PDA

View Full Version : My case for Federer being better than Nadal


Prisoner of Birth
10-01-2012, 12:39 AM
(I'm copying this from the "How lucky are we..." thread where I first posted it and also adding a bit more)

Grand Slams won since 2008 (when Federer left his prime and Nadal 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 (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 an 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.



And let me take a second to dissect this "head to head" thing.

What really happened : Nadal (18-10) Federer
Grass : 2-1 to Federer
Clay : 12-2 to Nadal
Outdoor Hard : 5-2 to Nadal
Indoor Hard : 4-0 to Federer

So that's
3 matches on Nadal's second-best surface and Federer's second-best surface
14 matches on Nadal's best surface and Federer's fourth-best (worst)
6 matches on Nadal's third-best surface (2nd worst) and Federer's third-best (2nd worst)
4 matches on Nadal's fourth-best (worst) surface and Federer's best

What could have happened : Federer (17-11) Nadal
Now, let's flip it so we have 14 matches on Federer's best surface (Indoor Hards), 3 on Federer's second-best (the same as Nadal's - Grass), 6 on Federer's third-best (the same as Nadal's - Outdoor Hards), and 4 on Federer's worst (Clay)

So now it's
Grass : 2-1 for Federer(stays the same, deducing from the actual ratio)
Clay : 4-0 for Nadal (it's 12-2 but logic dictates Nadal would probably win all 4 so I'm giving Nadal the benefit of doubt)
Outdoor Hard : 5-2 to Nadal (stays the same, deducing from the actual ratio)
Indoor Hard : 13-1 to Federer (the actual ratio would suggest a 14-0 to Federer but I'm gonna be logical and say Nadal wouldn't lose all 14 meetings. Again, giving Nadal the benefit of doubt)

So, where would that leave us? 17 wins for Federer, 11 wins for Nadal. So, hypothetically, if Federer had been as fortuitous as Nadal with regards to the surfaces the pair played their matches on, Federer would be leading the head-to-head by an impressive 17-11. Not so bad for being "Nadal's b**ch" eh?


There goes the "head to head" argument :)

TennisLovaLova
10-01-2012, 04:04 AM
+ Federer is the blue clay GOAT

tennis_pro
10-01-2012, 04:10 AM
Come on we've had this discussion a gazillion times already...the last time it was interesting was back in the 90's

The_Order
10-01-2012, 04:57 AM
(
So, where would that leave us? 17 wins for Federer, 11 wins for Nadal. So, hypothetically, if Federer had been as fortuitous as Nadal with regards to the surfaces the pair played their matches on, Federer would be leading the head-to-head by an impressive 17-11. Not so bad for being "Nadal's b**ch" eh?


If Nadal had been as fortuitous as Federer with regards to the surfaces of the majors, the major count could look like:

Nadal: 17 >> Fed:12

If you change the USO to clay Rafa would've won another 6 slams (7RG so 1USO + 6 more if it was on clay) taking his tally up to 17, then subtract the 5 USO from Federer to leave him with 12.

So yeah Fed is actually lucky in terms of surfaces and yes he is Nadal's b**ch. Nadal has beaten him at 3 of the 4 majors and the thought of losing to him at the USO scared Fed so much he choked MP against Djoker 2 years in a row so he wouldn't get embarrassed by Rafa again in a major final. Look at their outdoor h2h Rafa would've smoked him especially in 2010 final.

See I can play this game too :)

tennis_pro
10-01-2012, 05:09 AM
If Nadal had been as fortuitous as Federer with regards to the surfaces of the majors, the major count could look like:

Nadal: 17 >> Fed:12

If you change the USO to clay Rafa would've won another 6 slams (7RG so 1USO + 6 more if it was on clay) taking his tally up to 17, then subtract the 5 USO from Federer to leave him with 12.

So yeah Fed is actually lucky in terms of surfaces and yes he is Nadal's b**ch. Nadal has beaten him at 3 of the 4 majors and the thought of losing to him at the USO scared Fed so much he choked MP against Djoker 2 years in a row so he wouldn't get embarrassed by Rafa again in a major final. Look at their outdoor h2h Rafa would've smoked him especially in 2010 final.

See I can play this game too :)

Why not change all the remaining major surfaces to clay? Why not go full ret**d?

Prisoner of Birth
10-01-2012, 05:26 AM
Why not change all the remaining major surfaces to clay? Why not go full ret**d?

He already did. Let's give him an Oscar nominatin but not the statue.

Russeljones
10-01-2012, 05:34 AM
This thread is really going to fall on deaf ears. We're sick of this comparison.

batz
10-01-2012, 05:41 AM
(I'm copying this from the "How lucky are we..." thread where I first posted it and also adding a bit more)

Grand Slams won since 2008 (when Federer left his prime and Nadal 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 (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.



And let me take a second to dissect this "head to head" thing.

What really happened : Nadal (18-10) Federer
Grass : 2-1 to Federer
Clay : 12-2 to Nadal
Outdoor Hard : 5-2 to Nadal
Indoor Hard : 4-0 to Federer

So that's
3 matches on Nadal's second-best surface and Federer's second-best surface
14 matches on Nadal's best surface and Federer's fourth-best (worst)
6 matches on Nadal's third-best surface (2nd worst) and Federer's third-best (2nd worst)
4 matches on Nadal's fourth-best (worst) surface and Federer's best

What could have happened : Federer (17-11) Nadal
Now, let's flip it so we have 14 matches on Federer's best surface (Indoor Hards), 3 on Federer's second-best (the same as Nadal's - Grass), 6 on Federer's third-best (the same as Nadal's - Outdoor Hards), and 4 on Federer's worst (Clay)

So now it's
Grass : 2-1 for Federer(stays the same, deducing from the actual ratio)
Clay : 4-0 for Nadal (it's 12-2 but logic dictates Nadal would probably win all 4 so I'm giving Nadal the benefit of doubt)
Outdoor Hard : 5-2 to Nadal (stays the same, deducing from the actual ratio)
Indoor Hard : 13-1 to Federer (the actual ratio would suggest a 14-0 to Federer but I'm gonna be logical and say Nadal wouldn't lose all 14 meetings. Again, giving Nadal the benefit of doubt)

So, where would that leave us? 17 wins for Federer, 11 wins for Nadal. So, hypothetically, if Federer had been as fortuitous as Nadal with regards to the surfaces the pair played their matches on, Federer would be leading the head-to-head by an impressive 17-11. Not so bad for being "Nadal's b**ch" eh?


There goes the "head to head" argument :)

I haven't read all your post, but what's Roger's head to head v Rafa in SLAMS? (you know slams, the things that used to matter more than anything to some Fed fans before Roger stopped winning them so much).

Roger has the same number of slam wins against Nadal as Andy Murray and David Ferrer.

So - I'm not quite so sure about 'there goes the head to head argument'.

Hood_Man
10-01-2012, 06:34 AM
I don't think you really need to make a case for it, he did alright for a few years :)

Personally I'm not too upset by the H2H, at the end of Federer's last great year in 2007 it was 8-6 in Nadal's favour, with Federer having won 5 of their last 7 matches. That's hardly dominating.

Of course the H2H is more one sided now, Federer got worse as Nadal got better. For the past 4 seasons Nadal has been the better player*.

The Fed haters (a small but loud minority I'll happily admit) can bleat on about H2H's till the cows come home, I'm happy to enjoy seeing my guy win :D


*I can't wait to see how someone manages to twist this round and misinterpret what I've said into an attack. I could say Nadal was as heroic as Superman and someone would accuse me of making a joke about underwear...

Prisoner of Birth
10-01-2012, 06:41 AM
I haven't read all your post, but what's Roger's head to head v Rafa in SLAMS? (you know slams, the things that used to matter more than anything to some Fed fans before Roger stopped winning them so much).

Roger has the same number of slam wins against Nadal as Andy Murray and David Ferrer.

So - I'm not quite so sure about 'there goes the head to head argument'.

Quote me saying, "Slams are all that matter." Then you have a point. Don't hold me liable for all the things others have said.

cknobman
10-01-2012, 07:10 AM
Was this thread set up for intentional TDK troll bait? LOL he is going to have an aneurysm if this keeps up.

MichaelNadal
10-01-2012, 07:13 AM
Dude, Federer is great, maybe if so many posters stopped beating Nadal down so much for no reason this place would have less *****. WE GET IT, Federer is a better player, sorry, still like Nadal much more.

Mike Sams
10-01-2012, 07:34 AM
Dude, Federer is great, maybe if so many posters stopped beating Nadal down so much for no reason this place would have less *****. WE GET IT, Federer is a better player, sorry, still like Nadal much more.

Who is the Warrior Reborn in January 2012, stated in your sig?

gmatheis
10-01-2012, 07:42 AM
If Nadal had been as fortuitous as Federer with regards to the surfaces of the majors, the major count could look like:

Nadal: 17 >> Fed:12

If you change the USO to clay Rafa would've won another 6 slams (7RG so 1USO + 6 more if it was on clay) taking his tally up to 17, then subtract the 5 USO from Federer to leave him with 12.

So yeah Fed is actually lucky in terms of surfaces and yes he is Nadal's b**ch. Nadal has beaten him at 3 of the 4 majors and the thought of losing to him at the USO scared Fed so much he choked MP against Djoker 2 years in a row so he wouldn't get embarrassed by Rafa again in a major final. Look at their outdoor h2h Rafa would've smoked him especially in 2010 final.

See I can play this game too :)

well if tennis was played with your feet instead of a racket rafa would probably beat federer even worse.

guess what .. it's not

roger 17 > rafa 11

argument over

RF20Lennon
10-01-2012, 07:44 AM
Dude, Federer is great, maybe if so many posters stopped beating Nadal down so much for no reason this place would have less *****. WE GET IT, Federer is a better player, sorry, still like Nadal much more.

Your avatar beats both end of story. :)

gmatheis
10-01-2012, 07:48 AM
Dude, Federer is great, maybe if so many posters stopped beating Nadal down so much for no reason this place would have less *****. WE GET IT, Federer is a better player, sorry, still like Nadal much more.

This is one of the best posts I've ever read from a Nadal fan. Nothing wrong with your favorite player not being the all time best, hell there's nothing wrong with liking someone like Tsonga who no one in their right mind would even argue is the best.

I'm a Roger fan, I believe his acomplishments have established him as the GOAT until someone outdoes him, but I'll admit all day long that Rafa is a great player too and probably the best clay court player ever (as long as it's not blue lol).

If Rafa can somehow win 7 more majors I'll gladly back him as the GOAT even though I'll still be a bigger Roger fan.

RF20Lennon
10-01-2012, 07:50 AM
This is one of the best posts I've ever read from a Nadal fan. Nothing wrong with your favorite player not being the all time best, hell there's nothing wrong with liking someone like Tsonga who no one in their right mind would even argue is the best.

I'm a Roger fan, I believe his acomplishments have established him as the GOAT until someone outdoes him, but I'll admit all day long that Rafa is a great player too and probably the best clay court player ever (as long as it's not blue lol).

If Rafa can somehow win 7 more majors I'll gladly back him as the GOAT even though I'll still be a bigger Roger fan.

Seconded..

MichaelNadal
10-01-2012, 08:06 AM
This is one of the best posts I've ever read from a Nadal fan. Nothing wrong with your favorite player not being the all time best, hell there's nothing wrong with liking someone like Tsonga who no one in their right mind would even argue is the best.

I'm a Roger fan, I believe his acomplishments have established him as the GOAT until someone outdoes him, but I'll admit all day long that Rafa is a great player too and probably the best clay court player ever (as long as it's not blue lol).

If Rafa can somehow win 7 more majors I'll gladly back him as the GOAT even though I'll still be a bigger Roger fan.

Thanks man. It just gets so annoying day in and day out seeing the same posts and threads with people feeling the need to talk about how much Nadal sucks compared to Federer. They act like Nadal fans shouldn't exist or something and it's childish. You're right on the money with the Tsonga comment, there's plenty of other people that deserve fans too.

Your avatar beats both end of story. :)

So true :)

Mike Sams
10-01-2012, 08:25 AM
Nadal is nothing more than a dirtballer who benefits from today's game of slowed down courts. His entire game is to force errors, run like a madman and moonball. If anybody wants to argue that Nadal is nothing more than a defensive pusher, go watch Nadal vs Djokovic Rome final this year and see how Nadal is terrified of actually trying to construct a point and instead is doing nothing but running for his life throughout the court and pushing the ball and waiting for Djokovic to make the error.
Garbage tennis! :lol:
It's the slowed down courts which allow him chances to win at the AO, USO and Wimbledon. The ballstrikers are being killed off and the grinders and pushers are at the forefront.
If Nadal wasn't such a bigtime grinder and pusher, he wouldn't be injured so much. He doesn't possess the talent to play any other way even despite how much he trains and practices to improve his game. He barely comes to the net unless it's an easy put away.
He can't win any hardcourt Masters tournaments anymore even despite the courts playing slower than molasses clay these days.
Basically all he can win is clay tournaments because clay rewards pushers and moonballers.:)

MichaelNadal
10-01-2012, 08:30 AM
Nadal is nothing more than a dirtballer who benefits from today's game of slowed down courts. His entire game is to force errors, run like a madman and moonball. If anybody wants to argue that Nadal is nothing more than a defensive pusher, go watch Nadal vs Djokovic Rome final this year and see how Nadal is terrified of actually trying to construct a point and instead is doing nothing but running for his life throughout the court and pushing the ball and waiting for Djokovic to make the error.
Garbage tennis! :lol:
It's the slowed down courts which allow him chances to win at the AO, USO and Wimbledon. The ballstrikers are being killed off and the grinders and pushers are at the forefront.
If Nadal wasn't such a bigtime grinder and pusher, he wouldn't be injured so much. He doesn't possess the talent to play any other way even despite how much he trains and practices to improve his game. He barely comes to the net unless it's an easy put away.
He can't win any hardcourt Masters tournaments anymore even despite the courts playing slower than molasses clay these days.
Basically all he can win is clay tournaments because clay rewards pushers and moonballers.:)

Everyone today is playing on the same courts. Fail.

Mike Sams
10-01-2012, 09:17 AM
Everyone today is playing on the same courts. Fail.

And those who grind the best are the ones winning. Notice it's Nadal, the guy whose kneecaps are falling off because of too much ugly grinding throughout the years which is all he can do? :lol:
Almost 27 and all he's got are 4 non-clay Slams and 5 non-clay Masters. :lol: And this guy is a candidate for GOAT? He's a dirtballer and not much else with an ugly style who tortures his own body to not lose.

Mike Sams
10-01-2012, 09:19 AM
*******s won't admit that Nadal's natural style is to grind and run and push the ball and wait for errors. Now his knees are disintegrating because of his violent ugly pushing style of tennis.

beast of mallorca
10-01-2012, 09:26 AM
Do you, really need to make another Rafa vs Fed thread. AS IF WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH OF THESE ! This has been rehash a hundred times over dude.

Deng it. Enough already. Shall u make another GOAT thread ? :)

Prisoner of Birth
10-01-2012, 09:52 AM
Thanks man. It just gets so annoying day in and day out seeing the same posts and threads with people feeling the need to talk about how much Nadal sucks compared to Federer. They act like Nadal fans shouldn't exist or something and it's childish. You're right on the money with the Tsonga comment, there's plenty of other people that deserve fans too.



So true :)

Again, I NEVER said Nadal sucks. He's actually #2 on my GOAT list and is my 2nd favorite among current players.

TMF
10-01-2012, 10:26 AM
I haven't read all your post, but what's Roger's head to head v Rafa in SLAMS? (you know slams, the things that used to matter more than anything to some Fed fans before Roger stopped winning them so much).

Roger has the same number of slam wins against Nadal as Andy Murray and David Ferrer.

So - I'm not quite so sure about 'there goes the head to head argument'.

So what? You have to win 7 matches in order to win a slam, period. Fed > Nadal simply because he managed to win 7 matches in a row 17 times while Nadal only did it 11 times.

Good luck in trying to convince everyone that Rosol or Blake are > Nadal because of the h2h at the SLAM.

underground
10-01-2012, 12:41 PM
There really is no point arguing. 99.999999% of the human population knows that Roger Federer is THE GOAT. It's just some stubborn people in denial. No point in trying to convince them. Move on.

MichaelNadal
10-01-2012, 12:43 PM
And those who grind the best are the ones winning. Notice it's Nadal, the guy whose kneecaps are falling off because of too much ugly grinding throughout the years which is all he can do? :lol:
Almost 27 and all he's got are 4 non-clay Slams and 5 non-clay Masters. :lol: And this guy is a candidate for GOAT? He's a dirtballer and not much else with an ugly style who tortures his own body to not lose.

Who else has 4 slams and 5 masters off clay right now besides Djokovic? Please grow up.

cknobman
10-01-2012, 12:47 PM
Who else has 4 slams and 5 masters off clay right now besides Djokovic? Please grow up.

http://a.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=/i/headshots/tennis/players/full/425.png&w=350&h=254

Hood_Man
10-01-2012, 12:57 PM
That's a creepy picture of Fed there. It's the intense shadows where his eyes should be that's giving me the creeps.

[EDIT]

http://i.imgur.com/utR6k.gif

RF20Lennon
10-01-2012, 01:06 PM
http://a.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=/i/headshots/tennis/players/full/425.png&w=350&h=254

SO EPIC!!!! I LOL'ed

fed_rulz
10-01-2012, 02:59 PM
To the OP:
17 > 11, anyway you spin it. it might get countered with but 18 > 10....
my response is:
17.10 > 11.18

kragster
10-01-2012, 03:12 PM
OP, this is a discussion that's been had a 100 times and outside of a small minority of worshippers, very few sane Nadal fans consider him better than Federer.

Your H2H argument though is completely flawed though and should not be a part of this discussion. You devalue your argument by bringing it in. You completely missed surface distribution in the calendar year . It is as flawed as some Nadal nut saying that if there had been 2 clay slams a year Nadal would have 18 slams. The current H2H is definitely clay skewed but even if you did a H2H based on assuming Federer and Nadal met in the finals of every tournament in the year, it would still favor Nadal just because there are many more slow HC and clay events in the calendar than indoor events and grass. In no REAL scenario would Fed lead the H2H but THATS OKAY because tennis is about winning titles and how you do against the field, not a H2H

Prisoner of Birth
10-01-2012, 04:07 PM
OP, this is a discussion that's been had a 100 times and outside of a small minority of worshippers, very few sane Nadal fans consider him better than Federer.

Your H2H argument though is completely flawed though and should not be a part of this discussion. You devalue your argument by bringing it in. You completely missed surface distribution in the calendar year . It is as flawed as some Nadal nut saying that if there had been 2 clay slams a year Nadal would have 18 slams. The current H2H is definitely clay skewed but even if you did a H2H based on assuming Federer and Nadal met in the finals of every tournament in the year, it would still favor Nadal just because there are many more slow HC and clay events in the calendar than indoor events and grass. In no REAL scenario would Fed lead the H2H but THATS OKAY because tennis is about winning titles and how you do against the field, not a H2H

My head-to-head argument was only made to show how big a role the surface can play in match-ups. I admit that would never happen. I actually believe peak-Nadal would lead the head-to-head with peak-Federer even if they played evenly across all surfaces.

NadalAgassi
10-01-2012, 04:16 PM
Roger has the same number of slam wins against Nadal as Andy Murray and David Ferrer.

So - I'm not quite so sure about 'there goes the head to head argument'.

Ouch. The H2H will never be able to get eradicated as much as ****s wish it would. The thing is that while the point that the H2H fact does not make Nadal better than Federer (atleast not yet), the key is the H2H against Nadal is a huge crutch for Federer when compared to the other possible GOATs like Gonzales, Laver, and even Sampras who were never owned by any main rival, let alone by by far their biggest rival and a fellow all time great. How can the GOAT be the slave of the 2nd best player of their own era and a fellow top 5 player all time.

Prisoner of Birth
10-01-2012, 04:21 PM
Ouch. The H2H will never be able to get eradicated as much as ****s wish it would. The thing is that while the point that the H2H fact does not make Nadal better than Federer (atleast not yet), the key is the H2H against Nadal is a huge crutch for Federer when compared to the other possible GOATs like Gonzales, Laver, and even Sampras who were never owned by any main rival, let alone by by far their biggest rival and a fellow all time great. How can the GOAT be the slave of the 2nd best player of their own era and a fellow top 5 player all time.

Better to have a losing head-to-head to the second best player of your era than to have one against Krajicek, don't you think? And Laver would undoubtedly have a losing head-to-head against Gonzales had they both been the same age.

NadalAgassi
10-01-2012, 04:24 PM
Better to have a losing head-to-head to the second best player of your era than to have one against Krajicek, don't you think? And Laver would undoubtedly have a losing head-to-head against Gonzales had they both been the same age.

LOL how on earth can you be certain Laver would have a losing record vs Gonzales if they were the same age. There is no way to tell for sure, both are all time greats who dominated all their true generation peers, and dominated the game for a great many years. Because Laver had some losses to Gonzales in his 30s doesnt mean anything, Laver himself won the Grand Slam at 31 and was considered best in the World until atleast 33. Players could excel until close to 40 then, the game was totally different to now, plus they played a much fuller schedule so there were a ton more tournaments, a ton more losses, not easily managing when they hit their peak play each like today.

Sampras only played Krajicek once in a major. If they played 10 times what would the H2H be. Probably 8-2 for Sampras since Krajicek isnt a big event player (apart from that Wimbledon he won). A 0-1 head to head in majors is virtually meaningless, 1 match is not sufficient to tell anything. A 2-8 head to head on the other hand..... That plus Krajicek is an irrelevant player in tennis history, Nadal is probably the 4th or 5th best player of all time and by far a top 2 player and Federer's biggest rival by a chasm of the 15 year period Federer's whole career will come in, he is Federer's litmus test, and one he fails miserably in. Sampras's tests came in the form of his career rivalries with Agassi, Becker, Courier, numerous all time greats, and he passed each with flying colors.

However the main point is Laver and Gonzales both dominated their main rivalry which was with Rosewall, for years while they dominated the game each. Gonzales also had the big edge in his rivalries with Sedgeman, Hoad, and many other great many time slam winners who turned pro in the 50s, and Laver dominated his rivalries with other greats such as Emerson, Newcombe, Ashe, and all comers as well. That is something Federer could not even come close to doing with Nadal. It is a huge difference, especialy when Nadal is supposably a 1 dimensional clay courter.

Prisoner of Birth
10-01-2012, 04:31 PM
Sampras only played Krajicek once in a major. If they played 10 times what would the H2H be. Probably 8-2 for Sampras since Krajicek isnt a big event player (apart from that Wimbledon he won).

A 0-1 head to head in majors is virtually meaningless, 1 match is not sufficient to tell anything. A 2-8 head to head on the other hand. That plus Krajicek is an irrelevant player in tennis history, Nadal is probably the 4th or 5th best player of all time and by far a top 2 player of the 15 year period Federer's whole career will come in, he is Federer's litmus test, and one he fails miserably in.

See that's the point. A great player losing to another great player is logical. It's when you start losing to the Krajiceks, Bastls and Rosols that your greatness can be questioned, especially when it's in (or close to) your prime. It's analogous to a Grand Slam performance in a way. Would you rather lose to Nadal in the French Open final or to Andreev in the 3rd round? The only reason Federer's record against Nadal is so conspicuous is because Nadal is a fellow great/popular player. If Federer had a similar record against Igor Andreev, no one except people on Internet Tennis forums would know or care about it. And you know what, it's way more of a blemish if you have a losing record against Andreev than to Nadal.

Again, I never ever said Nadal's 1-dimensional. I never understand why every person arguing for Federer is held accountable for everything every **** in existence has said. Nadal's a great, great player and, deep down, everybody knows it.

And why would you only count Grand Slams? There are many other tournaments going all around the year. Nadal's won 21 of the next 10 biggest events (22 counting his Olympic Gold). Everything matters. And you can't just say Sampras would lead 8-2 against Krajicek in Slams when Krajicek is the one who won their only encounter there (on Grass against a prime Sampras).

NadalAgassi
10-01-2012, 04:34 PM
See that's the point. A great player losing to another great player is logical. It's when you start losing to the Krajiceks, Bastls and Rosols that your greatness can be questioned, especially when it's in (or close to) your prime. It's analogous to a Grand Slam performance in a way. Would you rather lose to Nadal in the French Open final or to Andreev in the 3rd round? The only reason Federer's record against Nadal is so conspicuous is because Nadal is a fellow great/popular player. If Federer had a similar record against Igor Andreev, no one except people on Internet Tennis forums would know or care about it. And you know what, it's way more of a blemish if you have a losing record against Andreev than to Nadal.

if Sampras had lost numerous times to Krajicek in slams you would have a point but it was only once. One loss isnt anything concrete to form any valid argument upon. Lord knows even Federer has had his share of embarassing losses in slams, losing twice to Berdych in slams now, a player everyone knows is not and never will be slam caliber (atleast Krajicek won the one he beat Sampras in, something Berdych will likely never do), losing to a hip crippled Kuerten who was about 20% his old self at the 2004 French and this one was definitely in the midst of his "prime", losing to headcase Tsonga from 2 sets up at Wimbledon. If he plays until he is no longer in the top 10 as Sampras did he will probably have his own "Bastl" moment at some point too. He nearly did at Wimbledon 2 years in fact with Falla.

Mike Sams
10-01-2012, 04:39 PM
Ouch. The H2H will never be able to get eradicated as much as ****s wish it would. The thing is that while the point that the H2H fact does not make Nadal better than Federer (atleast not yet), the key is the H2H against Nadal is a huge crutch for Federer when compared to the other possible GOATs like Gonzales, Laver, and even Sampras who were never owned by any main rival, let alone by by far their biggest rival and a fellow all time great. How can the GOAT be the slave of the 2nd best player of their own era and a fellow top 5 player all time.

Don't worry about the H2H, *******. History will see that Rafa was a dirtballer who won most everything on clay and could only bag 1 USO and 1 AO and 5 hardcourt Masters titles during his ENTIRE career while everything else is basically clay! A glorified clay courter who managed to sneak in a couple of hardcourt titles before baby Djokovic became a man! :lol:

Prisoner of Birth
10-01-2012, 04:44 PM
if Sampras had lost numerous times to Krajicek in slams you would have a point but it was only once. One loss isnt anything concrete to form any valid argument upon. Lord knows even Federer has had his share of embarassing losses in slams, losing twice to Berdych in slams now, a player everyone knows is not and never will be slam caliber (atleast Krajicek won the one he beat Sampras in, something Berdych will likely never do), losing to a hip crippled Kuerten who was about 20% his old self at the 2004 French and this one was definitely in the midst of his "prime", losing to headcase Tsonga from 2 sets up at Wimbledon. If he plays until he is no longer in the top 10 as Sampras did he will probably have his own "Bastl" moment at some point too. He nearly did at Wimbledon 2 years in fact with Falla.

Clay is Federer's worst surface and he lost to one of the Clay GOATs. Yes, he should've won, but Kuerten played a great match. And you can't hold the Tsonga/Berdych losses against Federer. He was 29/30/31 years old when those happened. The fact that, even now, he's still got his QF streak going is incredible. I mean, really, has anyone ever even come close to Federer's consistency?

And the ranking shouldn't really be the point. Sampras lost to Bastl in 2002 when he was 31. Federer won Wimbledon at 31. The difference is night & day. Yes, Sampras won the US Open at 31 but Federer's (hopefully) not done yet. Even if he never wins another Slam, he'll make a good few SFs and the odd Final as well, which is more than Sampras ever achieved. Again, not putting down Sampras. You can't really expect a 30+ player to do any better in this day and age. Just pointing out Federer's transcendent play.

Prisoner of Birth
10-01-2012, 04:46 PM
Don't worry about the H2H, *******. History will see that Rafa was a dirtballer who won most everything on clay and could only bag 1 USO and 1 AO and 5 hardcourt Masters titles during his ENTIRE career while everything else is basically clay! A glorified clay courter who managed to sneak in a couple of hardcourt titles before baby Djokovic became a man! :lol:

How anyone can call a Career Grand Slam champion a "glorified clay courter" is beyond me.

SoBad
10-01-2012, 04:48 PM
The fact that some people seem to be overlooking here is that the great Nadal is much better than the overrated fednerer.

Prisoner of Birth
10-01-2012, 04:49 PM
The fact that some people seem to be overlooking here is that the great Nadal is much better than the overrated fednerer.

Hey, you're so bad.

RF20Lennon
10-01-2012, 05:10 PM
The fact that some people seem to be overlooking here is that the great Nadal is much better than the overrated fednerer.

6-1 6-3 6-0 is overrated compared to you no? :twisted:

Hood_Man
10-01-2012, 05:11 PM
Again, I never ever said Nadal's 1-dimensional. I never understand why every person arguing for Federer is held accountable for everything every **** in existence has said.

I know what you mean. I think if I could pinpoint the one debating/arguing technique that irritates me most on the internet, that's the one I'd go for :)

Debate against the post peeps, not your own imagination.

SoBad
10-01-2012, 05:13 PM
6-1 6-3 6-0 is overrated compared to you no? :twisted:

Why is fred face so ugly? Did he get passed in the nose at the French08?:lol:

RF20Lennon
10-01-2012, 05:15 PM
Why is fred face so ugly? Did he get passed in the nose at the French08?:lol:

I think he passed it back at the WTF 2011 :lol:

SoBad
10-01-2012, 05:18 PM
I think he passed it back at the WTF 2011 :lol:

Some backcourt in the shady soho streets where Rafa was wheelchaired in semi-concious after a month of partying in Ibiza?

Hood_Man
10-01-2012, 05:22 PM
Some backcourt in the shady soho streets where Rafa was wheelchaired in semi-concious after a month of partying in Ibiza?

There was no wheelchair involved, Rafa was simply hung off an enormous court level, court wide metal bar that could slide side-to-side across the court, operated on one end by uncle Tony and on the other end by Xisca, who spin it as quickly as possible whenever the ball comes close to him.

The topspin he generates that way is out of this world :shock:

SoBad
10-01-2012, 05:24 PM
There was no wheelchair involved, Rafa was simply hung off an enormous court level, court wide metal bar that could slide side-to-side across the court, operated on one end by uncle Tony and on the other end by Xisca, who spin it as quickly as possible whenever the ball comes close to him.

The topspin he generates that way is out of this world :shock:

Maybe Rafa is not eating enough meat. Maybe he should keep his own cow at home like fred does.

RF20Lennon
10-01-2012, 05:26 PM
Maybe Rafa is not eating enough meat. Maybe he should keep his own cow at home like fred does.

YES!!!!

FACT

Hood_Man
10-01-2012, 05:28 PM
Maybe Rafa is not eating enough meat. Maybe he should keep his own cow at home like fred does.

He needs more cowbell.

SoBad
10-01-2012, 05:30 PM
He needs more cowbell.

Yes, he needs one to enclose with his annual christmas card to zhirnoslava wawrinkec.

90's Clay
10-01-2012, 05:59 PM
if Sampras had lost numerous times to Krajicek in slams you would have a point but it was only once. One loss isnt anything concrete to form any valid argument upon. Lord knows even Federer has had his share of embarassing losses in slams, losing twice to Berdych in slams now, a player everyone knows is not and never will be slam caliber (atleast Krajicek won the one he beat Sampras in, something Berdych will likely never do), losing to a hip crippled Kuerten who was about 20% his old self at the 2004 French and this one was definitely in the midst of his "prime", losing to headcase Tsonga from 2 sets up at Wimbledon. If he plays until he is no longer in the top 10 as Sampras did he will probably have his own "Bastl" moment at some point too. He nearly did at Wimbledon 2 years in fact with Falla.

I think Pete beat Krajicek more times in slams then he beat Pete:)

Richard had one huge slams vs. Pete where everything went for him. Their h2h was around .500.. I think 5-4 or something in favor of Richard. People also knew Pete stepped up majorly for slams. One win over Pete at wimbledon is a GREAT accomplishment.. But its still just one match.

Its hardly as lopsided slam wise as Nadal-Fed is

Federer20042006
10-01-2012, 06:15 PM
Nadal's also missed a bunch of slams and went through a spell losing finals to Djokovic playing out of his mind.

People always want to do this "if he did this past his prime, then imagine him in his prime" sort of thing, but tennis doesn't seem to work like that.

If Federer lost to Kuerten in straights at the FO in 2004, imagine if it had been 1999 Kuerten or something. A triple bagel, I guess?

Chances are, no.

The unfortunate reality is, Nadal flat-out took #1 from Federer. He owned him on clay and got closer and closer at Wimbledon until he snatched it from him. Then, he beat him at the Australian Open for good measure.

Initially, everyone's excuse was, "Nadal's only better than Federer on clay." Then when Nadal beat him on all other surfaces, it changed to, "it's a bad matchup for Federer."

Then when Nadal started winning everywhere and became #1, it changed to, "well, Federer's past his prime and still has more career slams at everything but the French."

It's just gotten to be too much. Federer's lucky Nadal can't stay healthy. That's why his slam record is likely safe. If Nadal caught Federer in slams, what would the argument be then?

"Well, Nadal has 10 French Open titles. Federer's slam totals are more balanced."

I hate Nadal's game, but Robin Soderling/Lukas Rosol and/or knee injuries are the only things that could stop him, besides Djokovic on an unbelievable run that came to an end.

Mike Sams
10-01-2012, 08:25 PM
Nadal's also missed a bunch of slams and went through a spell losing finals to Djokovic playing out of his mind.

People always want to do this "if he did this past his prime, then imagine him in his prime" sort of thing, but tennis doesn't seem to work like that.

If Federer lost to Kuerten in straights at the FO in 2004, imagine if it had been 1999 Kuerten or something. A triple bagel, I guess?

Chances are, no.

The unfortunate reality is, Nadal flat-out took #1 from Federer. He owned him on clay and got closer and closer at Wimbledon until he snatched it from him. Then, he beat him at the Australian Open for good measure.

Initially, everyone's excuse was, "Nadal's only better than Federer on clay." Then when Nadal beat him on all other surfaces, it changed to, "it's a bad matchup for Federer."

Then when Nadal started winning everywhere and became #1, it changed to, "well, Federer's past his prime and still has more career slams at everything but the French."

It's just gotten to be too much. Federer's lucky Nadal can't stay healthy. That's why his slam record is likely safe. If Nadal caught Federer in slams, what would the argument be then?

"Well, Nadal has 10 French Open titles. Federer's slam totals are more balanced."

I hate Nadal's game, but Robin Soderling/Lukas Rosol and/or knee injuries are the only things that could stop him, besides Djokovic on an unbelievable run that came to an end.

Nadal can't stay healthy because his style of game is to grind and push and that type of style, as Agassi, McEnroe and countless others predicted, would be Nadal's doom. Nadal doesn't have the talent to play any other way. He can't adjust his game at all. All he can do is grind, push, moonball, play 10 feet behind the baseline, retrieve and force errors. That's how he wins most of his matches. By forcing errors.
If Nadal tried to change his style, he would begin losing more and more. He doesn't have the talent to do anything except push, grind and moonball to his victories. Guys like Verdasco and Gulbis hit triple times the amount of winners than Nadal does in their matches but Nadal beats them because he can force errors from them by pushing and that's ugly garbage tennis. Nadal is lucky the courts are slow so he could finally get the USO. He's lucky he avoided Del Potro there otherwise it would've been another 6-2 6-2 6-2 destruction! :lol: Nadal had the easiest draw in history in order to win his USO title. He got a tired Djokovic who was having his worst season. When Djokovic matured, Nadal was out of answers. And it's only a matter of time before Djokovic takes him down on clay once again and everywhere else.

Prisoner of Birth
10-01-2012, 08:44 PM
Nadal's also missed a bunch of slams and went through a spell losing finals to Djokovic playing out of his mind.

People always want to do this "if he did this past his prime, then imagine him in his prime" sort of thing, but tennis doesn't seem to work like that.

If Federer lost to Kuerten in straights at the FO in 2004, imagine if it had been 1999 Kuerten or something. A triple bagel, I guess?

Chances are, no.

The unfortunate reality is, Nadal flat-out took #1 from Federer. He owned him on clay and got closer and closer at Wimbledon until he snatched it from him. Then, he beat him at the Australian Open for good measure.

Initially, everyone's excuse was, "Nadal's only better than Federer on clay." Then when Nadal beat him on all other surfaces, it changed to, "it's a bad matchup for Federer."

Then when Nadal started winning everywhere and became #1, it changed to, "well, Federer's past his prime and still has more career slams at everything but the French."

It's just gotten to be too much. Federer's lucky Nadal can't stay healthy. That's why his slam record is likely safe. If Nadal caught Federer in slams, what would the argument be then?

"Well, Nadal has 10 French Open titles. Federer's slam totals are more balanced."

I hate Nadal's game, but Robin Soderling/Lukas Rosol and/or knee injuries are the only things that could stop him, besides Djokovic on an unbelievable run that came to an end.

Look, it's not just the Slams. Federer has Nadal beat EVERYWHERE. Consistency, overall dominance, concentrated dominance, versatility, variety, aesthetic, and probably longevity as well. Even if Nadal catches up to Federer in the Slam count, I think it'd be a tie between them as far as GOAT claims go.

The Kuerten example is just bad for so many reasons
1. Federer's worst surface is Clay, which happens to be Kuerten's best
2. Federer was 22, Kuerten was 27. It's not like it was 24 year-old Federer versus a 31 year-old Kuerten
3. Federer lost in the 1st round of the FO just the previous year. Shows you he was nowhere near his best (on Clay) when that match happened
4. Quit pretending to be a Federer Fan. Your ruse is pathetic.

timnz
10-01-2012, 09:11 PM
The OP is completely right. The Federer Nadal head to head is completely and utterly about the surfaces they have played on.

Federer is better on Clay (his worst) than Nadal is indoor (his worst)... hence, in the 2000's Federer made far more finals on clay - and who did he meet in those Finals? Nadal of course (because it is his best surface). Unfortunately indoor tennis has moved from being one of the most important surfaces in the 80's and 90's to almost non-existent now - that also contributes to Federer and Nadal lack of matches against each other on that surface.

I always say to those who think Surface is irrelevant to head to head - Really? Do you think that Borg/McEnroe head to head would be the same if they had played all their matches on clay?

tennis_pro
10-02-2012, 07:26 AM
I think Pete beat Krajicek more times in slams then he beat Pete:)

Richard had one huge slams vs. Pete where everything went for him. Their h2h was around .500.. I think 5-4 or something in favor of Richard. People also knew Pete stepped up majorly for slams. One win over Pete at wimbledon is a GREAT accomplishment.. But its still just one match.

Its hardly as lopsided slam wise as Nadal-Fed is

Lawl, we know the facts.

It was 6-4 for Krajicek and 6-2 before his surgery.

1-1 in majors, one a straight set beatdown at Wimbledon against peakest of peaks Sampras and he choked 4 consecutive set points in their second match which would give him a 2 set lead (and virtually the match - no way Sampras was coming back from that).

I bet you know all of this but attempted to embelish the facts. In reality Krajicek when still able to compete owned Sampras a** on Sampras' favorite surfaces.

edberg505
10-02-2012, 08:15 AM
if Sampras had lost numerous times to Krajicek in slams you would have a point but it was only once. One loss isnt anything concrete to form any valid argument upon. Lord knows even Federer has had his share of embarassing losses in slams, losing twice to Berdych in slams now, a player everyone knows is not and never will be slam caliber (atleast Krajicek won the one he beat Sampras in, something Berdych will likely never do), losing to a hip crippled Kuerten who was about 20% his old self at the 2004 French and this one was definitely in the midst of his "prime", losing to headcase Tsonga from 2 sets up at Wimbledon. If he plays until he is no longer in the top 10 as Sampras did he will probably have his own "Bastl" moment at some point too. He nearly did at Wimbledon 2 years in fact with Falla.

Hey, it's better to lose the a player the caliber of Berdych once or twice in the later rounds than to lose to the likes of Yzaga, Ramon Delgado, Gilbert Schaller, Karol Kucera. But, I guess losing to Berdych in the QF of the US Open and Tsonga in the QF of Wimby is unforgivable? LOL, where do you come up with this stuff? Yeah, he almost lost to Falla and Janko Tipsarevic, and Julien Benneteau. But guess what, almost only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades. Hell, when was the last time Federer lost to someone that wasn't a slam champion or a finalist in a slam? My guess is you'd have to go back quite a ways.

Mike Sams
10-02-2012, 08:28 AM
The OP is completely right. The Federer Nadal head to head is completely and utterly about the surfaces they have played on.

Federer is better on Clay (his worst) than Nadal is indoor (his worst)... hence, in the 2000's Federer made far more finals on clay - and who did he meet in those Finals? Nadal of course (because it is his best surface). Unfortunately indoor tennis has moved from being one of the most important surfaces in the 80's and 90's to almost non-existent now - that also contributes to Federer and Nadal lack of matches against each other on that surface.

I always say to those who think Surface is irrelevant to head to head - Really? Do you think that Borg/McEnroe head to head would be the same if they had played all their matches on clay?

It's not just the surfaces. It's the styles. Nadal's style basically is designed to beat Federer. If you were to create the perfect player to expose Federer's weaknesses on paper, you'd literally come up with Nadal. A lefty topspin monster who hits 99% high bouncing backhands to the Federer one hander.

TMF
10-02-2012, 10:22 AM
The OP is completely right. The Federer Nadal head to head is completely and utterly about the surfaces they have played on.

Federer is better on Clay (his worst) than Nadal is indoor (his worst)... hence, in the 2000's Federer made far more finals on clay - and who did he meet in those Finals? Nadal of course (because it is his best surface). Unfortunately indoor tennis has moved from being one of the most important surfaces in the 80's and 90's to almost non-existent now - that also contributes to Federer and Nadal lack of matches against each other on that surface.

I always say to those who think Surface is irrelevant to head to head - Really? Do you think that Borg/McEnroe head to head would be the same if they had played all their matches on clay?

The problem is Fed played Nadal on his favorite surface(FO) but Nadal doesn't play Fed on his favorite surface(USO). Fed made 6 straight USO finals, there's no Nadal. However, Fed made 5 FO finals and Nadal was there. Not only the disparity of the surfaces they've met, but the difference in the age. They are 5 years apart, peak at different times and decline at different time. It would make sense to compare if both player are at the same age. And even if they are at the same age, the surface discrepancy would skewed the h2h. So we have two fallacies when comparing their h2h:

1. Disparity in age
2. Disparity surface

Down_the_line
10-02-2012, 10:28 AM
Who needs a case for why Federer is better than Nadal? Seriously, it's blatantly obvious. The ONLY thing Nadal has going for him is his head to head with Federer. Other than that, Federer's skill and achievements easily surpass that of Nadal's.

Rhino
10-03-2012, 02:43 AM
Here's more:

Consecutive Grand slam finals:
Federer: 10 (and another streak of 8 )
Nadal: 5

Consecutive Grand slam semifinals:
Federer: 23
Nadal: 5

Consecutive Grand slam quarterfinals:
Federer: 34 (active streak)
Nadal: 11

Most consecutive matches won at one Grand Slam event:
Federer (Wimbledon), 40
Federer (US Open), 40
Nadal (French Open), 31

Olympics Medals:
Federer: 1 X Gold, 1 X Silver
Nadal: 1 X Gold

Match wins at Roland Garros:
Federer: 54
Nadal: 52