Why Nadal is better than Fed.

mariecon · May 3, 2013

How come Nadal never made it to any hard court slam finals when Fed was on fire and in his prime? This is the big question I want answered. 2005, 2006, 2007. Three years, 6 HC slams and Federer didn't play Nadal once and he won 5/6 of them. Nadal won his first GS in 2005 so why didn't he reach a HC final till 2009? Anyone who says these two are the same generation is nuts. If they are then Federer should have had more chances to play Nadal on his (Fed's) favourite surface when he was in his prime. And if they are of the same generation then that just supports the argument that the reason why the H2H is so lopsided is because Nadal never gave Federer a chance to beat him on his favourite surface when he most certainly would have. Then, when Federer started to decline, and Nadal was in his prime Nadal started making a few HC finals and the rest is history. I firmly believe that if Federer had met Nadal at the AO or USO in his prime he would have won, just like he won the 2 Wimbledons they played before 2008 and the mono hit him.

The Dark Knight · May 3, 2013

mariecon said:
How come Nadal never made it to any hard court slam finals when Fed was on fire and in his prime? This is the big question I want answered. 2005, 2006, 2007. Three years, 6 HC slams and Federer didn't play Nadal once and he won 5/6 of them. Nadal won his first GS in 2005 so why didn't he reach a HC final till 2009? Anyone who says these two are the same generation is nuts. If they are then Federer should have had more chances to play Nadal on his (Fed's) favourite surface when he was in his prime. And if they are of the same generation then that just supports the argument that the reason why the H2H is so lopsided is because Nadal never gave Federer a chance to beat him on his favourite surface when he most certainly would have. Then, when Federer started to decline, and Nadal was in his prime Nadal started making a few HC finals and the rest is history. I firmly believe that if Federer had met Nadal at the AO or USO in his prime he would have won, just like he won the 2 Wimbledons they played before 2008 and the mono hit him.

For the same reason Rafter was Able to beat the crap out of Federer on every surface even clay ! Rafter is 3-0 against Federer .....undefeated !!!

Fed fans say it was because Federer was still young and developing .

Nadal was also a babe at that time and still developing .....and why he was labeled a "clay court specialist".

It took Nadal just a short time to develop his game on hard courts and grass.

Cup8489 · May 3, 2013

The Dark Knight said:
For the same reason Rafter was Able to beat the crap out of Federer on every surface even clay ! Rafter is 3-0 against Federer .....undefeated !!!

Fed fans say it was because Federer was still young and developing .

Nadal was also a babe at that time and still developing .....and why he was labeled a "clay court specialist".

It took Nadal just a short time to develop his game on hard courts and grass.

A paradox. Either it took Nadal just a short while to develop, or it didn't. I'd say the former seeing as how he was in Miami final in 2005, Madrid winner in 2005, and Wimbledon final in 2006.

The comparison to Federer vs. rafter is not legitimate as any decent tennis fan knows that Federer was a late bloomer and Nadal an early bloomer.

Thus, your whole statement is riddled with errors.

mariecon · May 3, 2013

The Dark Knight said:
For the same reason Rafter was Able to beat the crap out of Federer on every surface even clay ! Rafter is 3-0 against Federer .....undefeated !!!

Fed fans say it was because Federer was still young and developing .

Nadal was also a babe at that time and still developing .....and why he was labeled a "clay court specialist".

It took Nadal just a short time to develop his game on hard courts and grass.

I wouldn't call it beating the crap out of him. And Federer hadn't won a slam yet so he wasn't yet at that level, unlike Nadal who had won a slam in 2005. Can't have your cake and eat it too!

Try harder next time.

SLD76 · May 3, 2013

mariecon said:
I wouldn't call it beating the crap out of him. And Federer hadn't won a slam yet so he wasn't yet at that level, unlike Nadal who had won a slam in 2005. Can't have your cake and eat it too!

Try harder next time.

Basically.

They really can't accept the fact that he wasn't consistently good agaisnt the ffieldtil 2010, and then by 2011 it was too late.

Flash O'Groove · May 3, 2013

In 2005, Nadal won 3 titles on HC: Canada, Madrid, Beijing. He has never win 3 HC titles again in the same year. This 3 titles account for 1/4 of all his HC titles.
He also reached the final in Miami, losing in 5 set to the number 1 in the world.
His winning percentage on HC was 82%, as high as in 2008, and higher than in 2010.

The Dark Knight · May 3, 2013

mariecon said:
I wouldn't call it beating the crap out of him. And Federer hadn't won a slam yet so he wasn't yet at that level, unlike Nadal who had won a slam in 2005. Can't have your cake and eat it too!

Try harder next time.

But Federer did beat Sampras . It's you guys who argue both sides .

If Federer was too young at 18 then you have to say Nadal was also too young at 18.

It's not Nadals fault that he was a more talented 18 year old then an 18 year old Federer.

And lets not forget that rafter is a serve and volleyer and still beat Federer on clay.

The fact is they were both rookies .....but yes Nadal was a better rookie .

cknobman · May 3, 2013

The Dark Knight said:
But Federer did beat Sampras . It's you guys who argue both sides .

If Federer was too young at 18 then you have to say Nadal was also too young at 18.

It's not Nadals fault that he was a more talented 18 year old then an 18 year old Federer.

And lets not forget that rafter is a serve and volleyer and still beat Federer on clay.

The fact is they were both rookies .....but yes Nadal was a better rookie .

So since Nadal is not keeping pace with grand slam title count and #1 ranking, given what Federer had achieved at his age, does that make him a less talented seasoned pro?

SLD76 · May 3, 2013

The Dark Knight said:
But Federer did beat Sampras . It's you guys who argue both sides .

If Federer was too young at 18 then you have to say Nadal was also too young at 18.

It's not Nadals fault that he was a more talented 18 year old then an 18 year old Federer.

And lets not forget that rafter is a serve and volleyer and still beat Federer on clay.

The fact is they were both rookies .....but yes Nadal was a better rookie .

Nadal couldn't consistently beat the field til 2010, and by 2011 it was too late.

/end story

The Dark Knight · May 3, 2013

Nadal was an amazing 17 year old ....maybe the greatest 17 year old ever .....

But just as it took Federer time ....it took Nadal time to learn how to first play on grass and then hard court .

His first Wimbledon was a shock that he even made it to the finals ....no one expected it....then he got better and made it to the finals again and almost beat Federer even though still a relatively new player on the tour and very uncomfortable on grass.

But after 2007 he knew he could beat Federer and came back to beat Federer on his favorite surface in the greatest match of all time .

Then he focused on hard courts . No one said he could win ....he flattened his shots out , changed his grip to increase the serve speed and focused on winning on a hard court .....and beat Federer yet again.

You don't see a progression here from when he was 17 ?

Well pure hate may drive you but the truth is he matured and his game kept getting better because he worked hard on it . Federer on the other hand never changed and just played the same as he always did....

This is why Nadal is better.

The_Order · May 3, 2013

Nadal made his first HC final at age 22.

Federer made his first HC final at age 22.

HC is more favorable to Federer's game than Nadal's.

Nadal won a major on his weakest surface at age 22 defeating Federer in the process. Federer won a major on his weakest surface when he was 28 (29 if you want to argue plexicushion as his weaker surface than clay). He didn't beat Nadal in the process, in fact he failed in 5 attempts to do so. Nadal only needed 3 attempts to BEAT Federer at Federer's best major.

Truth is Nadal's had it a lot tougher than Fed. Could you people for once put aside your stupidity and realise that if Nadal was born in 1981 and Federer in 1986, then Nadal would have won THE grand slam at least once and would've easily dominated a field of Hewitt, Safin, Roddick and old Agassi. Teenage-21 yr old Fed would get blasted away by peak Rafa like he was nothing.

SLD76 · May 3, 2013

The_Order said:
Nadal made his first HC final at age 22.

Federer made his first HC final at age 22.

HC is more favorable to Federer's game than Nadal's.

Nadal won a major on his weakest surface at age 22 defeating Federer in the process. Federer won a major on his weakest surface when he was 28 (29 if you want to argue plexicushion as his weaker surface than clay). He didn't beat Nadal in the process, in fact he failed in 5 attempts to do so. Nadal only needed 3 attempts to BEAT Federer at Federer's best major.

Truth is Nadal's had it a lot tougher than Fed. Could you people for once put aside your stupidity and realise that if Nadal was born in 1981 and Federer in 1986, then Nadal would have won THE grand slam at least once and would've easily dominated a field of Hewitt, Safin, Roddick and old Agassi. Teenage-21 yr old Fed would get blasted away by peak Rafa like he was nothing.

Nadal played the same field as fed and was weaker against it.

Record books don't care about ifs.

abmk · May 3, 2013

^^

lol, nadal couldn't even get close in 2010, when the field was at its weakest from 2003 till now .....

nadal has 4 finals at AO and USO combined. federer has 5 finals at RG alone ....

beast of mallorca · May 3, 2013

The_Order said:
Nadal made his first HC final at age 22.

Federer made his first HC final at age 22.

HC is more favorable to Federer's game than Nadal's.

Nadal won a major on his weakest surface at age 22 defeating Federer in the process. Federer won a major on his weakest surface when he was 28 (29 if you want to argue plexicushion as his weaker surface than clay). He didn't beat Nadal in the process, in fact he failed in 5 attempts to do so. Nadal only needed 3 attempts to BEAT Federer at Federer's best major.

Truth is Nadal's had it a lot tougher than Fed. Could you people for once put aside your stupidity and realise that if Nadal was born in 1981 and Federer in 1986, then Nadal would have won THE grand slam at least once and would've easily dominated a field of Hewitt, Safin, Roddick and old Agassi. Teenage-21 yr old Fed would get blasted away by peak Rafa like he was nothing.

What do you expect, when the Fedtarth's heads are stuck inside their Idol's arse........:twisted:

SLD76 · May 3, 2013

beast of mallorca said:
What do you expect, when the Fedtarth's heads are stuck inside their Idol's arse........:twisted:

Yes, if only we could altar time and space we would easily see how much more dominant rafa has been in his career than fed

The_Order · May 3, 2013

SLD76 said:
Nadal played the same field as fed and was weaker against it.

Record books don't care about ifs.

Federer slam performances from age 17 to 20 turning 21 (the same age Nadal was from 04-06)

AO: DNP, Q1, 3R, 3R, 4R
RG: DNP, 1R, 4R, QF, 1R
WIM: DNP, 1R, 1R, QF, 1R
USO: DNP, Q2, 3R, 4R

LOL. At age 17 he was too sh*t to even make it to the majors.

So now we can say Roger played the same field as Sampras and was weaker against it.

TMF · May 3, 2013

mike danny said:
seriously people why do you guys say nadal had tougher competition? from 2005 untill now they played against the exact same field and federer won more majors than him deal with it.
but hey you say rafa was a baby back then in 2005-2007. well federer was an old man in 2010-1012. and rafa still won 3 majors in his baby span compared to roger in his old man span with 2 majors. and yet federer still won 13 slams since 2005 compared to nadal with 11 agains the EXACT SAME field.
nadal did not face a different field in a paralel universe. as far as i am concerned federer leads novak 6-5 in grand slams and leads murray 3-1 in grand slams. so u see roger had to deal with the exact same field as rafa. so i do not see why rafa had better competition since roger faced the same field as him. oh and btw you guys keep saying that nadal was beating fed on hardcourts since 2004 which tells that he is not such a baby after all. you cannot beat the best hardcourt player at that time if you are a baby. so nadal had no excuse. he was world no.2, he was beating the best player in the world and he was winning majors. not a bay to me. the fact that he defended his first major win in the very next year proves that he was nopt a baby. if you defend a major title the very next year you are not a baby anymore.
oh and one more thing you nadal fans say that roger is not that special but just a weak era benefactor. well that means that rafa's main rival was just a weak era benefactor not so special player. oops so there goes rafa' s tough competition. you cannot have it both ways you have to make up your mind. either federer is a weak era benefactor but risk to downgrade rafa' s competition even more or admit federer is indeed the GOAT and rafa was the only one who did well against him

Great post.

Both Fed and Nadal are competing against the same field. Nadal join the pro tour when Fed was still 19, who's was far from his prime. Fed was just better overall against the field is the reason why he's more dominant, more accomplished.

The Dark Knight · May 3, 2013

Nadal beat Federer on grass on Hardcourt slams ....Federer has not come close to beating Nadal in clay.

Nadal is the better player but Fed has the better "stats"....

On paper and theory Fed is better in reality Nadal is the better player.

SLD76 · May 3, 2013

The_Order said:
Federer slam performances from age 17 to 20 turning 21 (the same age Nadal was from 04-06)

AO: DNP, Q1, 3R, 3R, 4R
RG: DNP, 1R, 4R, QF, 1R
WIM: DNP, 1R, 1R, QF, 1R
USO: DNP, Q2, 3R, 4R

LOL. At age 17 he was too sh*t to even make it to the majors.

So now we can say Roger played the same field as Sampras and was weaker against it.

To that I say so? Fed won 13 slams after rafa won his first, they played the same field and rafa was not able to dominate it outside of clay.

I know its hard for you to accept reality, but do try.

RF20Lennon · May 3, 2013

The Dark Knight said:
Nadal beat Federer on grass on Hardcourt slams ....Federer has not come close to beating Nadal in clay.

Nadal is the better player but Fed has the better "stats"....

On paper and theory Fed is better in reality Nadal is the better player.

Going by that logic Rosol and Davydenko are better than Nadal LMAO. H2H means nothing. See When Federer was dominating on HC (2004-2007) nadals game had not completely developed and so he couldnt meet fed in the finals so its not feds fault or Rafa's fault. But in the recent HC meetings, Rebound Ace (which favored fed) moved to plexicushion(high bouncing and slow which favors Rafa) and Fed went past his prime and Nadal got into his zone thus allowing him to dictate terms there. Federer wil always be 5 years older to Nadal no matter what. So if nadal had made finals back in the 2004-2007 season, Fed wouldve beaten him but Fed is still making finals and the courts have slowed down drastically thus favoring nadal.

The only way you can determine who is the better player is by career success. And in that department Fed is ahead by a country mile and is far more consistent than Rafa...thus making him a better player.

Cup8489 · May 3, 2013

The Dark Knight said:
Nadal beat Federer on grass on Hardcourt slams ....Federer has not come close to beating Nadal in clay.

Nadal is the better player but Fed has the better "stats"....

On paper and theory Fed is better in reality Nadal is the better player.

Cup8489 · May 3, 2013

The Dark Knight said:
But Federer did beat Sampras . It's you guys who argue both sides .

If Federer was too young at 18 then you have to say Nadal was also too young at 18.

It's not Nadals fault that he was a more talented 18 year old then an 18 year old Federer.

And lets not forget that rafter is a serve and volleyer and still beat Federer on clay.

The fact is they were both rookies .....but yes Nadal was a better rookie .

TDK could you do a comparison of Federer and Nadal at age 26? Pay attention to majors, major finals, weeks at number 1, etc.

The_Order · May 3, 2013

^^^ he meant at RG.

I think...

The_Order · May 3, 2013

Cup8489 said:
TDK could you do a comparison of Federer and Nadal at age 26? Pay attention to majors, major finals, weeks at number 1, etc.

Nadal has career slam, Federer doesn't.

Nadal > Federer at age 26.

smoledman · May 3, 2013

The_Order said:
Nadal has career slam, Federer doesn't.

Nadal > Federer at age 26.

If you mean the career slam at a younger age, you are correct sir. However if Nadal can win a 2nd career slam that would forever elevate him above Federer. One more AO/USO can he do it? I tell you, he's still the most feared player on tour.

RF20Lennon · May 3, 2013

smoledman said:
If you mean the career slam at a younger age, you are correct sir. However if Nadal can win a 2nd career slam that would forever elevate him above Federer. One more AO/USO can he do it? I tell you, he's still the most feared player on tour.

Not with Nole and Murray around. BUt he will stack up a few more RG's indeed.

TMF · May 3, 2013

The_Order said:
Nadal has career slam, Federer doesn't.

Nadal > Federer at age 26.

Yes, and Chang, Cash, Becker, Wilander etc > Fed at age 20. Really, who cares...greatest player is all about career achievements and Fed is considered(widely) the goat.

Cup8489 · May 3, 2013

The_Order said:
Nadal has career slam, Federer doesn't.

Nadal > Federer at age 26.

But Let me refer to the argument that is often made against Federer for his majors: weak era, cupcake draws. If Nadal hadn't had such easy draws at USO 2010, he wouldn't have career slam.

Also, I thought you turds always said the career slam didn't count for much of anything anyway.

/turd mode.

I mean, not that i take anything the_order says seriously anyway. Almost as horrifically biased as NSK and TDK. Nadal could have no majors and Federer 273, but He'd still say Nadal was better.

Deleted member 77403 · May 3, 2013

Cup8489 said:
But Let me refer to the argument that is often made against Federer for his majors: weak era, cupcake draws. If Nadal hadn't had such easy draws at USO 2010, he wouldn't have career slam.

Also, I thought you turds always said the career slam didn't count for much of anything anyway.

/turd mode.

I mean, not that i take anything the_order says seriously anyway. Almost as horrifically biased as NSK and TDK. Nadal could have no majors and Federer 273, but He'd still say Nadal was better.

If Nadal got the career slam so early, doesn't that mean his prime years had the weakest competition of them all?

/troll mode off.

mightyrick · May 3, 2013

Hitman said:
If Nadal got the career slam so early, doesn't that mean his prime years had the weakest competition of them all? /troll mode off.

Well, Nadal fans can't get out of the hypocrisy of applying one set of logic to Federer, but not applying it to their own guy. I think you and others have clearly illustrated this.

To address your own question about weak and strong era, the level of difficulty of majors that are won by Nadal (or anyone else) achieves... this can only be determined by looking at the draws... looking at the strength of the players involved... and looking at the outcomes.

We all know that there are such things as "bad matchups". We all know there are such things as "weak" and "tough" draws. We all know that a player who wins a major with a tough draw has achieved something greater than someone who wins a major with a weak draw. We all know that a player who wins a major with not only a tough draw, but also a bad matchup in that draw, has achieved something even greater (Even though the result of any of these is merely a +1 in the "Majors Won" column).

I wish we'd get down to comparing those kinds of things. Because this is the context where strong/weak eras matter.

NadalAgassi · May 3, 2013

Cup8489 said:
I mean, not that i take anything the_order says seriously anyway. Almost as horrifically biased as NSK and TDK.

ROTFL like you arent every bit as biased (or more) as those posters, and every bit the ******* those posters are biased Nadal fans. Talking about the black kettle and pot.

The Dark Knight · May 3, 2013

Cup8489 said:

Here Maybe this will clear things up a bit:

beast of mallorca · May 3, 2013

Cup8489 said:
TDK could you do a comparison of Federer and Nadal at age 26? Pay attention to majors, major finals, weeks at number 1, etc.

NadalAgassi said:
ROTFL like you arent every bit as biased (or more) as those posters, and every bit the ******* those posters are biased Nadal fans. Talking about the black kettle and pot.

NadalAgassi.......you should know by now that hypocrisy oozes out of every orifice of the Fedt@rd*s and maybe some Nadtrds, in all fairness

SLD76 · May 3, 2013

beast of mallorca said:
NadalAgassi.......you should know by now that hypocrisy oozes out of every orifice of the Fedt@rd*s and maybe some Nadtrds, in all fairness

Just as reality eludes the nadt@rds

NatF · May 3, 2013

All these Nadt@rds are terrible biased posters as bad as any 'Fedite or Federina', funny watching them huddle together patting eachother on the back with snide comments.

The Dark Knight · May 3, 2013

The fact is that in slams it's 6-2 in favor of Nadal on every surface .....and Feds two wins were at the very beginning of Nadals development as an all surface player .

This is an absolute fact .

6-1 6-3 6-0 · May 3, 2013

The Dark Knight said:
The fact is that in slams it's 6-2 in favor of Nadal on every surface .....and Feds two wins were at the very beginning of Nadals development as an all surface player .

This is an absolute fact .

Actually it's even worse than that, 8-2 in the slam h2h. :lol: RFederer is the biggest lapdog in world history.

SLD76 · May 3, 2013

The Dark Knight said:
The fact is that in slams it's 6-2 in favor of Nadal on every surface .....and Feds two wins were at the very beginning of Nadals development as an all surface player .

This is an absolute fact .

Please. Nadal was winning slams, and masters off clay as early as 2005. Say it slowly.

He

Wasn't

Good

Enough

Off

Clay

To

Dominate

The field.

/end story

By the time he was good enough to concistently beat the field, it coincided with a year in 2010 where the top ten was a shambles. Delpo hurt, davydenko hurt, murray in a funk. Fed hurt/slumping, tsonga non existent, djoker 1.0

And then by 2011, it was too late because djoko 2.0 emerged. In 2012, thebig 4 split the slams so now you have en energized Murray too and a still competent Fed and a healthy delpo.

The Dark Knight · May 3, 2013

6-1 6-3 6-0 said:
Actually it's even worse than that, 8-2 in the slam h2h. :lol: RFederer is the biggest lapdog in world history.

Thanks fixed it.

What fed fans try and pooh pooh that 8-2 record away saying h2h doesn't matter....it's a style match up.

Except that's not true....a style matchup problem is when you have a player that loses to most people but for some reason keeps beating a top player because of a style matchup ....sort of like Blake and Nadal on a hard court.

But that's very different than Fed & Nadal.

These were grand slam finals !!! Nadal was a "bad matchup" for everyone on the tour because he was better than everyone not only Federer

It's 10 grand slam finals ....more than anyone else in the history of tennis.....that's not a bad matchup against one player . Nadal
Beat EVERYONE .

SLD76 · May 3, 2013

The Dark Knight said:
Thanks fixed it.

What fed fans try and pooh pooh that 8-2 record away saying h2h doesn't matter....it's a style match up.

Except that's not true....a style matchup problem is when you have a player that loses to most people but for some reason keeps beating a top player because of a style matchup ....sort of like Blake and Nadal on a hard court.

But that's very different than Fed & Nadal.

These were grand slam finals !!! Nadal was a "bad matchup" for everyone on the tour because he was better than everyone not only Federer

It's 10 grand slam finals ....more than anyone else in the history of tennis.....that's not a bad matchup against one player . Nadal
Beat EVERYONE .

If he beat everyone, whe he only have 11 slams, no?

8 on clay.

Why he only world number 1 100 weeks?

Why he longest number 2 in world history?

Roflmao

The Dark Knight · May 3, 2013

SLD76 said:
Please. Nadal was winning slams, and masters off clay as early as 2005. Say it slowly.

He

Wasn't

Good

Enough

Off

Clay

To

Dominate

The field.

/end story

By the time he was good enough to concistently beat the field, it coincided with a year in 2010 where the top ten was a shambles. Delpo hurt, davydenko hurt, murray in a funk. Fed hurt/slumping, tsonga non existent, djoker 1.0

And then by 2011, it was too late because djoko 2.0 emerged. In 2012, thebig 4 split the slams so now you have en energized Murray too and a still competent Fed and a healthy delpo.

The top 10 was a shambles when Sampras retired and created a vaccum so that fed could chapatilize.....

Number one players of the time were guys like Roddick ( 4 slam
Losses to fed and his biggest rival )....or ferrer or whatever his name was....

Or guys like Blake and and old man Agassi......Fed was like a baby in a candy store and just went nuts.

Seriously the tour was really pathetic

The Dark Knight · May 3, 2013

The Dark Knight said:
Thanks fixed it.

What fed fans try and pooh pooh that 8-2 record away saying h2h doesn't matter....it's a style match up.

Except that's not true....a style matchup problem is when you have a player that loses to most people but for some reason keeps beating a top player because of a style matchup ....sort of like Blake and Nadal on a hard court.

But that's very different than Fed & Nadal.

These were grand slam finals !!! Nadal was a "bad matchup" for everyone on the tour because he was better than everyone not only Federer

It's 10 grand slam finals ....more than anyone else in the history of tennis.....that's not a bad matchup against one player . Nadal
Beat EVERYONE .

Damn that guy is smart.

Brett UK · May 3, 2013

If Nadal gets to 18 slams he will be greatest of all time. Sounds like *********s are chanting victory at half time here.

SLD76 · May 3, 2013

The Dark Knight said:
The top 10 was a shambles when Sampras retired and created a vaccum so that fed could chapatilize.....

Number one players of the time were guys like Roddick ( 4 slam
Losses to fed and his biggest rival )....or ferrer or whatever his name was....

Or guys like Blake and and old man Agassi......Fed was like a baby in a candy store and just went nuts.

Seriously the tour was really pathetic

And still rafa couldn't dominate that same tour.

Fed has 4 slams before 05. He got 13 from 05 onward.

Whyfor rafa no have more slams and ranked number 1?

Roflmao.

The Dark Knight · May 3, 2013

Brett UK said:
If Nadal gets to 18 slams he will be greatest of all time. Sounds like *********s are chanting victory at half time here.

Federer is the most successful player of all time .

But Nadal is the better player.

It's sort of like Wozniaki was the #1 ranked player in the world on paper but we all know in reality Serena Williams was the better player.

The Dark Knight · May 3, 2013

SLD76 said:
And still rafa couldn't dominate that same tour.

Fed has 4 slams before 05. He got 13 from 05 onward.

Whyfor rafa no have more slams and ranked number 1?

Roflmao.

He did dominate the tour .....he beat everyone including Federer for a whopping grandslam final of 6-2......

No one in the history of tennis has been beaten that badly ....EVER!!!

SLD76 · May 3, 2013

The Dark Knight said:
Federer is the most successful player of all time .

But Nadal is the better player.

It's sort of like Wozniaki was the #1 ranked player in the world on paper but we all know in reality Serena Williams was the better player.

Serena is the better player because she has more slams, and won slams in a competitive era.

But nice try.

SLD76 · May 3, 2013

The Dark Knight said:
He did dominate the tour .....he beat everyone including Federer for a whopping grandslam final of 8-2......

No one in the history of tennis has been beaten that badly ....EVER!!!

If he dominated the tour, why was he world number 2 for so long

Mayhaps because he couldn't beat the field outside of clay?

Roflmao

The numbers and history don't support your statements but your persistence is admirable

Brett UK · May 3, 2013

The Dark Knight said:
Federer is the most successful player of all time .

But Nadal is the better player.

It's sort of like Wozniaki was the #1 ranked player in the world on paper but we all know in reality Serena Williams was the better player.

No, we knew Serena was the better player because she has won more slams and spent more total weeks at number 1.

nadal will need to get to 18 slams to be considered the greatest player ever.

Fiji · May 3, 2013

Better on clay only.

Why Nadal is better than Fed.

Hall of Fame

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Legend

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Talk Tennis Guru

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Talk Tennis Guru

G.O.A.T.

Deleted member 77403

Guest

Legend

NadalAgassi

Guest

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Legend

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Legend

Semi-Pro

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Semi-Pro

Legend

Similar threads