My case for Federer being better than Nadal

[Mike Sams]

Originally Posted by MichaelNadal

Everyone today is playing on the same courts. Fail.

And those who grind the best are the ones winning. Notice it's Nadal, the guy whose kneecaps are falling off because of too much ugly grinding throughout the years which is all he can do?
Almost 27 and all he's got are 4 non-clay Slams and 5 non-clay Masters. And this guy is a candidate for GOAT? He's a dirtballer and not much else with an ugly style who tortures his own body to not lose.

[Mike Sams]

*******s won't admit that Nadal's natural style is to grind and run and push the ball and wait for errors. Now his knees are disintegrating because of his violent ugly pushing style of tennis.

[beast of mallorca]

Do you, really need to make another Rafa vs Fed thread. AS IF WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH OF THESE ! This has been rehash a hundred times over dude.

Deng it. Enough already. Shall u make another GOAT thread ?

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by MichaelNadal

Thanks man. It just gets so annoying day in and day out seeing the same posts and threads with people feeling the need to talk about how much Nadal sucks compared to Federer. They act like Nadal fans shouldn't exist or something and it's childish. You're right on the money with the Tsonga comment, there's plenty of other people that deserve fans too.



So true

Again, I NEVER said Nadal sucks. He's actually #2 on my GOAT list and is my 2nd favorite among current players.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by batz

I haven't read all your post, but what's Roger's head to head v Rafa in SLAMS? (you know slams, the things that used to matter more than anything to some Fed fans before Roger stopped winning them so much).

Roger has the same number of slam wins against Nadal as Andy Murray and David Ferrer.

So - I'm not quite so sure about 'there goes the head to head argument'.

So what? You have to win 7 matches in order to win a slam, period. Fed > Nadal simply because he managed to win 7 matches in a row 17 times while Nadal only did it 11 times.

Good luck in trying to convince everyone that Rosol or Blake are > Nadal because of the h2h at the SLAM.

[underground]

There really is no point arguing. 99.999999% of the human population knows that Roger Federer is THE GOAT. It's just some stubborn people in denial. No point in trying to convince them. Move on.

[MichaelNadal]

Originally Posted by Mike Sams

And those who grind the best are the ones winning. Notice it's Nadal, the guy whose kneecaps are falling off because of too much ugly grinding throughout the years which is all he can do?
Almost 27 and all he's got are 4 non-clay Slams and 5 non-clay Masters. And this guy is a candidate for GOAT? He's a dirtballer and not much else with an ugly style who tortures his own body to not lose.

Who else has 4 slams and 5 masters off clay right now besides Djokovic? Please grow up.

[cknobman]

Originally Posted by MichaelNadal

Who else has 4 slams and 5 masters off clay right now besides Djokovic? Please grow up.

[Hood_Man]

That's a creepy picture of Fed there. It's the intense shadows where his eyes should be that's giving me the creeps.

[EDIT]

[RF20Lennon]

Originally Posted by cknobman

SO EPIC!!!! I LOL'ed

[fed_rulz]

To the OP:
17 > 11, anyway you spin it. it might get countered with but 18 > 10....
my response is:
17.10 > 11.18

[kragster]

OP, this is a discussion that's been had a 100 times and outside of a small minority of worshippers, very few sane Nadal fans consider him better than Federer.

Your H2H argument though is completely flawed though and should not be a part of this discussion. You devalue your argument by bringing it in. You completely missed surface distribution in the calendar year . It is as flawed as some Nadal nut saying that if there had been 2 clay slams a year Nadal would have 18 slams. The current H2H is definitely clay skewed but even if you did a H2H based on assuming Federer and Nadal met in the finals of every tournament in the year, it would still favor Nadal just because there are many more slow HC and clay events in the calendar than indoor events and grass. In no REAL scenario would Fed lead the H2H but THATS OKAY because tennis is about winning titles and how you do against the field, not a H2H

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by kragster

OP, this is a discussion that's been had a 100 times and outside of a small minority of worshippers, very few sane Nadal fans consider him better than Federer.

Your H2H argument though is completely flawed though and should not be a part of this discussion. You devalue your argument by bringing it in. You completely missed surface distribution in the calendar year . It is as flawed as some Nadal nut saying that if there had been 2 clay slams a year Nadal would have 18 slams. The current H2H is definitely clay skewed but even if you did a H2H based on assuming Federer and Nadal met in the finals of every tournament in the year, it would still favor Nadal just because there are many more slow HC and clay events in the calendar than indoor events and grass. In no REAL scenario would Fed lead the H2H but THATS OKAY because tennis is about winning titles and how you do against the field, not a H2H

My head-to-head argument was only made to show how big a role the surface can play in match-ups. I admit that would never happen. I actually believe peak-Nadal would lead the head-to-head with peak-Federer even if they played evenly across all surfaces.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by batz

Roger has the same number of slam wins against Nadal as Andy Murray and David Ferrer.

So - I'm not quite so sure about 'there goes the head to head argument'.

Ouch. The H2H will never be able to get eradicated as much as ****s wish it would. The thing is that while the point that the H2H fact does not make Nadal better than Federer (atleast not yet), the key is the H2H against Nadal is a huge crutch for Federer when compared to the other possible GOATs like Gonzales, Laver, and even Sampras who were never owned by any main rival, let alone by by far their biggest rival and a fellow all time great. How can the GOAT be the slave of the 2nd best player of their own era and a fellow top 5 player all time.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Ouch. The H2H will never be able to get eradicated as much as ****s wish it would. The thing is that while the point that the H2H fact does not make Nadal better than Federer (atleast not yet), the key is the H2H against Nadal is a huge crutch for Federer when compared to the other possible GOATs like Gonzales, Laver, and even Sampras who were never owned by any main rival, let alone by by far their biggest rival and a fellow all time great. How can the GOAT be the slave of the 2nd best player of their own era and a fellow top 5 player all time.

Better to have a losing head-to-head to the second best player of your era than to have one against Krajicek, don't you think? And Laver would undoubtedly have a losing head-to-head against Gonzales had they both been the same age.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Better to have a losing head-to-head to the second best player of your era than to have one against Krajicek, don't you think? And Laver would undoubtedly have a losing head-to-head against Gonzales had they both been the same age.

LOL how on earth can you be certain Laver would have a losing record vs Gonzales if they were the same age. There is no way to tell for sure, both are all time greats who dominated all their true generation peers, and dominated the game for a great many years. Because Laver had some losses to Gonzales in his 30s doesnt mean anything, Laver himself won the Grand Slam at 31 and was considered best in the World until atleast 33. Players could excel until close to 40 then, the game was totally different to now, plus they played a much fuller schedule so there were a ton more tournaments, a ton more losses, not easily managing when they hit their peak play each like today.

Sampras only played Krajicek once in a major. If they played 10 times what would the H2H be. Probably 8-2 for Sampras since Krajicek isnt a big event player (apart from that Wimbledon he won). A 0-1 head to head in majors is virtually meaningless, 1 match is not sufficient to tell anything. A 2-8 head to head on the other hand..... That plus Krajicek is an irrelevant player in tennis history, Nadal is probably the 4th or 5th best player of all time and by far a top 2 player and Federer's biggest rival by a chasm of the 15 year period Federer's whole career will come in, he is Federer's litmus test, and one he fails miserably in. Sampras's tests came in the form of his career rivalries with Agassi, Becker, Courier, numerous all time greats, and he passed each with flying colors.

However the main point is Laver and Gonzales both dominated their main rivalry which was with Rosewall, for years while they dominated the game each. Gonzales also had the big edge in his rivalries with Sedgeman, Hoad, and many other great many time slam winners who turned pro in the 50s, and Laver dominated his rivalries with other greats such as Emerson, Newcombe, Ashe, and all comers as well. That is something Federer could not even come close to doing with Nadal. It is a huge difference, especialy when Nadal is supposably a 1 dimensional clay courter.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Sampras only played Krajicek once in a major. If they played 10 times what would the H2H be. Probably 8-2 for Sampras since Krajicek isnt a big event player (apart from that Wimbledon he won).

A 0-1 head to head in majors is virtually meaningless, 1 match is not sufficient to tell anything. A 2-8 head to head on the other hand. That plus Krajicek is an irrelevant player in tennis history, Nadal is probably the 4th or 5th best player of all time and by far a top 2 player of the 15 year period Federer's whole career will come in, he is Federer's litmus test, and one he fails miserably in.

See that's the point. A great player losing to another great player is logical. It's when you start losing to the Krajiceks, Bastls and Rosols that your greatness can be questioned, especially when it's in (or close to) your prime. It's analogous to a Grand Slam performance in a way. Would you rather lose to Nadal in the French Open final or to Andreev in the 3rd round? The only reason Federer's record against Nadal is so conspicuous is because Nadal is a fellow great/popular player. If Federer had a similar record against Igor Andreev, no one except people on Internet Tennis forums would know or care about it. And you know what, it's way more of a blemish if you have a losing record against Andreev than to Nadal.

Again, I never ever said Nadal's 1-dimensional. I never understand why every person arguing for Federer is held accountable for everything every **** in existence has said. Nadal's a great, great player and, deep down, everybody knows it.

And why would you only count Grand Slams? There are many other tournaments going all around the year. Nadal's won 21 of the next 10 biggest events (22 counting his Olympic Gold). Everything matters. And you can't just say Sampras would lead 8-2 against Krajicek in Slams when Krajicek is the one who won their only encounter there (on Grass against a prime Sampras).

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

See that's the point. A great player losing to another great player is logical. It's when you start losing to the Krajiceks, Bastls and Rosols that your greatness can be questioned, especially when it's in (or close to) your prime. It's analogous to a Grand Slam performance in a way. Would you rather lose to Nadal in the French Open final or to Andreev in the 3rd round? The only reason Federer's record against Nadal is so conspicuous is because Nadal is a fellow great/popular player. If Federer had a similar record against Igor Andreev, no one except people on Internet Tennis forums would know or care about it. And you know what, it's way more of a blemish if you have a losing record against Andreev than to Nadal.

if Sampras had lost numerous times to Krajicek in slams you would have a point but it was only once. One loss isnt anything concrete to form any valid argument upon. Lord knows even Federer has had his share of embarassing losses in slams, losing twice to Berdych in slams now, a player everyone knows is not and never will be slam caliber (atleast Krajicek won the one he beat Sampras in, something Berdych will likely never do), losing to a hip crippled Kuerten who was about 20% his old self at the 2004 French and this one was definitely in the midst of his "prime", losing to headcase Tsonga from 2 sets up at Wimbledon. If he plays until he is no longer in the top 10 as Sampras did he will probably have his own "Bastl" moment at some point too. He nearly did at Wimbledon 2 years in fact with Falla.

[Mike Sams]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Ouch. The H2H will never be able to get eradicated as much as ****s wish it would. The thing is that while the point that the H2H fact does not make Nadal better than Federer (atleast not yet), the key is the H2H against Nadal is a huge crutch for Federer when compared to the other possible GOATs like Gonzales, Laver, and even Sampras who were never owned by any main rival, let alone by by far their biggest rival and a fellow all time great. How can the GOAT be the slave of the 2nd best player of their own era and a fellow top 5 player all time.

Don't worry about the H2H, *******. History will see that Rafa was a dirtballer who won most everything on clay and could only bag 1 USO and 1 AO and 5 hardcourt Masters titles during his ENTIRE career while everything else is basically clay! A glorified clay courter who managed to sneak in a couple of hardcourt titles before baby Djokovic became a man!

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

if Sampras had lost numerous times to Krajicek in slams you would have a point but it was only once. One loss isnt anything concrete to form any valid argument upon. Lord knows even Federer has had his share of embarassing losses in slams, losing twice to Berdych in slams now, a player everyone knows is not and never will be slam caliber (atleast Krajicek won the one he beat Sampras in, something Berdych will likely never do), losing to a hip crippled Kuerten who was about 20% his old self at the 2004 French and this one was definitely in the midst of his "prime", losing to headcase Tsonga from 2 sets up at Wimbledon. If he plays until he is no longer in the top 10 as Sampras did he will probably have his own "Bastl" moment at some point too. He nearly did at Wimbledon 2 years in fact with Falla.

Clay is Federer's worst surface and he lost to one of the Clay GOATs. Yes, he should've won, but Kuerten played a great match. And you can't hold the Tsonga/Berdych losses against Federer. He was 29/30/31 years old when those happened. The fact that, even now, he's still got his QF streak going is incredible. I mean, really, has anyone ever even come close to Federer's consistency?

And the ranking shouldn't really be the point. Sampras lost to Bastl in 2002 when he was 31. Federer won Wimbledon at 31. The difference is night & day. Yes, Sampras won the US Open at 31 but Federer's (hopefully) not done yet. Even if he never wins another Slam, he'll make a good few SFs and the odd Final as well, which is more than Sampras ever achieved. Again, not putting down Sampras. You can't really expect a 30+ player to do any better in this day and age. Just pointing out Federer's transcendent play.