PDA

View Full Version : How lucky are we....


wy2sl0
09-29-2012, 05:28 PM
Fed at 30, Nadal with broken knees 10 years into his career.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSmDCHLJM70
The level of play is just insane; and that was just a "good" match between the two. I could and have watched replays of Fed Nad matches over and over.

We are always talking about who is best, better - too many opinions. This is IMO the best period to watch tennis, and possibly may be for a LONG time to come. Agree or disagree?

svijk
09-29-2012, 05:38 PM
agree, without doubt...never been a rivalry between 2 potential GOATs at any point in the history of tennis

BauerAlmeida
09-29-2012, 05:49 PM
agree, without doubt...never been a rivalry between 2 potential GOATs at any point in the history of tennis

Agassi-Sampras??
Borg-Connors?

ledwix
09-29-2012, 05:53 PM
Yeah, another amazing match of shots many players probably dream of, just like the first four sets of the 2009 AO final. Both heartbreaking losses to me, but objectively after letting them sink in they were sick matches.

90's Clay
09-29-2012, 06:40 PM
What rivalry? Nadal has school Fed more times then not for his entire career.. Thats not a rivalry.. Thats a one sided beatdown almost especially at slams.. What is at like 8-2 h2h in the slams in favor of Rafa? ROFL

Rafa has taken Fed to the woodshed on all surfaces on the big stages when its mattered most.. The only place Fed has had any clear advantage was indoors at the end of the year.

Fed's lucky he hasn't ran into Rafa more at wimbledon post 2008 either or else Nadal would own that h2h on grass as well.

Hell the only matches at the slams Fed managed to win was when Nadal was a young greenhorn.. He hasn't been able to beat Rafa at a slam in FIVE years

BauerAlmeida
09-29-2012, 06:56 PM
What rivalry? Nadal has school Fed more times then not for his entire career.. Thats not a rivalry.. Thats a one sided beatdown almost especially at slams.. What is at like 8-2 h2h in the slams in favor of Rafa? ROFL

Rafa has taken Fed to the woodshed on all surfaces on the big stages when its mattered most.. The only place Fed has had any clear advantage was indoors at the end of the year.

Fed's lucky he hasn't ran into Rafa more at wimbledon post 2008 either or else Nadal would own that h2h on grass as well.

Hell the only matches at the slams Fed managed to win was when Nadal was a young greenhorn.. He hasn't been able to beat Rafa at a slam in FIVE years

They will tell you that he beats him only on clay or that clay matches do not count. Even if Nadal leads 3-2 outside clay in slams.

Tony48
09-29-2012, 07:06 PM
1:55

Chris Fowler is a tad excited

NadalAgassi
09-29-2012, 07:11 PM
What rivalry? Nadal has school Fed more times then not for his entire career.. Thats not a rivalry.. Thats a one sided beatdown almost especially at slams.. What is at like 8-2 h2h in the slams in favor of Rafa? ROFL

Rafa has taken Fed to the woodshed on all surfaces on the big stages when its mattered most.. The only place Fed has had any clear advantage was indoors at the end of the year.

Fed's lucky he hasn't ran into Rafa more at wimbledon post 2008 either or else Nadal would own that h2h on grass as well.

Hell the only matches at the slams Fed managed to win was when Nadal was a young greenhorn.. He hasn't been able to beat Rafa at a slam in FIVE years

I agree Federer vs Nadal is no rivalry. Federer is Nadal's slave. Even on outdoor hard courts Nadal owns Federer and always has, and on grass Federer would be trailing now if he had met Nadal anymore on grass since 2008. That said the fact Federer does manage to lead significantly in overall achievements, and achievements in each surface outside of clay despite not even challenging Nadal seriously in head to head play, so that does show he is the better player overall. His dominance vs the field is so much greater than Nadal's (minus clay) to overcome Nadal's vast overall head to head superiority. Nadal on hard court especialy is too easily beaten by too many people, and I wont even get started on indoors.

dangalak
09-29-2012, 07:49 PM
What rivalry? Nadal has school Fed more times then not for his entire career.. Thats not a rivalry.. Thats a one sided beatdown almost especially at slams.. What is at like 8-2 h2h in the slams in favor of Rafa? ROFL

Rafa has taken Fed to the woodshed on all surfaces on the big stages when its mattered most.. The only place Fed has had any clear advantage was indoors at the end of the year.

Fed's lucky he hasn't ran into Rafa more at wimbledon post 2008 either or else Nadal would own that h2h on grass as well.

Hell the only matches at the slams Fed managed to win was when Nadal was a young greenhorn.. He hasn't been able to beat Rafa at a slam in FIVE years

Based on what SetSampras?

Sid_Vicious
09-29-2012, 07:55 PM
Based on what SetSampras?

Lol. A new user asserting that someone else is a former banned user.


It is as ironic as *** claiming to despise people who make multiple accounts to troll. :lol:

NadalAgassi
09-29-2012, 07:59 PM
Based on what SetSampras?

Who would have won had they played at Wimbledon in 2010, 2011, and even 2009 had Nadal played and both reached the final. The answer is not Federer.

TheFifthSet
09-29-2012, 08:07 PM
What rivalry? Nadal has school Fed more times then not for his entire career.. Thats not a rivalry.. Thats a one sided beatdown almost especially at slams.. What is at like 8-2 h2h in the slams in favor of Rafa? ROFL

Rafa has taken Fed to the woodshed on all surfaces on the big stages when its mattered most.. The only place Fed has had any clear advantage was indoors at the end of the year.

Fed's lucky he hasn't ran into Rafa more at wimbledon post 2008 either or else Nadal would own that h2h on grass as well.

Hell the only matches at the slams Fed managed to win was when Nadal was a young greenhorn.. He hasn't been able to beat Rafa at a slam in FIVE years

Look, this thread was made by the OP to appreciate the great players these two are, and how much they enrich this era. It wasn't to open up a can of worms or hijack the thread and insert your blatant insecurity.

ledwix
09-29-2012, 08:23 PM
Who would have won had they played at Wimbledon in 2010, 2011, and even 2009 had Nadal played and both reached the final. The answer is not Federer.

Those theoretical results are a moot point, because Nadal has missed many more potential slam meetings with Federer on his best surfaces than vice versa and match ups are always contingent on both players playing well enough to reach a late round in the tournament. Federer has played well much more often, but is criticized for this ironically. Also ironic is how a seven-time champ is considered "lucky" for not having to face a two-time champ he has defeated multiple times and also won the tournament other times when prime Nadal was present but did not make the final.

Furthermore, the rivalry between the two transcends their H2H since they are the two faces of the game, going at it since 2005 in terms of ranking points and accomplishments. Clearly that aspect has a huge part in it publicly speaking since they have such contrasting styles but have both had great success at the top of the game. If you don't see that aspect of it you are pretty myopic.

dangalak
09-29-2012, 08:31 PM
Who would have won had they played at Wimbledon in 2010, 2011, and even 2009 had Nadal played and both reached the final. The answer is not Federer.

Proof? Nadal had to play out of his skin to beat a Federer who was having his first slump year (2008) in Wimbledon. For a guy who had to play his best to beat Federer only once (in 5 sets to boot) , you sure are confident about his chances. :lol:

He would've spanked him in 2010, that's it. I'm not even sure if Nadal would've beaten Roddick in 09. And in 2011, considering that Federer played him tough in RG, he would've had a decent chance of winning. I doubt that Nadal can serve like Tsonga didn against Fed. And 08 Nadal >> 11 Nadal on grass.

dangalak
09-29-2012, 08:33 PM
Lol. A new user asserting that someone else is a former banned user.


It is as ironic as *** claiming to despise people who make multiple accounts to troll. :lol:

I used to post on MTF. He said something there about Berdych and said the same thing here verbatim. He also posts the same way he always does. About Murray tapping shots in and his incredible Sampras worship.

It is him.

TMF
09-29-2012, 09:21 PM
Top 10 greatest rivalries of all time:

1. Federer v. Nadal
2. Martina v. Chris
3. Sampras v. Agassi
4. McEnroe v. Connors
5. Borg v. McEnroe
6. Venus v. Serena
7. Laver v. Rosewall
8. Graf v. Seles
9. Riggs v. King
10. Budge v. Von Cramm

Tennisguy3000
09-29-2012, 10:00 PM
I was lucky enough to see Federer play at the US Open (last year) and Nadal & Murray play in Japan as well... Fed was truly art in motion, it was stunning to see him play live. It was nice to cross that off of my bucket list. I hope Nadal can recover to keep it interesting.

I should add I also liked watching 3. Sampras v. Agassi as well, I remember Agassi's retirement (and Pete's) like it was yesterday.
Edit: Cant not mention 5. Borg v. McEnroe as well ;-)

The Bawss
09-29-2012, 10:18 PM
Fed at 30, Nadal with broken knees 10 years into his career.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSmDCHLJM70
The level of play is just insane; and that was just a "good" match between the two. I could and have watched replays of Fed Nad matches over and over.

We are always talking about who is best, better - too many opinions. This is IMO the best period to watch tennis, and possibly may be for a LONG time to come. Agree or disagree?

Fed just lit up the highlight reels. Watching it live left me with the impression he played a pretty bad match, leading with a break in most (all?) sets, making dumb unforced errors. Grrr should never have lost to Nadal! Not in 2009 nor in 2012!

wy2sl0
09-30-2012, 05:19 AM
Fed just lit up the highlight reels. Watching it live left me with the impression he played a pretty bad match, leading with a break in most (all?) sets, making dumb unforced errors. Grrr should never have lost to Nadal! Not in 2009 nor in 2012!

I agree with you and don't want to start a heated debate, but it is pretty obvious that Federer's problem isn't his talent ability to beat Nadal but rather a mental issue.

Regardless Roger usually comes out of the gates believing he can win - and Nadal truely brings out his best. Federer has not played better than playing against Nadal and vice versa.

Apun94
09-30-2012, 06:37 AM
What rivalry? Nadal has school Fed more times then not for his entire career.. Thats not a rivalry.. Thats a one sided beatdown almost especially at slams.. What is at like 8-2 h2h in the slams in favor of Rafa? ROFL

Rafa has taken Fed to the woodshed on all surfaces on the big stages when its mattered most.. The only place Fed has had any clear advantage was indoors at the end of the year.

Fed's lucky he hasn't ran into Rafa more at wimbledon post 2008 either or else Nadal would own that h2h on grass as well.

Hell the only matches at the slams Fed managed to win was when Nadal was a young greenhorn.. He hasn't been able to beat Rafa at a slam in FIVE years

PERFECT! Cudnt have said it better than myself

wy2sl0
09-30-2012, 09:49 AM
PERFECT! Cudnt have said it better than myself

We all know Nadal is bar none the best clay court player of all time. He is proven to be THAT good because he dominates Fed on clay, whom of which is arugably the second best CC'er of all time. The head to head is not as bad as it seems.

Clay courts: Nadal, 122
Hard courts: Federer, 65
Indoor: Federer, 40
Outdoor: Nadal, 52
Grass courts: Federer, 21

It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that the clay domination (because Federer made all finals for a long time it seemed) has destroyed his H2H. Nadal for years didn't even make it to any hard court finals. Do we really need to keep bringing this up...it is quite sad to see how people can continue to make posts like this.

TMF
09-30-2012, 09:53 AM
Nadal > Fed on clay(not blue clay)
Fed > Nadal on grass, hc and indoor.

Anyway, this thread isn't about h2h, but about how lucky we're to have both Fed/Nadal on the tour, which put the WTA into shame.

dangalak
09-30-2012, 09:57 AM
We all know Nadal is bar none the best clay court player of all time. He is proven to be THAT good because he dominates Fed on clay, swhom of which is arugably the second bet CC'er of all time. The head to head is not as bad as it seems.

Clay courts: Nadal, 122
Hard courts: Federer, 65
Indoor: Federer, 40
Outdoor: Nadal, 52
Grass courts: Federer, 21

It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that the clay domination (because Federer made all finals for a long time it seemed) has destroyed his H2H. Nadal for years didn't even make it to any hard court finals. Do we really need to keep bringing this up...it is quite sad to see how people can continue to make posts like this.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

cc0509
09-30-2012, 10:06 AM
Who would have won had they played at Wimbledon in 2010, 2011, and even 2009 had Nadal played and both reached the final. The answer is not Federer.

The answer is you don't know that, none of us do. Federer is the superior grass player and even though Nadal beat him at W the last time they played there in 2008, Federer still leads 2-1 at W. Their matches there have always been close. The only problem now is that Federer is much older and you don't know how he is going to play from one match to the next. He seems to have a problem being consistent at slams now that he is older. That fact would be my only worry in Federer playing Nadal at W at this point in their careers. If Federer can manage to be "on" if they were to meet in a W final, it could easily go either way.

BauerAlmeida
09-30-2012, 10:29 AM
Clay courts: Nadal, 122
Hard courts: Federer, 65
Indoor: Federer, 40
Outdoor: Nadal, 52
Grass courts: Federer, 21



So, some of Federer matches count twice:?.

If you count Hard courts overall you can't mention indoor matches again. It's like saying. Clay in Montecarlo, Nadal wins, clay in RG, Nadal wins, clay in Rome, Nadal wins, etc....If you leave Indoor outisde, Nadal leads in Hard courts....

Why can't *******s accept Nadal leads the H2H fair and square?? Federer is better in a lot of other aspects, but Nadal owns the H2H. As simple as that.

And he dominates in his best surface by a much bigger margin than Federer's in his (12-2 against 2-1).

TMF
09-30-2012, 10:53 AM
So, some of Federer matches count twice:?.

If you count Hard courts overall you can't mention indoor matches again. It's like saying. Clay in Montecarlo, Nadal wins, clay in RG, Nadal wins, clay in Rome, Nadal wins, etc....If you leave Indoor outisde, Nadal leads in Hard courts....

Why can't *******s accept Nadal leads the H2H fair and square?? Federer is better in a lot of other aspects, but Nadal owns the H2H. As simple as that.

And he dominates in his best surface by a much bigger margin than Federer's in his (12-2 against 2-1).

But we do, only to certain surface/court/condition.

Nadal leads h2h on clay(not blue clay).

Fed leads h2h on grass, hc, and indoor.

NadalAgassi
09-30-2012, 11:03 AM
So, some of Federer matches count twice:?.

If you count Hard courts overall you can't mention indoor matches again. It's like saying. Clay in Montecarlo, Nadal wins, clay in RG, Nadal wins, clay in Rome, Nadal wins, etc....If you leave Indoor outisde, Nadal leads in Hard courts....

Why can't *******s accept Nadal leads the H2H fair and square?? Federer is better in a lot of other aspects, but Nadal owns the H2H. As simple as that.

And he dominates in his best surface by a much bigger margin than Federer's in his (12-2 against 2-1).


Bingo. (10 char).

The Bawss
09-30-2012, 11:06 AM
But we do, only to certain surface/court/condition.

Nadal leads h2h on clay(not blue clay).

Fed leads h2h on grass, hc, and indoor.

Bingo. (10 char).

NadalAgassi
09-30-2012, 11:10 AM
No other fan group would be so delusional to deny someone leading their favorite player 8-2 in slams owns them as far as H2H goes. Not even the Sharapova fan group on the WTA forum who are basically a bunch of nuts are that extreme. That is what makes ****s truly special and one of a kind.

Anyway as Federer is too much Nadal's lapdog for it to be one of the very best rivalries the best rivalries of all time would have to be:

1. Evert vs Navratilova- no contest, and a huge ROTFL at TMF rating Federer-Nadal above this.
2. Sampras vs Agassi
3. Graf vs Seles- the stabbing took away yet actually adds to the rivalry as it ensures people will be talking about it forever.
4. Laver vs Rosewall
5. Serena vs Henin
6. Connors vs Borg
7. Mcenroe vs Borg
8. Court vs King
9. Serena vs Venus
10. Davenport vs Hingis

Honorable mentions which dont quite make the top 10 are Djokovic vs Nadal, Becker vs Edberg, Lendl vs Becker, Evert vs Goolagong,
Hingis vs Venus.

dangalak
09-30-2012, 12:34 PM
Federer being Nadal's lapdog is a by prodcut of him playing him on clay. Federer is leading the H2H outside of it.

With Serena and Sharapova, surface doesn't matter one bit.

wy2sl0
09-30-2012, 01:13 PM
Federer being Nadal's lapdog is a by prodcut of him playing him on clay. Federer is leading the H2H outside of it.

With Serena and Sharapova, surface doesn't matter one bit.

This. Ask Nadal who he would rather face on grass or indoor hardcourt.

Answer = anyone but Federer.

I am not a *******, nor do I have problems admitting anything. Nadal is a tremendous player, quite possibly he will become the second best player (stats) of all time before he retires - and he has a TERRIFIC record against the great Federer...however it is way closer than 18-10 (which tbh isn't exactly terrible).

dangalak
09-30-2012, 01:18 PM
This. Ask Nadal who he would rather face on grass or indoor hardcourt.

Answer = anyone but Federer.

I am not a *******, nor do I have problems admitting anything. Nadal is a tremendous player, quite possibly he will become the second best player (stats) of all time before he retires - and he has a TERRIFIC record against the great Federer...however it is way closer than 18-10 (which tbh isn't exactly terrible).

:lol: How about we calm down on that one.

The Bawss
09-30-2012, 01:23 PM
This. Ask Nadal who he would rather face on grass or indoor hardcourt.

Answer = anyone but Federer.

I am not a *******, nor do I have problems admitting anything. Nadal is a tremendous player, quite possibly he will become the second best player (stats) of all time before he retires - and he has a TERRIFIC record against the great Federer...however it is way closer than 18-10 (which tbh isn't exactly terrible).

Take your pills, bro. I don't think he will end up being considered as good as Sampras let alone Laver.

dangalak
09-30-2012, 01:28 PM
So, some of Federer matches count twice:?.

If you count Hard courts overall you can't mention indoor matches again. It's like saying. Clay in Montecarlo, Nadal wins, clay in RG, Nadal wins, clay in Rome, Nadal wins, etc....If you leave Indoor outisde, Nadal leads in Hard courts....

Why can't *******s accept Nadal leads the H2H fair and square?? Federer is better in a lot of other aspects, but Nadal owns the H2H. As simple as that.

And he dominates in his best surface by a much bigger margin than Federer's in his (12-2 against 2-1).

Did anyone say that it's a result of cheating?

There's something we like to call "biased sample". It's like claiming that a vast majority of Americans are black because of a study conducted in Harlem.

You can't ignore the fact that the majority of their matches happened on the one surface that Nadal owns.

It is true that Nadal would probably lead the H2H in fairer conditions. (both in their primes, with fairly distributed surfaces) But there's not a snowball's chance in hell that he would lead by such margins.

BauerAlmeida
09-30-2012, 01:47 PM
Did anyone say that it's a result of cheating?

There's something we like to call "biased sample". It's like claiming that a vast majority of Americans are black because of a study conducted in Harlem.

You can't ignore the fact that the majority of their matches happened on the one surface that Nadal owns.

It is true that Nadal would probably lead the H2H in fairer conditions. (both in their primes, with fairly distributed surfaces) But there's not a snowball's chance in hell that he would lead by such margins.

They played 11 times on hard and 14 on clay. It's not a huge difference. If the H2H was 21-19, you could attribute that difference to the surfaces. But it's not the case.

In slams Nadal leads OUTSIDE clay 3-2. Leaving outside his best surface, he still leads the H2H.

On Fed's best surface and Nadal worse, Fed barely leads 6-5. On Nadal's best and Fed's worse, Nadal complete distroys him (12-2). On grass Fed leads 2-1. Yes, Fed leads on two surfaces and Nadal only one, but the difference is huge.

If you do the math, you can clearly see that if they had played the same amount of times in each surface, Nadal would still lead the H2H.

TMF
09-30-2012, 01:52 PM
^
Another words, Nadal is better than Fed on clay but Fed is better than Nadal on hc, grass and indoor.

NadalAgassi
09-30-2012, 01:57 PM
This. Ask Nadal who he would rather face on grass or indoor hardcourt.

Answer = anyone but Federer.


Baby Nadal who was a dog on grass at that point even pushed prime Federer at Wimbledon in 2006. The only time Federer beat something approaching prime Nadal in a slam was Wimbledon 2007 (and this of course was prime Federer) and even in that match he lost something like 80% of the baseline rallies, had to have his best serving performance ever, and had to save mountains of break points to eke out a 5 set win. I dont think for one moment Nadal would have been scared to play Federer on grass anytime the last 5 years, let alone anytime in the future. In fact at Wimbledon 2010 and 2011 he would have rather played Federer than some of the people he did play, especialy Djokovic in 2011.

Yes indoors you are probably right, and only indoors. Then again indoors Nadal is probably worried to play almost anyone in the top 15, his poor H2H with Federer there is mostly how Nadal sucks royally indoors more than anything else, LOL!

BauerAlmeida
09-30-2012, 02:03 PM
^
Another words, Nadal is better than Fed on clay but Fed is better than Nadal on hc, grass and indoor.

Indoor is not a surface. Indoor wins are included in hard. If you consider indoor apart, then Nadal leads in Hard. If not you can say, Nadal leads on clay and outdoors.

Nadal leads on clay and Federer outisde clay. But Nadal's lead is a lot stronger. If they play the same amount of matches in each surface, Nadal woult still lead the H2H, so Nadal does not lead because they play more matches on clay. Federer can't be as dominant os his best surface as Nadal is in his.

If you think it's the same to lead 12-2 than 6-5 well.......

The Bawss
09-30-2012, 02:06 PM
Indoor is not a surface. Indoor wins are included in hard. If you consider indoor apart, then Nadal leads in Hard. If not you can say, Nadal leads on clay and outdoors.

Nadal leads on clay and Federer outisde clay. But Nadal's lead is a lot stronger. If they play the same amount of matches in each surface, Nadal woult still lead the H2H, so Nadal does not lead because they play more matches on clay. Federer can't be as dominant os his best surface as Nadal is in his.

If you think it's the same to lead 12-2 than 6-5 well.......

Maybe we should ask Nadal if indoors is a surface?

cc0509
09-30-2012, 02:07 PM
They played 11 times on hard and 14 on clay. It's not a huge difference. If the H2H was 21-19, you could attribute that difference to the surfaces. But it's not the case.

In slams Nadal leads OUTSIDE clay 3-2. Leaving outside his best surface, he still leads the H2H.

On Fed's best surface and Nadal worse, Fed barely leads 6-5. On Nadal's best and Fed's worse, Nadal complete distroys him (12-2). On grass Fed leads 2-1. Yes, Fed leads on two surfaces and Nadal only one, but the difference is huge.

If you do the math, you can clearly see that if they had played the same amount of times in each surface, Nadal would still lead the H2H.

But the point is outside of clay in slams the 3-2 h2h in favor of Nadal is not enough to determine that Nadal is better than Federer. It is only in the clay slams where Nadal has displayed a definite dominance over Federer. If they had met more let's say on HC in Federer's prime (something which did not happen because Nadal was not good enough), the h2h could have been a lot different. We will never know for sure now. The fact that clay dominates their h2h is a reality however that Nadal fans have to acknowledge. If the h2h was so out of whack and in Nadal's favor after Nadal and Federer had met more times on grass or HC, that would be a different story. Clay is a legitimate surface but it is also Nadal's best surface by a lot and that has to be recognized, you can't just discount it.

NadalAgassi
09-30-2012, 02:07 PM
Anyway the correct answer to this poll is the 3rd or 4th option. People debate the 2003-2007 field vs the 2008-2012 but two things are for sure, both are much stronger than the 1998-2002 transition era, and both are much weaker than many past eras in mens tennis, way weaker than 1990-1995, nowhere near the Borg/McEnroe era and so on.

Both the Federer/Nadal era and the Nadal/Djokovic/Federer era have problems. The Federer era had decent depth in the top 15 but no all time greats besides Federer until Nadal emerged, and Nadal was a mug on non clay surfaces until late 2007/2008, so no worthy opponents for Federer other than Nadal on clay. The Nadal/Djokovic era has a very strong top 4, and a huge hole after that with no depth. So neither is totally bad, but neither is even close to some of the fields past.

cc0509
09-30-2012, 02:11 PM
Indoor is not a surface. Indoor wins are included in hard. If you consider indoor apart, then Nadal leads in Hard. If not you can say, Nadal leads on clay and outdoors.

Nadal leads on clay and Federer outisde clay. But Nadal's lead is a lot stronger. If they play the same amount of matches in each surface, Nadal woult still lead the H2H, so Nadal does not lead because they play more matches on clay. Federer can't be as dominant os his best surface as Nadal is in his.

If you think it's the same to lead 12-2 than 6-5 well.......

But you don't know that. You don't know what would have happened if they had met in slams more at Wimbledon and at the HC slams, especially if those matches occurred in Federer's prime. The number of times they have met at those non-clay slams is not enough to really tell us much. What their h2h does tell us 100% is that Nadal is the better clay player.

BauerAlmeida
09-30-2012, 02:11 PM
Anyway the correct answer to this poll is the 3rd or 4th option. People debate the 2003-2007 field vs the 2008-2012 but two things are for sure, both are much stronger than the 1998-2002 transition era, and both are much weaker than many past eras in mens tennis, way weaker than 1990-1995, nowhere near the Borg/McEnroe era and so on.

Both the Federer/Nadal era and the Nadal/Djokovic/Federer era have problems. The Federer era had decent depth in the top 15 but no all time greats besides Federer until Nadal emerged, and Nadal was a mug on non clay surfaces until late 2007/2008, so no worthy opponents for Federer other than Nadal on clay. The Nadal/Djokovic era has a very strong top 4, and a huge hole after that with no depth. So neither is totally bad, but neither is even close to some of the fields past.

Exactly. I Agree on everything.

NadalAgassi
09-30-2012, 02:12 PM
But the point is outside of clay in slams the 3-2 h2h in favor of Nadal is not enough to determine that Nadal is better than Federer. It is only in the clay slams where Nadal has displayed a definite dominance over Federer. If they had met more let's say on HC in Federer's prime (something which did not happen because Nadal was not good enough), the h2h could have been a lot different. We will never know for sure now. The fact that clay dominates their h2h is a reality however that Nadal fans have to acknowledge. If the h2h was so out of whack and in Nadal's favor after Nadal and Federer had met more times on grass or HC, that would be a different story. Clay is a legitimate surface but it is also Nadal's best surface by a lot and that has to be recognized, you can't just discount it.

1. The point isnt Nadal being better than Federer. The point is that Nadal is much better than Federer in the H2H aspect which he is, this is an undisputable and slam dunk fact no matter how much the ****s deny. In the real World even the many commentators and past players who now call Federer the GOAT, always mention when Federer and Nadal play that Nadal owns their H2H, there is nobody outside Planet TW who has even tried to dispute that so sorry those of you who are and making endless excuses about it are in your own little fantasy World. Federer is still better overall as a player at this point, yes you are right on that.

2. Why cant Federer dominate Nadal on any surface the way Nadal does Federer? Yep exactly. PS- if you say indoors, then if you are seperating indoors that means Nadal dominates Federer on both clay and outdoor hard courts to the extreme (5-2 on outdoor hard courts and 2-0 in slams). If you are down 2-3 in slams on your surfaces, and down 0-5 on the other guys surface, or put another way down 0-5 on your worst surface and the other guys worst, and also down 0-2 on your best surface and the other guys worst where you have 9 slams and the other guy has only 2 and still managed this, that overall is total ownage, there is no way around it.

3. It is hilarious any match from 2008 onwards is slated as post prime Federer, yet people act as if Nadal was in his prime when he lost those early Wimbledon finals to Federer, especialy 2006, and that Nadal was in his prime in 2005-2007 and should have been reaching hard court slam finals when Federer the so called hard court GOAT wasnt even good enough at that age to reach hard court slam quarterfinals, ROTFL!

NadalAgassi
09-30-2012, 02:20 PM
Top 10 greatest rivalries of all time:

1. Federer v. Nadal
2. Martina v. Chris


I still cant believe anyone had the sheer audacity to put Federer vs Nadal above Evert vs Navratilova. There will never be a rivalry, man or women, that matches or surpasses Evert vs Navratilova. The two played 80 times and ended up in a virtual tie. Let alone being challenged by a rivalry where one player wins 65% of the matches and 80% of the slam matches, and the player on the vast short side of that is the more accomplished player as well, LOL!

TMF
09-30-2012, 02:20 PM
If you think it's the same to lead 12-2 than 6-5 well.......

How about just compare Nadal's total clay titles to Fed, and do the same for hc and grass. That should gives you the better picture of how far they distanced each other on each paticular surface. I would say in this order:

1. Fed >>> Nadal on hc
2. Nadal >> Fed on clay
3. Fed > Nadal on grass.

Fair enough ?

Povl Carstensen
09-30-2012, 02:24 PM
The number of times they have met on clay is a testament to how great a clay court player Federer is. On other surfaces Federer has an edge in head to head and a devastating superior record, which amounts to his clearly superior overall record. Hypothesis, excuses and what ifs does not change that. And yes, what great tennis experiences the two has provided us with, in fascinatingly different manners.

TMF
09-30-2012, 02:28 PM
I still cant believe anyone had the sheer audacity to put Federer vs Nadal above Evert vs Navratilova. There will never be a rivalry, man or women, that matches or surpasses Evert vs Navratilova. The two played 80 times and ended up in a virtual tie.

You may not think Fed/Nadal is a great rivalry, but most fans believe they are one of the greatest of all time. I just did a search and found a random link that listed the top rilvalries of all time in tennis.

Nadal vs Federer
Martina vs Chris
Sampras vs Agassi
McEnroe vs Borg
McEnroe vs Connors

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/five-great-tennis-rivalries-220900340--ten.html

dangalak
09-30-2012, 02:28 PM
They played 11 times on hard and 14 on clay. It's not a huge difference. If the H2H was 21-19, you could attribute that difference to the surfaces. But it's not the case.

In slams Nadal leads OUTSIDE clay 3-2. Leaving outside his best surface, he still leads the H2H.

On Fed's best surface and Nadal worse, Fed barely leads 6-5. On Nadal's best and Fed's worse, Nadal complete distroys him (12-2). On grass Fed leads 2-1. Yes, Fed leads on two surfaces and Nadal only one, but the difference is huge.

If you do the math, you can clearly see that if they had played the same amount of times in each surface, Nadal would still lead the H2H.

Didn't I just admit that? :confused:

Baby Nadal who was a dog on grass at that point even pushed prime Federer at Wimbledon in 2006. The only time Federer beat something approaching prime Nadal in a slam was Wimbledon 2007 (and this of course was prime Federer) and even in that match he lost something like 80% of the baseline rallies, had to have his best serving performance ever, and had to save mountains of break points to eke out a 5 set win. I dont think for one moment Nadal would have been scared to play Federer on grass anytime the last 5 years, let alone anytime in the future. In fact at Wimbledon 2010 and 2011 he would have rather played Federer than some of the people he did play, especialy Djokovic in 2011.

1. How did Nadal "push" Federer in 2006? he got bageled in the first set. Sure, he took a set in a tie break, but that doesn't mean much: if a player serves well or the other one returns poorly, the inferior player still can win a set, like Soderling did against Federer in USO 2009 QF. Did Soderling "push" Federer there? Most would tell you that Federer handled him something fierce.

Considering how effective Nadal's lefty serve is on grass and how poorly Federer usually returns it, it's not a suprise to me that Nadal managed to steal a set. He still was by FAR second best.

2. While Federer was not past his prime yet in 2007, he was clearly not peaking either. Do the names Volandri and Canas ring a bell?
I would also like to see where Nadal was shown to win 80% of the rallies. One more thing you ignore is the fact that Nadal was also serving well.

Let me offer you a counter-example: in the final of 2008, didn't Nadal at the peak of his powers need a 5 set thriller to beat a Federer who was clearly not himself that year? Federer lost to people he typically never loses to (Roddick, Fish) and truly declined this time. (even more so than 2007) The fact that he managed to push Nadal (this time the term is actually appropriate) at his absolute best proves that a Federer at the peak of his powers would be a favourite over him on Wimby, even more so than Djokovic 2011, who was taking advantage of his mental grip on Nadal in that final more than anything.

Last but not least, I doubt that Nadal would be crushed by most top 15 people indoors. Remember he beat a Murray that was on fire in London, he isn't weak against everybody.

Indoor is not a surface. Indoor wins are included in hard. If you consider indoor apart, then Nadal leads in Hard. If not you can say, Nadal leads on clay and outdoors.

Yes you can...:confused: Federer leads on grass, hardcourt and indoors. Nadal leads on clay and outdoors.

NadalAgassi
09-30-2012, 02:32 PM
You may not think Fed/Nadal is a great rivalry, but most fans believe they are one of the greatest of all time. I just did a search and found a random link that listed the top rilvalries of all time in tennis.

Nadal vs Federer
Martina vs Chris
Sampras vs Agassi
McEnroe vs Borg
McEnroe vs Connors

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/five-great-tennis-rivalries-220900340--ten.html

whether they are one of the greatest of all time or not they come nowhere near Navratilova vs Evert. On what planet can Federer vs Nadal be considered a greater rivalry than Evert vs Navratilova. Come up with even one remotedly valid reason it could be considered a better rivalry. This should be good for a laugh, LOL!

PS- like anyone is going to base their opinion being right or wrong on the esteemed words of the great Brad Boeker.

cc0509
09-30-2012, 02:33 PM
NadalAgassi;6928154]1. The point isnt Nadal being better than Federer. The point is that Nadal is much better than Federer in the H2H aspect which he is, this is an undisputable and slam dunk fact no matter how much the ****s deny.

Nadal is better than Federer on the h2h aspect, I do not deny that fact. But, if you analyze it further, it is obvious that most of the matches won by Nadal have been on clay. You would have to be brain dead to ignore that fact. I personally think Nadal is the better slam match player in their match-up because he has the mental edge, I am the first one to admit that but it is also true that most of their slam meetings have come on clay, a surface that Nadal has dominated during his reign. He did not dominate two slam surfaces like Federer did during his reign.



2. Why cant Federer dominate Nadal on any surface the way Nadal does Federer? The end. If you are down 2-3 in slams on your surfaces, and down 0-5 on the other guys surface, or put another way down 0-5 on your worst surface and the other guys worst, and also down 0-2 on your best surface and the other guys worst where you have 9 slams and the other guy has only 2 and still managed this, that overall is total ownage, there is no way around it.


It is not total ownage on all surfaces, you can't call 3-2 slam h2h on other surfaces ownage, that is stupid. As to why Federer did not dominate on his best two surfaces at slams or overall the way Nadal did on clay, now you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel to look for excuses to make Nadal look better, come on! Also Nadal was a dirtballer at the beginning, that was all he knew and all he wanted to know. Obviously he was going to be more proficient on a clay surface. Federer to my knowledge did not grow up as a dirtballer the way Nadal did(even though Federer did grow up playing on clay courts.) You know that, stop it. One was a dirtballer who learned to play on other surfaces and one was more of a multi-surface expert quite early on.

3. It is hilarious any match from 2008 onwards is slated as post prime Federer, yet people act as if Nadal was in his prime when he lost those early Wimbledon finals to Federer, especialy 2006, that Nadal was in his prime in 2005-2007 and should have been reaching hard court slam finals when Federer the so called hard court GOAT wasnt even good enough at that age to reach hard court slam quarterfinals, ROTFL!

So Federer was not past his prime after 2008? Re Nadal not being in his prime in 2005-2007, we have been through this. How could baby Nadal beat Federer on HC as early as 2004 and win his first slam in 2005(even though it was on clay) yet not be in his prime? What a load of baloney. You can't have it both ways. Either Nadal was good enough to beat Federer on HC when he was a young teen or he was not.

NadalAgassi
09-30-2012, 02:45 PM
Nadal is better than Federer on the h2h aspect, I do not deny that fact.

Good, then you shouldnt bother beating the dark horse and going nowhere with your arguments yet again.

It is not total ownage on all surfaces, you can't call 3-2 slam h2h on other surfaces ownage, that is stupid. As to why Federer did not dominate on his best two surfaces at slams or overall the way Nadal did on clay, now you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel to look for excuses to make Nadal look better, come on!

LOL now you are just being incredibly stupid. There is no excuse for why Federer couldnt dominate Nadal on another surface the way Nadal does Federer on clay. You say Nadal grew up as a dirtballer, so that makes it perfectly expected apparently that Nadal from age 18 onwards wins 90% of his matches vs Federer on clay. Well then if he is NOT owned in the H2H as you are trying to delude yourself he is not, he should likewise be able to own the so called born and bred dirtballer Nadal equally as much on one of his surfaces to counter that, yet never did. Being down 3-2 outside clay would be fine, except that you are already down 5-0 on clay, and that is the best you can do to counter that with, LOL! Basically you do not put clay into its proper perspective as you say you are trying to do, you have to eliminate it entirely to give Federer a respectable slam H2H and sorry it cant work like that. Cut it down to 3 matches on clay (3 on grass, 2 on hards, virtually the same on each now) and Federer still is down 6-2 in slam H2H. Sorry put it all together and that is ownage, there is no 2 ways around it.


So Federer was not past his prime after 2008? Re Nadal not being in his prime in 2005-2007, we have been through this. How could baby Nadal beat Federer on HC as early as 2004 and win his first slam in 2005(even though it was on clay) yet not be in his prime? What a load of baloney. You can't have it both ways. Either Nadal was good enough to beat Federer on HC when he was a young teen or he was not.

This is your funniest paragraph of all. So because Nadal had a win over Federer on hard courts in 2004 this means this was already prime Nadal, even though he wasnt even in the top 30 yet, and wouldnt reach his first hard court slam semifinal for another FOUR years. That result shows nothing to being prime Nadal, which would be a stupid suggestion, it is just another example of the H2H ownage of Federer vs Nadal, that is all.

You also say you cant have it both ways, well first of all that is incredibly stupid since the fact is Nadal DID beat Federer on hard courts as early as 2004 at age 17, did regularly beat him on clay even at age 18, those are facts, so WTF is with a comment like "either Nadal was good enough to beat Federer on HC when he was a young teen or he was not" when he did beat him as a young teen on hard courts, there is nothing to even discuss to whether he could or couldnt as he did, so honestly cant even tell what the F you are talking about there. Perhaps you are implying one has to concede Nadal being in his prime just because Federer was so hopeless overall in the H2H he was already losing to a teenaged Nadal on hard courts, but if that really is what you are trying to suggest that is a huge LOL, and you are the one getting desperate to dig for answers and excuses for Federer's poor H2H now. That is like saying if Federer beats Nadal or Djokovic on clay at 37, we have to concede Federer must still be in his prime. However even in the case your "cant have it both ways" made any remote sense whatsoever, well that could easily be said the other way then, how on earth can Federer be way past his prime already in 2008 when at one stretch from 2008-2010 he won 4 of 6 slam titles, including all 4. That is a particularly hilarious argument when you are also saying Nadal was already in his prime in 2005 just because he won some clay titles, LOL! So lets put this in proper perspective from your vantage point:

Nadal at 18 and 19 years old, losing every hard court match with Berdych (who today a much better player he owns), Blake, Youzhny, and any decent flat ball hitter on hard court, losing 3rd round-quarterfinal in every hard court slam he plays, and on grass losing to some German bum ranked 100 something, Muller, grandpa Hewitt, and nearly a straight set loss to Robby Kendrick in his 4 grass court events was already prime Nadal based on that he was already beating his pigeon Federer (you only help prove the point btw) and that he was winning titles on clay already. However late blooming Federer was an old gimpy man at only 26 and 27 when he was already in the midst of or soon to embark on a stretch of winning 4 of 6 slams, and losing in the finals of the other two. I will just stop now before you make me die of laughter. :lol:

90's Clay
09-30-2012, 02:48 PM
I'm sorry I still fail to understand the concept of this supposed "rivalry" Fed and Nadal have. Rivalries are supposed to bring a somewhat element of uncertainty to them.. Not a "Ohh Fed better hope to avoid Nadal so he can win" element

True rivalries are not one sided and easy to predict. So when people call that a rivalry much less one of the greatest rivalries of all time, thats a complete JOKE in itself


Nadal and Fed is one of the worst so called "rivalries" between two top players Ive ever seen since Nadal has mopped the floor with Fed for the better part of 7-8 years now

NadalAgassi
09-30-2012, 02:58 PM
Still waiting for TMF to explain how Federer vs Nadal could ever be considered as greater rivalry than Navratilova vs Evert who played 80 times, have a 43-37 head to head, are less than 2 years apart in age, have completely contrasting style (best ever serve and volleyer vs best ever baseliner), and played over an almost 20 year period. In a thread full of Federer fans giving comedic value galore, the answer to this is almost sure to be the best one yet.

cc0509
09-30-2012, 03:13 PM
NadalAgassi;6928205]
LOL now you are just being incredibly stupid. There is no excuse for why Federer couldnt dominate Nadal on another surface the way Nadal does Federer on clay. You say Nadal grew up as a dirtballer, so that makes it perfectly expected apparently that Nadal from age 18 onwards wins 90% of his matches vs Federer on clay. Well then if he is NOT owned in the H2H as you are trying to delude yourself he is not, he should likewise be able to own the so called born and bred dirtballer Nadal equally as much on one of his surfaces to counter that, yet never did. Being down 3-2 outside clay would be fine, except that you are already down 5-0 on clay, and that is the best you can do to counter that with, LOL! Basically you do not put clay into its proper perspective as you say you are trying to do, you have to eliminate it entirely to give Federer a respectable slam H2H and sorry it cant work like that. Cut it down to 3 matches on clay (3 on grass, 2 on hards, virtually the same on each now) and Federer still is down 6-2 in slam H2H. Sorry put it all together and that is ownage, there is no 2 ways around it.


You are going on and on about something for what reason. You are not making your point stronger by going on and on about something silly. How is a 3-2 h2h at non-clay slams ownage over Federer? Answer: It is not ownage. Only the 5-0 clay slam h2h is ownage. What is it about those figures you can't understand? Yes, Federer owns Nadal at the slams but most of those slams were played on clay. Hello, anybody home? Perhaps Federer would have owned Nadal if they had played more slams off clay, especially when Federer was in his prime. We won't know that now will we? Either way, they did not play most of their slams off clay and their non-clay slam h2h is not indicative of ownage by Nadal, sorry.


Nadal at 18 and 19 years old, losing every hard court match with Berdych (who today a much better player he owns), Blake, Youzhny, and any decent flat ball hitter on hard court, losing 3rd round-quarterfinal in every hard court slam he plays, and on grass losing to some German bum ranked 100 something, Muller, grandpa Hewitt, and nearly a straight set loss to Robby Kendrick in his 4 grass court events was already prime Nadal based on that he was already beating his pigeon Federer (you only help prove the point btw) and that he was winning titles on clay already. However late blooming Federer was an old gimpy man at only 26 and 27 when he was already in the midst of or soon to embark on a stretch of winning 4 of 6 slams, and losing in the finals of the other two. I will just stop now before you make me die of laughter. :lol:

Believe what you want but if you say Nadal was beating Federer on HC out of the gates when he was a young teen which he was, then you can't say he was not good enough to beat Federer in the slams off clay, it does not make any sense. It is Federer/Nadal we are talking about here, not Nadal and Berdych or whomever else. Nadal's main mission in life was to beat Federer, it is obvious that is what he focused on from a young age. If he could beat Federer at age 17 or however old he was in Miami or Dubai certainly he was good enough to beat him in the HC slams, no?

BauerAlmeida
09-30-2012, 04:36 PM
How about just compare Nadal's total clay titles to Fed, and do the same for hc and grass. That should gives you the better picture of how far they distanced each other on each paticular surface. I would say in this order:

1. Fed >>> Nadal on hc
2. Nadal >> Fed on clay
3. Fed > Nadal on grass.

Fair enough ?

That has nothing to do with the H2H. Federer is a better player, Nadal owns him. 2 completely different things.

Didn't I just admit that? :confused:

I never said you didn't. I was just mentioning it.





Yes you can...:confused: Federer leads on grass, hardcourt and indoors. Nadal leads on clay and outdoors.

Fair enough, but TMF said: Nadal leads on clay and Federer leads on Hard, Grass and Indoors.

NadalAgassi
09-30-2012, 05:39 PM
You are going on and on about something for what reason. You are not making your point stronger by going on and on about something silly. How is a 3-2 h2h at non-clay slams ownage over Federer? Answer: It is not ownage. Only the 5-0 clay slam h2h is ownage. What is it about those figures you can't understand?

5-0 + 3-2 = 8-2 is total ownage. LOL what is about that which YOU dont understand. The only way you can make it not ownage is to eliminate clay as if it doesnt exist, but when you just combine clay with everything else (not just about clay, everything all included, including clay) it adds up to ownage. You complain about there being more clay matches, yet here they played the exact same # of non clay slam matches as clay ones, so you cant even say they "mostly" played on clay, and it still adds up to a landslide overall victory for Nadal.

As for making my point stronger, you do that successfully for me so I dont even have to work that hard at it. :lol: You know full well the H2H doesnt make Federer a weaker player than Nadal, atleast not yet, and even if you say otherwise you know full well like it or not Federer is Nadal's slave and that Nadal owns Federer when it comes to H2H. The entire tennis World including Federer's many GOAT backers admit it and say so repeatedly, so why continue to fight a losing battle. I suppose the reason the H2H with Nadal upsets some ****s so much is because a losing record vs by far his biggest career rival and a fellow major all time great (even if not quite true GOAT contender), is something that can be held against Federer in GOAT debates vs people like Laver, Gonzales, even Sampras (well atleast until recently when Federer's numbers more clearly eclipsed Pete's), but being in denial of the H2H wont change it. All you can do is successfully try to argue around it and downplay its meaning, trying to dispute its existence is never going to work.


Nadal's main mission in life was to beat Federer

When Nadal started playing tennis he was probably atleast 10 years from knowing diddley squat all about Federer, so no. His main missions in life are winning tennis tournaments, and his somewhat over obsessive devotion to family and his personal team, all whom from his autobiography he basically regards with the value of a long time spouse. That is it.

dangalak
09-30-2012, 06:27 PM
5-0 + 3-2 = 8-2 is total ownage. LOL what is about that which YOU dont understand. The only way you can make it not ownage is to eliminate clay as if it doesnt exist, but when you just combine clay with everything else (not just about clay, everything all included, including clay) it adds up to ownage. You complain about there being more clay matches, yet here they played the exact same # of non clay slam matches as clay ones, so you cant even say they "mostly" played on clay, and it still adds up to a landslide overall victory for Nadal.

No it doesn't. If they were to play an even amount of matches across the board, both at their primes, there's no way that Nadal wins as many matches as he did. It's almost like you do not realize that they played 50% of their matches on clay, even though it's only 1 of 3 (or even 4) surfaces.

wy2sl0
09-30-2012, 06:27 PM
I didn't make this thread to compare the women's greats in that sense; I guess I meant specifically the mens field. I have only watched tennis in the past half decade or so, so my ability to compare past generations is somewhat compromised, thus the creating of this poll.

As for the Federer and Nadal, I do believe Nadal if he continues to play until he is say 30, has a chance to be the second best in stats of all time (16-17 slams).

Either way, straw that broke the camels back: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6NQLcbLAtI

Federer playing at essentially peak and also Rafa - and he disappointingly went away in the 5th after fighting so hard to make it possible. It hasn't been the same since (outside of clay).

RF20Lennon
09-30-2012, 06:29 PM
In womens:
Martina vs. Chris (SO AMAZING!!!)
Graff vs. Seles
In men's
Federer vs Nadal

NadalAgassi
09-30-2012, 06:39 PM
No it doesn't. If they were to play an even amount of matches across the board, both at their primes, there's no way that Nadal wins as many matches as he did. It's almost like you do not realize that they played 50% of their matches on clay, even though it's only 1 of 3 (or even 4) surfaces.

Lets say they played 5 slam matches on both. Clay still 5-0. Hard court slams well considering Nadal is 5-2 lifetime on outdoor hard courts, 2-1 vs even so called prime Federer on outdoor hard courts (choking a huge lead in the only loss), and 2-0 as it is hard court slams, lets make the 2-0 a 4-1. Grass is 2-1 now, so lets just make it 3-2 Federer. Now we have an 11-4 Nadal instead of a 8-2, so that worked out well didnt it. Anymore brilliant suggestions?

It is obvious nobody will agree on exactly when their primes were. Federer fans will say Nadal's prime was from 2004-until he retires, and once he starts losing more matches to Djokovic or Nadal he will have coincidentally hit a brand new all time peak as well, while Federer's prime was only 2005-2006 to gloss over his clay results in 2004 and his Wimbledon match vs Nadal in 2007, yet despite this Federer still supposably has the best longevity ever, along with the best everything else, etc.......while others will think something else entirely. So that said all their matches were during the period both guys were winning slams, and until that changes, that is pretty much the easiest measuring point.

dangalak
09-30-2012, 06:43 PM
I didn't make this thread to compare the women's greats in that sense; I guess I meant specifically the mens field. I have only watched tennis in the past half decade or so, so my ability to compare past generations is somewhat compromised, thus the creating of this poll.

As for the Federer and Nadal, I do believe Nadal if he continues to play until he is say 30, has a chance to be the second best in stats of all time (16-17 slams).

Either way, straw that broke the camels back: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6NQLcbLAtI

Federer playing at essentially peak and also Rafa - and he disappointingly went away in the 5th after fighting so hard to make it possible. It hasn't been the same since (outside of clay).

Very unlikely bro.

90's Clay
09-30-2012, 06:55 PM
Well with most Fed fans, his prime was only for 3-4 years and everything thereafter doesn't count. Any of the demolitions Nadal gave Fed after the 2007 timeframe doesn't count.

Afterall, Fed's prime ended at 26. ROFL. Disregard the fact hes still #1 in the world and winning slams.


To be honest, the fact he never gets any serious type of injuries which has ever set him back.. Hes never had to miss any big tournaments, hes still #1 in the world in the rankings and hes won like 6 big tournaments over the last year, maybe hes still in his prime.

I dont know of any guys that are way past their prime and still the #1 player in the world in the rankings.


If Fed is still #1 in the world then I think loses should count just as much as wins do. I mean come on.. Its not like hes dropped out of the top 10, is losing early at slams, or is having serious nagging injuries which keeps him out of big tournaments.


Its all relative anyways.. What's prime and not? To me if you're still #1 in the world, and winning big tournaments, not missing substantial time do to various injuries, you are still priming out. Maybe not peaking but you can still be considered in your prime. I consider 2004-2007, Fed's peak years.. Not his prime years.


I think you can still win a big tournament every now and then and be past your prime.. But you can't be #1 in the world and past your prime because that requires year round consistency to be #1. And Fed's been just as consistent, if not moreso then anyone else in the world. And the way they have homogenized the conditions, which makes it easier for other top guys to stay consistent year round so you have to match their consistency, then the plot thickens.

Is Fed REALLY past his prime?

Most of the big loses Fed has had this year for instance, has been against guys who really could always trouble Roger:

1. Nadal: No explanation needed
2. Murray: Hes given Roger his share of trouble over the years. Nothing terribly new. IN fact, wasn't he one of the few who beat Roger in 2006?
3. Berdych? Always been known to give Roger issues. Berdych actually matches up well with Roger.. And when hes playing well can give Roger FITS mainly because he can attack Roger's 2nd serve and can toss some bombs back to him from the baseline.
4. Djoker.. Hes always given Roger issues regardless especially on slower surfaces. Nole is a brick wall on defense and that can be frustrating for a guy like Roger trying to hit you off the court


These guys at their best vs. Roger's best we have ourselves a good match either way. These guys beating Roger is not exactly some new phenomenon. They have all beat him before over the years. ROFL

MichaelNadal
09-30-2012, 07:09 PM
Well with most Fed fans, his prime was only for 3-4 years and everything thereafter doesn't count. Any of the demolitions Nadal gave Fed after the 2007 timeframe doesn't count.

Afterall, Fed's prime ended at 26. ROFL. Disregard the fact hes still #1 in the world and winning slams.


To be honest, the fact he never gets any serious type of injuries which has ever set him back.. Hes never had to miss any big tournaments, hes still #1 in the world in the rankings and hes won like 6 big tournaments over the last year, maybe hes still in his prime.

I dont know of any guys that are way past their prime and still the #1 player in the world in the rankings.


If Fed is still #1 in the world then I think loses should count just as much as wins do. I mean come on.. Its not like hes dropped out of the top 10, is losing early at slams, or is having serious nagging injuries which keeps him out of big tournaments.


Its all relative anyways.. What's prime and not? To me if you're still #1 in the world, and winning big tournaments, not missing substantial time do to various injuries, you are still priming out. Maybe not peaking but you can still be considered in your prime. I consider 2004-2007, Fed's peak years.. Not his prime years.


I think you can still win a big tournament every now and then and be past your prime.. But you can't be #1 in the world and past your prime because that requires year round consistency

Coming from someone that really likes Federer, you have a serious point here.

wy2sl0
09-30-2012, 07:33 PM
Talk to the top atletes in any sport.

Hockey, Football, Tennis, Golf.

Is 30 the new 25 physically? Very possible. Advancements in healthcare technology, dieting, exercise equipment, everything has grown in the past 10 years more than the 30 before it. So saying someone is declining strength or cardio wise, not exactly a matter of "age". Did you know peak cardio is usually reached by mid 30's? (assuming you continue to train at peak levels).

Ask these athletes however what they HAVE lost by that age, they will all agree - NERVE.

In hockey (one of my favorite sports) the top players are continuously getting run, either to the head or hard body blows - they are a target. Football? An even greater example. Some of the best receivers get what you call "hearing footsteps" from being blindsided so many times. In golf, athletes that remain at the top after competing so many times and having so many memories of mistakes here and there, just naturally lose the ability to block it all out.

Tennis is no different.

Federer does not have the mental fortitude he used to have. It is quite conclusive when you see Federer do what he did against Djoko in the US Open 2011 (double fault to get broken after serving for the match, and playing a VERY loose point before that). The numerous losses you accumulate at the top level begin to break your belief of being invincible. That isn't to say that you are going to crack under any and all stress, it just means you are that much more susceptible to being influenced by nerves.

As for the argument about other players who did not have the "choking" problem in their old age, they were never as great as Federer was (virtually invincible for 3 years).

What does that do to you? Some days you have it some days you don't. There is no better example than Federer now. You can see flashes of brillance followed by Fed'error. These mental lapses have cost him more than likely having 20 Grand Slams by now, and on the other hand have helped Rafa accumulate as many as he has because he is, at least on the court, VERY strong mentally.

The prime argument is moot. The guy has played too long to be mentally at his best. Just because he is number 1 doesn't mean he is as good in all areas as he has always been...it just means he a)played more matches or b)he is THAT good that on off-days he is still arguably the best player of all time.

90's Clay
09-30-2012, 07:36 PM
Talk to the top atletes in any sport.

Hockey, Football, Tennis, Golf.

Is 30 the new 25 physically? Very possible. Advancements in healthcare technology, dieting, exercise equipment, everything has grown in the past 10 years more than the 30 before it. So saying someone is declining strength or cardio wise, not exactly a matter of "age". Did you know peak cardio is usually reached by mid 30's? (assuming you continue to train at peak levels).

Ask these athletes however what they HAVE lost by that age, they will all agree - NERVE.

In hockey (one of my favorite sports) the top players are continuously getting run, either to the head or hard body blows - they are a target. Football? An even greater example. Some of the best receivers get what you call "hearing footsteps" from being blindsided so many times. In golf, athletes that remain at the top after competing so many times and having so many memories of mistakes here and there, just naturally lose the ability to block it all out.

Tennis is no different.

Federer does not have the mental fortitude he used to have. It is quite conclusive when you see Federer do what he did against Djoko in the US Open 2011 (double fault to get broken after serving for the match, and playing a VERY loose point before that). The numerous losses you accumulate at the top level begin to break your belief of being invincible. That isn't to say that you are going to crack under any and all stress, it just means you are that much more susceptible to being influenced by nerves.

As for the argument about other players who did not have the "choking" problem in their old age, they were never as great as Federer was (virtually invincible for 3 years).

:) I didn't know that since my peak cardio ended at probably 19 years old

TMF
09-30-2012, 08:40 PM
That has nothing to do with the H2H. Federer is a better player, Nadal owns him. 2 completely different things.
That's why I always believe discussing h2h against one player is pointless, since everyone(except Fed's detractors) agree that achievement and a better player is to measure his win against the entire field. And if h2h is important(which is not), why not compare the appropriate players to Federer? Roddick or Hewitt is the RIGHT players to compare to Federer because they are the same age, peak at the same time and decline at the same time. Comparing him to Nadal is flaw because he's 5 years older. Nadal should be comparing to Nole or Murray because of their similar age. Make sense now?



Fair enough, but TMF said: Nadal leads on clay and Federer leads on Hard, Grass and Indoors.

Let's try it again.

There are 4 seasons - hc season, clay season, grass season and indoor season. Nadal owns the clay season while Fed owns the other 3 seasons.

PS: To the OP, even though i didn't bring up the irrelevant h2h, sorry that it got off topic.

Mike Sams
09-30-2012, 08:43 PM
Fed at 30, Nadal with broken knees 10 years into his career.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSmDCHLJM70
The level of play is just insane; and that was just a "good" match between the two. I could and have watched replays of Fed Nad matches over and over.

We are always talking about who is best, better - too many opinions. This is IMO the best period to watch tennis, and possibly may be for a LONG time to come. Agree or disagree?

Give Federer a faster court so he can actually hit some winners as his game is designed to instead of making him play on these effing blue clay courts designed for pushers and grinders. :lol:

Mike Sams
09-30-2012, 08:49 PM
Who would have won had they played at Wimbledon in 2010, 2011, and even 2009 had Nadal played and both reached the final. The answer is not Federer.

Yeah, conveniently we forgot that Djokovic had Nadal nearly in tears after he smacked Nadal around in that 2011 Wimbledon final like he was his son. :lol:
If Federer had close to Djokovic's guts, he wouldn't have only been 1/12 on BPs whereas Djokovic was 5/6. It's obvious who shows more guts against Nadal. Djokovic could care less what Nadal brings. Even at Roland Garros, *******s were soiling themselves when the drizzle came, causing Nadal's beloved clay to reduce topspin and allowing Djokovic to smack him around the court for 8 straight games until the stupid ref stopped the match.

Prisoner of Birth
09-30-2012, 10:58 PM
Nobody who's seen Federer play in 2004, 2005, 2006 or even 2007 can say Federer is still in his prime. That's ridiculous. And he had 4 years of peak-level play? Hilarious! The fact that 31 year-old Federer is #1 just shows he's better than Djokovic and Nadal. Maybe not one-versus-one but against the field, even now, he's on par. That's the longevity of a champion.

abmk
09-30-2012, 11:14 PM
Lets say they played 5 slam matches on both. Clay still 5-0. Hard court slams well considering Nadal is 5-2 lifetime on outdoor hard courts, 2-1 vs even so called prime Federer on outdoor hard courts (choking a huge lead in the only loss), and 2-0 as it is hard court slams, lets make the 2-0 a 4-1. Grass is 2-1 now, so lets just make it 3-2 Federer. Now we have an 11-4 Nadal instead of a 8-2, so that worked out well didnt it. Anymore brilliant suggestions?

It is obvious nobody will agree on exactly when their primes were. Federer fans will say Nadal's prime was from 2004-until he retires, and once he starts losing more matches to Djokovic or Nadal he will have coincidentally hit a brand new all time peak as well, while Federer's prime was only 2005-2006 to gloss over his clay results in 2004 and his Wimbledon match vs Nadal in 2007, yet despite this Federer still supposably has the best longevity ever, along with the best everything else, etc.......while others will think something else entirely. So that said all their matches were during the period both guys were winning slams, and until that changes, that is pretty much the easiest measuring point.

the outdoor H2H becoming 4-1 in rafa's favour prime to prime is a HUGE joke , even by your standards :)

most of those have been on very slow courts ( miami, plexi ) - 4 of them out of 7 ... most of them with federer past his best ....

It'd be 3-2 in federer's favour on rebound, 2-3 on plexicushion and 4-1 @ US Open ...

3-2 at wimbledon and 0-5 @ RG ...

which makes it 10-10 ( rebound ) or 9-11 ( plexicushion )

Prisoner of Birth
09-30-2012, 11:18 PM
Oh, if people are still wondering if Federer really is better than Nadal, look no further than the Grand Slams since 2008 (when Federer left his prime and Nadal unquestionably entered or had already entered his).

AO - 1 for Federer, 1 for Nadal
FO - 1 for Federer, 4 for Nadal
W - 2 for Federer, 2 for Nadal
USO - 1 for Federer, 1 for Nadal

A past-his-prime Federer (his 26 years and 4 months old to 31 years and 2 months old) won as many times at 3 Grand Slams as in-prime Nadal (21 years 8 months old to 26 years 5 months old) has. The only difference is at the French Open where Nadal has won 3 more than Federer has. The only logical conclusion is that a past-his-prime Federer is EQUALLY good as an in-prime Nadal on Grasscourts and Hardcourts. Imagine how much better than in-prime Federer would be. And you get 5 Grasscourt Slams, 7 Hardcourt Slams, more than anything Nadal can possibly get close to in the whole of his career.

Now, can anyone really claim that Nadal is a better grass-courter or a better hard-courter than Federer is? I think it's glaringly obvious to anyone with a head on their shoulders that Federer's not-stellar record against Nadal is more a match-up issue than Federer's deficiencies as a player. And I don't understand why the GOAT can't have match-up issues with any player. What do you expect, should the GOAT have positive head-to-heads against every single player in the history of Tennis? Isn't that asking too much? One would have to be a God to be able to do that because people have weaknesses and a human player can simply not have no weaknesses which can be exploited by players with certain playing styles. Nadal is the definition of a Federer-killer. Left-handed, capable of insane topspin (probably more than anyone in history), incredible retrieving abilities, and, the best of all, a strong mental-edge over Federer who didn't figure Nadal out soon enough to deny Nadal said-mental-edge. Hence the head-to-head. And let's not forget how skewed it is by the number of matches they've played on clay (Nadal's best surface and Federer's worst) and the triple-surface-bagel Federer still has on Nadal. Not to mention, his 4-0 record on indoor hards. It's pretty obvious who the better player is.

dangalak
09-30-2012, 11:45 PM
Lets say they played 5 slam matches on both. Clay still 5-0. Hard court slams well considering Nadal is 5-2 lifetime on outdoor hard courts, 2-1 vs even so called prime Federer on outdoor hard courts (choking a huge lead in the only loss), and 2-0 as it is hard court slams, lets make the 2-0 a 4-1. Grass is 2-1 now, so lets just make it 3-2 Federer. Now we have an 11-4 Nadal instead of a 8-2, so that worked out well didnt it. Anymore brilliant suggestions?

Did you just really laugh at me because I was wrong according to a product of your fantasy? :lol:

Ignoring the fact that your projections are fantastic beyond belief, how in God's name does one dispute that playing less often on clay, where Federer cannot hit a backhand, would improve Federer's record? I mean this is something that should be automatic.

Are you seriously telling me that Federer isn't past his prime and has been for years now?

Well with most Fed fans, his prime was only for 3-4 years and everything thereafter doesn't count. Any of the demolitions Nadal gave Fed after the 2007 timeframe doesn't count.

Afterall, Fed's prime ended at 26. ROFL. Disregard the fact hes still #1 in the world and winning slams.


To be honest, the fact he never gets any serious type of injuries which has ever set him back.. Hes never had to miss any big tournaments, hes still #1 in the world in the rankings and hes won like 6 big tournaments over the last year, maybe hes still in his prime.

I dont know of any guys that are way past their prime and still the #1 player in the world in the rankings.


If Fed is still #1 in the world then I think loses should count just as much as wins do. I mean come on.. Its not like hes dropped out of the top 10, is losing early at slams, or is having serious nagging injuries which keeps him out of big tournaments.


Its all relative anyways.. What's prime and not? To me if you're still #1 in the world, and winning big tournaments, not missing substantial time do to various injuries, you are still priming out. Maybe not peaking but you can still be considered in your prime. I consider 2004-2007, Fed's peak years.. Not his prime years.


I think you can still win a big tournament every now and then and be past your prime.. But you can't be #1 in the world and past your prime because that requires year round consistency to be #1.

SetSampras punishing Federer for actually doing what Pete couldn't do. :lol: Who would've thought that that fateful day of disaster would turn out being so useful for you in the long run? (I mean Federer winning Wimbledon for the 7th time)

Would you please stop referring to Federer's losses as "demolitions"? Nadal has demolished Federer twice in his career. That's it. He doesn't have the game to "demolish" Federer while he is playing well.

And yes, Federer is still past his prime. He passed his peak somewhere when he lost to Canas twice in a row.

Coming from someone that really likes Federer, you have a serious point here.

He hates Federer.

Yeah, conveniently we forgot that Djokovic had Nadal nearly in tears after he smacked Nadal around in that 2011 Wimbledon final like he was his son.
If Federer had close to Djokovic's guts, he wouldn't have only been 1/12 on BPs whereas Djokovic was 5/6. It's obvious who shows more guts against Nadal. Djokovic could care less what Nadal brings. Even at Roland Garros, *******s were soiling themselves when the drizzle came, causing Nadal's beloved clay to reduce topspin and allowing Djokovic to smack him around the court for 8 straight games until the stupid ref stopped the match.

Federer's Wimbledon 2008 = more guts than Djokovic has shown in his entire life.

Do you seriously think that the BP conversion is a result of guts? DJokovic is not only a better returner overall, but also returns Nadal's serve very well and isn't nearly as generous as Federer is on BPs. Has nothing to do with guts. I wonder how courageous Djokovic would be with a OHBH.

the outdoor H2H becoming 4-1 in rafa's favour prime to prime is a HUGE joke , even by your standards :)

most of those have been on very slow courts ( miami, plexi ) - 4 of them out of 7 ... most of them with federer past his best ....

It'd be 3-2 in federer's favour on rebound, 2-3 on plexicushion and 4-1 @ US Open ...

3-2 at wimbledon and 0-5 @ RG ...

which makes it 10-10 ( rebound ) or 9-11 ( plexicushion )

Not a bad post. I feel it's better to do it over 10 matches. This is how I can see the H2H develop

AO Rebound ace: Federer 5-5 Nadal
AO Plexicushion: Nadal 6-4 Federer
FO: Nadal 9-1 Federer (no way he wouldn't slip up at least once)
W: Federer 7-3 Nadal
USO: 7-3

I bet you NA won't like this. :)

ledwix
09-30-2012, 11:54 PM
]
9. Riggs v. King


What was their H2H again? 1-0 King? lol

TMF
10-01-2012, 08:26 AM
What was their H2H again? 1-0 King? lol

It was about the battle of sexes and not the quality wise. Riggs claimed women's tennis is so inferior to men's tennis that even at his age(55) would beat the best female player in the world. Rigg was cocky and continue to downtalk women's tennis, and King decided to step up for the challenge. Cocky Rigg got embarrassed by King who destroyed him.

NadalAgassi
10-01-2012, 08:27 AM
TMF you still havent answered how you could possibly consider Federer-Nadal a greater rivalry than Evert-Navratilova.

NadalAgassi
10-01-2012, 08:29 AM
Oh, if people are still wondering if Federer really is better than Nadal, look no further than the Grand Slams since 2008 (when Federer left his prime and Nadal unquestionably entered or had already entered his).

AO - 1 for Federer, 1 for Nadal
FO - 1 for Federer, 4 for Nadal
W - 2 for Federer, 2 for Nadal
USO - 1 for Federer, 1 for Nadal

A past-his-prime Federer (his 26 years and 4 months old to 31 years and 2 months old) won as many times at 3 Grand Slams as in-prime Nadal (21 years 8 months old to 26 years 5 months old) has. The only difference is at the French Open where Nadal has won 3 more than Federer has. The only logical conclusion is that a past-his-prime Federer is EQUALLY good as an in-prime Nadal on Grasscourts and Hardcourts.

The only problem with your little song and dance is nobody said Nadal was better than Federer. All that was said is that it an indisputable fact he owns Federer in H2H. That is all.

Pete.Sampras.
10-01-2012, 08:33 AM
Well I personally enjoyed the 90s with Becker, Sampras, Agassi and all these guys more than today's tennis. But what Federer and Nadal have to offer is a joy to watch, no doubt...

NadalAgassi
10-01-2012, 08:34 AM
Did you just really laugh at me because I was wrong according to a product of your fantasy? :lol:

Except my projected numbers werent based on fantasy at all. They were based on taking their actual current numbers and giving the exact same ratio if they had played 5 times on each slam surface, well even that I didnt entirely due since hard court slam H2H now is 2-0 so technically going by ratio it would be 5-0, but since 2 matches are not alot I threw Federer a bit of a bone. Of course the actual facts are Nadal leads 8-2 in slam H2H, but since you have been whining and crying for pages that they play more on clay, I used existing ratios to create a balanced slam H2H across all surfaces which came to still virtually as one sided a final total. Meanwhile YOUR projected numbers on the bottom are merely fantasy as they arent based on any actual existing data as mine are, just figments of your imagination.


I bet you NA won't like this. :)

Sorry to burst your bubble but I am not bothered in the least by anything you think or say. Dont give yourself too much credit.

NadalAgassi
10-01-2012, 08:40 AM
Yeah, conveniently we forgot that Djokovic had Nadal nearly in tears after he smacked Nadal around in that 2011 Wimbledon final like he was his son. :lol:


Oh new TW resident obsessive Djokovic fanboy (now that DjokovicFakeFanWin is long gone) this thread has nothing about your jerk off fantasy Djokovic who you manage to bring and find ways to worship in every thread, but is strictly about Federer vs Nadal. There is a reason I never Djokovic said was Nadal's lapdog the way Federer is, unlike Federer vs Nadal, Djokovic vs Nadal is a great rivalry with a very competitive overall and slam H2H (both which Nadal still lead in as well). Your references to the 2011 Wimbledon final have nothing to do with the Federer vs Nadal matchup, or their matches at Wimbledon or anywhere else, which is what my post was about. However for the record the only Wimbledon match Nadal ever cried after was the 2007 Wimbledon final, and the most famous crying jag of all was Federer after losing to Nadal at the 2009 Australian Open final, so if that is your bizarre new measuring stick even then Nadal > Federer >>> Djokovic :lol:

TMF
10-01-2012, 08:57 AM
TMF you still havent answered how you could possibly consider Federer-Nadal a greater rivalry than Evert-Navratilova.

Everyone has his/her own opinion. Men's tennis will always be >>> women's tennis in terms of popularity and more viewers. In case you didn't notice, the top 10 greatest rivalries are mostly from men's tennis, and Fed/Nadal is arguably is at the top.

Prisoner of Birth
10-01-2012, 09:14 AM
Golf is more exciting than Women's Tennis. And that's saying something.

TMF
10-01-2012, 09:30 AM
Golf is more exciting than Women's Tennis. And that's saying something.

Not just tennis, women sport will always be overshadowed by the men. The WNBA playoff is currently televised on NBA TV, while the NBA playoff is televised on national TV(ABC), and the millions across the globe tune in.

abmk
10-01-2012, 09:31 AM
Except my projected numbers werent based on fantasy at all. They were based on taking their actual current numbers and giving the exact same ratio if they had played 5 times on each slam surface, well even that I didnt entirely due since hard court slam H2H now is 2-0 so technically going by ratio it would be 5-0, but since 2 matches are not alot I threw Federer a bit of a bone. Of course the actual facts are Nadal leads 8-2 in slam H2H, but since you have been whining and crying for pages that they play more on clay, I used existing ratios to create a balanced slam H2H across all surfaces which came to still virtually as one sided a final total. Meanwhile YOUR projected numbers on the bottom are merely fantasy as they arent based on any actual existing data as mine are, just figments of your imagination.

yes, of course, because nadal lead djokovic 5-0 in slams, including 2-0 off clay, he was going to keep on thrashing him in the future as well ..... oh wait ...

lendl was crushing mac, barely losing sets vs him in 81-82 ...... mac was going to continue losing to him, right ? oh wait ....

the existing numbers state that federer is superior to nadal on grass, indoors, fast HC & slow HC and nadal is superior on clay .....

none of that is going to change

on slow HC, the matchup factor is enough to narrow down the gap ....

what is fantasy is nadal coming close to narrowing down the gap on fast HC ( outdoors) in their H2H ....

that bold statement made me ROFL ........... Do you even how much of a fool you make yourself look with those kind of statements ? :)

abmk
10-01-2012, 09:41 AM
Most of the big loses Fed has had this year for instance, has been against guys who really could always trouble Roger:


2. Murray: Hes given Roger his share of trouble over the years. Nothing terribly new. IN fact, wasn't he one of the few who beat Roger in 2006?

that match holds almost no significance tbh ...... federer was wayyyyy too much spent playing 4 3-setters in a row in Canada and barely got rest before Cincy - this was before byes were there


3. Berdych? Always been known to give Roger issues. Berdych actually matches up well with Roger.. And when hes playing well can give Roger FITS mainly because he can attack Roger's 2nd serve and can toss some bombs back to him from the baseline.



These guys at their best vs. Roger's best we have ourselves a good match either way. These guys beating Roger is not exactly some new phenomenon. They have all beat him before over the years. ROFL

prime federer didn't have much trouble vs berdych at all .... its federer's reduced movement/anticipation/RoS that is causing him to have problems vs berdych in the recent past ...

yes, he lost vs him @ olympics in 2004, so what ? he lost to blake in olympics in 2008 , someone whom he otherwise owned ..

from 2004-2008,

federer was 7-1 vs berdych, losing 2 sets in that Olympics match in 2004 and one set at halle ..... otherwise berdych was struggling to win sets vs him

DRII
10-01-2012, 11:04 AM
Everyone has his/her own opinion. Men's tennis will always be >>> women's tennis in terms of popularity and more viewers. In case you didn't notice, the top 10 greatest rivalries are mostly from men's tennis, and Fed/Nadal is arguably is at the top.

Wrong...

in the late 90's early 2000's women's tennis was more popular than men's tennis.

NadalAgassi
10-01-2012, 11:21 AM
Everyone has his/her own opinion. Men's tennis will always be >>> women's tennis in terms of popularity and more viewers. In case you didn't notice, the top 10 greatest rivalries are mostly from men's tennis, and Fed/Nadal is arguably is at the top.

While your general comments on womens tennis are true Evert-Navratilova was the all time height of the WTA and produced higher TV ratings than virtually any other finals matchup in history. Also if TV ratings were what mattered most Connors-McEnroe and McEnroe-Borg and Borg-Connors would be the best rivalries ever. More people watched all of those than any other time in tennis history by far.

Either way, again 80 matches and still virtually tied head to head 43-37. Let me know when Federer and Nadal, or any other combo today, comes within the same stratosphere of that.

NadalAgassi
10-01-2012, 11:22 AM
Golf is more exciting than Women's Tennis. And that's saying something.

You are speaking for todays, but womens tennis was not always as bad as it is today, in fact it very rarely has been.

Agassifan
10-01-2012, 11:24 AM
Would have been great if Fed had a crack at Rafa 5 times in NY instead of in Paris

Prisoner of Birth
10-01-2012, 12:47 PM
You are speaking for todays, but womens tennis was not always as bad as it is today, in fact it very rarely has been.

True, it was much better in the 90s and 80s.

NadalAgassi
10-01-2012, 01:41 PM
True, it was much better in the 90s and 80s.

IMHO the best womens fields were 1990-1993 and 1999-2003

1990-1993: Seles at her peak, Graf in her prime, Sabatini at her all time peak, Sanchez coming into her prime, Navratilova rejuvenated and playing her best tennis since her prime years, Novotna, Martinez, Capriati, all on the rise, Fernandez at her peak.

1999-2003: Serena and Venus at their peaks, Hingis and Davenport at or near their peaks, Henin, Clijsters, and Mauresmo emerging, Pierce a major contender, Graf and Seles in their twilight years.


However Evert and Navratilova were no doubt the most captivating rivalry, even if at the height of their dominance the rest of the WTA sucked, but that only added to the prestige of their rivalry, they were literally all that mattered in the WTA at one point, and could meet in nearly ever final with no interference from 82-early 85.

wy2sl0
12-14-2012, 06:12 PM
Have to re-up this. Watching the highlights again, and now confirm my belief these two play the highest level of tennis in GS play.

That first set WAS ABSOLUTELY INSANE.

The-Champ
12-14-2012, 07:10 PM
Have to re-up this. Watching the highlights again, and now confirm my belief these two play the highest level of tennis in GS play.

That first set WAS ABSOLUTELY INSANE.

If you wanna see unbelievable tennis between the two, it's peak Federer vs peak Nadal on clay, 2006 MC/Rome. I've never seen anyone move like these two on a tennis court.

this is a 44 min extended highlights

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBbI2dJYTVg

Sabratha
12-14-2012, 07:53 PM
I don't think the game will be the same after the big 4 go. There will be some Roddick's and Hewitt's rising up in the ranks.

wy2sl0
12-15-2012, 05:21 AM
If you wanna see unbelievable tennis between the two, it's peak Federer vs peak Nadal on clay, 2006 MC/Rome. I've never seen anyone move like these two on a tennis court.

this is a 44 min extended highlights

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBbI2dJYTVg

That is the slowest court I have ever seen. Biggest grindfest ever, even worse than the A012 (not to say that's bad).

That was a heartbreaker for Roger. His backhand is much better now though, but he is definitely slower.

Essentially though it is 40 minutes of highlights of Nadal hitting to Fed's backhand.

Paul Murphy
12-15-2012, 05:25 AM
The 1980s: Lendl, McEnroe, Connors, Becker, Edberg, Wilander.
Contrasts in styles, fast and slow surfaces - Heaven.

Hitman
12-15-2012, 06:50 AM
Funny how this thread was meant to be about appreciating Federer and Nadal, and what they have done for tennis.

Why can't everyone see that these two legends, while battling each other all over the world, have set numerous records each, created a legacy that will always be remembered? And they have tremendous respect and mutual admiration for what the other brings, and what they bring out of each other? They have surface streaks wins on all three surfaces, records at all the slams, battled each other in epic finals everywhere expect NYC.

Some people just need to relax and get over this is playground My player is better than your player.

beast of mallorca
12-15-2012, 06:57 AM
Funny how this thread was meant to be about appreciating Federer and Nadal, and what they have done for tennis.

Why can't everyone see that these two legends, while battling each other all over the world, have set numerous records each, created a legacy that will always be remembered? And they have tremendous respect and mutual admiration for what the other brings, and what they bring out of each other? They have surface streaks wins on all three surfaces, records at all the slams, battled each other in epic finals everywhere expect NYC.

Some people just need to relax and get over this is playground My player is better than your player.

It's a lost cause my friend. I myself get entangled in such a mess. With guys like Rafa2005, Clarky, tennispro etc who come here to bash Fed and Nadal left and right, TW will be such a playground. As for myself, I'll try to be a good guy ............next year !!! :)

Hitman
12-15-2012, 07:08 AM
It's a lost cause my friend. I myself get entangled in such a mess. With guys like Rafa2005, Clarky, tennispro etc who come here to bash Fed and Nadal left and right, TW will be such a playground. As for myself, I'll try to be a good guy ............next year !!! :)

I understand what you are saying. But surely sometimes people can just take a step back and say - You know what, these players have provided me with countless minutes of enthralling tennis. Have taken me on incredible emotional journeys, with the highs and the lows. Have set numerous benchmarks in this sport that I enjoy watching, and I was alive to witness it myself, instead of just reading about it. They have been great ambassadors for a game that has never been given the same status as other sports, and instead of celebrating that, everyone is here constantly fighting and arguing and throwing disparaging remarks all the time. I mean sure sometimes everyone says something like that, I am no angel myself, but all the time? :-?

beast of mallorca
12-15-2012, 07:11 AM
Fed at 30, Nadal with broken knees 10 years into his career.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSmDCHLJM70
The level of play is just insane; and that was just a "good" match between the two. I could and have watched replays of Fed Nad matches over and over.

We are always talking about who is best, better - too many opinions. This is IMO the best period to watch tennis, and possibly may be for a LONG time to come. Agree or disagree?

Can you make this poll public?

wy2sl0
12-15-2012, 09:58 AM
Can you make this poll public?

You mean the results? I won't let me. I would have had to have done at the start.

kishnabe
12-15-2012, 10:04 AM
Nadal Federer all the way.

Nadal Djokovic is boring except the part when Novak wins in the end.

FedererDropShot
12-15-2012, 10:09 AM
The emerging Rosol-Nadal rivalry is GOAT.

The-Champ
12-15-2012, 04:05 PM
The emerging Rosol-Nadal rivalry is GOAT.

I think you should bet your life savings on Rosol beating Rafa next time they meet :D

3fees
12-15-2012, 04:09 PM
I like the 4 way rivalry nole,murray,federer,nadal