *******s there is no comparison between fed and any other player, but they have to keep coming up with more stats to show their case. If it is so obvious and such common knowledge then why must you have to spend endless hours trying to prove it?

Smart people always talk based on facts, truthful numbers and stats.

Others talk based on lies, and fake numbers such as 1-800-get a life.

But at least they make you laugh, which is good.

So I salute both.

Cheers!

billnepill
12-17-2011, 08:56 AM
^^

that is correct.

tlm was one of the rafails who used that argument. Can't believe the hypocrisy ...

Agassifan
12-17-2011, 08:57 AM
*******s can't sleep

Fate Archer
12-17-2011, 08:57 AM
Oh, I see. So who the best player is is some kind of unarguable mathematical fact?. Please.

You're only fooling yourself if you want to ignore Federer's numbers.
Go take a look at Nadal's record page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_career_achievements_by_Rafael_Nadal), then compare it with Federer's record page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_career_achievements_by_Roger_Federer) which is like 5 or 6 times the size of Nadal's then come back here.

"Oh but he's younger and has time to catch up..."... sorry, that's exactly the point of this thread.

Time has caught up and at the same age they're mostly even if Fed is not ahead of him in most meaningful statistics.

As it was said, anything less than 2 slams this year and Rafito will be under Fed at the same age.

Simply put, the numbers will corroborate what we knew all along: Federer is simply a better tennis player than Nadal.

tlm
12-17-2011, 09:01 AM
Smart people always talk based on facts, truthful numbers and stats.

Others talk based on lies, and fake numbers such as 1-800-get a life.

But at least they make you laugh, which is good.

So I salute both.

Cheers!

Whatever you say there oddjack, you must be one of the smart ones with endless time on your hands.

monfed
12-17-2011, 09:01 AM
At the moment I'd say it's a herculean task for Fed to beat Nadal in non clay slams while FO is almost mission impossible.

Totally agree, though there's still a part of me that believes he can beat Nadal at USO.


I agree that the 1st in FO final this year was absolutely crucial for Fed, not for Nadal. Winning the 1st would have given Fed an actual chance to win the match(still a small chance)losing it meant the match was over, even the pessmistic Nadal camp whiners were deep down aware of that fact.

Can't argue with that.

Best case scenario for Fed fans -

Federer summons all his might and wins AO ,consequently Nadal drops to 3. Nadal is then drawn in Novak's half in the remaining slams ,indirectly aiding Federer to more slam finals and maybe winning a few. So, AO is the key.

billnepill
12-17-2011, 09:02 AM
Wimbledon 2008 and AO 2009...

I don't think Rafa needs to equal or surpass Fed's slam count anyway, to be better than him. The slam count is skewed because of the surface distribution...



He was injured.

Agree I wouldn't, right now, consider Rafa the favourite to win RG next year.

what does Nadal need to do then? Has he already surpassed Federer according to you?

OddJack
12-17-2011, 09:04 AM
Totally agree, though there's still a part of me that believes he can beat Nadal at USO.



Can't argue with that.

Best case scenario for Fed fans -

Federer summons all his might and wins AO ,consequently Nadal drops to 3. Nadal is then drawn in Novak's half in the remaining slams ,indirectly aiding Federer to more slam finals and maybe winning a few. So, AO is the key.

Best case scenario for Fed himself too, and see how well he recovered from that.

Talker
12-17-2011, 09:09 AM
Wow you have been checking the stats for the last 2 years just waiting for the right moment. I have a phone # for you 1-800-get a life. What kind of loser has nothing better to do than check stats to compare fed and rafa?

It is hilarious that according to so many *******s there is no comparison between fed and any other player, but they have to keep coming up with more stats to show their case. If it is so obvious and such common knowledge then why must you have to spend endless hours trying to prove it?

You have to admit it's better for you than sitting motionless watching TV. :)
Besides it doesn't take too long once the stats have been compiled, you just 'adjust' the numbers after tournaments, a few minutes.

But it's true that Nadal fans have been pushing this age thing at Fed fans for years. Now it's gone.
Another area was the lack of RG for Fed, that was brought up a lot, that's gone too.

Polaris
12-17-2011, 09:14 AM
I squarely prefer Federer over Nadal. However, at this stage, I claim that Nadal is still ahead of Federer in the age comparison because of (1) Career Slam (2) More GS Finals (3) Significantly more Masters Series Titles. Nadal does have a tough act to follow though, because the gap is reducing.

Nadal owns Federer in their head to head matches.By 3 times or so...

According to all reliable sources, eye-witnesses, etc:
(1) Current head-to-head is 17-9.
(2) Federer has won 34.6%, Nadal has won 65.4% of their matches
(3) Nadal owns Federer by exactly 1.89 times. Roughly, Nadal wins 2 out of 3 matches.

Translation: If you want to be taken seriously, don't talk out of your butt.

kiki
12-17-2011, 09:21 AM
I squarely prefer Federer over Nadal. However, at this stage, I claim that Nadal is still ahead of Federer in the age comparison because of (1) Career Slam (2) More GS Finals (3) Significantly more Masters Series Titles. Nadal does have a tough act to follow though, because the gap is reducing.



According to all reliable sources, eye-witnesses, etc:
(1) Current head-to-head is 17-9.
(2) Federer has won 34.6%, Nadal has won 65.4% of their matches
(3) Nadal owns Federer by exactly 1.89 times. Roughly, Nadal wins 2 out of 3 matches.

Translation: If you want to be taken seriously, don't talk out of your butt.

Fed beats Nadal at those 3 major finals: W 2006 and W 2007 and YEC 2010

Nadal beats Federer at: 2008 W, 2009 AO and 2005 FO SF, 2006 FO F, 2007 FO F, 2008 FO, 2011 FO F.

That accounts for 7 wins, more than the double

dennis10is
12-17-2011, 09:21 AM
Aw! So cute! Teen boys can't admit their homoerotic feelings for hunky male tennis pros, must resort to boorish fanboy behaviors. The little darlings :) They are so charming at this age.

tennis_pro
12-17-2011, 09:22 AM
Fed beats Nadal at those 3 major finals: W 2006 and W 2007 and YEC 2010

Nadal beats Federer at: 2008 W, 2009 AO and 2005 FO SF, 2006 FO F, 2007 FO F, 2008 FO, 2011 FO F.

That accounts for 7 wins, more than the double

What's the surface of the tournaments in bold, again?

kiki
12-17-2011, 09:25 AM
What's the surface of the tournaments in bold, again?

It is a sqaure tennis court, I think same length, same width as the others.

If you substract YEC win for Fed and RG sf win for Nadal, then it is... 2 wins for Fed and 6 for Nadal.YES, THREE TIMES

Polaris
12-17-2011, 09:26 AM
Fed beats Nadal at those 3 major finals: W 2006 and W 2007 and YEC 2010

Nadal beats Federer at: 2008 W, 2009 AO and 2005 FO SF, 2006 FO F, 2007 FO F, 2008 FO, 2011 FO F.

That accounts for 7 wins, more than the double

1. Show me a factual mistake in my post. OR
2. Admit that you were referring only to Grand Slam results in your first post without specifying that you were doing so, OR
3. Admit that you were talking out of your arse.

Thank you.

Talker
12-17-2011, 09:27 AM
I squarely prefer Federer over Nadal. However, at this stage, I claim that Nadal is still ahead of Federer in the age comparison because of (1) Career Slam (2) More GS Finals (3) Significantly more Masters Series Titles. Nadal does have a tough act to follow though, because the gap is reducing.



According to all reliable sources, eye-witnesses, etc:
(1) Current head-to-head is 17-9.
(2) Federer has won 34.6%, Nadal has won 65.4% of their matches
(3) Nadal owns Federer by exactly 1.89 times. Roughly, Nadal wins 2 out of 3 matches.

Translation: If you want to be taken seriously, don't talk out of your butt.

These are good points.
There's a few important areas at that age where Nadal's resume looks better as you pointed out.

I do like Fed's 10-1 slam record but 3 additional appearances for Nadal(10-4) is a plus in my book.

billnepill
12-17-2011, 09:28 AM
Aw! So cute! Teen boys can't admit their homoerotic feelings for hunky male tennis pros, must resort to boorish fanboy behaviors. The little darlings :) They are so charming at this age.

Did you just say that teen boys with homoerotic feelings are charming?

tennis_pro
12-17-2011, 09:30 AM
It is a sqaure tennis court, I think same length, same width as the others.

If you substract YEC win for Fed and RG sf win for Nadal, then it is... 2 wins for Fed and 6 for Nadal.YES, THREE TIMES

Le'ts assume player A beat player B twice at Wimbledon and player B beat player A 6 times at the French Open.

Does it mean that player B is 3 times as good as player A?

tennis_pro
12-17-2011, 09:31 AM
It is a sqaure tennis court, I think same length, same width as the others.

If you substract YEC win for Fed and RG sf win for Nadal, then it is... 2 wins for Fed and 6 for Nadal.YES, THREE TIMES

Think about it. Federer has played Nadal more times at the French Open than at the other 3 majors COMBINED. How is that fair?

kiki
12-17-2011, 09:32 AM
Le'ts assume player A beat player B twice at Wimbledon and player B beat player A 6 times at the French Open.

Does it mean that player B is 3 times as good as player A?

I never said so.I just went by statistics facts.But if somebody beats you 66% of the time, he has a point to claim he is better than you, isnīt it? specially if you are young and fit.You have no excuse at all.

tennis_pro
12-17-2011, 09:35 AM
I never said so.I just went by statistics facts.But if somebody beats you 66% of the time, he has a point to claim he is better than you, isnīt it? specially if you are young and fit.You have no excuse at all.

Let's continue the maths.

If Federer never meets Djokovic again in an official match, Djokovic on the other hand beats Nadal 10 more times (and Nadal 0), does it mean that Djokovic is better than Nadal? Yes it does. Of course you assumed Nadal is better than Federer. What is the relation between Federer and Djokovic, then? Who's better from the 2?

aphex
12-17-2011, 09:44 AM
I never said so.I just went by statistics facts.But if somebody beats you 66% of the time, he has a point to claim he is better than you, isnīt it? specially if you are young and fit.You have no excuse at all.

Therefore Davydenko is better than Nadal.
Thanks for your great insight.

Sentinel
12-17-2011, 09:55 AM
Therefore Davydenko is better than Nadal.
Thanks for your great insight.
What do you mean "therefore"???

Of course, Davydenko is better than Nadal.

TMF
12-17-2011, 09:55 AM
I don't see how it's a fallacy at all. Sure, players and coaches knew the distribution of the slam surfaces, but that doesn't mean you can just decide what surface your game is going to fit better in. It doesn't work like that, or every player's strongest surface would be HC.

It's about having the ability to adjust. Fed's least favorite surface is clay(2nd best player) and he's doing fine. If Nadal isn't good enough to make an adjustment on different condition that's his fault, just like Sampras can't make adjustment on clay. In fact, many players played great on their favorite surface but can't seem to find an answer on their worst surface. It's a challenge for all the player, not just for Nadal. Unless he's playing in the 60's where there's minor adjustment are needed.

BTW, Nadal is very fortunate playing in an era where they slow down the court, add higher bounce and enhance the spin. A perfect condition for his playing style which he benefitted the most. Many players like Ancics, Roddick or Karlovic are the unfortunate one. You and all the Nadal fans should be grateful, b/c if the conditions havn't start changing since the early 2000, Nadal wouldn't be where he is right now(except on clay).

Are you saying he wasn't actually injured in the AO this year?. Because if that's what you want to say, please go ahead and say it.

Nadal is always injured.
Happy now ?

Fate Archer
12-17-2011, 09:57 AM
I squarely prefer Federer over Nadal. However, at this stage, I claim that Nadal is still ahead of Federer in the age comparison because of (1) Career Slam (2) More GS Finals (3) Significantly more Masters Series Titles. Nadal does have a tough act to follow though, because the gap is reducing.

These are fair points, specially the Career Slam which he achieved at a younger age.

Seems like the reality check was so strong to some that we need people from the Federer camp to point out some good arguments instead of the usual butthurt that like to talk out of their arse.

To contrast with these I will put some points that favor Fed:

(1) A better distribution of GS won [4 WC's, 3 AO's and 3 USO's], (2) A better ratio of GS finals won [90% >> 71%], (3) 3 WTF's, (4) 3 Year End nš1 + 159 weeks nš1

Nathaniel_Near
12-17-2011, 10:12 AM
Yeh but significantly more MS titles isn't a good reason, I think. After all, Federer had 3 Year-end Champs.

I do see Nadal as ahead though because of the Career Slam, better longevity and having overcome a titanic great of the game in getting many of his Major victories.

Roger does have some things going for him as Fate has said, and also had years of greater dominance.

It's a tricky call.

Polaris
12-17-2011, 10:17 AM
These are fair points, specially the Career Slam which he achieved at a younger age.

Seems like the reality check was so strong to some that we need people from the Federer camp to point out some good arguments instead of the usual butthurt that like to talk out of their arse.

To contrast with these I will put some points that favor Fed:

(1) A better distribution of GS won [4 WC's, 3 AO's and 3 USO's], (2) A better ratio of GS finals won [90% >> 71%], (3) 3 WTF's, (4) 3 Year End nš1 + 159 weeks nš1

I agree with (1), because it is an argument for versatility, and Federer is clearly more versatile than Nadal when it comes to surfaces. (2) is problematic, and subject to opinion, I think. I consider (3) to be a very strong case, especially because Nadal has generally been pedestrian at the WTF while Federer has generally lorded over it. I wondered whether this WTF advantage nullifies Nadal's 7 Masters Series advantage. It may just do so, or it may not, depending on which side of the bed one wakes up on.

What gets me is the stupid arguments that people make to refute others' claims, e.g., things kiki is saying in this thread with no regard for elementary arithmetic, or tlm saying that WTF is just an all star exhibition tournament. These people should just put "I'm incapable of rational thought, so please don't fisk my posts." in their signature. :)

[Edit: Nadal's 7 MS advantage, not 5]

Nathaniel_Near
12-17-2011, 10:22 AM
I agree with (1), because it is an argument for versatility, and Federer is clearly more versatile than Nadal when it comes to surfaces. (2) is problematic, and subject to opinion, I think. I consider (3) to be a very strong case, especially because Nadal has generally been pedestrian at the WTF while Federer has generally lorded over it. I wondered whether this WTF advantage nullifies Nadal's 5 Masters Series advantage. It may just do so, or it may not, depending on which side of the bed one wakes up on.

What gets me is the stupid arguments that people make to refute others' claims, e.g., things kiki is saying in this thread with no regard for elementary arithmetic, or tlm saying that WTF is just an all star exhibition tournament. These people should just put "I'm incapable of objectivity, so please don't fisk my posts." in their signature. :)


Some good considerations from posters in recent responses. I should imagine that 3 YEC are more valuable than 5/6 Masters Series 1000 titles. It would be fair to say that a YEC has tended to count as a very elite tournament throughout the history of the Open Era. But it isn't so much that 3 trumps 5 but more that Nadal doesn't have a single one. But stronger than this is the fact that Roger at this time had not a single RG title (though 2 finals).

Crisstti
12-17-2011, 11:26 AM
Players who won 2 or more French Opens should be a decent comparison:

Bruguera - both French Opens at 22,23 years of age, won his last career title in 1994 aged 23

Courier - last peak year 1993 at 23 years of age, decent 1994-1996 but dissapeared after that, retired at 30

Kuerten - 2001 last good year he was 25 at the time

Wilander - after winning 3 majors in 1988 (24 years old at the time) he completely lost it

Lendl - not much of a clay court specialist but an all-courter. He's the only player from the list who played very well until his late 20's/early 30's but let's not forget he won his first major aged 24 so had plenty of good tennis left in him afterwards

Borg - virtually retired at 25 years of age

Nadal - ?

Well, I think pretty much only Lendl and Borg would be a good comparison to Nadal, talent and career wise. And looking at how they did I'd say Rafa's tennis future looks pretty good :)

I thought indoors is a surface, isn't it? :)

Nope, it's not :)

Gimme a break...for a guy who "peaked" in 2008 aged 22 by the time he hit 25 in 2011 he's already in decline, not to mention he skipped the championships in 2009. Compare that to Federer who was the king of grass in 2003-2010 (except 2008 but he played very well on grass that season - didn't get broken once in Halle and lost 0 sets en route to the Wimbly final)

Whether Nadal is in decline is a highly argued subject around here...

Fed was hardly the king of grass since 2008, and even in 2007 he had huge problems to beat Rafa (problems Rafa hasn't ever had to beat Fed in RG).

[QUOTE=tennis_pro;6179000]Now fathom this - if Djokovic played on grass in 2008-2010 as well as he did this year Nadal would still be looking for a first Wimbledon title.
Or this - if Federer didn't struggle with his game BIG TIME in 2008 compared to 04-07 he would have 7 Wimbledons in a row.

People saying how much Fed struggled with his game in 2008 sounds similar to me to people saying how much Rafa has struggled this year. Though granted, I didn't pay that much attention to his game then apart from his matches against Nadal.

In any case, if Rafa's prime has coincided with Fed's then roger would no doubt have had more trouble winning Wimbledon (and the other slams). I'm not even saying he would have lost, 'cause we can't know that, but the competition would have been tougher than it was. Maybe we can just say both were lucky there.

If we had 2 or 3 majors played on clay you can bet 90 % of the players would be clay courters. It would completely change the whole dynamic of the sport, it's not just oh, Rafa is so unlucky there's only 1 major on clay - Nadal wouldn't be half as dominant on the surface. Come on who are his biggest rivals apart from Federer who doesn't even like clay so much and Djokovic only lately? Ferrer, Almagro, Verdasco? Yea whatever.

Federer, Novak, Murray?. We can't know anyway how dominant he would be, but just who do you think would be as good as him there?. There would be more competition than there is, I'll accept that. It still would pretty much without a doubt mean that the slam count would look very different.

Crisstti
12-17-2011, 11:36 AM
Federer has proved to be great in all surfaces. 6 FO finals, without Nadal, he wins at least 4 FO.

Nadal has proved to be supergreat in clay, and great on slowgrass. On HC and Indoors which is a big part of tennis, he is good, he won 2 slams there, but he isn't near as good as Federer is on his worst surface. Nadal numbers are 80% due to clay. Federer stats don't rely on one surface like Nadal's.

Pretty easy to see for everyone, except for you.

PS: 14 of 26 matches played between Fed and Rafa, were on clay.

There is more than numbers and statistics to this. Distribution of the surfaces, age difference, health, etc.

Fed's numbers are in big part due to HCs.

I agree that the H2H is skewed against Fed. Whether he's better on clay than Rafa is on HC... I guess it depends on how one looks at it. I'd tend to say yes, but then Rafa beat him and Novak to win his HC majors, while Roger beat... Soderling I think?.

What this comparison really means (but then, everybody already knew that) is that Nadal started winning younger but couldn't sustain the same rhythm that Federer did. It just says that, even though Federer won his first slam aged 22 (against 18 for Nadal), at 25, he's caught up with him, ie he won as many in four years as Nadal did in eight. Will the trend continue or will Nadal be able to pick up his rhythm so as not to be left behind? We'll soon have the answer to that, I guess, as it looks like 2012 is make or break for Nadal.

Next year looks very interesting at the moment. Let's hope it delivers... :)

Well, I don't know if Rafa hasn't sustained the same rhythm... most years he has won 1 slam after all.

You're only fooling yourself if you want to ignore Federer's numbers.
Go take a look at Nadal's record page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_career_achievements_by_Rafael_Nadal), then compare it with Federer's record page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_career_achievements_by_Roger_Federer) which is like 5 or 6 times the size of Nadal's then come back here.

"Oh but he's younger and has time to catch up..."... sorry, that's exactly the point of this thread.

Time has caught up and at the same age they're mostly even if Fed is not ahead of him in most meaningful statistics.

As it was said, anything less than 2 slams this year and Rafito will be under Fed at the same age.

Simply put, the numbers will corroborate what we knew all along: Federer is simply a better tennis player than Nadal.

The numbers don't tell the whole story. Statistics never do.

what does Nadal need to do then? Has he already surpassed Federer according to you?

Maybe he has, maybe he hasn't :). I don't particularly care, TBH. I don't think there's a way to determined it.

It's about having the ability to adjust. Fed's least favorite surface is clay and he's doing fine. If Nadal isn't good enough to make an adjustment on different condition that's his fault, just like Sampras can't make adjustment on clay(2nd best player). In fact, many players played great on their favorite surface but can't seem to find an answer on their worst surface. It's a challenge for all the player, not just for Nadal. Unless he's playing in the 60's where there's minor adjustment are needed.

Rafa can find an answer on his worst surface. That's why he's won two HC GS. ANd won them against Fed and Djokovic, nonetheless.

BTW, Nadal is very fortunate playing in an era where they slow down the court, add higher bounce and enhance the spin. A perfect condition for his playing style which he benefitted the most. Many players like Ancics, Roddick or Karlovic are the unfortunate one. You and all the Nadal fans should be grateful, b/c if the conditions havn't start changing since the early 2000, Nadal wouldn't be where he is right now(except on clay).

We don't really know that. Look at Agassi.

Nadal is always injured.
Happy now ?

Nope ;)

Povl Carstensen
12-17-2011, 12:18 PM
These are fair points, specially the Career Slam which he achieved at a younger age.

Seems like the reality check was so strong to some that we need people from the Federer camp to point out some good arguments instead of the usual butthurt that like to talk out of their arse.

To contrast with these I will put some points that favor Fed:

(1) A better distribution of GS won [4 WC's, 3 AO's and 3 USO's], (2) A better ratio of GS finals won [90% >> 71%], (3) 3 WTF's, (4) 3 Year End nš1 + 159 weeks nš1
(5)Three years with a winning % over 90.

TMF
12-17-2011, 12:39 PM
We don't really know that. Look at Agassi.



Seriously ??

You think Nadal wouldn't suffered from a low bounce, faster surface, lighter ball(spin is less effective) ?

Definitely he wouldn't be where he is right now had the conditions were unchanged to reward his style. You know that !

dh003i
12-17-2011, 12:48 PM
At the moment no doubt he is, however the real comparison should wait until both of them hang their racquets. It's unfair to Nadal to compare his numbers to Fed as they stand now and draw definite conclusions when he's still 25 and I though the same for Fed when people were/are comparing him to past tennis greats.

You can't form the big picture when both of them are still playing and contending for slams(well obviously Fed to a lesser degree than Nadal currently but I don't think it's a stretch to say that he's still in the mix as well).

I agree with you that which player you prefer should have nothing to do with stats. I personally think that Nadal will catch Fed's slam count(unless Fed adds to it) but I still prefer Fed's game either way any day of the week.




Completely agree. There's this tendency a number of Fed and Nadal fans have at the moment to write off Nadal because he was losing repeteadly to one player this year. There's no knowing whether Novak can sustain this level of play both mentally and physically and he's basically the only threat to Nadal at the moment, Del Potro is too injury prone, Murray has lost in 3 slams to Nadal this year, the last time Fed beat Nadal in a slam was way back in 2007

All that is also coupled wit the fact that the young up and comers are really lacking, I've never seen such shortage of promising young guns since I started following tennis, I mean as Sampras-Agassi era was slowly coming to an end you had Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Ferrero all showing much potential very early, then you had Nadal(though he's a special case), Novak and Murray etc. and now you have....Tomic I guess? I mean I like Raonic's game for example but he doesn't have the build for the modern slowed down conditions.

In short despite all the pessimistic whining from Nadal fans and gloating/celebrating from Fed fans the reality is that Nadal is still in an excellent position to add more slams to his tally, he's still arguably the best player against the field at the moment.

I don't know where you're getting that from. Djokovic has become the best player against the field.

Invincible? No but losing one best of five match in RG in your entire career(so far)is pretty damn close to it.





By time and again you mean two times exactly, right? Thing is the way rankings are at the moment Novak will have to reach the FO final if he's to beat Nadal, something he has failed to so far in his career.

Don't get me wrong Novak's triumphs over Nadal in Rome and Madrid were very impressive(I've never seen anyone handle Nadal so well on clay) but they don't change the fact that Nadal retained his clay throne by winning RG.

Only because Federer did his difficult work for him. It is funny how many Nadal fans whine and moan whenever Nadal had the difficult matches before finals, but it doesn't go in reverse. By the logic of many Nadal fans, the FO '11 shouldn't count, because he didn't have to face Novak. Of course I disagree, but just pointing out that the betting odds would ave been on Djokovic had they met in the finals.

Nadal has been lucky to not have to play an opponent who is consistently great and who is a tough matchup (style-wise) for him....until now. Not that he had an easy time getting his first Wimbledon.


Aside from their 2008 FO final which was an exception to the rule the gap between Nadal and Fed on clay has always been roughly the same. Looking at their RG matches since 2005 the score, flow of the match, tactics etc. has been very similar in their every FO encounter aside from 2008.

The gap is not narrower, it just reverted to what it was before 2008.

I disagree. Nadal is becoming weaker on clay. By age, he should be in a stronger position vis-a-vis Federer there, but he isn't (for the reasons before-noted).

PrinceMoron
12-17-2011, 03:17 PM
Originally Posted by kiki
Nadal owns Federer in their head to head matches.By 3 times or so...

To roughly quote Federer - All those times I reached the finals of the US Open, where was Nadal? I can only play the people on court in front of me.....

I will have to go back thru the draws, but I have the feeling Nadal's head to head with Federer would look a lot worse if he had gotten thru to a few semis or finals in NY or Wimbledon.

ben123
12-17-2011, 03:59 PM
http://farm1.staticflickr.com/216/488743739_25820b091d.jpg

OddJack
12-17-2011, 04:59 PM
The answer to all these post is only two words and a number:

Roland Garros 2012

zagor
12-17-2011, 05:19 PM
I don't know where you're getting that from. Djokovic has become the best player against the field.

It's debatable, Novak had Nadal's number this year and dominated their H2H. However against the field they were roughly equal. Nadal had less trouble than Novak reaching Wimbledon and USO final and at FO he beat a player Novak couldn't (Fed).

Only because Federer did his difficult work for him. It is funny how many Nadal fans whine and moan whenever Nadal had the difficult matches before finals, but it doesn't go in reverse. By the logic of many Nadal fans, the FO '11 shouldn't count, because he didn't have to face Novak. Of course I disagree, but just pointing out that the betting odds would ave been on Djokovic had they met in the finals. .

Well I'm not a Nadal fan and I don't deal with hollow slam BS regardless, you can only beat the opponent the draw puts before you and that's it.

Yes Novak would have had a good chance to beat Nadal in the final however he failed to beat the guy Nadal has been beating at FO since 2005, it's a credit to Nadal that he handles Fed so well even considering the match-up, it's obvious Novak couldn't even in his best year/CC form to date.


Nadal has been lucky to not have to play an opponent who is consistently great and who is a tough matchup (style-wise) for him....until now. Not that he had an easy time getting his first Wimbledon.

Agree in a way.


I disagree. Nadal is becoming weaker on clay. By age, he should be in a stronger position vis-a-vis Federer there, but he isn't (for the reasons before-noted).

This year's FO Fed was playing the best CC tennis in years, Nadal looked shaky from the start(Isner match) and Fed still failed to win(or even come close to it). Nadal may be getting weaker(on clay atleast) but Fed will turn 31 next year, repeating the level he displayed at FO this year will be a tough task.

I'd love to see Fed beat Nadal at FO but I strongly believe he never will.

nadalwon2012
12-17-2011, 05:20 PM
Wait a second, doesn't Nadal have an advantage on outdoor HC? Aren't 2 of the slams outdoor HC, and then you have his beloved clay. So 3/4 slams are biased towards Nadal no?

See below for evidence testifying towards Federer only being good on indoor:

Tennis is an outdoor sport. All events should be outdoors. It makes no sense that the World Tour Finals are indoors when the 4 slams are outdoors. If anything Federer is lucky that his fragile unreliable strokes are aided in the World Tour Finals by zero wind factor.

abmk
12-17-2011, 05:29 PM
Tennis is an outdoor sport. All events should be outdoors. It makes no sense that the World Tour Finals are indoors when the 4 slams are outdoors. If anything Federer is lucky that his fragile unreliable strokes are aided in the World Tour Finals by zero wind factor.

I agree with the implication of your statement in bold ..... Nadal's biggest rival till 2010 was a player with fragile strokes in all 4 slams ( all outdoor )* . He won slams against very weak competition.

Now when Nadal is up with a real rival with solid strokes , i.e. Djokovic** , he's got owned time and again. yes, 6-0 , including two straight set beatdowns on Rafa's favourite surface :(

* - How many slams has that guy with fragile strokes won ? I don't remember !

** - I heard that guy with fragile strokes beat djoker at the FO this year and prevented him from getting the CYGS. Is that true ! How could he ? The FO wasn't indoors , was it ? I also heard he got much closer to beating djoker at the USO than nadal did ... How ? Was the USO also indoors ?

DeShaun
12-17-2011, 05:40 PM
It's trickier than just numbers to compare them at the same age because Roger had 2 incredible years by this point where as Nadal had 2 slightly less incredible years, but Nadal's career has shown much greater longevity of greatness by this point in his career and so I give him the clear edge right now, especially because of his unbelievable record at RG and that he had to go through a perceived possible GOAT for so many of his Major victories.

This seems to be the old H2H argument.

TTMR
12-17-2011, 05:43 PM
It's about having the ability to adjust. Fed's least favorite surface is clay(2nd best player) and he's doing fine. If Nadal isn't good enough to make an adjustment on different condition that's his fault, just like Sampras can't make adjustment on clay. In fact, many players played great on their favorite surface but can't seem to find an answer on their worst surface. It's a challenge for all the player, not just for Nadal. Unless he's playing in the 60's where there's minor adjustment are needed.

BTW, Nadal is very fortunate playing in an era where they slow down the court, add higher bounce and enhance the spin. A perfect condition for his playing style which he benefitted the most. Many players like Ancics, Roddick or Karlovic are the unfortunate one. You and all the Nadal fans should be grateful, b/c if the conditions havn't start changing since the early 2000, Nadal wouldn't be where he is right now(except on clay).



Nadal is always injured.
Happy now ?

Because no counterpunching baseliners were ever successful prior to the 2000s, right?

Nadal has a very similar style to Borg. I don't see why Nadal could not have had similar success in any era of tennis.

By the way, it's been noted that the speed of clay at the French Open and other clay events has been increased in order to make it more likely the top players reach the finals. By that logic, Nadal would have had an even easier time in the past racking up clay court titles.

I really do not understand why people here go so far out of their way to denigrate, deride and tarnish Nadal's accomplishments in the sport of tennis, as if they are somehow illegitimate. The hatred for this one player completely mystifies me. And I'm not even a Nadal fan.

abmk
12-17-2011, 05:47 PM
Because no counterpunching baseliners were ever successful prior to the 2000s, right?

Nadal has a very similar style to Borg. I don't see why Nadal could not have had similar success in any era of tennis.

By the way, it's been noted that the speed of clay at the French Open and other clay events has been increased in order to make it more likely the top players reach the finals. By that logic, Nadal would have had an even easier time in the past racking up clay court titles.

I really do not understand why people here go so far out of their way to denigrate, deride and tarnish Nadal's accomplishments in the sport of tennis, as if they are somehow illegitimate. The hatred for this one player completely mystifies me. And I'm not even a Nadal fan.

yes and no. Similar on clay pretty much, but not so on the other surfaces .....

Borg won tons of titles indoors, beating the likes of mcenroe, connors, lendl, tanner etc. Rafa has won one title indoor.

Borg SnVed quite a bit at wimbledon and was quite a bit better at the net. Rafa hardly SnVs or even comes to the net in comparison to him on grass .....

Mike Sams
12-17-2011, 05:48 PM
I really do not understand why people here go so far out of their way to denigrate, deride and tarnish Nadal's accomplishments in the sport of tennis, as if they are somehow illegitimate. The hatred for this one player completely mystifies me. And I'm not even a Nadal fan.

Simply because he plays moonball pushing tennis where basically his game is not spectacular to watch but effective because the strength of his style is consistency and trying to force the error off the opponent. Kind of like a boxer who fights not to lose rather than going for a KO and putting on a spectacular display of skill.
There's no real genius in Nadal's style. Lots of crazy topspin, playing the same type of game on all surfaces which have been slowed down and helps him bag more Slams. Plus he has no identity of his own. He's just a guy who does what his Uncle tells him while regurgitating the same stuff his Uncle always says in interviews while giving a million excuses, also likes to abuse the MTO rule, gets illegal coaching, fakes injuries, etc.
Other than that, I'm sure he's a splendid player.:)

kanamit
12-17-2011, 05:50 PM
I still say we should have a Masters 1000 on grass courts, with grasscourts extending further into the summer, and the hardcourt season being postponed until a cooler time in the autumn. Cancel or drastically shorten the Asian swing.

TTMR
12-17-2011, 05:53 PM
yes and no. Similar on clay pretty much, but not so on the other surfaces .....

Borg won tons of titles indoors, beating the likes of mcenroe, connors, lendl, tanner etc. Rafa has won one title indoor.

Borg SnVed quite a bit at wimbledon and was quite a bit better at the net. Rafa hardly SnVs or even comes to the net in comparison to him on grass .....

Obviously Nadal didn't serve and volley because he didn't need to on today's grass. Do you think Borg would S&V on today's grass? It's a death sentence. So that cannot be held against Nadal, and you can't say with certainty how Nadal would have adapted to older grass. It is all speculation.

Indoor hard and grass are not comparable either, because the way one moves on each surface is very different. How well does Soderling do on grass? Yet he is an excellent indoor player.

_maxi
12-17-2011, 06:00 PM
There is more than numbers and statistics to this. Distribution of the surfaces, age difference, health, etc.

Oh yes, enlighten me... show me the logic you talk about.

Fed's numbers are in big part due to HCs.

What's the problem with HC? Do you think that he would not win so much on grass? where's the grass? Fed is great there and only had Wimbledon and other small tournament to gain tournaments in that surface. You need to replace that with fast HC which is not the mayority of the tournaments, in fact most of the HC now are high bouncing with slow-medium speed. What's the problem with HC that you have to point that most Federer numbers come from HC? actually Fed is great on every surface.. just not as great on clay as on other surfaces, but if it wasn't by Nadal, as I told you, Fed would have at least 4 FO so what's your point...

I agree that the H2H is skewed against Fed. Whether he's better on clay than Rafa is on HC... I guess it depends on how one looks at it. I'd tend to say yes, but then Rafa beat him and Novak to win his HC majors, while Roger beat... Soderling I think?.

Roger beat Soderling, the one that kicked Nadal's *** on that tournament. Match-up... remember? and on the other tournaments that Fed won.. if he didn't beat Nadal he beat other player that was good enough to go more deep than Nadal, so what?

DeShaun
12-17-2011, 06:12 PM
Because no counterpunching baseliners were ever successful prior to the 2000s, right?

Nadal has a very similar style to Borg. I don't see why Nadal could not have had similar success in any era of tennis.

By the way, it's been noted that the speed of clay at the French Open and other clay events has been increased in order to make it more likely the top players reach the finals. By that logic, Nadal would have had an even easier time in the past racking up clay court titles.

I really do not understand why people here go so far out of their way to denigrate, deride and tarnish Nadal's accomplishments in the sport of tennis, as if they are somehow illegitimate. The hatred for this one player completely mystifies me. And I'm not even a Nadal fan.


Formerly, his game did not soothe me but aroused discomforting feelings. It would evoke memories of overhearing thick wooden planks screaming, being ripped lengthwise, under a buzz saw. I seemed to enjoy him-the-person the more that I saw of him off of the tennis court, in pressers and what not; but very rarely did I celebrate his spectacular shots on court, because of how far behind the baseline he stood and how much spin and safety he hit with in constructing the point. . .and I really don't know why that should have bothered me so.

abmk
12-17-2011, 06:14 PM
Obviously Nadal didn't serve and volley because he didn't need to on today's grass. Do you think Borg would S&V on today's grass? It's a death sentence. So that cannot be held against Nadal, and you can't say with certainty how Nadal would have adapted to older grass. It is all speculation.

yes, its all speculation, but if it is based on some reasonable assumptions, it should be ok ... You can't prove anything in this case. Nadal would still do decently on faster grass , because he's an excellent mover on the surface, but he'd have problems returning and with his groundstrokes for sure. He'd of course adapt as he is an ATG, but I doubt he'd be as successful as he is now ..

The speculation came up because you said:

Nadal has a very similar style to Borg. I don't see why Nadal could not have had similar success in any era of tennis.

They differed quite a bit in styles , outside of clay , hence I don't think the above is that valid a point tbh .....

Indoor hard and grass are not comparable either, because the way one moves on each surface is very different. How well does Soderling do on grass? Yet he is an excellent indoor player.

I didn't say they were similar. I brought up indoor because you mentioned the similarity in the styles of rafa and borg. They weren't that similar indoors , as is evident by their gulf in their records there ... Borg was clearly more aggressive there and better suited

NadalAgassi
12-17-2011, 06:18 PM
Borg was largely a product of his time as Nadal is his. If Nadal played in an era of faster surfaces he likely would have adapted even more, just as Borg himself did. They are similar not only in their approach to the game but their overall mentality and determination.

Crisstti
12-17-2011, 06:23 PM
I still say we should have a Masters 1000 on grass courts, with grasscourts extending further into the summer, and the hardcourt season being postponed until a cooler time in the autumn. Cancel or drastically shorten the Asian swing.

I agree.

Oh yes, enlighten me... show me the logic you talk about.

I've already talked about it. I'm sure you know the arguments. Oh, and There's the issue of the quality of the field too ;).

What's the problem with HC? Do you think that he would not win so much on grass? where's the grass? Fed is great there and only had Wimbledon and other small tournament to gain tournaments in that surface. You need to replace that with fast HC which is not the mayority of the tournaments, in fact most of the HC now are high bouncing with slow-medium speed. What's the problem with HC that you have to point that most Federer numbers come from HC? actually Fed is great on every surface.. just not as great on clay as on other surfaces, but if it wasn't by Nadal, as I told you, Fed would have at least 4 FO so what's your point...

No problem with HC. Just like there's no problem with clay.

I'd love it if there were more grass tournaments.

Roger beat Soderling, the one that kicked Nadal's *** on that tournament. Match-up... remember? and on the other tournaments that Fed won.. if he didn't beat Nadal he beat other player that was good enough to go more deep than Nadal, so what?

So he didn't have to play Rafa to win RG. I'm sure I don't need to explain about this.

abmk
12-17-2011, 06:25 PM
Borg was largely a product of his time as Nadal is his. If Nadal played in an era of faster surfaces he likely would have adapted even more, just as Borg himself did. They are similar not only in their approach to the game but their overall mentality and determination.


explain the gulf in their indoor records then ....( nadal is tired !? )

There are some similarities b/w them, but I think there are quite a few differences as well - one of the biggest probably being that borg's movement wasn't taking a toll on his body , more similar to federer's rather than nadal's ..I don't think that has much to do with the 'era' ..

Nadal would of course adapt in other eras, but I doubt he'd be as successful as borg was in doing that ...

beast of mallorca
12-17-2011, 06:38 PM
I really do not understand why people here go so far out of their way to denigrate, deride and tarnish Nadal's accomplishments in the sport of tennis, as if they are somehow illegitimate. The hatred for this one player completely mystifies me. And I'm not even a Nadal fan.

Don't be mystified. This board is full of *******s who hate Nadal because he took a lot of glory from their idol, made Fed cry like a little girl etc.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
12-17-2011, 06:40 PM
Obviously Nadal didn't serve and volley because he didn't need to on today's grass. Do you think Borg would S&V on today's grass? It's a death sentence. So that cannot be held against Nadal, and you can't say with certainty how Nadal would have adapted to older grass. It is all speculation.

Indoor hard and grass are not comparable either, because the way one moves on each surface is very different. How well does Soderling do on grass? Yet he is an excellent indoor player.

AMBK wrote that to highlight how Borg and Nadal are similar while also different. IE Borg was able to adapt to different surfaces and change his game plan. Nadal not so much. If Nadal could Serve and Volley why not do it indoors in 06 and 07? He doesn't have a strong enough serve to serve and volley.

TTMR
12-17-2011, 06:42 PM
explain the gulf in their indoor records then ....( nadal is tired !? )

There are some similarities b/w them, but I think there are quite a few differences as well - one of the biggest probably being that borg's movement wasn't taking a toll on his body , more similar to federer's rather than nadal's ..I don't think that has much to do with the 'era' ..

Nadal would of course adapt in other eras, but I doubt he'd be as successful as borg was in doing that ...

Actually yes, part of it could be that the season is much more intense, the play much more demanding on the body, that Nadal is burned out at the end of the year. But let's assume Nadal was healthy indoors.

Tell me, why are Nadal's accomplishments deserving of depreciation by revisionism yet no other successful player is judged for having played in an an environment beneficial to them? How would Sampras do in today's slow court/large ball era? How would McEnroe do? How would Becker do? Yes, they would all adapt, but would they all achieve exactly what they did before? If the answer is 'no', then why is Nadal dismissed and derided yet those S&V greats defended and preserved in their esteem?

If the only reason is "clay/slow hard court is not a real surface", then I think we've revealed the hollow nature of the Nadal haters.

TheMusicLover
12-17-2011, 06:44 PM
It always makes me wonder to see so many Rafa 'fans' addressing themselves with nicknames including "beast" or "bull".
Do they really think that's a compliment to that fine gentleman? :rolleyes:

nadalwon2012
12-17-2011, 06:45 PM
Plus Nadal has no reason to serve-volley. His baseline game is outstanding. He should stay back. If anything I would like to see Nadal use drop-shots to bring his opponents in and pass them. Even indoors, Nadal made the final of the World Tour Finals last year and beat Murray and Djokovic, and took a set off Federer in the final. The other years he was just too worn out to deliver after the US Open. He really isn't a bad indoor player. He just is rarely at his best after the US Open, plus like I said before Federer plays best indoors because his strokes appear to produce mass unforced errors outdoors. So Nadal losing to Federer isn't absurd indoors. Nadal was impressive anyway, almost beat an on-fire Tsonga indoors.

abmk
12-17-2011, 06:50 PM
Actually yes, part of it could be that the season is much more intense, the play much more demanding on the body, that Nadal is burned out at the end of the year. But let's assume Nadal was healthy indoors.

On a per match basis it is more demanding on the body these days , but borg played more matches per year than rafa in their peak years ....

Tell me, why are Nadal's accomplishments deserving of depreciation by revisionism yet no other successful player is judged for having played in an an environment beneficial to them? How would Sampras do in today's slow court/large ball era? How would McEnroe do? How would Becker do? Yes, they would all adapt, but would they all achieve exactly what they did before? If the answer is 'no', then why is Nadal dismissed and derided yet those S&V greats defended and preserved in their esteem?

If the only reason is "clay/slow hard court is not a real surface", then I think we've revealed the hollowness nature of the Nadal haters.

actually yes, people mention sampras would be less successful today. Even the likes of edberg/mac/becker etc.

But it isn't done everywhere as they are former players and not discussed so much as nadal who is a current player ....

abmk
12-17-2011, 06:54 PM
Plus Nadal has no reason to serve-volley. His baseline game is outstanding. He should stay back. If anything I would like to see Nadal use drop-shots to bring his opponents in and pass them. Even indoors, Nadal made the final of the World Tour Finals last year and beat Murray and Djokovic, and took a set off Federer in the final. The other years he was just too worn out to deliver after the US Open. He really isn't a bad indoor player. He just is rarely at his best after the US Open, plus like I said before Federer plays best indoors because his strokes appear to produce mass unforced errors outdoors. So Nadal losing to Federer isn't absurd indoors. Nadal was impressive anyway, almost beat an on-fire Tsonga indoors.

Yes, Mr.Obvious, he doesn't need to serve-volley now. But he'd need to do it a bit if the conditions were different. Borg's groundgame was outstanding as well , but he SnVed quite a bit on grass.

Yes, nadal is rarely at his best after the USO, yet has no problems dispatching players in the Davis Cup when it is played on clay, after USO !

At bold part, LOL, LOL, LOL , ha ha ha ... He almost lost to Fish, lost to tsonga and got thrashed big time by federer , that's impressive ???? LMAO !

_maxi
12-17-2011, 08:23 PM
So he didn't have to play Rafa to win RG. I'm sure I don't need to explain about this.
Nope. He beat in straights sets the same player that was on fire that tournament, and kicked Nadal's ***. And as I told you before, in the other slams he beat players that were playing better than Nadal because they reached deeper stages of the tournaments than Nadal did. So, they were better than Nadal. So Fed beat better players. If it wasn't, then why couldn't Nadal reach at least six Us Open finals like Fed did at the FO?

powerangle
12-17-2011, 08:37 PM
It will be tough for Nadal now, for sure. Federer really ratcheted up the pace and kept that insane pace in his mid 20s. Nadal had the advantage of blossoming earlier (and so had a big "headstart") but it seems like he's already slowing down.

Polaris
12-17-2011, 08:53 PM
Tell me, why are Nadal's accomplishments deserving of depreciation by revisionism yet no other successful player is judged for having played in an an environment beneficial to them? How would Sampras do in today's slow court/large ball era? How would McEnroe do? How would Becker do? Yes, they would all adapt, but would they all achieve exactly what they did before? If the answer is 'no', then why is Nadal dismissed and derided yet those S&V greats defended and preserved in their esteem?

+1
A good argument.


If the only reason is "clay/slow hard court is not a real surface", then I think we've revealed the hollow nature of the Nadal haters.
Selectively true, but before you celebrate, you may want to consider the niche of Nadal fans that claims that indoor tournaments like the WTF are just "an all-star exhibition". :)

NadalAgassi
12-17-2011, 08:54 PM
explain the gulf in their indoor records then ....( nadal is tired !? )


As already noted there were many more fast court events then. Lightning fast grass, many fast hard court events, 2 slams on grass for awhile. Today the only fast court events are the U.S Open, ATP World Championships, maybe Cincinnati (and events like Dubai and Tokyo which arent that important) so there isnt nearly as much incentive to tailor your game for fast courts, especialy for ones whose basic foundation was a clay court game (as both Nadal and Borg were originally).

SoBad
12-17-2011, 09:08 PM
Let's compare Nadal's achievements thus far (aged 25 years 6 months) with Federer at the same age (which was after the 2007 Australian Open):

Nadal - 10 majors, 1 olympic gold, 19 MS, 46 titles total, (yes I didn't include DC because it's not a singles competition + too many other factors)
Federer - 10 majors, 12 MS, 3 WTF's, 46 titles total

They have the same no of majors won (10), same no of titles won (46), Federer has an advantage in WTF (3>0) while Nadal has it in MS (19>12) and olympics (1>0).
That means if Nadal wins less than 2 majors in 2012, less than 7 titles total, he'll fall behind Federer for the first time.
It's fair to say that the "age card" can no longer be used.

Thanks for playing, it was just a matter of time.

Wow that's a lot of numbers in your post. I thought maybe Fred just got another nose job or a fresher wife or something, when I saw the thread title.

dh003i
12-17-2011, 10:24 PM
It's debatable, Novak had Nadal's number this year and dominated their H2H. However against the field they were roughly equal. Nadal had less trouble than Novak reaching Wimbledon and USO final and at FO he beat a player Novak couldn't (Fed).

I don't think it is debatable at all, but it really doesn't matter. Djokovic is the best player in 2011. Period. So who cares if Nadal had a little bit of an easier time getting to the finals at the USO and Wimbledon? Who the heck did Nadal even have to play anyways? Djokovic had to play a down to the wire match against Federer (which he should have won), but still beat Nadal at the USO Finals.

The field includes Nadal, Djokovic, and Federer. I'd say "strength against the field" shouldn't be measured excluding any players. Strength against the field = ranking, titles won, GS win, winning %, etc. By all counts, Djokovic was the strongest against the entire field.

Well I'm not a Nadal fan and I don't deal with hollow slam BS regardless, you can only beat the opponent the draw puts before you and that's it.

Right, I know you're not a Nadal fan; I was just making a parenthetical point about how hypocritical that attitude is.

Yes Novak would have had a good chance to beat Nadal in the final however he failed to beat the guy Nadal has been beating at FO since 2005, it's a credit to Nadal that he handles Fed so well even considering the match-up, it's obvious Novak couldn't even in his best year/CC form to date.

Well, Novak was 4-1 vs. Federer this year, although he got lucky at the USO. But still. He undoubtedly had a great year and was just better than Nadal on all surfaces when they played eachother.

Federer is a bad matchup for Djokovic, so Djokovic's performance this year against Federer was impressive. More impressive, imo, than anything Nadal has done vs. one single player to date. (even though Fed should've won that USO match, Djokovic still had to play some excellent tennis just to get back in it).

Agree in a way. [in reference to my comment that Nadal has never had to face a great opponent who isn't a favorable matchup for him]

How do you disagree? Federer is with Laver as an all-time great player, but Nadal's game -- really mostly on clay -- is the best foil for Federer you could imagine while sticking to the realm of what is realistically humanly possible (e.g., outside of saying "a player who is perfect"). Nadal hasn't had to face a great player who presents matchup problems for him until now. The result? He has been dismantled. As others have noted, he hasn't tried to do anything different vs. Djokovic, and his approach for next year just seems to be better execution.

More importantly, his mental attitude is disappointing. His outlook and demeanor this year has been weary. I have never really seen that kind of thing from Federer, certainly not when he was 25.

This year's FO Fed was playing the best CC tennis in years, Nadal looked shaky from the start(Isner match) and Fed still failed to win(or even come close to it). Nadal may be getting weaker(on clay atleast) but Fed will turn 31 next year, repeating the level he displayed at FO this year will be a tough task.

I think Nadal is clearly declining, has lost something. Federer's game on clay hasn't really declined that much, in my opinion...otherwise he wouldn't have been able to beat Djokovic at the FO. It is in fact quite surprising that he has done better on clay than on grass.

Magnus
12-17-2011, 10:45 PM
Honestly, that Nadal beats Federer in the insane way he does at every major final they play, specially at RG, is really shocking, to say the less.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJWqkYOKrao

Biscuitmcgriddleson
12-17-2011, 11:16 PM
As already noted there were many more fast court events then. Lightning fast grass, many fast hard court events, 2 slams on grass for awhile. Today the only fast court events are the U.S Open, ATP World Championships, maybe Cincinnati (and events like Dubai and Tokyo which arent that important) so there isnt nearly as much incentive to tailor your game for fast courts, especialy for ones whose basic foundation was a clay court game (as both Nadal and Borg were originally).

All you're saying is that Borg can adapt and Nadal isn't able to adapt as well as Borg did.

Sentinel
12-18-2011, 01:24 AM
Originally Posted by kooki
Nadal owns Federer in their head to head matches.By 3 times or so...

To roughly quote Federer - All those times I reached the finals of the US Open, where was Nadal? I can only play the people on court in front of me.....

I will have to go back thru the draws, but I have the feeling Nadal's head to head with Federer would look a lot worse if he had gotten thru to a few semis or finals in NY or Wimbledon.
Nadal must be thanking his lucky stars that he lost early ! Things usually turn out for the best, as his grandma used to say.

zagor
12-18-2011, 02:06 AM
I don't think it is debatable at all, but it really doesn't matter. Djokovic is the best player in 2011. Period. So who cares if Nadal had a little bit of an easier time getting to the finals at the USO and Wimbledon? Who the heck did Nadal even have to play anyways? Djokovic had to play a down to the wire match against Federer (which he should have won), but still beat Nadal at the USO Finals.

The field includes Nadal, Djokovic, and Federer. I'd say "strength against the field" shouldn't be measured excluding any players. Strength against the field = ranking, titles won, GS win, winning %, etc. By all counts, Djokovic was the strongest against the entire field.

A fair point but still the fact remains that aside from Novak Nadal was destroying the field which means if Novak for whatever reason can't keep his high level of play Nadal will be there to take advantage if he himself remains on his 2011 level of play.



Right, I know you're not a Nadal fan; I was just making a parenthetical point about how hypocritical that attitude is.

Of course that attitude is stupid. However Nadal fans are not entirely to blame for that one, lots of fans of various former players(Sampras in particular) were extremely butthurt Fed won FO in 2009 which is when all that nonsense started, it's hard to say who was more angry at that time, various historians (former pro section regulars) or Nadal fans.



Well, Novak was 4-1 vs. Federer this year, although he got lucky at the USO. But still. He undoubtedly had a great year and was just better than Nadal on all surfaces when they played eachother.

Federer is a bad matchup for Djokovic, so Djokovic's performance this year against Federer was impressive. More impressive, imo, than anything Nadal has done vs. one single player to date. (even though Fed should've won that USO match, Djokovic still had to play some excellent tennis just to get back in it).

True, Novak doesn't have a safe pattern against Fed like Nadal does so beating him is quite impressive, Fed even at 29-30 can still play ball and was arguably the toughest challenge to overcome for Novak this year.


How do you disagree? Federer is with Laver as an all-time great player, but Nadal's game -- really mostly on clay -- is the best foil for Federer you could imagine while sticking to the realm of what is realistically humanly possible (e.g., outside of saying "a player who is perfect"). Nadal hasn't had to face a great player who presents matchup problems for him until now. The result? He has been dismantled. As others have noted, he hasn't tried to do anything different vs. Djokovic, and his approach for next year just seems to be better execution.

I didn't disagree (I think I said I agree in a way), Nadal has been somewhat lucky that he posed such tough match-up problems for the most dominant player of this era but he still had to dig hard for many of his wins over Roger so he has to get credit for that, it's Federer's problem that he never found a good solution against Nadal.

More importantly, his mental attitude is disappointing.

Disappointing, maybe but not exactly surprising. He's been put in a situation in which he never was before, this is new territory for him.

His outlook and demeanor this year has been weary. I have never really seen that kind of thing from Federer, certainly not when he was 25.

His outlook and demeanor has only become such after repeated beatings from Novak, that Miami match might have changed everything.

I think Nadal is clearly declining, has lost something.

I don't he has declined overall to any serious degree. Having an issue with one particular player is hardly decline, Nadal made a ton of masters+slam finals this year which is evidence enough that he's doing great against the field overall, he just can't find the answer for one player.

Federer's game on clay hasn't really declined that much, in my opinion...otherwise he wouldn't have been able to beat Djokovic at the FO. It is in fact quite surprising that he has done better on clay than on grass.

Federer's game on clay hasn't declined but it might do so in 2012, nobody can beat the clock, not even Fed.

I think it's surprising that he declined more on grass than on clay but regarding this year in particular I'm not that surprised he performed better at FO than Wimbledon, his level on grass was appaling in 2010 so the decline on that surface was evident then already. In 2012 Fed's worst chance to win a slam is Wimbledon, as amazing as that sounds.

Crisstti
12-18-2011, 08:04 AM
Tell me, why are Nadal's accomplishments deserving of depreciation by revisionism yet no other successful player is judged for having played in an an environment beneficial to them? How would Sampras do in today's slow court/large ball era? How would McEnroe do? How would Becker do? Yes, they would all adapt, but would they all achieve exactly what they did before? If the answer is 'no', then why is Nadal dismissed and derided yet those S&V greats defended and preserved in their esteem?

+1

Nope. He beat in straights sets the same player that was on fire that tournament, and kicked Nadal's ***. And as I told you before, in the other slams he beat players that were playing better than Nadal because they reached deeper stages of the tournaments than Nadal did. So, they were better than Nadal. So Fed beat better players. If it wasn't, then why couldn't Nadal reach at least six Us Open finals like Fed did at the FO?

I see, so Soderling is a better player than Nadal?. Sure.

As already noted there were many more fast court events then. Lightning fast grass, many fast hard court events, 2 slams on grass for awhile. Today the only fast court events are the U.S Open, ATP World Championships, maybe Cincinnati (and events like Dubai and Tokyo which arent that important) so there isnt nearly as much incentive to tailor your game for fast courts, especialy for ones whose basic foundation was a clay court game (as both Nadal and Borg were originally).

This.

How do you disagree? Federer is with Laver as an all-time great player, but Nadal's game -- really mostly on clay -- is the best foil for Federer you could imagine while sticking to the realm of what is realistically humanly possible (e.g., outside of saying "a player who is perfect"). Nadal hasn't had to face a great player who presents matchup problems for him until now. The result? He has been dismantled. As others have noted, he hasn't tried to do anything different vs. Djokovic, and his approach for next year just seems to be better execution.


Really?. I was under the impression he had played Novak many times before this year... (yes, he qualified as a great player then too).

kiki
12-18-2011, 08:32 AM
No nš 1 in tennis history has lost so much so often so big against his nš 2 like Federer vs Nadal.The most uneven head to head between a nš 1 and a nš 2 in the last 50 years
Laver vs Rosewall, Borg vs Connors/Mac, Lendl vs Mac or Wilander, Becker vs Edberg, even Sampras vs AgassiĄĄĄ

aphex
12-18-2011, 08:38 AM
No nš 1 in tennis history has lost so much so often so big against his nš 2 like Federer vs Nadal.The most uneven head to head between a nš 1 and a nš 2 in the last 50 years
Laver vs Rosewall, Borg vs Connors/Mac, Lendl vs Mac or Wilander, Becker vs Edberg, even Sampras vs AgassiĄĄĄ

http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/2/23668/1884407-y_u_mad.jpg

kiki
12-18-2011, 08:39 AM
http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/2/23668/1884407-y_u_mad.jpg

this is all the arguments you have to defend Federer? geez, you have a real problem, boyĄĄĄ

Fate Archer
12-18-2011, 08:45 AM
I see, so Soderling is a better player than Nadal?. Sure.

Oh but he sure was better than Nadal at that specific tournament, which is what matters in this discussion.

Don't even act like you know what would happen if Nadal made it to the finals that year, for all we know Federer beat him convincingly in straights in the last clay tournament they played just before RG.

Nadal on the other hand doesn't have the same benefit of doubt as he was straight setted in the last two clay court finals he played against Djokovic this year.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-18-2011, 08:47 AM
No nš 1 in tennis history has lost so much so often so big against his nš 2 like Federer vs Nadal.The most uneven head to head between a nš 1 and a nš 2 in the last 50 years
Laver vs Rosewall, Borg vs Connors/Mac, Lendl vs Mac or Wilander, Becker vs Edberg, even Sampras vs AgassiĄĄĄ

Doesn't that mean that when Sampras was #1, he was playing in a weak era?

kiki
12-18-2011, 08:50 AM
Doesn't that mean that when Sampras was #1, he was playing in a weak era?

No, because Agassi beat Sampras at the FO,USO,AO and Stich beat him at the Masters, Bruguera and Courier at the FO or USO...

Now, Federer never lost to anyone other than Nadal ( except once to Djokovic and once to Del Potro in major finals)

2 out of 6 makes a 33%.

If you look at the duels between GOAT candidates opposing each other, one as the nš 1 and the other as nš 2, you wonīt find that huge difference.Talking about major finals (Slams,WCT,Masters)

abmk
12-18-2011, 08:54 AM
No, because Agassi beat Sampras at the FO,USO,AO and Stich beat him at the Masters, Bruguera and Courier at the FO or USO...

Now, Federer never lost to anyone other than Nadal ( except once to Djokovic and once to Del Potro in major finals)

2 out of 6 makes a 33%.

If you look at the duels between GOAT candidates opposing each other, one as the nš 1 and the other as nš 2, you wonīt find that huge difference.Talking about major finals (Slams,WCT,Masters)

Agassi did not beat Sampras at the USO ever ..... Can't even get the facts right !

If we are considering slams and the YEC overall ( why just the finals ?) , federer is 5-7 vs nadal ....

Oh and yeah, djoker hasn't beat federer in a major final ....

phnx90
12-18-2011, 08:54 AM
Had Djokovic not played like holy mother of God this year, Rafa would probably have 12 slams and 25 masters titles.

But unfortunately for me, Djokovic did play amazingly this year and there's no point thinking about the "what if"s, so yes, I agree with OP.

kiki
12-18-2011, 08:55 AM
Agassi did not beat Sampras at the USO ever ..... Can't even get the facts right !

If we are considering slams and the YEC overall ( why just the finals ?) , federer is 5-7 vs nadal ....

... and what is worse.Look at the FO finals scores...some baggelsĄĄĄĄ

DjokovicForTheWin
12-18-2011, 08:57 AM
No, because Agassi beat Sampras at the FO,USO,AO and Stich beat him at the Masters, Bruguera and Courier at the FO or USO...

Now, Federer never lost to anyone other than Nadal ( except once to Djokovic and once to Del Potro in major finals)

2 out of 6 makes a 33%.

If you look at the duels between GOAT candidates opposing each other, one as the nš 1 and the other as nš 2, you wonīt find that huge difference.Talking about major finals (Slams,WCT,Masters)

If Sampras was more dominant than Federer, than why didn't he win more slams? So losing to more players is better than losing to fewer? What would Sampras' record look like against Agassi or Brugera had he been good enough to get to more FO finals?

kiki
12-18-2011, 09:00 AM
If Sampras was more dominant than Federer, than why didn't he win more slams? So losing to more players is better than losing to fewer? What would Sampras' record look like against Agassi or Brugera had he been good enough to get to more FO finals?

Bruguera and Agassi beat easily Sampras at paris in QF or SF matches.

I didnīt say Sampras being more dominant than Fed, just the opposite.Reason is, of course, number and level of real competitors.

abmk
12-18-2011, 09:06 AM
... and what is worse.Look at the FO finals scores...some baggelsĄĄĄĄ

jeez, you are the epitome of 'cluelessness' and yet keep on arguing though you have no idea about modern day tennis .

Here get this through your head, some facts that might get you out of your delusion that nadal dominates every set on clay vs federer .....

since 2000, federer has been bagelled only once, yes only once, in the FO 2008 final , by nadal.

He has bagelled nadal thrice, wimbledon 2006 final on grass, 2007 hamburg final on clay and 2011 Masters RR on indoor hard ......

kiki
12-18-2011, 09:08 AM
jeez, you are the epitome of 'cluelessness' and yet keep on arguing though you have no idea about modern day tennis .

Here get this through your head, some facts that might get you out of your delusion that nadal dominates every set on clay vs federer .....

since 2000, federer has been bagelled only once, yes only once, in the FO 2008 final , by nadal.

He has bagelled nadal thrice, wimbledon 2006 final on grass, 2007 hamburg final on clay and 2011 Masters RR on indoor hard ......

Can you transcript the results of the FO finals...did ever Federer extendned Nadal to 5 sets.Unmature grass Nadal took him to 5 sets in 2007, and almost beat him, whicn never, absolutley never Federer could do on clay.

And Hamburg and YEC round robin is just peanuts.No player plays full strength in a rr, everybody knows that if he has seen a minimum of tennis ( from the 70īs on)

abmk
12-18-2011, 09:15 AM
Can you transcript the results of the FO finals...did ever Federer extendned Nadal to 5 sets.Unmature grass Nadal took him to 5 sets in 2007, and almost beat him, whicn never, absolutley never Federer could do on clay.

And Hamburg and YEC round robin is just peanuts.No player plays full strength in a rr, everybody knows that if he has seen a minimum of tennis ( from the 70īs on)

Why should I post the results ....... Anyone arguing about Fedal should know them , atleast have an inkling of how close they were........ But hey, wait, I forgot I am talking to clueless kiki !!! Go the ATP site and check for yourself !

Nadal was ready on grass in 2007 btw. He was playing phenomenal tennis in the finals ...

Hamburg was peanuts ? It broke nadal's 81 winning streak on clay ... But of course, you wouldn't know that considering you are totally clueless about modern day tennis ....

Regarding their Masters 2011 match, even if no one supposedly plays full strength, wouldn't a half-decent player try not to get bagelled ?

kiki
12-18-2011, 09:22 AM
Why should I post the results ....... Anyone arguing about Fedal should know them , atleast have an inkling of how close they were........ But hey, wait, I forgot I am talking to clueless kiki !!! Go the ATP site and check for yourself !

Nadal was ready on grass in 2007 btw. He was playing phenomenal tennis in the finals ...

Hamburg was peanuts ? It broke nadal's 81 winning streak on clay ...

Regarding their Masters 2011 match, even if no one supposedly plays full strength, wouldn't a half-decent player try not to get bagelled ?

I think that Federer crying in Australia, against an injury prone Nadal, said it all.It was unability and I can understand that Fed fans took it so badly.

How many sets did Fed take off Nadal at RG?

As I said, before claiming to be a better players than other generationīs players, one should prove he is better than his nš 2 isnīt it?

When facing true rivals, Fed won just a few slams.That is why I put him in the Roy Emerson league.Nothing to see with true men leagues like Borgīs, laverīs and possibly Sampras.For the WTA yes but for ATP?

NamRanger
12-18-2011, 09:23 AM
I think that Federer crying in Australia, against an injury prone Nadal, said it all.It was unability and I can understand that Fed fans took it so badly.

How many sets did Fed take off Nadal at RG?

As I said, before claiming to be a better players than other generationīs players, one should prove he is better than his nš 2 isnīt it?

When facing true rivals, Fed won just a few slams.That is why I put him in the Roy Emerson league.Nothing to see with true men leagues like Borgīs, laverīs and possibly Sampras.For the WTA yes but for ATP?



Repeat, I repeat, banned TW user has been spotted.

abmk
12-18-2011, 09:26 AM
Repeat, I repeat, banned TW user has been spotted.

no, he's a new one. Just as clueless as the likes of nadal_freak, ********* etc. though ...

kiki
12-18-2011, 09:28 AM
no, he's a new one. Just as clueless as the likes of nadal_freak, ********* etc. though ...

Memorable quotes by TT posters:

" Thanks to Kiki, I am a born again Christian.I believe in ROD.I always be in debt with KIki for opening my eyes when I was a neophite" (Fedrulz, 2020, in his Graduation Speech)

" How could I be a *******.Kiki enlighten my live with his enormous knowledge and deep insight " (ABMK, 2030, in his marriage speech)

" Kiki told me the difference between " perception " and " reality" (TMF, 2022, after receiving his driving license)

"I didnīt know what a real man was before meeting him" (Nadal Agassi...)

" ŋ Who said minor stabbing? " " Thanks to Kiki, now I know what the difference could habe been.." (Joe Pike, 2060, last words before passing away)

EXTRACT FROM THE TEAM TENNIS MAGAZINE, 2065

"One of the greatest posters and tennis experts, KIKI, was buried yesterday in the Royal Box end of the Centre Court.He allowed the AELTC to bury him after the Club had definitely come back to old grass.He rests for ever between the corpses of Rod Laver and Don Budge, the only 2 men, till date, to win a Gran Slam.

Among those crying him bye bye were aknowledged kikitards, like TMF,Fed Rulz,Aphex,NadalAgassi,ABMK who opened a TT Memorial page : How I was born again thanks to Kiki"

abmk
12-18-2011, 09:29 AM
I think that Federer crying in Australia, against an injury prone Nadal, said it all.It was unability and I can understand that Fed fans took it so badly.

clueless, he's cried on many occasion when he's won too .... AO 2006, FO 2009 , wimbledon 2003 ( all finals ) etc ......its just because he's emotional, not because he lost

How many sets did Fed take off Nadal at RG?

a set on every encounter , apart from 2008 ......

As I said, before claiming to be a better players than other generationīs players, one should prove he is better than his nš 2 isnīt it?

he has, by winning 16 majors to his rival's 10

When facing true rivals, Fed won just a few slams.That is why I put him in the Roy Emerson league.Nothing to see with true men leagues like Borgīs, laverīs and possibly Sampras.For the WTA yes but for ATP?

ok Nam, on reading this again, I revise my previous statement ..... He's dumber than that lot !!

abmk
12-18-2011, 09:31 AM
Memorable quotes by TT posters:

......blah ....blah ....blah.......blah ......blah



This is what you are:

http://www.dailylolpics.com/wp-content/uploads/cache/who-wants-to-be-a-millionaire-fail.jpg

NamRanger
12-18-2011, 09:32 AM
no, he's a new one. Just as clueless as the likes of nadal_freak, ********* etc. though ...



Negative, look at his join date. He just decided to start posting again out of the blue. Clearly multiple accounts.

abmk
12-18-2011, 09:34 AM
Negative, look at his join date. He just decided to start posting again out of the blue. Clearly multiple accounts.

I meant relatively new .....- atleast in the general section ...

he used to post quite a bit in the former pro player section earlier ..... A load of cr*p there too ....

Biscuitmcgriddleson
12-18-2011, 09:35 AM
Can you transcript the results of the FO finals...did ever Federer extendned Nadal to 5 sets.Unmature grass Nadal took him to 5 sets in 2007, and almost beat him, whicn never, absolutley never Federer could do on clay.

And Hamburg and YEC round robin is just peanuts.No player plays full strength in a rr, everybody knows that if he has seen a minimum of tennis ( from the 70īs on)

LOL! No one plays full strength in RR. So that is Nadal's new excuse.... you never play full strength in round robin no?

kiki
12-18-2011, 09:36 AM
Negative, look at his join date. He just decided to start posting again out of the blue. Clearly multiple accounts.

...and which was my former name, son?

kiki
12-18-2011, 09:38 AM
Negative, look at his join date. He just decided to start posting again out of the blue. Clearly multiple accounts.


Can you write your future post, so Iīll include it for OLD PLAYERS SECTIONĄ

Thanks for your kindness


Memorable quotes by TT posters:

" Thanks to Kiki, I am a born again Christian.I believe in ROD.I always be in debt with KIki for opening my eyes when I was a neophite" (Fedrulz, 2020, in his Graduation Speech)

" How could I be a *******.Kiki enlighten my live with his enormous knowledge and deep insight " (ABMK, 2030, in his marriage speech)

" Kiki told me the difference between " perception " and " reality" (TMF, 2022, after receiving his driving license)

"I didnīt know what a real man was before meeting him" (Nadal Agassi...)

" ŋ Who said minor stabbing? " " Thanks to Kiki, now I know what the difference could habe been.." (Joe Pike, 2060, last words before passing away)

EXTRACT FROM THE TEAM TENNIS MAGAZINE, 2065

"One of the greatest posters and tennis experts, KIKI, was buried yesterday in the Royal Box end of the Centre Court.He allowed the AELTC to bury him after the Club had definitely come back to old grass.He rests for ever between the corpses of Rod Laver and Don Budge, the only 2 men, till date, to win a Gran Slam.

Among those crying him bye bye were aknowledged kikitards, like TMF,Fed Rulz,Aphex,NadalAgassi,ABMK who opened a TT Memorial page : How I was born again thanks to Kiki"

DjokovicForTheWin
12-18-2011, 09:40 AM
Can you write your future post, so Iīll include it for OLD PLAYERS SECTIONĄ

Thanks for your kindness


Memorable quotes by TT posters:

" Thanks to Kiki, I am a born again Christian.I believe in ROD.I always be in debt with KIki for opening my eyes when I was a neophite" (Fedrulz, 2020, in his Graduation Speech)

" How could I be a *******.Kiki enlighten my live with his enormous knowledge and deep insight " (ABMK, 2030, in his marriage speech)

" Kiki told me the difference between " perception " and " reality" (TMF, 2022, after receiving his driving license)

"I didnīt know what a real man was before meeting him" (Nadal Agassi...)

" ŋ Who said minor stabbing? " " Thanks to Kiki, now I know what the difference could habe been.." (Joe Pike, 2060, last words before passing away)

EXTRACT FROM THE TEAM TENNIS MAGAZINE, 2065

"One of the greatest posters and tennis experts, KIKI, was buried yesterday in the Royal Box end of the Centre Court.He allowed the AELTC to bury him after the Club had definitely come back to old grass.He rests for ever between the corpses of Rod Laver and Don Budge, the only 2 men, till date, to win a Gran Slam.

Among those crying him bye bye were aknowledged kikitards, like TMF,Fed Rulz,Aphex,NadalAgassi,ABMK who opened a TT Memorial page : How I was born again thanks to Kiki"

LOL, now I believe this one.

dh003i
12-18-2011, 10:02 AM
[quote]Really?. I was under the impression he had played Novak many times before this year... (yes, he qualified as a great player then too).

Perhaps I didn't state this precisely enough. A "consistently great player".

dh003i
12-18-2011, 10:13 AM
A fair point but still the fact remains that aside from Novak Nadal was destroying the field which means if Novak for whatever reason can't keep his high level of play Nadal will be there to take advantage if he himself remains on his 2011 level of play.

Assuming the field remains the same, Nadal regains his level of 2011, etc. I think that Tsonga is beginning to become a more consistent player, and think he may be the next player to emerge (then again, he may not). If he plays consistently, he has the weapons and athleticism to trouble anyone on any surface.

Of course that attitude is stupid. However Nadal fans are not entirely to blame for that one, lots of fans of various former players(Sampras in particular) were extremely butthurt Fed won FO in 2009 which is when all that nonsense started, it's hard to say who was more angry at that time, various historians (former pro section regulars) or Nadal fans.

Well, I think Nadal fans are to blame for their own attitude. It is too bad that Sampras fans are so sore about it, since Sampras himself was very congratulatory towards Federer (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/jun/08/tennis-roger-federer-pete-sampras).

True, Novak doesn't have a safe pattern against Fed like Nadal does so beating him is quite impressive, Fed even at 29-30 can still play ball and was arguably the toughest challenge to overcome for Novak this year.




[quote]I didn't disagree (I think I said I agree in a way), Nadal has been somewhat lucky that he posed such tough match-up problems for the most dominant player of this era but he still had to dig hard for many of his wins over Roger so he has to get credit for that, it's Federer's problem that he never found a good solution against Nadal.

Well, Nadal didn't win against Federer at Wimbledon until the year he was affected by mono, and he still hasn't found a solution for Federer at the conditions the WTF are played in.

I don't he has declined overall to any serious degree. Having an issue with one particular player is hardly decline, Nadal made a ton of masters+slam finals this year which is evidence enough that he's doing great against the field overall, he just can't find the answer for one player.

Just going by that, no. But by the way he has played, I think he has lost a step and has lost some sting on his shots. He never regained that serve he had at he 2010 USO, although maybe that motion put too much stress on his body (although I'm sure there are plenty of conspiracy theories about how he suddenly started serving significantly better, I suspect the more likely explanation is it was a motion that wasn't sustainable).

tennis_pro
12-18-2011, 10:35 AM
Can you transcript the results of the FO finals...did ever Federer extendned Nadal to 5 sets.Unmature grass Nadal took him to 5 sets in 2007, and almost beat him, whicn never, absolutley never Federer could do on clay.

And Hamburg and YEC round robin is just peanuts.No player plays full strength in a rr, everybody knows that if he has seen a minimum of tennis ( from the 70īs on)

Puhleaseee....I think there should be some kind of entrance exam for international users before they start posting

NadalAgassi
12-18-2011, 11:00 AM
I thought I would never see an individual as dumb as DjokovicFakeFanForWin again but kiki has proven that wrong.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-18-2011, 11:02 AM
I thought I would never see an individual as dumb as DjokovicFakeFanForWin again but kiki has proven that wrong.

you thought? wow there's a first. Congrats!

kiki
12-18-2011, 11:04 AM
I thought I would never see an individual as dumb as DjokovicFakeFanForWin again but kiki has proven that wrong.

" a smart guys wants always to look dumb when talking with a dumb guy that wants to look smart"

LOL

TMF
12-18-2011, 11:20 AM
What asylum have you escaped from?

Put the bottle down and walk away.

You need some Thorazine and a padded cell.

Cray Cray!

Watch him including your name on his next post. Pretty soon, he'll have 50 different names.

jones101
12-18-2011, 11:42 AM
Gaudio: "When I beat Nadal in Buenos Aires 2005, Nadal was 18 and so furious at the defeat that shredded all his rackets in the locker room"

http://twitter.com/#!/enricomariariva/status/148340496039809024

Rhino
12-18-2011, 11:45 AM
Nadal owns Federer in their head to head matches.By 3 times or so...

You're kidding me? I must look that up. Why hasn't this been discussed before?

Hitman
12-18-2011, 12:19 PM
clueless, he's cried on many occasion when he's won too .... AO 2006, FO 2009 , wimbledon 2003 ( all finals ) etc ......its just because he's emotional, not because he lost



Federer was crying even when he beat Sampras in '01. I don't think anyone can question his passion for this game. Whether he wins or loses, he shows that he gives a damn about his profession, and it isn't all about the money. It's about the love he has for this sport, and it is in this human element that he expresses, that his fans find that unique quality of a champion.

nadalwon2012
12-18-2011, 12:36 PM
Federer seems to enjoy winning/hate losing more than anything to do with tennis. If you adore tennis then you don't treat a loss like it's the end of the world. You treat victory and defeat as the same imposter, as the Wimbledon saying goes. Federer is just a sore loser. People who truly love tennis are able to appreciate everything, not just the end result.

Crazy man
12-18-2011, 12:37 PM
you thought? wow there's a first. Congrats!

Didn't you try to 'out me out' as a banned user? Just curious.......

nadalwon2012
12-18-2011, 12:41 PM
Yes, Mr.Obvious, he doesn't need to serve-volley now. But he'd need to do it a bit if the conditions were different. Borg's groundgame was outstanding as well , but he SnVed quite a bit on grass.

Yes, nadal is rarely at his best after the USO, yet has no problems dispatching players in the Davis Cup when it is played on clay, after USO !

At bold part, LOL, LOL, LOL , ha ha ha ... He almost lost to Fish, lost to tsonga and got thrashed big time by federer , that's impressive ???? LMAO !

Federer needed a 6-4 3rd set to beat Fish, and a close 3rd set to beat Tsonga. So why do you have a problem with Nadal beating Fish in a tight match? Fish and Tsonga both gave Federer hell. And of course Nadal won the Davis Cup on clay. He's won 77 of his 78 best-of-5 set matches on clay. Why should he lose (although he did get whooped by Del Potro in that 1st set and got down a break early in 2nd set)? Also, Davis Cup final means much more to Nadal than the WTF, obviously. Can you imagine the devastation if Spain lost it? Far worse than anything that could happen at the WTF (such as 2009 when Nadal did not even win a set).

tennis_pro
12-18-2011, 12:42 PM
Federer seems to enjoy winning/hate losing more than anything to do with tennis. If you adore tennis then you don't treat a loss like it's the end of the world. You treat victory and defeat as the same imposter, as the Wimbledon saying goes. Federer is just a sore loser. People who truly love tennis are able to appreciate everything, not just the end result.

this coming from a nadal fan

hahahaha

tennis_pro
12-18-2011, 12:44 PM
Federer needed a 6-4 3rd set to beat Fish, and a close 3rd set to beat Tsonga. So why do you have a problem with Nadal beating Fish in a tight match? Fish and Tsonga both gave Federer hell.

no they didn't, Federer upped his game in a blink of an eye against Fish but he was never any danger of him losing that match. Same with Tsonga, he wasn't in a winning position against Federer at any point of the match.

Nadal was down a break in the final set against Fish and won barely 7-6 in the third, lost to Tsonga in the third RR also pretty handily in the end.

nadalwon2012
12-18-2011, 12:53 PM
A close match is a close match. Federer was simply out-hit by Tsonga for portions of those matches (as almost always happens when Tsonga plays Federer, for portions when Tsonga has sky-high confidence). Fish, sure Federer didn't play his best, but neither did Nadal when he played Fish. Not much difference, other than the fact that Federer is simply a better indoor player. Nadal wasn't in great form, so the fact he got so close to Tsonga, and beat Fish is impressive. Nadal wasn't far from making the semis at all. The Tsonga match was freakishly close.

merlinpinpin
12-18-2011, 01:04 PM
A close match is a close match. Federer was simply out-hit by Tsonga for portions of those matches (as almost always happens when Tsonga plays Federer, for portions when Tsonga has sky-high confidence). Fish, sure Federer didn't play his best, but neither did Nadal when he played Fish. Not much difference, other than the fact that Federer is simply a better indoor player. Nadal wasn't in great form, so the fact he got so close to Tsonga, and beat Fish is impressive. Nadal wasn't far from making the semis at all. The Tsonga match was freakishly close.

Not sure what you're trying to prove, here. Comparing the Federer/Nadal RR matches against Fish and Tsonga? What's the point? Federer and Nadal also played a match against each other, so if you want to compare their respective levels, at least on the day of the match/week of the tournament, this match would be more useful. But once again, what's the point? Federer won the tournament, Nadal lost in the RR phase, just deal with it and stop trying to make excuses for him.

tennis_pro
12-18-2011, 01:12 PM
A close match is a close match. Federer was simply out-hit by Tsonga for portions of those matches (as almost always happens when Tsonga plays Federer, for portions when Tsonga has sky-high confidence). Fish, sure Federer didn't play his best, but neither did Nadal when he played Fish. Not much difference, other than the fact that Federer is simply a better indoor player. Nadal wasn't in great form, so the fact he got so close to Tsonga, and beat Fish is impressive. Nadal wasn't far from making the semis at all. The Tsonga match was freakishly close.

No it wasn't, Tsonga won convincingly in the end. He shouldn't even lost the 2nd set.

FEDERERNADAL13
12-18-2011, 01:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki View Post
Nadal owns Federer in their head to head matches.By 3 times or so...

So 17 divided by 9 equals 3 or so? weird, I got out a calculator and it says 17/9= 1.89

so the ratio is 1.89:1, not 3 or so:1

Just saying, its an often used argument, at least use it correctly ;)

kiki
12-18-2011, 01:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiki View Post
Nadal owns Federer in their head to head matches.By 3 times or so...

So 17 divided by 9 equals 3 or so? weird, I got out a calculator and it says 17/9= 1.89

so the ratio is 1.89:1, not 3 or so:1

Just saying, its an often used argument, at least use it correctly ;)

6 major wins to 2 defeats: exactly 3

Fate Archer
12-18-2011, 01:59 PM
Gaudio: "When I beat Nadal in Buenos Aires 2005, Nadal was 18 and so furious at the defeat that shredded all his rackets in the locker room"

http://twitter.com/#!/enricomariariva/status/148340496039809024

Wow didn't know that.. what a sore loser. The bagels on his favorite surface must have been hurting I guess... :lol: :lol:

As we saw in the evolution of the Rafa's and Nole's handshake (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkfIuA46V0Q), deep down Rafito hates losing more than he likes winning out of everyone, such is the competitive nature of him. It's like Connors in the 70's and 80's, except Rafito will never come even close to play as much as Connors did to his late 30's and even 40's. If he plays until his 30's and late 20's that will be a huge achievement for him.

I think that's why he's so adamant at winning, he never wants to find himself in losing positions. He simply doesn't know how to deal with it. It was kind of gross how he portrayed himself in all those trophy presentations this year (oh, except when he played on clay and won, seems like he's having a hard time winning anywhere except clay, he's always good on clay).

Roger on the other hand is really a true sport lover and deep down understands that you win some and you lose some. It's always tough the moment he loses but he always bounces back strong, that's because he understands and loves the nature of the sport, and for that reason he's gonna play and win much more, for the sorrow of the haters.

Go Rogi... :)

DjokovicForTheWin
12-18-2011, 02:00 PM
6 major wins to 2 defeats: exactly 3

Yes but head to head is more than just majors, no?

kiki
12-18-2011, 02:03 PM
Yes but head to head is more than just majors, no?

I just wanted to explain why Roger ***** his pants at the idea of meeting nadal in a slam final, he doesnīt beat Nadal at any GS match since 2007.Almost 5 years ago.And I am not, by any means, a Nadal fan.I canīt care the less for them.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-18-2011, 02:06 PM
I just wanted to explain why Roger ***** his pants at the idea of meeting nadal in a slam final, he doesnīt beat Nadal at any GS match since 2007.Almost 5 years ago.And I am not, by any means, a Nadal fan.I canīt care the less for them.

Sure that's true, and yet despite that Nadal has only out done Fed 7-4 in slam victories since that time. Why not more? Why didn't Nadal meet Fed at USO09? Injury? Please healthy is a part of tennis. In the same way Nadal uses goes to Fed 's BH, is the same as Nadal not being able to keep his health. It's a liability. Nadal is simply lucky that bad health doesn't count against him in H2H.

But you see, bad health does count against him in slam victories. Hence overall slam wins is much more important.

FlashFlare11
12-18-2011, 02:24 PM
Wow didn't know that.. what a sore loser. The bagels on his favorite surface must have been hurting I guess... :lol: :lol:

As we saw in the evolution of the Rafa's and Nole's handshake (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkfIuA46V0Q), deep down Rafito hates losing more than he likes winning out of everyone, such is the competitive nature of him. It's like Connors in the 70's and 80's, except Rafito will never come even close to play as much as Connors did to his late 30's and even 40's. If he plays until his 30's and late 20's that will be a huge achievement for him.

I think that's why he's so adamant at winning, he never wants to find himself in losing positions. He simply doesn't know how to deal with it. It was kind of gross how he portrayed himself in all those trophy presentations this year (oh, except when he played on clay and won, seems like he's having a hard time winning anywhere except clay, he's always good on clay).

Roger on the other hand is really a true sport lover and deep down understands that you win some and you lose some. It's always tough the moment he loses but he always bounces back strong, that's because he understands and loves the nature of the sport, and for that reason he's gonna play and win much more, for the sorrow of the haters.

Go Rogi... :)

I could not agree more. When watching Roger play, it's so obvious to anyone that he loves tennis. He loves every aspect of it. What some are failing to understand is that him crying at the AO09 ceremony was a result of him giving everything he had and still coming up short.

With all the complaining about shortening the schedule, 2-year ranking, loss of passion, Rafa clearly doesn't love tennis as much as Roger does. He seems to love winning and would probably have easily chosen a different sport if he had a greater chance of succeeding in it.

Crisstti
12-18-2011, 02:27 PM
Oh but he sure was better than Nadal at that specific tournament, which is what matters in this discussion.

Don't even act like you know what would happen if Nadal made it to the finals that year, for all we know Federer beat him convincingly in straights in the last clay tournament they played just before RG.

Nadal on the other hand doesn't have the same benefit of doubt as he was straight setted in the last two clay court finals he played against Djokovic this year.

I think the thread of the discussion was a little lost here, lol. As far as I remember, this came from someone saying that Fed is better on his worse surface (clay) than Rafa is at his (HC), because of the amount of RG finals Fed has reached. I said I probably agreed, but that it seemed arguable to me since Rafa, though having reached just two HC slam finals, won both of them against tougher opponents (Federer and Djokovic) than against whom Fed won his RG (Soderling).

I think we can all agree that Rafa (and Fed and Novak) is a better player than Soderling. This really has nothing to do with how Rafa would have don had he eventually reached that RG final.

Now, Federer never lost to anyone other than Nadal ( except once to Djokovic and once to Del Potro in major finals)

I don't think Fed has lost to Novak on slam finals...

clueless, he's cried on many occasion when he's won too .... AO 2006, FO 2009 , wimbledon 2003 ( all finals ) etc ......its just because he's emotional, not because he lost

Well, he clearly cried because he was frustrated about the loss in AO 2009.

Unlike many Nadal fans here though, I really don't hold it against him.

Perhaps I didn't state this precisely enough. A "consistently great player".

Novak was a consistently great player before this year. He had been top 3, then top 2, for years now. He just didn't have the confidence and fitness he's had this year.

Assuming the field remains the same, Nadal regains his level of 2011, etc. I think that Tsonga is beginning to become a more consistent player, and think he may be the next player to emerge (then again, he may not). If he plays consistently, he has the weapons and athleticism to trouble anyone on any surface.


I doubt it. I don't think his case is comparable to Djokovic's. He has been way less consistent... and how old is he already?.

But you see, bad health does count against him in slam victories. Hence overall slam wins is much more important.

Mmmm... I'd agree slam wins are more important, but surely not because of that.

Crisstti
12-18-2011, 02:34 PM
Wow didn't know that.. what a sore loser. The bagels on his favorite surface must have been hurting I guess... :lol: :lol:

As we saw in the evolution of the Rafa's and Nole's handshake (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkfIuA46V0Q), deep down Rafito hates losing more than he likes winning out of everyone, such is the competitive nature of him. It's like Connors in the 70's and 80's, except Rafito will never come even close to play as much as Connors did to his late 30's and even 40's. If he plays until his 30's and late 20's that will be a huge achievement for him.

I think that's why he's so adamant at winning, he never wants to find himself in losing positions. He simply doesn't know how to deal with it. It was kind of gross how he portrayed himself in all those trophy presentations this year (oh, except when he played on clay and won, seems like he's having a hard time winning anywhere except clay, he's always good on clay).

Roger on the other hand is really a true sport lover and deep down understands that you win some and you lose some. It's always tough the moment he loses but he always bounces back strong, that's because he understands and loves the nature of the sport, and for that reason he's gonna play and win much more, for the sorrow of the haters.

Go Rogi... :)

Well, that has to be the most troll like post I've seen from you.

So Rafa is a sore loser IF he broke some rackets when he was an 18 year old kid, in the locker room, and yet Fed is a good sport despite him doing the same during a match, when in his 20's?.

I could not agree more. When watching Roger play, it's so obvious to anyone that he loves tennis. He loves every aspect of it. What some are failing to understand is that him crying at the AO09 ceremony was a result of him giving everything he had and still coming up short.

With all the complaining about shortening the schedule, 2-year ranking, loss of passion, Rafa clearly doesn't love tennis as much as Roger does. He seems to love winning and would probably have easily chosen a different sport if he had a greater chance of succeeding in it.

Sure, because that has nothing to do with his injury problems... and someone posted around here an interview from Fed from 2010 where he said something about how it was normal to lose some passion when you were at a certain stage of your career (or something to that effect).

It's only in some people's fantasy world that Rafa - being the bad guy they think he is - cannot love tennis the way Fed does...

But I agree that Rafa would quite for sure have chosen football if he thought he was as good at it as he was at tennis.

Cup8489
12-18-2011, 02:35 PM
Federer seems to enjoy winning/hate losing more than anything to do with tennis. If you adore tennis then you don't treat a loss like it's the end of the world. You treat victory and defeat as the same imposter, as the Wimbledon saying goes. Federer is just a sore loser. People who truly love tennis are able to appreciate everything, not just the end result.

Right, because he goes around always complaining about the scheduling, and how there should be a 2 year ranking, and less hardcourts, shorter schedules.. always has an excuse for every loss, has lost 6 times to one guy and gotten increasingly sour in every facet of his attitude that is shown in public...



Oh, wait..



I don't remember seeing Federer cry at any of his losses this year...hmm. Just a guy being disappointed for losing, but accepting it WITHOUT making an excuse...

You are really full of nonsense.

Towser83
12-18-2011, 02:36 PM
Wimbledon 2008 and AO 2009...

I don't think Rafa needs to equal or surpass Fed's slam count anyway, to be better than him. The slam count is skewed because of the surface distribution...



He was injured.

Agree I wouldn't, right now, consider Rafa the favourite to win RG next year.

In a way you could say it's skewed but also it's not as if there's 3 majors on grass and Nadal can't play on grass. Yes there are 2 on hardcourt, but hardcourt has been the dominant surface since Rafa started playing, so there was an option there to be clay court player and maybe develop on other surfaces later, or to develop an all court game earlier. I mean Federer has been dominat on 2 out of 3 surfaces. 6 Wimbledons from 7 finals, 5 US Open's from 6 finals, 4 AOs from 5 finals. Apart from Nadal's 6 FOs his next best slam is Wimbledon on grass where he's won twice. He has made an impressive 5 finals but was shown to be 2nd best in 3 of them. Even by Djokovic who had never been to a final before. Out of his 2 wins he beat a low confidence Federer when he himself was at his best. Now the way Nadal played at RG this year, even an old Federer beating him wouldn't earn much respect, nevermind if Federer was a youngster in his prime on clay. So what am I saying? Well Nadal is master of clay but on hardcourt he is not the 2nd best player of the last 5-10 years and on grass he is very solid but still far behind Federer. So although there is a surface skew, if you are able to be dominant on 2 out of 3 surfaces rather than 1 out of 3 and just sometimes dangerous on the other 2, then you are a beter all round player regardless of how the slams fall surface wise. Also where is the indoor hardcourt slam? ;)

To the point of the article, they are basically tied at Nadal's current age vs Federer's achievements at the same age, I think Nadal will overtake Federer again with a AO 2012 win or fall behind without it, but it's basically all to play for and Djokovic has a big say in it, and since Federer is bound to meet him in the semis all the time, he has a big say too.

Fate Archer
12-18-2011, 02:53 PM
I think the thread of the discussion was a little lost here, lol. As far as I remember, this came from someone saying that Fed is better on his worse surface (clay) than Rafa is at his (HC), because of the amount of RG finals Fed has reached. I said I probably agreed, but that it seemed arguable to me since Rafa, though having reached just two HC slam finals, won both of them against tougher opponents (Federer and Djokovic) than against whom Fed won his RG (Soderling).

I think we can all agree that Rafa (and Fed and Novak) is a better player than Soderling. This really has nothing to do with how Rafa would have don had he eventually reached that RG final.

Ok then, I thought you were just trying to discredit Fed's RG like some clueless posters do.

Well, that has to be the most troll like post I've seen from you.

So Rafa is a sore loser IF he broke some rackets when he was an 18 year old kid, in the locker room, and yet Fed is a good sport despite him doing the same during a match, when in his 20's?.

Actually, it probably was, sorry that you've been caught in the midst of it, but let's get on with it:

Seems like Nadal actually shredded ALL his racquets AFTER the match was over. It wasn't just one in the first place, but according to Gaudio's report they were ALL shredded.

Second, the match wasn't even over when Fed threw and broke his racquet. That was more due to frustration so what he did (and he rarely does that), was finding a frustration outlet. It's more a frustration outlet than sore losing, which obviously seems the case in Gaudio's report.

Crisstti
12-18-2011, 02:57 PM
Right, because he goes around always complaining about the scheduling, and how there should be a 2 year ranking, and less hardcourts, shorter schedules.. always has an excuse for every loss, has lost 6 times to one guy and gotten increasingly sour in every facet of his attitude that is shown in public...



Oh, wait..



I don't remember seeing Federer cry at any of his losses this year...hmm. Just a guy being disappointed for losing, but accepting it WITHOUT making an excuse...

You are really full of nonsense.

You mean apart from claiming the another player was lucky?.

It's just not true that Nadal "always has an excuse for every loss".

In a way you could say it's skewed but also it's not as if there's 3 majors on grass and Nadal can't play on grass. Yes there are 2 on hardcourt, but hardcourt has been the dominant surface since Rafa started playing, so there was an option there to be clay court player and maybe develop on other surfaces later, or to develop an all court game earlier. I mean Federer has been dominat on 2 out of 3 surfaces. 6 Wimbledons from 7 finals, 5 US Open's from 6 finals, 4 AOs from 5 finals. Apart from Nadal's 6 FOs his next best slam is Wimbledon on grass where he's won twice. He has made an impressive 5 finals but was shown to be 2nd best in 3 of them. Even by Djokovic who had never been to a final before. Out of his 2 wins he beat a low confidence Federer when he himself was at his best. Now the way Nadal played at RG this year, even an old Federer beating him wouldn't earn much respect, nevermind if Federer was a youngster in his prime on clay. So what am I saying? Well Nadal is master of clay but on hardcourt he is not the 2nd best player of the last 5-10 years and on grass he is very solid but still far behind Federer. So although there is a surface skew, if you are able to be dominant on 2 out of 3 surfaces rather than 1 out of 3 and just sometimes dangerous on the other 2, then you are a beter all round player regardless of how the slams fall surface wise. Also where is the indoor hardcourt slam? ;)

To the point of the article, they are basically tied at Nadal's current age vs Federer's achievements at the same age, I think Nadal will overtake Federer again with a AO 2012 win or fall behind without it, but it's basically all to play for and Djokovic has a big say in it, and since Federer is bound to meet him in the semis all the time, he has a big say too.

I'm sure Rafa must have developed his all court game as fast as he could (especially since I saw that video on YouTube when he's 15 or so and says he prefers grass and HC to clay). His game simply works better on clay. So I don't think HC being the dominant surface since before Rafa started playing changes the fact that it just makes the slam count skewed against players who's best surface isn't HC.

I don't think talking about who they have beaten in their GS wins works in favour of Fed at all... which I think it's related to Federer having been able to dominate more in two surfaces, which I of course agree he has (though Rafa has certainly been more than "sometimes dangerous" on grass at least).

In any case, my point is that, if one were to "take out" the surface skew (not sure I quite explain myself there), Fed would have I think 11 slams and Rafa 9. I can't be bothered I'm afraid to check how numbers would look then in this age comparison thing.

PS: The HC indoor slam is in the same place where the clay indoor slam must be ;)

DjokovicForTheWin
12-18-2011, 03:03 PM
There's no proof that Nadal would beat Federer consistently if the court were clay indoor.

Crisstti
12-18-2011, 03:06 PM
Actually, it probably was, sorry that you've been caught in the midst of it, but let's get on with it:

Seems like Nadal actually shredded ALL his racquets AFTER the match was over. It wasn't just one in the first place, but according to Gaudio's report they were ALL shredded.

Second, the match wasn't even over when Fed threw and broke his racquet. That was more due to frustration so what he did (and he rarely does that), was finding a frustration outlet. It's more a frustration outlet than sore losing, which obviously seems the case in Gaudio's report.

I don't see the difference between both situations. Both are after all outlets for frustration, aren't they?. I'd say doing it after the match should be less bad, but then I might be biased :) (plus Rafa was just a kid then).

The report seems somewhat dubious to me anyway. It's not from Gaudio's Twitter. I'd like to see what he actually said. We also don't know if Fed has done that after matches too ;)

Crisstti
12-18-2011, 03:07 PM
There's no proof that Nadal would beat Federer consistently if the court were clay indoor.

Yeah, there is. Their h2h on clay (whatever that is, no doubt is very favourable to Rafa).

Indoor clay is still clay.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-18-2011, 03:10 PM
Yeah, there is. Their h2h on clay (whatever that is, no doubt is very favourable to Rafa).

Indoor clay is still clay.

Hmmm, well indoor HC is still HC is it not? Yet when it's not indoor, what the H2H between Fed and Nadal on HC?

celoft
12-18-2011, 03:11 PM
Nadal will never reach 16. Actually, he will not reach 14 either.

12 is the maximum I see him winning.

Crisstti
12-18-2011, 03:16 PM
Hmmm, well indoor HC is still HC is it not? Yet when it's not indoor, what the H2H between Fed and Nadal on HC?

Yes, indoor HC is still HC. I doubt the "indoor" part is the problem for Rafa. Most of the indoor HC matches he's played have been in the YEC, haven't they?. Wouldn't the low bounce there be the problem for Rafa rather than the roof?.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-18-2011, 03:18 PM
Yes, indoor HC is still HC. I doubt the "indoor" part is the problem for Rafa. Most of the indoor HC matches he's played have been in the YEC, haven't they?. Wouldn't the low bounce there be the problem for Rafa rather than the roof?.

No it's the roof most likely that helps Federer. US open doesn't have a very high bound either. Nadal low risk game can tolerate wind and outdoor conditions better than Federer's precision game. Hence there is no proof that Nadal would dominate Federer on clay if it were held indoors.

Hitman
12-18-2011, 03:21 PM
No it's the roof most likely that helps Federer. US open doesn't have a very high bound either. Nadal low risk game can tolerate wind and outdoor conditions better than Federer's precision game. Hence there is no proof that Nadal would dominate Federer on clay if it were held indoors.

What about Nadal's footwork on clay? How does that get effected? I still think he will move better on clay regardless of whether it is outside or inside. Just like Federer will move better on a hardcourt.

TMF
12-18-2011, 03:22 PM
Yeah, there is. Their h2h on clay (whatever that is, no doubt is very favourable to Rafa).

Indoor clay is still clay.

Yeah, but many of rafa fans have conceded that indoor environment is a disavantage for Nadal b/c there's no wind, sunlight, weather effects, etc...

You can't have both way.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-18-2011, 03:23 PM
I guess this means Federer would dominate Nadal on low bouncing clay? :)

Hitman
12-18-2011, 03:28 PM
I guess this means Federer would dominate Nadal on low bouncing clay? :)

Something tells me that Hamburg's conditions would be eerily similiar to indoor clay conditions, with no sun to cook the surface and make the ball bounce up high.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-18-2011, 03:28 PM
Something tells me that Hamburg's conditions would be eerily similiar to indoor clay conditions, with no sun to cook the surface and make the ball bounce up high.

And isn't that where Fed bageled Nadal on clay?

Crisstti
12-18-2011, 03:30 PM
No it's the roof most likely that helps Federer. US open doesn't have a very high bound either. Nadal low risk game can tolerate wind and outdoor conditions better than Federer's precision game. Hence there is no proof that Nadal would dominate Federer on clay if it were held indoors.

Yeah, but many of rafa fans have conceded that indoor environment is a disavantage for Nadal b/c there's no wind, sunlight, weather effects, etc...

You can't have both way.

I don't see it that way... don't think it makes much sense.

Hitman
12-18-2011, 03:32 PM
And isn't that where Fed bageled Nadal on clay?

oh yeah...you're right. He did in '07, snapping the 81 match win streak.

something just tells me that those conditions would be seen a lot on indoor clay, because Hamburg played a lot with the tent like roof, under almost no visible sunlight at most times.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-18-2011, 03:34 PM
oh yeah...you're right. He did in '07, snapping the 81 match win streak.

something just tells me that those conditions would be seen a lot on indoor clay, because Hamburg played a lot with the tent like roof, under almost no visible sunlight at most times.

So really Nadal can only beat Federer on clay because it's outdoor which affects the bounce. So if the FO were played indoor, Nadal would not have won none of them based on a lower bounce.

Hitman
12-18-2011, 03:36 PM
So really Nadal can only beat Federer on clay because it's outdoor which affects the bounce. So if the FO were played indoor, Nadal would not have won none of them based on a lower bounce.

I do agree that the low bounce will eliminate Nadal's biggest weapon against Federer. What do you think of Nadal's footwork on clay though? And how would you compare it to Federer? I think both have different dynamics, but would indoors effect that aspect also?

TMF
12-18-2011, 03:38 PM
I don't see it that way... don't think it makes much sense.

Oh sure...let's wait til rafa loses again and we will continue to hear why indoor is not a playground for rafa.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-18-2011, 03:39 PM
I do agree that the low bounce will eliminate Nadal's biggest weapon against Federer. What do you think of Nadal's footwork on clay though? And how would you compare it to Federer? I think both have different dynamics, but would indoors effect that aspect also?

Nadal's footwork on clay probably is better but not by much. However, the low bounce would eliminate any advantage Nadal has. The bounce appears to be the only thing that allows Nadal to compete on the same plane as Federer.

Hitman
12-18-2011, 03:46 PM
Nadal's footwork on clay probably is better but not by much. However, the low bounce would eliminate any advantage Nadal has. The bounce appears to be the only thing that allows Nadal to compete on the same plane as Federer.

I think Nadal's lateral movement on clay is very impressive. While I think forward movement, Federer is right there with him, I think they are almost equal there. I think the higher bounce allows Nadal to stand back further behind the baseline since the ball will kick up into his strikezone, allowing him to add even more top spin. Lower bounce would mean he would have to come forward.

What do you think of this? And what do you think of Nadal's agressive play on clay? Its not his natural style for sure, but he can step up onto the baseline and take massive cuts at the balls, lowering the trajectory.

Biscuitmcgriddleson
12-18-2011, 03:48 PM
I just wanted to explain why Roger ***** his pants at the idea of meeting nadal in a slam final, he doesnīt beat Nadal at any GS match since 2007.Almost 5 years ago.And I am not, by any means, a Nadal fan.I canīt care the less for them.

Nadal didn't make the 08 USO, 09 Wim, 09 FO, 09 USO, and 10 AO.

Fate Archer
12-18-2011, 04:08 PM
I don't see the difference between both situations. Both are after all outlets for frustration, aren't they?. I'd say doing it after the match should be less bad, but then I might be biased :) (plus Rafa was just a kid then).

The report seems somewhat dubious to me anyway. It's not from Gaudio's Twitter. I'd like to see what he actually said. We also don't know if Fed has done that after matches too ;)

The difference is that when the match is over, you move on. The fact that Fed did it mid match (like many players do, be honest and don't tell me Fed was the only or the first one you've seen to throw a racquet during a match) shows that 'sore losing' was far from beeing the reason he threw his racquet as the match was far from over at that point.

Unlike Nadal at that instance, who showed back then that he couldn't move on from that loss and took all over on his racquets at the locker room AFTER the match was over.

If Fed shredded all his racquets in a locker room recently I'm pretty sure we would know from someone's report as locker rooms are generally public places. He might have done when he was young too, but I'm not sure though...

DjokovicForTheWin
12-18-2011, 05:12 PM
I think Nadal's lateral movement on clay is very impressive. While I think forward movement, Federer is right there with him, I think they are almost equal there. I think the higher bounce allows Nadal to stand back further behind the baseline since the ball will kick up into his strikezone, allowing him to add even more top spin. Lower bounce would mean he would have to come forward.

What do you think of this? And what do you think of Nadal's agressive play on clay? Its not his natural style for sure, but he can step up onto the baseline and take massive cuts at the balls, lowering the trajectory.

Yes I think that makes sense. If Nadal had to play more forward he couldn't put as much spin on the ball since he'd have to hit a lot earlier.

ben123
12-18-2011, 06:30 PM
http://schend.net/images/funny/internet_serious_business.jpg

abmk
12-18-2011, 09:13 PM
Federer needed a 6-4 3rd set to beat Fish, and a close 3rd set to beat Tsonga. So why do you have a problem with Nadal beating Fish in a tight match? Fish and Tsonga both gave Federer hell. And of course Nadal won the Davis Cup on clay. He's won 77 of his 78 best-of-5 set matches on clay. Why should he lose (although he did get whooped by Del Potro in that 1st set and got down a break early in 2nd set)? Also, Davis Cup final means much more to Nadal than the WTF, obviously. Can you imagine the devastation if Spain lost it? Far worse than anything that could happen at the WTF (such as 2009 when Nadal did not even win a set).

federer was in full control of the match vs fish. He was never in the danger of losing ...

He was in control of the match in the finals vs tsonga as well, the RR match was a bit more tense though ....

But he wasn't close to losing in either of them. Not down a break in the final set at any time and didn't go to a breaker.

Tsonga could've beaten nadal in straights ... Fish took to a 3rd set breaker. Far closer than any of fed's matches ....

Of course you neglect the federer-nadal match ..... forgot the nightmare or just pretending ? :lol:

abmk
12-18-2011, 09:14 PM
Federer was crying even when he beat Sampras in '01. I don't think anyone can question his passion for this game. Whether he wins or loses, he shows that he gives a damn about his profession, and it isn't all about the money. It's about the love he has for this sport, and it is in this human element that he expresses, that his fans find that unique quality of a champion.

agree .....

FlashFlare11
12-18-2011, 09:16 PM
Sure, because that has nothing to do with his injury problems... and someone posted around here an interview from Fed from 2010 where he said something about how it was normal to lose some passion when you were at a certain stage of your career (or something to that effect).

It's only in some people's fantasy world that Rafa - being the bad guy they think he is - cannot love tennis the way Fed does...

But I agree that Rafa would quite for sure have chosen football if he thought he was as good at it as he was at tennis.

I'm sure it's normal to lose some passion at a certain stage in one's career. But Federer, at the time, was 29. Nadal is 25. Has he reached that stage of his career?

No one is saying it's a bad thing that Nadal doesn't have the same passion for tennis as Federer does. But how happy does Nadal look on court when playing? He and Federer do not have the same look on their faces when playing. Both of them should be playing to enjoy themselves at this point, as they both have achieved almost everything imaginable. But something about Nadal's demeanor looks more like he's doing a job as opposed to playing a sport he loves.

OddJack
12-18-2011, 09:29 PM
I'm sure it's normal to lose some passion at a certain stage in one's career. But Federer, at the time, was 29. Nadal is 25. Has he reached that stage of his career?

No one is saying it's a bad thing that Nadal doesn't have the same passion for tennis as Federer does. But how happy does Nadal look on court when playing? He and Federer do not have the same look on their faces when playing. Both of them should be playing to enjoy themselves at this point, as they both have achieved almost everything imaginable. But something about Nadal's demeanor looks more like he's doing a job as opposed to playing a sport he loves.


Right now Nadal is playing only to torture Toni.
And the highest level of torture is achieved when you lose a final, specially a major final.
That's his passion and motivation for the game.
Just reach final and then lose.

Sentinel
12-18-2011, 09:56 PM
Right now Nadal is playing only to torture Toni.
And the highest level of torture is achieved when you lose a final, specially a major final.
That's his passion and motivation for the game.
Just reach final and then lose.
agree .....

TheMusicLover
12-19-2011, 02:55 AM
I'm sure it's normal to lose some passion at a certain stage in one's career. But Federer, at the time, was 29. Nadal is 25. Has he reached that stage of his career?

No one is saying it's a bad thing that Nadal doesn't have the same passion for tennis as Federer does. But how happy does Nadal look on court when playing? He and Federer do not have the same look on their faces when playing. Both of them should be playing to enjoy themselves at this point, as they both have achieved almost everything imaginable. But something about Nadal's demeanor looks more like he's doing a job as opposed to playing a sport he loves.

Can't help but at least partially agree on this.
The difference between the 'passion' both show on court, imho, is that Federer still intrinsically appears to enjoy playing tennis, whether Nadal rather seems to enjoy winning more than playing the sport itself.

As you say, both have achieved almost everything imaginable. Of course, both of them still get upset at 'bad' losses, but somehow Federer seems to take them differently right now, fully realizing that he's got nothing to prove anymore. It somehow appears differently with Rafa right now, but I think we should take into account that in the past season it's been the first time that Rafa got confronted with a player having sorted him out, and that's new territory for him. It will be interesting to see how he will take on this in the coming season.

vernonbc
12-19-2011, 03:21 AM
Can't help but at least partially agree on this.
The difference between the 'passion' both show on court, imho, is that Federer still intrinsically appears to enjoy playing tennis, whether Nadal rather seems to enjoy winning more than playing the sport itself.


And I can't help but disagree strongly with this. One of the reasons I've never been able to warm up to Federer is his lack of passion or emotion on the court. He looks bored most of the time and thus I'm bored watching him. Rafa at least looks like he's intensely involved in the game and gets excited over good shots and good matches. He's great fun to watch. YMMV

Oh, and by the way, as to the claim by Gaudio that Rafa smashed his racquets, there are a number of people coming out and saying it just didn't happen. The stringer who was there at the tournament has completely denied Gaudio's story.

TheMusicLover
12-19-2011, 03:46 AM
And I can't help but disagree strongly with this. One of the reasons I've never been able to warm up to Federer is his lack of passion or emotion on the court. He looks bored most of the time and thus I'm bored watching him. Rafa at least looks like he's intensely involved in the game and gets excited over good shots and good matches. He's great fun to watch. YMMV

You are judging on their actions on court, I am judging on their overal presentation of themselves in general.
And Federer showing no passion or emotion on the court? Too funny.

OddJack
12-19-2011, 04:06 AM
You are judging on their actions on court, I am judging on their overal presentation of themselves in general.
And Federer showing no passion or emotion on the court? Too funny.

To some people passion is a constant sneer on your face and then chest pumping, leg pumping and pelvis thrusts with primal screams.

Others see your passion when even after unwanted tears you come out and repeat how much you still love the game.

One lasts while you win, the other is win or lose.

Nathaniel_Near
12-19-2011, 04:09 AM
And I can't help but disagree strongly with this. One of the reasons I've never been able to warm up to Federer is his lack of passion or emotion on the court. He looks bored most of the time and thus I'm bored watching him. Rafa at least looks like he's intensely involved in the game and gets excited over good shots and good matches. He's great fun to watch. YMMV

Oh, and by the way, as to the claim by Gaudio that Rafa smashed his racquets, there are a number of people coming out and saying it just didn't happen. The stringer who was there at the tournament has completely denied Gaudio's story.

Half the time he looks like he's about to suffer from an anxiety attack, not to mention fearful. His demeanour over the last year or so is a far cry from how it used to be day in, day out.

Sentinel
12-19-2011, 04:26 AM
Nadal determined to recover the "age advantage" over Federer.

Link. (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=406141)

Fate Archer
12-19-2011, 08:45 AM
You are judging on their actions on court, I am judging on their overal presentation of themselves in general.
And Federer showing no passion or emotion on the court? Too funny.

Yeah, exactly...

This is the classic stuff from people who never have watched Federer enough to make a fair judgement.

Wanna see how the old man still has more passion than anyone in the game? Go check the Federer vs Djokovic RG semifinal this year to see with your own eyes the kind of passion Nadal never had this year.

Crisstti
12-19-2011, 08:56 AM
The difference is that when the match is over, you move on. The fact that Fed did it mid match (like many players do, be honest and don't tell me Fed was the only or the first one you've seen to throw a racquet during a match) shows that 'sore losing' was far from beeing the reason he threw his racquet as the match was far from over at that point.

Unlike Nadal at that instance, who showed back then that he couldn't move on from that loss and took all over on his racquets at the locker room AFTER the match was over.

Of course many players do it. Have I said otherwise?.

Thing is, there just isn't any kind of sharp difference between doing it after you've lost a point or after you've lost a match. Both are simply a release of frustration. And both could well be considered sore losing if one wishes to see it that way. Both are a reaction to losing, after all.

You don't just "move on" after the match is over. It sure takes some minutes at least?. Just think about Fed after the AO 2009. Had he moved on right after the match?.

If Fed shredded all his racquets in a locker room recently I'm pretty sure we would know from someone's report as locker rooms are generally public places. He might have done when he was young too, but I'm not sure though...

We didn't hear about Rafa allegedly doing it until years after though.

I'm sure it's normal to lose some passion at a certain stage in one's career. But Federer, at the time, was 29. Nadal is 25. Has he reached that stage of his career?

I don't think Fed was talking about how he felt at that point, but talking about what happens when you've won everything.

No one is saying it's a bad thing that Nadal doesn't have the same passion for tennis as Federer does. But how happy does Nadal look on court when playing? He and Federer do not have the same look on their faces when playing. Both of them should be playing to enjoy themselves at this point, as they both have achieved almost everything imaginable. But something about Nadal's demeanor looks more like he's doing a job as opposed to playing a sport he loves.

Yes, a few people certainly are. And that assuming Rafa has any less passion for tennis than Fed does, which is really an entirely subjective and biased idea. There's really nothing to indicate that, and we can't know anyway.

Can't help but at least partially agree on this.
The difference between the 'passion' both show on court, imho, is that Federer still intrinsically appears to enjoy playing tennis, whether Nadal rather seems to enjoy winning more than playing the sport itself.

Like I said above, more wishful thinking than anything else.

Half the time he looks like he's about to suffer from an anxiety attack, not to mention fearful. His demeanour over the last year or so is a far cry from how it used to be day in, day out.

He sometimes does look more anxious. Then, he appears to BE a more anxious person, so nothing surprising there.

Crisstti
12-19-2011, 08:59 AM
Yeah, exactly...

This is the classic stuff from people who never have watched Federer enough to make a fair judgement.

Wanna see how the old man still has more passion than anyone in the game? Go check the Federer vs Djokovic RG semifinal this year to see with your own eyes the kind of passion Nadal never had this year.

It's not a competition.

And we just can't know if A player has more or less passion than B player. Not everyone expresses things the same way nor to the same extent, so simply watching them isn't enough.

helloworld
12-19-2011, 09:50 AM
There's a reason why the past greats like Laver, Borg, and Sampras all came to congratulate Federer in person at Wimbledon. Nobody will come to congratulate Nadal when he breaks any record. They know that Nadal does not love the game, and he has no respect for the past greats. Federer is a much better representative for tennis than Nadal who only has physical ability to win, but no passion for the game.

Fate Archer
12-19-2011, 09:58 AM
Of course many players do it. Have I said otherwise?.

Thing is, there just isn't any kind of sharp difference between doing it after you've lost a point or after you've lost a match. Both are simply a release of frustration. And both could well be considered sore losing if one wishes to see it that way. Both are a reaction to losing, after all.

You don't just "move on" after the match is over. It sure takes some minutes at least?. Just think about Fed after the AO 2009. Had he moved on right after the match?.

To me, there is and I explained it. Whether it's one second, 30 minutes or days after, when the match is over you just move on.

That Nadal was still breaking his racquets for losing a match that he wasn't even expected to win shows how much he still was affected by it. That's more akin to sore losing and that's where Fed's case diverges, because to lose, a match needs to be played, and the match wasn't even over by the time Fed threw his racquet in Miami (at that point the match could even turn out to his favor, it just didn't).

Anyway, if you just can't or don't want to see what I'm conveying here, then just agree to disagree, I think I have explained more than enough my opinion on both cases.


Yes, a few people certainly are. And that assuming Rafa has any less passion for tennis than Fed does, which is really an entirely subjective and biased idea. There's really nothing to indicate that, and we can't know anyway.

Like I said above, more wishful thinking than anything else.

It's subjective in a way, but people perceive things and from that they base their ideas on how both these guys speak and act.

Based on their public personas, what they did to the sport, how much steem they are regarded by their peers, how they voice their opinions on the matters of the sport, most people (and probably by a huge gap) think that Federer is a sportsman more in love with what he does than Nadal and most probably anyone else.

There is a body of work to look at, and Federer certainly leads it.

Besides, take a look at Nadal's own words about the aspect he likes most about tennis: "Competition". Tennis is much more than just competition albeit it certainly is a helthy part of it. But it's much more.

It's not a competition.

And we just can't know if A player has more or less passion than B player. Not everyone expresses things the same way nor to the same extent, so simply watching them isn't enough.

Great that you mentioned, because that is certainly a lesson to many Nadal fans who think fist pumping, chest beating and celebrating (many times even unnecessairily) a good deal of points in a match shows more passion in the sport.

Dead wrong.

celoft
12-19-2011, 11:19 AM
There's a reason why the past greats like Laver, Borg, and Sampras all came to congratulate Federer in person at Wimbledon. Nobody will come to congratulate Nadal when he breaks any record. They know that Nadal does not love the game, and he has no respect for the past greats. Federer is a much better representative for tennis than Nadal who only has physical ability to win, but no passion for the game.

I concur.

I always wondered why Emerson wasn't there. I suppose he is not worthy of a GOAT reunion. :lol: :oops:

Tilden is dead so his abscence is understandable....

helloworld
12-19-2011, 11:22 AM
I concur.

I always wondered why Emerson wasn't there. I suppose he is not worthy of a GOAT reunion. :lol: :oops:

Tilden is dead so his abscence is understandable....
You mean Roy Emerson, the "amateur" tennis player? :lol: :oops:

celoft
12-19-2011, 11:23 AM
You mean Roy Emerson, the "amateur" tennis player? :lol: :oops:

I know. But still. :oops: :neutral:

Towser83
12-19-2011, 12:59 PM
You mean apart from claiming the another player was lucky?.

It's just not true that Nadal "always has an excuse for every loss".



I'm sure Rafa must have developed his all court game as fast as he could (especially since I saw that video on YouTube when he's 15 or so and says he prefers grass and HC to clay). His game simply works better on clay. So I don't think HC being the dominant surface since before Rafa started playing changes the fact that it just makes the slam count skewed against players who's best surface isn't HC.

I don't think talking about who they have beaten in their GS wins works in favour of Fed at all... which I think it's related to Federer having been able to dominate more in two surfaces, which I of course agree he has (though Rafa has certainly been more than "sometimes dangerous" on grass at least).

In any case, my point is that, if one were to "take out" the surface skew (not sure I quite explain myself there), Fed would have I think 11 slams and Rafa 9. I can't be bothered I'm afraid to check how numbers would look then in this age comparison thing.

PS: The HC indoor slam is in the same place where the clay indoor slam must be ;)

The point I'm making is that Federer has a game to dominate on 2 of 3 surfaces and be a constant 2nd best on the 3rd. Thus if you have a 4 majors/3 surfaces situation, in 2 out of 3 possibilities Federer is going to do well, 2 hardcourt or 2 grass would suit him. Nadal has to have two on clay though. There's no doubt that there is a skew to hardcourt but Federer was able to dominate on 2 surfaces instead of one, so he greatly improved his odds by being a better all rounder.

You can say Nadal has harder competition but really the only guy he's had to deal with that Federer didn't was Federer himself, ok and later Djokovic. However 30 year old Federer still matches up better against Djokovic than a 25 year old Nadal. Nadal is at the peak of his all court game, his clay game has been poor by his standards this year but he's better on hardcourt and except for W2008, better on grass too yet he still got beaten on all surfaces by Djokovic, where as Federer beat him on clay and should have done so on hardcourt too. I don't see that Federer would have had that much trouble dominating given today's field considering that on a fairly good day he can still beat any player out there. Yes he'd lose some tournaments but then have Nadal, Djokovic, Del Potro etc benefitted from his slight decline? Yes they have, it works both ways and if they were playing in the same era they would all suffer a bit. Federer would have lost some titles to Djokovic had he been around earlier, but I douibt he would have won 3 slams in a year with a prime Federer around either.

I'm not running Nadal down by saying he's sometimes dangerous on other surfaces but the fact remains he has made 1 AO final which he won and 2 US Opens, winning one of them, which makes him the 3rd most successful HC player (in terms of slams) of recent times behind Federer and Djokovic. On grass he's won Wimbledon twice but been 2nd best 3 times, only won queens once as well which you'd think would be easy enough to win again but fair play, he's normally coming off a win at RG.

In short he suffers because he is still mainly a clay court player, not because there is a surface skew, because if there were 2 on grass as well I don't think his record on grass is that great that it would massively improve. But if he makes more finals on hardcourt he can prove this wrong

CDestroyer
12-19-2011, 01:07 PM
Correction: Nadal has officially lost the "mileage advantage" over Federer.

Nadal still owns Federer mentally and he can still easily beat Federer by getting the ball up high on Feds backhand.

Federer can only beat Nadal on low bouncing courts (which is like 3 tournaments a season).

Eternity
12-19-2011, 01:12 PM
Can't help but at least partially agree on this.
The difference between the 'passion' both show on court, imho, is that Federer still intrinsically appears to enjoy playing tennis, whether Nadal rather seems to enjoy winning more than playing the sport itself.

As you say, both have achieved almost everything imaginable. Of course, both of them still get upset at 'bad' losses, but somehow Federer seems to take them differently right now, fully realizing that he's got nothing to prove anymore. It somehow appears differently with Rafa right now, but I think we should take into account that in the past season it's been the first time that Rafa got confronted with a player having sorted him out, and that's new territory for him. It will be interesting to see how he will take on this in the coming season.

It's not just winning Rafa likes but as someone else said it's the competition. He always says he'll retire when he stops he feeling competitive. I do get the sense tennis has become more of a grind for him (and I'm not talking about his gamestyle). But I get the impression people think that somehow makes him morally inferior to Fed.

Anyway I think Rafa loves tennis. However seeing how he looked much happier in the team atmosphere at DC I agree with whoever said if he had as much talent for football as he did for tennis he'd likely be playing the former.

tennis_pro
12-19-2011, 01:20 PM
Correction: Nadal has officially lost the "mileage advantage" over Federer.

Nadal still owns Federer mentally and he can still easily beat Federer by getting the ball up high on Feds backhand.

Federer can only beat Nadal on low bouncing courts (which is like 3 tournaments a season).

????

Read the thread title again. And then again.