abmk
Bionic Poster
Fed did SnV on most first serves , but only occasionally on 2nd serves in wim 03.
Some facts about Nadal
- Thread starter Nadal15thslam
- Start date
Fed did SnV on most first serves , but only occasionally on 2nd serves in wim 03.
Fedforever
Hall of Fame
As much as Fed, Nadal and Djoko are incredible it can't be coincidence that three players are racking up slam numbers like nobody's business in this era. I remember watching Wimbledon in the 70s and 80s and there seemed to be all sorts of players who weren't even seeded or were wild cards and yet everyone knew they had a decent shot at getting to the final or even winning. I admit I wasn't really watching clay court tennis at that time but I daresay the situation was the same. It just seemed much harder for players of that era to pile up the slam count. I'm going to end up making a Borg GOAT argument here aren't I?
FHtennisman
Professional
Yes, he's quite clearly the second best clay court player after Nadal in the last 15 years or so and just because he had Peak Nadal in his way at all the big clay tournaments during his prime doesn't mean he's overrated - that's simply underrating Nadal and how stratospheric his level of play on clay really is.
FHtennisman
Professional
Yes, he's quite clearly the second best clay court player after Nadal in the last 15 years or so and just because he had Peak Nadal in his way at all the big clay tournaments during his prime doesn't mean he's overrated - that's simply underrating Nadal and how stratospheric his level of play on clay really is.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
Indeed. It's not even like TMF is usually doing anything that awful. Just being a heavy Fed fan. That isn't a crime.
They don't post misinformation or attack other players or users.
But oh no, that guy keeps coming in and saying how stupid and worthless they are all the time, just for fedrposting. Like he's slighted the guy in real life or something.
Get a grip, Penthouse.
Indeed. It's not even like TMF is usually doing anything that awful. Just being a heavy Fed fan. That isn't a crime.
They don't post misinformation or attack other players or users.
But oh no, that guy keeps coming in and saying how stupid and worthless they are all the time, just for fedrposting. Like he's slighted the guy in real life or something.
Get a grip, Penthouse.
Well said. I hope he backs off. Being a "heavy Fed fan" isn't a crime last time I checked.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Happy to disagree with you here, take away Federer's advancements in racket technology and put him in a field with those guys, where he would be facing very good clay players from the fourth round onward, I can see him win one, at best two. No chance in my eyes, he does better than that. As I said, I saw peak Federer beaten by past their primes former RG champions during his peak years. Now you may say 04 wasn't peak on clay, I will say it looks that way because of the two players he ran into, he quite easily handled Coria that year, who was the hottest player heading into RG. I do think Federer is second or at least tied second for best on clay in the past 15 years, but IMO, the field was nothing special compared to what I was watching in the 90s. Happy to disagree.
I certainly don't take away from Federer's prowess on clay, just like I don't take away from Nadal's on grass, but they have played in an era where polarization of surfaces simply does not exist. I don't see Nadal being a multiple time W champion either, if he walked among the grass giants of the 80s and 90s. Just how I see it.
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree that top 3 are inflated, but Fed is the goat even if you take that into an account.
Fed wasn't racking slams for 4.5 years. That means he at least had two young greats for competition, Djokodal didn't have anybody from young players.
Also, Fed's 2003-2007 era was still more polarized in surfaces and styles where people like even Nalbandian could take anybody out at a major, lots of dangerous floaters.
So, yeah while Fed was part of this homogenized era, he wasn't able to take advantage of it, because he had to deal with two greats and at his peak conditions were still tough.
So, Fed's 20 majors are legit, he is the real deal, but I agree with you about Djokovic and Nadal, they are inflated, no way that 3 goats could be playing in the same era. Especially when Nole did nothing before age 25 and after age 30. He just caught a good window in his peak.
If Nole was really the goat, why doesn't he win slams 15 years apart?
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
Disagreement is just fine, but let's continue this.
Bold, you're absolutely right. String and racket technology is obviously a big f******g if. But Fed's still got the physical tools and the fleetness of foot to do well on clay in any era imo.
I have just gone through the draws for the top-seed in the 90's, except in 1993, where I gave him the 2nd seed, since Courier was the man to beat (Fed has spend more or less a decade being first or second seeded, so I think given him that seed is fair). And for the majority of years, I just fail to see the early round landmines, you speak of. Sampras got to the QF 4 times and advanced to the semis once in those runs. Agassi got to 3 finals and should have won 2 of them. Is he a better clay courter than Federer would have been in the 90's? I don't think so.
I think you're being overly harsh to Fed with regards to his 2004 losses to Costa and Guga. As you say, he also beat Coria (and Moya) that year. And he did beat Guga on clay in Hamburg in 2002. So what are we to take from this? That Fed, when playing well, could beat the man to beat on clay in 2004, but could also lose to great past their prime clay courters? That he would hold his own against them, but not win every single time as he did vs. pretty much anyone not named Nadal from 05 onwards?
Caveat to the below: I didn't follow tennis as religiously as I do know in the 90's (I was a kid and cared at least as much about football, track & field and tour de france). So to some extent, I'm looking at names and records as my memory is either hazy or non-existent in some of the years.
But give Fed's the no. 1 seed's draw here in a peak year throughout the 90's and who takes him out in the respective years?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_French_Open_–_Men's_Singles#Section_1 (Leconte, Agassi, Gomez. Who beats Fed here? Fear of losing his wig Agassi? Gomez?) - pretty clear win imo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_French_Open_–_Men's_Singles#Section_1 (Courier, Stich and Agassi - not easy but only Courier could be argued to have clay as his best surface but even that's debatable if you look at his title distribution and W/L record
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_French_Open_–_Men's_Singles#Section_8 (as Courier's the man to beat, I've made Fed the 2nd seed - (he gets Korda, Leconte and Courier in the last 3). Courier did get Muster in the 2nd though, but won in straights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_French_Open_–_Men's_Singles#Section_1 - Sampras got to the QF and lost in 4 to Bruguera, who then beat Medvedev and won in 5 over Courer. Tough but not impossible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_French_Open_–_Men's_Singles#Section_1 - Sampras got to the QF and lost in 4 to Courier, who then lost in 5 to Bruguera, who beat Berasategui in 4 in the final. Again tough but not impossible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_French_Open_–_Men's_Singles#Section_1 - Kafelnikov, Muster, Change. Muster too much of a beast this year (Agassi got to the QF without losing a set).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_French_Open_–_Men's_Singles#Section_1 - Courier, Kafelnikov, Stich. Sampras got to the semi for the first and only time, but got hammered by Kafelnikov after being in a long 5-setter vs. Courier. Could def. see Fed win this one. Kafelnikov beat Stich in the final.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_French_Open_–_Men's_Singles#Section_1 - Sampras out to young Norman in the 3rd. Dewulf, Kuerten, Brugeara in the last 3. Kuerten probably too much.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_French_Open_–_Men's_Singles#Section_1 - Sampras out to Delgado in the 2nd, who, while indeed a surface specialist only has one minor ATP RU to show for it. Mantilla, Muster (who Mantilla beat), Moya and Corretja). Tough field, no doubt and easy to slip somewhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_French_Open_–_Men's_Singles#Section_1 - GOAT Hrbatý took Kafelnikov out in the 2nd round and went all the way to the semi. Given he leads Fedal in h2h, tough cookie to crack for Fed... had he survived, Rios, Agassi and Medvedev would be awaiting. Tough but not quite impossible.
And then you have 1989, where Chang beat Lendl in the 4th, who then beat Agenór, Chesnokov and ... Edberg (who beat Boris in the semi, mind you!).
All in all, he would have his chances at least as often as not as far as I can tell. And even if he went the road of Sampras in terms of being a fast court specialist in the 90's, he'd still have, what Sampras hadn't: The physical ability to grind it out on clay if need be.
I'll just repeat my arguments about Fed's clay prowess below for anyone else interested in discussing this, since you didn't quote that part.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Lets not, because we already disagree. I saw everything in the 90s as it happened, I am not going to change my opinion and you know I will say it how I see it. Federer is awesome, but he has shinned in a very shallow clay field IMO.
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
Come on Hitman, it took time to post that. At least give it a look. I'm out for the next couple of hours though.
zagor
Bionic Poster
With all due respect to Fed, that he would have 4-5 FOs in this era is as much of a reflection of the CC field as it is of his ability on clay and his famous (and remarkable) conistency. Not to mention that I don't subcribe to that reasoning in general, following the same logic we could also put Murray above Lendl and Agassi and shoulder to shoulder with Borg, it falls in the same basket as Nadal's 30 moral slams as far as I'm concerned. If Fed had pushed Nadal to several 5 setters I could maybe see it but that he didn't is not simply a consequnce of his mental failures against Nadal but also due to him not being a natural CC player (yes, I know he grew up on the surface).
Yes he did beat Novak in 2011, by banging down 20 aces in faster conditions. Mind you, what I said for Fed goes for Novak too (maybe to a lesser degree depending on whom you ask), there's a number of reasons of why he lost 2015 FO final to Stan but one of those not often mentioned is that the latter just hits a much heavier ball which is rewarded on clay. Because Novak is like Fed, they play HC tennis on clay and get away with it because of their overall ability and lacking depth of the field on clay. Compare Novak's match with Stan the year before in WTF indoors when Novak bagelled him, it's a world of difference.
As @Hitman already noted, Fed was one of the main favourites for FO in 2004 (especially after beating Coria in Hamburg final, a BO5 match) and was absolutely decimating the tour, it's one of his career most dominating years. That he went down to (way past his best) Guga at FO in straights is telling.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
Fed has no deficiency on clay and his achievements would be roughly the same there as elsewhere with no clay freak Nadal around.
His level, sans extreme competition like Nadal, is about 5-6 at each major and 9-10 at Wimbledon. And that's still including his many losses to peak Novak, who is better than, say, Agassi, who was Pete's competition.
He really got screwed with Nadal. More than makes up for any luck he's had elsewhere.
He was still finding his feet on clay in 2004.
His level, sans extreme competition like Nadal, is about 5-6 at each major and 9-10 at Wimbledon. And that's still including his many losses to peak Novak, who is better than, say, Agassi, who was Pete's competition.
He really got screwed with Nadal. More than makes up for any luck he's had elsewhere.
He was still finding his feet on clay in 2004.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Pretty much this. You and I saw a lot of tennis long before there ever was a Federer or Nadal on clay.
You what is a crime? That Rafa has 3 USO titles and Nole has 3 W titles.
I mean, guys with their game shouldn't win on classic faster USO and grass, no way. This just proves how they destroyed tennis. Now hardcourters are dominating grass.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
Fed definitely plays HC tennis on clay, as you say, although he slides around just fine.
But that's good enough in Rog's case. Except against Nadal.
But that's good enough in Rog's case. Except against Nadal.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
I understand your point, just have a different view point, I'm afraid. Remember, we are just stating opinions here. its all cool.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
Nah. I don't like how it's slowed, but they deserve their wins. It is what it is and that's fine.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Yeah, that's not to say that every other longtime follower will agree with either of us of course but I do think it's harder for people to grasp the concept of surface specialists if they didn't follow the game in previous less-homogenized eras.
Guys like Courier, Bruguera, Muster etc. lived for attrition wars on clay, long rallies, heavy topspin etc. unlike Fed and Novak who essentially try to blast Nadal off court on clay. It's not all complete hypotheticals either, you could see some of what we're talking about in Nadal's match against Puerta who can be arguably considered a 2nd rate CC specialist (granted, he was in great form and juiced up).
This is not me going to great lengths to diminish Nadal's CC achievements or something, they speak for themselves regardless of anything else. I just think this is really a HC era which also helped Fed on grass too, one of the reasons he still remains such a strong Wimbledon contender is because majority of the field doesn't have a first clue how to play or move on the surface.
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
If Nadal is not removed but replaced with a lesser clay court player like Lendl or Wilander (someone on that level but for this period) then I imagine Federer would've won 2-4 RG in this era but I struggle to see 5-6.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
Probably quite true if he's replaced with someone (like Lendl as you say).
And I suppose that's fair as without Nadal there isn't really anyone else on clay at all in those years apart from Fed himself.
Sure they deserve, just their wins can't be compared with classic tennis, they are playing a different game.
It's like if you change chess rules that you need to for example lift weights during every chess move. I'm sure Kasparov won't be dominating.
It's like seeing Arnold winning world chess championship, it just seems weird and strange.
What's the point? We have too many endurance sports already where fitness is the priority, why change another sport ?
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
Haha, good find. Yes, exactly. Tennis is now a hybrid sport, but it was mostly about skills.
And now players like Nadal are compared with Sampras who are playing totally different game.
That's why you can't compare generations.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Absolutely.
And yes, this is not about diminishing Nadal's CC achievements, he is a once in a lifetime kind of player on clay. And likewise for Federer on grass.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
@zagor we also know how Federer has historically struggled against the grinders type of players, his struggles with Canas and heck even against a player like Simon are known, and that was on surfaces more suited to his game. On clay, playing those guys that just loved 20 shot rallies point after point would be a different world to the one where most of the players playing on clay, are essentially more HC orientated in their games.
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
At the end of the day it's all a highly humourous novelty to me because actually watching '90s clay matches and then watching stuff from recent years is like two different worlds. Holy fook is tennis taking a giant dump on the tennis of yesteryear.
Hot dayum son.
(PS, WHAT a time to be alive.)
Hot dayum son.
(PS, WHAT a time to be alive.)
I usually only quote 4 but I kept Murray in the database because I started it at a time when people were talking about Big 4 a lot. Most of my ATG stat posts just use the other 12 but I got lazy
I don't think there's any doubt that there has been a change that makes racking up major titles more common. In a post about ATGs and their stats a week or so ago I laid out a few points:
1. Courts are more homogenous now. You don't have to do nearly as much to change your game going from one to another as you used to.
2. Until Agassi, it was exceptionally rare to score the career grand slam. And it wasn't just because no one played Australia. Now, every ATG great does. Agassi, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic.
3. There used to be a cluster at 6-8 slams. That is what ATGs achieved. Connors, Mac, Lendl, Edberg, Wilander, Becker, Agassi ...all 6-8. The last 3 and 4/5 have greatly exceeded that.
I think homogeneity is one reason. Training is another. Training techniques are better, coaching is better, diet and nutrition are better. It makes consistency easier to achieve.
Amen. In short, Nadal is the greatest ever on clay, but his resume is aided by the fact that he has not faced as many cc specialists. His greatest competition has been mostly guys who would rather play on any other surface.
That also lads Fed's resume. He is the 2nd best cc player of his era, but that is also a criticism of the depth of the clay court tour. I would argue that he is not an ATG clay court player; he is a good enough all court player to beat every other non-specialist on clay, and he's only had to deal with one great cc specialist.
Binny99
New User
Nadal is undoubtedly the best of all time. The statistics back it up. Federer only winning 7 majors in the last decade during the Nadal era is damning for him. Hi sorry lack of any USO is also a problem.
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
This doesn't quite work. Using ALL of Nadal's best career to date he's at 16 Slams. Since winning his first, he's won 15 additional Slams (or 16 if we include it) and Federer 16, and that's in removing a couple of Federer's best years. Even in this disadvantaged and crippling state, the Old Codger has kept pace with Nadir.
Umbubeebabullah.
The statistics are overwhelmingly in Federer'S favor. A simple test on statistics: if someone is using the usual stats, pay attention. If they are making up new ones, giving extreme weight to rarely cited ones and carving out time frames, be skeptical.
Binny99
New User
Explain why from the age of 26 Federer is less than half of Nadals slam count? To m wit looks like Federer didn’t have the game to handle the best of Nadal or Djokovic. What’s your explanation?
Binny99
New User
No the statistics are in Nadal favour hence why Agassi safin soderling Jim courier and others say Nadal is the best of all time as does serena williams
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
Because I don't have some bizarre fetish over age. Players arrive at their own time and have their own primes and sets of challenges. I am impressed with longevity which of course age is a logical signifier for, but everyone is different. I hesitate to say Federer is the greatest but don't think it's obvious at all that Nadal is. Federer has kept pace with him in the bigger picture. Yes, Nadal hunted down Fed and gave him a pounding, and then Djokovic gave Federer a world of pain (and had Nadal at his mercy twice with 7-match win streaks) but what happened when Federer was 27 or whatever isn't the be all and end all of the debate. It doesn't mean that what Nadal and Federer are doing right now on the tour is meaningless either just because it's not supposedly peak-for-peak stuff, though I freely admit we're not in the strongest of times.
Binny99
New User
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Federer slam count from 26
USO 2007
USO 2008
RG 2009
W 2009
AO 2010
W 2012
AO 2017
W 2017
AO 2018
Lets take away the last three to see how much Federer had at won between age 26 and 31-32, where Nadal is now. That is six slams. Now, lets look at how Nadal did during this very same period.
Nadal's slam count from 26
RG 2012
RG 2013
USO 2013
RG 2014
RG 2017
USO 2017
That is only six of his sixteen slams that he won after 26 - It's not like Nadal himself exactly was a raging slam winning beast when he hit 26 either. What is Nadal's explanation?
How about they both were starting to move away from their peaks, and even the slightest dip while another ATG is around at the height of their powers, and its curtains.
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
The website has a conversation feature for PM, but sorry - I will not accept at this time because reasons. Thanks though.
Binny99
New User
Federer was 26 in 2008! Federer ha sonny won majors since 2009 at two majors whereas Nadal has won at all four.
Nadal had two all time greats at their peak when he won all his majors as did Djokovic. Federer only won 7 in that period. Sorry Federer is third of this era. It is fact.
What statistics?
Majors
Major finals
Titles
Weeks at 1
YE #1
Wins against top 10
Which ones favor Nadal?
Players traditionally seemed to decline around 26. Borg*, McEnroe, Wilander, Edberg, Courier all won their final slams by that age. Becker won 5/6 of his slams by the time he was 23. Sampras's also got a lot less prolific around that age. It's only been the last decade where this has changed and I would love to know the reason for that.
*Special circumstances.
*Special circumstances.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Federer won USO 2007 after his 26th birthday, which was a month earlier. Try again....He completed a career slam also. Sorry.
Djokovic v Federer Slam H2H matches = 15
Djokovic v Nadal Slam H2H matches = 13
Federer v Nadal Slam H2H matches = 12
Looks likes Federer and Djokovic battled it out more than any other combo...
FHtennisman
Professional
Federer turned 26 in August 2007, after that till date, he has won 9 Majors. Nadal turned 26 in June 2012, up to now he has won 6 Majors. That means not only has Federer won 9/16 slams, which according to you is less than half of Nadal's total slam count.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Even if we take in account that Federer has won slams for years that Nadal hasn't been alive, and measure it up to where Nadal is now, it is still 6 slams each. Nadal, just like Federer slowed down winning slams after 26. Now, Federer was being stopped by Nadal and Djokovic, and even a peak Murray in his late 20s early 30s. Who exactly has been stopping Nadal? Djokovic only beat him once at RG, what about all the other losses? Nadal's shocking performance in W after the Rosol incident is baffling for someone who is meant to be the best of this era...how do you lose four straight times to players ranked outside the top 100 while still in your 20s?
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Federer was 26 in August 2007, therefore USO 2007 counts. Fact.
Where did yoy get the idea that Nadal and Djokovic had 2 all-time greats at their peak when they won all their majors? Djokovic only in 2011 was peak and Federer wasn't peak anymore after 2007.
Yeah, I hate this peak excuses. Everybody has a slump even at their peaks and can lose, those players aren't gods lol they can lose to anyone.
Plus Fed is doing better today than in 2008. He was 26. So, nobody will convince me, Fed in 2008 was better than today lol. So, age excuses are dead now.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
-NN-
G.O.A.T.
Fed is most proud of his improvement on the second serve return, coming over the ball instead of chipping. Some other aspects are also discussed. It seems he preferred his defence-offence transition game during his more dominant years, and plays more pure offence now.
The main point is the game has changed and he's moved with the game: "We all hit bigger."
Who cares if all three were in their peaks or not, what does this have to do with anything? All losses or wins count, no matter what, so who cares?
I don't use the stupid h2h argument anyways, so it doesn't matter to me if you are in your peak or not.
