Who is better, Nadal on hardcourt or Federer on clay?
- Thread starter Semi-Pro
- Start date
RF20Lennon
Legend
Bro federer has always been the second best clay courter after nadal in this decade but nadal was never there (only very rarely) when fed won the us open and australian open in his prime so many times
FedExpress 333
Professional
I would probably say Fed due to the runner ups.
RF20Lennon
Legend
Seconded!!!
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Nadal on hard courts. Nadal can beat anyone on hard courts and always could, whereas Federer has almost no chance against Nadal on clay. Furthermore Federer has won the 3 biggest clay court events only once. Nadal has won the 2 biggest hard court events already and is only 25. I believe they have the same # of Masters titles.
Of course this place is Federer Palace so even if you started a poll "who is better on clay- Federer or Nadal" Federer would win with atleast 70% of the votes, so a poll like this he will get atleast 95%.
Of course this place is Federer Palace so even if you started a poll "who is better on clay- Federer or Nadal" Federer would win with atleast 70% of the votes, so a poll like this he will get atleast 95%.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Federer is the 2nd best clay courter of this era since there are no other good clay courters at all other than Djokovic (who could surpass Federer down the road). Nadal is the 3rd best hard court player of an era where the hard court field is infinitely stronger than the clay court one. Up until this year he was the 2nd best.
Saying there are players who can beat is meaningless. There are many playes who can beat Federer on clay too. In his prime he lost to hip wrecked Kuerten, old man Costa, Volandri, Stepanek, and others. It doesnt make them better though.
_maxi
Banned
What about making five times the final of the FO and one semifinal losing to nadal (05)? has Nadal done something similar in HC slams?
offtopic: your signature is only 50% truth.
rofl_copter3
Professional
There are twice as many HC tournaments so Nadal needs to have twice as many HC titles as Fed has clay just to equal him... Nadal is a clay courter who has found a way on HC Fed is just better suited to be an all court type player...
FedExpress 333
Professional
A fair point, but Federer has beaten Nadal in two Clay 1000 finals: Hamburg 2007 and Madrid 2009. So he can beat Nadal, but not often at all.
Also, Federer has won the biggest clay tourneys: RG, Madrid, Hamburg. And Nadal has only won the biggest HC events once too, so I can not see how you can use that as a point?
Plus, what I believe puts Fed just a BIt over Nadal is the 4 RG finals, while Nadal has made it to the finals of the AO nce and the USO twice, and that is with twice as many chances.
borg number one
Legend
Nadal has 2 majors, that's all that counts..Federer just has 1 major. Tough luck for Federer that there's only 1 major on clay...I'm just using standard TT logic. Seriously though, it's a pretty close call. With numbers this close, it's debatable. It depends on how you define "better". Better at the US Open vs. French? Better at a hypothetical tournament on a given day?...........
Fate Archer
Hall of Fame
Was about to say this. Take Nadal away and you have Federer as a potential all time great on clay along with Borg.
Take Federer away from hardcourts and Nadal's resume stays basically the same.
Agreed with the general observations, Federer is just a more natural, better all court player. Not to say that Nadal is not a good multi-surface player too, he is, but I always felt like Nadal's approach was to "impose his game on the surface".
And not to "blend with it", that would be more fitting to the game Federer has.
With all that said, things could definitely change if Nadal can grab more important titles on hard court.
NadalAgassi(aka Davey25) is a habitual liar. I never said Roddick/Nalbandian is BETTER than Laver. It's ashame we have to put with poster that keep trolling in here and fabricating the content of other member's posts.
Fed is always in the final of the french and has won or been a finalist in the Aussie and US Open multiple times versus Nadal who is the king of clay, and although he has won both the Aussie and the US Open, he hasn't been a finalist in either too many other times. So when it counts the most Fed is closer to winning on clay than Rafa is on hard.
Roger qualify be in the top 10 or 20 best cc of all time. But Nadal isn't in a conversation. Fed is more consistent than him, and never defend any hc events, despite had more oppotunity to play on hc than Roger on clay. Many lesser players have better record against Nadal on hc.
RF20Lennon
Legend
add nalbandian, DODIG, Murray, Djkokovic, Federer, Tsonga, LUBACIC, MONFILS now whats up son? federer has been second best on clay nadal hasnt even been close to second best on HC where was he all these years when federer was winning the us open and australian open and dominating like crazy
That's why I always say the most objective way to measure a player's greatness is how he/she fair against the playing field. On clay, Roger has a bigger gap against the field than Nadal(on hc) is against the field. Fed has one guy(Nadal) standing in his way on clay, but Nadal has many players standing in his way on hc.
Talker
Hall of Fame
At RG Fed only lost to one player other than Nadal in the last seven years.
Fed's been in 5 finals in that time out of the 7 tournaments. 71.4%
Now for Nadal:
In the same time frame he's been in 3 HC finals out of 14. 21.4%
Nadal has some of his career left but he's probably too old to catch up now.
Fed's been in 5 finals in that time out of the 7 tournaments. 71.4%
Now for Nadal:
In the same time frame he's been in 3 HC finals out of 14. 21.4%
Nadal has some of his career left but he's probably too old to catch up now.
Federer has played the French Open 13 times, winning once, finishing runner up four times, and reaching one additional semifinal. Nadal has played in a hard court slam 16 times, winning twice, finishing runner up once, and reaching three additional semifinals. That's the same number of semifinals, with Federer having two more finals than Nadal and Nadal one more win than Federer.
Federer has played in 32 clay Masters events, winning five with seven runners up. Nadal has played in 43 hard court Masters events, winning five with four runners up.
Nadal is younger and will no doubt win more hard court titles, but given the number of times the two have played on the respective surfaces, I'd say Federer was more consistent and more successful on clay than Nadal on hard court. But it's close.
Federer has played in 32 clay Masters events, winning five with seven runners up. Nadal has played in 43 hard court Masters events, winning five with four runners up.
Nadal is younger and will no doubt win more hard court titles, but given the number of times the two have played on the respective surfaces, I'd say Federer was more consistent and more successful on clay than Nadal on hard court. But it's close.
sounds self explanatory to me....... But based on Rafa's comments.... it's Roger....
Last edited:
tenniselbow1
Rookie
what a ******** question,lol. This is not close, Fed by a long shot.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Before this year Nadal clearly had the 2nd best record on hard court of anyone of this era. That is an undisputable fact. Only Djokovic has passed him by this year. Nadal is the most hated player on this forum so of course people will pretend like he had the 17th best credentials on hard courts.
Your first sentence is meaningless, even Federer has lost to mugs on hard courts even in his prime.
LOL at stupid *******s blaming Nadal for not making hard court finals at 18-21 when so called hard court GOAT Federer couldnt make it past the round of 16 of any hard court slam until 22 (and not at the U.S Open until 23).
jones101
Hall of Fame
This post if full of WINNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!
Nadal has had double the chances on HC Masters and Slams, yet has similar stats to Fed. Fed acomplished more on clay than Nadal on hard in that regard.
N
nikdom
Guest
Clay on hardcourt has a better record. Hardcourt on clay tends to develop cracks.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
This is really, not much difference between them. I'll give the edge slightly to Roger, because the clay season is that much smaller than the hardcourt season, and Roger only has a few tournaments to make a statement.
He has 3 finals in MC, 2 in Rome, 5 in Hamburg, 2 in Madrid and 5 finals in FO. That is remarkable consistency, considering the window for playing on clay is shorter.
Nadal is very good also on hard, one final in AO, 3 finals in IW, 3 finals in Miami, 2 in Canada, 2 in US Open, one madrid indoor, one shanghai, one paris, one olympic and one WTF.
So it is very very close for me, but I'll give it slightly to Roger, in that he is the second best on clay during his run, while Nadal is surpassed by Fed and Djoker.
Still, not bad from both.
He has 3 finals in MC, 2 in Rome, 5 in Hamburg, 2 in Madrid and 5 finals in FO. That is remarkable consistency, considering the window for playing on clay is shorter.
Nadal is very good also on hard, one final in AO, 3 finals in IW, 3 finals in Miami, 2 in Canada, 2 in US Open, one madrid indoor, one shanghai, one paris, one olympic and one WTF.
So it is very very close for me, but I'll give it slightly to Roger, in that he is the second best on clay during his run, while Nadal is surpassed by Fed and Djoker.
Still, not bad from both.
DjokovicForTheWin
Banned
There is no contest. Fed clay >>>> Nadal HC. Nadal won AO only because Fed had a bad back and could not serve and then he had the cakewalk draw at USO. Nadal has never won a HC slam without something falling his way easy.
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
Thanks for the very objective and balanced assessment.
Awesome poast.
Strobe Lights
Semi-Pro
Wrong thread.
Last edited:
C
celoft
Guest
Federer on clay.
This is close. Few years ago clerly Roger had the edge. Now over the years Rafa´s game developed more to HC- which is major surface and is logical, also he plays more HC matches than clay so he simply must have adapted. It is close, but maybe i would still go with Roger here, because his record at RG- clay Masters is great. I mean without Nadal Roger´s clay record could be as good as on other surfaces with multiple RG and many more clay Masters. On other side without Roger, Rafa´ s record on HC is pretty much the same- little bit better. But truth is HC is major surface and most of top guys are better on HC than on clay, that means competition there is bigger. But still Roger could have achieved without Rafa much more on clay than visa-versa.
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
Really... really... FANBOY to the max!
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
In the context of planet Fed Worship R US anything above 10% vs 90% in a poll with Federer on it is winning the poll against Federer. So with Federer just around 85%, and Nadal just below 10% it is a virtual tie so far.
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
Since the fanboys are so into slam count I am going to say 2>1 and when we look at other titles the story writes its self, but face it. A dream world is all they have, as they pretend Federer has the best season ever while 3 other players are far and above him.
Biscuitmcgriddleson
Professional
Which three players?
fruitytennis1
Professional
Are you alluding to Fed's RG win or being an idiot? I'm going to guess the latter.
Someone earlier stated it best...
Look at Fed's career without Nadal dominating clay
Now look at Nadal's career without Fed.
Pretty obvious Fed on clay>Nadal on hardcourt
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
The without Nadal reasoning is the dumbest argument imaginable. Federer fans are all but ready to act like Federer is a 5 time or 6 time French Open Champion due to a fantasy World without Nadal. Heck why not just say he is equally great to Nadal on clay since he wins the same number of French Opens without Nadal as Nadal, that makes perfect sense after all, LOL!
The fact is Nadal was there, and Federer wasnt ever able to beat him at Roland Garros, so he deserves only 1 French Open as he has. Anyway Federer fans are always ready to cry about Nadal being in his way at Roland Garros, but wont even acknowledge how poor the rest of the field is on clay and that aiding Federer to make the French Open final every year with practically no competition. Nadal on hard courts (his worst surface like clay is for Federer) has to face 5 or 6 great hard court players. Federer on clay has to face Nadal and a bunch of clay court nobodies (other than Djokovic once). Despite that Nadal still had won the Australian Open, U.S Open, and Olympic singles gold on hard courts all by 24.
The fact is Nadal was there, and Federer wasnt ever able to beat him at Roland Garros, so he deserves only 1 French Open as he has. Anyway Federer fans are always ready to cry about Nadal being in his way at Roland Garros, but wont even acknowledge how poor the rest of the field is on clay and that aiding Federer to make the French Open final every year with practically no competition. Nadal on hard courts (his worst surface like clay is for Federer) has to face 5 or 6 great hard court players. Federer on clay has to face Nadal and a bunch of clay court nobodies (other than Djokovic once). Despite that Nadal still had won the Australian Open, U.S Open, and Olympic singles gold on hard courts all by 24.
Biscuitmcgriddleson
Professional
So in a world without Nadal, Federer is equal to Nadal, but for Federer to equal Nadal there has to have never been a Nadal.
You don't really answer anything and just seem to try and trash Fed fans. Nadal has been no where near as consistent on HC that Federer was on clay. Tsonga, Gonzalez, and Ferrer are truly great hard court players I guess. Not like Nadal had achieved anything on HC in 05 right? Oh wait, he did win two masters and then essentially went MIA on the biggest stages until 2009.
Last edited:
billnepill
Hall of Fame
Well, that is your main argument against Federer which according to you hurts his status overall. Of course, this is idiotic and expected from you, but at least now you can concede that Nadal would rank 3-4 in the all-time clay court list at best. He dominated clay only because of the weak competition.
Biscuitmcgriddleson
Professional
Quoted for the win. Can't be the goat on clay in weak clay era.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
If Nadal is only 3-4 on the all time clay list according to you then Federer isnt even in the top 30 considering the huge chasm between Nadal and Federer on clay. So thanks for admitting Federer isnt even a top 30 clay courter all time. The only way for Federer to even make the top 10 or top 15 all time on clay as Federer fans want is to concede Nadal as the hands down clay court GOAT considering the enormous disparity between the two on the surface.
I only brought up the weak clay court field as it is a counterbalance if one uses the competition excuse to Federer fans whining he should be awarded imaginary French Open titles he couldnt win only since he lost to Nadal. If one uses the Nadal excuse (and it is Federer fans using this excuse, Nadal fans need no excuse for his clay achievements obviously) then one must also consider the lack of depth in the clay court field today.
As for Nadal losing in hard court slams to Gonzalez or Youzhny, yes a 20 year old Nadal lost to people like that in hard court slams. A 21 year old Federer was losing to giants such as Max Mirnyi and a pre prime Nalbandian in hard court slams. Federer the so called hard court GOAT. Amazing that ****s think so highly of Nadal they apparently expect so much more from him on his worst surface than they do of their hero on his best.
I only brought up the weak clay court field as it is a counterbalance if one uses the competition excuse to Federer fans whining he should be awarded imaginary French Open titles he couldnt win only since he lost to Nadal. If one uses the Nadal excuse (and it is Federer fans using this excuse, Nadal fans need no excuse for his clay achievements obviously) then one must also consider the lack of depth in the clay court field today.
As for Nadal losing in hard court slams to Gonzalez or Youzhny, yes a 20 year old Nadal lost to people like that in hard court slams. A 21 year old Federer was losing to giants such as Max Mirnyi and a pre prime Nalbandian in hard court slams. Federer the so called hard court GOAT. Amazing that ****s think so highly of Nadal they apparently expect so much more from him on his worst surface than they do of their hero on his best.
Last edited by a moderator:
Crazy man
Banned
I would say Nadal. The HC field outside Federer and Nadal is better than the clay field outside Federer and Nadal. Which makes up for the fact there are two hardcourt slams to one claycourt slam. If Federer, how ever unlikely this scenario is, wins another French Open title, we'd have to revisit this thread. This isn't comming from a fanboy either; I dislike both players with a passion.
billnepill
Hall of Fame
that is your logic ****. If Roger can't be the greatest due to weak competition, Nadal can't be the greatest clay courter as well. He player in a " joke era, with joke competition". I am using your words here, hope you are not too daft to see the contradiction.
Similar threads
- Poll
