Why Nadal is better than Fed.

[Russeljones]

Originally Posted by smoledman

We all know how dominant they are on their best surfaces. Nadal on clay. Federer on hard/grass. But how well do they do on their weakest?

Nadal has 10 big hard/grass titles
Federer has 7 big clay titles

But more importantly is Nadal has 4 grass/hard slams to only 1 clay slam for Federer.

4 > 1.

I can't believe you started such a thread. You know what you did right? TT seppuku.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by smoledman

We all know how dominant they are on their best surfaces. Nadal on clay. Federer on hard/grass. But how well do they do on their weakest?

Nadal has 10 big hard/grass titles
Federer has 7 big clay titles

But more importantly is Nadal has 4 grass/hard slams to only 1 clay slam for Federer.

4 > 1.

OMG, this is

I'll play this game.

Let's consider Federer's 2 worst surfaces and Nadal's 2 worst surfaces.

Federer's : Clay and Grass (he has 9 HC Slams so it has to be his best surface going by the OP's logic)
Nadal's : Hard and Grass (Clay is obviously his best surface)

Number of Slams Federer has on his two "worst" surfaces : 1+7=8
Number of Slams Nadal has on his two "worst" surfaces : 2+2=4

8>4 ==> Federer>Nadal

[DolgoSantoro]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

OMG, this is

I'll play this game.

Let's consider Federer's 2 worst surfaces and Nadal's 2 worst surfaces.

Federer's : Clay and Grass (he has 9 HC Slams so it has to be his best surface going by the OP's logic)
Nadal's : Hard and Grass (Clay is obviously his best surface)

Number of Slams Federer has on his two "worst" surfaces : 1+7=8
Number of Slams Nadal has on his two "worst" surfaces : 2+2=4

8>4 ==> Federer>Nadal

Oh my gosh, we could even consider ALL THREE SURFACES! Revolutionary. Anyway in the OP by even bringing this up you concede that Fed is a goat candidate on two of three surfaces, where nadal until 2008 was largely irrelevant off of clay, and has always been patchy off dirt. For me I fail to see how dominating one surface is superior to dominating two. Perhaps the OP would like to explain it to me

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by DolgoSantoro

Oh my gosh, we could even consider ALL THREE SURFACES! Revolutionary. Anyway in the OP by even bringing this up you concede that Fed is a goat candidate on two of three surfaces, where nadal until 2008 was largely irrelevant off of clay, and has always been patchy off dirt. For me I fail to see how dominating one surface is superior to dominating two. Perhaps the OP would like to explain it to me

I picked 2 for Federer because the OP picked 2 for Nadal.

[DolgoSantoro]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

I picked 2 for Federer because the OP picked 2 for Nadal.

I know, I wasn't mocking you, just showing that if you frame it just about any way except for the flawed analysis of the OP Fed is going to come out of top.

[beast of mallorca]

Originally Posted by Russeljones

I can't believe you started such a thread. You know what you did right? TT seppuku.

That's what I said. It's like, it's not enough to have all these threads about Rafa vs Fed. Good work smokedman

[billnepill]

Originally Posted by Cup8489

Oh yes... post prime Federer has the obligation to make USO finals after his peak but Nadal doesn't do it until the last 2 years during his.. Great Logic. Where was Nadal for the preceding 4 years of him winning majors?

Mustard's logic is incredibly behind in the light of his statistical knowledge. Having said that, 75% of his recent posts are about Nadal's clay inflated h2h against the top players. Strange. It dazzles me how he moans about inequality and spreads his communist views but he fails to see how unfair is to use a h2h where majority of the matches were played on Nadal's best surface and Federer leads in the rest?

The fact that he also uses this to weaken Fed GOAT's claims as opposed to only strengthen Nadal's? BS

[Povl Carstensen]

So the thread has become why Nadal is not better than Federer.

[Zarfot Z]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Nadal has enjoyed a nice advantage over his main rivals throughout his career. Something Fed can't say.

Djoker got the best of him last year, and Nadal stopped that this year. Nadal has had the h2h advantage over Fed since 2005 and has not been able to beat Nadal at a slam in five years.. Thats a long freakin time

The only thing that stopped Nadal was injuries.. Something no other player could consistently do

Uh... No.

Federer's true rivals are guys like Nalbandian, Hewitt, Roddick and Safin, who he has crushed multiple times. Unlike his current rivals, they are roughly his age and not 5-6 years younger.

Djokovic/Murray and Nadal to some degree are part of the 'new generation' of players to challenge Federer.

And the amazing thing is that despite his age, Federer has managed to successfully keep up with this new generation of rivals. Leading H2H against Djoker and basically tied H2H against Murray is a testament to that.

Bottom line is, calling players 5-6 years younger than Federer his 'main rivals' is delusional. And expecting Federer to lead the H2H between said players in their peak, whilst he is in decline is ********. Olderer will very likely end up with a losing H2H against Djokovic, Murray and Nadal by the time he retires.

tl;dr Federer has demolished an entire generation and subdued another.

[Povl Carstensen]

Negative head to head against a surface goat is ok.

[merlinpinpin]

Originally Posted by smoledman

We all know how dominant they are on their best surfaces. Nadal on clay. Federer on hard/grass. But how well do they do on their weakest?

Nadal has 10 big hard/grass titles
Federer has 7 big clay titles

But more importantly is Nadal has 4 grass/hard slams to only 1 clay slam for Federer.

4 > 1.

Kudos to you LOLville, this was a very brave thread to create. However, you missed out a little thing. In the interest of fairness (and fairness has always been your one and only motivation, as we all know), if you only choose one best surface for one of them, you must choose one (and one only) for the other. Not a gazillion of them, obvioulsy, otherwise this kind of defeats the purpose.

So, let's be fair, as I'm sure you wanted to be when you wrote this first post, and look at this with one single best surface/condition for each of them:

* Nadal: best on clay--let's discount clay, so he's left with 4 slams
* Federer: best indoor--let's discount indoor, so he's left with, ahem, 17

Then, according to your logic, we get:

4 > 17

Which is even more impressive than Trolling Day and Knight's 11 > 17.

Pretty conclusive, I must say...

[sonicare]

Originally Posted by billnepill

Mustard's logic is incredibly behind in the light of his statistical knowledge. Having said that, 75% of his recent posts are about Nadal's clay inflated h2h against the top players. Strange. It dazzles me how he moans about inequality and spreads his communist views but he fails to see how unfair is to use a h2h where majority of the matches were played on Nadal's best surface and Federer leads in the rest?

The fact that he also uses this to weaken Fed GOAT's claims as opposed to only strengthen Nadal's? BS

Great post...Mustard is only good at keeping records but absolutely sucks at analysing numbers.

Doesn't surprise me as he is a dirty commie and posts so much nonsense, it is beyond belief. He needs to go buy this book

http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Dummies-.../dp/0471799416

[Povl Carstensen]

"dirty commie" is that really a place we need to go? This is about tennis......

[The Dark Knight]

From an article I found on the net:

With his classic strokes (updated for today's new power game), Roger would easily have been at home among the players of yesteryear playing with wood rackets and long pants. And with the most major Grand Slam singles titles ever at 16, it's been hard to argue against the many who have anointed Roger as the "Greatest of All Time." But after yesterday's win by Rafa Nadal over Roger Federer in the French Open Final, maybe it's time to seriously give that appointment a closer look. Maybe Rafa isn't just the "King of Clay;" maybe he's way more than that.

As the match was nearing its conclusion, John McEnroe made the comment that "it's hard to see how Roger could have played much better that he did." Yet Roger lost -- for the 17th time overall to Rafa who Roger has now beaten only 8 times overall. In Grand Slam Finals, Nadal holds a decisive 6-2 edge over Federer. Nadal is also the youngest player of the open era to win a career Grand Slam (winning all four Grand Slam singles titles) and the second male player (Andre Agassi is the other) to win a Career Golden Slam (all four Grand Slams and an Olympic Gold medal). He has also won three Davis Cup Finals as part of the Spanish team, and holds a record 19 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 titles. By comparison, Federer has never won a singles Olympic Gold medal or won a Davis Cup Final for his country Switzerland.

Nadal, who just turned 25 years old, now has won 10 Grand Slam singles titles, only 6 behind Federer who turns 30 in August. And Novak Djokovic, at 24, is coming right behind both of them. No one can predict how many more Grand Slam singles titles Roger has left in him, or how many more years Rafa's extreme physical style of play will allow him to continue before his knees finally give out. Can Rafa eventually eclipse Roger's record-breaking 16 Grand Slam titles? Time will tell. But as John McEnroe astutely pointed out yesterday, "it's hard for Federer to be considered the greatest player of all time when he's lost to Rafa more than twice as many times as he's beaten him. He might not even be the best player of his own era."

[The Dark Knight]

Some would argue that Nadal is better because he has 11 slams while not playing in astounding 7 of them.

Federer on the other hand has never missed a grand slam.

I wonder how many slams Federer has actually been in ?

Does anyone know ? If Federer started at 17 and never missed a slam it means he has played in 56 slams.

Although Federer holds the record for most slams won he also holds the record for most slams lost .

Furthermore Federer was competed in every slam Nadal was in many if them in the finals against Nadal.....on the other hand Federer had competition the was not as strong as Nadal

[SLD76]

Originally Posted by billnepill

Mustard's logic is incredibly behind in the light of his statistical knowledge. Having said that, 75% of his recent posts are about Nadal's clay inflated h2h against the top players. Strange. It dazzles me how he moans about inequality and spreads his communist views but he fails to see how unfair is to use a h2h where majority of the matches were played on Nadal's best surface and Federer leads in the rest?

The fact that he also uses this to weaken Fed GOAT's claims as opposed to only strengthen Nadal's? BS

Normally mustard is reasoned and logical, but his inner fanboy reveals itself with a vengeance when it comes to nadal and lance armstrong.

[SLD76]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Some would argue that Nadal is better because he has 11 slams while not playing in astounding 7 of them.

Federer on the other hand has never missed a grand slam.

I wonder how many slams Federer has actually been in ?

Does anyone know ? If Federer started at 17 and never missed a slam it means he has played in 56 slams.

Although Federer holds the record for most slams won he also holds the record for most slams lost .

Furthermore Federer was competed in every slam Nadal was in many if them in the finals against Nadal.....on the other hand Federer had competition the was not as strong as Nadal

Don't you get tired of posting nonsense.

And of course fed's competition was weaker than nadal's seeing as he is better than nadal and he can't play himself.

[Hitman]

Nadal is better than Federer?

11 is greater than 17? What the....

[The Dark Knight]

H2h is very fair . Especially in slams

Both players had to go through the same tour.

Federer mopped the floor with them pre Nadal.....the when Nadal came around he took over and mopped the floor with Federer and everyone else.

Lets face it of Nadal were around since Federer started it would be Nadal with at least 17 slams.....Federer had very good timing . He started his slam count after Sampras retired who left a huge vacuum . Federer had no real rival.

And lets please not forget that Federer has the world record of grand slams lost with I think 39 ?

[SLD76]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

H2h is very fair . Especially in slams

Both players had to go through the same tour.

Federer mopped the floor with them pre Nadal.....the when Nadal came around he took over and mopped the floor with Federer and everyone else.

Lets face it of Nadal were around since Federer started it would be Nadal with at least 17 slams.....Federer had very good timing . He started his slam count after Sampras retired who left a huge vacuum . Federer had no real rival.

And lets please not forget that Federer has the world record of grand slams lost with I think 39 ?

Let's see, nadal won his first slam in 2005.
So in 2005 fed won 2 slams
3 in 2006
3 in 2007
1 in 2008
2 in 2009
1 in 2010
0 in 2011
1 in 2012

So, that's 13 slams since the emergence of la nadal. In fact, most of fed slam wins have been won when since the emergence of nadal at the fo in 2005 since he only won wimby and the uso that year.

Meanwhile, nadal has won 1 slam a year 6 times since 2005( 05, 06, 07, 09, 2011, 2012). He has only won multiple slams in 2008 and and 2010. And only at wimbledon from 06 to 07 was fed the road block for nadal otherwise , he couldn't get past the field. In fact aside from wimbledon 06 and 07. All of nadals slam losses have been to the field, til 2011 when djoker became his new roadblock. 2009 was the only year injury( and personal issues) stopped nadal.

How is nadal dominant again?

Rofl, record number of slams lost. Roger will take that as it means he was healthy and consisten enough to enter so many slam draws. trollolololololol troll