Who is better at their worst slam: Fed at RG or Nadal at AO?
- Thread starter Jonesy
- Start date
Daniel Andrade
Hall of Fame
Close, very close.
Mediterranean Might
Professional
Both 1-4 in finals, but Nadal always felt much closer to a 2nd AO title than Federer did a 2nd French
D
Deleted member 762343
Guest
Ok, there's the number of finals that counts but you also gotta factor in the number of titles they'd probably have without the tournament GOAT on their way.
- number of AO titles for Nadal without Djokovic on the way : 3
- number of RG titles for Federer without Nadal on the way : 5
- number of AO titles for Nadal without Fedovic combined : 4
- number of RG titles for Federer without Djokodal combined : 7
And of course there's the fact Federer reached RG SF at 38. Maybe he would have even beaten Thiem without Nadal on the way. Now if the question was about who is the better opponent for the other one at their worst slam, the answer would be Nadal, but Federer is overall better at RG than Nadal at AO.
- number of AO titles for Nadal without Djokovic on the way : 3
- number of RG titles for Federer without Nadal on the way : 5
- number of AO titles for Nadal without Fedovic combined : 4
- number of RG titles for Federer without Djokodal combined : 7
And of course there's the fact Federer reached RG SF at 38. Maybe he would have even beaten Thiem without Nadal on the way. Now if the question was about who is the better opponent for the other one at their worst slam, the answer would be Nadal, but Federer is overall better at RG than Nadal at AO.
MeatTornado
Talk Tennis Guru
Pretty darn equal.
ForehandCross
G.O.A.T.
You wot mate?
Kralingen
Talk Tennis Guru
Both would have won more if not for ATG competition, and luck (moreso in Nadal’s case than Fed’s)
however both are mostly useless there after one last hurrah (‘11 Fed, ‘17 Nadal), but Nadal is a little bit better than Fed post 30 at the respective slam.
Will give tiebreaker to Nadal as I think his peak of AO ‘09 > Fed’s RG ‘09.
however both are mostly useless there after one last hurrah (‘11 Fed, ‘17 Nadal), but Nadal is a little bit better than Fed post 30 at the respective slam.
Will give tiebreaker to Nadal as I think his peak of AO ‘09 > Fed’s RG ‘09.
Kralingen
Talk Tennis Guru
just tallying it up
Federer: 1 win, 4 Finals, 3 SFs, 2 QFs
Nadal: 1 win, 4 Finals, 1 SF, 7 QFs
Obviously on the aggregate Fed skipped a lot of RG so didn't have as many raw stats. Nadal got injured in literally 4 of those matches though - Ferrer, Murray, Wawrinka, Cilic. Plus the '20 loss to Thiem in the QFs was worthy of a SF without a doubt. Fed did lose 6x to clay GOATing Nadal, but Nadal also lost to literal once in a lifetime Tsonga, AO GOAT Djoker 2x, and got hurt as listed above.
Nadal's title run was a tad more impressive than Fed's title run. And his AO '12 run was probably a smidge better than Fed's '06 or '11 finals runs at RG.
Really can't go wrong either way, tbh. I still give tiebreaker to Nadal because of how epic AO '09 was. That '09 form competes with any modern AO player ever, IMO.
Federer: 1 win, 4 Finals, 3 SFs, 2 QFs
Nadal: 1 win, 4 Finals, 1 SF, 7 QFs
Obviously on the aggregate Fed skipped a lot of RG so didn't have as many raw stats. Nadal got injured in literally 4 of those matches though - Ferrer, Murray, Wawrinka, Cilic. Plus the '20 loss to Thiem in the QFs was worthy of a SF without a doubt. Fed did lose 6x to clay GOATing Nadal, but Nadal also lost to literal once in a lifetime Tsonga, AO GOAT Djoker 2x, and got hurt as listed above.
Nadal's title run was a tad more impressive than Fed's title run. And his AO '12 run was probably a smidge better than Fed's '06 or '11 finals runs at RG.
Really can't go wrong either way, tbh. I still give tiebreaker to Nadal because of how epic AO '09 was. That '09 form competes with any modern AO player ever, IMO.
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
That's misleading. Fed played RG 17 straight years and in 22 years, he's skipped it only after turning 35 and still played it at age 37 and 38.
Last edited:
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
I would go with Federer since he was almost a perennial finalist there, which Nadal was not at the Australian Open the same way. Even if Nadal obviously had much more shots of winning more, he ultimately only won once, just like Federer at RG.
D
Deleted member 780630
Guest
Tough one. Both went through hell to win their only title and their top levels are pretty comparable. But Federer had more quality showings in his prime compared to Nadal and tougher opponents as well so I'll go with him.
Comparing their best runs:
Nadal AO '09 > Fed RG '09
Nadal AO '12 > Fed RG '07
Fed RG '06 > Nadal AO '14
Fed RG '11 > Nadal AO '17
Fed RG '05 > Nadal AO '08
Fed RG '10 > Nadal AO '07
Fed RG '08 > Nadal AO '19
Nadal's best runs were a bit better and he did get unlucky with injuries, but I feel Fed had a more consistent level.
Comparing their best runs:
Nadal AO '09 > Fed RG '09
Nadal AO '12 > Fed RG '07
Fed RG '06 > Nadal AO '14
Fed RG '11 > Nadal AO '17
Fed RG '05 > Nadal AO '08
Fed RG '10 > Nadal AO '07
Fed RG '08 > Nadal AO '19
Nadal's best runs were a bit better and he did get unlucky with injuries, but I feel Fed had a more consistent level.
D
Deleted member 762343
Guest
Yes, 4 RG finals in a row is very impressive and Nadal has never done that at AO. That achievement gets disregarded too much.
Biotic
Hall of Fame
How is that possible? Fedr was supposed to have the omnipresent advantage of peak level, while others get the less significant metrics such as consistency.
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
I voted Fed. A bit surprised Nadal is leading, but I can see it. I guess it is since he was truly close to winning a lot more times than Federer was at RG, which is true, but I think Federer was more consistently dominant over everyone not named Nadal (from say 2005-2011, only 1 non Nadal loss) than Nadal was over the field even bar 1 or 2 players in Australia.
Kralingen
Talk Tennis Guru
True. Fed magic can never be underestimated.
Turning Pro
Hall of Fame
Well Nadal nearly beat Djokovic and Federer at the AO whereas Fed never really got close to beating Nadal at the French imho. Also Fed never beat Nadal at the French whereas Nadal beat him 3 times at the AO including a little known final there........
Last edited:
Djokodal Fan
Hall of Fame
Only reason Nadal is better at AO is due to fact that he took down the best HC player at that time who was also a multi AO slam champion. On top of that he managed to push AO GOAT to the edge during the final.
What did Federer acheive at RG apart from getting that free french open slam off Soderling's effort?
What did Federer acheive at RG apart from getting that free french open slam off Soderling's effort?
socallefty
G.O.A.T.
Federer played RG six times before Nadal won his 1st French Open including once as the top seed. He lost in the first round 3 times and made the QF once in those years. Let’s not say that all of Federer’s problems at RG are because of Nadal. He has lost at the FO to 11 other players in addition to giving a walkover this year for no apparent reason.
abmk
Bionic Poster
Fed's draw at RG 09 was tough unlike Djoko's free very easy RG 16 (nadal out injured and Murray taking out Wawrinka&then laying an egg in the final). Fed beat a peak delpo (~ peak Wawrinka in RG 15 who convincingly beat Djokovic).
Oh and Fed beat peak Djoko in RG 11.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
D
Deleted member 762343
Guest
Yeah but the question is about who is better at their worst slam, not necessarily against each other. Also, don’t forget that HC is a neutral surface in which it’s always harder to dominate the field even if you’re the best. Clay is a different beast in that regard, as its very unique properties make it easier to dominate the field comfortably if you’re the best. It will always be harder to compete against the best clay player if clay is your worst surface than it is to compete against the best HC player if HC is your worst surface.
abmk
Bionic Poster
well, my response was to @Djokodal Fan 's ignorant post that " What did Federer acheive at RG apart from getting that free french open slam off Soderling's effort? "
not to Turning Pro's post.
D
Deleted member 771911
Guest
Nadal
mike danny
Bionic Poster
That's kind of irrelevant now. Djoko's 2021 RG title was better than Fed's.
Start da Game
Hall of Fame
fed at roland garros is clearly better, got denied only by clay GOAT nadal 5 times.......more than one player denied nadal many aus open titles........
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
Yes but Nadal at RG >>> Djokovic at the Australian Open. Nadal at RG or Nadal on clay >>> any player anywhere, or on any surface, in history. That should be obvious. I think even the biggest Fedt-rds or Djokot-rds or Samprastards, would concede that.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Gotta go with Nadal at the AO. His win in 2009 was epic. Fed needed to win 2011 to top that.
Rosstour
G.O.A.T.
Must have really galled you to see Federer actually win that 17 Final
Hitman
Bionic Poster
No, not really. Federer was overdue his win at that point, both over Nadal in a slam and his number 18.
ForehandRF
Legend
Good luck on pushing prime Nadal to 5 in a Roland Garros Final
Hitman
Bionic Poster
Good luck on pushing prime Nadal to 5 in a Roland Garros Final
He should have done in 2011, lets be honest here, he was inches away from taking the first set, and was equal to Nadal in the next two sets, taking one of them.
ForehandRF
Legend
I have to concede that.2011 was in fact Fed's best chance to beat Nadal there, he had an even better chance than in 2006 I would say
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Definitely. Surface not as slow, Nadal no longer the same speed demon.I have to concede that.2011 was in fact Fed's best chance to beat Nadal there, he had an even better chance than in 2006 I would say
It was such a mental loss.
Last edited:
BGod
G.O.A.T.
I'll take Fed at the French. By the metric that Nadal is far and away the greater block at the French than anyone for Nadal at the AO, including Novak.
Nadal lost to Novak twice, Fed and Wawrinka in the finals yes, but he also lost to Tsonga, Ferrer, Berdych if we're only looking at times he was not injured. The Cilic loss in 5 sets when retiring in the 5th should also be considered since he could have won that earlier and ultimately it doesn't excuse him losing all that much.
Fed meanwhile lost to Nadal 5 times during his prime years and to Soderling the other time. Even in his later years he lost to eventual champ Wawrinka and of course Nadal at near age 38. So I really don't see the argument for Nadal, especially all the QF losses and "only" 6 SFs.
Nadal lost to Novak twice, Fed and Wawrinka in the finals yes, but he also lost to Tsonga, Ferrer, Berdych if we're only looking at times he was not injured. The Cilic loss in 5 sets when retiring in the 5th should also be considered since he could have won that earlier and ultimately it doesn't excuse him losing all that much.
Fed meanwhile lost to Nadal 5 times during his prime years and to Soderling the other time. Even in his later years he lost to eventual champ Wawrinka and of course Nadal at near age 38. So I really don't see the argument for Nadal, especially all the QF losses and "only" 6 SFs.
abmk
Bionic Poster
Nope. I disagree. Fed's RG 2009 was significantly better in terms of level as well as highest&overall opposition faced - delpo of RG 09 > nadal of RG 21 by some distance.
RG 09 fed easily beats Djoko of RG 21.
Djoko gets props for winning RG 21 at his age though.
Last edited:
WildRevolver
Hall of Fame
This.
kevaninho
Hall of Fame
Technically speaking, Nadal came closer to winning the AO in 2012, and 2017.
Federer, i dont believe, was ever in a 5th set, and up a break ,in the deciding set at a RG final.
Obviously thats not the exact question here, but it has to be a consideration also since its a tough one to call.
Federer, i dont believe, was ever in a 5th set, and up a break ,in the deciding set at a RG final.
Obviously thats not the exact question here, but it has to be a consideration also since its a tough one to call.
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
It is too bad for Djokovic he could not close out that RG 2013 semi vs Nadal. That would have been by far his best win ever at RG, and honestly the best win anyone but Borg or Nadal has had probably. Actually scratch that, Soderling of all people has a bigger win as he beat Nadal at RG 2009, so besides Nadal, Borg, and Soderling, LOL! Nadal was still really great at that point in time. As it is he doesn't really have that strong a win at RG at all. Even Nadal of RG 2021 isn't that great, but probably his biggest.
Federer's biggest win at RG overall isn't even Del Potro in 2009, but Djokovic in 2011obviously. Del Potro in 2009 does beat Nadal in 2021 I agree though.
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
I just realized I forgot Panatta who beat fully prime Borg at RG 76. That has to be easily a top 5 win at RG in the Open Era too.
InsideOut900
Legend
Federer had more prime longevity for sure. 2005-2011, except 2010 were all prime years. So 6 years.
Nadal only really played prime tennis for 3 years in 2009, 2012 and 2014
However, I always maintained that Nadal was unlucky to get injured in 2011 and skip in 2013. I think both could have easily been added to his prime runs.
Possible final in 2011 and at least SF in 2013.
2010 was also quite good levelwise, but hard to rate it since he got outplayed in the QF and eventually retired from the match.
In terms of actual performace I am inclined to say Fed because of his extended prime, but Nadal displayed a better top level and was quite unlucky with injuries, so he displayed more potential.
Nadal only really played prime tennis for 3 years in 2009, 2012 and 2014
However, I always maintained that Nadal was unlucky to get injured in 2011 and skip in 2013. I think both could have easily been added to his prime runs.
Possible final in 2011 and at least SF in 2013.
2010 was also quite good levelwise, but hard to rate it since he got outplayed in the QF and eventually retired from the match.
In terms of actual performace I am inclined to say Fed because of his extended prime, but Nadal displayed a better top level and was quite unlucky with injuries, so he displayed more potential.
Similar threads
- Poll
