Nadal is ahead of Federer in Slams adjusted by difficulty
- Thread starter Lew II
- Start date
Not even the 10th best Fed. Maybe 12th best just ahead of 2014.2015 is a weak year.
Federer said to be playing his best tennis in 2015.
He won zero slams in 2015.
So the best Fed won zero slams in a weak year
BringBackSV
Hall of Fame
No GS title is irrelevant and no GS title is more relevant. Do better, thanks in advance.
BringBackSV
Hall of Fame
Hahahaha, claiming 18, 19, 20, 21 year old Rafa was at his peak is decent level trolling, I'll give you that.
Just out of curiosity, when was Nadal actually peak - in your opinion?
BringBackSV
Hall of Fame
When he was 12, just like all the other great tennis players.
You didn't understand me: I wasn't asking about your age, it's obvious YOU are 12, but at what age was Nadal peak?
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Djokovic's competition is reflective of Fed's at best lol. Old man Fed and Mugray isn't amazing.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Gonna harass me on FB again you Adam Sandler looking muppet?
BringBackSV
Hall of Fame
Sick burn bud. Honestly, the implication of your initial question bores me, hence the response. If you need me to explain to you why he wasn't at his peak between 17-21, I'll just pass and not waste my time.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
So, can you quote three consecutive years where Nadal was better on clay and grass than the 2006-2008 period?
BringBackSV
Hall of Fame
I don't find the subjective evaluation of relative competition to be particularly compelling for any one of these guys. Each of these guys has benefited from a lack of strong competition at one point and suspect it will be fairly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things in terms of how these guys are remembered. Novak did have a couple years without too much of note admittedly but Fed was still playing some pretty decent tennis, Stan emerged to some extent and Andy, well I agree with you that Andy's challenges were a bit lacking.
BringBackSV
Hall of Fame
So, can you quote three consecutive years where Nadal was better on clay and grass than the 2006-2008 period?
I appreciate the arbitrary criteria, which definitely tells the whole story.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
BringBackSV
Hall of Fame
Is my question so hard that you cannot answer it?
Well, what do you think? You are suggesting your point validates the prior contention (presumably) and I don't agree for a number of seemingly obvious reasons. Anyway, it's true that Rafa was still a good player prior to his peak and this is particularly true off of hard but it's quite the stretch to suggest that his peak coincided with Fed's. Then again, perhaps you have a different interpretation of what constitutes one's peak years.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
I asked a pretty simple question. If it is obvious that what I am suggesting is wrong then the rebuttal should be quite straightforward, no?
No, I need you to explain me WHEN was he at his peak. Because you Nadal fans have so many different opinions - from peak by surface, to split peak periods, to a long continous peak that was cut off by injuries. And usually you switch them around to suit a particular argument.
Just post the years, buddy, and let's take it from there.
True Fanerer
G.O.A.T.
@BringBackSV or any of the other Nadal faithful:
Here is an interesting stat that I've seen here before, but it's been a while. One of the Fed faithful posted it. Can't remember who it was. Many knowledgeable Federer fans on this board. Anyways, feast your eyes on this.
Nadal vs players on HC who were Top 10 at some point in their careers:
2005-2008 73-34 (68.2%)
2009-2012 70-32 (68.6%)
Virtually identical records here.
Here is an interesting stat that I've seen here before, but it's been a while. One of the Fed faithful posted it. Can't remember who it was. Many knowledgeable Federer fans on this board. Anyways, feast your eyes on this.
Nadal vs players on HC who were Top 10 at some point in their careers:
2005-2008 73-34 (68.2%)
2009-2012 70-32 (68.6%)
Virtually identical records here.
TJfederer16
Hall of Fame
As much as you would like to think that, there are GS titles that are more relevant, particularly to Rafa's career. In order for one to become GOAT they have to have a diverse and well rounded resume. The more claycourt titles Rafa adds to his portfolio only accentuates his lopsided dominance over one surface.
BringBackSV
Hall of Fame
I asked a pretty simple question. If it is obvious that what I am suggesting is wrong then the rebuttal should be quite straightforward, no?
Your question was simple enough but the implication was not compelling. I don't particularly enjoy explaining the obvious but I'll briefly humor you. Injuries somewhat derailed his 09 but his combination of athletic ability, development and experience made him a better player in 08-09-10-11 than he was in 05-06-07, particularly 05-06.
BringBackSV
Hall of Fame
Arguing that they don't add to his legacy and his status among the greats is deluded. I'll save the arguments about who the mythical GOAT is to the people that live and die over that stuff, I don't particularly care.
Edit: I agree that it would be better if he had won more off of clay but there is difference between that and suggesting that the clay titles don't particularly matter, which is just crazy. I appreciate hyperbole as much as the next at points but I don't think it's particularly useful here.
BringBackSV
Hall of Fame
Cool story bud.
Raining hopes
Hall of Fame
2015 is a weak year.
Federer said to be playing his best tennis in 2015.
He won zero slams in 2015.
So the best Fed won zero slams in a weak year
Safin said his era was better. Can't you quote him or you have a in built filter
BringBackSV
Hall of Fame
That's pretty compelling. Roger's winning percentage in 2017 was better than 2007, perhaps he peaked in 2017...
True Fanerer
G.O.A.T.
These are both over the span of 4 years and specific to HC and competition. Not comparable.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
Federer after Wimbledon 2007 final:
''Nadal is improving so much, he'll soon win them all''
Federer's words always come to help.
Pro tennis historian
Rookie
2007 was around the time Nadal began to show he was more than just a clay court specialist. Wimbledon 2007 Federer was at one stage two rounds ahead of Nadal (a rare event in a slam). Federer got a fourth round walkover from Tommy Haas, putting Fed into the quarters, while Nadal was still in the third round trying to finish his match with Robin Soderling. Playing day after day took its toll on Nadal (he had treatment on court towards the end of the final). Nadal lost the 2007 Wimbledon final, but Federer was right, Nadal had improved.Federer after Wimbledon 2007 final:
''Nadal is improving so much, he'll soon win them all''
Federer's words always come to help.
True Fanerer
G.O.A.T.
Just posting objective statistical data LewFederer after Wimbledon 2007 final:
''Nadal is improving so much, he'll soon win them all''
Federer's words always come to help.
Also, they all lie.
Last edited:
Lew II
G.O.A.T.
That's good from you.Just posting objective statistical data Lew
Also, they all lie.
What is the score against actual top10?
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
This is unrelated to the topic, but I'm just curious: what are your top 10 Federer seasons?
True Fanerer
G.O.A.T.
I'm not sure that stat will fit my agenda though.
Ita pretty hilarious. Nadal 2005-2007 off-clay doesnt count, but Federer 2008, 2010 and 2013 count
2006>2004/2005>2007>2009>2012>2003>2008>2011>2010
Something like that. 2003 > 2008 for higher peak, more titles, YEC win. I can’t rank 2015 higher than any of those with 0 slam wins, 0 YEC, early losses at AO/RG.
Who is Adam Sandler?
Outside of clay? Why are we ignoring clay, what sort of crazy comparison is that lmao. And any way, what Federer did before Nadal was an adult is irrelevant when comparing them, GOAThood is defined by the best compared at their peaks and if we are arguing outside clay as Federer needs a sort of head start then it is Nadal 6 Majors Federer 6 Majors.@ bold part : ha ha ha ha, ha ha ha ha
federer outside of clay = 19 slams
nadal outside of clay = 6 slams
peak to peak, 2005-2009, federer = 4 USOs, nadal = 0 USOs
oh and deluded one, federer did win USO in 2008.
So what exactly is your point other than confirming Nadal is better?
Does it make you feel better talking tough behind a keyboard? If you think you know me, then PM me elsewhere, always happy to meet an audience for a coffee.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
125 straight down the middle.Does it make you feel better talking tough behind a keyboard? If you think you know me, then PM me elsewhere, always happy to meet an audience for a coffee.
As you like to talk tough, may I ask why you limit who sees your profile? Just saying......
Forgive me...is that a yes or no?
2 of those years Federer was less than 30...since when was 30 old lmao?Ita pretty hilarious. Nadal 2005-2007 off-clay doesnt count, but Federer 2008, 2010 and 2013 count
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
If you're not 125downthemiddle and you're just another Djokovic or Nadal fan I apologize. But if you are him just lol at this attempt.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
It's not about age and more to do with form.
Michael Chang was 25 when he stopped playing good tennis. That's young. Age is irrelevant until players hit early to mid 30s.
Apology accepted....is 125middle a Nadal fan?
The form point is different to past peak arguments and we could spend ages arguing the form point.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
A crazy Djokovic fan. Similar arguments though.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Look at the players Federer lost to in those years. Roddick? Baghdatis? Come on. Federer had utterly dominated Roddick and had only lost to him once in 2003 up to that point. 2008 was a so-so year for Andy too, dropping as low as 9th in the world and only getting as high as 6th.
Third Serve
Talk Tennis Guru
I'm sure 2017 deserves a spot somewhere on the list. Two slams and three Masters is very hard to ignore. I'd put that around where 2012 is at. There's no way it's worse than 2010 and 2011 at the least.
Other than that, this list seems pretty agreeable. I'd maybe put 2005 just a bit higher than 2004 purely for having lost just four matches, but that's more of a nitpick.
Similar threads
