"He's the greatest but I'm the best "

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by The Dark Knight, Jun 11, 2013.

  1. veroniquem

    veroniquem Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    31,084
    Location:
    New York
    I'm not necessarily a partisan of separating surfaces for judging overall achievements but in the case of Fedal, I feel that one just has to if they're trying to be honest.
    I mean Fed has 9 slam titles, 6 WTF titles and 17 master titles on hard. How is Nadal's record even comparable to that? It is not.
    Nadal has 9 slam titles and 19 master titles on clay. How is Fed even competing with that? He is not.
    I feel like when you're fighting about overall records, you're missing the most important point which is that both guys are heavyweight juggernauts who just squished the competition to a pulp on their respective best surface in a way that hadn't been witnessed before.
    Yes, Fed is not doing it anymore but he is in his 30s. And yes, Nadal has had good success against Fed on hard in his career but that hasn't helped him getting close to Fed's records on hard overall.
    So I would refer to their rivalry as a "trompe l'oeil" one because when you look closely at their respective records, they are not really rivaling each other on either clay or hard. They've just had 2 of the most crushing dominations of the field on their respective best surface. They've been "side by side" more than "toe to toe".
     
  2. smoledman

    smoledman Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,480
    Location:
    USA
    Bottom line is Fed is still near his best level and can win another slam or 2. Nadal has to be thinking that 20 slams is the ultimate record # to shoot for.
     
  3. BHud

    BHud Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,297
    On what planet do you reside? Nadal is not #1 by any stretch of the imagination. Stick to the facts my man, the facts!
     
  4. Omega_7000

    Omega_7000 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4,758
    So? There are a lot of girls skinnier than Brooklyn Decker but Brooklyn Decker is better than them...

    Your analogy is so dumb that I really hope you were joking...................For your sake.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2014
  5. Omega_7000

    Omega_7000 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4,758
    Point I was trying to make is that Dull's resume isn't as perfect The Dark Troll makes it out to be... :oops:
     
  6. Omega_7000

    Omega_7000 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4,758
    Of course they are :roll:

    Now you're gonna say # 1 ranking is overrated too... :lol:
     
  7. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,341
    Smegma

    people in glass houses should not throw stones.
     
  8. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,341
    Smegma,

    Quality > Quantity is the argument
     
  9. Omega_7000

    Omega_7000 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4,758
    The Dark Troll,

    Show me ONE post where I say Federer's resume is perfect. :oops:
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2014
  10. Omega_7000

    Omega_7000 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    4,758
    LOL...So what makes Nadal better than Sampras? Hell what makes Nadal better than Davydenko? Heck what makes Nadal better than Kyrgios?
     
  11. kandamrgam

    kandamrgam Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,738
    Location:
    Nadal fan. Appreciates good tennis in general
    Oh ok, good to know. But TDK wasn't trying to make Dull's resume perfect. He was just trying to expose the double standards when it comes to Rafa and Roger and their early years. Which is a valid point.

    Yeah both of them have holes in their resumes. However immortal they look now, those remind us they are human still.
     
  12. kandamrgam

    kandamrgam Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,738
    Location:
    Nadal fan. Appreciates good tennis in general
    No I will not say it. What makes you think so? Ranking shows dominance. Streaks show just that, streak - one hot run. Consistency is better measured many other ways.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2014
  13. YetAnotherFedFan

    YetAnotherFedFan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2014
    Messages:
    1,569
    Location:
    Looking for tennis ball in the foliage

    For a man whose avatar shows a grown man biting a trophy, you speak a frightening amount of sense. Seriously.
     
  14. kandamrgam

    kandamrgam Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,738
    Location:
    Nadal fan. Appreciates good tennis in general
    You got it wrong.

    RF-RN: 8-13 from 2004-10
    RF-ND: 8-5 from 2008-10

    I havent checked the other stats.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2014
  15. kandamrgam

    kandamrgam Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,738
    Location:
    Nadal fan. Appreciates good tennis in general
    1. So leave out the circular logic. So Djokovic can be prevented winning from Majors just like Hewitt can be prevented?

    2. Nadal couldn't stop Cilic and Wawrinka because he wasn't fit enough to do so. A hole in Nadal's resume definitely, just saying.
     
  16. kandamrgam

    kandamrgam Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,738
    Location:
    Nadal fan. Appreciates good tennis in general
    Could you clarify what that is? After 2007 is 2008, no? Or from 2007? If that's the case why is 06-10 included in reduced level?
     
  17. kandamrgam

    kandamrgam Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,738
    Location:
    Nadal fan. Appreciates good tennis in general
    50 years later it would look like:

    Wider public: X has got more Slams

    Sports enthusiasts: X has got more Slams but Y leads h2h against Z

    Tennis fans of then: X has got more Slams but most of them came on Y surface, so Z is better and h2h is invalid because of surface disparity

    Tennis fans who have watched them both: The same arguments going on as in TT today.

    I'm sure in the long run a lot of sympathy is going Fed's way from people inspecting h2h. They would believe Fed is behind Nadal in h2h because of clay, otherwise Fed is going to lead.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2014
  18. kandamrgam

    kandamrgam Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,738
    Location:
    Nadal fan. Appreciates good tennis in general
    1. Federer vs Djokovic h2h in Slams in 2008-10 is 2-2. No domination. Arguably biased towards Roger since 3 of the 4 came at UO.

    2. None. Does Federer's peak have anyone of Nadal's and Djokovic's talent outside clay? Now weigh which has been an easier route. Is it when you dont have young guns when you're going down, or when you dont have comparable peers at your peak period.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2014
  19. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,341
    Nadal is better than Federer...and I think Roger knows it and that's why he is scared sheetless at the mere mention of nadal.

    On the other hand Nadal has an orgasm when he he hears he has to face off against Federer because he knows it's an easy win.
     
  20. smoledman

    smoledman Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,480
    Location:
    USA
    So Nadal is Bane lording over Gotham City and Fed is Batman with a broken back down a hole.
     
  21. ultradr

    ultradr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    3,675
    Federer's dominant years was 2004-2007.
    Achiles's hill of arguing him being GOAT is his inability to dominate over Nadal beyond 2007.

    Nadal is a better player in all aspect of game.
     
  22. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,757
    Yes at being nr 2.

    Well Federer has the better overall record.
     
  23. chrischris

    chrischris Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    2,936
    "He's the Greatest but i'm the Beast"..
    is what Rafa really wanted to say ,we must forgiven him for not having English as his first language, no?
     
  24. Hitman

    Hitman G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 2, 2010
    Messages:
    12,152
    And that is why he played him four times in 2013, his worst year on tour since 2001, and also carrying a back injury which was quite apparent in IW? He played him, and took his loses like a man.

    Oh...so that is why he is tugging at his shorts the whole match? :confused:

    Anways, good to see you posting again TDK. :)
     
  25. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,355
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Quite simple. Most of those 5 years Federer was in decline e.g. 8-10. Federer has played Djokovic multiple times in all of the laters peak years. Djokovic missed out on 04-05.

    Therefore in the long run the circumstances clearly favor Djokovic. I didn't pick the time frame I merely responded to it.
     
  26. kandamrgam

    kandamrgam Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,738
    Location:
    Nadal fan. Appreciates good tennis in general
    07-10 is a period which should favour none. Djokovic was yet to peak like he did post 2011 as well. In the long run yes, but 07-10 or 08-10 shouldn't be ignored.
     
  27. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,341
    Feds decline has has more twists and turns than a role roaster
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2014
  28. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,355
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Of course. But the point is Federer played Djokovic;

    11: 5 times
    12: 5 times
    13: 2 times
    14: 5 times

    That's 17 times during Djokovic's peak. He only played Djokovic 6 times in his own. Hence Djokovic has benefited from the age gap.
     
  29. The Dark Knight

    The Dark Knight Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2012
    Messages:
    6,341
    NADAL won on all surfaces .....fed barely by a fluke won on all surfaces...sampras just wasn't that great on clay.

    People always raise davydenko.....Davy beat NADAL only a hard court and never in a slam. Best of five I say NADAL takes Davy every time on very surface.

    But it doesn't matter......Davy was never any good on clay or grass...therefore this is the reason NADAL is better ; however with sampras its the clay that makes the difference .
     
  30. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,757
    Definitely some great highs.
     
  31. kandamrgam

    kandamrgam Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,738
    Location:
    Nadal fan. Appreciates good tennis in general
    No problem there. But when you say

    1. 06 is confusing there to be mentioned.

    2. It implies you ignore Djokovic hadn't peaked as well, because you mention only Federer's reduced level.
     
  32. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    14,355
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    If you had followed the conversation you'd see another posted specified the 06-10 time frame. I simply responded that Federer was only really advantaged by this in 06-07. After which he declined.

    I haven't ignored Djokovic's peak at all. It was part of my argument that Djokovic has had the advantage of playing Federer multiple times (up to 5 even) in each of his peak years where as Federer didn't get the opportunity to do the same.
     
  33. chrischris

    chrischris Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    2,936
    How many times has Nadal faced Federer indoors and how many times on the dirt ??
     
  34. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,757
    No, because it says "most of".
     
  35. kandamrgam

    kandamrgam Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,738
    Location:
    Nadal fan. Appreciates good tennis in general
    Fair enough. I should have seen the chain of discussions! :)
     
  36. kandamrgam

    kandamrgam Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,738
    Location:
    Nadal fan. Appreciates good tennis in general
    Indoors is not a surface. It's an environment. The tour comprises of only 2 mandatory tourneys in indoor conditions. And 11 outdoors. That is 1:6 ratio. They met 5 times in indoors. And 27 times outdoors excluding Dubai. Which says Federer had a marginal indoor advantage in their meetings.

    But nothing like clay bias which favours Nadal, so you have a point there.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2014
  37. Razaron

    Razaron Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2014
    Messages:
    134
    Simple fact is, Nadal was two young when he was a baby to even reach peak Federer at most slams.

    Then when he peaked he only reached Federer 3 times at Federer's greatest surface and Federer beat him 2-1. He was still losing to players who Federer then went on to beat.

    Thats why the H2H is skewed.

    If you want to talk about overall records, Nadal weeks at number 1 is extremely poor when you compare to Federer and at the WTF with only the best players on the planet playing Federer holds 6 titles to Nadal's 0.

    Nadal could be the GOAT on clay, but his overall accomplishments don't hold up to Federer apart from a skewed H2H thats revolves around him playing on dirt and not reaching Federer on his favorite surfaces in his prime.

    At least Federer got to Nadal at the FO, can't be said for Nadal who only reached Federer 3 times.
     
  38. kandamrgam

    kandamrgam Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,738
    Location:
    Nadal fan. Appreciates good tennis in general
    1. Nadal wasn't peak when he met Federer in the Wimbledon in 2006 and 2007. Definitely not 2006.

    2. Federer and Nadal met 5 times in Slams from 2007-2009 period. 2 on clay, 2 on grass, 1 on hard. No bias there right? Nadal leads 4-1. Not that it matters to you, because if fairness mattered your post would reflect that about h2h.
     
  39. Razaron

    Razaron Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2014
    Messages:
    134
    You speak of fairness and your variables are horrible. You pick 2007-2009 when most posters would say Federer's prime was 2004-2007. You're 1. remark is even more stupid, I specifically wrote,

    "Nadal was two young when he was a baby to even reach peak Federer at most slams."

    Highlighting that they did meet, but Nadal was a baby. Some would say you're in your prime once you win your first slam, questionable. It's interesting that Nadal has been no where near the Wimbledon final since 2010, why is that? Because he can't beat the competition or he wasn't able to compete.

    It's also true that Nadal is injured a lot, but I would have to say Federer's pain threshold must be a lot higher then Nadal's because EVERY athlete in the history of sport gets injured. Federer seems to find a way to play through the pain and still perform and win titles, Nadal seems to take very long hiatuses from that game. If Nadal did play not at 100% like Federer he would likely lose even more matches, hence why the H2H is even MORE SKEWED.

    Anyway, we're talking like head to head actually means something, like it's some type of trophy. Sorry it's not, at the end of the day it's all about trophies and being the number one player in the world and Federer has that title the longest. Federer has broke most records, but lets talk about the cold heart truth, that no Nadal fanboy would even comprehend to process in there simple little minds.

    If Player A beats Nadal, then Federer beats Player A. Federer has beaten Nadal in that tournament, this is why H2H is even more skewed and why Federer has more slams then Nadal on more surfaces.

    Federer > Player A > Nadal

    Nadal fans only care about H2H because it's there only straw, everyone else judges tennis by trophies and style of play and I'm sorry but Federer is head and shoulders above Nadal. There's no denying it, it's a fact.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2014
  40. kandamrgam

    kandamrgam Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,738
    Location:
    Nadal fan. Appreciates good tennis in general
    1. That's a good short-lived prime for the goat. I would like to see the "most posters" who agrees Fed got his prime done by 26 years of age. Oh and btw, baby Nadal leads "prime" Fed in 2004-2007 too, 8-6 ;) For someone that young I will be ok with the clay bias.

    2. It doesn't matter what you wrote in one place however true it is. I'm not here to praise for the facts people write here. That will be too much. I'm here to expose weak points. The fact that you called Nadal baby and in the next very line you called him peak is outright contradictory which is what my post is about. My question is how can it be peak Nadal who made to 3 grass finals? 2008 was. Not 2006 or 2007.

    3. Nadal did make it to another final in 2011. Again no relevance to the point I raised. I'm questioning your usage of "peak" to refer Nadal of 2006-2008 on grass.

    4. I dont know why you mention the rest of what you did. I have nothing to talk about all that. I merely said h2h in Slams favour Nadal. In a period where Federer was aged 25-27 and Nadal 20-22. That's the most reasonable of all you can find when their primes collided.

    5. Hahaha. I'm smiling. I will never stop getting amazed by explanations. Not that it doesnt make sense, but it's amazing how people see the unseen. Good point ;) If Federer playing less than 100% and Nadal skipping the tour is the real reason for skewed h2h then mention that. The clay grass excuse has been too weak for time being, which is what you did. I will highlight the two recent ones I got to know regarding h2h:

    a. Nadal leads Federer only in the first half of the season. He trails 3-6 in the second half. As if it matters

    b. Federer must be less than 100% when he played Nadal all the time, so all the withdrawals Nadal made only add to Federer's h2h record :)


    Honestly, I dont have a problem with any of what you believe. I highlighted two points. One is your reference to a peak Nadal at 20-22 years of age. Another is about h2h in Slams being Nadal friendly. That's all what my points are.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2014
  41. Razaron

    Razaron Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2014
    Messages:
    134

    1) I've given multiple reasons why it's a skewed H2H. Nadal pulling out if he's not 100% fit whilst Federer plays whilst not 100%

    2) clay-grass bias isn't a weak accuse, if they would have played 15 matches on grass the H2H would swing the other way so much more, but alas Nadal fails to reach Federer. There is also a lack of grass tournaments compared to dirt. Not to mention the slowing down of courts that questions if Nadal could of ever won on a fast grass court.

    3) If Nadal fails to turn up whilst he's an active tennis player or gets beaten before he reaches Federer, then Federer has beaten him. It doesn't matter if he didn't actually face him on court because if he's beaten the competition of "said" tournament then he's the winner. Nadal doesn't enter tournaments to beat Federer, he enters to win trophies.

    Lets put this simple, what would you rather have? trophies or H2H record over your greatest rival?

    Federer leads Nadal in almost every category bar clay and a meaningless H2H.

    This is why Federer's accomplishments are better then Nadal's, please try and find a way to deal with it. Nadal is a very fine tennis player, there's nothing bad about what he's achieved, it's just he hasn't achieved as much as Federer, thus Federer > Nadal.

    Failure to agree to this will make you look very thick or that you're just wearing bias goggles where the sun shines outta Nadal's arse.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2014
  42. kandamrgam

    kandamrgam Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,738
    Location:
    Nadal fan. Appreciates good tennis in general
    Hey I give up. If I fail to see a logical explanation even after the second time it's time to ignore. I raised only two points. Both are very simple. I dont want a lecture on h2h being trivial as it wasnt my position at all. No idea what you're harping on.

    But I will say this one more time. I didnt say clay-grass bias is a weak excuse. I said it is in the case of Federer-Nadal because they did meet equally from 2007-09 when there were 2 Slam matches on clay and grass. 2 == 2. Someone leads ;)
     
  43. Cup8489

    Cup8489 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    9,268
    Location:
    Silvis, IL
    It's 4-2 Federer. 3 wins at USO (07 08 09), vs 1 AO 2008 and 1 USO 2008 winner for Djokovic. Nice that you chose not to include 2007, which has an AO win for Federer as well. but that didn't suit your agenda.
     
  44. Razaron

    Razaron Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2014
    Messages:
    134
    You keep trying to suit your own agenda, then you say you don't want a lecture on H2H but spout the same old Federer vs Nadal match in your next paragraph. I'm talking career accomplishments and not your 2-3 year variables, whilst trivializing H2H because it means nothing in the long run and you've backed no arguement I've made about it other then saying the same old stuff, Nadal leads during this period of his career. Who cares? Federer titles > Nadal titles.

    When it comes to all that, Federer > Nadal. You can't have it any other way.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2014
  45. kandamrgam

    kandamrgam Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,738
    Location:
    Nadal fan. Appreciates good tennis in general
    Of course I did skip 2007. The point being 19-20 yr old Djokovic against 25-26 Federer is unfair to the former. But some ppl dont get that. That is what I call agenda.
     
  46. Razaron

    Razaron Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2014
    Messages:
    134
    Who has had the better career so far, to this date.

    Federer or Nadal?
     
  47. kandamrgam

    kandamrgam Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,738
    Location:
    Nadal fan. Appreciates good tennis in general
    Man. Are you the JG guy? So rare to see people like that even on this board. My last attempt. I cant elucidate more than this!

    1. Here's the conversation:

    You: h2h is skewed because of clay
    Me: It's not the case if you take GS.

    What more proof do you want that it didnt take clay for Nadal to dominate Federer where it mattered????


    2. 2-3 year variable is because that is the most reasonable period given the age. Federer was 25-27 and Nadal 20-22. Everything else is going to be unfair to either Nadal or Federer Go ahead,

    - take the entire period, adjust for surface disparity and see who leads.
    - take the 2004-07, see who leads. I wont adjust surface here because that's baby Nadal against peak Federer.

    There is no way Federer is leading Nadal in that h2h. Your argument that Nadal leads Federer is because of clay is totally wrong. Why is it so hard to get it????

    3. I didnt talk about h2h as a measurement of greatness. I'm shouting buddy. It's simple enough to understand. I'm just correcting your incorrect data. Here's an example:

    You: Federer never won a 250 title
    Me: Federer did win. But anyway it doesnt matter.
    You: Why are you talking of 250s if it doesnt matter. 250s of course doesnt matter. Its a small tournament. Tell me is it Federer or Nadal better. Lecture begins.
    Me: What's wrong with this guy :/
     
  48. kandamrgam

    kandamrgam Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Messages:
    1,738
    Location:
    Nadal fan. Appreciates good tennis in general
    For a man who has won 14 + 0 + 27 = 41 titles being 5 years younger I must give it to Ralph to have had a better career over Fred with 17 + 6 + 23 = 46. But yes we should wait.

    I dont have problem admitting Federer is by far a better tennis player.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2014
  49. Razaron

    Razaron Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2014
    Messages:
    134
    Federer

    82 singles - including 17 Grand Slams, 6 WTF.
    8 doubles titles.
    302 weeks at number #1
    Overall titles: 90

    Nadal

    64 singles - including 14 Grand Slams, 0 WTF
    8 doubes titles
    141 weeks at #1
    Overall titles: 72

    Obviously some titles are more presitgious then others, but here are the hard cold facts. It doesn't matter if Nadal is 5 years younger, I asked you who's had the better career to this date, you said Nadal. That just proves your bias, maybe in 5 years time he'll equal or surpass Federer's success but at the moment Federer > Nadal.

    We never judge potential, we just judge cold hard facts.

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_players_with_most_titles_in_the_Open_Era
    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ATP_number_1_ranked_singles_players
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2014
  50. Razaron

    Razaron Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2014
    Messages:
    134
    No.



    I've mention fitness, I've mention the fact that they've hardly met on grass. Can't you grasp my post, you're making things up in your own head. But let me just bold this so you understand,

    H2H doesn't matter, if,

    Player A beats Nadal then Federer goes on to beat Player A and win "Tournament".

    Then the obvious conclusion is Federer > Player A > Nadal.


    Just because they didn't meet on court doesn't mean Federer didn't beat Nadal. They both had aims to win a competition, Federer has won more than Nadal currently.

    Also, Nadal is an active tennis player, if he fails to compete for a major tournament and Federer is able to compete and he wins that tournament. Federer > Nadal.

    But it's not just Nadal Federer is beating, it's everyone in tennis. Don't you understand, tennis success is judged on titles. Titles gives you more points which eventually grants you the world number 1 spot.

    H2H doesn't give you a title, it's just a record against matches on a court.

    In all possible outcomes, Federer > Nadal apart from clay.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2014

Share This Page