Why Nadal is better than Fed.

merlinpinpin · Oct 7, 2012

smoledman said:
We all know how dominant they are on their best surfaces. Nadal on clay. Federer on hard/grass. But how well do they do on their weakest?

Nadal has 10 big hard/grass titles
Federer has 7 big clay titles

But more importantly is Nadal has 4 grass/hard slams to only 1 clay slam for Federer.

4 > 1.

Kudos to you LOLville, this was a very brave thread to create. However, you missed out a little thing. In the interest of fairness (and fairness has always been your one and only motivation, as we all know), if you only choose one best surface for one of them, you must choose one (and one only) for the other. Not a gazillion of them, obvioulsy, otherwise this kind of defeats the purpose.

So, let's be fair, as I'm sure you wanted to be when you wrote this first post, and look at this with one single best surface/condition for each of them:

* Nadal: best on clay--let's discount clay, so he's left with 4 slams
* Federer: best indoor--let's discount indoor, so he's left with, ahem, 17

Then, according to your logic, we get:

4 > 17

Which is even more impressive than Trolling Day and Knight's 11 > 17.

Pretty conclusive, I must say...

sonicare · Oct 7, 2012

billnepill said:
Mustard's logic is incredibly behind in the light of his statistical knowledge. Having said that, 75% of his recent posts are about Nadal's clay inflated h2h against the top players. Strange. It dazzles me how he moans about inequality and spreads his communist views but he fails to see how unfair is to use a h2h where majority of the matches were played on Nadal's best surface and Federer leads in the rest?

The fact that he also uses this to weaken Fed GOAT's claims as opposed to only strengthen Nadal's? BS

Great post...Mustard is only good at keeping records but absolutely sucks at analysing numbers.

Doesn't surprise me as he is a dirty commie and posts so much nonsense, it is beyond belief. He needs to go buy this book

http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Dummies-Mark-Zegarelli/dp/0471799416

Povl Carstensen · Oct 7, 2012

"dirty commie" is that really a place we need to go? This is about tennis......

The Dark Knight · Oct 7, 2012

From an article I found on the net:

With his classic strokes (updated for today's new power game), Roger would easily have been at home among the players of yesteryear playing with wood rackets and long pants. And with the most major Grand Slam singles titles ever at 16, it's been hard to argue against the many who have anointed Roger as the "Greatest of All Time." But after yesterday's win by Rafa Nadal over Roger Federer in the French Open Final, maybe it's time to seriously give that appointment a closer look. Maybe Rafa isn't just the "King of Clay;" maybe he's way more than that.

As the match was nearing its conclusion, John McEnroe made the comment that "it's hard to see how Roger could have played much better that he did." Yet Roger lost -- for the 17th time overall to Rafa who Roger has now beaten only 8 times overall. In Grand Slam Finals, Nadal holds a decisive 6-2 edge over Federer. Nadal is also the youngest player of the open era to win a career Grand Slam (winning all four Grand Slam singles titles) and the second male player (Andre Agassi is the other) to win a Career Golden Slam (all four Grand Slams and an Olympic Gold medal). He has also won three Davis Cup Finals as part of the Spanish team, and holds a record 19 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 titles. By comparison, Federer has never won a singles Olympic Gold medal or won a Davis Cup Final for his country Switzerland.

Nadal, who just turned 25 years old, now has won 10 Grand Slam singles titles, only 6 behind Federer who turns 30 in August. And Novak Djokovic, at 24, is coming right behind both of them. No one can predict how many more Grand Slam singles titles Roger has left in him, or how many more years Rafa's extreme physical style of play will allow him to continue before his knees finally give out. Can Rafa eventually eclipse Roger's record-breaking 16 Grand Slam titles? Time will tell. But as John McEnroe astutely pointed out yesterday, "it's hard for Federer to be considered the greatest player of all time when he's lost to Rafa more than twice as many times as he's beaten him. He might not even be the best player of his own era."

The Dark Knight · May 1, 2013

Some would argue that Nadal is better because he has 11 slams while not playing in astounding 7 of them.

Federer on the other hand has never missed a grand slam.

I wonder how many slams Federer has actually been in ?

Does anyone know ? If Federer started at 17 and never missed a slam it means he has played in 56 slams.

Although Federer holds the record for most slams won he also holds the record for most slams lost .

Furthermore Federer was competed in every slam Nadal was in many if them in the finals against Nadal.....on the other hand Federer had competition the was not as strong as Nadal

SLD76 · May 1, 2013

billnepill said:
Mustard's logic is incredibly behind in the light of his statistical knowledge. Having said that, 75% of his recent posts are about Nadal's clay inflated h2h against the top players. Strange. It dazzles me how he moans about inequality and spreads his communist views but he fails to see how unfair is to use a h2h where majority of the matches were played on Nadal's best surface and Federer leads in the rest?

The fact that he also uses this to weaken Fed GOAT's claims as opposed to only strengthen Nadal's? BS

Normally mustard is reasoned and logical, but his inner fanboy reveals itself with a vengeance when it comes to nadal and lance armstrong.

SLD76 · May 1, 2013

The Dark Knight said:
Some would argue that Nadal is better because he has 11 slams while not playing in astounding 7 of them.

Federer on the other hand has never missed a grand slam.

I wonder how many slams Federer has actually been in ?

Does anyone know ? If Federer started at 17 and never missed a slam it means he has played in 56 slams.

Although Federer holds the record for most slams won he also holds the record for most slams lost .

Furthermore Federer was competed in every slam Nadal was in many if them in the finals against Nadal.....on the other hand Federer had competition the was not as strong as Nadal

Don't you get tired of posting nonsense.

And of course fed's competition was weaker than nadal's seeing as he is better than nadal and he can't play himself.

Deleted member 77403 · May 1, 2013

Nadal is better than Federer?

11 is greater than 17? What the....

The Dark Knight · May 1, 2013

H2h is very fair . Especially in slams

Both players had to go through the same tour.

Federer mopped the floor with them pre Nadal.....the when Nadal came around he took over and mopped the floor with Federer and everyone else.

Lets face it of Nadal were around since Federer started it would be Nadal with at least 17 slams.....Federer had very good timing . He started his slam count after Sampras retired who left a huge vacuum . Federer had no real rival.

And lets please not forget that Federer has the world record of grand slams lost with I think 39 ?

SLD76 · May 1, 2013

The Dark Knight said:
H2h is very fair . Especially in slams

Both players had to go through the same tour.

Federer mopped the floor with them pre Nadal.....the when Nadal came around he took over and mopped the floor with Federer and everyone else.

Lets face it of Nadal were around since Federer started it would be Nadal with at least 17 slams.....Federer had very good timing . He started his slam count after Sampras retired who left a huge vacuum . Federer had no real rival.

And lets please not forget that Federer has the world record of grand slams lost with I think 39 ?

Let's see, nadal won his first slam in 2005.
So in 2005 fed won 2 slams
3 in 2006
3 in 2007
1 in 2008
2 in 2009
1 in 2010
0 in 2011
1 in 2012

So, that's 13 slams since the emergence of la nadal. In fact, most of fed slam wins have been won when since the emergence of nadal at the fo in 2005 since he only won wimby and the uso that year.

Meanwhile, nadal has won 1 slam a year 6 times since 2005( 05, 06, 07, 09, 2011, 2012). He has only won multiple slams in 2008 and and 2010. And only at wimbledon from 06 to 07 was fed the road block for nadal otherwise , he couldn't get past the field. In fact aside from wimbledon 06 and 07. All of nadals slam losses have been to the field, til 2011 when djoker became his new roadblock. 2009 was the only year injury( and personal issues) stopped nadal.

How is nadal dominant again?

Rofl, record number of slams lost. Roger will take that as it means he was healthy and consisten enough to enter so many slam draws. trollolololololol troll

Deleted member 77403 · May 1, 2013

The Dark Knight said:
H2h is very fair . Especially in slams

Both players had to go through the same tour.

Federer mopped the floor with them pre Nadal.....the when Nadal came around he took over and mopped the floor with Federer and everyone else.

Lets face it of Nadal were around since Federer started it would be Nadal with at least 17 slams.....Federer had very good timing . He started his slam count after Sampras retired who left a huge vacuum . Federer had no real rival.

And lets please not forget that Federer has the world record of grand slams lost with I think 39 ?

Which means both players have an inflated grand slam record, since their competiton sucked. And they both look better than they really should.

You should be thankful that Djokovic rose from the ashes and brought some respect and quality back to the sport, after 2010 it had gone too far for too long. Hopefully Djokovic will continue to dominate and show that these so called GOATs overall and surface respectively are exposed for what they really are.

You crave great competition, right? Well, heaven has given you Djokovic. Enjoy!

mightyrick · May 1, 2013

Hitman said:
Which means both players have an inflated grand slam record, since their competiton sucked. And they both look better than they really should.

You should be thankful that Djokovic rose from the ashes and brought some respect and quality back to the sport, after 2010 it had gone too far for too long. Hopefully Djokovic will continue to dominate and show that these so called GOATs overall and surface respectively are exposed for what they really are.

You crave great competition, right? Well, heaven has given you Djokovic. Enjoy!

^ Quoted for absolute truth.

Federer (one guy) came along and filled the vacuum left by not only Sampras and Agassi... but also by the other guys in that field (Bruguera, Ivanesevic, Courier, Edberg... etc). That was a massive vacuum. This absolutely inflated his numbers.

Nadal clearly also benefited from this. Even if he beats Federer in a hardcourt and/or grass major... he certainly isn't going through a field as strong as Sampras had to deal with. So while Nadal may have still won the French Open several times, he'd certainly have less accomplishments on non-clay surfaces.

In Sampras' career, you had to beat three really awesome grass players to win. Who the hell did Nadal have to beat? Federer... okay. Who else?

I'm very glad Djokovic is around. While I still think the current field is pretty weak... at least having Federer/Nadal/Djokovic adds a little more parity to the outcomes in the majors. But it still kind of sucks.

NatF · May 1, 2013

Sampras' competition is overrated. Federer filled the gap left by Couier and Edberg? lol those guys hadn't been factors in majors since the early 90's...

mariecon · May 1, 2013

The Dark Knight said:
H2h is very fair . Especially in slams

Both players had to go through the same tour.

Federer mopped the floor with them pre Nadal.....the when Nadal came around he took over and mopped the floor with Federer and everyone else.

Lets face it of Nadal were around since Federer started it would be Nadal with at least 17 slams.....Federer had very good timing . He started his slam count after Sampras retired who left a huge vacuum . Federer had no real rival.

And lets please not forget that Federer has the world record of grand slams lost with I think 39 ?

Maybe we should look at the slams Federer won after Nadal came onto the scene in which he didn't play the Mallorcan because the Mallorcan didn't make it far enough or didn't even play the tournament because he was supposedly injured...

I'll be fair and start at 2005, after RG where Nadal won his first GS by beating Mariano Puerta, the doper, in the final...

W2005
USO2005
AO2006
USO2006
AO2007
USO2007
USO2008
RG2009
W2009
AO2010
W2012

Now let's look at the GS's Nadal won where he didn't face Federer...

RG2010
W2010
USO2010
RG2012

Federer won 11 GS's without facing Nadal, only one of those on Nadal's favourite surface. Seven on his least favourite surface (HC). What does this tell us? It tells us that if Nadal had actually made it far enough to play Federer that H2H might not look as lopsided. Chances are, Federer still would have won those majors yet Nadal preserved his precious H2H by avoiding Federer. Funny how Nadal has never missed RG yet he's missed 4 of the other GS's supposedly due to injury since 2005 and 6 in total (I think). Why is he never injured when RG rolls around?

Notice Nadal has only won 4 GS's where he didn't play Federer, two of those were on Federer's favourite surface.

Since Nadal wasn't as good on his worst surface as Federer was on his (clay) Fed missed several opportunities to improve the H2H. Maybe he should have lost a little earlier in those 4 RG's where he lost to Nadal. Then the H2H would be 15-10 (8 of those 15 are still on clay).

The H2H needs to come with an asterisk. Fed's the GOAT.:twisted:

Top Jimmy · May 1, 2013

Sure Federer might statistically be the "greatest" but when you've been dominated by your peer who has an equally impressive resume, I'm not sure how you can still call him the best/greatest.

Fed's game is classic and beautiful but I have much more fun watching Rafa hit that absurd forehand.

Novak is looking to be a all time great now too but his game is boring though I appreciate it.

mightyrick · May 1, 2013

NatF said:
Sampras' competition is overrated. Federer filled the gap left by Couier and Edberg? lol those guys hadn't been factors in majors since the early 90's...

Sampras came out at the end of 1988. You know how many majors he won in his first 4.5 years when Courier/Edberg were active? ONE. And this isn't even including the other players I mentioned.

The early 90s competition was absolutely ridiculous.

NatF · May 1, 2013

Top Jimmy said:
Sure Federer might statistically be the "greatest" but when you've been dominated by your peer who has an equally impressive resume, I'm not sure how you can still call him the best/greatest.

Fed's game is classic and beautiful but I have much more fun watching Rafa hit that absurd forehand.

Novak is looking to be a all time great now too but his game is boring though I appreciate it.

I didn't realize 11 slams and 100 weeks at #1 was as impressive as 17 slams 300 weeks at #1...

Nadal isn't Federer's 'peer' he's 5 years younger, he's dominated Federer only on clay his best and Federer's worst surface. If they'd met 14 times indoors then the head to head would look rather different.

The head to head is a product of Federer's age, a match up advantage and having a proportionately high number of matches on the surfaces best suited to Nadal.

NatF · May 1, 2013

mightyrick said:
Sampras came out at the end of 1988. You know how many majors he won in his first 4.5 years when Courier/Edberg were active? ONE. And this isn't even including the other players I mentioned.

The early 90s competition was absolutely ridiculous.

And alot of those guys were winding down during the middle of Sampras' domination. Lets not pretend like Sampras didn't need time to mature as player either.

Top Jimmy · May 1, 2013

NatF said:
I didn't realize 11 slams and 100 weeks at #1 was as impressive as 17 slams 300 weeks at #1...

Nadal isn't Federer's 'peer' he's 5 years younger, he's dominated Federer only on clay his best and Federer's worst surface. If they'd met 14 times indoors then the head to head would look rather different.

The head to head is a product of Federer's age, a match up advantage and having a proportionately high number of matches on the surfaces best suited to Nadal.

Hypothetical's and conjecture.

What is the head to head? How did Rafa win 2 Wimbledons? How did he beat Roger at Wimbledon? How come whenever they play Rafa seems wins the biggest points and Roger falters.

I don't really care but Fed bobo's need to admit Rafa has some sort of mental edge on Roger.

And as i said, I'd rather watch Rafa and that's what matters to me.

mariecon · May 1, 2013

NatF said:
I didn't realize 11 slams and 100 weeks at #1 was as impressive as 17 slams 300 weeks at #1...

Nadal isn't Federer's 'peer' he's 5 years younger, he's dominated Federer only on clay his best and Federer's worst surface. If they'd met 14 times indoors then the head to head would look rather different.

The head to head is a product of Federer's age, a match up advantage and having a proportionately high number of matches on the surfaces best suited to Nadal.

I tried to say it but you said it much better.

Flash O'Groove · May 1, 2013

Top Jimmy said:
Sure Federer might statistically be the "greatest" but when you've been dominated by your peer who has an equally impressive resume, I'm not sure how you can still call him the best/greatest.

Fed's game is classic and beautiful but I have much more fun watching Rafa hit that absurd forehand.

Novak is looking to be a all time great now too but his game is boring though I appreciate it.

Anyway, greatest does not mean perfect. The greatest player is the one against whom you can make the less critics/the less determining critics.

In the open era, Federer is this man.

NatF · May 1, 2013

Top Jimmy said:
Hypothetical's and conjecture.

What is the head to head? How did Rafa win 2 Wimbledons? How did he beat Roger at Wimbledon? How come whenever they play Rafa seems wins the biggest points and Roger falters.

I don't really care but Fed bobo's need to admit Rafa has some sort of mental edge on Roger.

And as i said, I'd rather watch Rafa and that's what matters to me.

Fine, you want to strip it all away that leaves us with Federer owning more titles (important ones at that) and more impressive records. I'm not sure in what strange world Rafa's achievements come close to Federer's.

You Nadal buttpickers seem to think beating one man is the measure of greatness. Fact is Federer has been able to beat the same field more times than Nadal has. End of//

Laughable that you enter the thread saying how Federer can't be the best because he's lost 19 times to Nadal who has equally impressive records, now all what matters is Nadal has a cool looking forehand

Flash O'Groove · May 1, 2013

Top Jimmy said:
Hypothetical's and conjecture.

What is the head to head? How did Rafa win 2 Wimbledons? How did he beat Roger at Wimbledon? How come whenever they play Rafa seems wins the biggest points and Roger falters.

I don't really care but Fed bobo's need to admit Rafa has some sort of mental edge on Roger.

And as i said, I'd rather watch Rafa and that's what matters to me.

I agree with that. Nadal had simply a great game to play against Fed from the beginning. He was able to challenge him on HC since 2004, when Fed was in peak form, then grass since 2006-2007. The match-up, AND the mental things give a great advantage to Nadal.

But Nadal and Sampras fan have to acknowledge that this match-up is greatly surfaces dependent too. The top spin forehand on the backhand make wonder on high bouncing HC and clay, but Federer has far less trouble to deal with it on slow bouncing hard indoor (4-0 at WTF).

Federer was able to go far in most clay tournament he entered, only to lose the finals against Nadal. If he has been as bad as Sampras on clay, the H2H would be a lot more close (maybe 10-8).

mightyrick · May 1, 2013

NatF said:
The head to head is a product of Federer's age, a match up advantage and having a proportionately high number of matches on the surfaces best suited to Nadal.

I think Federer has zero excuse to lose to Nadal at Wimbledon. That was really horrible, IMHO. Especially when Federer beats a GOATing Roddick in 2009 Wimby.

Regardless of Nadal on clay... Federer had his French Open chances prior to Nadal and blew those, too. In 2005, Nadal beat him in the semis but Fed would have lost to Puerta. In 2004, he got straighted in the third round by an almost retired Kuerten. In 2003, he got straighted in the first round by a nobody. Then, he meets Nadal several times and doesn't beat him a single time.

I think Federer is a great player, but c'mon. Beat the guy ONCE on the big stage on his surface. Don't let the guy beat you ONCE on your stage.

I like Fed a lot, but he really has choked in some big moments against Nadal. And I don't think the issue is age as much as it is mental. Once Nadal got into Federer's head... he's never been able to overcome the mental block.

veroniquem · May 1, 2013

Nadal is better than Fed on clay. Unfortunately for me, that's where it stops. Yes, Rafa has beaten Fed twice at AO and once at Wimbledon but that's not massively relevant when Fed has 9 hard slam titles overall vs 2 for Nadal and 7 W titles vs 2 for Nadal. (Not even mentioning WTF where Rafa has never beaten Fed in 4 encounters)

NatF · May 1, 2013

mightyrick said:
I think Federer has zero excuse to lose to Nadal at Wimbledon. That was really horrible, IMHO. Especially when Federer beats a GOATing Roddick in 2009 Wimby.

Regardless of Nadal on clay... Federer had his French Open chances prior to Nadal and blew those, too. In 2005, Nadal beat him in the semis but Fed would have lost to Puerta. In 2004, he got straighted in the third round by an almost retired Kuerten. In 2003, he got straighted in the first round by a nobody. Then, he meets Nadal several times and doesn't beat him a single time.

I think Federer is a great player, but c'mon. Beat the guy ONCE on the big stage on his surface. Don't let the guy beat you ONCE on your stage.

I like Fed a lot, but he really has choked in some big moments against Nadal. And I don't think the issue is age as much as it is mental. Once Nadal got into Federer's head... he's never been able to overcome the mental block.

If Federer tanked some matches and didn't face Nadal on clay so much he would have been a better player? Alot of the issues Federer has faced have been mental, I agree with that. Some of that is with Nadal some of that is just the way he plays e.g. not aggressive enough on break points. However clay is Federer's weakest surface and Nadal is the clay GOAT. He's had his chances but Nadal is like kryptonite to Federer.

Federer declined in 2008 as well, mono affected his quickness a little bit IMO. And Nadal played a brilliant match.

Steve0904 · May 1, 2013

We all know Fed has had his troubles with Nadal himself, but this whole "he beat Fed on his stage or stages at the AO and Wimbledon is far from enough to say he is greater than Federer. It's downright ridiculous actually. It's like a microcosm of the H2H argument. Everybody knows it's not enough to say Nadal is better, they just like trolling people and being idiots

SLD76 · May 1, 2013

mightyrick said:
I think Federer has zero excuse to lose to Nadal at Wimbledon. That was really horrible, IMHO. Especially when Federer beats a GOATing Roddick in 2009 Wimby.

Regardless of Nadal on clay... Federer had his French Open chances prior to Nadal and blew those, too. In 2005, Nadal beat him in the semis but Fed would have lost to Puerta. In 2004, he got straighted in the third round by an almost retired Kuerten. In 2003, he got straighted in the first round by a nobody. Then, he meets Nadal several times and doesn't beat him a single time.

I think Federer is a great player, but c'mon. Beat the guy ONCE on the big stage on his surface. Don't let the guy beat you ONCE on your stage.

I like Fed a lot, but he really has choked in some big moments against Nadal. And I don't think the issue is age as much as it is mental. Once Nadal got into Federer's head... he's never been able to overcome the mental block.

What excuse did nadal have for losing to soderling at the fo aside from "injury" and his parents divorce even though he was a grown man when they split

mightyrick · May 1, 2013

Steve0904 said:
We all know Fed has had his troubles with Nadal himself, but this whole "he beat Fed on his stage or stages at the AO and Wimbledon is far from enough to say he is greater than Federer. It's downright ridiculous actually. It's like a microcosm of the H2H argument. Everybody knows it's not enough to say Nadal is better, they just like trolling people and being idiots

Agree completely. And I honestly wish people would just say that Nadal and Federer are at par with each other. They are both on the list of greatest of all time. Both crushed everyone else. Both crushed each other on their favorite surfaces.

Forget H2H and forget counting slams.

Because if Roger and Rafa started at the same time, and clay was the surface for 2 out of the 4 majors... I think you'd see two men with almost equivalent career statistics.

Steve0904 · May 1, 2013

In fact, it's a good thing Nadal has a couple "one-ups" on Federer. Otherwise you'd have no reason to be a Nadal fan. Of course many people like his style and never say die attitude, but if he was just another person that Federer rolled over he wouldn't have half as many fans. I can guarantee you that. Because let's be honest, that's the main reason Nadal has his fans. They're either girls/women/gay guys who find him attractive, (of course there are many Federer fans that fit this bill as well) or they're people that don't like Federer or got tired of him dominating. Much in the same vein is Djokovic. I can guarantee you his fanbase went up ten fold after 2011.

forzamilan90 · May 1, 2013

veroniquem said:
Nadal is better than Fed on clay. Unfortunately for me, that's where it stops. Yes, Rafa has beaten Fed twice at AO and once at Wimbledon but that's not massively relevant when Fed has 9 hard slam titles overall vs 2 for Nadal and 7 W titles vs 2 for Nadal. (Not even mentioning WTF where Rafa has never beaten Fed in 4 encounters)

You are beginning to be ok in my book.

NatF · May 1, 2013

forzamilan90 said:
You are beginning to be ok in my book.

Guess you've missed half her posts today...

Steve0904 · May 1, 2013

mightyrick said:
Agree completely. And I honestly wish people would just say that Nadal and Federer are at par with each other. They are both on the list of greatest of all time. Both crushed everyone else. Both crushed each other on their favorite surfaces.

Forget H2H and forget counting slams.

Because if Roger and Rafa started at the same time, and clay was the surface for 2 out of the 4 majors... I think you'd see two men with almost equivalent career statistics.

But that's really the thing. When there is a sizable difference in accomplishments, stats matter. The slams count for the most, and really the H2H is a few rungs down the list these days. Behind things like weeks at #1 YE #1's WTF titles, MS titles, (Nadal leads of course) overall titles, overall dominance. H2H is behind all of these, and that's if I haven't forgotten any. And the slams have always counted for the most. No unbiased person who has a clue about tennis will say Federer and Nadal are equal. Which makes it even more ridiculous when you have people going around saying Nadal is better than Federer.

Put it this way. The difference between Federer's career and Nadal's career so far is Novak Djokovic, or Boris Becker, or Stefan Edberg, and even then Nadal is behind in weeks at #1 and YE #1's and WTF titles.

See this is the problem you run into when one guy sticks around and still plays relatively well, but doesn't beat his "rivals" that often. You get a bunch of kids who never watched prime Federer (probably have only watched since the 08 Wimbledon final or Djokovic's 2011 season) and are only concerned about who can beat who rather than overall accomplishments. Now to be fair to Nadal, he was the only one who consistently beat prime Federer on any surface, but what I'm trying to say is essentially this: Because Nadal and to a lesser extent Djokovic came along at "around" the same time as Federer and are able to beat him more often than not these days, the perception is that the gap between them is small, but truthfully it's rather huge career wise. Which will be what people really look at when they all retire.

It would be like if someone went and started a thread titled "Why Djokovic is better than Nadal", and in such a thread started harping on about the 7 straight finals losses and the 8-3 H2H since 2011 started because Djokovic was a baby pre 2011, and that 16-7 H2H lead pre 2011 doesn't count. I'm sure the Nadal fans wouldn't like that too much. And you know why they wouldn't like it. Because it is NOT TRUE! Overall Nadal's career so far trumps Djokovic's by a considerable margin. It's much the same premise between Federer and Nadal.

forzamilan90 · May 1, 2013

NatF said:
Guess you've missed half her posts today...

Don't feel like scrolling back...haha really only big Nadal fan that pisses me off is the Troll

NatF · May 1, 2013

forzamilan90 said:
Don't feel like scrolling back...haha really only big Nadal fan that pisses me off is the Troll

What about The_Order? Alot of them get on my nerves, only because they feel the need to compare Nadal to Federer all the time.

mariecon · May 1, 2013

NatF said:
What about The_Order? Alot of them get on my nerves, only because they feel the need to compare Nadal to Federer all the time.

That's why Ignore List is my friend!!!

NatF · May 1, 2013

mariecon said:
That's why Ignore List is my friend!!!

Oddly I think I like to be annoyed by them so I can occasionally let out frustration. Shows how mature I am...

mightyrick · May 1, 2013

Steve0904 said:
But that's really the thing. When there is a sizable difference in accomplishments, stats matter. The slams count for the most, and really the H2H is a few rungs down the list these days. Behind things like weeks at #1 YE #1's WTF titles, MS titles, (Nadal leads of course) overall titles, overall dominance. H2H is behind all of these, and that's if I haven't forgotten any. And the slams have always counted for the most. No unbiased person who has a clue about tennis will say Federer and Nadal are equal. Which makes it even more ridiculous when you have people going around saying Nadal is better than Federer.

You can't say that Nadal and Federer are equal when Federer is 5 years older and past prime. They didn't start at the same time. Nadal will still be going after Fed is gone. The only truly objective way to judge is to wait until Nadal is done and then attempt a comparison.

That being said, I do think Federer is most successful tennis player ever. Up to this point, I do think that Nadal has not reached his level. It's kind of like a Jack Nicklaus / Tiger Woods thing. Not unlike Nicklaus and Woods... I think Woods is a better golfer. Nicklaus has just been around longer and had more success.

Regardless, I think Rod Laver was better and achieved more than both.

BTW, the big stat that you left out (and I'm not sure why) was the Grand Slam. And that is the absolute pinnacle in tennis. It is a nearly inhuman feat that demonstrates absolute dominance and mastery.

EDIT: BTW, you also left out Davis Cup and Olympics. Gee... I wonder who your guy is?

forzamilan90 · May 1, 2013

NatF said:
What about The_Order? Alot of them get on my nerves, only because they feel the need to compare Nadal to Federer all the time.

Dark knight was also annoying..GodNovak from pre Wimbledon last year was utterly ghastly. We got in some ugly confrontations and he was not only trolling, but also verbally abusive. Glad he's gone...too bad he got banned before seeing you know who lift Wimbledon trophy few days removed after beating you know who in the semi finals

Nitish · May 1, 2013

NatF said:
What about The_Order? Alot of them get on my nerves, only because they feel the need to compare Nadal to Federer all the time.

The_Order-abmk rivalry is the best we have in this forum almost as good as fedal :twisted:

forzamilan90 · May 1, 2013

NatF said:
Oddly I think I like to be annoyed by them so I can occasionally let out frustration. Shows how mature I am...

Haha can you say BobbyOne...as cartoonish and stubborn as he is, his senility is entertaining sometimes

Quite Please · May 1, 2013

Steve0904 said:
But that's really the thing. When there is a sizable difference in accomplishments, stats matter. The slams count for the most, and really the H2H is a few rungs down the list these days. Behind things like weeks at #1 YE #1's WTF titles, MS titles, (Nadal leads of course) overall titles, overall dominance. H2H is behind all of these, and that's if I haven't forgotten any. And the slams have always counted for the most. No unbiased person who has a clue about tennis will say Federer and Nadal are equal. Which makes it even more ridiculous when you have people going around saying Nadal is better than Federer.

Put it this way. The difference between Federer's career and Nadal's career so far is Novak Djokovic, or Boris Becker, or Stefan Edberg, and even then Nadal is behind in weeks at #1 and YE #1's and WTF titles.

See this is the problem you run into when one guy sticks around and still plays relatively well, but doesn't beat his "rivals" that often. You get a bunch of kids who never watched prime Federer (probably have only watched since the 08 Wimbledon final or Djokovic's 2011 season) and are only concerned about who can beat who rather than overall accomplishments. Now to be fair to Nadal, he was the only one who consistently beat prime Federer on any surface, but what I'm trying to say is essentially this: Because Nadal and to a lesser extent Djokovic came along at "around" the same time as Federer and are able to beat him more often than not these days, the perception is that the gap between them is small, but truthfully it's rather huge career wise. Which will be what people really look at when they all retire.

It would be like if someone went and started a thread titled "Why Djokovic is better than Nadal", and in such a thread started harping on about the 7 straight finals losses and the 8-3 H2H since 2011 started because Djokovic was a baby pre 2011, and that 16-7 H2H lead pre 2011 doesn't count. I'm sure the Nadal fans wouldn't like that too much. And you know why they wouldn't like it. Because it is NOT TRUE! Overall Nadal's career so far trumps Djokovic's by a considerable margin. It's much the same premise between Federer and Nadal.

Quoted for truth

mariecon · May 1, 2013

NatF said:
Oddly I think I like to be annoyed by them so I can occasionally let out frustration. Shows how mature I am...

Ever since I got banned for 5 days for letting it all out I've decided to use the ignore list instead! :lol:

NatF · May 1, 2013

forzamilan90 said:
Dark knight was also annoying..GodNovak from pre Wimbledon last year was utterly ghastly. We got in some ugly confrontations and he was not only trolling, but also verbally abusive. Glad he's gone...too bad he got banned before seeing you know who lift Wimbledon trophy few days removed after beating you know who in the semi finals

There will always be new trolls, or the same trolls in new clothing...

Nitish said:
The_Order-abmk rivalry is the best we have in this forum almost as good as fedal :twisted:

I find them quite entertaining also.

forzamilan90 said:
Haha can you say BobbyOne...as cartoonish and stubborn as he is, his senility is entertaining sometimes

I'm waiting for the Vienna Visonary to start quoting Bud Collins again so I can point out, that Bud not only says Federer is in contention for the greatest of all time but also says his backhand is only weak against Nadal's forehand...

Been reading his book you see...But yes Bobby is a funny chap.

mariecon · May 1, 2013

mightyrick said:
You can't say that Nadal and Federer are equal when Federer is 5 years older and past prime. They didn't start at the same time. Nadal will still be going after Fed is gone. The only truly objective way to judge is to wait until Nadal is done and then attempt a comparison.

That being said, I do think Federer is most successful tennis player ever. Up to this point, I do think that Nadal has not reached his level. It's kind of like a Jack Nicklaus / Tiger Woods thing. Not unlike Nicklaus and Woods... I think Woods is a better golfer. Nicklaus has just been around longer and had more success.

Regardless, I think Rod Laver was better and achieved more than both.

BTW, the big stat that you left out (and I'm not sure why) was the Grand Slam. And that is the absolute pinnacle in tennis. It is a nearly inhuman feat that demonstrates absolute dominance and mastery.

EDIT: BTW, you also left out Davis Cup and Olympics. Gee... I wonder who your guy is?

Davis Cup is a team event and shouldn't even be discussed when comparing two players' individual accomplishments.

abmk · May 1, 2013

mightyrick said:
You can't say that Nadal and Federer are equal when Federer is 5 years older and past prime. They didn't start at the same time. Nadal will still be going after Fed is gone. The only truly objective way to judge is to wait until Nadal is done and then attempt a comparison.

That being said, I do think Federer is most successful tennis player ever. Up to this point, I do think that Nadal has not reached his level. It's kind of like a Jack Nicklaus / Tiger Woods thing. Not unlike Nicklaus and Woods... I think Woods is a better golfer. Nicklaus has just been around longer and had more success.

Regardless, I think Rod Laver was better and achieved more than both.

BTW, the big stat that you left out (and I'm not sure why) was the Grand Slam. And that is the absolute pinnacle in tennis. It is a nearly inhuman feat that demonstrates absolute dominance and mastery.

EDIT: BTW, you also left out Davis Cup and Olympics. Gee... I wonder who your guy is?

don't know much about golf, but nadal isn't better than federer at the AO, , Wimbledon, USO , YEC - or in other words - slow HC, grass, fast HC, indoors & years/weeks @ #1 .... he isn't going to come near at either of those in the future .

so explain how on earth fed's better records are only due to his career being longer ?

Steve0904 · May 1, 2013

mightyrick said:
You can't say that Nadal and Federer are equal when Federer is 5 years older and past prime. They didn't start at the same time. Nadal will still be going after Fed is gone. The only truly objective way to judge is to wait until Nadal is done and then attempt a comparison.

That being said, I do think Federer is most successful tennis player ever. Up to this point, I do think that Nadal has not reached his level. It's kind of like a Jack Nicklaus / Tiger Woods thing. Not unlike Nicklaus and Woods... I think Woods is a better golfer. Nicklaus has just been around longer and had more success.

Regardless, I think Rod Laver was better and achieved more than both.

BTW, the big stat that you left out (and I'm not sure why) was the Grand Slam. And that is the absolute pinnacle in tennis. It is a nearly inhuman feat that demonstrates absolute dominance and mastery.

EDIT: BTW, you also left out Davis Cup and Olympics. Gee... I wonder who your guy is?

THUNDERVOLLEY is that you? Seriously though the CYGS is not the end all and be all IMO and like you I think Federer is the most accomplished player ever. I didn't leave the CYGS out on purpose. Nor the Olympics or the DC. The DC is a team competition (singles matches, but a team competition) so that means Spain > Switzerland and does not imply in any way that Nadal > Federer.

And the Olympics has become more important recently, but it was not a medal sport in the open era until 1988. People like to pump up the Olympics just because it's the Olympics, but it will never have the history of the grand slams. The gold medal would be a plausible tie breaker (no pun intended) of some sort if Nadal has comparable achievements by the time his career is over, but it's pretty useless until then and is probably at about the same level of importance as the H2H which is slightly lesser than perhaps everything I listed historically. The absolute highest I would put the OG is between MS titles and overall titles. For example Murray is nowhere near Federer in career accomplishments. Also, greats like Laver, Borg, and McEnroe didn't get a legitimate shot at Olympic Gold so where do we put them if the Olympics suddenly becomes massively important.

This is why everything I said I tempered with the words "so far" or some other such thing because you are right. We cannot compare until careers are over. And it's really got nothing to do with Federer being "my guy." I gladly admit that Nadal is the clay GOAT, and is better than Borg on clay for example. I'm not out to take credit away from Nadal. I'm simply out to stop people from blowing up the DC and Olympics to monstrous proportions to take credit away from Federer and/or give unneeded ridiculous amounts to Nadal. It's about DC being a team sport, and the Olympics in tennis really not being as important as people try to make it these days. I'm not downgrading the Olympics IMHO, I'm simply saying it's not as important in tennis historically as Nadal fans especially tend to make it out to be.

mightyrick · May 1, 2013

abmk said:
so explain how on earth fed's better records are only due to his career being longer ?

I'm only saying Nadal isn't done yet. We can't compare Nadal -- who probably has 4-5 years left -- to Federer who probably has 1 or 2 left. Let's wait till they are done and see what it looks like.

Hell, why not compare Djokovic and Federer right now? Is that fair, either?

We'll wait and see how the two look. I can't wait for those discussions. But I have a feeling they'll be as fruitless in the future as they are today. Because the entire argument is subjective... led by fans who cherry pick statistics... assign a level of importance to each one... and then back their way into GOATness.

TMF · May 1, 2013

Boris Becker who's a legend of the game himself has 6 slams, 3 Master Cups, 109 weeks at #1, one year end #1. Fed so much ahead of Nadal even if you combined Becker and Nadal's achievement it's still fall short of Fed's overall accomplishment.

Relinquis · May 1, 2013

Federer is GOAT... If Nadal is Maradona* then Federer is Pele and Messi combined...

* no, this isn't a drug reference...

Why Nadal is better than Fed.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

Legend

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Deleted member 77403

Guest

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Deleted member 77403

Guest

Legend

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Semi-Pro

Legend

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Semi-Pro

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Legend

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Legend

Legend

Professional

Legend

Rookie

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

Talk Tennis Guru

Hall of Fame

Similar threads