merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
I guess your only excuse is that you didn't watch tennis at the time, so good thing Wikipedia helps you keep up on who was playing at the time, no?
Nadal has officially lost the "age advantage" over Federer
- Thread starter tennis_pro
- Start date
I guess your only excuse is that you didn't watch tennis at the time, so good thing Wikipedia helps you keep up on who was playing at the time, no?
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
I guess your only excuse is that you didn't watch tennis at the time, so good thing Wikipedia helps you keep up on who was playing at the time, no?
You shouldn't guess anymore, you're not very good at it.
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
Oh, you mean you don't have any excuse at all? I should have known...
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
LOL GTFO, troll
Federer won more majors since Nadal's first victory (2005 FO) than Nadal's career total. If anything, Nadal can feel lucky that at his peak he faced an older subar version Federer at Wimbledon/AO, he wouldn't even get close to beating him in Federer was anything close to his peak
beast of mallorca
G.O.A.T.
Ha ha ha .....comedy silver. Good one. At least he had a comedy doubles gold :twisted::twisted:
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
You're comparing the blue clay like surface used at the AO to still considered fast (but used to be faster) decoturf used at the US?
Gooby, please...
zagor
Bionic Poster
By and large Nadal and Fed faced the same field, there's only 2 year difference between their first slam victories.
Sorry but before you use Murray as a contemporary who would supposedly reduce Fed's slam count he has to you know first actually beat Fed in a slam.
Regarding Nadal and Novak, if they were direct contemporaries of Fed they would lose out as well (aside from Nadal at FO obviously), all 3 would negatively affect each other's careers (if all of them were the same age there's a chance Nadal wouldn't win a slam off clay for example), not to mention that:
-Fed has proved his longevity and we've yet to see how Nadal, Novak and Murray will age.
-The field out of the top 4 (especially the young guns) is pretty lackluster (to say the least) so if the other top 3 declines faster & to a higher degree than Fed (in this hypotethical scenario obviously) then Fed would clean up and more than make up for the # of slams he lost during his peak years.
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
pds also obviously believes that, the more a player ages, the better he gets. As evidenced by Roddick, for example...
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
That's exactly it. One would have a point if the competition was stiff these days. It hasn't been the case so far. There's no-one aged 23 or younger who has even a remote chance of winning a major in the current era.
The top 4 have virtual byes to the semi-finals in every tournament, that's why Federer at 31 (obviously he's the GOAT which "helps" in this case) is making major semi-finals for fun and with Nadal out he's THE or one of the top 2 favorites for the US Open this year.
If Nadal, Djokovic, Murray (well, screw Murray he can't win sets against an old Federer in majors, how is he going to beat peak Federer on any surface?) were born somewhere in 1980-1982 they would all be 30 now, Nadal would've won the French Open in 2000 or so, Djokovic would already be in the top 3 in 2001-2002. If they can't prove they can play well later in their career it means that Federer has actually faced them all in their best years and he's still winning a bunch of matches against them.
Last edited:
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
beast of mallorca
G.O.A.T.
Didn't study that cycle in school huh ? Read on it and you might learn something.
RF20Lennon
Legend
you do realize plexicushion and deco-turf both play differently right?? plexicushion kicks the ball up higher does causing issues to players with nadals spin. Im not saying he wouldnt have won but delp was too hot even for non injury rafa
sunof tennis
Professional
"By 3 times or so.." huh? Let's see. Second grade math-10 X 3 = 18 (I don't think that is right...)
Here's an interesting year by year look at Nadal/Sampras/Federer's Total Slam count at the equivalent ages:
Nadal 2005: 1
Sampras 1990:1
Federer 2000:0
Nadal 2006: 2
Sampras 1991: 1
over Federer 2001: 0
Nadal 2007: 3
Sampras 1992: 1
Federer 2002: 0
Nadal 2008: 5
Sampras 1993: 3
Federer 2003: 1
Nadal 2009: 6
Sampras 1994: 5
Federer 2004: 4
Nadal 2010: 9
Sampras 1995: 7
Federer 2005: 6
Nadal 2011: 10
Federe 2006: 9
Sampras 1996: 8
Federer 2007: 12
Nadal 2012: 11
Sampras 1997: 10
Nadal 2005: 1
Sampras 1990:1
Federer 2000:0
Nadal 2006: 2
Sampras 1991: 1
over Federer 2001: 0
Nadal 2007: 3
Sampras 1992: 1
Federer 2002: 0
Nadal 2008: 5
Sampras 1993: 3
Federer 2003: 1
Nadal 2009: 6
Sampras 1994: 5
Federer 2004: 4
Nadal 2010: 9
Sampras 1995: 7
Federer 2005: 6
Nadal 2011: 10
Federe 2006: 9
Sampras 1996: 8
Federer 2007: 12
Nadal 2012: 11
Sampras 1997: 10
beast of mallorca
G.O.A.T.
Rafa may or may not win another one, but until he officially retires, nobody knows. The same goes for Fed
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Yes you are 100% correct, deco is definitely not the same as plexi. BUT Rafa doesn't play the same at AO and USO either. USO Rafa tries to be more aggressive because he knows he will not be able to defend on that HC, whereas the high bouncing plexicushion allows Rafa to be a bit more defensive.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Since when do you need an excuse for being right?
LOL I shouldn't be surprised at the stupidity of a ****, but I am
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
The fact you call it blue clay shows you know NOTHING about tennis.
Did you not see what happened when there actually WAS a tournament with blue clay??? It favored FED LMAO.
Anyway, I already explained my reasoning behind that in a previous post, if you're curious enough, scroll up and have a look and then STFU because you know I'm right.
cluckcluck
Hall of Fame
I'm sure this was said somewhere in the 19 pages of this thread, Nadal is the GOAT on CLAY. Federer is the GOAT of TENNIS.
You need to factor in everything not just cherry pick a few criteria you've chosen above. Both players have holes...while Nadal has no WTF, but Sampras has no FO. Sampras has 6 yrs #1, but Nadal has 21 Master Series. If Nadal win 15 slams, he'll improve in some of the stats(e.g. total titles), and I would rate him above Sampras.
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
Since when do you need an excuse for being right?
LOL I shouldn't be surprised at the stupidity of a ****, but I am
Oh, so you don't understand English either? Right, stands to reason.
Let's go for the long version, then: Oh, you mean you don't have any excuse at all for not knowing anything about tennis? I should have known...
You're welcome.
beast of mallorca
G.O.A.T.
What a stupid comeback. :twisted:
kishnabe
Talk Tennis Guru
Pschology 101! I think they added an extra step to that cycle. Forgot what it was.
It been 4years since I took that course.
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
Changed accounts already? Or just helping a soulmate in distress?
beast of mallorca
G.O.A.T.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
I, unlike you, actually watch tennis matches throughout the year (and for a good couple of years now) and can see with my naked eye which surfaces are slow or fast. The blue hard courts used at the AO are considered extremely slow (at least for a hard court), probably even slower than Miami. The blue clay used at the Madrid tournament, however, was medium fast, therefore not favoring any particular group of players (ballbashers, grinders, counterpunchers). The only reason Federer won (and Nadal/Djokovic lost) is because he can adapt well to any conditions unlike Nadal and Djokovic who heavily rely on their footwork/defensive skills.
Similar threads
