PDA

View Full Version : Why Nadal is better than Fed.


Pages : [1] 2

smoledman
10-05-2012, 12:10 PM
We all know how dominant they are on their best surfaces. Nadal on clay. Federer on hard/grass. But how well do they do on their weakest?

Nadal has 10 big hard/grass titles
Federer has 7 big clay titles

But more importantly is Nadal has 4 grass/hard slams to only 1 clay slam for Federer.

4 > 1.

Surecatch
10-05-2012, 12:19 PM
We all know how dominant they are on their best surfaces. Nadal on clay. Federer on hard/grass. But how well do they do on their weakest?

Nadal has 10 big hard/grass titles
Federer has 7 big clay titles

But more importantly is Nadal has 4 grass/hard slams to only 1 clay slam for Federer.

4 > 1.

As is the case with almost all of these types of threads, your reasonings are quite misleading.

Calling clay Fed's "weakest" surface might technically be accurate, but he's been known for many years to be probably the best clay court player NOT named Nadal. If there was no Nadal, Federer would have won many many more clay titles. Being second to the best ever does not equal "weak." You might more accurately describe clay as Roger's "least totally awesome" surface. ;)

Fed is one of the best ever on all three surfaces. Nadal is one of the best ever on one.

AnotherTennisProdigy
10-05-2012, 12:19 PM
That's a little short sighted. Ever since Nadal started his dominance as the clay GOAT Federer established himself as the indisputed #2 on clay (debatable now with Djokovic's arrival). I don't think you can say the same for Nadal on hard court or grass.

What your stats answers is: Who is more dominant on their respective surfaces, Federer or Nadal? The answer is obviously Nadal but that doesn't make him a more well player.

beast of mallorca
10-05-2012, 12:19 PM
Really ? Another Fedal thread ? You bored ? :)

AnotherTennisProdigy
10-05-2012, 12:20 PM
As is the case with almost all of these types of threads, your reasonings are quite misleading.

Calling clay Fed's "weakest" surface might technically be accurate, but he's been known for many years to be probably the best clay court player NOT named Nadal. If there was no Nadal, Federer would have won many many more clay titles. Being second to the best ever does not equal "weak." You might more accurately describe clay as Roger's "least totally awesome" surface. ;)

Fed is one of the best ever on all three surfaces. Nadal is one of the best ever on one.

Lol, you beat me to it,

SStrikerR
10-05-2012, 12:22 PM
Nadal has two surfaces to win on, and Federer gets one. Yeah, this argument makes sense.

TMF
10-05-2012, 12:27 PM
Nadal is better than Federer on clay but Fed is better on hc, grass and indoor.

Semi-Pro
10-05-2012, 12:37 PM
Finally revealing your inner self after months in hibernation huh LOLvile :lol::lol:

It must eat you from the inside :lol::lol:

jokinla
10-05-2012, 12:39 PM
We all know how dominant they are on their best surfaces. Nadal on clay. Federer on hard/grass. But how well do they do on their weakest?

Nadal has 10 big hard/grass titles
Federer has 7 big clay titles

But more importantly is Nadal has 4 grass/hard slams to only 1 clay slam for Federer.

4 > 1.

Pretty absurd comparison, don't you think Nads should have more titles if you are comparing him on 2 surfaces to Fed on 1. Not to mention there are how many slams a year off of clay on these 2 surfaces. So Nads has 3 chances to win on these surfaces, where Fed has 1 chance. And how many HC masters a year versus clay? Nice trolling with you.

kalyan4fedever
10-05-2012, 12:40 PM
cat is out of the bag hehe ;)

Mustard
10-05-2012, 12:41 PM
Nadal leads the head-to-head against:

Federer 18-10 (8-2 in majors)
Djokovic 19-14 (6-3 in majors)
Murray 13-5 (6-2 in majors)

Nadal has the most ridiculous clay-court dominance, and has also won the career Grand Slam. He also had a period of winning 8 titles in 4 months from April to August 2008.

tennis_pro
10-05-2012, 12:43 PM
Nadal has two surfaces to win on, and Federer gets one. Yeah, this argument makes sense.

not even that, it's 3 majors to 1

sureshs
10-05-2012, 12:46 PM
Nadal and Federer are history. Very soon the threads will be moved to the Former Pro Player section. It is all about Murray, Del Po, Tipsy, and Djoker now.

TMF
10-05-2012, 12:49 PM
Nadal leads the head-to-head against:

Federer 18-10 (8-2 in majors)
Djokovic 19-14 (6-3 in majors)
Murray 13-5 (6-2 in majors)

Nadal has the most ridiculous clay-court dominance, and has also won the career Grand Slam. He also had a period of winning 8 titles in 4 months from April to August 2008.

If you're using h2h record, then Davy is better than Nadal.:)

Mustard
10-05-2012, 12:51 PM
If you're using h2h record, then Davy is better than Nadal.:)

What's his trophy cabinet like compared to Nadal's? ;)

Mick
10-05-2012, 12:54 PM
my brother told me he thought Nadal's groundstrokes were more beautiful than Federer's.

I responded "What?!?" :-O

6-1 6-3 6-0
10-05-2012, 12:55 PM
If you're using h2h record, then Davy is better than Nadal.:)

Davydenko leads 6-5. Not a significant lead. That would be like saying Gilles Simon is better than Federer, since he once led the H2H with him 2-0.

tennis_pro
10-05-2012, 12:57 PM
Davydenko leads 6-5. Not a significant lead. That would be like saying Gilles Simon is better than Federer, since he once led the H2H with him 2-0.

No, that would mean that Simon was better once but Federer improved and now they are all square. All Simon has to do now is to win 17 majors and there won't be anything to separate the 2.

Bergboy123
10-05-2012, 12:58 PM
You might more accurately describe clay as Roger's "least totally awesome" surface. ;)

on one.


Haha love it!

smoledman
10-05-2012, 01:08 PM
my brother told me he thought Nadal's groundstrokes were more beautiful than Federer's.

I responded "What?!?" :-O

Agreed there. Federer's game is the most beautiful ever.

Netspirit
10-05-2012, 01:18 PM
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Nadal fans also believe his voice sounds better.

dangalak
10-05-2012, 02:12 PM
We all know how dominant they are on their best surfaces. Nadal on clay. Federer on hard/grass. But how well do they do on their weakest?

Nadal has 10 big hard/grass titles
Federer has 7 big clay titles

But more importantly is Nadal has 4 grass/hard slams to only 1 clay slam for Federer.

4 > 1.

Considering the FH to Federer's BH, winning 1 FO is pretty impressive.

Also, didn't know that HC/grass were one surface. :lol:

BHud
10-05-2012, 02:37 PM
But more importantly is Nadal has 4 grass/hard slams to only 1 clay slam for Federer.

4 > 1.

Given that 3 of the 4 slams are on hard or grass, wouldn't you expect this to be the case? Nice logic, no?

Give it up...Nads is not deserving of being in the discussion for best player of all time (an honor Fed has earned)...yet. He has been a tremendous career #2 man though, no?

World Beater
10-05-2012, 02:49 PM
What's his trophy cabinet like compared to Nadal's? ;)

oh. i thought this was purely h-h.

trophy cabinet?

well in that case. federer is 6 slams ahead of nadal.

thats like federer= nadal + becker

lol.

Sartorius
10-05-2012, 02:56 PM
Nadal leads the head-to-head against:

Federer 18-10 (8-2 in majors)
Djokovic 19-14 (6-3 in majors)
Murray 13-5 (6-2 in majors)

Nadal has the most ridiculous clay-court dominance, and has also won the career Grand Slam. He also had a period of winning 8 titles in 4 months from April to August 2008.

Impressive as these feats might be, given the context of this thread, this really begs for the question: So what? (I don't see the OP as a worthy discussion)

The main discussion about Federer and Nadal will always see people who are dancing around their h2h, and those who claim h2h does not necessarily make a player better, or the best. I myself support the latter view.

Mustard
10-05-2012, 05:19 PM
oh. i thought this was purely h-h.

trophy cabinet?

well in that case. federer is 6 slams ahead of nadal.

thats like federer= nadal + becker

lol.

Nadal has had such an excellent career and that is combined with his excellent head-to-heads against his biggest rivals. Federer has the better overall achievements, but has had a losing head-to-head against Nadal since 2005 and also has a losing head-to-head against Murray. Even Djokovic is closer to Federer than Nadal in head-to-head.

I am just stating Nadal's case ;)

gmatheis
10-05-2012, 06:24 PM
Nadal has had such an excellent career and that is combined with his excellent head-to-heads against his biggest rivals. Federer has the better overall achievements, but has had a losing head-to-head against Nadal since 2005 and also has a losing head-to-head against Murray. Even Djokovic is closer to Federer than Nadal in head-to-head.

I am just stating Nadal's case ;)

Nadal's head to head against federer is misleading because federer almost always makes it far enough to meet nadal in the draw but nadal often doesn't make it far enough to meet federer.

So the times when nadal wasnt playing a great tournament and would likely have lost to federer he doesn't even make it that far.

BUT

When Federer is playing a sub par tournament he still makes it to Nadal but then loses.

Mustard
10-05-2012, 06:33 PM
Nadal's head to head against federer is misleading because federer almost always makes it far enough to meet nadal in the draw but nadal often doesn't make it far enough to meet federer.

The 2010 and 2011 Wimbledons and US Opens say otherwise.

Cup8489
10-05-2012, 06:40 PM
The 2010 and 2011 Wimbledons and US Opens say otherwise.

Oh yes... post prime Federer has the obligation to make USO finals after his peak but Nadal doesn't do it until the last 2 years during his.. Great Logic. Where was Nadal for the preceding 4 years of him winning majors?

jokinla
10-05-2012, 06:41 PM
oh. i thought this was purely h-h.

trophy cabinet?

well in that case. federer is 6 slams ahead of nadal.

thats like federer= nadal + becker

lol.

Or Fed = Nads, Djoker, Murray.

Mustard
10-05-2012, 06:53 PM
Oh yes... post prime Federer has the obligation to make USO finals after his peak but Nadal doesn't do it until the last 2 years during his.. Great Logic. Where was Nadal for the preceding 4 years of him winning majors?

Post-prime Federer in 2010-2011 means pre-prime Nadal in 2005-2007.

TMF
10-05-2012, 06:56 PM
The h2h between Fed and Nadal is pointless/meaningless because they are 5 years apart. We should compare player's h2h when both are at the same age, same prime/peak years.

Nadal should be comparing to Nole, Murray or Monfils. And Fed should be comparing to Roddick, Davy or Hewitt. Now let see who has a better winning % between Fed and Nadal.

TMF
10-05-2012, 06:59 PM
Post-prime Federer in 2010-2011 means pre-prime Nadal in 2005-2007.

Nadal won 11 titles in 2005. Fed never came close in winning that much in those two years combined.

90's Clay
10-05-2012, 07:09 PM
Nadal has enjoyed a nice advantage over his main rivals throughout his career. Something Fed can't say.

Djoker got the best of him last year, and Nadal stopped that this year. Nadal has had the h2h advantage over Fed since 2005 and has not been able to beat Nadal at a slam in five years.. Thats a long freakin time

The only thing that stopped Nadal was injuries.. Something no other player could consistently do

TMF
10-05-2012, 07:35 PM
Nadal has enjoyed a nice advantage over his main rivals throughout his career. Something Fed can't say.

Djoker got the best of him last year, and Nadal stopped that this year. Nadal has had the h2h advantage over Fed since 2005 and has not been able to beat Nadal at a slam in five years.. Thats a long freakin time

The only thing that stopped Nadal was injuries.. Something no other player could consistently do

??????????????????????????????????

Just to name a few players Fed has a winning h2h:

Gonzalez 12-1
Hewitt 18-8
Davy 17-2
Roddick 21-3
Ljubicic 13-3

Now let see how Nadal h2h records against his main rivals.

Mustard
10-05-2012, 07:53 PM
??????????????????????????????????

Just to name a few players Fed has a winning h2h:

Gonzalez 12-1
Hewitt 18-8
Davy 17-2
Roddick 21-3
Ljubicic 13-3

Now let see how Nadal h2h records against his main rivals.

Some of Nadal head-to-heads:

Federer 18-10
Djokovic 19-14
Murray 13-5
Ferrer 16-4
Berdych 12-3
Soderling 6-2
Youzhny 9-4
Verdasco 13-1
Gasquet 10-0
Monfils 8-2
Hewitt 6-4
Roddick 7-3
Coria 4-1
Nalbandian 4-2
Davydenko 5-6
Ljubicic 7-2
Ferrero 7-2
Moya 6-2
Blake 4-3
Safin 2-0
Agassi 2-0
Fish 8-1
Ancic 4-1
Baghdatis 7-1
Stepanek 6-0
Wawrinka 8-0
Almagro 8-0
Lopez 9-2
Del Potro 7-3
Tsonga 7-3
Gonzalez 7-3
Haas 5-0
Kiefer 5-0
Ivanisevic 2-0
Norman 1-0
Henman 2-0
Gaudio 3-3
Schuettler 5-1
Robredo 6-0

TMF
10-05-2012, 08:05 PM
Some of Nadal head-to-heads:

Federer 18-10
Djokovic 19-14
Murray 13-5
Ferrer 16-4
Berdych 12-3
Soderling 6-2
Youzhny 9-4
Verdasco 13-1
Gasquet 10-0
Monfils 8-2
Hewitt 6-4
Roddick 7-3
Coria 4-1
Nalbandian 4-2
Davydenko 5-6
Ljubicic 7-2
Ferrero 7-2
Moya 6-2
Blake 4-3
Safin 2-0
Agassi 2-0
Fish 8-1
Ancic 4-1
Baghdatis 7-1
Stepanek 6-0
Wawrinka 8-0
Almagro 8-0
Lopez 9-2
Del Potro 7-3
Tsonga 7-3
Gonzalez 7-3
Haas 5-0
Kiefer 5-0
Ivanisevic 2-0
Norman 1-0
Henman 2-0
Gaudio 3-3
Schuettler 5-1
Robredo 6-0

Some of the players I don't agee. i.e. Haas, Henman is much older than Nadal. Agassi is old enough to be his father.

But you noticed some of the player like Davy, Blake, Youznhy.....Fed was much better record against them.

Now you know how wrong it is to compare player's h2h when the age gap is too far off.

The_Order
10-05-2012, 08:32 PM
Fed is one of the best ever on all three surfaces. Nadal is one of the best ever on one.

No, Nadal is categorically the best on clay. Nobody comes close to his record on clay.

On grass, there are a few that could be in contention to challenge Federer's status, which is why Fed is NOT categorically the best player ever on grass.

With HC, it's a little hard to tell because the HC at the AO is different to the HC at the USO. At the AO, Fed is clearly not the best ever, especially when it changed to plexicushion.

USO he is also not clearly above every other player that's ever played on the decoturf II.

Prisoner of Birth
10-05-2012, 10:57 PM
No, Nadal is categorically the best on clay. Nobody comes close to his record on clay.

On grass, there are a few that could be in contention to challenge Federer's status, which is why Fed is NOT categorically the best player ever on grass.

With HC, it's a little hard to tell because the HC at the AO is different to the HC at the USO. At the AO, Fed is clearly not the best ever, especially when it changed to plexicushion.

USO he is also not clearly above every other player that's ever played on the decoturf II.

On Grass, only Sampras competes. With that said, Federer does have the win over Sampras at Wimbledon (though I don't think it really means much, seeing that it was a very close match when neither of them was close to their primes), the extra Wimbledon final, and the Olympic Silver. I personally think Sampras is (was) the better Grasscourter but Federer does have the better claim to being the GGCOAT.

Coming to hard, come on, it's not even close. 5 USOs, no one's got more. 4 AOs, no one's got more. 6 WTF titles, no one's got more. And look at all his Masters titles there. If you're gonna say Federer isn't that great on plexicushion, you'd be wrong. It was changed when he was past his prime and he still won there once. And you can't just disregard his success on Rebound Ace. You could make the same argument to denigrate Nadal's dominance on clay saying he sucked on Blue Clay by the same token.

Either way, Federer's one of the best Grasscourters ever (if not the best), one of the best Hardcourters ever (if not the best), and arguably the 2nd best Claycourter of his era (second only to the GOAT). And Nadal's just the best Claycourter ever.

firepanda
10-05-2012, 11:03 PM
Some of Nadal head-to-heads:

Federer 18-10
Djokovic 19-14
Murray 13-5
Ferrer 16-4
Berdych 12-3
Soderling 6-2
Youzhny 9-4
Verdasco 13-1
Gasquet 10-0
Monfils 8-2
Hewitt 6-4
Roddick 7-3
Coria 4-1
Nalbandian 4-2
Davydenko 5-6
Ljubicic 7-2
Ferrero 7-2
Moya 6-2
Blake 4-3
Safin 2-0
Agassi 2-0
Fish 8-1
Ancic 4-1
Baghdatis 7-1
Stepanek 6-0
Wawrinka 8-0
Almagro 8-0
Lopez 9-2
Del Potro 7-3
Tsonga 7-3
Gonzalez 7-3
Haas 5-0
Kiefer 5-0
Ivanisevic 2-0
Norman 1-0
Henman 2-0
Gaudio 3-3
Schuettler 5-1
Robredo 6-0

Good man Davydenko. :D

Russeljones
10-05-2012, 11:06 PM
We all know how dominant they are on their best surfaces. Nadal on clay. Federer on hard/grass. But how well do they do on their weakest?

Nadal has 10 big hard/grass titles
Federer has 7 big clay titles

But more importantly is Nadal has 4 grass/hard slams to only 1 clay slam for Federer.

4 > 1.

I can't believe you started such a thread. You know what you did right? TT seppuku.

Prisoner of Birth
10-05-2012, 11:12 PM
We all know how dominant they are on their best surfaces. Nadal on clay. Federer on hard/grass. But how well do they do on their weakest?

Nadal has 10 big hard/grass titles
Federer has 7 big clay titles

But more importantly is Nadal has 4 grass/hard slams to only 1 clay slam for Federer.

4 > 1.

OMG, this is :lol:

I'll play this game.

Let's consider Federer's 2 worst surfaces and Nadal's 2 worst surfaces.

Federer's : Clay and Grass (he has 9 HC Slams so it has to be his best surface going by the OP's logic)
Nadal's : Hard and Grass (Clay is obviously his best surface)

Number of Slams Federer has on his two "worst" surfaces : 1+7=8
Number of Slams Nadal has on his two "worst" surfaces : 2+2=4

8>4 ==> Federer>Nadal

:lol:

DolgoSantoro
10-05-2012, 11:18 PM
OMG, this is :lol:

I'll play this game.

Let's consider Federer's 2 worst surfaces and Nadal's 2 worst surfaces.

Federer's : Clay and Grass (he has 9 HC Slams so it has to be his best surface going by the OP's logic)
Nadal's : Hard and Grass (Clay is obviously his best surface)

Number of Slams Federer has on his two "worst" surfaces : 1+7=8
Number of Slams Nadal has on his two "worst" surfaces : 2+2=4

8>4 ==> Federer>Nadal

:lol:

Oh my gosh, we could even consider ALL THREE SURFACES! Revolutionary. Anyway in the OP by even bringing this up you concede that Fed is a goat candidate on two of three surfaces, where nadal until 2008 was largely irrelevant off of clay, and has always been patchy off dirt. For me I fail to see how dominating one surface is superior to dominating two. Perhaps the OP would like to explain it to me

Prisoner of Birth
10-05-2012, 11:21 PM
Oh my gosh, we could even consider ALL THREE SURFACES! Revolutionary. Anyway in the OP by even bringing this up you concede that Fed is a goat candidate on two of three surfaces, where nadal until 2008 was largely irrelevant off of clay, and has always been patchy off dirt. For me I fail to see how dominating one surface is superior to dominating two. Perhaps the OP would like to explain it to me

I picked 2 for Federer because the OP picked 2 for Nadal.

DolgoSantoro
10-05-2012, 11:32 PM
I picked 2 for Federer because the OP picked 2 for Nadal.

I know, I wasn't mocking you, just showing that if you frame it just about any way except for the flawed analysis of the OP Fed is going to come out of top.

beast of mallorca
10-05-2012, 11:49 PM
I can't believe you started such a thread. You know what you did right? TT seppuku.

That's what I said. It's like, it's not enough to have all these threads about Rafa vs Fed. Good work smokedman :-?

billnepill
10-06-2012, 01:30 AM
Oh yes... post prime Federer has the obligation to make USO finals after his peak but Nadal doesn't do it until the last 2 years during his.. Great Logic. Where was Nadal for the preceding 4 years of him winning majors?

Mustard's logic is incredibly behind in the light of his statistical knowledge. Having said that, 75% of his recent posts are about Nadal's clay inflated h2h against the top players. Strange. It dazzles me how he moans about inequality and spreads his communist views but he fails to see how unfair is to use a h2h where majority of the matches were played on Nadal's best surface and Federer leads in the rest?

The fact that he also uses this to weaken Fed GOAT's claims as opposed to only strengthen Nadal's? BS

Povl Carstensen
10-06-2012, 02:20 AM
So the thread has become why Nadal is not better than Federer.

Zarfot Z
10-06-2012, 03:17 AM
Nadal has enjoyed a nice advantage over his main rivals throughout his career. Something Fed can't say.

Djoker got the best of him last year, and Nadal stopped that this year. Nadal has had the h2h advantage over Fed since 2005 and has not been able to beat Nadal at a slam in five years.. Thats a long freakin time

The only thing that stopped Nadal was injuries.. Something no other player could consistently do

Uh... No.

Federer's true rivals are guys like Nalbandian, Hewitt, Roddick and Safin, who he has crushed multiple times. Unlike his current rivals, they are roughly his age and not 5-6 years younger.

Djokovic/Murray and Nadal to some degree are part of the 'new generation' of players to challenge Federer.

And the amazing thing is that despite his age, Federer has managed to successfully keep up with this new generation of rivals. Leading H2H against Djoker and basically tied H2H against Murray is a testament to that.

Bottom line is, calling players 5-6 years younger than Federer his 'main rivals' is delusional. And expecting Federer to lead the H2H between said players in their peak, whilst he is in decline is ********. Olderer will very likely end up with a losing H2H against Djokovic, Murray and Nadal by the time he retires.

tl;dr Federer has demolished an entire generation and subdued another.

Povl Carstensen
10-06-2012, 07:09 AM
Negative head to head against a surface goat is ok.

merlinpinpin
10-07-2012, 02:05 AM
We all know how dominant they are on their best surfaces. Nadal on clay. Federer on hard/grass. But how well do they do on their weakest?

Nadal has 10 big hard/grass titles
Federer has 7 big clay titles

But more importantly is Nadal has 4 grass/hard slams to only 1 clay slam for Federer.

4 > 1.

Kudos to you LOLville, this was a very brave thread to create. However, you missed out a little thing. In the interest of fairness (and fairness has always been your one and only motivation, as we all know), if you only choose one best surface for one of them, you must choose one (and one only) for the other. Not a gazillion of them, obvioulsy, otherwise this kind of defeats the purpose.

So, let's be fair, as I'm sure you wanted to be when you wrote this first post, and look at this with one single best surface/condition for each of them:

* Nadal: best on clay--let's discount clay, so he's left with 4 slams
* Federer: best indoor--let's discount indoor, so he's left with, ahem, 17

Then, according to your logic, we get:

4 > 17

Which is even more impressive than Trolling Day and Knight's 11 > 17.

Pretty conclusive, I must say... :)

sonicare
10-07-2012, 05:25 AM
Mustard's logic is incredibly behind in the light of his statistical knowledge. Having said that, 75% of his recent posts are about Nadal's clay inflated h2h against the top players. Strange. It dazzles me how he moans about inequality and spreads his communist views but he fails to see how unfair is to use a h2h where majority of the matches were played on Nadal's best surface and Federer leads in the rest?

The fact that he also uses this to weaken Fed GOAT's claims as opposed to only strengthen Nadal's? BS

Great post...Mustard is only good at keeping records but absolutely sucks at analysing numbers.

Doesn't surprise me as he is a dirty commie and posts so much nonsense, it is beyond belief. He needs to go buy this book

http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Dummies-Mark-Zegarelli/dp/0471799416

Povl Carstensen
10-07-2012, 05:54 AM
"dirty commie" is that really a place we need to go? This is about tennis......

The Dark Knight
10-07-2012, 06:53 AM
From an article I found on the net:

With his classic strokes (updated for today's new power game), Roger would easily have been at home among the players of yesteryear playing with wood rackets and long pants. And with the most major Grand Slam singles titles ever at 16, it's been hard to argue against the many who have anointed Roger as the "Greatest of All Time." But after yesterday's win by Rafa Nadal over Roger Federer in the French Open Final, maybe it's time to seriously give that appointment a closer look. Maybe Rafa isn't just the "King of Clay;" maybe he's way more than that.

As the match was nearing its conclusion, John McEnroe made the comment that "it's hard to see how Roger could have played much better that he did." Yet Roger lost -- for the 17th time overall to Rafa who Roger has now beaten only 8 times overall. In Grand Slam Finals, Nadal holds a decisive 6-2 edge over Federer. Nadal is also the youngest player of the open era to win a career Grand Slam (winning all four Grand Slam singles titles) and the second male player (Andre Agassi is the other) to win a Career Golden Slam (all four Grand Slams and an Olympic Gold medal). He has also won three Davis Cup Finals as part of the Spanish team, and holds a record 19 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 titles. By comparison, Federer has never won a singles Olympic Gold medal or won a Davis Cup Final for his country Switzerland.

Nadal, who just turned 25 years old, now has won 10 Grand Slam singles titles, only 6 behind Federer who turns 30 in August. And Novak Djokovic, at 24, is coming right behind both of them. No one can predict how many more Grand Slam singles titles Roger has left in him, or how many more years Rafa's extreme physical style of play will allow him to continue before his knees finally give out. Can Rafa eventually eclipse Roger's record-breaking 16 Grand Slam titles? Time will tell. But as John McEnroe astutely pointed out yesterday, "it's hard for Federer to be considered the greatest player of all time when he's lost to Rafa more than twice as many times as he's beaten him. He might not even be the best player of his own era."

The Dark Knight
05-01-2013, 05:52 AM
Some would argue that Nadal is better because he has 11 slams while not playing in astounding 7 of them.

Federer on the other hand has never missed a grand slam.

I wonder how many slams Federer has actually been in ?

Does anyone know ? If Federer started at 17 and never missed a slam it means he has played in 56 slams.

Although Federer holds the record for most slams won he also holds the record for most slams lost .

Furthermore Federer was competed in every slam Nadal was in many if them in the finals against Nadal.....on the other hand Federer had competition the was not as strong as Nadal

SLD76
05-01-2013, 06:10 AM
Mustard's logic is incredibly behind in the light of his statistical knowledge. Having said that, 75% of his recent posts are about Nadal's clay inflated h2h against the top players. Strange. It dazzles me how he moans about inequality and spreads his communist views but he fails to see how unfair is to use a h2h where majority of the matches were played on Nadal's best surface and Federer leads in the rest?

The fact that he also uses this to weaken Fed GOAT's claims as opposed to only strengthen Nadal's? BS

Normally mustard is reasoned and logical, but his inner fanboy reveals itself with a vengeance when it comes to nadal and lance armstrong.

SLD76
05-01-2013, 06:13 AM
Some would argue that Nadal is better because he has 11 slams while not playing in astounding 7 of them.

Federer on the other hand has never missed a grand slam.

I wonder how many slams Federer has actually been in ?

Does anyone know ? If Federer started at 17 and never missed a slam it means he has played in 56 slams.

Although Federer holds the record for most slams won he also holds the record for most slams lost .

Furthermore Federer was competed in every slam Nadal was in many if them in the finals against Nadal.....on the other hand Federer had competition the was not as strong as Nadal


Don't you get tired of posting nonsense.

And of course fed's competition was weaker than nadal's seeing as he is better than nadal and he can't play himself.

Hitman
05-01-2013, 06:14 AM
Nadal is better than Federer?

11 is greater than 17? What the....

The Dark Knight
05-01-2013, 06:16 AM
H2h is very fair . Especially in slams

Both players had to go through the same tour.

Federer mopped the floor with them pre Nadal.....the when Nadal came around he took over and mopped the floor with Federer and everyone else.

Lets face it of Nadal were around since Federer started it would be Nadal with at least 17 slams.....Federer had very good timing . He started his slam count after Sampras retired who left a huge vacuum . Federer had no real rival.

And lets please not forget that Federer has the world record of grand slams lost with I think 39 ?

SLD76
05-01-2013, 06:30 AM
H2h is very fair . Especially in slams

Both players had to go through the same tour.

Federer mopped the floor with them pre Nadal.....the when Nadal came around he took over and mopped the floor with Federer and everyone else.

Lets face it of Nadal were around since Federer started it would be Nadal with at least 17 slams.....Federer had very good timing . He started his slam count after Sampras retired who left a huge vacuum . Federer had no real rival.

And lets please not forget that Federer has the world record of grand slams lost with I think 39 ?



Let's see, nadal won his first slam in 2005.
So in 2005 fed won 2 slams
3 in 2006
3 in 2007
1 in 2008
2 in 2009
1 in 2010
0 in 2011
1 in 2012

So, that's 13 slams since the emergence of la nadal. In fact, most of fed slam wins have been won when since the emergence of nadal at the fo in 2005 since he only won wimby and the uso that year.

Meanwhile, nadal has won 1 slam a year 6 times since 2005( 05, 06, 07, 09, 2011, 2012). He has only won multiple slams in 2008 and and 2010. And only at wimbledon from 06 to 07 was fed the road block for nadal otherwise , he couldn't get past the field. In fact aside from wimbledon 06 and 07. All of nadals slam losses have been to the field, til 2011 when djoker became his new roadblock. 2009 was the only year injury( and personal issues) stopped nadal.

How is nadal dominant again?

Rofl, record number of slams lost. Roger will take that as it means he was healthy and consisten enough to enter so many slam draws. trollolololololol troll :D

Hitman
05-01-2013, 06:31 AM
H2h is very fair . Especially in slams

Both players had to go through the same tour.

Federer mopped the floor with them pre Nadal.....the when Nadal came around he took over and mopped the floor with Federer and everyone else.

Lets face it of Nadal were around since Federer started it would be Nadal with at least 17 slams.....Federer had very good timing . He started his slam count after Sampras retired who left a huge vacuum . Federer had no real rival.

And lets please not forget that Federer has the world record of grand slams lost with I think 39 ?

Which means both players have an inflated grand slam record, since their competiton sucked. And they both look better than they really should.

You should be thankful that Djokovic rose from the ashes and brought some respect and quality back to the sport, after 2010 it had gone too far for too long. Hopefully Djokovic will continue to dominate and show that these so called GOATs overall and surface respectively are exposed for what they really are.

You crave great competition, right? Well, heaven has given you Djokovic. Enjoy! :)

mightyrick
05-01-2013, 07:05 AM
Which means both players have an inflated grand slam record, since their competiton sucked. And they both look better than they really should.

You should be thankful that Djokovic rose from the ashes and brought some respect and quality back to the sport, after 2010 it had gone too far for too long. Hopefully Djokovic will continue to dominate and show that these so called GOATs overall and surface respectively are exposed for what they really are.

You crave great competition, right? Well, heaven has given you Djokovic. Enjoy! :)

^ Quoted for absolute truth.

Federer (one guy) came along and filled the vacuum left by not only Sampras and Agassi... but also by the other guys in that field (Bruguera, Ivanesevic, Courier, Edberg... etc). That was a massive vacuum. This absolutely inflated his numbers.

Nadal clearly also benefited from this. Even if he beats Federer in a hardcourt and/or grass major... he certainly isn't going through a field as strong as Sampras had to deal with. So while Nadal may have still won the French Open several times, he'd certainly have less accomplishments on non-clay surfaces.

In Sampras' career, you had to beat three really awesome grass players to win. Who the hell did Nadal have to beat? Federer... okay. Who else?

I'm very glad Djokovic is around. While I still think the current field is pretty weak... at least having Federer/Nadal/Djokovic adds a little more parity to the outcomes in the majors. But it still kind of sucks.

NatF
05-01-2013, 07:10 AM
Sampras' competition is overrated. Federer filled the gap left by Couier and Edberg? lol those guys hadn't been factors in majors since the early 90's...

mariecon
05-01-2013, 07:13 AM
H2h is very fair . Especially in slams

Both players had to go through the same tour.

Federer mopped the floor with them pre Nadal.....the when Nadal came around he took over and mopped the floor with Federer and everyone else.

Lets face it of Nadal were around since Federer started it would be Nadal with at least 17 slams.....Federer had very good timing . He started his slam count after Sampras retired who left a huge vacuum . Federer had no real rival.

And lets please not forget that Federer has the world record of grand slams lost with I think 39 ?


Maybe we should look at the slams Federer won after Nadal came onto the scene in which he didn't play the Mallorcan because the Mallorcan didn't make it far enough or didn't even play the tournament because he was supposedly injured...

I'll be fair and start at 2005, after RG where Nadal won his first GS by beating Mariano Puerta, the doper, in the final...

W2005
USO2005
AO2006
USO2006
AO2007
USO2007
USO2008
RG2009
W2009
AO2010
W2012

Now let's look at the GS's Nadal won where he didn't face Federer...

RG2010
W2010
USO2010
RG2012

Federer won 11 GS's without facing Nadal, only one of those on Nadal's favourite surface. Seven on his least favourite surface (HC). What does this tell us? It tells us that if Nadal had actually made it far enough to play Federer that H2H might not look as lopsided. Chances are, Federer still would have won those majors yet Nadal preserved his precious H2H by avoiding Federer. Funny how Nadal has never missed RG yet he's missed 4 of the other GS's supposedly due to injury since 2005 and 6 in total (I think). Why is he never injured when RG rolls around?

Notice Nadal has only won 4 GS's where he didn't play Federer, two of those were on Federer's favourite surface.

Since Nadal wasn't as good on his worst surface as Federer was on his (clay) Fed missed several opportunities to improve the H2H. Maybe he should have lost a little earlier in those 4 RG's where he lost to Nadal. Then the H2H would be 15-10 (8 of those 15 are still on clay).

The H2H needs to come with an asterisk. Fed's the GOAT.:twisted:

Top Jimmy
05-01-2013, 07:20 AM
Sure Federer might statistically be the "greatest" but when you've been dominated by your peer who has an equally impressive resume, I'm not sure how you can still call him the best/greatest.

Fed's game is classic and beautiful but I have much more fun watching Rafa hit that absurd forehand.

Novak is looking to be a all time great now too but his game is boring though I appreciate it.

mightyrick
05-01-2013, 07:20 AM
Sampras' competition is overrated. Federer filled the gap left by Couier and Edberg? lol those guys hadn't been factors in majors since the early 90's...

Sampras came out at the end of 1988. You know how many majors he won in his first 4.5 years when Courier/Edberg were active? ONE. And this isn't even including the other players I mentioned.

The early 90s competition was absolutely ridiculous.

NatF
05-01-2013, 07:25 AM
Sure Federer might statistically be the "greatest" but when you've been dominated by your peer who has an equally impressive resume, I'm not sure how you can still call him the best/greatest.

Fed's game is classic and beautiful but I have much more fun watching Rafa hit that absurd forehand.

Novak is looking to be a all time great now too but his game is boring though I appreciate it.

I didn't realize 11 slams and 100 weeks at #1 was as impressive as 17 slams 300 weeks at #1...

Nadal isn't Federer's 'peer' he's 5 years younger, he's dominated Federer only on clay his best and Federer's worst surface. If they'd met 14 times indoors then the head to head would look rather different.

The head to head is a product of Federer's age, a match up advantage and having a proportionately high number of matches on the surfaces best suited to Nadal.

NatF
05-01-2013, 07:28 AM
Sampras came out at the end of 1988. You know how many majors he won in his first 4.5 years when Courier/Edberg were active? ONE. And this isn't even including the other players I mentioned.

The early 90s competition was absolutely ridiculous.

And alot of those guys were winding down during the middle of Sampras' domination. Lets not pretend like Sampras didn't need time to mature as player either.

Top Jimmy
05-01-2013, 07:31 AM
I didn't realize 11 slams and 100 weeks at #1 was as impressive as 17 slams 300 weeks at #1...

Nadal isn't Federer's 'peer' he's 5 years younger, he's dominated Federer only on clay his best and Federer's worst surface. If they'd met 14 times indoors then the head to head would look rather different.

The head to head is a product of Federer's age, a match up advantage and having a proportionately high number of matches on the surfaces best suited to Nadal.

Hypothetical's and conjecture.

What is the head to head? How did Rafa win 2 Wimbledons? How did he beat Roger at Wimbledon? How come whenever they play Rafa seems wins the biggest points and Roger falters.

I don't really care but Fed bobo's need to admit Rafa has some sort of mental edge on Roger.

And as i said, I'd rather watch Rafa and that's what matters to me.

mariecon
05-01-2013, 07:32 AM
I didn't realize 11 slams and 100 weeks at #1 was as impressive as 17 slams 300 weeks at #1...

Nadal isn't Federer's 'peer' he's 5 years younger, he's dominated Federer only on clay his best and Federer's worst surface. If they'd met 14 times indoors then the head to head would look rather different.

The head to head is a product of Federer's age, a match up advantage and having a proportionately high number of matches on the surfaces best suited to Nadal.

I tried to say it but you said it much better.:)

Flash O'Groove
05-01-2013, 07:35 AM
Sure Federer might statistically be the "greatest" but when you've been dominated by your peer who has an equally impressive resume, I'm not sure how you can still call him the best/greatest.

Fed's game is classic and beautiful but I have much more fun watching Rafa hit that absurd forehand.

Novak is looking to be a all time great now too but his game is boring though I appreciate it.

Anyway, greatest does not mean perfect. The greatest player is the one against whom you can make the less critics/the less determining critics.

In the open era, Federer is this man.

NatF
05-01-2013, 07:45 AM
Hypothetical's and conjecture.

What is the head to head? How did Rafa win 2 Wimbledons? How did he beat Roger at Wimbledon? How come whenever they play Rafa seems wins the biggest points and Roger falters.

I don't really care but Fed bobo's need to admit Rafa has some sort of mental edge on Roger.

And as i said, I'd rather watch Rafa and that's what matters to me.

Fine, you want to strip it all away that leaves us with Federer owning more titles (important ones at that) and more impressive records. I'm not sure in what strange world Rafa's achievements come close to Federer's.

You Nadal buttpickers seem to think beating one man is the measure of greatness. Fact is Federer has been able to beat the same field more times than Nadal has. End of//

Laughable that you enter the thread saying how Federer can't be the best because he's lost 19 times to Nadal who has equally impressive records, now all what matters is Nadal has a cool looking forehand :oops:

Flash O'Groove
05-01-2013, 07:49 AM
Hypothetical's and conjecture.

What is the head to head? How did Rafa win 2 Wimbledons? How did he beat Roger at Wimbledon? How come whenever they play Rafa seems wins the biggest points and Roger falters.

I don't really care but Fed bobo's need to admit Rafa has some sort of mental edge on Roger.

And as i said, I'd rather watch Rafa and that's what matters to me.

I agree with that. Nadal had simply a great game to play against Fed from the beginning. He was able to challenge him on HC since 2004, when Fed was in peak form, then grass since 2006-2007. The match-up, AND the mental things give a great advantage to Nadal.

But Nadal and Sampras fan have to acknowledge that this match-up is greatly surfaces dependent too. The top spin forehand on the backhand make wonder on high bouncing HC and clay, but Federer has far less trouble to deal with it on slow bouncing hard indoor (4-0 at WTF).

Federer was able to go far in most clay tournament he entered, only to lose the finals against Nadal. If he has been as bad as Sampras on clay, the H2H would be a lot more close (maybe 10-8).

mightyrick
05-01-2013, 07:51 AM
The head to head is a product of Federer's age, a match up advantage and having a proportionately high number of matches on the surfaces best suited to Nadal.

I think Federer has zero excuse to lose to Nadal at Wimbledon. That was really horrible, IMHO. Especially when Federer beats a GOATing Roddick in 2009 Wimby.

Regardless of Nadal on clay... Federer had his French Open chances prior to Nadal and blew those, too. In 2005, Nadal beat him in the semis but Fed would have lost to Puerta. In 2004, he got straighted in the third round by an almost retired Kuerten. In 2003, he got straighted in the first round by a nobody. Then, he meets Nadal several times and doesn't beat him a single time.

I think Federer is a great player, but c'mon. Beat the guy ONCE on the big stage on his surface. Don't let the guy beat you ONCE on your stage.

I like Fed a lot, but he really has choked in some big moments against Nadal. And I don't think the issue is age as much as it is mental. Once Nadal got into Federer's head... he's never been able to overcome the mental block.

veroniquem
05-01-2013, 07:53 AM
Nadal is better than Fed on clay. Unfortunately for me, that's where it stops. Yes, Rafa has beaten Fed twice at AO and once at Wimbledon but that's not massively relevant when Fed has 9 hard slam titles overall vs 2 for Nadal and 7 W titles vs 2 for Nadal. (Not even mentioning WTF where Rafa has never beaten Fed in 4 encounters)

NatF
05-01-2013, 07:58 AM
I think Federer has zero excuse to lose to Nadal at Wimbledon. That was really horrible, IMHO. Especially when Federer beats a GOATing Roddick in 2009 Wimby.

Regardless of Nadal on clay... Federer had his French Open chances prior to Nadal and blew those, too. In 2005, Nadal beat him in the semis but Fed would have lost to Puerta. In 2004, he got straighted in the third round by an almost retired Kuerten. In 2003, he got straighted in the first round by a nobody. Then, he meets Nadal several times and doesn't beat him a single time.

I think Federer is a great player, but c'mon. Beat the guy ONCE on the big stage on his surface. Don't let the guy beat you ONCE on your stage.

I like Fed a lot, but he really has choked in some big moments against Nadal. And I don't think the issue is age as much as it is mental. Once Nadal got into Federer's head... he's never been able to overcome the mental block.

If Federer tanked some matches and didn't face Nadal on clay so much he would have been a better player? Alot of the issues Federer has faced have been mental, I agree with that. Some of that is with Nadal some of that is just the way he plays e.g. not aggressive enough on break points. However clay is Federer's weakest surface and Nadal is the clay GOAT. He's had his chances but Nadal is like kryptonite to Federer.

Federer declined in 2008 as well, mono affected his quickness a little bit IMO. And Nadal played a brilliant match.

Steve0904
05-01-2013, 08:12 AM
We all know Fed has had his troubles with Nadal himself, but this whole "he beat Fed on his stage or stages at the AO and Wimbledon is far from enough to say he is greater than Federer. It's downright ridiculous actually. It's like a microcosm of the H2H argument. Everybody knows it's not enough to say Nadal is better, they just like trolling people and being idiots

SLD76
05-01-2013, 08:17 AM
I think Federer has zero excuse to lose to Nadal at Wimbledon. That was really horrible, IMHO. Especially when Federer beats a GOATing Roddick in 2009 Wimby.

Regardless of Nadal on clay... Federer had his French Open chances prior to Nadal and blew those, too. In 2005, Nadal beat him in the semis but Fed would have lost to Puerta. In 2004, he got straighted in the third round by an almost retired Kuerten. In 2003, he got straighted in the first round by a nobody. Then, he meets Nadal several times and doesn't beat him a single time.

I think Federer is a great player, but c'mon. Beat the guy ONCE on the big stage on his surface. Don't let the guy beat you ONCE on your stage.

I like Fed a lot, but he really has choked in some big moments against Nadal. And I don't think the issue is age as much as it is mental. Once Nadal got into Federer's head... he's never been able to overcome the mental block.

What excuse did nadal have for losing to soderling at the fo aside from "injury" and his parents divorce even though he was a grown man when they split

mightyrick
05-01-2013, 08:21 AM
We all know Fed has had his troubles with Nadal himself, but this whole "he beat Fed on his stage or stages at the AO and Wimbledon is far from enough to say he is greater than Federer. It's downright ridiculous actually. It's like a microcosm of the H2H argument. Everybody knows it's not enough to say Nadal is better, they just like trolling people and being idiots

Agree completely. And I honestly wish people would just say that Nadal and Federer are at par with each other. They are both on the list of greatest of all time. Both crushed everyone else. Both crushed each other on their favorite surfaces.

Forget H2H and forget counting slams.

Because if Roger and Rafa started at the same time, and clay was the surface for 2 out of the 4 majors... I think you'd see two men with almost equivalent career statistics.

Steve0904
05-01-2013, 08:22 AM
In fact, it's a good thing Nadal has a couple "one-ups" on Federer. Otherwise you'd have no reason to be a Nadal fan. Of course many people like his style and never say die attitude, but if he was just another person that Federer rolled over he wouldn't have half as many fans. I can guarantee you that. Because let's be honest, that's the main reason Nadal has his fans. They're either girls/women/gay guys who find him attractive, (of course there are many Federer fans that fit this bill as well) or they're people that don't like Federer or got tired of him dominating. Much in the same vein is Djokovic. I can guarantee you his fanbase went up ten fold after 2011.

forzamilan90
05-01-2013, 08:35 AM
Nadal is better than Fed on clay. Unfortunately for me, that's where it stops. Yes, Rafa has beaten Fed twice at AO and once at Wimbledon but that's not massively relevant when Fed has 9 hard slam titles overall vs 2 for Nadal and 7 W titles vs 2 for Nadal. (Not even mentioning WTF where Rafa has never beaten Fed in 4 encounters)

You are beginning to be ok in my book.

NatF
05-01-2013, 08:37 AM
You are beginning to be ok in my book.

Guess you've missed half her posts today...

Steve0904
05-01-2013, 08:38 AM
Agree completely. And I honestly wish people would just say that Nadal and Federer are at par with each other. They are both on the list of greatest of all time. Both crushed everyone else. Both crushed each other on their favorite surfaces.

Forget H2H and forget counting slams.

Because if Roger and Rafa started at the same time, and clay was the surface for 2 out of the 4 majors... I think you'd see two men with almost equivalent career statistics.

But that's really the thing. When there is a sizable difference in accomplishments, stats matter. The slams count for the most, and really the H2H is a few rungs down the list these days. Behind things like weeks at #1 YE #1's WTF titles, MS titles, (Nadal leads of course) overall titles, overall dominance. H2H is behind all of these, and that's if I haven't forgotten any. And the slams have always counted for the most. No unbiased person who has a clue about tennis will say Federer and Nadal are equal. Which makes it even more ridiculous when you have people going around saying Nadal is better than Federer.

Put it this way. The difference between Federer's career and Nadal's career so far is Novak Djokovic, or Boris Becker, or Stefan Edberg, and even then Nadal is behind in weeks at #1 and YE #1's and WTF titles.

See this is the problem you run into when one guy sticks around and still plays relatively well, but doesn't beat his "rivals" that often. You get a bunch of kids who never watched prime Federer (probably have only watched since the 08 Wimbledon final or Djokovic's 2011 season) and are only concerned about who can beat who rather than overall accomplishments. Now to be fair to Nadal, he was the only one who consistently beat prime Federer on any surface, but what I'm trying to say is essentially this: Because Nadal and to a lesser extent Djokovic came along at "around" the same time as Federer and are able to beat him more often than not these days, the perception is that the gap between them is small, but truthfully it's rather huge career wise. Which will be what people really look at when they all retire.

It would be like if someone went and started a thread titled "Why Djokovic is better than Nadal", and in such a thread started harping on about the 7 straight finals losses and the 8-3 H2H since 2011 started because Djokovic was a baby pre 2011, and that 16-7 H2H lead pre 2011 doesn't count. I'm sure the Nadal fans wouldn't like that too much. And you know why they wouldn't like it. Because it is NOT TRUE! Overall Nadal's career so far trumps Djokovic's by a considerable margin. It's much the same premise between Federer and Nadal.

forzamilan90
05-01-2013, 08:49 AM
Guess you've missed half her posts today...

Don't feel like scrolling back...haha really only big Nadal fan that ****es me off is the Troll

NatF
05-01-2013, 08:50 AM
Don't feel like scrolling back...haha really only big Nadal fan that ****es me off is the Troll

What about The_Order? Alot of them get on my nerves, only because they feel the need to compare Nadal to Federer all the time.

mariecon
05-01-2013, 08:57 AM
What about The_Order? Alot of them get on my nerves, only because they feel the need to compare Nadal to Federer all the time.

That's why Ignore List is my friend!!!:)

NatF
05-01-2013, 09:05 AM
That's why Ignore List is my friend!!!:)

Oddly I think I like to be annoyed by them so I can occasionally let out frustration. Shows how mature I am...

mightyrick
05-01-2013, 09:12 AM
But that's really the thing. When there is a sizable difference in accomplishments, stats matter. The slams count for the most, and really the H2H is a few rungs down the list these days. Behind things like weeks at #1 YE #1's WTF titles, MS titles, (Nadal leads of course) overall titles, overall dominance. H2H is behind all of these, and that's if I haven't forgotten any. And the slams have always counted for the most. No unbiased person who has a clue about tennis will say Federer and Nadal are equal. Which makes it even more ridiculous when you have people going around saying Nadal is better than Federer.


You can't say that Nadal and Federer are equal when Federer is 5 years older and past prime. They didn't start at the same time. Nadal will still be going after Fed is gone. The only truly objective way to judge is to wait until Nadal is done and then attempt a comparison.

That being said, I do think Federer is most successful tennis player ever. Up to this point, I do think that Nadal has not reached his level. It's kind of like a Jack Nicklaus / Tiger Woods thing. Not unlike Nicklaus and Woods... I think Woods is a better golfer. Nicklaus has just been around longer and had more success.

Regardless, I think Rod Laver was better and achieved more than both.

BTW, the big stat that you left out (and I'm not sure why) was the Grand Slam. And that is the absolute pinnacle in tennis. It is a nearly inhuman feat that demonstrates absolute dominance and mastery.

EDIT: BTW, you also left out Davis Cup and Olympics. Gee... I wonder who your guy is? :-)

forzamilan90
05-01-2013, 09:14 AM
What about The_Order? Alot of them get on my nerves, only because they feel the need to compare Nadal to Federer all the time.

Dark knight was also annoying..GodNovak from pre Wimbledon last year was utterly ghastly. We got in some ugly confrontations and he was not only trolling, but also verbally abusive. Glad he's gone...too bad he got banned before seeing you know who lift Wimbledon trophy few days removed after beating you know who in the semi finals

Nitish
05-01-2013, 09:15 AM
What about The_Order? Alot of them get on my nerves, only because they feel the need to compare Nadal to Federer all the time.

The_Order-abmk rivalry is the best we have in this forum almost as good as fedal :twisted:

forzamilan90
05-01-2013, 09:15 AM
Oddly I think I like to be annoyed by them so I can occasionally let out frustration. Shows how mature I am...

Haha can you say BobbyOne...as cartoonish and stubborn as he is, his senility is entertaining sometimes

Quite Please
05-01-2013, 09:17 AM
But that's really the thing. When there is a sizable difference in accomplishments, stats matter. The slams count for the most, and really the H2H is a few rungs down the list these days. Behind things like weeks at #1 YE #1's WTF titles, MS titles, (Nadal leads of course) overall titles, overall dominance. H2H is behind all of these, and that's if I haven't forgotten any. And the slams have always counted for the most. No unbiased person who has a clue about tennis will say Federer and Nadal are equal. Which makes it even more ridiculous when you have people going around saying Nadal is better than Federer.

Put it this way. The difference between Federer's career and Nadal's career so far is Novak Djokovic, or Boris Becker, or Stefan Edberg, and even then Nadal is behind in weeks at #1 and YE #1's and WTF titles.

See this is the problem you run into when one guy sticks around and still plays relatively well, but doesn't beat his "rivals" that often. You get a bunch of kids who never watched prime Federer (probably have only watched since the 08 Wimbledon final or Djokovic's 2011 season) and are only concerned about who can beat who rather than overall accomplishments. Now to be fair to Nadal, he was the only one who consistently beat prime Federer on any surface, but what I'm trying to say is essentially this: Because Nadal and to a lesser extent Djokovic came along at "around" the same time as Federer and are able to beat him more often than not these days, the perception is that the gap between them is small, but truthfully it's rather huge career wise. Which will be what people really look at when they all retire.

It would be like if someone went and started a thread titled "Why Djokovic is better than Nadal", and in such a thread started harping on about the 7 straight finals losses and the 8-3 H2H since 2011 started because Djokovic was a baby pre 2011, and that 16-7 H2H lead pre 2011 doesn't count. I'm sure the Nadal fans wouldn't like that too much. And you know why they wouldn't like it. Because it is NOT TRUE! Overall Nadal's career so far trumps Djokovic's by a considerable margin. It's much the same premise between Federer and Nadal.

Quoted for truth

mariecon
05-01-2013, 09:22 AM
Oddly I think I like to be annoyed by them so I can occasionally let out frustration. Shows how mature I am...

Ever since I got banned for 5 days for letting it all out I've decided to use the ignore list instead! :lol:

NatF
05-01-2013, 09:24 AM
Dark knight was also annoying..GodNovak from pre Wimbledon last year was utterly ghastly. We got in some ugly confrontations and he was not only trolling, but also verbally abusive. Glad he's gone...too bad he got banned before seeing you know who lift Wimbledon trophy few days removed after beating you know who in the semi finals

There will always be new trolls, or the same trolls in new clothing...

The_Order-abmk rivalry is the best we have in this forum almost as good as fedal :twisted:

I find them quite entertaining also.

Haha can you say BobbyOne...as cartoonish and stubborn as he is, his senility is entertaining sometimes

I'm waiting for the Vienna Visonary to start quoting Bud Collins again so I can point out, that Bud not only says Federer is in contention for the greatest of all time but also says his backhand is only weak against Nadal's forehand...

Been reading his book you see...But yes Bobby is a funny chap.

mariecon
05-01-2013, 09:26 AM
You can't say that Nadal and Federer are equal when Federer is 5 years older and past prime. They didn't start at the same time. Nadal will still be going after Fed is gone. The only truly objective way to judge is to wait until Nadal is done and then attempt a comparison.

That being said, I do think Federer is most successful tennis player ever. Up to this point, I do think that Nadal has not reached his level. It's kind of like a Jack Nicklaus / Tiger Woods thing. Not unlike Nicklaus and Woods... I think Woods is a better golfer. Nicklaus has just been around longer and had more success.

Regardless, I think Rod Laver was better and achieved more than both.

BTW, the big stat that you left out (and I'm not sure why) was the Grand Slam. And that is the absolute pinnacle in tennis. It is a nearly inhuman feat that demonstrates absolute dominance and mastery.

EDIT: BTW, you also left out Davis Cup and Olympics. Gee... I wonder who your guy is? :-)


Davis Cup is a team event and shouldn't even be discussed when comparing two players' individual accomplishments.

abmk
05-01-2013, 09:28 AM
You can't say that Nadal and Federer are equal when Federer is 5 years older and past prime. They didn't start at the same time. Nadal will still be going after Fed is gone. The only truly objective way to judge is to wait until Nadal is done and then attempt a comparison.

That being said, I do think Federer is most successful tennis player ever. Up to this point, I do think that Nadal has not reached his level. It's kind of like a Jack Nicklaus / Tiger Woods thing. Not unlike Nicklaus and Woods... I think Woods is a better golfer. Nicklaus has just been around longer and had more success.

Regardless, I think Rod Laver was better and achieved more than both.

BTW, the big stat that you left out (and I'm not sure why) was the Grand Slam. And that is the absolute pinnacle in tennis. It is a nearly inhuman feat that demonstrates absolute dominance and mastery.

EDIT: BTW, you also left out Davis Cup and Olympics. Gee... I wonder who your guy is? :-)

don't know much about golf, but nadal isn't better than federer at the AO, , Wimbledon, USO , YEC - or in other words - slow HC, grass, fast HC, indoors & years/weeks @ #1 .... he isn't going to come near at either of those in the future .

so explain how on earth fed's better records are only due to his career being longer ?

Steve0904
05-01-2013, 09:34 AM
You can't say that Nadal and Federer are equal when Federer is 5 years older and past prime. They didn't start at the same time. Nadal will still be going after Fed is gone. The only truly objective way to judge is to wait until Nadal is done and then attempt a comparison.

That being said, I do think Federer is most successful tennis player ever. Up to this point, I do think that Nadal has not reached his level. It's kind of like a Jack Nicklaus / Tiger Woods thing. Not unlike Nicklaus and Woods... I think Woods is a better golfer. Nicklaus has just been around longer and had more success.

Regardless, I think Rod Laver was better and achieved more than both.

BTW, the big stat that you left out (and I'm not sure why) was the Grand Slam. And that is the absolute pinnacle in tennis. It is a nearly inhuman feat that demonstrates absolute dominance and mastery.

EDIT: BTW, you also left out Davis Cup and Olympics. Gee... I wonder who your guy is? :-)

THUNDERVOLLEY is that you? Seriously though the CYGS is not the end all and be all IMO and like you I think Federer is the most accomplished player ever. I didn't leave the CYGS out on purpose. Nor the Olympics or the DC. The DC is a team competition (singles matches, but a team competition) so that means Spain > Switzerland and does not imply in any way that Nadal > Federer.

And the Olympics has become more important recently, but it was not a medal sport in the open era until 1988. People like to pump up the Olympics just because it's the Olympics, but it will never have the history of the grand slams. The gold medal would be a plausible tie breaker (no pun intended) of some sort if Nadal has comparable achievements by the time his career is over, but it's pretty useless until then and is probably at about the same level of importance as the H2H which is slightly lesser than perhaps everything I listed historically. The absolute highest I would put the OG is between MS titles and overall titles. For example Murray is nowhere near Federer in career accomplishments. Also, greats like Laver, Borg, and McEnroe didn't get a legitimate shot at Olympic Gold so where do we put them if the Olympics suddenly becomes massively important.

This is why everything I said I tempered with the words "so far" or some other such thing because you are right. We cannot compare until careers are over. And it's really got nothing to do with Federer being "my guy." I gladly admit that Nadal is the clay GOAT, and is better than Borg on clay for example. I'm not out to take credit away from Nadal. I'm simply out to stop people from blowing up the DC and Olympics to monstrous proportions to take credit away from Federer and/or give unneeded ridiculous amounts to Nadal. It's about DC being a team sport, and the Olympics in tennis really not being as important as people try to make it these days. I'm not downgrading the Olympics IMHO, I'm simply saying it's not as important in tennis historically as Nadal fans especially tend to make it out to be.

mightyrick
05-01-2013, 09:37 AM
so explain how on earth fed's better records are only due to his career being longer ?

I'm only saying Nadal isn't done yet. We can't compare Nadal -- who probably has 4-5 years left -- to Federer who probably has 1 or 2 left. Let's wait till they are done and see what it looks like.

Hell, why not compare Djokovic and Federer right now? Is that fair, either?

We'll wait and see how the two look. I can't wait for those discussions. But I have a feeling they'll be as fruitless in the future as they are today. Because the entire argument is subjective... led by fans who cherry pick statistics... assign a level of importance to each one... and then back their way into GOATness.

TMF
05-01-2013, 09:46 AM
Boris Becker who's a legend of the game himself has 6 slams, 3 Master Cups, 109 weeks at #1, one year end #1. Fed so much ahead of Nadal even if you combined Becker and Nadal's achievement it's still fall short of Fed's overall accomplishment.

Relinquis
05-01-2013, 09:56 AM
Federer is GOAT... If Nadal is Maradona* then Federer is Pele and Messi combined...


* no, this isn't a drug reference...

kragster
05-01-2013, 10:02 AM
I am always amazed by how many responses , threads that are clearly trolling get. The OP knows he is trolling, you know the OP is trolling. Yet this thread goes on.

Steve0904
05-01-2013, 10:07 AM
I am always amazed by how many responses , threads that are clearly trolling get. The OP knows he is trolling, you know the OP is trolling. Yet this thread goes on.

Sometimes it's fun to see how many stupid people are really out there :)

The_Order
05-01-2013, 10:09 AM
Boris Becker who's a legend of the game himself has 6 slams, 3 Master Cups, 109 weeks at #1, one year end #1. Fed so much ahead of Nadal even if you combined Becker and Nadal's achievement it's still ball short of Fed's overall accomplishment.

Replace Federer, Djokovic and Murray with old Agassi, Hewitt and Roddick and you will be watching Nadal's accomplishments overtake Federer's.

TMF
05-01-2013, 10:11 AM
Replace Federer, Djokovic and Murray with old Agassi, Hewitt and Roddick and you will be watching Nadal's accomplishments overtake Federer's.

The_Order is the goat of hypothetical. :)

WhiskeyEE
05-01-2013, 10:16 AM
Nadal doesn't have a single indoor HC title.

Steve0904
05-01-2013, 10:19 AM
Nadal doesn't have a single indoor HC title.

Actually he does. That would be Madrid 2005. Look I'm obviously not Nadal's biggest fan (nor his biggest detractor), but get your facts right for god's sake. You're embarrassing yourself.

veroniquem
05-01-2013, 10:26 AM
List of tier 1 events where Fed has outperformed Rafa:
- AO
- IW
- Miami
- Hamburg
- Madrid (clay)
- Wimbledon
- Canada
- Cincy
- USO
- Madrid (hard)
- Shanghai
- Paris
- WTF

That's 13 events.

List of events where Rafa has outperformed Fed:
- M-C
- Rome
- RG
- Olympics

That's 4 events

Come on guys, I much prefer Rafa's personality, style and intensity on the court but you have to stop comparing their results because at this point, it's just silly. And I'm very sorry to add that there are some clay events in Fed's list to boot :oops: (Rafa still has a few years to change this state of affairs but as it stands, it's not even close, so just drop it)

vive le beau jeu !
05-01-2013, 10:28 AM
Actually he does. That would be Madrid 2005. Look I'm obviously not Nadal's biggest fan (nor his biggest detractor), but get your facts right for god's sake. You're embarrassing yourself.
doesn't count, not real tennis.

Nitish
05-01-2013, 10:33 AM
List of tier 1 events where Fed has outperformed Rafa:
- AO
- IW
- Miami
- Hamburg
- Madrid (clay)
- Wimbledon
- Canada
- Cincy
- USO
- Madrid (hard)
- Shanghai
- Paris
- WTF

That's 13 events.

List of events where Rafa has outperformed Fed:
- M-C
- Rome
- RG
- Olympics

That's 4 events

Come on guys, I much prefer Rafa's personality, style and intensity on the court but you have to stop comparing their results because at this point, it's just silly. And I'm very sorry to add that there are some clay events in Fed's list to boot :oops: (Rafa still has a few years to change this state of affairs but as it stands, it's not even close, so just drop it)

End of thread....

SLD76
05-01-2013, 10:38 AM
Let's see, nadal won his first slam in 2005.
So in 2005 fed won 2 slams
3 in 2006
3 in 2007
1 in 2008
2 in 2009
1 in 2010
0 in 2011
1 in 2012

So, that's 13 slams since the emergence of la nadal. In fact, most of fed slam wins have been won when since the emergence of nadal at the fo in 2005 since he only won wimby and the uso that year.

Meanwhile, nadal has won 1 slam a year 6 times since 2005( 05, 06, 07, 09, 2011, 2012). He has only won multiple slams in 2008 and and 2010. And only at wimbledon from 06 to 07 was fed the road block for nadal otherwise , he couldn't get past the field. In fact aside from wimbledon 06 and 07. All of nadals slam losses have been to the field, til 2011 when djoker became his new roadblock. 2009 was the only year injury( and personal issues) stopped nadal.

How is nadal dominant again?

Rofl, record number of slams lost. Roger will take that as it means he was healthy and consisten enough to enter so many slam draws. trollolololololol troll :D

Because it bears repeating.

Nadal and fed were not peers because they did not come up at the same time, but they most certainly were rivals and share(d) an era together.

SLD76
05-01-2013, 10:44 AM
Boris Becker who's a legend of the game himself has 6 slams, 3 Master Cups, 109 weeks at #1, one year end #1. Fed so much ahead of Nadal even if you combined Becker and Nadal's achievement it's still fall short of Fed's overall accomplishment.

Agree completely. And I honestly wish people would just say that Nadal and Federer are at par with each other. They are both on the list of greatest of all time. Both crushed everyone else. Both crushed each other on their favorite surfaces.

Forget H2H and forget counting slams.

Because if Roger and Rafa started at the same time, and clay was the surface for 2 out of the 4 majors... I think you'd see two men with almost equivalent career statistics.


Rafa won his first slam in 2005.

Before rafa's first slam win, fed had only won 4 slams. Fed won 13 slams from 2005 to 2012

Sounds to me like they have plenty of career overlap.

Fed didn't become world number til 2004.


Where is this huge head start fed has again?

abmk
05-01-2013, 10:47 AM
I'm only saying Nadal isn't done yet.

no, you weren't. you were comparing and implying that nadal was better and has only achieved less because he's younger. again, like I said, put them both in any eras, and fed is better and out-performs him on any surface bar clay ...

We can't compare Nadal -- who probably has 4-5 years left -- to Federer who probably has 1 or 2 left. Let's wait till they are done and see what it looks like.

Hell, why not compare Djokovic and Federer right now? Is that fair, either?

We'll wait and see how the two look. I can't wait for those discussions. But I have a feeling they'll be as fruitless in the future as they are today. Because the entire argument is subjective... led by fans who cherry pick statistics... assign a level of importance to each one... and then back their way into GOATness.

not to those who use some level of objectivity ... you can quibble about b/w federer/laver and sampras/borg and argue based on different parameters...... but nadal is by some distance behind federer and he isn't coming close to federer on slow HC, grass, fast HC, indoors ....

djokovic has peaked later than rafa ..... still him coming close to sampras' level of achivements is very unlikely, let alone fed's .........

abmk
05-01-2013, 10:52 AM
Replace Federer, Djokovic and Murray with old Agassi, Hewitt and Roddick and you will be watching Nadal's accomplishments overtake Federer's.

yeah, because federer wasn't stopped by djokovic at AO 2008, AO 2011, USO 2011 .- majors where he'd have a realisitic chance of winning

because he hasn't met djokovic 11 times in majors compared to rafa's 9 ......

and 10 times after montreal 2007 ( his breakthrough tournament ) compared to rafa's 6 times .....

because nadal wasn't there on clay from 2005 onwards and on grass from 2006 onwards

because djokovic wasn't there from 2007 onwards

because old agassi, roddick, hewitt ,safin, nalbandian, davydenko , in-form gonzo, couldn't beat the mighty rafa when tsonga, murray, soderling, rosol, ferrer,delpo beat him from 2008 onwards in majors ....

LMAO ....

Steve0904
05-01-2013, 10:55 AM
doesn't count, not real tennis.

Haha :lol: Well it better count for the Nadal's sake :)

Nitish
05-01-2013, 10:55 AM
yeah, because federer wasn't stopped by djokovic at AO 2008, AO 2011, USO 2011 ...

because he hasn't met djokovic 11 times in majors compared to rafa's 9 ......

and 10 times after montreal 2007 ( his breakthrough tournament ) compared to rafa's 6 times .....

because nadal wasn't there on clay from 2005 onwards and on grass from 2007 onwards

because djokovic wasn't there from 2007 onwards

because safin, nalbandian, davydenko , in-form gonzo, old agassi would have no chance vs the mighty rafa when tsonga, murray, soderling, rosol, ferrer beat him ....

LMAO ....

actually in form gonzo straight setted rafa at the AO,and davydenko we all know what happens when they play on a hardcourt...

abmk
05-01-2013, 10:57 AM
in form gonzo straight setted rafa at the AO......

yeah , I know ... the latter list was from those who beat him in majors from 2008 onwards ...I edited it ..

veroniquem
05-01-2013, 11:32 AM
End of thread....
I have the complete list too if you're interested. There are 32 events that both Roger and Rafa have played at least once in their career.
Roger has had better results in 24 of them (so far):
Sydney
Doha
AO
Marseille
Rotterdam
Dubai
IW
Miami
Estoril
Hamburg
Madrid (clay)
Halle
Wimbledon
Canada
Cincy
USO
Lyon
Bangkok
Madrid (hard)
Shanghai
Stockholm
Basel
Paris
WTF

Rafa has had better results in 8:
Auckland
M-C
Barcelona
Rome
RG
Queen's
Tokyo
Olympics

I expect Rafa to reclaim Madrid (clay) before he retires and maybe IW or Canada as well.

Nitish
05-01-2013, 11:41 AM
I have the complete list too if you're interested. There are 32 events that both Roger and Rafa have played at least once in their career.
Roger has had better results in 24 of them (so far):
Sydney
Doha
AO
Marseille
Rotterdam
Dubai
IW
Miami
Estoril
Hamburg
Madrid (clay)
Halle
Wimbledon
Canada
Cincy
USO
Lyon
Bangkok
Madrid (hard)
Shanghai
Stockholm
Basel
Paris
WTF

Rafa has had better results in 8:
Auckland
M-C
Barcelona
Rome
RG
Queen's
Tokyo
Olympics

I expect Rafa to reclaim Madrid (clay) before he retires and maybe IW or Canada as well.
Thanks for the list, he can definitely reclaim madrid but canada will be tough with novak around.

mightyrick
05-01-2013, 11:42 AM
Rafa won his first slam in 2005.

Before rafa's first slam win, fed had only won 4 slams. Fed won 13 slams from 2005 to 2012


Since when is the word ONLY applied to 4 slams?? Have our standards gotten that ridiculous?


Sounds to me like they have plenty of career overlap.


I don't think you even know what career overlap means.

Where is this huge head start fed has again?

Roger came out in 1998. He went FIVE AND A HALF YEARS before winning a major. This was necessary because the old guard had too many good players and they needed to leave in order to create the weak vacuum necessary for Roger to dominate. And he literally dominated overnight... going from getting straight-setted in quarterfinals or first rounds... to winning majors. Any objective person would see that skill alone is not responsible for such a meteoric rise.

Rafa came out in 2003. I'm assuming you can do math and know there is five years difference there. It took Rafa only two years to win his first slam. Hell, Rafa was even absent for half of those majors. And why did it take Rafa only two years? Because the field was incredibly weak - especially the clay field. Like Federer, he also went from zero to instant domination.

If you don't understand the concept of weak and strong field, and how it can affect things like "numbers", then you can't be helped. You are merely going to look at a number and tell yourself, "Well... that's huge! GOAT!".

All I can say to you is... yes... at 490 winners struck... Mahut/Isner was the most impressive offensive tennis match in history. :rolleyes:

abmk
05-01-2013, 11:52 AM
Roger came out in 1998. He went FIVE AND A HALF YEARS before winning a major. This was necessary because the old guard had too many good players and they needed to leave in order to create the weak vacuum necessary for Roger to dominate. And he literally dominated overnight... going from getting straight-setted in quarterfinals or first rounds... to winning majors. Any objective person would see that skill alone is not responsible for such a meteoric rise.

this is downright hilarious .....

yes, it absolutely was skill and most importantly putting it all together, including mentally . It had almost nothing to do with the old guard leaving it .......

hewitt and nalbandian were dominating him till 2003 .. he turned and reversed it around completely after that .... both had two of their best years in 2004-05 and won a combined one match vs federer (nalbandian in TMC 2005 )


Rafa came out in 2003. I'm assuming you can do math and know there is five years difference there. It took Rafa only two years to win his first slam. Hell, Rafa was even absent for half of those majors. And why did it take Rafa only two years? Because the field was incredibly weak - especially the clay field. Like Federer, he also went from zero to instant domination.

If you don't understand the concept of weak and strong field, and how it can affect things like "numbers", then you can't be helped. You are merely going to look at a number and tell yourself, "Well... that's huge! GOAT!".

because rafa was that good on clay from the beginning and he improved upon it ...

was the CC field weak in RG 82 when wilander won it ? or grass court field in 85 when becker won it ? or RG field in 89 when chang won it ?

and finally the biggest nail to invalidate your argument ... borg turned pro in 73 and won RG in 74 .... won in 75 as well and then from 77-80 ... did that mean the CC field was weak back then - on red clay ?

NatF
05-01-2013, 11:57 AM
Roger came out in 1998. He went FIVE AND A HALF YEARS before winning a major. This was necessary because the old guard had too many good players and they needed to leave in order to create the weak vacuum necessary for Roger to dominate. And he literally dominated overnight... going from getting straight-setted in quarterfinals or first rounds... to winning majors. Any objective person would see that skill alone is not responsible for such a meteoric rise.

Rafa came out in 2003. I'm assuming you can do math and know there is five years difference there. It took Rafa only two years to win his first slam. Hell, Rafa was even absent for half of those majors. And why did it take Rafa only two years? Because the field was incredibly weak - especially the clay field. Like Federer, he also went from zero to instant domination.

If you don't understand the concept of weak and strong field, and how it can affect things like "numbers", then you can't be helped. You are merely going to look at a number and tell yourself, "Well... that's huge! GOAT!".

All I can say to you is... yes... at 490 winners struck... Mahut/Isner was the most impressive offensive tennis match in history. :rolleyes:

That one sentence shows how utterly clueless you are. Did the field weaken between the FO 03 when he lost in the first round and the Wimbledon he won a month later? I guess according to you Roger in 1998 was the same as he was in 2005 and 2006. What a joke. Watch some tennis and see the improvement in Federer. Commentators were describing his level in the Wimbledon 2003 semi as perhaps the greats they'd ever seen.

veroniquem
05-01-2013, 12:05 PM
Thanks for the list, he can definitely reclaim madrid but canada will be tough with novak around.
Yeah. In recent years both Djoko and Murray have done better than Rafa in Canada, it may not be that easy for Rafa to get a 3rd title but if he did it in IW, then I think why not in Canada?

mightyrick
05-01-2013, 12:11 PM
yes, it was skill and most importantly putting it all together, including mentally .


No. It wasn't only skill.



hewitt and nalbandian were dominating him till 2003 .. he turned and reversed it around completely after that .... both had two of their best years in 2004-05 and won a combined one match vs federer (nalbandian in TMC 2005 ) ...


Oh please. Hewitt and Nalbandian? Really? You mean the initial benefactors of a ridiculously weak field? Not that I'd even call Nalbandian a benefactor... he didn't even win anything.

Should I start naming the slam winners that Sampras had to go through in his career? Would you like to compare slam numbers of those folks to Fed's competition?


was the CC field weak in RG 82 when wilander won it ? or grass court field in 85 when becker won it ? or RG field in 89 when chang won it ?


You judge this by looking at the field. I am not saying Nadal is a bad CC player. He's a great player. But I'm not going to sit here and say that the mugs he had to go up against remotely compare to the guys that Wilander had to go up against. The same for Borg.

You are absolutely proving my point.


and finally the biggest nail to invalidate your argument ... borg turned pro in 73 and won RG in 74 .... won in 75 as well and then from 77-80 ... did that mean the CC field was weak back then ?

Like I said above, you look at the accomplishments of field in the context of the individual accomplishments. When I compare Nadal's field to Borg's field... there is NO comparison. Borg had much tougher competition than Nadal. I'm not saying Nadal isn't better than Borg... but I am saying you can't judge that based on Nadal's competition.

The difference between you (and others) and I is that you think looking at the whole picture is looking at nothing but individual performance statistics. I, on the other hand, look at the true whole picture. I look at the individual performance as well as the strength and performance of the field.

That is how I judge the greatness of a player. You can throw all the records and stats at me that you want. And that is why I say that the greatest player ever is not (currently) anybody that is playing on tour right now.

There's a great line from the movie Jeremiah Johnson. "A tribe's greatness is figured on how mighty its enemies be." And I agree 100%.

cknobman
05-01-2013, 12:15 PM
I'm still confused on why Rafa get two "weakest" surfaces and Federer only gets one.

Rafa's weakest surface would likely be the one where he has the lowest winning percentage on. Since carpet is no longer on the tour then technically his weakest surface is hard.

abmk
05-01-2013, 12:18 PM
No. It wasn't only skill.

yes, it absolutely was ... do you think the field transformed from when he lost to luis horna ( who ? ) in 2003 RG to one month later in wimbledon 2003 when he dominated roddick and phillipoussis on the way to winning ?


Oh please. Hewitt and Nalbandian? Really? You mean the initial benefactors of a ridiculously weak field? Not that I'd even call Nalbandian a benefactor... he didn't even win anything.

again, load of BS. explain how federer was able to turn around their h2h completely if it wasn't for getting it all together ....

Should I start naming the slam winners that Sampras had to go through in his career? Would you like to compare slam numbers of those folks to Fed's competition?

oh puhlease , federer's more domination means lesser slam winners at his peak. But by the end of his career, which btw will be a longer one than sampras', the no of slam wins of his opponents in majors will be around the same ....



You judge this by looking at the field. I am not saying Nadal is a bad CC player. He's a great player. But I'm not going to sit here and say that the mugs he had to go up against remotely compare to the guys that Wilander had to go up against. The same for Borg.

You are absolutely proving my point.

actually, I am not. I'm saying wilander even at that age could go up vs a brutal draw to win RG ... though nadal had it relatively easier in RG 2005, doesn't mean it was bad .....he did face federer and in-form puerta ...

so in comparision, nadal breaking through on clay so early after turning pro was not that big a surprise or only due to the CC field being weak ....


Like I said above, you look at the accomplishments of field in the context of the individual accomplishments. When I compare Nadal's field to Borg's field... there is NO comparison. Borg had much tougher competition than Nadal. I'm not saying Nadal isn't better than Borg... but I am saying you can't judge that based on Nadal's competition.

The difference between you (and others) and I is that you think looking at the whole picture is looking at nothing but individual performance statistics. I, on the other hand, look at the true whole picture. I look at the individual performance as well as the strength and performance of the field.

That is how I judge the greatness of a player. You can throw all the records and stats at me that you want. And that is why I say that the greatest player ever is not (currently) anybody that is playing on tour right now.

There's a great line from the movie Jeremiah Johnson. "A tribe's greatness is figured on how mighty its enemies be." And I agree 100%.

I am looking at the whole picture. Its you who is totally ignorant and blatantly under-rating the total strength of the field from 2003 onwards ...............

again, explain how borg could win RGs so quickly after turning pro then .....

there are quite a few arguments for putting laver ahead of federer and vice versa ....

but there is no real argument for putting federer and nadal as equals or worse saying nadal is better than federer, but has achieved less only because he is younger ..as I've shown/explained in my posts before .....

timnz
05-01-2013, 12:41 PM
We all know how dominant they are on their best surfaces. Nadal on clay. Federer on hard/grass. But how well do they do on their weakest?

Nadal has 10 big hard/grass titles
Federer has 7 big clay titles

But more importantly is Nadal has 4 grass/hard slams to only 1 clay slam for Federer.

4 > 1.

Not sure why you group hard with grass. Hard these days (especially outdoor hard) is more akin to clay, particularly in the first half of the year where the majority of Nadals hard court wins have occurred. The other false assumption is that hard is Nadals weakest. Most hard court are played outdoors. Outdoor hard is probably Nadals best surface outside clay.

If you want to compare on services...use Nadal's real weakest surface/conditions which is indoor hard.

So then Nadal has 1 indoor hard big title (Madrid)

And

federer has 7 big clay titles

That is the more accurate comparison.

mightyrick
05-01-2013, 12:42 PM
again, explain how borg could win RGs so quickly after turning pro then .....


Let's see who Borg went through in 1974:

Jean-François Caujolle (unseeded - career high ranking of 74 - 0 majors - 0 singles titles)
Toma Ovici (unseeded - career high ranking of 133 - 0 majors - 0 singles titles)
Jean-Loup Rouyer (unseeded - who? lol - 0 majors - 0 singles titles)
Erik van Dillen (unseeded - career high ranking of 36 - 0 majors - 1 singles title)
Raul Ramirez (#9 seed - career high ranking of #4 in 76 - 0 majors - 19 singles titles)
Harold Solomon (unseeded - career high ranking of #5 in 1980 - 0 majors - 22 singles titles)
Manuel Orantes (#14 seed - career high ranking of #2 in 1973 - 1 major - 22 singles titles)

Let me ask a question. Keeping in mind that Borg was the #3 seed... does this list impress you?

abmk
05-01-2013, 12:48 PM
Let's see who Borg went through in 1974:

Jean-François Caujolle (unseeded - career high ranking of 74 - 0 majors - 0 singles titles)
Toma Ovici (unseeded - career high ranking of 133 - 0 majors - 0 singles titles)
Jean-Loup Rouyer (unseeded - who? lol - 0 majors - 0 singles titles)
Erik van Dillen (unseeded - career high ranking of 36 - 0 majors - 1 singles title)
Raul Ramirez (#9 seed - career high ranking of #4 in 76 - 0 majors - 19 singles titles)
Harold Solomon (unseeded - career high ranking of #5 in 1980 - 0 majors - 22 singles titles)
Manuel Orantes (#14 seed - career high ranking of #2 in 1973 - 1 major - 22 singles titles)

Let me ask a question. Keeping in mind that Borg was the #3 seed... does this list impress you?

what are you on about ?

you don't think I know the field borg went through ? that is precisely why I mentioned what I did .....

orantes was an excellent clay courter, solomon and ramirez were no slouches on clay either - they were pretty good clay-courters ...

if borg won RG so quickly after turning pro against a pretty good CC field, why should rafa doing the same against a slighltly weaker field, ( not by a big margin as you make it out to be ) be that big of a surprise ..

keep in mind that rafa did face federer and in-form puerta in RG 2005 ...

mightyrick
05-01-2013, 12:58 PM
what are you on about ?

you don't think I know the field borg went through ? that is precisely why I mentioned what I did .....

orantes was an excellent clay courter, solomon and ramirez were no slouches on clay either - they were pretty good clay-courters ...


Solomon and Ramirez... whatever.

Orantes was well above average, I agree. And he was plagued by injury. He was up two sets in the final and only won two games in the final three sets. Certainly not due to Borg's skill... as much as aching and pain.

Also, if Connors wasn't banned, he'd likely have beaten Borg. Connors had already beaten Borg at the CC championships.

So here's what I'll say. If Orantes is healthy and Connors wasn't banned that year... it is MUCH less likely that Borg wins the FO in 1974. The draw was extremely soft.

At least in 1974, I'm not going to sit here and say that Borg's supreme skill was the dominant factor that won him the FO that year. I don't think anybody can do that. He had a weak draw, had a couple of good players knocked out of his way, and hit an aching Orantes in the final.

BobbyOne
05-01-2013, 01:05 PM
Haha can you say BobbyOne...as cartoonish and stubborn as he is, his senility is entertaining sometimes

Forza, Your impertinance is not entertaining though.

abmk
05-01-2013, 01:05 PM
Solomon and Ramirez... whatever.

whatever ? just another instance that goes to show the disregard you have for so many players .......

Orantes was well above average, I agree. And he was plagued by injury. He was up two sets in the final and only won two games in the final three sets. Certainly not due to Borg's skill... as much as aching and pain.

Also, if Connors wasn't banned, he'd likely have beaten Borg. Connors had already beaten Borg at the CC championships.

So here's what I'll say. If Orantes is healthy and Connors wasn't banned that year... it is MUCH less likely that Borg wins the FO in 1974. The draw was extremely soft.

At least in 1974, I'm not going to sit here and say that Borg's supreme skill was the dominant factor that won him the FO that year. I don't think anybody can do that. He had a weak draw, had a couple of good players knocked out of his way, and hit an aching Orantes in the final.

yes, it was borg's skill set that won him the FO .. he faced and outlasted orantes, solomon and ramirez ......

as far as connors is concerned, as far as I know it was on har tru and it was best of 3 ( not best of 5 ), much less likely that he'd be able to outhit borg on red clay in a best of 5 ....again ,there is the possibility of him getting taken out by orantes, vilas, solomon , dibbs etc ...

forzamilan90
05-01-2013, 01:19 PM
Forza, Your impertinance is not entertaining though.

surprised you're visiting these boards tbh

SLD76
05-01-2013, 01:31 PM
Delete poast

SLD76
05-01-2013, 01:40 PM
Since when is the word ONLY applied to 4 slams?? Have our standards gotten that ridiculous?



I don't think you even know what career overlap means.



Roger came out in 1998. He went FIVE AND A HALF YEARS before winning a major. This was necessary because the old guard had too many good players and they needed to leave in order to create the weak vacuum necessary for Roger to dominate. And he literally dominated overnight... going from getting straight-setted in quarterfinals or first rounds... to winning majors. Any objective person would see that skill alone is not responsible for such a meteoric rise.

Rafa came out in 2003. I'm assuming you can do math and know there is five years difference there. It took Rafa only two years to win his first slam. Hell, Rafa was even absent for half of those majors. And why did it take Rafa only two years? Because the field was incredibly weak - especially the clay field. Like Federer, he also went from zero to instant domination.

If you don't understand the concept of weak and strong field, and how it can affect things like "numbers", then you can't be helped. You are merely going to look at a number and tell yourself, "Well... that's huge! GOAT!".

All I can say to you is... yes... at 490 winners struck... Mahut/Isner was the most impressive offensive tennis match in history. :rolleyes:

By that same token, sampras turned pro in 1988 and didn't dominate the field til 1993,.

1993 also coincides with a time that greats from the previous era were past prime(edberg, becker, lendl, wilander,) or were facing burnout ( courier)

Of course, sampras showed a glimpse of what he coukd become by winning the 1990 uso, but it would be 3 years before he began to dominate the tour.

Fed's career path shows a similar trajectory to pete.
Came out 1998, beats sampras at wimbledon in 2001, but its another 2.5 years before he begins his tour dominance in 2004.

So I guess what, players aren't great unless immediately once they turn pro dominate the field?


In fed's case, the players who were tops before his ascendence were mostly his peers who he would go on to dominate(hewitt, roddick, nalbandian, haas, safin, etc) although there were a few holders from the previous era (kuerten, JCF, moya, agassi, henman, rafter etc)


And in what universe do roger and rafa's careers not overlap?????? Rafa was in the field as a serious contender from 2006 on( ill even skip the rest of 2005 for rafa) that makes 20 slams(minus the ones rafa missed due to injury) where rafa was a contende the same time as fed. Yeah, fed turned pro in 1998 but the period before 03 is irrelevant because he wasn't a slam winner til then. Just like nobody cares about what rafa did prior to FO 2005.

Let's see rafa missed AO 06, FO 09, and AO 13. That's 3 slams missed since winning the FO. So in 29 majors since 2006, rafa missed 3 and not *half* as you claim.

Face it, nadal has less slams than fed not because of some insurmountable head start, but because mostly *he couldn't beat the field* to make it to Fed. Most of Fed's slam wins came after rafa was a slam winner and Wimbledon finalist.

Deal with it.


I guess for you there is no such thing as player development, they have to win right away day one or else when they begin to dominate, its a weak era, lol

Also which is, did fed take too long to dominate or was it instant domination???

Steve0904
05-01-2013, 01:55 PM
By that same token, sampras turned pro in 1988 and didn't dominate the field til 1993,.

1993 also coincides with a time that greats from the previous era were past prime(edberg, becker, lendl, wilander,) or were facing burnout ( courier)

Of course, sampras showed a glimpse of what he coukd become by winning the 1990 uso, but it would be 3 years before he began to dominate the tour.

Fed's career path shows a similar trajectory to pete.
Came out 1998, beats sampras at wimbledon in 2001, but its another 2.5 years before he begins his tour dominance in 2004.

So I guess what, players aren't great unless immediately once they turn pro dominate the field?


In fed's case, the players who were tops before his ascendence were mostly his peers who he would go on to dominate(hewitt, roddick, nalbandian, haas, safin, etc) although there were a few holders from the previous era (kuerten, JCF, moya, agassi, henman, rafter etc)


And in what universe do roger and rafa's careers not overlap?????? Rafa was in the field as a serious contender from 2006 on( ill even skip the rest of 2005 for rafa) that makes 20 slams(minus the ones rafa missed due to injury) where rafa was a contende the same time as fed. Yeah, fed turned pro in 1998 but the period before 03 is irrelevant because he wasn't a slam winner til then. Just like nobody cares about what rafa did prior to FO 2005.

Let's see rafa missed AO 06, FO 09, and AO 13. That's 3 slams missed since winning the FO. So in 29 majors since 2006, rafa missed 3 and not *half* as you claim.

Face it, nadal has less slams than fed not because of some insurmountable head start, but because mostly *he couldn't beat the field* to make it to Fed. Most of Fed's slam wins came after rafa was a slam winner and Wimbledon finalist.

Deal with it.


I guess for you there is no such thing as player development, they have to win right away day one or else when they begin to dominate, its a weak era, lol

Also which is, did fed take too long to dominate or was it instant domination???

In this same vein, Nadal turned pro in 2001 and did not win a slam until 2005, and Djokovic turned pro in 2003 and did not win a slam until 2008, and didn't start to be dominant until 2011. I mean gimme a break. Whatever this guy is smoking I want some of it now.

SLD76
05-01-2013, 02:02 PM
In this same vein, Nadal turned pro in 2001 and did not win a slam until 2005, and Djokovic turned pro in 2003 and did not win a slam until 2008, and didn't start to be dominant until 2011. I mean gimme a break. Whatever this guy is smoking I want some of it now.

According to mightythick, nadal turned pro in 2003 and only took 2 years to win a slam


But you know facts are fluid with him as he proclaims nadal missed half of the slams fed competed in post 2005 with injury, lol

veroniquem
05-01-2013, 02:04 PM
What's also interesting is the difference in their career pattern. # of titles per season and age:

18 (1999/2004): N 1 - F 0
19: N 11 - F 0
20: N 5 - F 1
21: N 6 - F 3
22: N 8 - F 7
23: N 5 - F 11
24: N 7 - F 11
25: N 3 - F 12
26: N 4 - F 8

Now the interesting part is their 27th year (2008/2013) because Fed only won 4 titles that year and it looks like Rafa may be able to win more (he already has 4). Between 18 and 22, Rafa won 31 titles (Fed only 11). Between 23 and 26, Fed won 42 titles (Nadal only 19).

SLD76
05-01-2013, 02:08 PM
In this same vein, Nadal turned pro in 2001 and did not win a slam until 2005, and Djokovic turned pro in 2003 and did not win a slam until 2008, and didn't start to be dominant until 2011. I mean gimme a break. Whatever this guy is smoking I want some of it now.

Im thinking mightyrick should just be effect after your post.

So these numbers show that especially now where the courts are slower and the game is physical it takes players longer to develop into slam champions. Players aren't turning pro at 15/16 and winning slams at 18/19 like they used to.

Of course it could also just be the fedal effect.

Sharapova is the last female to win a slam as a teenager, nadal is the last male. They won their maiden slams nearly a year apart

Steve0904
05-01-2013, 02:12 PM
According to mightythick, nadal turned pro in 2003 and only took 2 years to win a slam


But you know facts are fluid with him as he proclaims nadal missed half of the slams fed competed in post 2005 with injury, lol

You had ROFL with this one. :lol:

NatF
05-01-2013, 02:17 PM
^^ I second the ROFL. Didn't notice that before.

fps
05-01-2013, 02:26 PM
I don't know....
Nadal has to be compared to Federer the whole time. Federer's achievements stand without need to compare him with anyone.

Steve0904
05-01-2013, 02:28 PM
Straight from the ATP website
Pronounced: ra-FAY-el nah-DAHL
Age: 26 (03.06.1986)
Birthplace: Manacor, Mallorca, Spain
Residence: Manacor, Mallorca, Spain
Height: 6'1" (185 cm)
Weight: 188 lbs (85 kg)
Plays: Left-handed
Turned Pro: 2001
Coach: Toni Nadal
Website: http://www.rafaelnadal.com

BobbyOne
05-01-2013, 02:33 PM
surprised you're visiting these boards tbh

Forza, You always have underrated the visionary....

Relinquis
05-01-2013, 02:38 PM
Federer is GOAT...

his achievements, the completeness of his game, the tennis he displayed at the highest levels of his performance, his longevity at the top and how former greats and rivals perceive him...

Federer is real tennis. Nadal is his biggest rival, he completes him...

Phoenix1983
05-01-2013, 02:38 PM
Im thinking mightyrick should just be effect after your post.

So these numbers show that especially now where the courts are slower and the game is physical it takes players longer to develop into slam champions. Players aren't turning pro at 15/16 and winning slams at 18/19 like they used to.

Of course it could also just be the fedal effect.

Sharapova is the last female to win a slam as a teenager, nadal is the last male. They won their maiden slams nearly a year apart

Good point, although a slight correction: the last female to win a slam as a teenager was Kuznetsova (US Open 2004).

veroniquem
05-01-2013, 02:40 PM
Straight from the ATP website
Pronounced: ra-FAY-el nah-DAHL
Age: 26 (03.06.1986)
Birthplace: Manacor, Mallorca, Spain
Residence: Manacor, Mallorca, Spain
Height: 6'1" (185 cm)
Weight: 188 lbs (85 kg)
Plays: Left-handed
Turned Pro: 2001
Coach: Toni Nadal
Website: http://www.rafaelnadal.com
Rafa played 1 future and 1 challenger in 2001. He played 1 atp event in 2002 and that was Mallorca. Rafa really started playing the pro tour in 2003. (Fed in ninety eight).

mightyrick
05-01-2013, 02:45 PM
Straight from the ATP website
Pronounced: ra-FAY-el nah-DAHL
Age: 26 (03.06.1986)
Birthplace: Manacor, Mallorca, Spain
Residence: Manacor, Mallorca, Spain
Height: 6'1" (185 cm)
Weight: 188 lbs (85 kg)
Plays: Left-handed
Turned Pro: 2001
Coach: Toni Nadal
Website: http://www.rafaelnadal.com

And I swear you guys are the absolute WORST at misrepresenting and misquoting. Because you clearly see NO DIFFERENCE between the terms "came out" or "coming out" and "turning pro".

I am absolutely amazed. It's just flat out lying you guys do.

Nadal did not play a single match outside of Spain in 2001 and 2002. Not a single one. Hell, I'll give Federer the pass on 1998 since he came out in middle of the year and only played in France and Switzerland. But Federer was playing full tour in all 1999.

Whatever, it doesn't matter with you guys. You're going to misquote and misrepresent everything anyways. You only see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear.

veroniquem
05-01-2013, 02:49 PM
Don't they have a law now that you can't play on the pro tour before the age of 16? Rafa turned 16 in 2002.

tennis_pro
05-01-2013, 03:03 PM
He has more slams.
11>17

More WTF's
0>6

More seasons ranked 1st/more weeks at no 1.
2>5 100>300

More titles.
54>77

Steve0904
05-01-2013, 03:05 PM
And I swear you guys are the absolute WORST at misrepresenting and misquoting. Because you clearly see NO DIFFERENCE between the terms "came out" or "coming out" and "turning pro".

I am absolutely amazed. It's just flat out lying you guys do.

Nadal did not play a single match outside of Spain in 2001 and 2002. Not a single one. Hell, I'll give Federer the pass on 1998 since he came out in middle of the year and only played in France and Switzerland. But Federer was playing full tour in all 1999.

Whatever, it doesn't matter with you guys. You're going to misquote and misrepresent everything anyways. You only see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear.

Stop with the semantics. They're all the same thing. You're just pretending like they're not so you don't have to admit you're wrong. If you can't see the difference between Federer needing more time to get all his strokes in order, and Nadal winning on mostly his physicality and never say die attitude, you sir have a problem. Nadal is much the same as Borg in that regard. Players prime differently. Some are early bloomers and some are late (although I'd say Federer arrived about on time.) It's a bunch of crap when people say Fed is a late bloomer because they are comparing him to Nadal or some other early bloomer. A late bloomer is someone like Soderling or Ferrer. Other crap logic I've seen on this forum is that Djokovic and Sampras are early bloomers because they won a slam in 1990 and 2008 which is utter BS. Djokovic started dominating at 23 years of age and Sampras at about 22. Neither is an early bloomer. They are more in the vein of Federer in that they are on time.

SLD76
05-01-2013, 03:05 PM
Good point, although a slight correction: the last female to win a slam as a teenager was Kuznetsova (US Open 2004).

Well spotted.

I think kuzzy was 19 at the time.

SLD76
05-01-2013, 03:07 PM
And I swear you guys are the absolute WORST at misrepresenting and misquoting. Because you clearly see NO DIFFERENCE between the terms "came out" or "coming out" and "turning pro".

I am absolutely amazed. It's just flat out lying you guys do.

Nadal did not play a single match outside of Spain in 2001 and 2002. Not a single one. Hell, I'll give Federer the pass on 1998 since he came out in middle of the year and only played in France and Switzerland. But Federer was playing full tour in all 1999.

Whatever, it doesn't matter with you guys. You're going to misquote and misrepresent everything anyways. You only see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear.

Just admit you are clueless and we can all move on. Im still waiting to hear how fed and nadal have a rivalry, but yet their careers didn't overlap.

TMF
05-01-2013, 04:06 PM
I don't think you even know what career overlap means

How do you explain their career aren't overlapped ?

They both turned pro before they won their 1st slam. Basically everything they have achieved was when both were a pro tennis player. Remove all the overlapped years they played, Nadal has nothing but Roger has next to nothing.

Mustard
05-01-2013, 04:40 PM
Straight from the ATP website
Pronounced: ra-FAY-el nah-DAHL
Age: 26 (03.06.1986)
Birthplace: Manacor, Mallorca, Spain
Residence: Manacor, Mallorca, Spain
Height: 6'1" (185 cm)
Weight: 188 lbs (85 kg)
Plays: Left-handed
Turned Pro: 2001
Coach: Toni Nadal
Website: http://www.rafaelnadal.com

Nadal mostly played Satellite tournaments in 2001, failing to qualify for them initially.

Mustard
05-01-2013, 04:45 PM
Nadal did not play a single match outside of Spain in 2001 and 2002. Not a single one.

Not strictly true for 2002. Nadal played 2002 Junior Wimbledon, one of the very few junior tournaments that Nadal played, and reached the semi finals. Nadal also played in 2002 Junior Davis Cup in France, winning all his matches.

moonballs
05-01-2013, 05:59 PM
Nadal's head to head against federer is misleading because federer almost always makes it far enough to meet nadal in the draw but nadal often doesn't make it far enough to meet federer.

So the times when nadal wasnt playing a great tournament and would likely have lost to federer he doesn't even make it that far.

BUT

When Federer is playing a sub par tournament he still makes it to Nadal but then loses.

Exactly. The h2h folks only need to ask themselves why ATP ranking system doesn't even look at h2h.

Povl Carstensen
05-01-2013, 08:41 PM
He has more slams.
11>17

More WTF's
0>6

More seasons ranked 1st/more weeks at no 1.
2>5 100>300

More titles.
54>77That must be it.

Flash O'Groove
05-02-2013, 01:34 AM
surprised you're visiting these boards tbh

The Visionnary is seeking some anti-Fed arguments...

Day Tripper
05-02-2013, 01:39 AM
Nadal leads the head-to-head against:

Federer 18-10 (8-2 in majors)
Djokovic 19-14 (6-3 in majors)
Murray 13-5 (6-2 in majors)

Nadal has the most ridiculous clay-court dominance, and has also won the career Grand Slam. He also had a period of winning 8 titles in 4 months from April to August 2008.

What is your point. Are you seriously suggesting that this means that Nadal is a greater tennis player than Federer?

BobbyOne
05-02-2013, 03:45 AM
The Visionnary is seeking some anti-Fed arguments...

Flash, as the authoritative Austrian I keep enough anti-Federer arguments. I don't have to seek for them.

Note: I'm not anti-Fed. Roger is a nice guy. I just believe that he is not the GOAT...

BobbyOne
05-02-2013, 03:50 AM
What is your point. Are you seriously suggesting that this means that Nadal is a greater tennis player than Federer?

Day Tripper, I think that Mustard wanted to show that Nadal is not far behind Federer. Maybe one day he even will catch Roger in GS titles even though he has tougher competition (Djokovic , Murray and Federer) than Federer had in his peak years.

veroniquem
05-02-2013, 03:52 AM
Rafa has to win 2 slams this year to remain tie with Fed in slam titles at same age (2008/ 2013). It's probably doable but it's not gonna be easy.

NatF
05-02-2013, 03:57 AM
Day Tripper, I think that Mustard wanted to show that Nadal is not far behind Federer. Maybe one day he even will catch Roger in GS titles even though he has tougher competition (Djokovic , Murray and Federer) than Federer had in his peak years.

He's well behind and unlikely to catch up. He has tough competition now, but his competition up to 2011 was the same as Federer's. Since then he's won 2 slams.

Your friend Bud Collins wrote Federer is a GOAT contender.

BobbyOne
05-02-2013, 04:02 AM
He's well behind and unlikely to catch up. He has tough competition now, but his competition up to 2011 was the same as Federer's. Since then he's won 2 slams.

Your friend Bud Collins wrote Federer is a GOAT contender.

NatF, Nadal in his peak has tougher competition than Federer had in his (when Nadal was too young yet).

I do hope you concede that I am not obliged to agree with Collins or other true experts in EVERY point...

SLD76
05-02-2013, 04:14 AM
NatF, Nadal in his peak has tougher competition than Federer had in his (when Nadal was too young yet).

I do hope you concede that I am not obliged to agree with Collins or other true experts in EVERY point...

Hmmm yes, nadal's tougher competition is Murray who Roger beat in 3 slam finals including wimbledon last year and who as mustard points out, rafa owns in the head to head. The same murray 31 yr old fed beat in the wtf semi last year. , and djokervic who rafa owned til 2011, and beat 3 times on clay last year. The same djokervic fed beat in the wb semi final last year.

Yes, tougher competition by leaps and bounds. Oh and of course, roger is playing a completely different field from rafa. ::eyeroll::


Btw, eta, all these excuses for rafa aren't really strengthening his case. If he is a true GOAT candidate then why all the excuses about tougher competition or "his game wasn't ready"??? The same people who crucify fed for the one "blemish" on his record, the h2h with rafa, have a battallion of excuses for RAFA " he was a baby" "his competiton was tougher than fed" "his parents divorced" . I know one member of the VB had the gall to write "well, you can't be great on all surfaces"..........................................


Umm yes, that's kinda what GOAT means.

Botton line, either you do it or you don't. And fed, at an older age, is playing the same field as rafa and doing pretty well, so what's Rafa's (fans) excuse now, aside from injury

NatF
05-02-2013, 04:50 AM
NatF, Nadal in his peak has tougher competition than Federer had in his (when Nadal was too young yet).

I do hope you concede that I am not obliged to agree with Collins or other true experts in EVERY point...

Nadal didn't. 2010 was Nadal's best year and Federer's 2004, 2005 and 2007 were tougher.

You don't have to agree with them, but you quote them when it suites you and ignore them when it doesn't. Collin's is a truer expert than you or I, I would have thought his opinion would hold some sway with you.

Vish13
05-02-2013, 04:52 AM
NatF, Nadal in his peak has tougher competition than Federer had in his (when Nadal was too young yet).

I do hope you concede that I am not obliged to agree with Collins or other true experts in EVERY point...

Can you list down what period, according to you, was Federer's peak and is/was Nadal's peak?

Steve0904
05-02-2013, 05:06 AM
Oh jesus. We're all in for it now that Bobby has decided to grace us with his presence. Btw Bobby, if you can see this post don't bother replying. You're on my ignore list so I won't be looking at any of your posts. kthxbye.

Steve0904
05-02-2013, 05:08 AM
Hmmm yes, nadal's tougher competition is Murray who Roger beat in 3 slam finals including wimbledon last year and who as mustard points out, rafa owns in the head to head. The same murray 31 yr old fed beat in the wtf semi last year. , and djokervic who rafa owned til 2011, and beat 3 times on clay last year. The same djokervic fed beat in the wb semi final last year.

Yes, tougher competition by leaps and bounds. Oh and of course, roger is playing a completely different field from rafa. ::eyeroll::


Btw, eta, all these excuses for rafa aren't really strengthening his case. If he is a true GOAT candidate then why all the excuses about tougher competition or "his game wasn't ready"??? The same people who crucify fed for the one "blemish" on his record, the h2h with rafa, have a battallion of excuses for RAFA " he was a baby" "his competiton was tougher than fed" "his parents divorced" . I know one member of the VB had the gall to write "well, you can't be great on all surfaces"..........................................


Umm yes, that's kinda what GOAT means.

Botton line, either you do it or you don't. And fed, at an older age, is playing the same field as rafa and doing pretty well, so what's Rafa's (fans) excuse now, aside from injury

I hope you know what you're in for. May god have mercy on your soul. If you don't you'll find out soon enough. :)

Magnus
05-02-2013, 05:10 AM
We all know how dominant they are on their best surfaces. Nadal on clay. Federer on hard/grass. But how well do they do on their weakest?

Nadal has 10 big hard/grass titles
Federer has 7 big clay titles

But more importantly is Nadal has 4 grass/hard slams to only 1 clay slam for Federer.

4 > 1.

Last night I had a dream that Nadal was greater than Federer and Federer was always playing as 2nd best to Nadal. Then I woke up and realized it was just a bad dream.

Magnus
05-02-2013, 05:11 AM
Rafa has to win 2 slams this year to remain tie with Fed in slam titles at same age (2008/ 2013). It's probably doable but it's not gonna be easy.

Fed is still very much a threat in slams as well. While not a huge threat as before, he can still beat most players and on a good day can beat anyone. In short, while unlikely, Fed can still win slams. So he can make the gap even larger.

SLD76
05-02-2013, 05:18 AM
I hope you know what you're in for. May god have mercy on your soul. If you don't you'll find out soon enough. :)

Meh.

10sowhats

Backyard Tennis Blog
05-02-2013, 05:19 AM
It's difficult for someone to dictate against a guy with the highest RPM's on the ball out of any player in the history of tennis! Combine that with the sheer athleticism and willingness to make changes to improve his game, Nadal is an extreme force. Playing with such ferocity has caused injuries that are keeping him from breaking the records federer. But hey, lets not forget djokovic! Another non human! http://tennisbuddy.com/classifieds/1781/15/tennis-lessons-amherst-ma-kids

SLD76
05-02-2013, 05:30 AM
It's difficult for someone to dictate against a guy with the highest RPM's on the ball out of any player in the history of tennis! Combine that with the sheer athleticism and willingness to make changes to improve his game, Nadal is an extreme force. Playing with such ferocity has caused injuries that are keeping him from breaking the records federer. But hey, lets not forget djokovic! Another non human! http://tennisbuddy.com/classifieds/1781/15/tennis-lessons-amherst-ma-kids

So injury is the last excuse. Even tho rafa said in his book he wasn't that injured on 09, aside from his wounded ego.

cknobman
05-02-2013, 06:42 AM
Sorry but anyone who says Nadals competition is tougher than Federers gets an automatic discredit.

Every single slam Nadal has won has been while Federer has played.
Nadal has won several slams against "mugs" just like Federer.
Federer has beaten Djokovic and Murray in slam finals who some consider Nadals "tougher" competition.

Get over the weak @ss argument of Nadals competition is "tougher".

BobbyOne
05-02-2013, 06:43 AM
Oh jesus. We're all in for it now that Bobby has decided to grace us with his presence. Btw Bobby, if you can see this post don't bother replying. You're on my ignore list so I won't be looking at any of your posts. kthxbye.

Steve0904, A great thank you that you will not see and answer my posts. That way you can't make a fool of yourself yourself...

Flash O'Groove
05-02-2013, 06:53 AM
Steve0904, A great thank you that you will not see and answer my posts. That way you can't blame yourself...

What is to be answered? You use Collin's opinion to back-up the claim that Rosewall is goat candidate, yet dismiss his opinion on Fed's own goat candidateness. There is no problem to disagree with him, but there is one if you use only parts of his opinion to fulfill your agenda.

BobbyOne
05-02-2013, 07:01 AM
What is to be answered? You use Collin's opinion to back-up the claim that Rosewall is goat candidate, yet dismiss his opinion on Fed's own goat candidateness. There is no problem to disagree with him, but there is one if you use only parts of his opinion to fulfill your agenda.

Flash, firstly I apologize for me bad English. I have edited my post now.

I don't have an agenda. I just have opinions and convictions.

I don't know if Bud has Federer as a GOAT contender. I do know that he said that Federer can't beat Nadal when he was asked if Roger is the greatest.

I don't see a problem in partly agree with a person and partly not.

NatF
05-02-2013, 07:03 AM
Flash, firstly I apologize for me bad English. I have edited my post now.

I don't have an agenda. I just have opinions and convictions.

I don't know if Bud has Federer as a GOAT contender. I do know that he said that Federer can't beat Nadal when he was asked if Roger is the greatest.

I don't see a problem in partly agree with a person and partly not.

I've got his book and he does say Federer is a contender.

ctoth666
05-02-2013, 07:12 AM
I love Federer in a borderline homosexual kind of way. His game is magnificent and his elegance on court is unrivaled, but I think that with the way the game is played today, Nadal is the better man. It's just an opinion, of course, but Nadal is just an animal. I also feel that he's the better "big-match" player. If I was the coach of a tennis team that had both Nadal and Federer on it and it came down to one match to clinch the tie, I would pick Nadal in place of Federer.

mightyrick
05-02-2013, 07:18 AM
Sorry but anyone who says Nadals competition is tougher than Federers gets an automatic discredit.


I agree 100% with this. Nadal's competition was equally weak. In fact, it is/was the same competition. It's not like he was blowing people off of hardcourt. He's a great clay player, but honestly... that's it.


Every single slam Nadal has won has been while Federer has played.
Nadal has won several slams against "mugs" just like Federer.
Federer has beaten Djokovic and Murray in slam finals who some consider Nadals "tougher" competition.

Get over the weak @ss argument of Nadals competition is "tougher".

Federer is Nadal's pigeon on clay. Federer is FAR from a clay court specialist but gave Nadal a pretty tough run in the French. Which doesn't speak to me about Federer's clay skill as much as it speaks to Federer being Nadal's mug on that surface.

I honestly think if Nadal would have met Borg or some of the other clay greats... the outcome would be far different. I bet Nadal would split those H2Hs 50/50.

Steve0904
05-02-2013, 07:28 AM
I love Federer in a borderline homosexual kind of way. His game is magnificent and his elegance on court is unrivaled, but I think that with the way the game is played today, Nadal is the better man. It's just an opinion, of course, but Nadal is just an animal. I also feel that he's the better "big-match" player. If I was the coach of a tennis team that had both Nadal and Federer on it and it came down to one match to clinch the tie, I would pick Nadal in place of Federer.

Fair opinion, but how far back are we talking. You're saying "today." Well of course I would take Nadal (if we ignore Djokovic for the moment) in the scenario you presented today May 2, 2013, (on every surface except indoors) but if you asked me the question back in 2006 for example I would pick Federer on every surface bar clay. That's really why the scenario you presented doesn't work. Because it doesn't account for surfaces and primes. I would also say Federer was a better big match player in 2006 than Nadal, which is obvious. In fact, I would take Djokovic as my big match player today over Nadal today on any surface (and yes that includes clay).

Unless you want to start getting into prime Fed prime Nadal prime Djokovic debates the scenario is pretty useless, no offense.

SLD76
05-02-2013, 07:37 AM
If nadal is the better big match player, then why less slams and why lose 7 finals in a row to one player.

Fed never lost 7 straight times to rafa

ctoth666
05-02-2013, 07:43 AM
If nadal is the better big match player, then why less slams and why lose 7 finals in a row to one player.

Fed never lost 7 straight times to rafa

Nadal was just outplayed, which I don't really factor into "playing big matches," if that makes any sense. The number of matches that Federer has arguably been poised to win or comeback to win and ended up losing is a larger tally than Nadal.

ctoth666
05-02-2013, 07:45 AM
Fair opinion, but how far back are we talking. You're saying "today." Well of course I would take Nadal (if we ignore Djokovic for the moment) in the scenario you presented today May 2, 2013, (on every surface except indoors) but if you asked me the question back in 2006 for example I would pick Federer on every surface bar clay. That's really why the scenario you presented doesn't work. Because it doesn't account for surfaces and primes. I would also say Federer was a better big match player in 2006 than Nadal, which is obvious. In fact, I would take Djokovic as my big match player today over Nadal today on any surface (and yes that includes clay).

Unless you want to start getting into prime Fed prime Nadal prime Djokovic debates the scenario is pretty useless, no offense.

Well I don't want to get into that scenario either, so no offense taken. Who was Federer beating in big matches in 2006? Because I seem to have forgotten. But I remember who he was losing to: Nadal.

Steve0904
05-02-2013, 07:52 AM
Well I don't want to get into that scenario either, so no offense taken. Who was Federer beating in big matches in 2006? Because I seem to have forgotten. But I remember who he was losing to: Nadal.

Would I do better to go back to 04-05 when Roddick, or Hewitt, or Agassi along with others hadn't fell off the map a little bit. We can go back as far as you like. Who was Nadal beating in big matches in 2010? Of course you could use 2008 here as a counter argument, but my point stands. I've forgotten, but I remember who he lost to 7 straight times in 2011-12.

Flash O'Groove
05-02-2013, 07:52 AM
Nadal was just outplayed, which I don't really factor into "playing big matches," if that makes any sense. The number of matches that Federer has arguably been poised to win or comeback to win and ended up losing is a larger tally than Nadal.


With this definition, the big matches are only the close one. I think that when a player is clearly outplayed in an important match despite his theoretical ability to meet the challenge, we have a case of "weak ability to play big matches".

That's the case for the RG2008 final. Fed would have lost anyway, but he wasn't able to bring his best level to the match. I think that's the case for Nadal's defeat against Djokovic. Nadal was playing well in 2011, yet wasn't able to perform well against Djokovic. I think he had a mental issue which prevented him to do so.

All Djokovic, Nadal and Federer are great at big matches. But they can't be emotionally and mentally at their best every times.

cknobman
05-02-2013, 10:41 AM
Nadal was just outplayed, which I don't really factor into "playing big matches," if that makes any sense. The number of matches that Federer has arguably been poised to win or comeback to win and ended up losing is a larger tally than Nadal.

No it makes absolutely no sense as all of those consecutive losses were FINALS with 3 of them being GRAND SLAMS. Finals (especially grand slam finals) are the very definition of "playing big matches". They are what every player on tour is competing for.

We are talking reality here not some fantasy world where if's and but's count and any stat that does not favor "my favorite player" becomes insignificant.

mike danny
05-02-2013, 12:27 PM
Nadal was just outplayed, which I don't really factor into "playing big matches," if that makes any sense. The number of matches that Federer has arguably been poised to win or comeback to win and ended up losing is a larger tally than Nadal.
it is better to lose in tight 5 setters like federer(he had chances in both matches) than in 4 easy sets like nadal. seriously federer had a chance to win in almost all of those matches but nadal did not have one single chance. it was not a single moment i felt he would win(especially wimby and us open in 2011)

moonballs
05-02-2013, 04:10 PM
I love Federer in a borderline homosexual kind of way. His game is magnificent and his elegance on court is unrivaled, but I think that with the way the game is played today, Nadal is the better man. It's just an opinion, of course, but Nadal is just an animal. I also feel that he's the better "big-match" player. If I was the coach of a tennis team that had both Nadal and Federer on it and it came down to one match to clinch the tie, I would pick Nadal in place of Federer.

Is that a clay court match? Is the opponent's first name Novak? All these questions need to be answered before I make a decision. Sending nadal to a match against Djokovic on harcourt is suicidal.

The_Order
05-02-2013, 06:29 PM
it is better to lose in tight 5 setters like federer(he had chances in both matches) than in 4 easy sets like nadal. seriously federer had a chance to win in almost all of those matches but nadal did not have one single chance. it was not a single moment i felt he would win(especially wimby and us open in 2011)

Federer lost to Nadal 5 times in a row twice. All of them being finals except for one RG match which was a SF.

Federer has never taken Nadal to 5 sets at RG.

Nadal took Novak to 5 sets in AO12. He certainly had a chance to win that one when up a break in the 5th. Had he not missed that BH DTL he probably would've won it.

ctoth666
05-02-2013, 06:54 PM
Is that a clay court match? Is the opponent's first name Novak? All these questions need to be answered before I make a decision. Sending nadal to a match against Djokovic on harcourt is suicidal.

And sending Federer out to a match against Nadal on clay is more suicidal. Nadal may be on the losing end of any hypothetical match against Djokovic on hardcourt, but at least he has a winning record overall. And the hardcourt H2H is only 11-5 in favor of Novak. Federer is my favorite, but I think Nadal is better.

ctoth666
05-02-2013, 07:00 PM
Would I do better to go back to 04-05 when Roddick, or Hewitt, or Agassi along with others hadn't fell off the map a little bit. We can go back as far as you like. Who was Nadal beating in big matches in 2010? Of course you could use 2008 here as a counter argument, but my point stands. I've forgotten, but I remember who he lost to 7 straight times in 2011-12.

Yeah, he lost to Novak Djokovic, who is currently the world number one and the undisputed best player in the world, and who holds 6 major titles, and who also had a combined 7-3 record against Federer in 2011-12.

DeShaun
05-02-2013, 07:06 PM
nadal's dominance on clay somehow equals federer's dominance on his best surface? wasn't federer more of a generalist who controlled the field while rafa couldn't, that is, until federer was almost twenty-nine y/o? of all tour matches played each year on all surfaces combined, the overwhelming majority are NOT played on clay. the fact that rafa has proportionately so few non clay titles speaks poorly of him and the argument that his results away from his best surface are somehow superior to federer's results on clay. the gap between federer's performances and results on his best and worst surfaces is not as pronounced as the gap between rafa's performances and results on his best and worst surfaces.

Nitish
05-02-2013, 09:15 PM
Federer lost to Nadal 5 times in a row twice. All of them being finals except for one RG match which was a SF.

Federer has never taken Nadal to 5 sets at RG.

Nadal took Novak to 5 sets in AO12. He certainly had a chance to win that one when up a break in the 5th. Had he not missed that BH DTL he probably would've won it.

Federer is tougher to beat in Grand slams than rafa (except RG).Fed has had lot of close five set losses in grand slams when compared to rafa who loses in 4 or 3 sets.

adil1972
05-02-2013, 09:45 PM
why do we need a new thread about federer/nadal records

mike danny
05-03-2013, 01:55 AM
Federer lost to Nadal 5 times in a row twice. All of them being finals except for one RG match which was a SF.

Federer has never taken Nadal to 5 sets at RG.

Nadal took Novak to 5 sets in AO12. He certainly had a chance to win that one when up a break in the 5th. Had he not missed that BH DTL he probably would've won it.
federer had a breakpoint at wimby in 2008. had he converted that he would have served for the match. he had multimple break points at the AO in 2009 to go up 2 sets to 1. had he done that he would have won. see i can play this game too.

mike danny
05-03-2013, 02:09 AM
seriously people why do you guys say nadal had tougher competition? from 2005 untill now they played against the exact same field and federer won more majors than him deal with it.
but hey you say rafa was a baby back then in 2005-2007. well federer was an old man in 2010-1012. and rafa still won 3 majors in his baby span compared to roger in his old man span with 2 majors. and yet federer still won 13 slams since 2005 compared to nadal with 11 agains the EXACT SAME field.
nadal did not face a different field in a paralel universe. as far as i am concerned federer leads novak 6-5 in grand slams and leads murray 3-1 in grand slams. so u see roger had to deal with the exact same field as rafa. so i do not see why rafa had better competition since roger faced the same field as him. oh and btw you guys keep saying that nadal was beating fed on hardcourts since 2004 which tells that he is not such a baby after all. you cannot beat the best hardcourt player at that time if you are a baby. so nadal had no excuse. he was world no.2, he was beating the best player in the world and he was winning majors. not a bay to me. the fact that he defended his first major win in the very next year proves that he was nopt a baby. if you defend a major title the very next year you are not a baby anymore.
oh and one more thing you nadal fans say that roger is not that special but just a weak era benefactor. well that means that rafa's main rival was just a weak era benefactor not so special player. oops so there goes rafa' s tough competition. you cannot have it both ways you have to make up your mind. either federer is a weak era benefactor but risk to downgrade rafa' s competition even more or admit federer is indeed the GOAT and rafa was the only one who did well against him

SLD76
05-03-2013, 04:22 AM
Federer lost to Nadal 5 times in a row twice. All of them being finals except for one RG match which was a SF.

Federer has never taken Nadal to 5 sets at RG.

Nadal took Novak to 5 sets in AO12. He certainly had a chance to win that one when up a break in the 5th. Had he not missed that BH DTL he probably would've won it.

AO is a surface well suited for rafa, even with his matchup issues with djoker.

Meanwhile, rafa has never defeated roget at an indoor hardcourt.

mariecon
05-03-2013, 04:35 AM
federer had a breakpoint at wimby in 2008. had he converted that he would have served for the match. he had multimple break points at the AO in 2009 to go up 2 sets to 1. had he done that he would have won. see i can play this game too.

...and if Fed hadn't missed that drop shot in the 1st set of the RG11 final who knows what the outcome might have been. He certainly could have won that match. We can all play that game. A lot of ifs.

mariecon
05-03-2013, 04:59 AM
How come Nadal never made it to any hard court slam finals when Fed was on fire and in his prime? This is the big question I want answered. 2005, 2006, 2007. Three years, 6 HC slams and Federer didn't play Nadal once and he won 5/6 of them. Nadal won his first GS in 2005 so why didn't he reach a HC final till 2009? Anyone who says these two are the same generation is nuts. If they are then Federer should have had more chances to play Nadal on his (Fed's) favourite surface when he was in his prime. And if they are of the same generation then that just supports the argument that the reason why the H2H is so lopsided is because Nadal never gave Federer a chance to beat him on his favourite surface when he most certainly would have. Then, when Federer started to decline, and Nadal was in his prime Nadal started making a few HC finals and the rest is history. I firmly believe that if Federer had met Nadal at the AO or USO in his prime he would have won, just like he won the 2 Wimbledons they played before 2008 and the mono hit him.

The Dark Knight
05-03-2013, 05:15 AM
How come Nadal never made it to any hard court slam finals when Fed was on fire and in his prime? This is the big question I want answered. 2005, 2006, 2007. Three years, 6 HC slams and Federer didn't play Nadal once and he won 5/6 of them. Nadal won his first GS in 2005 so why didn't he reach a HC final till 2009? Anyone who says these two are the same generation is nuts. If they are then Federer should have had more chances to play Nadal on his (Fed's) favourite surface when he was in his prime. And if they are of the same generation then that just supports the argument that the reason why the H2H is so lopsided is because Nadal never gave Federer a chance to beat him on his favourite surface when he most certainly would have. Then, when Federer started to decline, and Nadal was in his prime Nadal started making a few HC finals and the rest is history. I firmly believe that if Federer had met Nadal at the AO or USO in his prime he would have won, just like he won the 2 Wimbledons they played before 2008 and the mono hit him.

For the same reason Rafter was Able to beat the crap out of Federer on every surface even clay ! Rafter is 3-0 against Federer .....undefeated !!!

Fed fans say it was because Federer was still young and developing .

Nadal was also a babe at that time and still developing .....and why he was labeled a "clay court specialist".

It took Nadal just a short time to develop his game on hard courts and grass.

Cup8489
05-03-2013, 05:22 AM
For the same reason Rafter was Able to beat the crap out of Federer on every surface even clay ! Rafter is 3-0 against Federer .....undefeated !!!

Fed fans say it was because Federer was still young and developing .

Nadal was also a babe at that time and still developing .....and why he was labeled a "clay court specialist".

It took Nadal just a short time to develop his game on hard courts and grass.

A paradox. Either it took Nadal just a short while to develop, or it didn't. I'd say the former seeing as how he was in Miami final in 2005, Madrid winner in 2005, and Wimbledon final in 2006.

The comparison to Federer vs. rafter is not legitimate as any decent tennis fan knows that Federer was a late bloomer and Nadal an early bloomer.

Thus, your whole statement is riddled with errors.

mariecon
05-03-2013, 05:27 AM
For the same reason Rafter was Able to beat the crap out of Federer on every surface even clay ! Rafter is 3-0 against Federer .....undefeated !!!

Fed fans say it was because Federer was still young and developing .

Nadal was also a babe at that time and still developing .....and why he was labeled a "clay court specialist".

It took Nadal just a short time to develop his game on hard courts and grass.

I wouldn't call it beating the crap out of him. And Federer hadn't won a slam yet so he wasn't yet at that level, unlike Nadal who had won a slam in 2005. Can't have your cake and eat it too!

Try harder next time.

SLD76
05-03-2013, 05:38 AM
I wouldn't call it beating the crap out of him. And Federer hadn't won a slam yet so he wasn't yet at that level, unlike Nadal who had won a slam in 2005. Can't have your cake and eat it too!

Try harder next time.

Basically.


They really can't accept the fact that he wasn't consistently good agaisnt the ffieldtil 2010, and then by 2011 it was too late.

Flash O'Groove
05-03-2013, 05:47 AM
In 2005, Nadal won 3 titles on HC: Canada, Madrid, Beijing. He has never win 3 HC titles again in the same year. This 3 titles account for 1/4 of all his HC titles.
He also reached the final in Miami, losing in 5 set to the number 1 in the world.
His winning percentage on HC was 82%, as high as in 2008, and higher than in 2010.

The Dark Knight
05-03-2013, 06:32 AM
I wouldn't call it beating the crap out of him. And Federer hadn't won a slam yet so he wasn't yet at that level, unlike Nadal who had won a slam in 2005. Can't have your cake and eat it too!

Try harder next time.

But Federer did beat Sampras . It's you guys who argue both sides .

If Federer was too young at 18 then you have to say Nadal was also too young at 18.

It's not Nadals fault that he was a more talented 18 year old then an 18 year old Federer.

And lets not forget that rafter is a serve and volleyer and still beat Federer on clay.

The fact is they were both rookies .....but yes Nadal was a better rookie .

cknobman
05-03-2013, 06:54 AM
But Federer did beat Sampras . It's you guys who argue both sides .

If Federer was too young at 18 then you have to say Nadal was also too young at 18.

It's not Nadals fault that he was a more talented 18 year old then an 18 year old Federer.

And lets not forget that rafter is a serve and volleyer and still beat Federer on clay.

The fact is they were both rookies .....but yes Nadal was a better rookie .

So since Nadal is not keeping pace with grand slam title count and #1 ranking, given what Federer had achieved at his age, does that make him a less talented seasoned pro?

SLD76
05-03-2013, 07:00 AM
But Federer did beat Sampras . It's you guys who argue both sides .

If Federer was too young at 18 then you have to say Nadal was also too young at 18.

It's not Nadals fault that he was a more talented 18 year old then an 18 year old Federer.

And lets not forget that rafter is a serve and volleyer and still beat Federer on clay.

The fact is they were both rookies .....but yes Nadal was a better rookie .

Nadal couldn't consistently beat the field til 2010, and by 2011 it was too late.

/end story

The Dark Knight
05-03-2013, 08:13 AM
Nadal was an amazing 17 year old ....maybe the greatest 17 year old ever .....

But just as it took Federer time ....it took Nadal time to learn how to first play on grass and then hard court .

His first Wimbledon was a shock that he even made it to the finals ....no one expected it....then he got better and made it to the finals again and almost beat Federer even though still a relatively new player on the tour and very uncomfortable on grass.

But after 2007 he knew he could beat Federer and came back to beat Federer on his favorite surface in the greatest match of all time .

Then he focused on hard courts . No one said he could win ....he flattened his shots out , changed his grip to increase the serve speed and focused on winning on a hard court .....and beat Federer yet again.

You don't see a progression here from when he was 17 ?

Well pure hate may drive you but the truth is he matured and his game kept getting better because he worked hard on it . Federer on the other hand never changed and just played the same as he always did....

This is why Nadal is better.

The_Order
05-03-2013, 08:50 AM
Nadal made his first HC final at age 22.

Federer made his first HC final at age 22.

HC is more favorable to Federer's game than Nadal's.

Nadal won a major on his weakest surface at age 22 defeating Federer in the process. Federer won a major on his weakest surface when he was 28 (29 if you want to argue plexicushion as his weaker surface than clay). He didn't beat Nadal in the process, in fact he failed in 5 attempts to do so. Nadal only needed 3 attempts to BEAT Federer at Federer's best major.

Truth is Nadal's had it a lot tougher than Fed. Could you people for once put aside your stupidity and realise that if Nadal was born in 1981 and Federer in 1986, then Nadal would have won THE grand slam at least once and would've easily dominated a field of Hewitt, Safin, Roddick and old Agassi. Teenage-21 yr old Fed would get blasted away by peak Rafa like he was nothing.

SLD76
05-03-2013, 08:55 AM
Nadal made his first HC final at age 22.

Federer made his first HC final at age 22.

HC is more favorable to Federer's game than Nadal's.

Nadal won a major on his weakest surface at age 22 defeating Federer in the process. Federer won a major on his weakest surface when he was 28 (29 if you want to argue plexicushion as his weaker surface than clay). He didn't beat Nadal in the process, in fact he failed in 5 attempts to do so. Nadal only needed 3 attempts to BEAT Federer at Federer's best major.

Truth is Nadal's had it a lot tougher than Fed. Could you people for once put aside your stupidity and realise that if Nadal was born in 1981 and Federer in 1986, then Nadal would have won THE grand slam at least once and would've easily dominated a field of Hewitt, Safin, Roddick and old Agassi. Teenage-21 yr old Fed would get blasted away by peak Rafa like he was nothing.

Nadal played the same field as fed and was weaker against it.


Record books don't care about ifs.

abmk
05-03-2013, 08:56 AM
^^

lol, nadal couldn't even get close in 2010, when the field was at its weakest from 2003 till now .....

nadal has 4 finals at AO and USO combined. federer has 5 finals at RG alone ....

beast of mallorca
05-03-2013, 08:57 AM
Nadal made his first HC final at age 22.

Federer made his first HC final at age 22.

HC is more favorable to Federer's game than Nadal's.

Nadal won a major on his weakest surface at age 22 defeating Federer in the process. Federer won a major on his weakest surface when he was 28 (29 if you want to argue plexicushion as his weaker surface than clay). He didn't beat Nadal in the process, in fact he failed in 5 attempts to do so. Nadal only needed 3 attempts to BEAT Federer at Federer's best major.

Truth is Nadal's had it a lot tougher than Fed. Could you people for once put aside your stupidity and realise that if Nadal was born in 1981 and Federer in 1986, then Nadal would have won THE grand slam at least once and would've easily dominated a field of Hewitt, Safin, Roddick and old Agassi. Teenage-21 yr old Fed would get blasted away by peak Rafa like he was nothing.

What do you expect, when the Fedtarth's heads are stuck inside their Idol's arse........:twisted:

SLD76
05-03-2013, 08:59 AM
What do you expect, when the Fedtarth's heads are stuck inside their Idol's arse........:twisted:

Yes, if only we could altar time and space we would easily see how much more dominant rafa has been in his career than fed

The_Order
05-03-2013, 09:13 AM
Nadal played the same field as fed and was weaker against it.


Record books don't care about ifs.

Federer slam performances from age 17 to 20 turning 21 (the same age Nadal was from 04-06)

AO: DNP, Q1, 3R, 3R, 4R
RG: DNP, 1R, 4R, QF, 1R
WIM: DNP, 1R, 1R, QF, 1R
USO: DNP, Q2, 3R, 4R

LOL. At age 17 he was too sh*t to even make it to the majors.

So now we can say Roger played the same field as Sampras and was weaker against it.

TMF
05-03-2013, 09:14 AM
seriously people why do you guys say nadal had tougher competition? from 2005 untill now they played against the exact same field and federer won more majors than him deal with it.
but hey you say rafa was a baby back then in 2005-2007. well federer was an old man in 2010-1012. and rafa still won 3 majors in his baby span compared to roger in his old man span with 2 majors. and yet federer still won 13 slams since 2005 compared to nadal with 11 agains the EXACT SAME field.
nadal did not face a different field in a paralel universe. as far as i am concerned federer leads novak 6-5 in grand slams and leads murray 3-1 in grand slams. so u see roger had to deal with the exact same field as rafa. so i do not see why rafa had better competition since roger faced the same field as him. oh and btw you guys keep saying that nadal was beating fed on hardcourts since 2004 which tells that he is not such a baby after all. you cannot beat the best hardcourt player at that time if you are a baby. so nadal had no excuse. he was world no.2, he was beating the best player in the world and he was winning majors. not a bay to me. the fact that he defended his first major win in the very next year proves that he was nopt a baby. if you defend a major title the very next year you are not a baby anymore.
oh and one more thing you nadal fans say that roger is not that special but just a weak era benefactor. well that means that rafa's main rival was just a weak era benefactor not so special player. oops so there goes rafa' s tough competition. you cannot have it both ways you have to make up your mind. either federer is a weak era benefactor but risk to downgrade rafa' s competition even more or admit federer is indeed the GOAT and rafa was the only one who did well against him

Great post.

Both Fed and Nadal are competing against the same field. Nadal join the pro tour when Fed was still 19, who's was far from his prime. Fed was just better overall against the field is the reason why he's more dominant, more accomplished.

The Dark Knight
05-03-2013, 09:37 AM
Nadal beat Federer on grass on Hardcourt slams ....Federer has not come close to beating Nadal in clay.

Nadal is the better player but Fed has the better "stats"....

On paper and theory Fed is better in reality Nadal is the better player.

SLD76
05-03-2013, 09:45 AM
Federer slam performances from age 17 to 20 turning 21 (the same age Nadal was from 04-06)

AO: DNP, Q1, 3R, 3R, 4R
RG: DNP, 1R, 4R, QF, 1R
WIM: DNP, 1R, 1R, QF, 1R
USO: DNP, Q2, 3R, 4R

LOL. At age 17 he was too sh*t to even make it to the majors.

So now we can say Roger played the same field as Sampras and was weaker against it.

To that I say so? Fed won 13 slams after rafa won his first, they played the same field and rafa was not able to dominate it outside of clay.

I know its hard for you to accept reality, but do try.

RF20Lennon
05-03-2013, 09:45 AM
Nadal beat Federer on grass on Hardcourt slams ....Federer has not come close to beating Nadal in clay.

Nadal is the better player but Fed has the better "stats"....

On paper and theory Fed is better in reality Nadal is the better player.

Going by that logic Rosol and Davydenko are better than Nadal LMAO. H2H means nothing. See When Federer was dominating on HC (2004-2007) nadals game had not completely developed and so he couldnt meet fed in the finals so its not feds fault or Rafa's fault. But in the recent HC meetings, Rebound Ace (which favored fed) moved to plexicushion(high bouncing and slow which favors Rafa) and Fed went past his prime and Nadal got into his zone thus allowing him to dictate terms there. Federer wil always be 5 years older to Nadal no matter what. So if nadal had made finals back in the 2004-2007 season, Fed wouldve beaten him but Fed is still making finals and the courts have slowed down drastically thus favoring nadal.

The only way you can determine who is the better player is by career success. And in that department Fed is ahead by a country mile and is far more consistent than Rafa...thus making him a better player.

Cup8489
05-03-2013, 10:00 AM
Nadal beat Federer on grass on Hardcourt slams ....Federer has not come close to beating Nadal in clay.

Nadal is the better player but Fed has the better "stats"....

On paper and theory Fed is better in reality Nadal is the better player.

http://gototennis.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/federer_nadal_madrid_open.jpg

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/227/675/rivalryhamburgroger-hamburg_display_image.jpg?1274042748

:confused:

Cup8489
05-03-2013, 10:01 AM
But Federer did beat Sampras . It's you guys who argue both sides .

If Federer was too young at 18 then you have to say Nadal was also too young at 18.

It's not Nadals fault that he was a more talented 18 year old then an 18 year old Federer.

And lets not forget that rafter is a serve and volleyer and still beat Federer on clay.

The fact is they were both rookies .....but yes Nadal was a better rookie .

TDK could you do a comparison of Federer and Nadal at age 26? Pay attention to majors, major finals, weeks at number 1, etc.

The_Order
05-03-2013, 10:02 AM
^^^ he meant at RG.



I think...

The_Order
05-03-2013, 10:03 AM
TDK could you do a comparison of Federer and Nadal at age 26? Pay attention to majors, major finals, weeks at number 1, etc.

Nadal has career slam, Federer doesn't.

Nadal > Federer at age 26.

smoledman
05-03-2013, 10:05 AM
Nadal has career slam, Federer doesn't.

Nadal > Federer at age 26.

If you mean the career slam at a younger age, you are correct sir. However if Nadal can win a 2nd career slam that would forever elevate him above Federer. One more AO/USO can he do it? I tell you, he's still the most feared player on tour.

RF20Lennon
05-03-2013, 10:10 AM
If you mean the career slam at a younger age, you are correct sir. However if Nadal can win a 2nd career slam that would forever elevate him above Federer. One more AO/USO can he do it? I tell you, he's still the most feared player on tour.

Not with Nole and Murray around. BUt he will stack up a few more RG's indeed.

TMF
05-03-2013, 10:16 AM
Nadal has career slam, Federer doesn't.

Nadal > Federer at age 26.

Yes, and Chang, Cash, Becker, Wilander etc > Fed at age 20. Really, who cares...greatest player is all about career achievements and Fed is considered(widely) the goat.

Cup8489
05-03-2013, 10:41 AM
Nadal has career slam, Federer doesn't.

Nadal > Federer at age 26.

But Let me refer to the argument that is often made against Federer for his majors: weak era, cupcake draws. If Nadal hadn't had such easy draws at USO 2010, he wouldn't have career slam.

Also, I thought you turds always said the career slam didn't count for much of anything anyway.

/turd mode.

I mean, not that i take anything the_order says seriously anyway. Almost as horrifically biased as *** and TDK. Nadal could have no majors and Federer 273, but He'd still say Nadal was better.

Hitman
05-03-2013, 10:49 AM
But Let me refer to the argument that is often made against Federer for his majors: weak era, cupcake draws. If Nadal hadn't had such easy draws at USO 2010, he wouldn't have career slam.

Also, I thought you turds always said the career slam didn't count for much of anything anyway.

/turd mode.

I mean, not that i take anything the_order says seriously anyway. Almost as horrifically biased as *** and TDK. Nadal could have no majors and Federer 273, but He'd still say Nadal was better.

If Nadal got the career slam so early, doesn't that mean his prime years had the weakest competition of them all? :confused: /troll mode off.

mightyrick
05-03-2013, 11:00 AM
If Nadal got the career slam so early, doesn't that mean his prime years had the weakest competition of them all? :confused: /troll mode off.

Well, Nadal fans can't get out of the hypocrisy of applying one set of logic to Federer, but not applying it to their own guy. I think you and others have clearly illustrated this.

To address your own question about weak and strong era, the level of difficulty of majors that are won by Nadal (or anyone else) achieves... this can only be determined by looking at the draws... looking at the strength of the players involved... and looking at the outcomes.

We all know that there are such things as "bad matchups". We all know there are such things as "weak" and "tough" draws. We all know that a player who wins a major with a tough draw has achieved something greater than someone who wins a major with a weak draw. We all know that a player who wins a major with not only a tough draw, but also a bad matchup in that draw, has achieved something even greater (Even though the result of any of these is merely a +1 in the "Majors Won" column).

I wish we'd get down to comparing those kinds of things. Because this is the context where strong/weak eras matter.

NadalAgassi
05-03-2013, 11:20 AM
I mean, not that i take anything the_order says seriously anyway. Almost as horrifically biased as *** and TDK.

ROTFL like you arent every bit as biased (or more) as those posters, and every bit the Fedturd those posters are biased Nadal fans. Talking about the black kettle and pot.

The Dark Knight
05-03-2013, 11:43 AM
http://gototennis.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/federer_nadal_madrid_open.jpg

http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/227/675/rivalryhamburgroger-hamburg_display_image.jpg?1274042748

:confused:

Here Maybe this will clear things up a bit:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_qYxiJI7cSUc/TO4ftmMcTDI/AAAAAAAABTE/ZAHKaS7bsv4/s1600/Roger+Federer+Crying+pic_4_.jpg

beast of mallorca
05-03-2013, 01:19 PM
TDK could you do a comparison of Federer and Nadal at age 26? Pay attention to majors, major finals, weeks at number 1, etc.

ROTFL like you arent every bit as biased (or more) as those posters, and every bit the Fedturd those posters are biased Nadal fans. Talking about the black kettle and pot.

NadalAgassi.......you should know by now that hypocrisy oozes out of every orifice of the Fed*****s and maybe some Nadtrds, in all fairness

SLD76
05-03-2013, 01:21 PM
NadalAgassi.......you should know by now that hypocrisy oozes out of every orifice of the Fed*****s and maybe some Nadtrds, in all fairness

Just as reality eludes the nad****s

NatF
05-03-2013, 01:38 PM
All these Nad****s are terrible biased posters as bad as any 'Fedite or Federina', funny watching them huddle together patting eachother on the back with snide comments.

The Dark Knight
05-03-2013, 01:59 PM
The fact is that in slams it's 6-2 in favor of Nadal on every surface .....and Feds two wins were at the very beginning of Nadals development as an all surface player .

This is an absolute fact .

6-1 6-3 6-0
05-03-2013, 02:03 PM
The fact is that in slams it's 6-2 in favor of Nadal on every surface .....and Feds two wins were at the very beginning of Nadals development as an all surface player .

This is an absolute fact .

Actually it's even worse than that, 8-2 in the slam h2h. :lol: RFederer is the biggest lapdog in world history. :-P

SLD76
05-03-2013, 02:06 PM
The fact is that in slams it's 6-2 in favor of Nadal on every surface .....and Feds two wins were at the very beginning of Nadals development as an all surface player .

This is an absolute fact .

Please. Nadal was winning slams, and masters off clay as early as 2005. Say it slowly.

He

Wasn't

Good

Enough

Off

Clay


To

Dominate

The field.


/end story

By the time he was good enough to concistently beat the field, it coincided with a year in 2010 where the top ten was a shambles. Delpo hurt, davydenko hurt, murray in a funk. Fed hurt/slumping, tsonga non existent, djoker 1.0

And then by 2011, it was too late because djoko 2.0 emerged. In 2012, thebig 4 split the slams so now you have en energized Murray too and a still competent Fed and a healthy delpo.

The Dark Knight
05-03-2013, 02:08 PM
Actually it's even worse than that, 8-2 in the slam h2h. :lol: RFederer is the biggest lapdog in world history. :-P

Thanks fixed it.

What fed fans try and pooh pooh that 8-2 record away saying h2h doesn't matter....it's a style match up.

Except that's not true....a style matchup problem is when you have a player that loses to most people but for some reason keeps beating a top player because of a style matchup ....sort of like Blake and Nadal on a hard court.

But that's very different than Fed & Nadal.

These were grand slam finals !!! Nadal was a "bad matchup" for everyone on the tour because he was better than everyone not only Federer

It's 10 grand slam finals ....more than anyone else in the history of tennis.....that's not a bad matchup against one player . Nadal
Beat EVERYONE .

SLD76
05-03-2013, 02:10 PM
Thanks fixed it.

What fed fans try and pooh pooh that 8-2 record away saying h2h doesn't matter....it's a style match up.

Except that's not true....a style matchup problem is when you have a player that loses to most people but for some reason keeps beating a top player because of a style matchup ....sort of like Blake and Nadal on a hard court.

But that's very different than Fed & Nadal.

These were grand slam finals !!! Nadal was a "bad matchup" for everyone on the tour because he was better than everyone not only Federer

It's 10 grand slam finals ....more than anyone else in the history of tennis.....that's not a bad matchup against one player . Nadal
Beat EVERYONE .

If he beat everyone, whe he only have 11 slams, no?

8 on clay.

Why he only world number 1 100 weeks?

Why he longest number 2 in world history?


Roflmao

The Dark Knight
05-03-2013, 02:12 PM
Please. Nadal was winning slams, and masters off clay as early as 2005. Say it slowly.

He

Wasn't

Good

Enough

Off

Clay


To

Dominate

The field.


/end story

By the time he was good enough to concistently beat the field, it coincided with a year in 2010 where the top ten was a shambles. Delpo hurt, davydenko hurt, murray in a funk. Fed hurt/slumping, tsonga non existent, djoker 1.0

And then by 2011, it was too late because djoko 2.0 emerged. In 2012, thebig 4 split the slams so now you have en energized Murray too and a still competent Fed and a healthy delpo.

The top 10 was a shambles when Sampras retired and created a vaccum so that fed could chapatilize.....

Number one players of the time were guys like Roddick ( 4 slam
Losses to fed and his biggest rival )....or ferrer or whatever his name was....

Or guys like Blake and and old man Agassi......Fed was like a baby in a candy store and just went nuts.

Seriously the tour was really pathetic

The Dark Knight
05-03-2013, 02:12 PM
Thanks fixed it.

What fed fans try and pooh pooh that 8-2 record away saying h2h doesn't matter....it's a style match up.

Except that's not true....a style matchup problem is when you have a player that loses to most people but for some reason keeps beating a top player because of a style matchup ....sort of like Blake and Nadal on a hard court.

But that's very different than Fed & Nadal.

These were grand slam finals !!! Nadal was a "bad matchup" for everyone on the tour because he was better than everyone not only Federer

It's 10 grand slam finals ....more than anyone else in the history of tennis.....that's not a bad matchup against one player . Nadal
Beat EVERYONE .

Damn that guy is smart. :-)

Brett UK
05-03-2013, 02:12 PM
If Nadal gets to 18 slams he will be greatest of all time. Sounds like *********s are chanting victory at half time here.

SLD76
05-03-2013, 02:13 PM
The top 10 was a shambles when Sampras retired and created a vaccum so that fed could chapatilize.....

Number one players of the time were guys like Roddick ( 4 slam
Losses to fed and his biggest rival )....or ferrer or whatever his name was....

Or guys like Blake and and old man Agassi......Fed was like a baby in a candy store and just went nuts.

Seriously the tour was really pathetic

And still rafa couldn't dominate that same tour.

Fed has 4 slams before 05. He got 13 from 05 onward.

Whyfor rafa no have more slams and ranked number 1?

Roflmao.

The Dark Knight
05-03-2013, 02:15 PM
If Nadal gets to 18 slams he will be greatest of all time. Sounds like *********s are chanting victory at half time here.

Federer is the most successful player of all time .

But Nadal is the better player.

It's sort of like Wozniaki was the #1 ranked player in the world on paper but we all know in reality Serena Williams was the better player.

The Dark Knight
05-03-2013, 02:16 PM
And still rafa couldn't dominate that same tour.

Fed has 4 slams before 05. He got 13 from 05 onward.

Whyfor rafa no have more slams and ranked number 1?

Roflmao.

He did dominate the tour .....he beat everyone including Federer for a whopping grandslam final of 6-2......

No one in the history of tennis has been beaten that badly ....EVER!!!

SLD76
05-03-2013, 02:17 PM
Federer is the most successful player of all time .

But Nadal is the better player.

It's sort of like Wozniaki was the #1 ranked player in the world on paper but we all know in reality Serena Williams was the better player.

Serena is the better player because she has more slams, and won slams in a competitive era.

But nice try.

SLD76
05-03-2013, 02:20 PM
He did dominate the tour .....he beat everyone including Federer for a whopping grandslam final of 8-2......

No one in the history of tennis has been beaten that badly ....EVER!!!

If he dominated the tour, why was he world number 2 for so long

Mayhaps because he couldn't beat the field outside of clay?

Roflmao

The numbers and history don't support your statements but your persistence is admirable

Brett UK
05-03-2013, 02:21 PM
Federer is the most successful player of all time .

But Nadal is the better player.

It's sort of like Wozniaki was the #1 ranked player in the world on paper but we all know in reality Serena Williams was the better player.

No, we knew Serena was the better player because she has won more slams and spent more total weeks at number 1.

nadal will need to get to 18 slams to be considered the greatest player ever.

Fiji
05-03-2013, 02:24 PM
Better on clay only.