Who is better Rafael Nadal or Roger Federer?

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by tr0ni0, Jul 25, 2006.

  1. tr0ni0

    tr0ni0 New User

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Messages:
    11
    Rafael Nadal currently has the upperhand on Federer 6-2. But it is obvious who is better. Roger may lose to Nadal but Rafa, unlike Roger, actually loses to other players (Clement, Blake, Moya, Hewitt). So I guess the real question is if they played each other 100 times who would have more wins?
     
    #1
  2. MonkeyPox

    MonkeyPox Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2005
    Messages:
    442
    This is a new topic, who is better, Federer or Nadal. I've never thought about that. Let's discuss. After that, we can start a thread on Seles vs. Graf. I don't think that's been covered either.
     
    #2
  3. d_frank

    d_frank Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Messages:
    242
    his 1st post is about this. that might be a record.
     
    #3
  4. snoflewis

    snoflewis Guest

    and then we can compare federer/sampras, and then safin's temper/ivanicevic's temper, and then rdx500/rds001, and so on!!!!
     
    #4
  5. Mick

    Mick Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    8,363
    it depends on the court surfaces.

    Clay courts - Nadal will have more wins
    Grass & Hard courts - Federer will have more wins
     
    #5
  6. tr0ni0

    tr0ni0 New User

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Messages:
    11
    everyone needs to chillax! Got it? Good.
     
    #6
  7. chinese dragon

    chinese dragon New User

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2006
    Messages:
    39
    this is a stupid thread because you cant compare the two...theres really no way to actually prove whos better...its all in your opinions
     
    #7
  8. dandy2fast

    dandy2fast Rookie

    Joined:
    May 4, 2006
    Messages:
    191
    Aren't the results in slams, and rankings, here to prove who is better?
     
    #8
  9. DMich

    DMich New User

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2006
    Messages:
    25
    Why are we even entertaining this?
     
    #9
  10. The Pusher Terminator

    The Pusher Terminator Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,927
    Slams won by the age of 20:

    Nadal: 2

    Roger: 0

    World records held by the age of 20:

    Nadal: 1

    Fed: 0

    Highest ranking by the age of 20:

    Nadal: 2

    Fed: I dont think he was in the top 10.
     
    #10
  11. dandy2fast

    dandy2fast Rookie

    Joined:
    May 4, 2006
    Messages:
    191
    The question is not who is/was the best 20 years old player, the question is "who is the best".
     
    #11
  12. The Pusher Terminator

    The Pusher Terminator Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,927
    Then you agree at 20 Nadal was better than Fed at 20?
     
    #12
  13. chinese dragon

    chinese dragon New User

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2006
    Messages:
    39
    you cant compare the two, roger is getting close to his prime and nadal is just starting...maybe you can compare after they both retire...just a suggestion
     
    #13
  14. Nadal-inator

    Nadal-inator New User

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2006
    Messages:
    31
    agree with chinese dragon all the way
     
    #14
  15. InvisibleSoul

    InvisibleSoul Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,929
    Yes.

    Does it mean anything in the big picture? No.

    Nadal being better at 20 does not mean he will end up with a better career than Federer.
     
    #15
  16. Breaker

    Breaker Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2005
    Messages:
    7,726
    So by your criteria Chang should have been the GOAT :rolleyes: .
     
    #16
  17. Gilgamesh

    Gilgamesh Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    423
    Becker was better than Fed at 20.

    But who is better Becker or Fed at 25 or career wise?
     
    #17
  18. monfils

    monfils Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Messages:
    259
    If Nadal 6-2 in the head to head then he is better than Federer. Nadal leads head to head on hard and clay. Federer leads on grass. Nadal was injured for the first three months of the year. Nadal is clearly the better 20 year old, infact nadal is argubly the best 20 year old.
     
    #18
  19. Eviscerator

    Eviscerator Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,709
    Location:
    S. Florida
    LOL @ chillax. I am guessing it is a new word coming out of middle school?:mrgreen:

    Try using the search feature on this subject. Assuming your CPU does not overload and blow up, you might find that this subject has been discussed a few times already.:roll:
     
    #19
  20. The Pusher Terminator

    The Pusher Terminator Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,927
    Although my predictions have ALMOST always been correct...you are right....I cannot see into the future. I can only predict based on current facts.

    Therefore following that line of logic at the rate of grandslams Nadal is winning per year we can pretty much count on about another 7 French opens by the time he is 27. Thats 9 grand slams!! If he wins a US open or a Australian or even a Wimby the numbers go up even more!!

    Furthermore, when Nadal is 27 Fed will be 31 years old and most probably retired. Nadal will then have the whole field open to him and will be winning even more slams.
     
    #20
  21. dandy2fast

    dandy2fast Rookie

    Joined:
    May 4, 2006
    Messages:
    191
    Of course I do, isn't it obvious enough to suffer no contradiction?

    But it simply doesn't say anything about how their carreer records will compare when they will both be retired.
     
    #21
  22. Tchocky

    Tchocky Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Messages:
    3,815
    Location:
    The OC
    Could someone please creat a poll for this topic?:D
     
    #22
  23. bluescreen

    bluescreen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,636
    but the chances r slim that roger and nadal will be the only 2 extremely dominating players for the next seven years, w/ no others players coming to the fore. as they get older, they wear down. i would think nadal's game would deteriorate some in the next seven years, ginving an opening for other players to win on clay and any other surface.
     
    #23
  24. dandy2fast

    dandy2fast Rookie

    Joined:
    May 4, 2006
    Messages:
    191
    BULLSHI.T


    Therefore following the exact same line of logic than yours, at the rate Nadal get injured due to his playing style asking too much too his body, we can pretty much consider that Nadal will be a retired player at a much younger age than 27.

    Here is an other way to follow the same kind of logic as yours : Since his arrival as a top player Nadal wins 1 slam per year, compare to Federer who wins an average of 2.54 slams per year since he reached the #1 spot, then let's assume that they will both retire at the same age, and choose any age you want for their retirement, do the math yourself and you will see that the stats are in Federer's favor, by far.
     
    #24
  25. The Pusher Terminator

    The Pusher Terminator Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,927
    interesting analysis...but sadly mistaken. There has never been a player like Nadal before. He has the legs of a soccer player (because he really played soccer semi-professionally) and the upper body of a football player. Nadal is no stringbean and his body was made to last.

    The only comparison I can make is Borg. Although not nearly as strong as Nadal, Borg was probably the most fit player of his day and he also had a very physical style. Borg retired at 26 ranked #2 in the world...but not because he was physically tired.....but mainly because he could not stand being ranked #2 in the world. By analogy, If Fed had lost Wimby I think he would have crumbled as well...not physically but mentally.

    Therefore, following that line of logic...if Borg lasted physically then clearly nadal can as well. The difference between Borg and Nadal however is that Nadal is the new kid on the block with absolutely nothing to lose. Therefore he will last mentally while if Roger rests for a minute he will fall to #2 and crack just as Borg did. I would rather be in nadals shoes....I would always rather be the hunter than the hunted. Fed cannot rest...he better watch out at the US Open...his career depends on it....here is the analogy:

    Mcenroe is to Borg as Nadal is to Federer...

    the names and faces have changed...but the fight is still the same. The first time around the serve and volleyer won but this time around its the baseliners turn.
     
    #25
  26. dandy2fast

    dandy2fast Rookie

    Joined:
    May 4, 2006
    Messages:
    191
    Nadal's body was made for last?:confused:

    The fact that he is so often injured proves the opposite.
     
    #26
  27. The Pusher Terminator

    The Pusher Terminator Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,927
    time will tell...Didnt everyone also predict Roddick would throw his arm out?
     
    #27
  28. dandy2fast

    dandy2fast Rookie

    Joined:
    May 4, 2006
    Messages:
    191
    No you can't compare borg and Nadal, their game were different, Borg was the one who used to control the center of the court and made his opponants run away from side to side chasing down the balls, Nadal on the other side is almost always the one who madly run to chase down the balls, he almost never control the center of the court. That is why Nadal's game is clearly more demanding than Borg's

    I'd rather be the #1 than the #2 :cool:


    No the first time around the baseliner won <Borg>, don't forget that Borg won more slams than Mac Enroe, and is considered higher in the hierarchy of the greatests players of all times. Get the facts straight please.
     
    #28
  29. Marat Safinator

    Marat Safinator Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Messages:
    765
    wtf? thats the past, this i the present, who is no.1? FEDERER
     
    #29
  30. Shamo

    Shamo New User

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    64
    judging from your language you try to sound like a smart tennis analyst but you are not, instead you are pretty much a federer hater and nadal lover, instead of giving more facts for your theory, wich is pretty valid, you just tell us how beautiful his legs are and how his "hunting" federer meaby you are gay for him wich is not a problem but could you then post in a nadalfanclub forum or something instead of here? and the same goes to the federer lovers
     
    #30
  31. mileslong

    mileslong Professional

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,396
    Location:
    newport beach, california
    even though i hate wasting time shooting down your ridiculous logic time after time i feel compelled again to make you a laughing stock.

    your obsession with nadals body has been catalogued on these boards for a long time, but the fact is that most pro athletes have long term career ending type problems due to ligaments, tendons and skeletal issues not muscle issues.

    there are plenty of body builder pro football players that can hardly walk because of no cartilage left in their knees, blown out ligaments, torn tendons etc. athletes are either prone to injury or they are not. thats why guys like federer hardly ever get hurt, he is flexible and lean.

    even if you are a weight gym rat and bulk up to 250 lbs of solid muscle, your ACL is still the same size as it was before but now it has to carry more weight than it was naturally designed for and when you play sports that require cutting and fast changes of direction then that is just more mass to put on them, the same holds true of ankles as well. the point is that having bigger muscles doesnt translate into fewer injuries. proper strengthening can help take some of the load off of joints but it has to be the right type of muscle development not just more bulk.

    the looser your tendons and ligaments are the less likely you are going to have severe injuries to them. thats pure luck more than any particular muscle development.

    as far as your other asinine point about nadals wins at 20 years old or under has nothing to do with anything. you CANT project numbers using what he has done now and just use the same number of wins now and then multiply that by the number of years he MIGHT play. its stupid, plus every player doesnt always get better with age, not in tennis thats for sure. he might be at his peak right now. his physical game will take its toll. only time will tell, i am willing to bet however that he doesnt play at as high a level as fed has and will to the same age. mcenroe said that he can see fed playing at a high level for another 10 years due to the style of his game. the same cant be said for nadals game which is only successful due to his uncanny ability to run down shots. one step slower for him is suicide...

    thanks for playing pusher terminated now run along...
     
    #31
  32. cshokraii

    cshokraii New User

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    66
    Federer is the better player. He has more skill than anyone ever, even Nadal admits that!!!
     
    #32
  33. quest01

    quest01 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,616
    Federer is better then Nadal.
     
    #33
  34. cricri

    cricri New User

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Messages:
    94
    Overall Federer is better than Nadal
     
    #34
  35. The Grand Slam

    The Grand Slam Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,780
    Location:
    the earth..?
    Nadal leads 2-1 on hardcourt.
    Nadal leads 4-0 on clay.
    Federer leads 1-0 on grass.

    You can't really tell. They haven't played each other enough times.
     
    #35
  36. Mick

    Mick Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    8,363
    "I have a tough opponent waiting for me, he has a great future"
    [on playing Rafael Nadal]

    -- Roger Federer

    "If he doesn't play very, very well and I play one of my best matches, I have a little bit of a chance"
    [on his Master final appearance vs Roger Federer]

    -- Rafael Nadal


    source:
    http://www.saidwhat.co.uk/jobquotes/tennis
     
    #36
  37. helloworld

    helloworld Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,670
    I can't say who's better, but if I lost to someone 5 times in a row, I'd have enough 'balls' to atmit that he's a better player.
     
    #37
  38. OrangeOne

    OrangeOne Legend

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    6,297
    With all due respect, and I don't know you, but I'm willing to bet you're not a pro-player, at least not one of the top few in the world :). Life is different up there, players are doing a job, earning a living, meeting sponsors' commitments, etc etc.

    It's widely acknowledged that the mental aspect of tennis increases with ranking, and that the difference between the top bunch is largely mental. Sure - it seems Fed and Nadal are a step above again - but even so, the mental approach and confidence mean so much for those guys. For Federer to come out and say that Nadal is a better player would be to concede a lot of mental ground, it not common for such things to be done, especially by the current 'number 1'.

    Disclaimer: In no way am I weighing-in to any debate saying who's actually better, and this post is also not a slight on Federer for holding the mental ground he is by saying what he's said, or a slight on Nadal for choosing to still frame himself as the underdog.

    I respect the game of both players, and look forward to the next few years watching them both and seeing which of the current bunch can step up to challenge them, and also seeing who 'new' comes to challenge them, and how they respond to all of those challengers.
     
    #38
  39. The Pusher Terminator

    The Pusher Terminator Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,927
    AWESOME!

    ARE YOU KIDDING? Lets just try and crack this very difficult question. hmmmmm.....seems that the score is 6-2 in favor of Nadal. Hmmmmmmm......I can't figure it out. Hmmmmmm.....lets see Nadal has dominated Fed...that must mean Fed is the better player! ......NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
    #39
  40. Shamo

    Shamo New User

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    64
    Pusher take it out:(
     
    #40
  41. TrueAce

    TrueAce Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    169
    ?

    Are the people that win this argument 10 years from now going to throw a party that they were right?????
     
    #41
  42. NamRanger

    NamRanger G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    13,916

    Who beat Pete Sampras at Wimbledon, one of the greatest players in mens tennis on his own homecourt? Oh wait, that would be Roger Federer at the age of 19?! Unbelivable.


    Plus head-to-head means jack. It's how you do against the rest of the tour overall. Guess what, Roger Federer is undefeated against them all, and recently pounded Nadal at Wimbledon pretty badly (despite what Nadal fans say).


    Nadal has loses to many opponents who are suppose to be "subpar" compared to him. Examples? Although I'd say James Blake is up there in talent with him, we'll use quite a suprising one, Carlos Moya. He's old, doesn't move as well as before, and a subpar backhand. All he has for him is his serve and forehand, and he really can't utilize his forehand so much because he really can't run around shots to hit it. Nadal in 10 matches should not lose to Carlos Moya, but he does on the ocassion.



    Plenty of other players I could name that Nadal should not lose to, but he does.
     
    #42
  43. Swissv2

    Swissv2 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    2,491
    Location:
    Tennis Courts!
    The_Pusher_Terminator, if you read Grand Slam's post carefully (which you didn't) you would notice it had a bit of sarcasm in it. Stop trying to think one dimensional for a second, please.

    There are two ways to look at this. If you look at this head-to-head statistics then you can say Rafa is better at 6-2 stats. But if you look at the stats side by side on WIN vs LOSS record

    Nadal 2006 record: 44-5
    Nadal 2005 record: 79-10
    Nadal 2004 record: 29-18

    Federer 2006 record: 56-4
    Federer 2005 record: 81-4
    Federer 2004 record: 75-6

    then Federer wins.
     
    #43
  44. Chang

    Chang Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2006
    Messages:
    389
    You love Nadal so much don't you? Put it this way, James Blake has a 2-0 lead over Nadal, doesn't that make him a better player than Nadal? Federer has a 4-0 lead over Blake so does that mean he is better than Nadal?

    Head to head is not a reliable way to compare players. Every player has strengths and weaknesses and fortunately for Nadal, his lefty topspin forehand is the answer as it exploits Federer's backhand.
     
    #44
  45. Big Fed

    Big Fed Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2006
    Messages:
    593
    Location:
    Lansing, Michigan
    Wow stop making these threads.....

    ROGER FEDERER
     
    #45
  46. TrueAce

    TrueAce Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    169
    Um Roger beat Pete then loses to Tim Henman in the next round. This showed that he had tremendous talent at 19 but doesn't even compare to Nadal in maturity and mental toughness at the same age. If Nadal took out the defending champion at a tournament he sure wouldn't make the same mistake and lose the next round. It's true Nadal could have peaked at an earlier age but we'll see when he comes into his true prime. Also at the same age I think Roger was losing more and to lesser players than Nadal does.
     
    #46
  47. Shamo

    Shamo New User

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    64
    I am getting sick of this maturity and mental toughness ********

    listen, in wich way should have nadal proved his mental toughness against federer

    he was never considered the favourite in these matches!

    federer has in fact to deal with the pressure

    In fact he trys constatly to give the pressure to him by saying **** like he's the underdog and he has to play the best match of his life to beat him and he has to find a way to beat federer not the other way around.

    so why this mental toughness talk all the time from the fanboys???

    best example is wimbledon federer had everything to loss and still did it that's mental tough

    tough is when you perform every day good as number one and favourit against your contenders like sampras did and now federer.

    mentally toughness has nothing to do with jumping around and screaming vamos after every point

    monfils does the same is he now mentaly tougher than others???

    I mean he choked in the second set of the wimbeldon final even with no pressure
     
    #47
  48. TrueAce

    TrueAce Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    169
    You need to learn to interpret better. I'm not talking about them playing each other right now. Roger lost to nobodies a lot more than Nadal does now when he was the same age. Roger had tremendous talent at 19 by beating Pete but he ends up losing the next round. Also to counter your argument Nadal was the favorite at the French this year without a doubt and he still won. Just like Federer was the favorite at Wimbledon where he won like he was supposed. I'm fans of both but in my opinion Nadal is the better player when they're both 19. We'll see when he moves into his prime if hes peaked or not.
     
    #48
  49. Shamo

    Shamo New User

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    64
    most of the year he was a nobody himself!

    and the favourite in the french open match was for many experts and nadal himself federer

    In fact it was even not sure and that after nadal had a 59 match streak on clay
     
    #49
  50. Watcher

    Watcher Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Messages:
    737
    What does what experts predict have to do with anything? "Experts" thought that Donald Young would beat Giorgio whatshislastname in the US Open round one last year.
     
    #50

Share This Page