Proof Nadal is better than his rivals

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by zam88

If federer could have only:

known he could not beat rafa on clay and thus tanked almost all clay semis except for the 09 RG when Rafa was knocked out, and then quit overall after 2010 AO he could have had +H2H against Djoker and Murray (and a near even record against rafa) and 16 majors.

and somehow i think that would've been better to a lot of the people here on TT than him staying around, making more clay finals (that he lost to the clay freaking GOAT!... do you realize if Nadal were just a great clay player and not the Cgoat that federer would have 3 french open titles and a CYGS?) and winning more masters and even another major.

You do realise that Nadal's outdoor HC record against Federer is 5-2 right? It should've been 6-1 if it wasn't for that massive choke in Miami 2005 where Rafa was up 2 sets and a break in the third.

Truth is, Nadal hadn't developed his game well enough to make it to HC slam finals and your argument that Fed "would've" beat Rafa if he did is absolute rubbish. Fed is LUCKY that Rafa wasn't making those HC slam finals because teenage Rafa was beating peak Federer in HC matches.

Rafa made his first HC slam final at age 22, the same age as Federer, but for some reason you expect Rafa to have been better than Federer at HC majors when age 17-21? LOL.

Federer played as well as he ever did apart from his serving in the 09AO final and still lost. Federer also was playing very well in 2012 AO and still lost when he met Rafa. Peak Federer was struggling to beat an early 20's Nadal at WIMBLEDON his "backyard" slam.

As for "taking away" Rafa's clay wins, why don't you take away Fed's indoor wins?

And when Rafa was making HC and grass slam finals in 2010 onwards where was Federer? Rafa made it to WIM2010, USO2010, WIM2011, USO2011 and AO2012 finals. He only played Federer in 2012 AO because ot was a semi and Rafa beat him there. Just like he would've beat him at any of those other tournaments had Fed managed to turn up.

Originally Posted by zam88

Fed's prime did not meet up with Djoker's prime or Murray's prime... if anything it's shocking that way post prime federer can still beat and or make it REALLY uncomfortable for these prime 25 y.o. players.


If Federer chooses to continue playing, then yes, he's going to end up with a -H2H against the other top 3.

Should he quit?

what's better... quitting now to preserve H2H? quitting in 2010 to preserve H2H? or getting possibly another major (which is entirely possible)

And it's not shocking that the following TEENAGERS beat PEAK Federer:

Berdych, Nadal (many times), Murray and Novak (actually think he might've just turned 20). Gasquet also did it IIRC.

It's not shocking that a 34+ year old Agassi pushed peak Federer to the limit in majors? LOL.

Murray's h2h against Federer before 2010 was 6-4

And if Fed retired in 2010, it would not help his case against Rafa whatsoever because he lost in HC and Grass slam finals to Rafa. Fed has never beat Nadal in a HC major. EVER. That's a fact that you have to live with.

So really, if he quit after 2010 AO, he'd have a +ve h2h against only Novak who was only aged 19-22 and even that h2h record wouldn't have been that great (9-5 IIRC).

In 2010 Federer was 28 turning 29, he was not old, not even in tennis terms it's just a lame excuse you ****s bring up all the time but to no avail.

[Crisstti]

Originally Posted by Cup8489

And yet... 17>11>6>1......

Weak era

Originally Posted by tennis_pro

Yea out of 20 matches Federer played Murray exact 2 times before 2008. Unless you consider post 2008 as prime Federer which I'm sure you do as you want Hafa's victories in him in 2008/2009 to be more valuable.

With Nadal the h2h was close at the end of 2007 as well with Nadal leading just 8-6 and 6 of his wins on clay obviously (like you expect anything different than Nadal piling up the h2h's thanks to clay).

I'd say 2010.

But really, I was just pointing out that it isn't like Fed had a winning h2h against Rafa and Andy during his prime (even if you only consider it until 200, and they've just won matches after he's declined.

[Sorana fan]

Originally Posted by coloskier

Throw out all the matches on clay and you'll get the real head to head.

Throw out hard court matches. That's not a proper tennis surface. Clay and grass are.

[ledwix]

Nadal overall matches up well with his rivals and peaks well, but is more susceptible to getting Rosol'd, hence a lower semifinal streak than Federer and Djokovic. The combination of those two factors is why he can keep his H2Hs so amazing, not necessarily because he is "better" than them outright. Murray of course will never be the player Nadal is, but Djokovic has a shot and Federer is still way out in front.

[ctoth666]

I think Djokovic and Nadal are both better than Federer at this point. It kind of pains me to say it, but I think the sport just keeps evolving and every generation surpasses the previous. Nadal and Djokovic in particular are just animals in a way that Federer never was, and they might not be as talented but the brutality of their tennis neutralizes talent.

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by Sorana fan

Throw out hard court matches. That's not a proper tennis surface. Clay and grass are.

It's funny how Rafa's success is put down to technology with racquets but Federer's isn't put down to technology with surfaces...

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by Nadalgaenger

The most convincing evidence of Nadal's greatness relative to rivals like Fed, Djoker, and others is the high esteem in which other top players hold him.

Murray, Ferrer, Berdych, Tipsarevic--all consider Nadal the toughest player to beat.

And Djokovic has been quoted as saying that Nadal is the greatest player of all time.

Nadal will not pass Federer but he will come close. And if he ends up with 15 majors or more, he will be GOAT because of the H2H and Fed's WEAK ERA.

Seriously there have been much better "Nadal is better than Fed" posts. This is really weak and I'm surprised anyone got worked up over it, you have to troll harder. Btw, Ferrer thinks Nadal is the toughest to beat? Have you compared his H2H with Nadal and his H2H with Federer? You can also compare Davydenko vs Nadal and Davydenko vs Federer. You know if you're just gonna pick a bunch of players (seriously, Tipsy, Ferrer and Berdych? those greats of the game??)

Man I could write a better nadal is the GOAT thread

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by Nadalgaenger

Federer is a hard-court specialist, Nadal a clay-court specialist.
3 out of 4 majors are on fast surfaces.
Hence, Fed has more majors.

Nadal will have far more Master's 1000 titles than Fed. Despite being younger and injured all the time, he already has as many. Those are arguably harder to win than Major's anyway, since you compete against a denser field and don't play patsy players in the first 3 rounds.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by The_Order

You do realise that Nadal's outdoor HC record against Federer is 5-2 right? It should've been 6-1 if it wasn't for that massive choke in Miami 2005 where Rafa was up 2 sets and a break in the third.

lol bringing up a Nadal choke in Miami but then later mentioning AO2009 which was a massive choke from Federer in the 3rd set. I like how we can claim back matches because Nadal choked, because Federer choked several matches. Rome 2006, Hamburg 2008, AO 2009, Dubai 2006, even RG 2011. This means adjusting for chokes the H2H is something like 14-14.

Originally Posted by The_Order

Truth is, Nadal hadn't developed his game well enough to make it to HC slam finals and your argument that Fed "would've" beat Rafa if he did is absolute rubbish. Fed is LUCKY that Rafa wasn't making those HC slam finals because teenage Rafa was beating peak Federer in HC matches.

In best of 3 yes. In best of 5 he lost the only match they played and that was only a master final which Federer did not put so much effort into. If Nadal could have really beat peak Fed on HC in best of 5 there's no reason he shouldn't have hacked down everyone else. True there is some matchup issue but at that time Nadal was not really good enough to beat Fed in a HC slam - he barely managed it at his peak when Federer was past his and mentally beat up vs Nads at the AO2009.

Originally Posted by The_Order

Rafa made his first HC slam final at age 22, the same age as Federer, but for some reason you expect Rafa to have been better than Federer at HC majors when age 17-21? LOL.

If you're going to go on about how Nadal was better than Federer on HC at 17 then he is a better player than Federer and thus why wouldn't you expect him to do better than Federer by making HC slams at an earlier age?

Originally Posted by The_Order

Federer played as well as he ever did apart from his serving in the 09AO final and still lost. Federer also was playing very well in 2012 AO and still lost when he met Rafa.

He choked. Next. If it's unfair to expect Nadal at 18-21 to win HC majors why is it fair to expect 3o year old Fed to beat a prime Nadal?

Originally Posted by The_Order

As for "taking away" Rafa's clay wins, why don't you take away Fed's indoor wins?

This is true. Clay counts as much as anything, but clay is the only surface where Nadal owns Fed. Elsewhere they are very even with a slight edge to Federer.

Originally Posted by The_Order

And when Rafa was making HC and grass slam finals in 2010 onwards where was Federer? Rafa made it to WIM2010, USO2010, WIM2011, USO2011 and AO2012 finals. He only played Federer in 2012 AO because ot was a semi and Rafa beat him there. Just like he would've beat him at any of those other tournaments had Fed managed to turn up.

True again, the situation reversed and then Federer was the one missing finals. Shame though it couldn't truly reverse with Federer meeting Nadal 3 times in 4 weeks on fast indoor hard all the time and hardly playing him anywhere else.

Originally Posted by The_Order

And if Fed retired in 2010, it would not help his case against Rafa whatsoever because he lost in HC and Grass slam finals to Rafa. Fed has never beat Nadal in a HC major. EVER. That's a fact that you have to live with.

In 2010 Federer was 28 turning 29, he was not old, not even in tennis terms it's just a lame excuse you ****s bring up all the time but to no avail.

Yeah it does help though that Nadal never played him in a HC major til 2009 when Federer had won more HC slams than anyone in history and would only win one more. When you've won 8 already you can say you're past the best HC slam days (just like Djokovic beating nadal at RG this year wouldn't mean much since Nadal has already racked up 7 and is bound to lose again soon) 28 will also be considered old for Nadal though. Oh I get his body is old, but Fed;s mind was old at 27. He had 4 years of making an insane amount of finals so a mental dip was always bound to come. Federer was non stop from the start of the year til the finish for 4 years. Not that he became terrible, but when you have a rival like Nadal, losing 5 % and them gaining 5% is enough.

[Valdez737]

Nadal and Toni his coach since he started playing Tennis have both said that Roger is GOAT about every other other interview.

[JustBob]

"H2H and weak era". The last two walls of Nadal fan's Alamo. Doesn't matter how many times you tear them down, they keep popping back up...

[always_crosscourt]

Originally Posted by Nadalgaenger

Has a winning record against Federer (11-9) and a crap record against Nadal (5-11)

Djokovic also is pretty even with Federer (13-15) but even despite the infamous 7-match win streak trails Rafa 14-19 in the H2H.

Basically Rafa will retire with all of his chief rivals having losing records against him.

Fed, by contrast, will retire with losing records to Nadal, Murray, and likely to Djokovic. And yet Fed is the GOAT???

Taking the h2h argument, Davydenko is a better player than Nadal, and Murray is more of an all-time GOAT then Federer.

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by always_crosscourt

Taking the h2h argument, Davydenko is a better player than Nadal, and Murray is more of an all-time GOAT then Federer.

Nope. 1 extra win doesn't prove anything at all.

If Davydenko was leading Nadal 18-10 then he (most likely) would have many majors.

The argument is Nadal owns a decent lead over every one of his top 4 rivals. It's not just 1 win, Federer is 2 losses from becoming his goose.

The "matchup" argument might've worked if Nadal was only owning Fed but not any of the other top 4 players. But Nadal has a decent lead over all of them both in terms of meetings overall and meetings at majors.

Furthermore, Davydenko does not own a single slam victory against Nadal either. Whilst Nadal owns 8 over Federer and this is in finals and semi's, not the early rounds.

[Nadalgaenger]

Originally Posted by The_Order

Nope. 1 extra win doesn't prove anything at all.

If Davydenko was leading Nadal 18-10 then he (most likely) would have many majors.

The argument is Nadal owns a decent lead over every one of his top 4 rivals. It's not just 1 win, Federer is 2 losses from becoming his goose.

The "matchup" argument might've worked if Nadal was only owning Fed but not any of the other top 4 players. But Nadal has a decent lead over all of them both in terms of meetings overall and meetings at majors.

Furthermore, Davydenko does not own a single slam victory against Nadal either. Whilst Nadal owns 8 over Federer and this is in finals and semi's, not the early rounds.

EXACTLY!! Nadal has impressive H2H against the top 3 guys in the game today AND unlike Davydenko or Hrbaty or whoever else he has 11 slams and counting.

He deserves much more than the hate he gets on here from *******s.

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by Nadalgaenger

Why is it so hard for people to recognize him as an all-time great.

No one said anything about him not being an all time great. And it is not hate to think that Federer is the goat. Stop misrepresenting.
In post one you talk about Nadal passing Federer as goat. In post eight you put three questionmarks after Federer being the goat. So you contradict yourself from the start.
How many gs Nadal will need to challenge Federer is a valid discussion I guess. But so far he has far less, and with 2/3 of them comming from one slam/surface, Federer is likely to retain many records over him.

[moonballs]

Originally Posted by Nadalgaenger

Basically Rafa will retire with all of his chief rivals having losing records against him.

Fed, by contrast, will retire with losing records to Nadal, Murray, and likely to Djokovic. And yet Fed is the GOAT???

Then Nadal's greatest achievement would be leading H2h against Federer. Fed is GOAT. Beating the GOAT doesn't make one a GOAT. Also we have to remember part of the H2h record is that Fed is the 2nd best player on clay. Had he been a worse clay court player his H2h against Rafa will actually improve! this tells you H2H isnt the objective measure of success in its own.

What makes Fed the GOAT is the 17 slams plus all the other records. ATP top 100 have vast amount of talents. One just need to watch the Rosol Nadal's match to realize how it is near impossible to make 17 finals, let alone 17 titles. Nadal is one of the greatest player in his time. But beating Fed doesn't quite make him the second GOAT in my subjective opinion. There are quite a few others like Pete for that spot.

[coloskier]

Originally Posted by Sorana fan

Throw out hard court matches. That's not a proper tennis surface. Clay and grass are.

Actually, you should throw out clay. Grass, hard court, and synthetic indoor courts are the only proper tennis surfaces. Clay is for pigs to roll in.

[Hitman]

Nadal is better than his rivals. 11 is better than 17 isn't it?

[mariecon]

Proof Nadal is a better doper than his rivals: The last 3 tournaments.

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by Hitman

Nadal is better than his rivals. 11 is better than 17 isn't it?

Haha quality over quantity my friend. Nadal's had to beat top 4 opponents in all his slam wins, this isn't the case with Federer who's won 6 majors without facing the top 4 seeds.

Could you imagine if Nadal played in 6 majors these days and didn't have to face anyone from the top 4? He'd take them no problem.

Not to mention he's been forced to beat Federer to win 7 of his 11 majors whilst Fed has only had to beat Nadal for 2 of his 17 majors.

Nadal's had to deal with peak Federer right from the start and now peak Djokovic and despite this still has 11 majors. Fed didn't have to deal with a peak Nadal from the start which is why he racked up so many majors from 04-07.

If Rafa didn't have to face peak Fed AND peak Djokovic he would have WIM06, WIM07, WIM11, USO11 and AO12. That's 5 more majors at the age of 26! Now you could make the same argument for Fed and say if he didn't have to face Nadal he'd have 22 majors, but you must remember, Fed was in his peak and Nadal wasn't until 2008, Fed wasn't dealing with peak Rafa at RG from 04-07, but Rafa WAS dealing with peak Fed in those WIM finals he lost and he also actually won against peak Fed up there as well (which is something Fed couldn't do to Rafa at RG) and Rafa WAS dealing with peak Novak in 2011-2012.

To any unbiased fan, Rafa has had it MUCH tougher than Fed.