Let's disspel the myth that Federer thrived against a "weak field"

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Jamin2112, May 31, 2012.

  1. above bored

    above bored Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2010
    Messages:
    484
    More nonsense and a lot of it. Such effort, but little in the way of intelligent argument.

    So Federer is not such a great player because he did not lose enough. Makes perfect sense, not.

    No that's not the end of it at all. The fact of the matter is Federer was better than everyone, that's to his credit. You don't penalise someone for accomplishing too much. For a long period he was in the shadow of the Hewitt's, Safin's, Roddick's and Ferrero's. It's to his credit that he was able to dominate them and prevent them from achieving higher on the all time list. They are where they are because of him, not because they were not great players, worthy of holding more Slams than they do.
     
  2. big_bill

    big_bill Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    117
    No question it was a very weak era, but credit Roger for defeating all the deadbeats that were put in front of him.
     
  3. IvanisevicServe

    IvanisevicServe Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    858
    If Federer had just lost a few finals, his competition would be ranked higher.

    That's why this is so silly.
     
  4. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,410

    Spot on post! Logical and dispassionate, yet also quite revealing. Probably as close to a slam dunk as is possible in this discussion, given the caveat that we are speaking relatively... as in -- much of Federer's competition consisted of 'relatively' inferior rivals from 2004-07.

    I still contend that there is no weak era in a world class and competitive, established sport where tons of money and fame can be had and earned by those who are good enough to take advantage; just weaker eras as compared to others...
     
  5. dh003i

    dh003i Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,050
    Right.

    What is indisputable is that Federer was just in a different league than anyone else during his prime, including Nadal (look at GS wins).

    Those who wish to discredit him say it is because he faced inferior competition compared to players of different eras. An alternative hypothesis is that the competition was just as good or perhaps better (evolution of the game), but that Federer was just that good.
     
  6. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,674
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    This is hilarious, Federer is getting critisized for being super consistent at the top.

    I'm sure that a lot of the former greatst would match Federer at his best if they played at their max abilities but because they weren't that consistent it made their competition look tougher. Just take Sampras. How often did he lose IN HIS PRIME in grass/hard court majors in the early rounds? Just because he didn't feel like competing/playing his best that day?1994 US, 1996 AO, 1996 Wimbledon, 1996 US (barely beat Corretja a clay court specialist), 1997 US, 1998 AO, 1998 US - that's just his prime years.

    Do you think that Kafelnikov, Rafter, Krajicek would win majors these days? LAWL. That's the major difference between 00's/10's and other eras. We have 2-3 guys who bring their best each time they are forced to do so. And that is why there is such a huge gap between the top 3/4 and the rest.
     
  7. big_bill

    big_bill Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    117
    And a 17 y.o. Nadal cleaned Fed's clock 6-3, 6-3 in their very first encounter (on a hard court no less) way back in 2004 and went on to win 7 of their first 8 meetings between 2004-2006.
     
  8. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,674
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    First of all it's 6 out of 7 you liar, then it was with a huge help on matches on clay (4 consecutive matches on clay 2005 FO, 2006 MC, Rome, FO)

    But then miraculously Nadal after taking out Fed in March 2006 in Dubai failed to beat him on a non-clay surface for another 2,5 years. How's that possible?
    Also, Fed won 5 of the next 7 matches after Nadal's serie.
     
  9. TopFH

    TopFH Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,435
    Federer's Titles Finals: 74/30
    Adjusted: 54/50

    I guess if this had happened then Federer's competition would be tough.
     
  10. Steffi-forever

    Steffi-forever Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2007
    Messages:
    656
    Federer had the gastroenteritis during that match. I remember it very well!
     
  11. big_bill

    big_bill Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    117
    *groan*

    My point was that during Fed's so called "God" years, there simply weren't any players who stepped up to the plate to challenge him. Most of his so called "rivals" lost the match before they even stepped on the court, and therefore Federer was able to dominate over a relatively weak era filled with MENTAL midgets. When viewed OBJECTIVELY, Federer thrived and dominated over a relatively weak era (esp. with regard to MENTAL toughness), pure and simple.
     
  12. TopFH

    TopFH Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,435
    This. Before 2008, the head-to-head was 8-6 in Nadal's favor. Out of those 14 matches, 7 were contested on clay, 5 on hard, and 2 on grass.

    Clay: 6:1 Nadal
    Hard: 3:2 Federer
    Grass: 2:0 Federer

    This makes Nadal's record heavily skewered toward clay, as he won 75% of his match on clay. However on 2008, they played four times, with Nadal winning all of them. At the end of the year, the record was 12-6 in favor of Nadal. Although Nadal won on grass that year, the record was still very skewed towards clay. Even if Federer had won Wimbledon, the record would be 11-7.

    So now:

    Clay: 9:1 Nadal
    Grass: 2:1 Nadal
    Hard: 3:2 Federer

    It was the fact that they did not play on hard and Federer lost Wimbledon that the record is this way.

    Too long to read, Nadal's mental advantage was built on clay, with 10 out of 18 matches being on clay. He won 9, skewing the record.
     
  13. big_bill

    big_bill Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    117
    :lol:...........................
     
  14. TopFH

    TopFH Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,435
    ^The Federer-Nadal rivalry would be actually quite competitive had 2008 not happened.

    2004-2007: 8:6 Nadal
    2009-today: 6-4 Nadal

    H-to-H would be: 14:10 Nadal

    Clay: 9-2 Nadal
    Grass: 2:0 Federer
    Hard: 6:4 Federer

    As you can see, clay skew plus the reality of 2008 being an off year, Nadal and Federer would be really tight.
     
  15. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,674
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    If Federer knew that Nadal was about to become his biggest rival in the future, I'm sure he'd found a way to win and "protect" the h2h. He didn't seem too bothered when he shook hands with Nadal as if to say "well played kid"
     
  16. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,674
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    It's not like Federer is losing left and right these days, he's losing to the very same players who challenged him in some of his prime years - Nadal since 2005 and Djokovic since 2007. Where's the current tough field?

    I guess the "tough opposition" wasn't strong enough to stop Federer when he was on a roll in 2011-2012 winning like 95 % of matches he played in a 6-month span
     
  17. Steffi-forever

    Steffi-forever Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2007
    Messages:
    656
    Why smiling?

    Tennis Magazine (in french) of may 2004 page 41:

    ....Federer, affaibli physiquement par les conséquences d'une inflamation et d'une gastro-enterite...
     
  18. big_bill

    big_bill Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    117
    Fed dominated during a transitional era and beat all the mental midgets that were put in front of him, which is all he could do. He won his Slams fair and square but to suggest that he did it during a challenging, competitive era is simply untrue. The facts speak for themselves.
     
  19. TopFH

    TopFH Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,435
    So if you think an era is weak, it is a fact?

    Also, Federer has won all but four of his matches since the USO to this "tough era". The guys that beat are: Nadal, Isner, Roddick and Djokovic. All players from 2007 and before.
     
  20. big_bill

    big_bill Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    117
    If you grew up idolizing Federer and are emotionally invested in him, there is nothing I can say that will make you change your mind. All I can say is that I've witnessed many generations of tennis players come and go and am giving you my unbiased thoughts. I'm an admirer of Roger and his game but I'm not blinded by the circumstances during his years of total domination.
     
  21. TopFH

    TopFH Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,435
    ^So, in your opinion, is the Nadal-Djokovic era weak?
     
  22. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,410
    Let's not pretend that Nadal, Novak from 2004-07 are the same players post 2008 till now...
     
  23. obsessedtennisfandisorder

    obsessedtennisfandisorder Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Messages:
    936
    Location:
    korea but NZer
    Fed's competition

    Players born within 2 years of Pete>
    GS slams + finals
    agassi
    courier
    martin
    ---
    krajicek
    ferreira
    goran
    chang
    bruguera
    rafter

    if we go out to 4 years...we get too>

    korda
    becker
    stich
    pioline
    ___
    kafelnikov
    enqvist
    rusedski
    henman
    corretja

    ok..with Fed..within 2 years

    safin
    ferrero
    roddick
    hewitt
    nalbandian
    coria
    davydenko
    gonzo


    OK..good group there..but where things get really interesting is within 4 years

    haas
    grosjean
    lubijic
    blake
    kiefer
    ___

    ancic
    soderling
    tsonga
    baggy

    There is distinct lack of class in the 4 yr contemporary list IMHO.

    Kuerten and scud were heavily interupted by injury to challenge fed.

    Haas and grosjean...talented for sure..but same class as pete's competition?

    The point is...due to injury..a big hole found..in the the 76-79 period..although I agree carlos moya great player is primarily clay first...

    put another way..check out how many slams were in 2003 wimby QF's = 0
     
  24. Sid_Vicious

    Sid_Vicious G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Messages:
    11,683
    Location:
    In The City
    This thread is now destined for 20 additional pages worth of posts.
     
  25. obsessedtennisfandisorder

    obsessedtennisfandisorder Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Messages:
    936
    Location:
    korea but NZer
    OOps sorry..LOL..great reply..yes this has been done adnauseum.

    nadal's competition btw ha been very tough and he has ten slams and counting

    I forgot to do and age comparison for him
     
  26. bjsnider

    bjsnider Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,063
    Agreed. Nadal has faced terribly tough competition, not only from his two peers Murray and Djokovic, but from Jo Tsonga, Soddy, Berdych, and the tail end of the Federer prime years.

    The one area where Nadal has been lucky is that there aren't any other clay greats at the moment. Guga Kuerten retired just as Nadal made his run at RG. Nadal would have competed in RG 2003,04 except he was injured both times. He'd been beating Moya on clay since he was around 12, so I think it's reasonable to think he would have ended up against Kuerten at both tournaments. That would have been fun.

    But in the 1990s there was Muster, Bruguera (who owns a winning record against Pistol Pete), Agassi, Courier, Moya, and Kuerten. That's a logjam at the top if there ever was one.
     
  27. tlm

    tlm Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2004
    Messages:
    7,485
    This post is fact not fiction like you fed lovers are dreaming about.
     
  28. Sid_Vicious

    Sid_Vicious G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Messages:
    11,683
    Location:
    In The City
    Wow, dude. You put up a hell of an argument. Quoting another Nadal lovers quote and claiming it contains facts?


    We are totally convinced.
     
  29. SoBad

    SoBad Legend

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    7,558
    Location:
    shiran
    Getting ripped by hip-busted Kuerten and grass-green Nadal in slams tells you the story right there.
     
  30. big_bill

    big_bill Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    117
    They're both only 25 yo so it's too early to say. The story is still unfolding and we don't have enough information. In 5-7 years we'll be able to look back and examine their careers (and that of their rivals and contemporaries) with a much better perspective and see how things stack up --without all the emotion.
     
  31. TopFH

    TopFH Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,435
    Although I may not agree with you, I grant you that you are one of the most objective and reasonable posters this forum has. Cheers!
     
  32. TopFH

    TopFH Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,435
    Nadal-Djokovic era is from 2008 onwards...
     
  33. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    LOL, not even then. Roger was still #2 by the end of 2008 and got back the #1 ranking in 2009. Roger was also #2 in 2010. More like from 2011 till now with Roger at 30. Yeah, groundbreaking stuff :lol:
     
  34. big_bill

    big_bill Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    117
    Thanks and cheers to you as well. Let's hope ALL the contenders raise and sustain their level with the Olympics right around the corner. That way we don't have to debate whether 2012 was a "weak field" or not :).
     
  35. TopFH

    TopFH Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,435
    LOL, my bad. Yeah, Nadalovic has just started.
     
  36. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Gaudio won a major in the Federer/Nadal era. So did Del Potro, a player who hasnt even been able to win a Masters title. Soderling reached 2 slam finals at the same event in back to back years, a marginal player compared to even those you mentioned. Berdych reached a Wimbledon final. So dont be so sure on your claim.
     
  37. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Nadal accomplished way more in the 2008-2010 period than Federer did (26-29 year old Federer, not 30 year old Federer). That period was much more the Nadal era than it ever was the Federer era. Nadal was light years better in 2010, way better in 2008, and only marginally worse (due to injuries alone) in 2009. Also being better than a 17-20 year old Nadal is no stupendous feat, the only Nadal which Federer was ever better than for any substained period.
     
  38. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Actually Federer losing at Wimbledon in recent years has helped his H2H with Nadal. Had they played at Wimbledon 2010 and 2011 as most expected them to, Federer would likely have a 2-3 and losing record vs Nadal on grass now, but was able to preserve his winning record by losing earlier than expected at Wimbledon both years. It will be interesting to see if Federer can avoid playing Nadal on grass ever again to keep this advantage preserved.

    As for hard courts, Federer trails Nadal on outdoor hard courts 5-2 and has always trailed on outdoor hard courts. He owns Nadal indoors since Nadal is pretty much useles indoors thus far in his career, no other reason really. Of course it detracts from Nadal somewhat that he is a very bad player indoors, but it also shows the only places Federer has been able to overcome Nadal apart from holding back a very good Nadal in the 2007 Wimbledon final despite being badly crushed from the baseline all day long, is a 19 year old Nadal in his fluke early appearance in a Wimbledon final, and Nadal indoors where he basically sucks. Never on clay obviously, never on outdoor hard courts in any real way, never on grass when Nadal was any good on the surface apart from that lone occasion in the 07 final where Federer had to pull off one of his most determined efforts ever to win.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 3, 2012
  39. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,674
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    The 2004 FO is the last really "open" major, Gaudio took his chance and won, good for him.

    Del Potro had to go through both Nadal and Federer to win the 2009 US Open. Who from the 90's would you pick to do so, other than maybe Sampras?

    The rest are finalists which I don't care about, there have been fluky finalists in every era and that won't change, heck Berdych played in a Wimbledon final not more than 2 years ago.
     
  40. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,674
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    You assume that domination is impossible cause it means that the era was weak.

    Also the "tough competition" as you call it hasn't really change that much in the last 5 years or so, only Djokovic was added at the top but players ranked 5th and lower are pretty much useless compared to the same group of 2004.
     
  41. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,674
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
    Once again, it's all Federer's fault that the h2h is still "in his favor". Let's just dismiss the fact that Nadal during all those years was good enough to only meet him on clay and only occasionally on other surfaces.

    Why won't you use the arguement that Federer is skewing the h2h because he hasn't faced Nadal on clay this year yet?
     
  42. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    A 18-21 year old Federer, the so called hard court GOAT according to ****s, wasnt even able to make it past the round of 16 of a single hard court slam. He couldnt even make it past the round of 16 at the U.S Open until age 23 (lol). Yet lets now blame 18-21 year old Nadal, the so called hard court mug, luckiest U.S Open, Australian Open, Olympic, Indian Wells multiple times over, etc...winner in history, for not making hard court slam finals and semis at that age. Great stuff. Also lets blame Nadal for not making the Wimbledon final until something like his 4th grass tournament ever. He should have made it at age 16 and 17.
     
  43. Swissv2

    Swissv2 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    2,491
    Location:
    Tennis Courts!
    This thread is now officially dead. The arguments I see getting thrown back and forth is like the old time scientists passionately arguing that the sun revolved around the earth. It's kinda like the majority of posters have been reduced to the "girls" rooting for "Team Fed" and the other "girls" rooting for "Team Nadal".


    Well let me tell you kids something...their skin does not sparkle in the sun.
     
  44. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,552
    You really have to make up your mind here. Federer has faced subpar competition and Nadal has faced terribly tough competition... in the same players?!? :confused:

    So either you mean "Federer has faced subpar competition *for him*" and "Nadal has faced terribly tough competition *for him*", ie "Federer is so much better than Nadal that we should use different yardsticks to measure their respective achievements", or this makes no sense at all.

    Have to disagree on that one, too. Not going back to your (previous) long post, but you said in this one, basically, that the 90's were much more competitive because Sampras had Agassi as a rival. Truth is, though, that Agassi wasn't there for most of Sampras' era, and you could argue that Pistol Pete thrived because he had absolutely no rival (Agassi was basically there in 94/95, then came back in 99 to overtake Sampras). The rest of the time, you could argue that Sampras was alone at the top, against guys who made a good run for a few months, got to the #1 spot (because he wasn't good enough to stop them/couldn't be bothered to put in the effort) and then faded. I mean, just look at your shortlist above. Courier just disappeared when he lost the #1 spot, and the others were claycourters, with Sampras being a total non-factor on clay anyway. So their being there or not had no bearing at all on his career (Muster, Bruguera, Moya, and Kuerten took a combined 0 slam out of him off clay). And you're basically left with Agassi, who won a grand total of 2 slams to Sampras' 10 during the years when Pete was #1 (plus 2 to 1 in 99). So not much of a challenge, all things considered.

    Using the argument that "Federer didn't lose enough" to show that his competition was subpar is circular reasoning, and the smallest amount of logic shows that it is hopelessly flawed. The only thing that Federer's results show is that, during his prime, he was so much better than the rest of the field (except Nadal on clay). Not necessarily that the field was weak, mind you. This is just a *possibility*. Just like it is possible that Federer was just so much better and would have won several calendar grand slams had he played in an era without any rival, like Sampras in the 90's. Either or both are just as likely, there's just no way of knowing.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2012
  45. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    Nadal won 6 slams in that period. Roger won four. That isn't way more. At some point, Roger was going to drop. You were saying?

    The point is Djokovic was nowhere in the equation during the period. Federer era or not is irrelevant. If people are going to slight Roger for not winning majors in a period Djokovic wasn't giant, the same is easily applicable to Nadal who, infact, and unlike Roger, didn't win a single match against Djokovic in a major, in his peak year.

    Yeah, cool. Nadal got better in the year Roger got worse due to mono. Happens :). Then he had a drop the very next year and was back up again in 2010 when all his rivals, including Roger were slumping big time. See what I did there? :)

    Being better than a favourable match-up (Roger) having mono for a while, slumping, and also having back problems in a two year period isn't something stupendous either. Two can play that game.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2012
  46. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    Yes, and? If Nadal is so good according to you 'tards, he should be able to match or better Roger at 30 since you seem so keen on bringing up Roger's early years. Nadal was already a major champion by 19. If it took him FOUR years after his first major to muster up a Hard Court major final, that will be held against him if you're going to hold Roger not making the 2010/2011 finals at Wimbledon, at 29/30 and carrying injuries both times, particularly in 2010, against him. Now go back to your cave.

    And what's with the constant dismissal of indoors from fans who get their knickers in a twist if somebody brings up clay, which infact skews the H2H far more than indoors ever has. Not to mention, nearly all of the Roger-Nadal outdoor HC meetings have been on terribly slow, high-bouncing courts in the first half of the year. Yeah, earth-shattering stuff again :lol:
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2012
  47. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,094
    It is useless to continue an arguing if the argument you pointed is not listened. As you said, we only know that Federer was better thant his opponents, and we can't know if it was because they were weak, or if he was great. And it is the same for ALL champion. Nadal dominated 2008 and 2010, but we have no idea if it was because he is so good or if the opposition just wasn't there.

    Personnaly I prefer to congratulate the winner and I acknowledge the domination of each players: Federer, then Nadal, then Djokovic, even if I agree that we could argue endlessy about the valor of the opponents. Was Nadal at his "true" level last year? Is Murray, a very consistent player, a more difficult opponent in slam final than Andy Roddick?
     
  48. DRII

    DRII Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Messages:
    6,410
    So you think a player who announces himself with one of the best years in tennis history is not that big a deal :confused:

    And you also think that Nadal is the same player he was in 2004 :confused:

    Nice try, but your rebuttal is weak.

    Point is; the competition level is higher post 2008 than between 2004-07. Post 2008 we have 3 open era greats competing, 2004-07 there was only one.
     
  49. merlinpinpin

    merlinpinpin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    2,552
    Bolded part: you're not making one point, but two, that is:

    (1) Post 2008 we have 3 open era greats competing
    (2) 2004-07 there was only one

    However, this doesn't mean that competition is higher in (1) than in (2). You *may* have a point if you were consistent in your reasoning and started by stating the fact that the weakest era in the Open Era was the 90's (which is consistent with the arguments you're bringing forward). Unfortunately, that's not what you are saying, so I'm afraid you come across as someone with an agenda.

    As to the part in blue, you seem to have no trouble thinking that Federer is the same player he was in 2004, so yet again, double standards = poster with an agenda. As long as you stay away from fair thinking, there's no way you can get around this.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2012
  50. Flash O'Groove

    Flash O'Groove Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,094
    Open era greats do not have the same level of plays each year, so it doesn't mean anything. Djokovic was already here but he wasn't a great until 2011, while Federer wasn't good too in 2008 and 2010.

    Otherwise, why do you discount Nadal and Agassi of your count of Open era greats? Agassi was there until 2005, Nadal since 2005.

    And you don't take into account that some players may have become open era greats had they not met Federer in 3 slam final and two semi-final? Of course players from 2004-2005 have a poor palmares because of Federer, just like Fed has a "poor" one at RG because of Nadal.
     

Share This Page