Federer and Nadal's record in finals - Page 3

Prisoner of Birth · 10-06-2012, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAFA2005RG

In 2006 Rafa was age 20 and called a "claycourt specialist" with very little experience on grass. He still took a set off Federer in the final. Not very convincing from Federer's perspective.

Why would you keep mentioning the "Clay Court specialist" crap? Only the judgmental types called him that and they've all changed their minds now. Nobody in their right mind would still call Nadal a clay court specialist. If you bring up that term just to denigrate Federer, you're denigrating Nadal more. Seriously, I can't believe the lengths people go to just to make their case while defeating their own purpose.

RAFA2005RG · 10-07-2012, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

Federer was leading that match when Nadal injured his quad. He was up two sets to one.

Yeah but it got worse and worse until Rafa slowed down considerably midway through the 5th set.

RAFA2005RG · 10-07-2012, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Why would you keep mentioning the "Clay Court specialist" crap? Only the judgmental types called him that and they've all changed their minds now. Nobody in their right mind would still call Nadal a clay court specialist. If you bring up that term just to denigrate Federer, you're denigrating Nadal more. Seriously, I can't believe the lengths people go to just to make their case while defeating their own purpose.

Rafa was definitely a clay-court specialist in 2006. I mean prior to Wimbledon 2006, Rafa had won 2 Roland Garros titles and hadn't even made a slam final of the other slams. He was still adapting to the other surfaces. He had zero decent results at Wimbledon, and never made the semis of an Australian Open/US Open. That's not a criticism. Its a compliment, because it shows how far he has come since then.

Cup8489 · 10-07-2012, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAFA2005RG

Rafa was definitely a clay-court specialist in 2006. I mean prior to Wimbledon 2006, Rafa had won 2 Roland Garros titles and hadn't even made a slam final of the other slams. He was still adapting to the other surfaces. He had zero decent results at Wimbledon, and never made the semis of an Australian Open/US Open. That's not a criticism. Its a compliment, because it shows how far he has come since then.

So how did he win 2005 Madrid if he's a clay court specialist.

Oh wait.. he's not.

DolgoSantoro · 10-07-2012, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6-1 6-3 6-0

He's still got the QF streak going, not to mention the 4R streak, 3R streak, 2R streak and 1R streak.

Hey, better than Rafa's 2nd round streak

kaku · 10-07-2012, 12:31 PM

According to certain Nadal fans, he has ever lost when healthy I guess

Sartorius · 10-07-2012, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DolgoSantoro

Hey, better than Rafa's 2nd round streak

TheFifthSet · 10-07-2012, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAFA2005RG

Yeah but it got worse and worse until Rafa slowed down considerably midway through the 5th set.

Federer was still leading the match lol.

If you wanna play that game, Nadal was getting trounced by Youhzny in the 4th round (0-2 in sets), until the Russian injured himself. Nadal shouldn't have even had the chance to face Federer.

Sartorius · 10-07-2012, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFifthSet

If you wanna play that game, ...

Oh, he's all about that game. Nay, he is the game.

Mike Sams · 10-07-2012, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6-1 6-3 6-0

Djokovic beat Nadal 7 times in a row in a timespan lasting less than a year. So he dominated Nadal for a very short period of time. But it doesn't matter; Nadal still leads 6-3 in slams and 19-14 overall, one win away from tying the Sampras-Agassi H2H, and at AO 2013 he has the golden opportunity to beat Djokovic at all four slams and extend his dominance over Djokovic.

Advantage Nadal.

Whereas Federer has been dominated by Nadal for his entire career, not just for a short period.

Nadal got 3 of his Slam wins over Djokovic in 2006-2007 when Djokovic was still very raw and not even in the top 3(till late 2007). RG 2006, RG 2007, Wimby 2007.
Nadal got him again at RG 2008 and USO 2010.
Djokovic turned the tables on him in 2011. Nadal rebounded on his best surface in 2012. But who's the one with physical problems right now? Obviously all these fights against Djokovic have taken their toll on Nadal whereas Djokovic is still playing top tennis, having just won the China Open today on a surface which Nadal hasn't won on since 2010.
Nadal has yet to prove that he can beat Djokovic off clay. Nadal as a matter of fact has yet to prove that he can win anything off clay. He hasn't won a non-clay title since Japan 2010.
The days of domination are over for Nadal. Djokovic has surpassed Nadal on hardcourts. He's won more hardcourt Masters titles and hardcourt Slam titles and has a lopsided hardcourt H2H over Nadal 11-5

Crisstti · 10-07-2012, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Sams

Nadal got 3 of his Slam wins over Djokovic in 2006-2007 when Djokovic was still very raw and not even in the top 3(till late 2007). RG 2006, RG 2007, Wimby 2007.
Nadal got him again at RG 2008 and USO 2010.
Djokovic turned the tables on him in 2011. Nadal rebounded on his best surface in 2012. But who's the one with physical problems right now? Obviously all these fights against Djokovic have taken their toll on Nadal whereas Djokovic is still playing top tennis, having just won the China Open today on a surface which Nadal hasn't won on since 2010.
Nadal has yet to prove that he can beat Djokovic off clay. Nadal as a matter of fact has yet to prove that he can win anything off clay. He hasn't won a non-clay title since Japan 2010.
The days of domination are over for Nadal. Djokovic has surpassed Nadal on hardcourts. He's won more hardcourt Masters titles and hardcourt Slam titles and has a lopsided hardcourt H2H over Nadal 11-5

Uhm, no, he doesn't have to. He has won plenty. Really, how long does it have to be without winning titles on a certain surface (despite very good results, BTW) to say that someone has to "prove himself" over again?.

sonicare · 10-07-2012, 06:20 PM

Once again the stats show that the fed master is GOAT.

Not that we needed the stats because tennis historians and experts like myself already know that federer is the greatest player ever.

Nathaniel_Near · 10-07-2012, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mustard

That those 7 losses were not a typical period of Nadal's career.

You are absolutely hilarious. It's irrelevant, the matches were lost.

RF20Lennon · 10-07-2012, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sonicare

Once again the stats show that the fed master is GOAT.

Not that we needed the stats because tennis historians and experts like myself already know that federer is the greatest player ever.

LOL what a boss^^

Mike Sams · 10-07-2012, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crisstti

Uhm, no, he doesn't have to. He has won plenty. Really, how long does it have to be without winning titles on a certain surface (despite very good results, BTW) to say that someone has to "prove himself" over again?.

He doesn't have to prove himself OVER again. But he certainly has to IMPROVE though, don't you think? Because other players are improving including Djokovic and Murray who are both younger than Nadal. Hence Nadal has to improve if he's going to keep up with these younger players who are improving their game and getting physically stronger each season.

Sartorius · 10-08-2012, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crisstti

Uhm, no, he doesn't have to. He has won plenty. Really, how long does it have to be without winning titles on a certain surface (despite very good results, BTW) to say that someone has to "prove himself" over again?.

Pretty much.

But Federer beating Nadal is something very (very, very,...) important, he would have to "prove he can win a match" against Nadal, right?

Crisstti · 10-08-2012, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RF20Lennon

wasnt a GS. That was my point back then in the 2004-2006 era except for RG it was almost impossible to beat fed in a GS

He was lucky Rafa wasn't still good enough off clay, that's all

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Sams

He doesn't have to prove himself OVER again. But he certainly has to IMPROVE though, don't you think? Because other players are improving including Djokovic and Murray who are both younger than Nadal. Hence Nadal has to improve if he's going to keep up with these younger players who are improving their game and getting physically stronger each season.

He's improved against Djokovic, which is what he was needing. He has continually beaten Murray on slams.
We will have to see what his level is now though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sartorius

Pretty much.

But Federer beating Nadal is something very (very, very,...) important, he would have to "prove he can win a match" against Nadal, right?

Sorry, not sure what is your point...

10-07-2012, 06:20 PM	#52
sonicare Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: london Posts: 1,676	Once again the stats show that the fed master is GOAT. Not that we needed the stats because tennis historians and experts like myself already know that federer is the greatest player ever. __________________ Roger's failures on clay eclipse the totality of Pete's career on clay \| Federer, the nephew uncle Toni never had \| TTW's official ******* trollhunter

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode