Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by 6-1 6-3 6-0, Apr 29, 2013.
Just the slams, no contest Nadal. Winning slams on 3 different surfaces > Winning slams on 2 different, and the Australian is still the least prestigious slam so if you are going to miss out one that is the best one. Overall year you could say Federer was better, but just the slams it is defnitely Nadal.
I know the Nadal crybabies will whine about his draws but reality check for those idiots:
French Open- laughable to even consider anyong beating Nadal there at this point. Next. PS- the only guy who ever did or ever came close was his finals victim in brutal fashion, so we can say he had his toughest possible draw as his only legit RG opponent at the time he faced.
Wimbledon- Neither Federer or Djokovic were even coming close to beating him in the form there were in then. Berdych saved them from a likely humiliating beatdown worse than the one Berdych himself received in the final. His toughest opponent given respective form was Murray who he still beat in straight sets.
U.S Open- Djokovic did play him and lost, as he did even more easily when they met at the WTF on Nadals worst court later that year. Federer hasnt beaten Nadal in a slam since 2007, and was never beating an on fire Nadal here. Murray was the only one with a shot (besides Djokovic who had his and lost), and he couldnt even beat Wawrinka so...
Now if you want to talk about weak draws take a look at Federers draw at the Nadal absent 06 Australian Open, or the draws of both Federer and baby Nadal to get to the 06 Wimbledon final. Talk about a joke.
I say fed. His wimbledon draw could have been dicey in 06. He also beat rafa in the final, avenging his fo loss a month earlier.
He stopped an absoluetly on fire bagdhatis at the AO too.
One cannot forget how weak the top 10 was in 2010. And nadal's draw, or rather, the way his draw opened up at 2010 uso was unbelievable
3 slams versus 3 slams. Looks simple to me.
Who cares Nadal won on 3 surfaces - Federer was undefeated in hard court slams - the most competitive surface of them all.
Besides the US open was handed to Nadal. Kudos to him, though, that was his last chance of winning a HC slam and he used it, now he can only pray about beating Djokovic in the AO or US Open.
What's bigger - 3 or 3? Last time I checked the AO was still a slam, just like the FO, Wimbledon or the US Open. Wake me up when it's downgraded.
Besides, look at who Djokovic beat at the AO in the last 3 years. I don't see anyone mentioning that Djokovic is currently the worst 6-slam winner because he won 4 of his slams at the AO.
I get it. Nadal plays nobodies = he would've won anyway. Federer plays nobodies = paethetic draw.
See above. 2006 Wimbledon - Federer beats Nadal in the final = Nadal too young and no experience. Nadal beats Berdych = Berdych was in form and Nadal would've humiliated Federer and Djokovic in the final. Next.
Nadal's 2010 US Open has to be up there with the biggest cupcake draws ever, Youzhny, Verdasco in the QF/SF, an exhausted Djokovic coming off one of his biggest wins to date who had energy for 3 sets.
So the same argument doesn't apply to Federer? Nadal plays nobodies - he would've beaten them, Federer plays nobodies = weak draw.
2006 AO - Federer would've beaten him anyway. Or more like - Nadal would lose to someone like Haas or Baghdatis
2006 Wimbledon - Federer would've beaten Nadal anyway. See how easy it was.
How about RF's run back to world number one?
Fed's 2006 > Fed's 2007 > Fed's 2004 > Nad's 2010
he did play blake at the us open in the quarters
Really? Is that why Nadal lost a year before to Soderling of all people? While its true Nadal won FO since, its not been an easy ride. Even Isner took him to 5 on clay. But fine, let's say this one is Rafa's guarantee card, moving on...
No. LOL. Nadal does not destroy Federer/Djokovic on grass, no matter which form he's at. He barely got passed Fed on 2008 when Fed was at his absolute worse and Nadal was peaking. Murray was a clown back then, hes matured since. Berdych is Nadal's lapdog. Nadal was lucky to not face Fedjokovic that year. Heck, Nadal was lucky to get passed the 3rd round where HE CHEATED to get the win in 5 sets. I don't even consider Nadal as W10 champion, there was no champion that year, there was Nadal who cheated on 3rd round and somehow stole his way to the trophy.
Djokovic came to the final after nearly losing to Federer in 5, where Nadal pretty much had a cake walk to the final, getting embaressing opponents in the process. When on form, Djokovic is just the superior HC player in this h2h, there's nothing else to add really. Nadal was simply lucky that year.
The only joke I've seen is your post. It did give me a good laugh though, so kudos for that. :twisted:
Federer 2004 > 2007
It's a toss up. After all, both only won 3 majors in the year, not all four.
Close means nothing. He cannot absorb the glow of an achievement he never earned, so in the end, the OP's subject is just a toss up--or equal as you point out...just for different reasons.
I appreciate how much thought NSK puts into these troll posts. It was a very thoughtful touch to only capitalize Rafael Nadal. Fortunately, even the most annoying zealots in the world can't do a thing about the following display of greatness.
I'm sure NSK will be back with some inane drivel about Rafael Nadal being the first man in world history to win a title in pink, but next time I won't bother clicking on 'View Post'. It's a much nicer experience to have it condemned to the Ignore List.
I almost forgot:
I'm surprised NSK decided to show his face again after Djokovic ripping Nadal at his favourite tournament
I actually don't think it's a Nadal fan. I think it pretends to be just to stir up Nadal hatred.
In 2010? Are you joking? He beat Nadal at the AO and again in the semi-finals of Toronto before going on to beat Federer in the final, all in straight sets. He went on to straight-set Federer again in the final of Shanghai. He almost beat Nadal in the semi-finals of the WTF. He may have been inconsistent that year but a clown? If all that made him a clown I shudder to think what that made Djokovic who didn't make a single Masters final that year not to mention everybody else ranked below him?
sorry I missed that. And Blake was ranked 7 in the world at the time.
If people really want to relate this to a calendar year slam then Federer's year was miles, miles, miles better than Nadal's.
Nadal's attempt came unstuck in his 5th match into the series needed to achieve a CYS. Federer, by contrast, came unstuck in the 14th match. That's almost a ratio of 3 to 1.
Everything that happened after those matches is irrelevant in terms of achieving the CYS - the goose was already cooked.
Another one of these partisan made-up-on-the-spot records that only apply to a limited period even within the open era you mean? If so, I agree.
While achieving majors across three surfaces may be a great achievement, it is not a record. There is no register that keeps tabs of such achievements other than on boards like this.
I think that the level of Federer love on this thread is ridiculous. Using WTF and AO results to justify that Federer's wins are greater than Nadal's is ridiculous. Nadal's wins were on three surfaces, as well as containing the Wimbledon-RG double. In my furry and cuddly opinion, Nadal's accomplishment is better on paper.
However, that said, Federer would have won RG many times if not for Nadal and this near-perfection is what makes him GOAT. Those years where he won everything save RG will never be matched.
The question was not whose year as a whole was better, Rafa's 2010 or Roger 2006. The question was just simply whose 3 slam victory performance was better.
federer won 3 grand slams in a calender year 3 times ie 2004, 2006 and 2007
on the other hand nadal achieved this feat only once ie in 2010
whereas nadal won slams on 3 different surfaces ie clay, grass and hard court as stated by OP
as opposed to 2 surfaces by federer
I go with Federer. i dont think you can really compare them as I highly doubt that Nadal was 'clean' in 2010.
Both years their achievements were heavily inflated due to the weak/crappy competition they both faced.
Clean or not, he's not going 92-5 in a single season.
Nadal did face quite easy competition than Federer in the slams; Soderling at FO, Berdych at Wimbledon and a slumping Djokovic at US Open. Not to menton Nadal had to drop out before losing to Murray at AO, which by the way, I think Murray would have won regardless of Nadal being injured or not. Whereas Federer was able to beat guys like Haas, Davydenko and an on-fire Baghdatis (who was outplaying Federer for a while), his Wimbledon draw was quite weak but managed to beat Nadal, the only two good grass courters were Roddick and Hewitt who were both **** that year, then managed to beat Blake at his best, Davydenko at his best then Roddick who was full of confidence. Federer made all 4 finals. Nadal didn't.
At worst it's a tie.
Obviously rafa's was a better achievement because it was done on 3 different surfaces.
Why not Fed fanatics, read the Op's simple question. he was clearly "SLAMS" in the title.
So the winner is Nadal. Has Fed won 3 slams on 3 different surfaces? NO.
Federer made all four slams finals. Nadal didn't. Period.
Roger federer's 3 slams in 2006, of course.
Period - because you say so? Who said winning on more surfaces is the most important criteria? Federer won both hard court slams - the only surface where everyone on tour can play. I guess that counts for nothing.
3 slams = 3 slams. PERIOD. Unless you can't do simple math.
It's like making a thread "Which was greater - Federer's 3 Masters in 2012 or Nadal's 3 Masters in 2010?"
They are about even.
Nadal won 3 slams only in 2010, whereas Federer has won 3 slam in 2004, 2006, and 2007. I don't know why you had singled out 2006. But to me as long as Nadal or someone else can repeat that feat, Federer's achievement stands alone.
Oh, you mean Soderling, Berdych, and Djokovic, all of whom BEAT Federer in those same tournaments!!!
AO= slow HC. USO = Fast HC. They're two different surfaces alright.
In terms of just those three slams, maybe about even, since Nadal seemed the most versatile across surfaces at that time compared to any other time of his career. He was actually aggressive at USO2010, instead of standing back and pretending 100% of tennis courts in the world are clay and getting away with it. But add in the fourth slam and Federer wins since he was 2 sets away from the Grand Slam.
Love your opinion. I especially love the part about the double.
Federer has also never won the MC-RG double, or the MC-Barcelona double, etc etc. There are some triples there also, left as an exercise for the reader.
Rebound Ace was a fast HC.
He was still very incosistent, his Wimbledon performence proved that. He could beat the top guys at times but he could also lose to nobodys.
AO 2007 Fed performence > anything in 2004.
But Fed won Cincy 2007
And Fed's 2006 > Fed's 2007
Therefore Fed's 2006 > Nad's 2010
That US Open final in 04 was pretty spectacular...
Yeah, because Nadal wasn't on the other side of the net...
Hewitt in 2004 played better than Nadal that year, proof is in the pudding. Lost to him at the Australian Open of 2004 and the Australian Open of 2005. Nadal would have really struggled against Federer, he might take a set but he would lose.
lol Fed crushes Nadal in the poll, what a surprise.
Nadal is just one big fail at everything.
Yeah the 2004 version of Nadal sure. But not prime Nadal.
Well, current Nadal would struggle. 2011, 2010 and 2008 Nadal may win, but anything before then and he's toast. I assumed you were referring to current Nadal.
Nobody cares. Hewitt was on a 16 match win streak and his record at the US Open is as good as Nadal's. It was a dominant win against a good opponent. Didn't realize only slam wins versus Rafa count...
Well you better get with the program and fast son. :lol:
Prime Nadal wouldn't have beaten Hewitt in 2004. Especially when the court was faster.
Actually, Laver has the "absolute record". Twice.
Separate names with a comma.