Is a part of Federer's success cemented on Nadal's failure
- Thread starter YouCantBeSerious
- Start date
billnepill
Hall of Fame
Interesting. As a true historian of the game you count religiously the matches lost or won during this period and proudly cite the H2H as an extrapolation as to what would have happened in Nadal's 1 year peak in his career if they met, but now Nadal apparently was too young. Hypocrisy much? Nadal is an early bloomer, that's the reality.
It's also interesting that I was addressing one of the dumbest things in the thread which you silently approve apparently.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
No. I'm using your logic, not mine.
Nadal achieved far more aged 17-21 than Federer did when he was the same age. That hasn't hurt Federer's legacy one bit. Nadal was a great player who managed to dominate clay even in that period of his career, so give him a break.
billnepill
Hall of Fame
Man, I was using sarcasm to counter Veroniquem's ridiculous point that Federer is avoiding Nadal on purpose.
On a side note, you are from the ones that think that peak Nadal definitely tops peak Federer everywhere but indoors right?
DoubleDeuce
Hall of Fame
Maybe part of it.
But most of Nadal's career is cemented by dirt and his H2H against the goat. He spent most of his life trying to catch up everywhere else.
Isnt that why he is the record holder for #2?
But most of Nadal's career is cemented by dirt and his H2H against the goat. He spent most of his life trying to catch up everywhere else.
Isnt that why he is the record holder for #2?
i have zero reasons to think nadal would be more difficult to beat than those federer beat on those years. after all, nadal LOST.
it's bad for nadal that he lost. not 'good' for federer. federer didnt care about nadal specially, he cared about lots of players. yes, 17 year old nadal beat him. but novak did also and murray did also and what that means? nothing. even after their first wins they would still lose most of the time, specially on big games. players can lose to lesser players, and that happened that day. it just happens that the same 17 yo matured to be a great champion, yet it doesnt matter he would have won every time against federer (and he has not).
either way, about the OP's suggestion, it's so painfully obvious that every player profits with the other players flaws and mistakes we shouldn't make a topic out of it. there are no perfect players, no one wins against everyone all the time. not federer, not novak and certainly not nadal. they all lose against each other and they all lose against the rest of field. end of story.
it's bad for nadal that he lost. not 'good' for federer. federer didnt care about nadal specially, he cared about lots of players. yes, 17 year old nadal beat him. but novak did also and murray did also and what that means? nothing. even after their first wins they would still lose most of the time, specially on big games. players can lose to lesser players, and that happened that day. it just happens that the same 17 yo matured to be a great champion, yet it doesnt matter he would have won every time against federer (and he has not).
either way, about the OP's suggestion, it's so painfully obvious that every player profits with the other players flaws and mistakes we shouldn't make a topic out of it. there are no perfect players, no one wins against everyone all the time. not federer, not novak and certainly not nadal. they all lose against each other and they all lose against the rest of field. end of story.
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
Nadal is 5 years younger.
But the point of the thread is that Nadal could have taken some more slams from Federer in HC if he had started making it deep when Fed was winning them (up until 3 years ago).
He might not have always won, but he surely would have taken a portion of their meetings in slam finals. Especially in Australia.
I have the feeling that Federer wasn't particularly tested in the HC slams. You could say the same of Nadal in RG, but then again that's just because nobody can test Nadal since he is far too superior to anybody else on clay.
smoledman
G.O.A.T.
You could say the same thing about Federer on HC/Grass from 2004-2007.
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
But then doesn't that mean that he DID benefit from not meeting prime Djokovic in other finals? I mean I don't really agree, with that but you can look at it that way. After all whenever Nadal has met Fed in a final Nadal has usually been at the top of his game. When he loses earlier on, then it''s a case of "nadal would have won if he hadn't lost to someone else first" When in fact maybe he didn't have to form to win that tournament even against Federer. You can't always be at the top of your game, and Federer has usually been a bit better at reaching the final even when not playing his best. So you can likewise say Djokovic would have beaten nadal multiple times if he had reached him more often in let's say 2008, 2009 and 2010. At the end of the day whoever lost wasn't playing well enough (usually)
Depends on where they met. Over best of 3 nadal at that stage had a better chance than best of 5 as Miami 2005 showed. Federer would probably up his game big time for a slam final, like you see with Murray, Federer lost a lot of matches to him on HC in best of 3 but dug extra deep in best of 5.
I think there's truth in this. The H2H and slam counts would be closer. However, if Nadal was winning HC slams back in 2005, he might have burnt out sooner, giving Federer more of a chance these days, or if he was the same age as Federer he would have easily outstripped him early on but might be retired by now. What you gain someplace you lose elsewhere. If Fed and Nadal (and Djokovic) all were peak at the same time, none would dominate despite being at the peak of their powers - they all lose. The way it is, Fed had his time when he was prime with limited rivalry from Nadal and Djokovic, now Nadal and Djokovic have it a bit easier with an older Federer around in their primes.
Actually I did think Nadal would win. I was almost sure.
The mental edge is part of it. Another part is nadal is a nightmare for Fed's game, and I think in Miami he wasn't expecting it at all. He had just come from winning IW, was recovering from illness and probably wanted an easy first round match... instead he gets nadal haha. A year later nadal still gave him problems though, he always will especially if Federer is struggling a bit, nadal will take full advantage and get Fed in deep trouble.
I agree we cannot know what would happen, we can only make educate guesses...
However, didn't you claim that there was no way anyone would have beaten Nadal at the USO in 2010 because he was on a mission? So I guess only Nadal fans have access to the alternative universe?
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
Nadal lost against other people. Nadal won AO 09, and Nadal is simply too good for Federer most of the time (bad matchup if you will).
None of those players own Federer. Nadal does however. Again, you forget about H2H in outdoor hard, and AO 09.
You are missing the point. Nadal didn't make it to the final, and Nadal stood a very good chance of taking those titles. That's normally not the case. You can't draw a parallel to this scenario very often. Certainly not against Nadal, for example. What player, according to you, could have defeated Nadal in any of the slams he won and didn't make it to the final? Nobody. You can stretch things a bit and say that perhaps Djokovic in RG 2011 might have stood a good chance if he had made it to the final, but that's it.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Don't use WTA as example, it's different. Federer is the record holder for most weeks at number 1, while Nadal is the record holder for most weeks at number two. their peaks were somewhat overlapped, but Nadal is still gonna be remembered as playing second fiddle to Federer, due to those two records.
DoubleDeuce
Hall of Fame
Could have, should have, would have...if that's the point there is no point.
He didnt start making it deep because he wasnt good enough and he needed time to improve. And when he did Fed was passed his prime anyways.
If you want to go " should have would have" route then take this:
If Fed and Nadal were the same age Roger would win a calendar slam at 26 while Nadal was nursing his knees and pulling out of tournaments.
no?
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
No, not really. Nadal met Fed in Wimbledon in 2006 through 2008. There is a clear trend where Nadal progressively increased his level until he was able to win. I think it's unfortunate that we have been denied a substantial rivalry in the HC slams between Fed and Nadal. It would have been very interesting.
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
No. You don't get it. It's not "could have, should have". I'm pointing out a very particular scenario where a player would have been good enough to win the final if he had made it to the final, because he has a very positive record against the other finalist. If you can draw a parallel situation between two other players feel free.
Also, Fed benefited even in RG from Nadal's failure. If you can't call RG 09 a fluke, then I don't know what is. Federer is clearly the second best clay player of his generation, but that is not saying much when you are so patently inferior to the #1.
smoledman
G.O.A.T.
It's too bad that Nadal was never able to advance to meet Federer in those AO/USO finals from 06-08. He just wasn't good enough.
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
But Djokovic actually met Nadal in all slam finals when he was prime (except RG 11). Before 2011 Djokovic didn't pose a particular challenge for Nadal. At least not in RG and Wimbledon, which is where Nadal laid his claim to most of his slams.
It's hard to tell. But AO 09 shows that Nadal still can edge Federer on best of 5 sets. I really think Federer might have taken the better part of the very first encounters, but then Nadal would have progressively caught on and won some. To think that Nadal would have won 100% in HC slams against Federer is just completely unrealistic (but so is the opposite).
Yes, you are correct. This thread is based on a hypothesis but how things might have actually played out is impossible to tell.
Even after the semi with Verdasco? And the disappointment at USO a few months back? I think that the second half of 08 and first half of 09 is the most convincing I've seen Nadal play outside clay (in general).
Yes, it's no secret that Nadal always can give Federer trouble. Despite Djokovic's diminished form, I now feel a little bit like that about Djokovic against Nadal. The mental factor (even if Nadal has managed to reverse it on clay) might play a factor in different surfaces. And Djokovic has a certain confidence against Nadal now that he didn't have before. We'll see where that goes.
No, I didn't claim that.I agree we cannot know what would happen, we can only make educate guesses...
However, didn't you claim that there was no way anyone would have beaten Nadal at the USO in 2010 because he was on a mission? So I guess only Nadal fans have access to the alternative universe?
I think in retrospect it's clear Nadal was on a mission. He must have practiced on that serve for months on end, because I've never seen him serve that well (although interestingly enough, I remember his serve was also on in AO 09, particularly in the Semi against Verdasco). Not as fast as USO 2010 maybe, but the placement was great.
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
That is true.
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
Take a look at this. If that's not impressive, I don't know what is. Each of them has been at #1 or #2 for 7 years. Federer more often at #1 than Nadal, obviously.
Second fiddle? I see where you are going, but I don't see it so clear cut. The fact Nadal was much younger than Federer and that he still owns Federer in H2H makes things a little more complex.
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
Yeah because we expect a player to make 7-8 Us Open finals in a row :shock:
And 8 Wimbledon finals in a row is easy too :lol: Not like he DID face Nadal in any Wimby finals either.... And he sure did a great job of avoiding him in RG finals hahah. Yes that makes sense, avoid him on hardcourt and grass, yet always show up to meet him on clay. You've figured out Fed's tactics!
Look in 2009 it was his 7th straight wimby final, so it wasn't like he avoided nadal the year before, then won when nadal pulled out, 2009 was him reaching the final like NORMAL, like the last 6 years, so it doesn't count as him decideing to turn up cos Nadal was out. Then he loses in 2 quarters the next 2 years. Why would he lose in a quarter? If he wanted to tank he'd wait for the semis because you get more points and there's a chance nadal would lose before making the final. As for the US Open, you don't get to match point and then tank.What if your opponent hits an error and hands you the match?
PS, Why wasn't AO champion Nadal, making the US Open final in 2009? Maybe avoiding Federer? He was winning HC masters since 2005, yet has NEVER faced Federer in a HC masters final since losing Miami in 2005. Been avoiding him? There are several times Nadal has fallen in the semis of a masters or 500 when he would have met Federer
Even if a player like Fed/Nadal would tank, the examples you provided have huge flaws.
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
But the theory here is, Nadal didn't develop his game early enough on HC so Federer didn't have to deal with him. You can also say Djokovic didn't develope his game fully (mentally is the key) until 2011, at which point he beat Nadal up and down the world on all courts. Not saying I agree with this, but it's works for both Fed vs Nadal and Nadal vs Djokovic.
But I dunno if he could have edged Federer in 2005. He probably could but how many times? I think Federer would have a decent lead. Federer was a better player 2004-2007 than he was in 2009, and nadal was not as good. I agree they would split meetings, 2004-2007 edge to Fed, 2008 depends on when and where, late season edge to Fed, early edge to Nadal, 2009 to now, nadal edge.
Yeah. My only point is if Nadal was winning across hardcourt earlier on, he would have had his all court prime years sooner and might have fallen into a slump where Federer would suddenly gain again. It's really hard to keep up an all court challenge for several years in a row.
Yes. I thought Nadal would recover better than people said (we now see Djokovic do the same at the AO and other feats of strength and realise it IS possible) and I felt Federer could no longer beat Nadal. He played a great match only marred by poor serving,but great ground game but got too tight to take breakpoints in the 3rd that would have left him serving for a 2 set to 1 lead. nadal was better mentally and I thought that would count more than being tired.
No, I didn't claim that.
I think in retrospect it's clear Nadal was on a mission. He must have practiced on that serve for months on end, because I've never seen him serve that well (although interestingly enough, I remember his serve was also on in AO 09, particularly in the Semi against Verdasco). Not as fast as USO 2010 maybe, but the placement was great.
Oh I know you didn't, I was quoting Mustard on that part. Sorry for the confusion.
Apparently Nadal started with that serve about a week before the USO :shock:
FlashFlare11
Hall of Fame
All we have are the facts. These "what if Nadal made more HC finals from 04-07..." scenarios are rather absurd. Why? Because he wasn't there. He wasn't good enough. There were other, more capable players at the time. That's why he lost early.
It's not a knock on Federer, rather, it's more of a knock on Nadal that he couldn't make it that far and lost to lesser players. If Federer beat weak competition for his slams, than what does that say about Nadal, a player who was losing to that supposed "weaker" competition?
People are clearly holding a double standard here, with the "Nadal is simply too good on clay but Federer only won on HCs/grass because of weak competition. No way Federer was that good" nonsense.
It's not a knock on Federer, rather, it's more of a knock on Nadal that he couldn't make it that far and lost to lesser players. If Federer beat weak competition for his slams, than what does that say about Nadal, a player who was losing to that supposed "weaker" competition?
People are clearly holding a double standard here, with the "Nadal is simply too good on clay but Federer only won on HCs/grass because of weak competition. No way Federer was that good" nonsense.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
sonicare
Hall of Fame
But even now, he's playing second fiddle to nole and fed. Dude is a constant no.2.
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
I see what you mean. The difference still is that Nadal hadn't developed AND he couldn't meet Fed in the finals because of it. AND he would have stood a reasonably good chance of taking some of those finals. Assuming Djokovic hadn't developed his mental game (although I think there is way more to it than that, particularly his incredible stamina last year), we are still left with the fact that Nadal met Djokovic in RG and Wimbledon. It's not that Djokovic couldn't meet Nadal in the final because he lost to other players. Very often they met and Nadal took those matches.
If what you are doing is trying to compare players at their absolute peak, that's another story. Djoker's peak is mighty impressive. But Nadal was not at his peak last year either.
Yes, I think Fed would have taken most of the early encounters probably. But overall Nadal would have taken at least a couple, if not more.
Yeah, like I said this might have been a factor causing an unpredictable outcome. Especially considering how vulnerable Nadal's physical condition is, and how it is aggravated on hard courts.
I honestly was hoping he would win, but I thought the punishment he had been subjected to against Verdasco would prove decisive. I think Federer couldn't believe what had happened (which might be partially responsible for his emotional meltdown at the trophy ceremony).
Everybody knows Nadal is ultradedicated and highly committed (OCD basically), but that's quite impressive. I have trouble believing it, but if it's true I don't know what's stopping him from doing it again.
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
I understand your point, and I know these hypothetical scenarios can be a little unfair because you can't prove things that can't happen.
But I think it's a valid reflection in the context of the Federer / Nadal rivalry. It's not a knock on Federer at all. The hypothetical outcome I consider more likely would be a more balanced H2H and about 2 slams difference in each player's resume. That still would have Federer ahead at this point, if by a lesser margin, and the H2H would be more balanced.
But, like you said, Nadal wasn't good enough to beat other players, so in that sense Federer absolutely deserves what he achieved. The goal of this thread is not to claim that Federer doesn't deserve some of his slams, which isn't true.
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
Treat your gut well, it deserves it. I suggest Fillet Mignon with a garnish of creamy potatoes and asparagus in vinaigrette.It was just a gut feeling on my part. Not absolute fact, obviously
Did you feel a disturbance in the Force in 2011 as well?
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Treat your gut well, it deserves it. I suggest Fillet Mignon with a garnish of creamy potatoes and asparagus in vinaigrette.
Did you feel a disturbance in the Force in 2011 as well?
It was certainly spooky how Djokovic was out-Nadalling Nadal.
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
Dude has more than 100 weeks at #1 (is it?)
Dude has positive H2H against the other Top 4.
Dude has 11 slams.
Dude has all time record Masters titles.
Constant no.2? You, sir, are a constant no. 2.
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
Yes, exactly my thought about 1000 times last year. Yet, I never lost faith. The third set at USO showed me things would change some day. Simply because the kid showed he has a lot of fight in him.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
It gave Nadal shoulder trouble. Also, his opponents would return serves a lot faster. He had that serve at 2011 Indian Wells and after taking the first set against Djokovic in the final, his first serve percentage collapsed (to as low as 20% at one point).
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Yes. And even more so with the fourth set of the 2012 Australian Open final and then taking a 4-2 lead in the fifth set. I was gutted after the match, but Rafa seemed content, obviously knowing that the chance to win was there, and that was all he needed to give himself confidence for future matches.
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
I can see how a sudden change in serve can screw something up physically. Wasn't that serve modeled after Murray? I remember reading somewhere that Uncle Toni and Nadal had decided that Murray had the most efficient serve and they wanted to build Nadal's serve taking Murray's as a model.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
I'm not sure what the serve was modelled after.
FlashFlare11
Hall of Fame
I see what you mean, but even trying to reasonably put together a scenario is difficult. Do you take the Nadal of today or 2010 and put him against Federer's competition of 04-07? Even then, it's incredibly difficult to say whether Federer would have lost to Nadal in those matches. Surfaces play a large role and, until 2007, the Australian Open used the faster Rebound Ace before switching to Plexicushion in 2008. The US Open seems to vary in speeds every year, with 2011 apparently being slower than 2010 and the like.
A lot of the time, Nadal's missed opportunities were due to injury. But those injuries are a result of his play, the kind of play that wins him matches against Federer. In other words, to remove the cause of those injuries would be removing the advantages Nadal holds over Federer. Perhaps Nadal wouldn't have the mental edge over Federer that he now enjoys if those advantages were removed. Or would Nadal be playing through those injuries instead of taking time off? But then his play would suffer.
My point is, there are infinte scenarios and variables. It's way too difficult to determine hypothetical results with so many factors needing to be placed.
Sid_Vicious
G.O.A.T.
The third set of the US Open 2011 final was just amazing. After Federer lost, I was not supporting either player in particular, but during that 3rd set I was fully behind Nadal. Shame he had nothing left afterwards, but I loved how much effort he put into winning the set. Tremendous fight.
Idk if people remember this match, but it reminded me of Djokovic vs Dodig at the AO 2011. Dodig fought tooth and nail to win the second set from Djokovic after losing a tight first. He lost the next two 0 and 2.
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
This is the best counterargument yet. Good stuff.
Start da Game
Hall of Fame
just a part? it's a major chunk of his career.......he wouldn't have won the french open, his 11th slam, slams 13 - 17 and seemingly the olympic gold now as well had nadal not injured himself all the time.......
Last edited:
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
It was amazing, wasn't it? Even if Nadal lost in the end I felt good because of the third Set. I guess I saw it as a sign of Nadal's stubbornness and his unwillingness to quit
Sorry, I didn't watch the Dodig match. I'll take your word for it, will see if I find anything in the Tube. Djokovic was a machine last year, that's for sure.
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
No. Nadal has won most his slams with Federer at the other side of the court.
Start da Game
Hall of Fame
that third set of us open 2011 final was the best set of tennis over the last decade or something.......
YouCantBeSerious
Banned
I don't know about "best" but it was one of the most intense for sure.
Start da Game
Hall of Fame
it's all too bad that these second rate "career achievements" of fed starting from 2009 in the absence of nadal will not be presented to the world as what they are (second rate) but glorified 100 times and blown up into all parts of the sky.......tennis sucks these days.......
a player who loses in the mind even before entering the arena when he plays his biggest rival, is hailed as GOAT and other media propelled garbage just to sell the sport to sheep followers.......
tennis without nadal is as incomplete as world population count without india and china.......
a player who loses in the mind even before entering the arena when he plays his biggest rival, is hailed as GOAT and other media propelled garbage just to sell the sport to sheep followers.......
tennis without nadal is as incomplete as world population count without india and china.......
Start da Game
Hall of Fame
yeah it was a intense and a real battle of minds.......djokovic says you are not giving up yet? nadal says bring it on.......djokovic actually brings it on like crazy but nadal still manages to find a way out of that set.......
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
delete post
Last edited:
tennis without nadal is tennis without nadal. period. you are such a poet, 'start da game'.
the problem about this IF scenarios is, like another poster said, for each one you bring i can bring another.
what if nadal made more HC finals early on? maybe he could win some titles out of fed.
but what if nadal played full calender and whasn't ready for the clay court season (because we know he focused on that)? maybe he would have lost many more games. maybe some to fed...
and what if the nadal had not a mental edge on federer on clay courts, would that translate to other courts? would federer then look at nadal like 'normal' competition?
and if nadal tried to play like he did everywhere? wouldn't he be even in worse shape than hewiit, for example?
etc etc etc
the problem about this IF scenarios is, like another poster said, for each one you bring i can bring another.
what if nadal made more HC finals early on? maybe he could win some titles out of fed.
but what if nadal played full calender and whasn't ready for the clay court season (because we know he focused on that)? maybe he would have lost many more games. maybe some to fed...
and what if the nadal had not a mental edge on federer on clay courts, would that translate to other courts? would federer then look at nadal like 'normal' competition?
and if nadal tried to play like he did everywhere? wouldn't he be even in worse shape than hewiit, for example?
etc etc etc
FlashFlare11
Hall of Fame
Why thank you!
I understand what your point is and, admittedly, I have thought the same way once.
I'm glad that this thread was able to stay on topic and that you, as the OP, have been sound in your arguments. Very commendable!
