Has Federer Ruined Our Perspective on Achievements?

[cc0509]

Originally Posted by SQA333

So who would you say is Nadal's main competition on clay, and if so, how are they much better? Let's take a look.

Excluding fed and Djoker as they aren't exactly clay specialists, and Fed has beaten Djoker at Wimbledon in the only time they've met anyway

Clay court powerhouse with a grand total of zero slam finals, Ferrer?
Clay court powerhouse with a grand total of zero RG semifinals and grandmaster choker, Almagro?
Clay court powerhouse who hasn't beaten a top 10 player on clay more than once, Murray?
Champion doper Puerta?
All time great with a total of one slam, Moya?
I can't think of too many more top clay specialists (obviously not incl Murray) that Nadal would've beaten during this run.

And get this. Federer has beaten a 7 time Wimbledon champ on centre court. Nadal has only beaten players who have won a maximum of 1 RG title. Don't say it's because he has won them all.. Fact is, had he played against a true RG great, he might not have had this long streak.

I did not even see this post before I posted my response above. I agree with you 100 percent. Nadal had zero competition on clay throughout his career.

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by cc0509

No there is not. Who has been Nadal's big competition on clay throughout his career? Nadal has had zero competition on clay and I include Federer in that whole scenario. Who else has Nadal had to worry about on clay? Murray, Ferrer or Almagro? Don't make me laugh.

Nadal has beaten a clay slam champion in 4 of his 7 FO finals. Borg beat a clay slam champion in 4 of his 6 FO finals.

The only difference is that while, in Borg's case, this was multiple people (Vilas twice, Orantes once, Lendl once), in Nadal's case, it has been just one man - Federer.

Of course people arguing either side here will say this means either that Federer is so great he would have been a multiple FO champ if not for Nadal; or that the clay era is so weak it allows just two men, one of whom is not really that great on clay, to consistently contest finals.

[cc0509]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

Nadal has beaten a clay slam champion in 4 of his 7 FO finals. Borg beat a clay slam champion in 4 of his 6 FO finals.

The only difference is that while, in Borg's case, this was multiple people (Vilas twice, Orantes once, Lendl once), in Nadal's case, it has been just one man - Federer.

Of course people arguing either side here will say this means either that Federer is so great he would have been a multiple FO champ if not for Nadal; or that the clay era is so weak it allows just two men, one of whom is not really that great on clay, to consistently contest finals.

I am not talking about how Nadal's competition on clay was versus Borg's, I am talking about how Nadal did not have any clay competition in his career in response to the post made by Clarky which stated Federer had no competition on grass and Nadal had loads of competition. Loads of competition on clay for Nadal? If Federer is his best competition on clay, I rest my case. (no offense to Federer as I am a huge Federer fan but Federer is not big competition for Nadal on clay. )

[Phoenix1983]

^ I know what you were saying, I was just pointing out that from a statistical point of view, Nadal has often faced a fellow clay champion in his FO finals. It just happens to always be Federer.

[Povl Carstensen]

"Unlucky, unlucky, oh yes," uncle Toni said. "If there wasn't Federer, perhaps Rafael would have been No. 1 for four years. But with Federer, that was impossible."
Sorry if I am repeating T. Nadal.

[tacou]

Yes. But I disagree with OP comparing him to Nadal and Novak. Nadal's clay streak is more impressive than Roger's streaks (individually) and Rafa's slam performances do not "pale" in comparison to anyone.

Novak is still very young but he already has some monumental achievements.

I think it's guys like Roddick and Murray who really suffer in the era of Fedal. The fact that some people think Roddick had a "meh" career is ridiculous. His career is among the very best, unfortunately he played it in the shadow of 2 of the best ever

[McEnroeisanartist]

Originally Posted by tacou

Yes. But I disagree with OP comparing him to Nadal and Novak. Nadal's clay streak is more impressive than Roger's streaks (individually) and Rafa's slam performances do not "pale" in comparison to anyone.

Novak is still very young but he already has some monumental achievements.

I think it's guys like Roddick and Murray who really suffer in the era of Fedal. The fact that some people think Roddick had a "meh" career is ridiculous. His career is among the very best, unfortunately he played it in the shadow of 2 of the best ever

Yes, Nadal's clay court streak is impressive, but it is more impressive that Federer has the longest streaks on two different surfaces, so I think Nadal's streak gets overshadowed in my opinion. Yes, Rafa's consistency at slams pales terribly in comparison to Federer. Consecutive grand slam finals: Federer - 10, Nadal - 5. Consecutive grand slam semifinals: Federer - 23, Nadal - 5. Consecutive grand slam quarterfinals: Federer - 34, Nadal - 11. Grand Slams where they reached at least 5 consecutive semifinals - Federer - all 4. Nadal - 0.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

Yep, and there is far more competition on clay than there is on grass. Fed fans fail to realize this when they knock Nadal considering he was Fed's only competition at Wimby for years. It doesn't say much for Fed's titles there if that's the way they feel.

fed also faced roddick/hewitt on grass ..... so nadal wasn't fed's only competition at wimbledon ....

[Clarky21]

Originally Posted by abmk

fed also faced roddick/hewitt on grass ..... so nadal wasn't fed's only competition at wimbledon ....

Using either one of those guys to try and bolster your argument is laughable. They are both Fed's pigeons, and gave him little trouble more often than not.

[McEnroeisanartist]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

Using either one of those guys to try and bolster your argument is laughable. They are both Fed's pigeons, and gave him little trouble more often than not.

Fed is Nadal's pigeon at the French Open, so then are Nadal's French Opens less than impressive?

[Clarky21]

Originally Posted by McEnroeisanartist

Fed is Nadal's pigeon at the French Open, so then are Nadal's French Opens less than impressive?

Comparing Fed's career/abilities to Roddick and Hewitt does him a huge disservice. It's not nearly the same thing at all because Fed is leagues above both of them. Your tardism must be waning if you don't think more of Fed than this. You may have to turn in your ******* Card if this continues. Lol.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

ROFL.. His main rivals were Hewitt (who was finished up 2006) Roddick, 35 year old Agassi with a bad back (who was still make finals), and Nadal at the time wasn't good enough to reach a HC slam SF.

Fed's "Peak" coincided with OLD cripples like Agassi, and Subpar players (when compared vs. Nadal, Djoker, and Murray) like Roddick, Hewitt, Old Agassi, Baghaditis, Gonzales, Ljubicic, Davydenko etc. (Discounting Agassi who was old and breaking down anyways, what was there 2-3 slams between all of them?)

safin,hewitt were crushing and I mean crushing sampras ( yeah, sampras was older by then, but then those sort of humiliations in those USO finals prove just good how they were )

funny how you ignore safin @ AO 2004/05 , indoor season in 2004 ....

agassi in 2004 wasn't crippled ... he was playing excellent tennis ........see how well he was playing @ the AO, then in the USO HC swing , wayyyyyyyyyyy better than in more than half of your crush sampras' prime ( agassi was playing better in 2004 than he was in 93-mid 94, 96-mid-99 ) ...

his injury problems were mainly in mid-2005 and beyond ...

roddick was playing excellent tennis in 2003-05 and then in spells in other places - mid-2006-2007 , wimbledon 2009 , early 2010 etc

hewitt was pretty good in 2004-05

nadal was already there on clay in 2005, was decent on grass in 2006 and brilliant already by 2007 ...

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

In Nadal slam wins, (or even now), he has to go through Djoker, Murray, and Fed.. During the MAJORITY of Fed's slam title, Fed had a much weaker top field he had to get through if he wanted to win those big titles.

umm, federer has beaten nole 6 times in slams, and is 3-0 vs murray in slams ...and many of these wins with federer past his prime ...

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Fed came along at the perfect time to amass slams.. During a transitional era when the old guys were finishing and/or already retired (Sampras, Agassi) and at a time when it was a talentless vacuum when complete MUGS were winning slams. (Gaudio, Johansson etc)

johansson was in 2002 - federer wasn't even a major factor in slams then...

but then you wouldn't know that considering you are totally clueless about tennis outside of your crush sampras ..

here's some reality about sampras - how he benefited from a weak era

let us see - 93 , edberg who was 2-0 in slams vs sampras begins declining rapidly..

agassi - only a real force from mid-94 to 95 ...... then only from mid-99 onwards

becker - mainly a force only indoors in the mid-late 90s, occasionally on HC and grass, but never when he faced sampras ( tired after marathon matches/efforts in 93/95 in the matches before), well past it in 97 ....

courier - weakened considerably after 93 with injury problems ( dead arm )

which leaves ..

headcase goran , injured krajicek , the inconsistent stich and the mighty chang ( an inferior version of hewitt by some distance ) .... wow !

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Nadal has also been way more dominant his best surface then Fed is on his because he continues to stand the test of time on his best surface and hes only lost there ONCE his entire career

oh , no doubt, nadal has been more dominant on clay .....but federer was more dominant on HC/grass than sampras

[abmk]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

Using either one of those guys to try and bolster your argument is laughable. They are both Fed's pigeons, and gave him little trouble more often than not.

so if federer dominates pretty good grass court players in roddick/hewitt, I shouldn't count it as impressive ... umm, makes sense ....

I guess then using anyone to bolster nadal's CC achivements is laughable because everyone is his pigeon on clay ....

[McEnroeisanartist]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

Comparing Fed's career/abilities to Roddick and Hewitt does him a huge disservice. It's not nearly the same thing at all because Fed is leagues above both of them. Your tardism must be waning if you don't think more of Fed than this. You may have to turn in your ******* Card if this continues. Lol.

******* card. Lol. I like that Clarky. That is good. I may have to get those printed up.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by Clarky21

Comparing Fed's career/abilities to Roddick and Hewitt does him a huge disservice. It's not nearly the same thing at all because Fed is leagues above both of them. Your tardism must be waning if you don't think more of Fed than this. You may have to turn in your ******* Card if this continues. Lol.

except in this case, its not a comparison of federer with roddick/hewitt as a whole ... its hewitt/roddick on their best/2nd best surface vs federer on his worst .... In terms of playing level , its not a stretch to make a comparison ....

[underground]

Originally Posted by McEnroeisanartist

I will have to check out that website. Is it his own? Or some stupid fan created one?

It's his own official website.

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

Yep sorry I missed the bit where you said "in this reality", i.e. a reality where Nadal has another two Wimbledon titles and 13 slams in total (if Fed hadn't existed and Nadal had won W in 06 and 07).

Then he would have 13 slams (7 F, 4 W, 1 US, 1 AO), which would be very similar to Pete's 14 (7 W, 5 US, 2 AO) and he would have the benefit of having won all four.

Also if it weren't for Fed, he would have finished YE #1 in 2005-2007 and 2009, to add to his actual #1 finishes in 2008 and 2010; thus he would have matched Pete's six years in a row.

So yes you are right, if Fed didn't exist, Nadal would be considered on a par with Sampras rather than on a par with Borg.

Having said that, if Nadal didn't exist, Fed would not just be GOAT but some kind of otherworldly being (for one thing, he would have won 10 consecutive slams from 05 W to 07 US...)

yeah sorry, was easy to miss what I meant, could have made it clearer.

I didn't even think about the year end number ones, and all the consecutive weeks at number one that would have also gone with it, good thinking.

Yep Federer has lost a hel of a lot. Nadal has stopped him from being head and shoulders above everyone in tennis in almost every way possible. He's had a direct on Fed's career, Federer has had more of an indirect impact on Nadal's career by setting the bar higher.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Towser83

yeah sorry, was easy to miss what I meant, could have made it clearer.

I didn't even think about the year end number ones, and all the consecutive weeks at number one that would have also gone with it, good thinking.

Yep Federer has lost a hel of a lot. Nadal has stopped him from being head and shoulders above everyone in tennis in almost every way possible. He's had a direct on Fed's career, Federer has had more of an indirect impact on Nadal's career by setting the bar higher.

But isn't that the way in most sports when you think about it. There is usually a rivalry in which forces the other team or player to improve.

There was Wayne Gretzky in hockey but along came Mario Lemieux. In baseball the Yankees and Red Sox set the bar higher. There was Larry Bird and Magic Johnson in basketball. Before that Chamberlain and Russell.

In tennis there has been many top rivalries prior to Federer and Nadal. There was Rosewall and Laver, Sampras and Agassi, Gonzalez and Hoad. Among the women, Court and King, Evert and Navratilova, Graf and Seles. I honestly don't think the Nadal/Federer rivalry is that unusual historically.

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by pc1

But isn't that the way in most sports when you think about it. There is usually a rivalry in which forces the other team or player to improve.

There was Wayne Gretzky in hockey but along came Mario Lemieux. In baseball the Yankees and Red Sox set the bar higher. There was Larry Bird and Magic Johnson in basketball. Before that Chamberlain and Russell.

In tennis there has been many top rivalries prior to Federer and Nadal. There was Rosewall and Laver, Sampras and Agassi, Gonzalez and Hoad. Among the women, Court and King, Evert and Navratilova, Graf and Seles. I honestly don't think the Nadal/Federer rivalry is that unusual historically.

I guess it isn't unusual, it's just both players could be the GOAT. Federer already is in many people's eyes but it would be impossible to argue against if he didn't have Nadal around, Nadal could also be the GOAT to most people if Federer hadn't set the bar so high. Not sure if that's the case with most other rivalries, perhaps with some of them. I guess Agassi with let's say 11 slams and a full set might be considered the GOAT if Sampras had never existed

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by pc1

But isn't that the way in most sports when you think about it. There is usually a rivalry in which forces the other team or player to improve.

There was Wayne Gretzky in hockey but along came Mario Lemieux. In baseball the Yankees and Red Sox set the bar higher. There was Larry Bird and Magic Johnson in basketball. Before that Chamberlain and Russell.

In tennis there has been many top rivalries prior to Federer and Nadal. There was Rosewall and Laver, Sampras and Agassi, Gonzalez and Hoad. Among the women, Court and King, Evert and Navratilova, Graf and Seles. I honestly don't think the Nadal/Federer rivalry is that unusual historically.

Yep that's a fair point. I would say that Nadal/Federer may be the best rivalry we have seen in the men's game however, but Evert/Navratilova is still the gold standard overall. (Just my opinion..)