The Myth that Nadal has done much more than Fed at the same point in their careers

Deleted member 25923 · Jun 21, 2009

Many people like to claim that Nadal has done much more in his career than Federer because he has 6 slams by the age of 23 while Federer only had 3 slams (freshly turned 23).

Here's a couple of things to keep in mind:
-Federer was a late bloomer. He didn't begin his domination until late
-Nadal was an early bloomer. He began his domination in his teens

Still, many people still believe that Nadal is still much, much faster than Federer.

Here are some numbers then:

-Nadal turned pro at age 15 (2001)
-Federer turned pro at age 17 (1998)

In his 8 year long career, Nadal has accumulated 6 slams. Federer, in his first 8 years (being fair to Nadal here), accumulated 7 slams, and this is not counting all of 2006 because we are still in 2009.

Therefore, Federer had more slams than Nadal at this point in their careers. The only difference was that Nadal turned pro at an age 2 years younger than Federer.

Also, Nadal had his breakthrough in his 4th year on tour (first GS title), while Federer broke through in his 5 year. Both men won their first MS titles in their 4th year.

If anything, Federer and Nadal are pretty even, with Federer having a slight edge in slams while Nadal has a slight edge in MS titles.

But, the bottom line is, Nadal's achievements at this point in his career do NOTcompletely overshadow Federer's achievements at the same point in their respective careers.

Cesc Fabregas · Jun 21, 2009

What did Nadal do between 15-17?

Tennis_Bum · Jun 21, 2009

Mansewerz said:
Many people like to claim that Nadal has done much more in his career than Federer because he has 6 slams by the age of 23 while Federer only had 3 slams (freshly turned 23).

Here's a couple of things to keep in mind:
-Federer was a late bloomer. He didn't begin his domination until late
-Nadal was an early bloomer. He began his domination in his teens

Still, many people still believe that Nadal is still much, much faster than Federer.

Here are some numbers then:

-Nadal turned pro at age 15 (2001)
-Federer turned pro at age 17 (1998)

In his 8 year long career, Nadal has accumulated 6 slams. Federer, in his first 8 years (being fair to Nadal here), accumulated 7 slams, and this is not counting all of 2006 because we are still in 2009.

Therefore, Federer had more slams than Nadal at this point in their careers. The only difference was that Nadal turned pro at an age 2 years younger than Federer.

Also, Nadal had his breakthrough in his 4th year on tour (first GS title), while Federer broke through in his 5 year. Both men won their first MS titles in their 4th year.

If anything, Federer and Nadal are pretty even, with Federer having a slight edge in slams while Nadal has a slight edge in MS titles.

But, the bottom line is, Nadal's achievements at this point in his career do NOTcompletely overshadow Federer's achievements at the same point in their respective careers.

That is exactly my point from another post. Here it is. Since NameRanger is so good at digging all of the craps up, I was hoping he would.

Here is what I wrote:

Nadal turned pro at 15? Fed turned pro at 17? So Nadal, if you start at 15 to 23, that is a good 8 years on the pro. If you take that 8 years on the pro circuit, then Fed had accomplished a lot. I will have to refer NameRanger to do all of the references, accomplishments for me because he's good at it. NameRanger can dig a lot of that craps up much better than I can do.

The point is if you look at Nadal as a 23 years old person, yes, that's young. But if you look at the # of years on the pro, then he's a veteran for sure. Fed has accomplished a lot at 25.

I am not saying Nadal hasn't by 23, but what I am saying is don't look at the age to compare the two. Look at how long they been a pro and compare it that way. Then you have more of a orange to orange comparison as opposed to apple to orange comparison. For example, when people compare Fed and Sampras' slam accomplishments, they don't compare the ages, although some do, but it's not a good comparison. Most will look at the # of slams they played to accomplish their 14 wins. If Fed accomplished the same # of slams as Pete in shorter period played on the tour, regardless of the age that he accomplished that, because some people turn pro early, whether they are ready, or they have financial backing from their families, or whatever reason, you have to look at the duration of their pro career not their age to make valid comparison.

Nadal_Freak · Jun 21, 2009

Well Nadal has done more by 23. So it isn't a myth.

Tennis_Bum · Jun 21, 2009

Cesc Fabregas said:
What did Nadal do between 15-17?

Learning how to pick his ass to waist his opponent time, learning how to call trainer, learning how to jump around before a match to act like a monkey because he thinks that by jumping around like a money he will distract and/or intimidate his opponents.

BreakPoint · Jun 21, 2009

Cesc Fabregas said:
What did Nadal do between 15-17?

What did Federer do between 17-19?

cuddles26 · Jun 21, 2009

Nadal_Freak said:
Well Nadal has done more by 23. So it isn't a myth.

From hereon in is when he is certain to lose alot of ground with Federer's pace though.

Federer had won 8 slams before his 25th birthday

Nadal would be lucky to have won 9 slams at the time of his 25th birthday (which will be during the 2011 French)

Federer had won 11 slams before his 26th birthday

Nadal's last slam at the latest would probably be on his 26th birthday at the 2012 French, and if it is even his 11th it will be a bit of a miracle (more likely 9th or 10th).

Tennis_Bum · Jun 21, 2009

BreakPoint said:
What did Federer do between 17-19?

Fed took out at the time, the best grass court player at Wimbledon in 4th round? Can't remember exactly the round but that sounds about right.

Nadal_Freak · Jun 21, 2009

cuddles26 said:
From hereon in is when he is certain to lose alot of ground with Federer's pace though.

Federer had won 8 slams before his 25th birthday

Nadal would be lucky to have won 9 slams at the time of his 25th birthday (which will be during the 2011 French)

Federer had won 11 slams before his 26th birthday

Nadal's last slam at the latest would probably be on his 26th birthday at the 2012 French, and if it is even his 11th it will be a bit of a miracle (more likely 9th or 10th).

Wishful thinking. Nadal will be fully recovered in 3 or 4 weeks.

Deleted member 25923 · Jun 21, 2009

Nadal_Freak said:
Well Nadal has done more by 23. So it isn't a myth.

At this point in his career, no, he has not. It is a myth.

Point in his life is a totally different topic.

cuddles26 · Jun 21, 2009

Tennis_Bum said:
Fed took out at the time, the best grass court player at Wimbledon in 4th round? Can't remember exactly the round but that sounds about right.

Federer didnt even make his first slam semifinal until Wimbledon 2003 when he was almost 22. Beating an old Sampras at Wimbledon 2001 means nothing, George Bastl even beat Sampras at Wimbledon around then. Federer would lose in the 1st or 4th round of every slam he played until Wimbledon 2 years later. Sampras was probably 50% the player in his prime at that point, Federer 45% or something. Two greats who were nowhere near the top of their or the mens game at that exact moment. The most overrated match ever.

cuddles26 · Jun 21, 2009

Nadal_Freak said:
Wishful thinking. Nadal will be fully recovered in 3 or 4 weeks.

You are the one who is wishful thinking if you believe Nadal will ever be on a 3 slams per year pace to keep his current edge on Federer at the same age, or that Nadal will be winning any slams past his 26th birthday (I feel almost generous giving him that when his body is falling apart around his 23rd birthday). Delusional in fact if you believe that. My estimates for him were perfectly fair and within reason. Then again what can I expect from someone who calls himself Nadal_Freak, LOL!

tudwell · Jun 21, 2009

Tennis_Bum said:
Fed took out at the time, the best grass court player at Wimbledon in 4th round? Can't remember exactly the round but that sounds about right.

And at 17 Nadal straight setted number 1 in the world Roger Federer.

cuddles26 · Jun 21, 2009

tudwell said:
And at 17 Nadal straight setted number 1 in the world Roger Federer.

That is the point of this topic though. Nadal began to peak at a much earlier age than Federer, and even began his career at an earlier age.

Cesc Fabregas · Jun 21, 2009

BreakPoint said:
What did Federer do between 17-19?

He beat Sampras and got to the quarters of Wimbledon.

Nadal_Freak · Jun 21, 2009

cuddles26 said:
You are the one who is wishful thinking if you believe Nadal will ever be on a 3 slams per year pace to keep his current edge on Federer at the same age, or that Nadal will be winning any slams past his 26th birthday (I feel almost generous giving him that when his body is falling apart around his 23rd birthday). Delusional in fact if you believe that. My estimates for him were perfectly fair and within reason. Then again what can I expect from someone who calls himself Nadal_Freak, LOL!

I guess you know more than Nadal's doctor. I'm glad you are such an expert in other players careers. Tell me how long will Fed last?

ChanceEncounter · Jun 21, 2009

Nadal_Freak said:
Wishful thinking. Nadal will be fully recovered in 3 or 4 weeks.

So you think it's "wishful thinking" to believe that Nadal won't have 11 grand slams by the 2012 French? So he'll win at least 5 of the next 12 slams for sure (5 of 11 actually, since he's skipping Wimbledon)?

TennisandMusic · Jun 21, 2009

It really depends on how you want to look at it apparently. Years on the tour vs direct age comparison? What about how many majors they have played in? How many majors has Nadal played in and how many of those has he won. At the same point of majors played in Federer's career, how many of them had he won? That would be an interesting comparison.

However if you want to talk accomplishments, I'm pretty sure Nadal will never catch Federer on that front. It will simply be too hard to do, unless he completely changes his mindset and plays every surface how he does on grass. I just don't think he will do it. And even then it would be hard to catch him with players like Murray getting better. Federer simply never had a Murray type to contend with during his best years, 04-07.

Not trying to take anything from Federer at all by saying that, I'm simply saying it will be hard for Nadal to ever match Federer's overall tennis achievements.

cuddles26 · Jun 21, 2009

Nadal_Freak said:
I guess you know more than Nadal's doctor. I'm glad you are such an expert in other players careers. Tell me how long will Fed last?

Yeah since Nadal's doctor has gauranteed Nadal will be able to run like he is now at 30. After all saying he will be recovered enough from yet another injury (how many has it been already) to play tennis again in a few weeks is the equivalent of saying that.

You are clearly a biased Nadal fanatic, probably some teenaged girl. I actually like Nadal, but am just being realistic in my breakdown. I would actually be very happy for him if he ever reaches 10 slams. i hope Nadal atleast wins more than 8 as I would like to see him surpass Agassi's count, and if he breaks double digts it would be tremendous.

The fact is around now is when Federer begins to win at a 3 slams per year pace. If you think Nadal will keep pace with that with his playing style already taking a toll on his body, an improving field mostly with contenders his age or younger (plus that Federer guy still going strong), and that he has only once his career even won 2 slams in the same year you are insane. Not to mention thinking he will be winning slams into his late 20s, that is a laugher.

Deleted member 25923 · Jun 21, 2009

tudwell said:
And at 17 Nadal straight setted number 1 in the world Roger Federer.

3rd year of his professional career. In the 4th year of his professional career, Federer took out Sampras on his favorite court on his favorite surface in an epic match.

zagor · Jun 21, 2009

I actually agree with N_F here,Nadal has accomplished more at the same age.However what matters is the finish line,not the start and I think Fed will have better resumee when all is said and done,just my personal opinion.

flying24 · Jun 21, 2009

cuddles26 said:
You are clearly a biased Nadal fanatic, probably some teenaged girl.

Scary as it is Nadal_Freak is a man. :?

kOaMaster · Jun 21, 2009

BreakPoint said:
What did Federer do between 17-19?

trained hard for a big career. that is probably the age where teh decision for your future falls. during the first 2-3 years you turn pro.

it's not only about preparing your matches, also about preparing your career. something obviously martina hingis did wrong. (among some others)
nadal probably too.

zagor · Jun 21, 2009

TennisandMusic said:
It really depends on how you want to look at it apparently. Years on the tour vs direct age comparison? What about how many majors they have played in? How many majors has Nadal played in and how many of those has he won. At the same point of majors played in Federer's career, how many of them had he won? That would be an interesting comparison.

However if you want to talk accomplishments, I'm pretty sure Nadal will never catch Federer on that front. It will simply be too hard to do, unless he completely changes his mindset and plays every surface how he does on grass. I just don't think he will do it. And even then it would be hard to catch him with players like Murray getting better. Federer simply never had a Murray type to contend with during his best years, 04-07.

Not trying to take anything from Federer at all by saying that, I'm simply saying it will be hard for Nadal to ever match Federer's overall tennis achievements.

Murray has so far been a huge factor in only one slam-USO 2008 and Fed beat him there,however I do expect he'll get better and better.I definitely think he'll end up as a multiple slam winner and is future #1.

The main reason Nadal is unlikely to catch up to Fed's accomplishments is not Murray(not yet)but his playing style,Federer is much more agressive and has a much bigger serve while the main foundation of Nadal's game is still his amazing defense and that translates to spending much more energy to win matches.I do think Nadal has the tools be more offensive(he's actually a talented shotmaker and can hit his FH very big when he wants to)but his defensive mindset is holding him back,he doesn't take high-risk high-reward approach Fed does.

Mick · Jun 21, 2009

nadal fans should not be upset. most tennis experts (including mcenroe and borg) have stated that think federer is the greatest ever but nadal is constantly being compared with federer. this means that nadal is not far behind the greatest player of all time

flying24 · Jun 21, 2009

TennisandMusic said:
However if you want to talk accomplishments, I'm pretty sure Nadal will never catch Federer on that front. It will simply be too hard to do, unless he completely changes his mindset and plays every surface how he does on grass. I just don't think he will do it. And even then it would be hard to catch him with players like Murray getting better. Federer simply never had a Murray type to contend with during his best years, 04-07.

Murray has shown almost nothing in the slams so far though. OK one slam final and a couple quarters that is it. I sort of agree with you but at the same time even Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin (Federer contemporaries) had done alot more in slams by this age than Murray. He is about to turn 22 remember.

Clydey2times · Jun 21, 2009

ChanceEncounter said:
So you think it's "wishful thinking" to believe that Nadal won't have 11 grand slams by the 2012 French? So he'll win at least 5 of the next 12 slams for sure (5 of 11 actually, since he's skipping Wimbledon)?

The poster made a number of statements. How can you possibly know which one he was responding to? My guess is that it was the poster's assertion that Nadal will win his last slam at 26.

BreakPoint · Jun 21, 2009

Tennis_Bum said:
Fed took out at the time, the best grass court player at Wimbledon in 4th round? Can't remember exactly the round but that sounds about right.

Yes, but Federer didn't win his first big tournament until a year later at the Hamburg Masters, when he was 20.

zagor · Jun 21, 2009

flying24 said:
Murray has shown almost nothing in the slams so far though. OK one slam final and a couple quarters that is it. I sort of agree with you but at the same time even Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin (Federer contemporaries) had done alot more in slams by this age than Murray. He is about to turn 22 remember.

That is correct,however Murray had to go through both Nadal and Fed to win USO which is pretty difficult,almost impossible to do.We'll see how he does at Wimbledon this year,but he strikes me as a future #1.

Jchurch · Jun 21, 2009

tudwell said:
And at 17 Nadal straight setted number 1 in the world Roger Federer.

And Prime Nadal was straight setted by Juan Carlos Ferrero in 2008 at Rome.

TennisandMusic · Jun 21, 2009

flying24 said:
Murray has shown almost nothing in the slams so far though. OK one slam final and a couple quarters that is it. I sort of agree with you but at the same time even Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin (Federer contemporaries) had done alot more in slams by this age than Murray. He is about to turn 22 remember.

I think Murray just shows huge potential and it will come to fruition soon. Here is a guy with talent, speed, hunger, an apparently strong work ethic, and more importantly no fear. I love what he said about the hometown advantage regarding Wimbledon. When did Henman ever take that attitude?

Agreed that Murray hasn't really been a factor in majors aside from the last US Open, but I expect that to change pretty soon. If not, bummer for him.

I also agree with Zagor, Nadal's mindset is just wrong if longevity is the goal. This is why I wouldn't be too disappointed if he flames out. Yeah I will greatly miss not being able to see him play his best, but it's hard to be disappointed when the guy is obviously just making bad choices that are harming him and his career. If you're going to complain about hard courts, don't play so many small HC tournaments. Be more of a shotmaker, which he IS capable of being. There are times when he is playing aggressive, and it's just brutal for the other guy. Why not do that all the time? So Nadal should quit whining, be a man, strengthen those legs, and get down to business. If he can't do that, that is his own fault.

Don't get me wrong, hard courts are atrocious but you deal with what you have too.

PrinceMoron · Jun 21, 2009

What is his blood type? I'm B+ and going strong aged 47, so if he needs a transfusion...

flying24 · Jun 21, 2009

zagor said:
That is correct,however Murray had to go through both Nadal and Fed to win USO which is pretty difficult,almost impossible to do.We'll see how he does at Wimbledon this year,but he strikes me as a future #1.

That is nice but what are his excuses for all the other slams. The event you are referring to was where he made the final anyway, which I acknowledged was his one really good slam showing so far as it is. What about the other slams. At Wimbledon last year he lost to Nadal but he was lucky to survive even the flaky Gasquet in the 4th round before being brutalized by Nadal, so certainly would not have fared better than that with any draw. In Australia Verdasco takes him down. At the French Gonzo takes him down. Before Wimbledon last year he just isnt that good a player and doesnt produce any real slam results. So really for now it is what it is. I agree he will improve his slam results but Federer and Nadal cant be a valid excuse for the up to now.

All-rounder · Jun 21, 2009

TennisandMusic said:
I think Murray just shows huge potential and it will come to fruition soon. Here is a guy with talent, speed, hunger, an apparently strong work ethic, and more importantly no fear. I love what he said about the hometown advantage regarding Wimbledon. When did Henman ever take that attitude?

Agreed that Murray hasn't really been a factor in majors aside from the last US Open, but I expect that to change pretty soon. If not, bummer for him.

I also agree with Zagor, Nadal's mindset is just wrong if longevity is the goal. This is why I wouldn't be too disappointed if he flames out. Yeah I will greatly miss not being able to see him play his best, but it's hard to be disappointed when the guy is obviously just making bad choices that are harming him and his career. If you're going to complain about hard courts, don't play so many small HC tournaments. Be more of a shotmaker, which he IS capable of being. There are times when he is playing aggressive, and it's just brutal for the other guy. Why not do that all the time? So Nadal should quit whining, be a man, strengthen those legs, and get down to business. If he can't do that, that is his own fault.

Don't get me wrong, hard courts are atrocious but you deal with what you have too.

Great post

Clydey2times · Jun 21, 2009

flying24 said:
That is nice but what are his excuses for all the other slams. The event you are referring to was where he made the final anyway, which I acknowledged was his one really good slam showing so far as it is. What about the other slams. At Wimbledon last year he lost to Nadal but he was lucky to survive even the flaky Gasquet in the 4th round before being brutalized by Nadal, so certainly would not have fared better than that with any draw. In Australia Verdasco takes him down. At the French Gonzo takes him down. Before Wimbledon last year he just isnt that good a player and doesnt produce any real slam results. So really for now it is what it is. I agree he will improve his slam results but Federer and Nadal cant be a valid excuse for the up to now.

All the other slams? Which slams are you referring to? He has only played 14 of them.

cuddles26 · Jun 21, 2009

TennisandMusic said:
I think Murray just shows huge potential and it will come to fruition soon. Here is a guy with talent, speed, hunger, an apparently strong work ethic, and more importantly no fear. I love what he said about the hometown advantage regarding Wimbledon. When did Henman ever take that attitude?

Agreed that Murray hasn't really been a factor in majors aside from the last US Open, but I expect that to change pretty soon. If not, bummer for him.

I also agree with Zagor, Nadal's mindset is just wrong if longevity is the goal. This is why I wouldn't be too disappointed if he flames out. Yeah I will greatly miss not being able to see him play his best, but it's hard to be disappointed when the guy is obviously just making bad choices that are harming him and his career. If you're going to complain about hard courts, don't play so many small HC tournaments. Be more of a shotmaker, which he IS capable of being. There are times when he is playing aggressive, and it's just brutal for the other guy. Why not do that all the time? So Nadal should quit whining, be a man, strengthen those legs, and get down to business. If he can't do that, that is his own fault.

Don't get me wrong, hard courts are atrocious but you deal with what you have too.

I actually agree with alot of what you are saying too. Nadal is a brute, he is so big, so strong, so athletic, and contrary to what some say he has the offnsive talent. So why isnt he exploiting his offensive potential more, being more of a shotmaker, more of a point finisher. There is no reason he shouldnt be ripping huge winners early in points as often as almost anyone out there combined with already nearly unmatched defensive and mental games. It is the style of play he chooses to play in many ways which causes much of the wear and injuries his body has already suffered, and will make an especialy long career nearly impossible. He doesnt have to be just much superior, much more talented and zouped up Michael Chang. With his size and strength, and flexability, he should be able to have a stronger serve too IMO.

In addition his schedule is ridiculous. He does not need to play all these smallish events, especialy the small hard court events. He already plays enough without some of those, especialy if he insists on continuing with his playing style.

Do you think he needs a different coach than his uncle? I have a feeling if he had a different coach that person would be telling him all of this but since it is family he cant bring himself to. It is perhaps time for a new voice for Rafa.

zagor · Jun 21, 2009

flying24 said:
That is nice but what are his excuses for all the other slams. The event you are referring to was where he made the final anyway, which I acknowledged was his one really good slam showing so far as it is. What about the other slams. At Wimbledon last year he lost to Nadal but he was lucky to survive even the flaky Gasquet in the 4th round before being brutalized by Nadal, so certainly would not have fared better than that with any draw. In Australia Verdasco takes him down. At the French Gonzo takes him down. Before Wimbledon last year he just isnt that good a player and doesnt produce any real slam results. So really for now it is what it is. I agree he will improve his slam results but Federer and Nadal cant be a valid excuse for the up to now.

I agree,but he had a damn good excuse for USO but in the other slams he proabably should have done better.However bare in mind that Murray's gametype takes a bit longer to mature,he's not just another baseline basher,the guy has a pretty multi-faceted game and plenty of options to choose from on court,those type players take a bit longer to really come into their own.Fed was like that as well.

veroniquem · Jun 21, 2009

cuddles26 said:
Yeah since Nadal's doctor has gauranteed Nadal will be able to run like he is now at 30. After all saying he will be recovered enough from yet another injury (how many has it been already) to play tennis again in a few weeks is the equivalent of saying that. You are clearly a biased Nadal fanatic, probably some teenaged girl. I actually like Nadal, but am just being realistic in my breakdown. I would actually be very happy for him if he ever reaches 10 slams. i hope Nadal atleast wins more than 8 as I would like to see him surpass Agassi's count, and if he breaks double digts it would be tremendous.

The fact is around now is when Federer begins to win at a 3 slams per year pace. If you think Nadal will keep pace with that with his playing style already taking a toll on his body, an improving field mostly with contenders his age or younger (plus that Federer guy still going strong), and that he has only once his career even won 2 slams in the same year you are insane. Not to mention thinking he will be winning slams into his late 20s, that is a laugher.

Nadal reached his 15th master shield at 22. Federer reached his at 27. Nadal managed a slam win on every surface (hard, clay and grass) at 22, Federer at 27, Nadal won the Olympics (singles) at 22, Federer is still waiting. Nadal won RG-W back to back at 22, Federer is hoping to do it at 27. So of course Nadal has achieved more at 23 than Fed, doesn't mean it will continue but as of now he has.

cuddles26 · Jun 21, 2009

veroniquem said:
Nadal reached his 15th master shield at 22. Federer reached his at 27. Nadal managed a slam win on every surface (hard, clay and grass) at 22, Federer at 27, Nadal won the Olympics (singles) at 22, Federer is still waiting. Nadal won RG-W back to back at 22, Federer is hoping to do it at 27. So of course Nadal has achieved more at 23 than Fed, doesn't mean it will continue but as of now he has.

and I disputed that where exactly?

I merely pointed out the obvious, being that this is the point where Nadal's edge on Federer at the same age is bound to start to fall off drastically and will be lost altogether.

Give me a break on the Olympics btw. A Masters title is even bigger in tennis than the Olympics. I dont know why tennis is even in the Olympics, is becomes a little barely noticed side show there in the face of the true marquee Olympic sports and as a tennis fan I find it embarassing to see the sport demeaned there in that way when it isnt even an important or neccessary event in our sport to begin with.

フェデラー · Jun 21, 2009

Well lets put it like this, Nadal's chances of ever winning the US Open are slim to none, since Federer and Murray and even Djokovic are much better on hard courts, so thats 3-4 years of no slams there. How he will do at the other three is yet to be seen, but Murray and Federer wil probably dominate.

bruce38 · Jun 21, 2009

Bottom line is it is unlikely Nadal will achieve anything close to Fed. Anybody can quote at this point in time and that point in time, when it's all said and done, Nadal will be in the realm of Mac, Connors, Agassi, players like that. I'm sure most Nadal fans know this deep inside of them, but of course they wish for more - what you hear on the boards are wishes. It won't happen. Fed is in a different league altogether.

TennisandMusic · Jun 21, 2009

cuddles26 said:
Do you think he needs a different coach than his uncle? I have a feeling if he had a different coach that person would be telling him all of this but since it is family he cant bring himself to. It is perhaps time for a new voice for Rafa.

Not really sure. Toni has volunteered to step down in the past and Nadal said no. Also I have read in interviews Toni saying Nadal needs to play everywhere like he does on grass and it's merely a mental problem. However that was awhile ago, so I am not sure where we are on those results yet.

It's easy for us armchair critics/coaches to say we know what is best for this pro or that pro. It's always easier to criticize than to do. However if I were in charge of Nadal's operations there are a few things I would change immediately and I personally believe he would be better off for it. First would be the schedule without question. There are a number of other things, but don't need to list them here. But there are a few obvious things that I'm sure most understand.

Nadal should change his habits or shutup with the whining. It's getting a little old.

TennisandMusic · Jun 21, 2009

bruce38 said:
Bottom line is it is unlikely Nadal will achieve anything close to Fed. Anybody can quote at this point in time and that point in time, when it's all said and done, Nadal will be in the realm of Mac, Connors, Agassi, players like that. I'm sure most Nadal fans know this deep inside of them, but of course they wish for more - what you hear on the boards are wishes. It won't happen. Fed is in a different league altogether.

In achievements, most likely. Quality of play? Ehhh...Nadal has 6 majors. He has beaten Federer in all 6. Federer has only beaten Nadal for 2 of his 14. Not exactly a great record.

Also, Nadal has won majors on all surfaces. This is something McEnroe, Sampras, Borg, Lendl, Becker, Edberg etc. have not been able to do. Federer would not have done it, had he had not had three choking opponents or a healthy Nadal in the mix. Haas, or Del Potro do not lose those matches against any other player playing the exact same way not named Roger Federer. Complete choke jobs to name alone. Nadal also has the gold medal in singles. I understand that puts him up there with Massu

-P) however combined with the rest it's quite a nice bonus.

So in a way Nadal has achieved quite a bit more than most of the all time greats. The fact that he has taken just about ALL of it from Federer himself, makes it even more impressive. What has Federer taken from Nadal? Not much really, in comparison. What does that say? I guess it is open to debate, but saying Federer is in "another league" is not entirely accurate, in my unimportant opinion.

pame · Jun 21, 2009

veroniquem said:
Nadal reached his 15th master shield at 22. Federer reached his at 27. Nadal managed a slam win on every surface (hard, clay and grass) at 22, Federer at 27, Nadal won the Olympics (singles) at 22, Federer is still waiting. Nadal won RG-W back to back at 22, Federer is hoping to do it at 27. So of course Nadal has achieved more at 23 than Fed, doesn't mean it will continue but as of now he has.

But isn't the OP doing a comparison based on similar length of pro careers, and not a comparison based on calendar ages?

bruce38 · Jun 21, 2009

TennisandMusic said:
In achievements, most likely. Quality of play? Ehhh...Nadal has 6 majors. He has beaten Federer in all 6. Federer has only beaten Nadal for 2 of his 14. Not exactly a great record.

Also, Nadal has won majors on all surfaces. This is something McEnroe, Sampras, Borg, Lendl, Becker, Edberg etc. have not been able to do. Federer would not have done it, had he had not had three choking opponents or a healthy Nadal in the mix. Haas, or Del Potro do not lose those matches against any other player playing the exact same way not named Roger Federer. Complete choke jobs to name alone. Nadal also has the gold medal in singles. I understand that puts him up there with Massu -P) however combined with the rest it's quite a nice bonus.

So in a way Nadal has achieved quite a bit more than most of the all time greats. The fact that he has taken just about ALL of it from Federer himself, makes it even more impressive. What has Federer taken from Nadal? Not much really, in comparison. What does that say? I guess it is open to debate, but saying Federer is in "another league" is not entirely accurate, in my unimportant opinion.

That Federer would not have won the FO with a healthy Nadal is conjecture, a good bet mind you, but conjecture all the same. He could have (he had in fact beaten Nadal on clay in their last meeting). That those matches against Fed were choke jobs is your biased interpretation. I disagree.

I would agree Nadal's accomplishments put him ahead of Agassi if he wins 2 or 3 more slams (which he likely will), but until then no.

That Nadal has won more against Fed, is back to the old argument of the H2H being skewed since Nadal was not good enough to make hardcourts and grass finals in the early years, where as Fed was good enough to make clay court finals. I would say the H2H actually speaks in favor of Fed even though it is lopsided.

So I disagree, Fed is an entirely different league from Nadal, and my bet is that is how it will end. Even more so now that Nadal is getting injured and will likely continue to do so because without playing as hard as he does, he cannot keep up with more naturally talented players.

bruce38 · Jun 21, 2009

TennisandMusic said:
Quality of play?

And you want to question quality of play? Fed would never have lost to a guy like Soderling so early in a Major. Nadal had done it many many times in majors (Not just Soderling this past FO). Only now in his later years will it begin to happen to Fed that he loses in earlier rounds against lesser players (although it hasn't happened yet). Nadal's game is completely geared towards Fed in order to beat him, Fed's game his geared towards the world and he his much more versatile. His 20 consecutive semi's is a testament to that. Nadal will never accomplish this. This is the true indicator of quality of play. Again no comparison. Different league for Fed.

TennisandMusic · Jun 21, 2009

bruce38 said:
That Federer would not have won the FO with a healthy Nadal is conjecture, a good bet mind you, but conjecture all the same. He could have (he had in fact beaten Nadal on clay in their last meeting). That those matches against Fed were choke jobs is your biased interpretation. I disagree.

I would agree Nadal's accomplishments put him ahead of Agassi if he wins 2 or 3 more slams (which he likely will), but until then no.

That Nadal has won more against Fed, is back to the old argument of the H2H being skewed since Nadal was not good enough to make hardcourts and grass finals in the early years, where as Fed was good enough to make clay court finals. I would say the H2H actually speaks in favor of Fed even though it is lopsided.

So I disagree, Fed is an entirely different league from Nadal, and my bet is that is how it will end. Even more so now that Nadal is getting injured and will likely continue to do so because without playing as hard as he does, he cannot keep up with more naturally talented players.

I don't think my interpretation is biased since I watched the matches. In fact when they were leading I explained to one of my friends there was no way they would pull it out. They would mentally fold as they are known to do. It played out exactly as I had supposed it would. That kind of predictability is only a result of tried and true results by those particular players, and capitulation is the name of the game unfortunately. Also Nadal was clearly below his best for most of this year, going back to even the AO. Do you really think he played great in Madrid? Almost no one who watched thinks so.

Continuing to suggest that Nadal is not as naturally talented as "other players" is insulting to Nadal, as well as to the players he is beating. How on Earth is Federer losing so much to a less talented player then? That doesn't speak too well for him either!

I am not sure how you can say the H2H speaks in favor of Federer when Nadal has a 75% win ratio across all surfaces in majors, and Federer has a 25% win ratio in majors, and only on one surface. The H2H clearly speaks in favor of Nadal in almost every meaningful way.

You are free to disagree of course, however I am just basing my opinion on the pure numbers here, and on the level of play seen in their matches.

TennisandMusic · Jun 21, 2009

bruce38 said:
And you want to question quality of play? Fed would never have lost to a guy like Soderling so early in a Major. Nadal had done it many many times in majors (Not just Soderling this past FO). Only now in his later years will it begin to happen to Fed that he loses in earlier rounds against lesser players (although it hasn't happened yet). Nadal's game is completely geared towards Fed in order to beat him, Fed's game his geared towards the world and he his much more versatile. His 20 consecutive semi's is a testament to that. Nadal will never accomplish this. This is the true indicator of quality of play. Again no comparison. Different league for Fed.

You realize Nadal has been below his best for awhile right? He would have lost to plenty of guys on that day. He even said in an interview the day before that match "for sure I am going to lose" when they were talking about how he was unbeaten up until that point at the French. He knew he wasn't doing well.

If you are going to examine results, please do so by the facts and not what you wish the situation to be.

bruce38 · Jun 21, 2009

TennisandMusic said:
I don't think my interpretation is biased since I watched the matches. In fact when they were leading I explained to one of my friends there was no way they would pull it out. They would mentally fold as they are known to do. It played out exactly as I had supposed it would. That kind of predictability is only a result of tried and true results by those particular players, and capitulation is the name of the game unfortunately. Also Nadal was clearly below his best for most of this year, going back to even the AO. Do you really think he played great in Madrid? Almost no one who watched thinks so.

Continuing to suggest that Nadal is not as naturally talented as "other players" is insulting to Nadal, as well as to the players he is beating. How on Earth is Federer losing so much to a less talented player then? That doesn't speak too well for him either!

I am not sure how you can say the H2H speaks in favor of Federer when Nadal has a 75% win ratio across all surfaces in majors, and Federer has a 25% win ratio in majors, and only on one surface. The H2H clearly speaks in favor of Nadal in almost every meaningful way.

You are free to disagree of course, however I am just basing my opinion on the pure numbers here, and on the level of play seen in their matches.

Who cares if you saw the matches, I saw them too, my biased interpretation is that they did not fold and Fed pulled it out. I explained to one of my friends the Fed would pull it out without the other guy folding and he did! Gee, fancy that. Yes I think he played well in Madrid but was outclassed by a better Federer. That he was not as his best at the AO is insulting to Fed.

I am not insulting Nadal, I am pointing out the truth, sometimes the truth hurts (i.e. insults).

Federer is losing to a much less talented player because Nadal's whole game is geared towards Fed's game. If Fed did that to Nadal, he would beat Nadal, but would also lose sporadically like Nadal and not claim as many Majors in the long run. I guess Fed chose to have a game that can defeat the world rather than just a few players.

If you are not sure how the H2H speaks in favor of Fed then you simply have not understood it, try reading it a few more times and see if that helps. I am also basing my opinions on the pure numbers and you are free to disagree with them,

bruce38 · Jun 21, 2009

TennisandMusic said:
You realize Nadal has been below his best for awhile right? He would have lost to plenty of guys on that day. He even said in an interview the day before that match "for sure I am going to lose" when they were talking about how he was unbeaten up until that point at the French. He knew he wasn't doing well.

If you are going to examine results, please do so by the facts and not what you wish the situation to be.

You also realize Fed has been below his best for a while too right? Problem with Nadal is he will never have the consistency of Fed, which is the hardest thing to maintain over a long period of time. His loss to Soderling and others proves that. That he said he was for sure going to lose proves he is not as ******** as some of his fans.

The Myth that Nadal has done much more than Fed at the same point in their careers

Deleted member 25923

Guest

Legend

Professional

Banned

Professional

Bionic Poster

Banned

Professional

Banned

Deleted member 25923

Guest

Banned

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Legend

Banned

Professional

TennisandMusic

Guest

Banned

Deleted member 25923

Guest

Bionic Poster

Banned

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Legend

Banned

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Jchurch

Guest

TennisandMusic

Guest

Legend

Banned

Legend

Hall of Fame

Banned

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Banned

Hall of Fame

Banned

TennisandMusic

Guest

TennisandMusic

Guest

Hall of Fame

Banned

Banned

TennisandMusic

Guest

TennisandMusic

Guest

Banned

Banned

Similar threads