Why Nadal is better than Fed.
- Thread starter smoledman
- Start date
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Actually he does. That would be Madrid 2005. Look I'm obviously not Nadal's biggest fan (nor his biggest detractor), but get your facts right for god's sake. You're embarrassing yourself.
Last edited:
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
List of tier 1 events where Fed has outperformed Rafa:
- AO
- IW
- Miami
- Hamburg
- Madrid (clay)
- Wimbledon
- Canada
- Cincy
- USO
- Madrid (hard)
- Shanghai
- Paris
- WTF
That's 13 events.
List of events where Rafa has outperformed Fed:
- M-C
- Rome
- RG
- Olympics
That's 4 events
Come on guys, I much prefer Rafa's personality, style and intensity on the court but you have to stop comparing their results because at this point, it's just silly. And I'm very sorry to add that there are some clay events in Fed's list to boot
(Rafa still has a few years to change this state of affairs but as it stands, it's not even close, so just drop it)
- AO
- IW
- Miami
- Hamburg
- Madrid (clay)
- Wimbledon
- Canada
- Cincy
- USO
- Madrid (hard)
- Shanghai
- Paris
- WTF
That's 13 events.
List of events where Rafa has outperformed Fed:
- M-C
- Rome
- RG
- Olympics
That's 4 events
Come on guys, I much prefer Rafa's personality, style and intensity on the court but you have to stop comparing their results because at this point, it's just silly. And I'm very sorry to add that there are some clay events in Fed's list to boot
(Rafa still has a few years to change this state of affairs but as it stands, it's not even close, so just drop it)
vive le beau jeu !
Talk Tennis Guru
doesn't count, not real tennis.
List of tier 1 events where Fed has outperformed Rafa:
- AO
- IW
- Miami
- Hamburg
- Madrid (clay)
- Wimbledon
- Canada
- Cincy
- USO
- Madrid (hard)
- Shanghai
- Paris
- WTF
That's 13 events.
List of events where Rafa has outperformed Fed:
- M-C
- Rome
- RG
- Olympics
That's 4 events
Come on guys, I much prefer Rafa's personality, style and intensity on the court but you have to stop comparing their results because at this point, it's just silly. And I'm very sorry to add that there are some clay events in Fed's list to boot
End of thread....
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
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
Because it bears repeating.
Nadal and fed were not peers because they did not come up at the same time, but they most certainly were rivals and share(d) an era together.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
Rafa won his first slam in 2005.
Before rafa's first slam win, fed had only won 4 slams. Fed won 13 slams from 2005 to 2012
Sounds to me like they have plenty of career overlap.
Fed didn't become world number til 2004.
Where is this huge head start fed has again?
abmk
Bionic Poster
no, you weren't. you were comparing and implying that nadal was better and has only achieved less because he's younger. again, like I said, put them both in any eras, and fed is better and out-performs him on any surface bar clay ...
not to those who use some level of objectivity ... you can quibble about b/w federer/laver and sampras/borg and argue based on different parameters...... but nadal is by some distance behind federer and he isn't coming close to federer on slow HC, grass, fast HC, indoors ....
djokovic has peaked later than rafa ..... still him coming close to sampras' level of achivements is very unlikely, let alone fed's .........
abmk
Bionic Poster
yeah, because federer wasn't stopped by djokovic at AO 2008, AO 2011, USO 2011 .- majors where he'd have a realisitic chance of winning
because he hasn't met djokovic 11 times in majors compared to rafa's 9 ......
and 10 times after montreal 2007 ( his breakthrough tournament ) compared to rafa's 6 times .....
because nadal wasn't there on clay from 2005 onwards and on grass from 2006 onwards
because djokovic wasn't there from 2007 onwards
because old agassi, roddick, hewitt ,safin, nalbandian, davydenko , in-form gonzo, couldn't beat the mighty rafa when tsonga, murray, soderling, rosol, ferrer,delpo beat him from 2008 onwards in majors ....
LMAO ....
Last edited:
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
actually in form gonzo straight setted rafa at the AO,and davydenko we all know what happens when they play on a hardcourt...
abmk
Bionic Poster
yeah , I know ... the latter list was from those who beat him in majors from 2008 onwards ...I edited it ..
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
I have the complete list too if you're interested. There are 32 events that both Roger and Rafa have played at least once in their career.
Roger has had better results in 24 of them (so far):
Sydney
Doha
AO
Marseille
Rotterdam
Dubai
IW
Miami
Estoril
Hamburg
Madrid (clay)
Halle
Wimbledon
Canada
Cincy
USO
Lyon
Bangkok
Madrid (hard)
Shanghai
Stockholm
Basel
Paris
WTF
Rafa has had better results in 8:
Auckland
M-C
Barcelona
Rome
RG
Queen's
Tokyo
Olympics
I expect Rafa to reclaim Madrid (clay) before he retires and maybe IW or Canada as well.
Thanks for the list, he can definitely reclaim madrid but canada will be tough with novak around.
mightyrick
Legend
Since when is the word ONLY applied to 4 slams?? Have our standards gotten that ridiculous?
I don't think you even know what career overlap means.
Roger came out in 1998. He went FIVE AND A HALF YEARS before winning a major. This was necessary because the old guard had too many good players and they needed to leave in order to create the weak vacuum necessary for Roger to dominate. And he literally dominated overnight... going from getting straight-setted in quarterfinals or first rounds... to winning majors. Any objective person would see that skill alone is not responsible for such a meteoric rise.
Rafa came out in 2003. I'm assuming you can do math and know there is five years difference there. It took Rafa only two years to win his first slam. Hell, Rafa was even absent for half of those majors. And why did it take Rafa only two years? Because the field was incredibly weak - especially the clay field. Like Federer, he also went from zero to instant domination.
If you don't understand the concept of weak and strong field, and how it can affect things like "numbers", then you can't be helped. You are merely going to look at a number and tell yourself, "Well... that's huge! GOAT!".
All I can say to you is... yes... at 490 winners struck... Mahut/Isner was the most impressive offensive tennis match in history.
abmk
Bionic Poster
this is downright hilarious .....
yes, it absolutely was skill and most importantly putting it all together, including mentally . It had almost nothing to do with the old guard leaving it .......
hewitt and nalbandian were dominating him till 2003 .. he turned and reversed it around completely after that .... both had two of their best years in 2004-05 and won a combined one match vs federer (nalbandian in TMC 2005 )
because rafa was that good on clay from the beginning and he improved upon it ...
was the CC field weak in RG 82 when wilander won it ? or grass court field in 85 when becker won it ? or RG field in 89 when chang won it ?
and finally the biggest nail to invalidate your argument ... borg turned pro in 73 and won RG in 74 .... won in 75 as well and then from 77-80 ... did that mean the CC field was weak back then - on red clay ?
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
Roger came out in 1998. He went FIVE AND A HALF YEARS before winning a major. This was necessary because the old guard had too many good players and they needed to leave in order to create the weak vacuum necessary for Roger to dominate. And he literally dominated overnight... going from getting straight-setted in quarterfinals or first rounds... to winning majors. Any objective person would see that skill alone is not responsible for such a meteoric rise.
Rafa came out in 2003. I'm assuming you can do math and know there is five years difference there. It took Rafa only two years to win his first slam. Hell, Rafa was even absent for half of those majors. And why did it take Rafa only two years? Because the field was incredibly weak - especially the clay field. Like Federer, he also went from zero to instant domination.
If you don't understand the concept of weak and strong field, and how it can affect things like "numbers", then you can't be helped. You are merely going to look at a number and tell yourself, "Well... that's huge! GOAT!".
All I can say to you is... yes... at 490 winners struck... Mahut/Isner was the most impressive offensive tennis match in history.
That one sentence shows how utterly clueless you are. Did the field weaken between the FO 03 when he lost in the first round and the Wimbledon he won a month later? I guess according to you Roger in 1998 was the same as he was in 2005 and 2006. What a joke. Watch some tennis and see the improvement in Federer. Commentators were describing his level in the Wimbledon 2003 semi as perhaps the greats they'd ever seen.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Yeah. In recent years both Djoko and Murray have done better than Rafa in Canada, it may not be that easy for Rafa to get a 3rd title but if he did it in IW, then I think why not in Canada?
mightyrick
Legend
No. It wasn't only skill.
Oh please. Hewitt and Nalbandian? Really? You mean the initial benefactors of a ridiculously weak field? Not that I'd even call Nalbandian a benefactor... he didn't even win anything.
Should I start naming the slam winners that Sampras had to go through in his career? Would you like to compare slam numbers of those folks to Fed's competition?
You judge this by looking at the field. I am not saying Nadal is a bad CC player. He's a great player. But I'm not going to sit here and say that the mugs he had to go up against remotely compare to the guys that Wilander had to go up against. The same for Borg.
You are absolutely proving my point.
Like I said above, you look at the accomplishments of field in the context of the individual accomplishments. When I compare Nadal's field to Borg's field... there is NO comparison. Borg had much tougher competition than Nadal. I'm not saying Nadal isn't better than Borg... but I am saying you can't judge that based on Nadal's competition.
The difference between you (and others) and I is that you think looking at the whole picture is looking at nothing but individual performance statistics. I, on the other hand, look at the true whole picture. I look at the individual performance as well as the strength and performance of the field.
That is how I judge the greatness of a player. You can throw all the records and stats at me that you want. And that is why I say that the greatest player ever is not (currently) anybody that is playing on tour right now.
There's a great line from the movie Jeremiah Johnson. "A tribe's greatness is figured on how mighty its enemies be." And I agree 100%.
abmk
Bionic Poster
yes, it absolutely was ... do you think the field transformed from when he lost to luis horna ( who ? ) in 2003 RG to one month later in wimbledon 2003 when he dominated roddick and phillipoussis on the way to winning ?
again, load of BS. explain how federer was able to turn around their h2h completely if it wasn't for getting it all together ....
oh puhlease , federer's more domination means lesser slam winners at his peak. But by the end of his career, which btw will be a longer one than sampras', the no of slam wins of his opponents in majors will be around the same ....
actually, I am not. I'm saying wilander even at that age could go up vs a brutal draw to win RG ... though nadal had it relatively easier in RG 2005, doesn't mean it was bad .....he did face federer and in-form puerta ...
so in comparision, nadal breaking through on clay so early after turning pro was not that big a surprise or only due to the CC field being weak ....
I am looking at the whole picture. Its you who is totally ignorant and blatantly under-rating the total strength of the field from 2003 onwards ...............
again, explain how borg could win RGs so quickly after turning pro then .....
there are quite a few arguments for putting laver ahead of federer and vice versa ....
but there is no real argument for putting federer and nadal as equals or worse saying nadal is better than federer, but has achieved less only because he is younger ..as I've shown/explained in my posts before .....
Last edited:
Wrong logic
Not sure why you group hard with grass. Hard these days (especially outdoor hard) is more akin to clay, particularly in the first half of the year where the majority of Nadals hard court wins have occurred. The other false assumption is that hard is Nadals weakest. Most hard court are played outdoors. Outdoor hard is probably Nadals best surface outside clay.
If you want to compare on services...use Nadal's real weakest surface/conditions which is indoor hard.
So then Nadal has 1 indoor hard big title (Madrid)
And
federer has 7 big clay titles
That is the more accurate comparison.
Not sure why you group hard with grass. Hard these days (especially outdoor hard) is more akin to clay, particularly in the first half of the year where the majority of Nadals hard court wins have occurred. The other false assumption is that hard is Nadals weakest. Most hard court are played outdoors. Outdoor hard is probably Nadals best surface outside clay.
If you want to compare on services...use Nadal's real weakest surface/conditions which is indoor hard.
So then Nadal has 1 indoor hard big title (Madrid)
And
federer has 7 big clay titles
That is the more accurate comparison.
Last edited:
mightyrick
Legend
Let's see who Borg went through in 1974:
Jean-François Caujolle (unseeded - career high ranking of 74 - 0 majors - 0 singles titles)
Toma Ovici (unseeded - career high ranking of 133 - 0 majors - 0 singles titles)
Jean-Loup Rouyer (unseeded - who? lol - 0 majors - 0 singles titles)
Erik van Dillen (unseeded - career high ranking of 36 - 0 majors - 1 singles title)
Raul Ramirez (#9 seed - career high ranking of #4 in 76 - 0 majors - 19 singles titles)
Harold Solomon (unseeded - career high ranking of #5 in 1980 - 0 majors - 22 singles titles)
Manuel Orantes (#14 seed - career high ranking of #2 in 1973 - 1 major - 22 singles titles)
Let me ask a question. Keeping in mind that Borg was the #3 seed... does this list impress you?
abmk
Bionic Poster
what are you on about ?
you don't think I know the field borg went through ? that is precisely why I mentioned what I did .....
orantes was an excellent clay courter, solomon and ramirez were no slouches on clay either - they were pretty good clay-courters ...
if borg won RG so quickly after turning pro against a pretty good CC field, why should rafa doing the same against a slighltly weaker field, ( not by a big margin as you make it out to be ) be that big of a surprise ..
keep in mind that rafa did face federer and in-form puerta in RG 2005 ...
Last edited:
mightyrick
Legend
Solomon and Ramirez... whatever.
Orantes was well above average, I agree. And he was plagued by injury. He was up two sets in the final and only won two games in the final three sets. Certainly not due to Borg's skill... as much as aching and pain.
Also, if Connors wasn't banned, he'd likely have beaten Borg. Connors had already beaten Borg at the CC championships.
So here's what I'll say. If Orantes is healthy and Connors wasn't banned that year... it is MUCH less likely that Borg wins the FO in 1974. The draw was extremely soft.
At least in 1974, I'm not going to sit here and say that Borg's supreme skill was the dominant factor that won him the FO that year. I don't think anybody can do that. He had a weak draw, had a couple of good players knocked out of his way, and hit an aching Orantes in the final.
Forza, Your impertinance is not entertaining though.
abmk
Bionic Poster
whatever ? just another instance that goes to show the disregard you have for so many players .......
yes, it was borg's skill set that won him the FO .. he faced and outlasted orantes, solomon and ramirez ......
as far as connors is concerned, as far as I know it was on har tru and it was best of 3 ( not best of 5 ), much less likely that he'd be able to outhit borg on red clay in a best of 5 ....again ,there is the possibility of him getting taken out by orantes, vilas, solomon , dibbs etc ...
Last edited:
forzamilan90
Legend
surprised you're visiting these boards tbh
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
Since when is the word ONLY applied to 4 slams?? Have our standards gotten that ridiculous?
I don't think you even know what career overlap means.
Roger came out in 1998. He went FIVE AND A HALF YEARS before winning a major. This was necessary because the old guard had too many good players and they needed to leave in order to create the weak vacuum necessary for Roger to dominate. And he literally dominated overnight... going from getting straight-setted in quarterfinals or first rounds... to winning majors. Any objective person would see that skill alone is not responsible for such a meteoric rise.
Rafa came out in 2003. I'm assuming you can do math and know there is five years difference there. It took Rafa only two years to win his first slam. Hell, Rafa was even absent for half of those majors. And why did it take Rafa only two years? Because the field was incredibly weak - especially the clay field. Like Federer, he also went from zero to instant domination.
If you don't understand the concept of weak and strong field, and how it can affect things like "numbers", then you can't be helped. You are merely going to look at a number and tell yourself, "Well... that's huge! GOAT!".
All I can say to you is... yes... at 490 winners struck... Mahut/Isner was the most impressive offensive tennis match in history.
By that same token, sampras turned pro in 1988 and didn't dominate the field til 1993,.
1993 also coincides with a time that greats from the previous era were past prime(edberg, becker, lendl, wilander,) or were facing burnout ( courier)
Of course, sampras showed a glimpse of what he coukd become by winning the 1990 uso, but it would be 3 years before he began to dominate the tour.
Fed's career path shows a similar trajectory to pete.
Came out 1998, beats sampras at wimbledon in 2001, but its another 2.5 years before he begins his tour dominance in 2004.
So I guess what, players aren't great unless immediately once they turn pro dominate the field?
In fed's case, the players who were tops before his ascendence were mostly his peers who he would go on to dominate(hewitt, roddick, nalbandian, haas, safin, etc) although there were a few holders from the previous era (kuerten, JCF, moya, agassi, henman, rafter etc)
And in what universe do roger and rafa's careers not overlap?????? Rafa was in the field as a serious contender from 2006 on( ill even skip the rest of 2005 for rafa) that makes 20 slams(minus the ones rafa missed due to injury) where rafa was a contende the same time as fed. Yeah, fed turned pro in 1998 but the period before 03 is irrelevant because he wasn't a slam winner til then. Just like nobody cares about what rafa did prior to FO 2005.
Let's see rafa missed AO 06, FO 09, and AO 13. That's 3 slams missed since winning the FO. So in 29 majors since 2006, rafa missed 3 and not *half* as you claim.
Face it, nadal has less slams than fed not because of some insurmountable head start, but because mostly *he couldn't beat the field* to make it to Fed. Most of Fed's slam wins came after rafa was a slam winner and Wimbledon finalist.
Deal with it.
I guess for you there is no such thing as player development, they have to win right away day one or else when they begin to dominate, its a weak era, lol
Also which is, did fed take too long to dominate or was it instant domination???
Last edited:
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
In this same vein, Nadal turned pro in 2001 and did not win a slam until 2005, and Djokovic turned pro in 2003 and did not win a slam until 2008, and didn't start to be dominant until 2011. I mean gimme a break. Whatever this guy is smoking I want some of it now.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
According to mightythick, nadal turned pro in 2003 and only took 2 years to win a slam
But you know facts are fluid with him as he proclaims nadal missed half of the slams fed competed in post 2005 with injury, lol
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
What's also interesting is the difference in their career pattern. # of titles per season and age:
18 (1999/2004): N 1 - F 0
19: N 11 - F 0
20: N 5 - F 1
21: N 6 - F 3
22: N 8 - F 7
23: N 5 - F 11
24: N 7 - F 11
25: N 3 - F 12
26: N 4 - F 8
Now the interesting part is their 27th year (2008/2013) because Fed only won 4 titles that year and it looks like Rafa may be able to win more (he already has 4). Between 18 and 22, Rafa won 31 titles (Fed only 11). Between 23 and 26, Fed won 42 titles (Nadal only 19).
18 (1999/2004): N 1 - F 0
19: N 11 - F 0
20: N 5 - F 1
21: N 6 - F 3
22: N 8 - F 7
23: N 5 - F 11
24: N 7 - F 11
25: N 3 - F 12
26: N 4 - F 8
Now the interesting part is their 27th year (2008/2013) because Fed only won 4 titles that year and it looks like Rafa may be able to win more (he already has 4). Between 18 and 22, Rafa won 31 titles (Fed only 11). Between 23 and 26, Fed won 42 titles (Nadal only 19).
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
Im thinking mightyrick should just be effect after your post.
So these numbers show that especially now where the courts are slower and the game is physical it takes players longer to develop into slam champions. Players aren't turning pro at 15/16 and winning slams at 18/19 like they used to.
Of course it could also just be the fedal effect.
Sharapova is the last female to win a slam as a teenager, nadal is the last male. They won their maiden slams nearly a year apart
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
You had ROFL with this one. :lol:
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Straight from the ATP website
Pronounced: ra-FAY-el nah-DAHL
Age: 26 (03.06.1986)
Birthplace: Manacor, Mallorca, Spain
Residence: Manacor, Mallorca, Spain
Height: 6'1" (185 cm)
Weight: 188 lbs (85 kg)
Plays: Left-handed
Turned Pro: 2001
Coach: Toni Nadal
Website: http://www.rafaelnadal.com
Pronounced: ra-FAY-el nah-DAHL
Age: 26 (03.06.1986)
Birthplace: Manacor, Mallorca, Spain
Residence: Manacor, Mallorca, Spain
Height: 6'1" (185 cm)
Weight: 188 lbs (85 kg)
Plays: Left-handed
Turned Pro: 2001
Coach: Toni Nadal
Website: http://www.rafaelnadal.com
Forza, You always have underrated the visionary....
Relinquis
Hall of Fame
Federer is GOAT...
his achievements, the completeness of his game, the tennis he displayed at the highest levels of his performance, his longevity at the top and how former greats and rivals perceive him...
Federer is real tennis. Nadal is his biggest rival, he completes him...
his achievements, the completeness of his game, the tennis he displayed at the highest levels of his performance, his longevity at the top and how former greats and rivals perceive him...
Federer is real tennis. Nadal is his biggest rival, he completes him...
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Good point, although a slight correction: the last female to win a slam as a teenager was Kuznetsova (US Open 2004).
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Rafa played 1 future and 1 challenger in 2001. He played 1 atp event in 2002 and that was Mallorca. Rafa really started playing the pro tour in 2003. (Fed in ninety eight).
Last edited:
mightyrick
Legend
And I swear you guys are the absolute WORST at misrepresenting and misquoting. Because you clearly see NO DIFFERENCE between the terms "came out" or "coming out" and "turning pro".
I am absolutely amazed. It's just flat out lying you guys do.
Nadal did not play a single match outside of Spain in 2001 and 2002. Not a single one. Hell, I'll give Federer the pass on 1998 since he came out in middle of the year and only played in France and Switzerland. But Federer was playing full tour in all 1999.
Whatever, it doesn't matter with you guys. You're going to misquote and misrepresent everything anyways. You only see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Don't they have a law now that you can't play on the pro tour before the age of 16? Rafa turned 16 in 2002.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
He has more slams.
11>17
More WTF's
0>6
More seasons ranked 1st/more weeks at no 1.
2>5 100>300
More titles.
54>77
11>17
More WTF's
0>6
More seasons ranked 1st/more weeks at no 1.
2>5 100>300
More titles.
54>77
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Stop with the semantics. They're all the same thing. You're just pretending like they're not so you don't have to admit you're wrong. If you can't see the difference between Federer needing more time to get all his strokes in order, and Nadal winning on mostly his physicality and never say die attitude, you sir have a problem. Nadal is much the same as Borg in that regard. Players prime differently. Some are early bloomers and some are late (although I'd say Federer arrived about on time.) It's a bunch of crap when people say Fed is a late bloomer because they are comparing him to Nadal or some other early bloomer. A late bloomer is someone like Soderling or Ferrer. Other crap logic I've seen on this forum is that Djokovic and Sampras are early bloomers because they won a slam in 1990 and 2008 which is utter BS. Djokovic started dominating at 23 years of age and Sampras at about 22. Neither is an early bloomer. They are more in the vein of Federer in that they are on time.
Last edited:
Similar threads
