Just the slams, no contest Nadal. Winning slams on 3 different surfaces > Winning slams on 2 different, and the Australian is still the least prestigious slam so if you are going to miss out one that is the best one. Overall year you could say Federer was better, but just the slams it is defnitely Nadal.
French Open- laughable to even consider anyong beating Nadal there at this point. Next.
Wimbledon- Neither Federer or Djokovic were even coming close to beating him in the form there were in then. Berdych saved them from a likely humiliating beatdown worse than the one Berdych himself received in the final. His toughest opponent given respective form was Murray who he still beat in straight sets.
U.S Open- Djokovic did play him and lost, as he did even more easily when they met at the WTF on Nadals worst court later that year. Federer hasnt beaten Nadal in a slam since 2007, and was never beating an on fire Nadal here. Murray was the only one with a shot (besides Djokovic who had his and lost), and he couldnt even beat Wawrinka so...
Now if you want to talk about weak draws take a look at Federers draw at the Nadal absent 06 Australian Open, or the draws of both Federer and baby Nadal to get to the 06 Wimbledon final. Talk about a joke.
I think Djokovic's 2011 was the most phenomenal run in the history of tennis.
AO, Indian Wells, Miami, Madrid, Rome, Wimbledon, Montreal, US Open.
Add the semifinals of RG and the finals of Cincinnatti to that and it's ridiculous.:shock:
Nadal's 2008 is also a great season because of his amazing run in the spring, summer.
Monte Carlo, Hamburg, French Open, Queens, Wimbledon, Toronto, Olympic Gold.
he did play blake at the us open in the quartersAre you saying these are the players they each faced in their GS wins? I'm not sure where you arrived at these names. First of all, Nadal never played Federer, Davydenko, Tsonga or Ferrer in any of his 3 GS wins in 2010. But you did forget Gianni Mina (#655 in the world, whom Nadal faced at RG) among others.
Federer never played Nalbandian, Ljubicic, Gonzalez, Srichaphan (not sure why you LOLed at him as he had a career high of #9), Blake or Acasuso in his 3 wins in 2006. But he did play Henman, Davydenko, Berdych and Kiefer among others. Why did you randomly pick those players to mention? Your post is an out and out lie. :shock:
French Open- laughable to even consider anyong beating Nadal there at this point. Next. PS- the only guy who ever did or ever came close was his finals victim in brutal fashion, so we can say he had his toughest possible draw as his only legit RG opponent at the time he faced.
Wimbledon- Neither Federer or Djokovic were even coming close to beating him in the form there were in then. Berdych saved them from a likely humiliating beatdown worse than the one Berdych himself received in the final. His toughest opponent given respective form was Murray who he still beat in straight sets.
U.S Open- Djokovic did play him and lost, as he did even more easily when they met at the WTF on Nadals worst court later that year. Federer hasnt beaten Nadal in a slam since 2007, and was never beating an on fire Nadal here. Murray was the only one with a shot (besides Djokovic who had his and lost), and he couldnt even beat Wawrinka so...
Now if you want to talk about weak draws take a look at Federers draw at the Nadal absent 06 Australian Open, or the draws of both Federer and baby Nadal to get to the 06 Wimbledon final. Talk about a joke.
Fed's 2006 > Fed's 2007 > Fed's 2004 > Nad's 2010
The End.
In 2010, Rafael Nadal became the first man in world history to win slams on clay, grass AND hard-court all in a calendar year. His run included winning Roland Garros without dropping a set (and wiping the floor with the now-retired soderling after a 2009 loss). He won the channel slam and won the US Open title being broken only 5 times, a record shared with andy roddick, and became the youngest player in the open era to win the career grand slam (at the age of 24) and also became only the second player to win the career golden slam (4 slams + Olympic gold in singles).
roger federer won 3 slams in 2006.
Which was the greater achievement?
Pretty much, equal greatness because Rafa has the triple surface achievement while Roger was a bit closer to the so loved 'CYGS'.
I'm surprised NSK decided to show his face again after Djokovic ripping Nadal at his favourite tournament
Murray was a clown back then, hes matured since. :
he did play blake at the us open in the quarters
Another one of these partisan made-up-on-the-spot records that only apply to a limited period even within the open era you mean? If so, I agree....if we talk about slams ONLY, then what Rafa did is an absolute record...
All things being equal, let's look at the 5 key events:
Rafa:
AO - Quarters
FO - Champion
Wimby - Champion
USO - Champion
WTF - Runner-up (to Roger)
Roger:
AO - Champion
FO - Runner-up (to Rafa)
Wimby - Champion
USO - Champion
WTF - Champion
Roger's 2006 AO outperforms Rafa's 2010 AO run by a big margin.
Rafa's FO outperforms Roger's FO 2006 run by a small margin.
Roger's WTF run outperforms Rafa's WTF run by a small margin.
By the totality of the year they achieved the 3 slams, Roger wins.
But if by JUST the 3 slams, ignoring WTF and their missing slam, Rafa's triple surface is better BUT people care so much about the CYGS so we need to take into account of the missing slam.
(Not my fault that people like to inflate the CYGS achievement)
I go with Federer. i dont think you can really compare them as I highly doubt that Nadal was 'clean' in 2010.
WTF is not a slam. Of course Fed's 2006 season AS A WHOLE is better than Rafa's 2010 but if we talk about slams ONLY, then what Rafa did is an absolute record. What Fed did (3 titles + a final) was great too of course but not a record.
Obviously rafa's was a better achievement because it was done on 3 different surfaces.
Why not Fed fanatics, read the Op's simple question. he was clearly "SLAMS" in the title.
So the winner is Nadal. Has Fed won 3 slams on 3 different surfaces? NO.
Period
Obviously rafa's was a better achievement because it was done on 3 different surfaces.
Why not Fed fanatics, read the Op's simple question. he was clearly "SLAMS" in the title.
So the winner is Nadal. Has Fed won 3 slams on 3 different surfaces? NO.
Period
It is widely agreed that Nadal 2010 success was due to easiest draws of all time. Just look at his opponents in all the slams he won.
Love your opinion. I especially love the part about the double.I think that the level of Federer love on this thread is ridiculous. Using WTF and AO results to justify that Federer's wins are greater than Nadal's is ridiculous. Nadal's wins were on three surfaces, as well as containing the Wimbledon-RG double. In my furry and cuddly opinion, Nadal's accomplishment is better on paper.
AO= slow HC. USO = Fast HC. They're two different surfaces alright.
In 2010? Are you joking? He beat Nadal at the AO and again in the semi-finals of Toronto before going on to beat Federer in the final, all in straight sets. He went on to straight-set Federer again in the final of Shanghai. He almost beat Nadal in the semi-finals of the WTF. He may have been inconsistent that year but a clown? If all that made him a clown I shudder to think what that made Djokovic who didn't make a single Masters final that year not to mention everybody else ranked below him?
Federer 2004 > 2007
Obviously rafa's was a better achievement because it was done on 3 different surfaces.
Why not Fed fanatics, read the Op's simple question. he was clearly "SLAMS" in the title.
So the winner is Nadal. Has Fed won 3 slams on 3 different surfaces? NO.
Period
AO 2007 Fed performence > anything in 2004.
That US Open final in 04 was pretty spectacular...
Hewitt in 2004 played better than Nadal that year, proof is in the pudding. Lost to him at the Australian Open of 2004 and the Australian Open of 2005. Nadal would have really struggled against Federer, he might take a set but he would lose.Yeah, because Nadal wasn't on the other side of the net...
Hewitt in 2004 played better than Nadal that year, proof is in the pudding. Lost to him at the Australian Open of 2004 and the Australian Open of 2005. Nadal would have really struggled against Federer, he might take a set but he would lose.
Well, current Nadal would struggle. 2011, 2010 and 2008 Nadal may win, but anything before then and he's toast. I assumed you were referring to current Nadal.Yeah the 2004 version of Nadal sure. But not prime Nadal.
Yeah, because Nadal wasn't on the other side of the net...
Nobody cares. Hewitt was on a 16 match win streak and his record at the US Open is as good as Nadal's. It was a dominant win against a good opponent. Didn't realize only slam wins versus Rafa count...
Yeah the 2004 version of Nadal sure. But not prime Nadal.
WTF is not a slam. Of course Fed's 2006 season AS A WHOLE is better than Rafa's 2010 but if we talk about slams ONLY, then what Rafa did is an absolute record. What Fed did (3 titles + a final) was great too of course but not a record.