Nadal is 19-24 vs top 10 players on hard courts since March 2005

[TMF]

He’s 1-10 against the top ten in the last 11 meetings. You have to beat the big boys to win a slam, there’s no free pass!

[JennyS]

Originally Posted by TMF

He’s 1-10 against the top ten in the last 11 meetings. You have to beat the big boys to win a slam, there’s no free pass!

Unless you're Andre Agassi at the 2003 Australian Open:P

[clayman2000]

Originally Posted by nCode2010

Clayman - you don't get to make excuses(pre-injury/post-injury). Fact is everyone has figured Rafa out and he's toast.

Im not making excuses.
I know Nadal is not one of the top 5 players in the world right now, but that doesnt mean hes been figured out.

If someone isnt playing their best tennis, it doesnt mean theve been figured out.

Nadal is healthy now, he needs to find his game.

[Richie Rich]

Originally Posted by JoshDragon

Federer is five years older than Nadal. Let's see how many hard court grand slams Nadal has in 5 years.

i'm betting maybe one more. knees are toast. he's turning into muster - soon to be playing on clay only

[Vermillion]

Excuse me for being rude, but are you the ATP Shark's spouse or daughter?

[Agassifan]

Originally Posted by JennyS

Nadal vs top 10 players on hard since March 2005: 19-24

Federer vs top 10 players on clay since April 2005 13-10 (11-1 against top 10 players not named Nadal)

that is amazing.

Thank god for his bad matchup with Nadal though. Fed would have like 21 slams with 3 calendar slams

Originally Posted by Agassifan

that is amazing.

Thank god for his bad matchup with Nadal though. Fed would have like 21 slams with 3 calendar slams

That is crazy to think of. He would have had

1. 21 Slams
2. 2 consecutive calender Slams
3. 11 Consecutive Slams

Absolutely insane

[TMF]

Without rafa, who’s the greatest clay courter since borg, Roger would leave Laver in the dust.

[nCode2010]

Yes, the real truth of the matter is that Rafa has kept Roger from running away with the GOAT title. That's IT>

[JennyS]

Originally Posted by Jchurch

That is crazy to think of. He would have had

1. 21 Slams
2. 2 consecutive calender Slams
3. 11 Consecutive Slams

Absolutely insane

without Nadal, Federer would have up to 5 French Opens
have won in 2008
7 straight Wimbledons
4 Australian Opens
6 straight year end #1's.

[anointedone]

Roger was not playing well at all at the 2008 French. He would have lost to the in form Djokovic in the final.

[JennyS]

Originally Posted by anointedone

Roger was not playing well at all at the 2008 French. He would have lost to the in form Djokovic in the final.

That is a very strong possibility. I say he wins in 2005 over Puerta, 2006 over Ljubicic and 2007 over Djokovic though.

[JennyS]

BTW, Rafa's numbers against the top 10 on clay have been remarkable since 2005:

Nadal vs the top 10 on clay, 2005-present:
34-3

sets:
81-19

[anointedone]

Originally Posted by JennyS

That is a very strong possibility. I say he wins in 2005 over Puerta, 2006 over Ljubicic and 2007 over Djokovic though.

Yes without a doubt. Actually I doubt Ljubicic even makes the 2006 final but it doesnt matter who does really.

[JennyS]

Federer on grass vs the top 10, 2003-present:

10-1

sets:
31-12

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by Jchurch

That is crazy to think of. He would have had

1. 21 Slams
2. 2 consecutive calender Slams
3. 11 Consecutive Slams

Absolutely insane

21 slams is a bit presumptuous . . . you're basically handing Federer 6 matches? How do you know he would've beaten the player who was beaten by Nadal? It's easy to say so and so would win x number of slams if you take their top rival out of the equation.

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by TMF

Without rafa, who’s the greatest clay courter since borg, Roger would leave Laver in the dust.

It's not as if Laver had any rivals. Nobody. Not even that guy that beat him like 80-odd times in his career. Or the fact that he was deprived of the opportunity to play slams for much of his career.