Federer has played 69 slams to Nadal's 49 slams

[TennisATP]

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.

??? I only posted this thread and it's mostly in response of the many posts putting down Nadal. The point was to show that one of the main reasons he trails Federer by a few slams is that he's also played considerably less so far. The only other recent thread that I posted was about Pete Sampras. Don't make ridiculous false claims. Btw Nadal has millions of dedicated fans, so again stop putting him down.

 

[pame]

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.

Well, why don't we drop the 3 clay masters, and instead have 3 grass masters. Then the French can use the seeding system Wimbledon now uses and Wimbledon need not compensate for there being so few grass tournaments for players to improve their rankings pre Grass-slam

 

[augustobt]

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.

It's not a new thing. It's been like that for AGES. No one complain about that apart from
A - People who started watching tennis in the last 3 years
B - Fans of players that underperform on grass

 

[JMR]

Federer has a little more slams, but it's very normal because he's played much more.

There is never anything "normal" about winning slams. Most players on the tour could play 1,000 slams and not end up with three titles. And even the greats cannot be counted on to churn out wins regularly after they pass age 30.

Age determines where a player stands on his or her career arc, not total slam appearances. Slams missed in one's 20s cannot be reclaimed in one's 30s.

 

[CentreCourt]

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.

Nadal won his first slam many years younger than Federer did though, so their jumping off point in terms of being contenders for titles isn't that far different.

 

[Bobby Jr]

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.

If Federer had avoided a dozen slams like Nadal has over the years - many seemingly out of acceptance he wouldn't be competitive rather than being injured to the point of being unable to play - Fed would have a much better played/won ratio.

Not trying to start anything but they are pretty even when you consider that fact.

Clearly you are trying to start something.

And having 20% more majors is not "pretty even". You wouldn't ever come here saying Navratilova was pretty even with Serena.

7/10 for this troll attempt. Not bad by the board's usual standards.

 

[sdont]

Nadal is 5 years younger, right?

5*4 = 20 = 69-49.

Not groundbreaking stuff.

 

[SLD76]

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

Of all the Nadal excuses this is the dumbest of all time


All Nadal fans are officially dumber for parroting this b.s.

 

[augustobt]

Of all the Nadal excuses this is the dumbest of all time

Worse than saying that he played tennis with appendicitis?

 

[SLD76]

Worse than saying that he played tennis with appendicitis?

No, but right up there with "injured knees" whilst Rafa runs like a jackrabbit with no signs of injury

 

[augustobt]

No, but right up there with "injured knees" whilst Rafa runs like a jackrabbit with no signs of injury

lol, like in 2012? Where he scored a double bagel on top 10 and clay court specialist Juan Monaco while with a severe injury on the knee?

 

[chjtennis]

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.

One of the worst failure of all time. Try harder and come back with something that really makes sense.

 

[SLD76]

lol, like in 2012? Where he scored a double bagel on top 10 and clay court specialist Juan Monaco while with a severe injury on the knee?

Better yet during 2012 IW/Miami where going into IW Nadal said his knees were cured , no pain no problems

Then he lost the IW final and all of sudden the knees were an issue again

Meanwhile he played Miami....and played doubles too!
And the knees were healed but not healed


Then he won the French no problem,

Then he lost to Rosol and his knees collapsed lmaooo

 

[ledwix]

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.

This argument seems truer now than ever considering Federer's scheduling and results over the last year.

 

[kabob]

On this day that Federer wins his 19th Grand Slam and is now an 8-time Wimbledon champion, the ************* see their champion thusly:

And for their patron saint of Banana, they see themselves thusly:

 

[augustobt]

Better yet during 2012 IW/Miami where going into IW Nadal said his knees were cured , no pain no problems

Then he lost the IW final and all of sudden the knees were an issue again

Meanwhile he played Miami....and played doubles too!
And the knees were healed but not healed


Then he won the French no problem,

Then he lost to Rosol and his knees collapsed lmaooo

hahahahaha

Wait a second and 8mom will come with pictures of holes in nadal's knee during the FO

 

[KingKyrgios]

If moral championships are accounted for bull is 49/49 tbh

 

[Rago]

 

[augustobt]

The OP wants to call himself an 'impartial tennis fan'. That's the biggest joke.

 

[Deleted member 743561]

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.

Good point. Nadal's efforts were calculated to achieve pretty particular ends. Took it further than any prior specialist.

10/13 at RG. So, 5/36 elsewhere.

 

[TMF]

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.

You have to factor in player's age when winning slams. How many great player like Lendl, Sampras, McEnroe or Connors have won slams when they are at 31+ years old? You assumed that Nadal will continue to win slam at 35+ years old like Federer, but the could very easy follow the same path as the former players and stay at 15 for good.

 

[-NN-]

I guess we can call Nadal "The Mathematician".

Federer is Atlas, carrying a giant tennis ball.



Nadal has been crafty and is a math genius, with particular specialism in statistics. It's incredible that despite Federer's severe disadvantage in math that he nonetheless reached the statistical pinnacle.

Wrecker of dreams and crusher of souls. Deal with.

 

[Talker]

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.

Fed started off his career not in the best way, and it was years of floundering before he got his mojo.

Those early years brought all of his career stats down.

Players like Nadal got the ball rolling quickly so not a bunch of poor years starting out to bring his average down.

Not long into Fed's career he showed great promise but he was not mentally prepared and took a long time.

It's a shame, with the right mental approach early he could be sitting on a few more slams and much better numbers everywhere.

Just sayin'

 

[73west]

Fed started off his career not in the best way, and it was years of floundering before he got his mojo.

Those early years brought all of his career stats down.

Players like Nadal got the ball rolling quickly so not a bunch of poor years starting out to bring his average down.

Not long into Fed's career he showed great promise but he was not mentally prepared and took a long time.

It's a shame, with the right mental approach early he could be sitting on a few more slams and much better numbers everywhere.

Just sayin'

This is exactly why when you look at rates, averages or stats like that, career stats break down a bit.
If you look at career totals (19 vs 15, etc) and peak averages (won 87% of matches during his prime, etc) you get better data. Career averages are not reliable stats.

In his prime, almost however you define it, Federer was more consistent at majors (and overall). The fact that he had a much loner pre-prime career and (so far) a much longer post-prime career is going to bring down any average or rate statistic, in a way that has no analytical value.

 

[tennis_pro]

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.

Federer won 16 Slams from his first 49. Of course he was going to win less in his 30s. Same with Nadal.