Comparing Federer and Nadal's Grand Slam Wins

[nadal_slam_king]

Originally Posted by Tenez101

Care to explain your reasoning there? You have to admit much of the Fed-Nad dynamic is driven by Nad's lefty forehand to Fed's righty sh backhand.

Now...what would happen if Federer were left-handed?

Federer's problem is with Nadal's extreme topspin. Obviously Nadal would possess that topspin even if Nadal played with the right-hand. And Federer's forehand is extremely error-prone vs Nadal, not just Federer's backhand. And even if you think its all about Federer's backhand, a right-handed Nadal would still be hitting to Federer's backhand.

[DeShaun]

Originally Posted by nadal_slam_king

Nadal would beat Federer in 80% of their slam meetings even if Nadal chose to use his right-hand.

Of Tennis Channel's Top 100 Players All Time, lefties comprise five out of the top twenty i.e. a twenty-five percent stake in this most elite segment from that population of all time greats. By contrast, lefties comprise only ten percent of the general human population.

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by nadal_slam_king

Federer's problem is with Nadal's extreme topspin. Obviously Nadal would possess that topspin even if Nadal played with the right-hand. And Federer's forehand is extremely error-prone vs Nadal, not just Federer's backhand. And even if you think its all about Federer's backhand, a right-handed Nadal would still be hitting to Federer's backhand.

So you basically say, that

1) if Nadal was right handed, he would have had better forehand than Federer

2) if Nadal was right handed, he would have been able to employ the same tactic against Federer, as the one he uses now

Either way, I want to know who is your dealer?

[nadal_slam_king]

Yes, obviously Nadal would have a great forehand whether he be left-handed or right-handed. The lasso forehand works regardless.

Nadal can use any tactic, he'll still be a better baseliner than Federer.

[Gorecki]

Originally Posted by nadal_slam_king

Yes, obviously Nadal would have a great forehand whether he be left-handed or right-handed. The lasso forehand works regardless.

Nadal can use any tactic, he'll still be a better baseliner than Federer.

Is that so? Please tell us again about the great achievements by all the spanish "Reverse Forehand" (lasso my big fat white knee) Right Handed clay courters...

i mean the goat contenders like Moya, Berasategui and Bruguera....

[Sentinel]

Originally Posted by tlm

Hey he is supposed to be the goat so that would be true then.

Originally Posted by Clarky21

Exactly. This is where Fed fans trip themselves up time and time again. Fed is goat,and practically walks on water to a lot of these people,yet they try and discredit Nadal's wins over him while inadvertently dissing their dude in the process. Sorry,but beating Fed in one slam final much less several,is a huge achievement,even though these folks will always play it down as if it's so easy to do simply because it was Nadal who beat him. Doesn't Fed deserve more credit than you're giving him Fed fans?

lol, you've taken someone else's argument of GOAT and mixed it with my remark. Never called Fred GOAT.
Fred played and won in a weak era with people like Roddick who caved in front of him.

Being a fan of Fred and his style doesn't mean i think he's goat, nor does my belief that he "walks on water" imply anything else. Be honest in your arguments, please.

[jelle v]

Originally Posted by nadal_slam_king

Yes, obviously Nadal would have a great forehand whether he be left-handed or right-handed. The lasso forehand works regardless.

Nadal can use any tactic, he'll still be a better baseliner than Federer.

Wow.. just wow..

A righthanded Nadal (actually Nadal is righthanded) would not be able to hit those cross-forehand moonballs to Fed's backhand. And yes, if he were playing right handed, that would be a disadvantage, because hitting a high bouncing moonball with lasso technique down the line is much more difficult than hitting it cross court..

[nadal_slam_king]

Originally Posted by jelle v

Wow.. just wow..

A righthanded Nadal (actually Nadal is righthanded) would not be able to hit those cross-forehand moonballs to Fed's backhand. And yes, if he were playing right handed, that would be a disadvantage, because hitting a high bouncing moonball with lasso technique down the line is much more difficult than hitting it cross court..

Moonballs are like lobs, extremely high. Not sure what you think a moonball is.

[DjokovicForTheWin]

If Nadal was right handed he would never win a slam. Toni was smart.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by TMF

I don't see what's the problem. It's sound obvious that the OP was referring to Grand Slam titles. I know you are well aware of what he was talking about but pretend to be lost. If someone said Federer is a 16 Grand Slam winners, I'm pretty sure everyone know exactly what it means.

That's because you are a man of faith, and Federer is your god. So, you relish the conflation of Federer's 16 majors titles with those who actually did win "The Grand Slam." However, the fact is that Federer has "ZERO" Grand Slams. Not one! And, you know as well as I do that he never, ever, will.

What you suggest would be exactly the same as saying Jack Nicklaus has 18 Grand Slams, or, Tiger Woods has 14 Grand Slams. That would not only be false, it would be disrespectful to the only player in the history of golf who actually did win "The Grand Slam," Bobby Jones. The term Grand Slam in tennis derived from The Grand Slam of golf which has always referred to winning all 4 major titles in the same year.

[tlm]

Originally Posted by mandy01

Now this is called circular logic. *******s are quick to dismiss Roger's success as being down to a weak era, then turn around and say he's the 'GOAT', ergo he becomes an extraordinarily tough opponent for Nadal even when playing on his worst surface against his worst match-up. Try harder, '****.

I don't call him the goat only ***** like you do, but beings so many consider him the greatest then rafa beat better opponents. Pretty funny you talking about circular logic lol.

And yes rogers success was helped by weak opponents just read the list of his major wins, and next time try harder ****.

[Sartorius]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

That's because you are a man of faith, and Federer is your god. So, you relish the conflation of Federer's 16 majors titles with those who actually did win "The Grand Slam." However, the fact is that Federer has "ZERO" Grand Slams. Not one! And, you know as well as I do that he never, ever, will.

What you suggest would be exactly the same as saying Jack Nicklaus has 18 Grand Slams, or, Tiger Woods has 14 Grand Slams. That would not only be false, it would be disrespectful to the only player in the history of golf who actually did win "The Grand Slam," Bobby Jones. The term Grand Slam in tennis derived from The Grand Slam of golf which has always referred to winning all 4 major titles in the same year.

The majors each are called "Grand Slam" tournaments. We (I presume TMF included, even if you see him as a worshipper) all know the difference between a Grand Slam and the Grand Slam. You're just nitpicking here, and being quite poor at it.

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Originally Posted by Sartorius

The majors each are called "Grand Slam" tournaments. We (I presume TMF included, even if you see him as a worshipper) all know the difference between a Grand Slam and the Grand Slam. You're just nitpicking here, and being quite poor at it.

Yeah, but he's an old coot. Those of us who are not yet senile just have to tolerate him.

[tacou]

why wouldn't you include Fed for Nadal's stats? why don't your Fed stats say "# not including Nadal"

[beast of mallorca]

Originally Posted by tacou

why wouldn't you include Fed for Nadal's stats? why don't your Fed stats say "# not including Nadal"

Because he's stupid that's why.

[Sentinel]

Originally Posted by tacou

why wouldn't you include Fed for Nadal's stats? why don't your Fed stats say "# not including Nadal"

Fed should actually get double points for winning against Nadal (or quadruple) given how unbeatable Nadal is (for him).

[Sentinel]

Originally Posted by DjokovicForTheWin

If Nadal was right handed he would never win a slam. Toni was smart.

I thought Nadal *was* right handed.

But you are right about the second sentence.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

That's because you are a man of faith, and Federer is your god. So, you relish the conflation of Federer's 16 majors titles with those who actually did win "The Grand Slam." However, the fact is that Federer has "ZERO" Grand Slams. Not one! And, you know as well as I do that he never, ever, will.

What you suggest would be exactly the same as saying Jack Nicklaus has 18 Grand Slams, or, Tiger Woods has 14 Grand Slams. That would not only be false, it would be disrespectful to the only player in the history of golf who actually did win "The Grand Slam," Bobby Jones. The term Grand Slam in tennis derived from The Grand Slam of golf which has always referred to winning all 4 major titles in the same year.

If you're being so sensitive about how people use the term Grand Slam then it's you who worship Laver, and being insecure. It doesn't matter how people call it, but to understand what it means from the context is not a problem(only to you). Unless if it's confusing, then I can understand we need to be specific, but it's not! We all understand clearly, which wouldn't be disrespect to Laver. You are making a mouton out of a molehill.



It would like me complaining about you saying Fed won 16 majors, not 16 slams. Fortunately I'm not insecure as you.

Or to complain someone say the Texas Ranger won the pennant instead of winning the AL championship.

Capiche ?

[TMF]

Originally Posted by DjokovicForTheWin

Yeah, but he's an old coot. Those of us who are not yet senile just have to tolerate him.

I've never heard any baseball fan had any problem with people using the two terms(pennant or AL/NL champion). But some tennis fans are strange.