Federer has played 69 slams to Nadal's 49 slams

[TennisATP]

Federer has 18 slams out of 69 entered, Nadal has 15 slams out of 49 entered. That's explained by the combination of their respective ages and also Nadal missing several slams all over the years due to injuries. Not trying to start anything but they are pretty even when you consider that fact. Federer has a little more slams, but it's very normal because he's played much more.

 

[Waspsting]

Given their playing styles, the general hypothesis was that Federer had the potential to play more

The onus is on Nadal to step up beyond that common diagnosis

He already has - but he'll need to do even more now because Federer himself has as well

Borg was 11 out of 27 btw

 

[TennisATP]

Given their playing styles, the general hypothesis was that Federer had the potential to play more

The onus is on Nadal to step up beyond that common diagnosis

He already has - but he'll need to do even more now because Federer himself has as well

Borg was 11 out of 27 btw

But Borg chose to quit early on. So it's almost as if he told the world that even if I play the next few years, I don't believe that I have what it takes to win anymore. Federer and Nadal are really both playing as much as they can. Still it's a nice stat for Borg. A shame he didn't really play the AO much, but that's true for many of the past players.

 

[SLD76]

Longevity vs relative fragility

 

[LETitBE]

a real warrior!

 

[clayqueen]

Plus the fact that Fed is assisted by tournament organisers all the time.

 

[TennisATP]

Plus the fact that Fed is assisted by tournament organisers all the time.

yes how could I forget... lol

 

[Mazz Retic]

Who holds the record for most slams entered?

 

[TheMaestro1990]

Nadal has had to play that way, almost destroying his body in the process, in order to get to those 15 Slams. Had he played any other way he wouldn't have won that many. You gotta pay the price of your playing style, that's part of the longetivity. Btw, he's only missed the French Open one year, so how many more would he actually have won had he played more? Last year at the French, Djokovic looked unstoppable.

Nadal definitely deserves his 15 Slams, but he doesn't deserve a single one where he hasn't participated because of his playing style taking a toil on his body. And no, not even a moral GS victory.

 

[sarmpas]

If Nadal's tennis ability exceeded his athletic ability during his prime I've no doubt he'd have more slams by now, alas he has payed the price for relying so much on his ability to chase down almost every shot hit by almost every player most all the time.

 

[clayqueen]

With their outdated and warped seeding formula, Fed and Murray will most likely be seeded 1 & 2 at the 2018 Wimbledon. Murray will have at least an extra 1770 points added to his ranking points and Fed will have at least 1770 points for making the final and at least 2570 if he wins tomorrow.

This is Wimbledon's idea of a level playing field

 

[TheMaestro1990]

With their outdated and warped seeding formula, Fed and Murray will most likely be seeded 1 & 2 at the 2018 Wimbledon. Murray will have at least an extra 1770 points added to his ranking points and Fed will have at least 1770 points for making the final and at least 2570 if he wins tomorrow.

This is Wimbledon's idea of a level playing field

Why does it matter to you about the top seeds? It doesn't matter for your favorite player anyway as he won't reach that stage at Wimbledon.

 

[TennisATP]

Nadal has had to play that way, almost destroying his body in the process, in order to get to those 15 Slams. Had he played any other way he wouldn't have won that many. You gotta pay the price of your playing style, that's part of the longetivity. Btw, he's only missed the French Open one year, so how many more would he actually have had he played more? Last year at the French, Djokovic looked unstoppable.

Nadal definitely deserves his 15 Slams, but he doesn't deserve a single one where he hasn't participated because of his playing style taking a toil on his body. And no, not even a moral GS victory.

But Rafa missed tournaments like Wimbledon and the USO during times when he was winning them. For example he missed the USO in 2012 and 2014 but he won in 2010 and 2013, he also missed Wimbledon in 2009 when he had won in 2008 and 2010. So not everything is always about the French open.

The point is, Federer does have 3 more slams but it is more explained by the fact that he's also played more (you also forget that he's been on tour longer due to his age) then it has to do with him being better. It's not as if he's leading by so much in terms of titles, so the stat of slams entered does play a factor to explain his small lead then simply saying he's better. It's normal that he leads at this point.

 

[sarmpas]

This is Wimbledon's idea of a level playing field

and this is toni's

 

[Fedinkum]

69...sexie slam record number.

 

[Bukmeikara]

With their outdated and warped seeding formula, Fed and Murray will most likely be seeded 1 & 2 at the 2018 Wimbledon. Murray will have at least an extra 1770 points added to his ranking points and Fed will have at least 1770 points for making the final and at least 2570 if he wins tomorrow.

This is Wimbledon's idea of a level playing field

Does Nadal deserve to be seeded number 1 or number 2 at Wimbledon ?!

Plus the fact that Fed is assisted by tournament organisers all the time.

Remind me who used his status and pressured the ATP not to use Bernardes in his matches?! Or commented that a certain lady referee doesnt understand the game and shouldn't umpire his matches. The same lady was not seen again in a Nadal match but did a terrific job at the Us Open final.

 

[Bukmeikara]

About the OP. Fitness is part of the game, a big one! If you cant manage your body,style accordingly than its your problem. If we compete at an eating contest and you beat me by one extra hotdog but die soon after because of it, who is the actual winner ?!

Not to mention that after taking a long break, Federer is about to win the next two Slams he entered. So maybe playing that much, its not in his favor!

 

[TennisATP]

Does Nadal deserve to be seeded number 1 or number 2 at Wimbledon ?!

If he's #2 in the world then he should be seeded #2, if he's #1 he should be seeded #1. When Nadal is #5 in the world they don't seed him #1 at RG, they seed him #5. Wimbledon should just respect the rankings, it's fair. By changing the seeds, it also changes the draws and opponents, so it's as if they automatically change destiny by their own doing.

 

[TheMaestro1990]

But Rafa missed tournaments like Wimbledon and the USO during times when he was winning them. For example he missed the USO in 2012 and 2014 but he won in 2010 and 2013, he also missed Wimbledon in 2009 when he had won in 2008 and 2010. So not everything is always about the French open.

The point is, Federer does have 3 more slams but it is more explained by the fact that he's also played more (you also forget that he's been on tour longer due to his age) then it has to do with him being better. It's not as if he's leading by so much in terms of titles, so the stat of slams entered does play a factor to explain his small lead then simply saying he's better. It's normal that he leads at this point.

Yeah, he has played more, but you can't say that Nadal should have had more GS ttiels because he was injured (his fault) and missed some tournaments in his supposedly prime. He shouldn't. He needed to play the way he's done to win those 15 slams to begin with. Very logically, he has paid the price with his body breaking down every now and then. So you just can't say: "hey look, Nadal has played much fewer GS tournaments, let's hand him some moral victories!". Think about it; had he played in an economical way - like Federer or Sampras - he'd never won 15 Slams, let alone 10 RG titles.

 

[tennisaddict]

If Rafa played all 69, he would have won less than 15.

It is the careful planning of playing around clay season that has ensured he has 10 dirt majors.

 

[TheMaestro1990]

If Rafa played all 69, he would have won less than 15.

It is the careful planning of playing around clay season that has ensured he has 10 dirt majors.

Exactly + the fact that if he hadn't played with the kind of style he has done over the course of his career, he'd never won 10 RG titles.

 

[The Fedfather]

Pretty useless statistic. Federer was 16 out of 43 at the 2010 AO and from there on it got more complicated. Surely a Nadal fan has to understand that at a certain point winning "a little more slams" becomes a gargantuan task even for the greatest of players. Ultimately, the only meaningful comparison can be made when both players' are retired, but right now Federer's career record at Grand Slams is head and shoulders above Nadal's.

 

[TennisATP]

Yeah, he has played more, but you can't say that Nadal should have had more. He shouldn't. He needed to play the way he's done to win those 15 slams to begin with. Very logically, he has paid the price with his body breaking down every now and then. So you just can't say: "hey look, Nadal has played much fewer GS tournaments, let's hand him some moral victories!". Think about it; had he played in an economical way - like Federer or Sampras - he'd never won 15 Slams, let alone 10 RG titles.

My main point is rather about the fact that he's also played less years. If Federer retires today and Nadal plays until 35 and doesn't add more slams, then none of this would matter. But at this point, Rafa is younger and has more years left. Sure he's missed a few opportunities because of injuries in the past, but regardless he's still at a disadvantage in current debates because Federer has at least 4-5 years more of tennis, so let's wait to see what Rafa does in the next few years. This year he proved with an AO final and RG title that he doesn't plan to slow down in his early 30's and that the next few years he could add a few more slams just like Federer. So Federer's current small lead is rather explained by the fact that he has played worth of a few extra more years then him being better.

 

[TheMaestro1990]

My main point is rather about the fact that he's also played less years. If Federer retires today and Nadal until 35 and doesn't add more slams, then none of this would matter. But at this point, Rafa is younger and has more years left. Sure he's missed a few opportunities because of injuries in the past, but regardless he's still at a disadvantage in current debates because Federer has at least 4-5 years more of tennis, so let's wait to see what Rafa does in the next few years. This year he proves that he doesn't plan to slow down in his early 30's and that the next few years he could add a few more slams just like Federer. So Federer's current small lead is rather explained by the fact that he has played worth of a few extra more years then him being better.

That he is younger is definitely in favor of Rafa, I totally agree with that. But him missing opportunities to win more GS titles than he has done because of injury etc, that's just nonsense imo.

 

[deBroglie]

If he's #2 in the world then he should be seeded #2, if he's #1 he should be seeded #1. When Nadal is #5 in the world they don't seed him #1 at RG, they seed him #5. Wimbledon should just respect the rankings, it's fair. By changing the seeds, it also changes the draws and opponents, so it's as if they automatically change destiny by their own doing.

I don't think anyone would mind if Rafa was seeded #1 at RG. Besides, he might not have been seeded as high as he was if not for all the clay court Masters tournaments and 500s available for him to play before RG. Remove those and he will have less points every year, on occasion dropping from #2 to #3, etc.

 

[Bukmeikara]

If he's #2 in the world then he should be seeded #2, if he's #1 he should be seeded #1. When Nadal is #5 in the world they don't seed him #1 at RG, they seed him #5. Wimbledon should just respect the rankings, it's fair. By changing the seeds, it also changes the draws and opponents, so it's as if they automatically change destiny by their own doing.

The Wimbledon seeding system does more good than bad. In the near past you had plenty of clay courters ala Monaco, Almagro who were ranked deep inside the top 20 thanks to the loaded clay Mickey Mouse tournaments in the schedule. Those guys were seeded in top 8, top 16 when in fact they rarely had a chance to reach 3th round. The only ones who can suffer by that seeding are the potential number 2 and number 4 and in the recent year I dont remember anyone losing from that. This year Wawrinka was 5th because of it but he didnt reach the 2nd round! In anything it was fair for Fed to be top 4 and make the draw more competitive!

 

[TennisATP]

That he is younger is definitely in favor of Rafa, I totally agree with that. But him missing opportunities to win more GS titles than he has done because of injury etc, that's just nonsense imo.

It's just another reason of why he has played 20 slams less then Federer so far and therefore less opportunities to add titles, not an excuse. But it's mostly because he's younger and we still need to wait what he will do in the next few years.

 

[Rago]

Slams won after turning pro until 31:
Federer - 17
Nadal - 15
Djokovic - 12 (and counting?)

An injury or missed participation is as good as a loss unless you want to argue that the bull would still be the favorite going into those majors, then be my guest.

Not many guys who've won a whole bunch of slams in their 30s. Of course that could change in the future so time will tell the whole story.

 

[TennisATP]

The Wimbledon seeding system does more good than bad. In the near past you had plenty of clay courters ala Monaco, Almagro who were ranked deep inside the top 20 thanks to the loaded clay Mickey Mouse tournaments in the schedule. Those guys were seeded in top 8, top 16 when in fact they rarely had a chance to reach 3th round. The only ones who can suffer by that seeding are the potential number 2 and number 4 and in the recent year I dont remember that anyone suffered from that. This year Wawrinka lose his position but didnt reach the 2nd round! In anything it was fair for Fed to be top 4 and make the draw more competitive!

Then they should give that same advantage to the clay specialists at the FO and seed them higher, otherwise it's not fair. Slams should be equal to everyone. Only Wimbledon does it, that's the problem. Believe me, if they did this at FO and not at Wimbledon, it would be the Federer fans who would be complaining

 

[deBroglie]

Then they should give that advantage to the clay specialists at the FO, otherwise it's not fair. Slams should be equal to everyone.

They do. The clay court specialists get to play a lot of clay court tournaments before the clay slam to boost their ranking. The grass court specialists get (maximum) a 500 and a 250.

 

[TheMaestro1990]

It's just another reason of why he has played 20 slams less then Federer so far and therefore less opportunities to add titles, not an excuse. But it's mostly because he's younger and we still need to wait what he will do in the next few years.

Yes, it's definitely a big reason why he has played fewer Grand Slam tournaments than Federer. But I don't agree with the term "less opportunities". Any way you bend it, Rafa hasn't lost any opportunity.

1) He chose his playing styles. It got him 15 Slams. It obviously takes an extreme toil on his body, even back in his prime. Therefore completely natural to miss out on a couple of Slams.
2) He could have chosen another playing style, not grinding, being more offensive. However, chances are he wouldn't have won 15 Slams that way as it's not his natural style of play.
3) Had he played the Slams he's missed out on (WIM 09, USO 12), he most likely wouldn't have won three slams in 2010 and two slams in 2013, because participating there would have further damaged his body. It would also make it pretty darn more difficult for him to play the way he has this year at the age of 31.

 

[The Fedfather]

It's just another reason of why he has played 20 slams less then Federer so far and therefore less opportunities to add titles, not an excuse. But it's mostly because he's younger and we still need to wait what he will do in the next few years.

So why don't you wait a few years, so that you can proclaim Federer and Nadal even if/when Nadal actually catches Federer? Because right now there are far from being even, unless you can't count.

 

[tennisaddict]

My main point is rather about the fact that he's also played less years. If Federer retires today and Nadal plays until 35 and doesn't add more slams, then none of this would matter. But at this point, Rafa is younger and has more years left. Sure he's missed a few opportunities because of injuries in the past, but regardless he's still at a disadvantage in current debates because Federer has at least 4-5 years more of tennis, so let's wait to see what Rafa does in the next few years. This year he proved with an AO final and RG title that he doesn't plan to slow down in his early 30's and that the next few years he could add a few more slams just like Federer. So Federer's current small lead is rather explained by the fact that he has played worth of a few extra more years then him being better.

Rafa has won 1 slam in last 3 years

He needs 5 more to cross Fed should things go as planned on Sunday.

You do the math when Rafa will get to the magic number . Fed seems good to add USO as well

 

[junior74]

With their outdated and warped seeding formula, Fed and Murray will most likely be seeded 1 & 2 at the 2018 Wimbledon. Murray will have at least an extra 1770 points added to his ranking points and Fed will have at least 1770 points for making the final and at least 2570 if he wins tomorrow.

I don't want to ruin your day, but Federer won AO seeded #17.

 

[TennisATP]

Yes, it's definitely a big reason why has played fewer Grand Slam tournaments than Federer. But I don't agree with the term "less opportunities". Any way you bend it, Rafa hasn't lost any opportunity.

1) He chose his playing styles. It got him 15 Slams. It obviously takes an extreme toil on his body, even back in his prime. Therefore completely natural to miss out on a couple of Slams.
2) He could have chosen another playing style, don't grind, being more offensive. However, chances are he wouldn't have won 15 Slams that way as it's not his natural style of play.
3) He had played those Slams he's missed "opportunities" on, he most likely wouldn't be able to be in the same kind of form today, or even earlier, due to those tournaments making him decline physically even more.

It's more about stating a fact then analyzing whether it's an important enough excuse or not. The fact remains that Nadal played 20 slams less then Federer because of his age and because of the injuries throughout the years. I'm not saying that the injuries part is a valid excuse but just stating a fact to explain why he played less. Maybe it shouldn't be called less opportunities, then fine, but he played less regardless.

 

[KINGROGER]

If he's #2 in the world then he should be seeded #2, if he's #1 he should be seeded #1. When Nadal is #5 in the world they don't seed him #1 at RG, they seed him #5. Wimbledon should just respect the rankings, it's fair. By changing the seeds, it also changes the draws and opponents, so it's as if they automatically change destiny by their own doing.

You'd have a point if the grass season actually had 1-2 masters tournaments to give grass specialists a chance of earning some good ranking points for Wimbledon.

As for the topic? Nadal can win 1-2 more RG and maybe 1 HC slam that's it. At the same age as Rafa, Fed had 17 slams so was still 2 ahead. Aged 32+ Rafa's baseline game will decline, just as Fed's did post 2012.

 

[TheMaestro1990]

It's more about stating a fact then analyzing whether it's an important enough excuse or not. The fact remains that Nadal played 20 slams less then Federer because of his age and because of the injuries throughout the years. I'm not saying that the injuries part is a valid excuse but just stating a fact to explain why he played less. Maybe it shouldn't be called less opportunities, then fine, but he played less regardless.

Well, by stating that fact in the manner you did, definitely make it seem as an excuse, which is not valid. His age is one thing, his playing style and injuries is another.

 

[noobforehand20]

mirka likes that stat

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Hehe 69 XDDDD exdee geddit exdee

 

[Jaitock1991]

Yeah, he has played more, but you can't say that Nadal should have had more GS ttiels because he was injured (his fault) and missed some tournaments in his supposedly prime. He shouldn't. He needed to play the way he's done to win those 15 slams to begin with. Very logically, he has paid the price with his body breaking down every now and then. So you just can't say: "hey look, Nadal has played much fewer GS tournaments, let's hand him some moral victories!". Think about it; had he played in an economical way - like Federer or Sampras - he'd never won 15 Slams, let alone 10 RG titles.

Exactly! Guys(haters to be real) in this thread are frasing it as if Rafa had a choice, as if he just decided not to play the ones he didn't play but could have played and won several of them if he wanted to. There's a reason he didn't play them to begin with, and his playing style is certainly a huge part of that reason.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

With their outdated and warped seeding formula, Fed and Murray will most likely be seeded 1 & 2 at the 2018 Wimbledon. Murray will have at least an extra 1770 points added to his ranking points and Fed will have at least 1770 points for making the final and at least 2570 if he wins tomorrow.

This is Wimbledon's idea of a level playing field

Who Would Win?

15-Time Grand Slam Champion and World #2, The Spanish Bull, RAFAEL NADAL, and the hopes and dreams of his groupies, with the Babolat Stick Of Power

vs.

All England scheduling guy with a 2011 Dell laptop

 

[masao]

Quantity

Federer > Nadal

Quality

Nadal > Federer

 

[clayqueen]

Who Would Win?

15-Time Grand Slam Champion and World #2, The Spanish Bull, RAFAEL NADAL, and the hopes and dreams of his groupies, with the Babolat Stick Of Power

vs.

15 not 14

 

[HowsItGoin]

Even regardless of injuries he is still 5 years younger and as such in that timeframe he can enter 20 more slams if he plays that long (plus whatever they both play after that timeframe).

So the question is simply can Nadal win 3 more majors (plus whatever else Federer potentially wins afterwards).

Don't forget Nadal will likely have to BEAT Federer's count at least to be have a better Grand Slam career. As if they are tied on the slam count, all of the finals, semis and quarters made are heavily in Fed's favour, Nadal is already emphatically behind in those areas.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

15 not 14

Sh*t you're right.
I need to get with the times. I keep thinking the H2H is 23-10 too and that Fed has 17.

 

[Gazelle]

With their outdated and warped seeding formula, Fed and Murray will most likely be seeded 1 & 2 at the 2018 Wimbledon. Murray will have at least an extra 1770 points added to his ranking points and Fed will have at least 1770 points for making the final and at least 2570 if he wins tomorrow.

This is Wimbledon's idea of a level playing field

So Nadal lost because of lower seeding (he was seeded similar to Federer, 4 to 3) and because he played on court instead of CC? Pathetic excuse. If Nadal can't beat Muller, it doesn't matter what seed he is or on what court he plays. He was just too bad.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

They do. The clay court specialists get to play a lot of clay court tournaments before the clay slam to boost their ranking. The grass court specialists get (maximum) a 500 and a 250.

That's because grass (if not for the tradition at Wimbledon) would be dead. Look back over the years at how many grass court tournaments there were. They have dwindled down to a handful, most as warm-up events to Wimbledon.

Enviado desde mi E6853 mediante Tapatalk

 

[Pouet156]

Well, since Nadal played his first slam (W'03), he missed 8 of them. In the same span, Roger missed, only 3, all of them in the last 15 months. (Nadal missed one during the same period)

Interestingly, Nadal has lost his advantage by age (at the same age as Rafa now, Roger had won more in both slams, and overall matches, and obviously WTF. Only in masters is Nadal leading)
It seems unlikely that he will catchup... but then I don't think there were many who would have bet on a slam winning year for RF in '17, let alone multiple slams. And yet he's one match away from winning a second slam this year, and looks set to be one of the favorite contender for the USO too. So who knows about Nadal.

 

[Sentinel]

Plus the fact that Fed is assisted by tournament organisers all the time.

Spoiler

 

[BeatlesFan]

Federer has 18 slams out of 69 entered, Nadal has 15 slams out of 49 entered. Not trying to start anything but they are pretty even when you consider that fact.

Why are you posting endless threads about Nadal on the eve of a Wimbledon final in which he is not even involved? Last time I checked, he lost in the fourth round and is not in the tournament. And if you think "they are pretty even," that's great. The 2300 members of the ************* agree with you. The rest of the world does not.