is nadal better than federer? yes or no

TheTruth

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
RF20Lennon said:
You do realize talent doesnt equal success. You have to refine the talent and a lot of the time hard work beats talent. Nadal himself said in his book he was never as talented as Fed or Gasquet but he worked his butt off and thats what got him to where he is today. Sheer hardwork can beat talent. Nadal can never make shots look graceful, easy and elegant. Thats what talent is all about.
Click to expand...

You do realize that hard work doesn't equal success either, right? Roddick was a very hard worker. What's his record against Federer? Nadal says what is politically correct at times. That's what many Fed Fans say about him all the time. I hardly think he believes that or he wouldn't have been that comfortable beating him from the beginning. His remarks after playing Djokovic are very telling and a huge difference from the way he obviously views Federer.

Nadal isn't supposed to look like Federer. His shots look powerful, his gets are amazing, and his talent allows him to lead the top 30 in the h2h.

Gasquet is not talented. He is one of the most one dimensional players on the tour. All he does is hit that same backhand during the entire match. The backhand which doesn't look as good, or as effective as Stan's or Kohlschreiber. I shake my head when people say Richard is so talented. I don't see it all and never have.
 
RF20Lennon

RF20Lennon

Legend
TheTruth said:
You do realize that hard work doesn't equal success either, right? Roddick was a very hard worker. What's his record against Federer? Nadal says what is politically correct at times. That's what many Fed Fans say about him all the time. I hardly think he believes that or he wouldn't have been that comfortable beating him from the beginning. His remarks after playing Djokovic are very telling and a huge difference from the way he obviously views Federer.

Nadal isn't supposed to look like Federer. His shots look powerful, his gets are amazing, and his talent allows him to lead the top 30 in the h2h.

Gasquet is not talented. He is one of the most one dimensional players on the tour. All he does is hit that same backhand during the entire match. The backhand which doesn't look as good, or as effective as Stan's or Kohlschreiber. I shake my head when people say Richard is so talented. I don't see it all and never have.
Click to expand...

If you think Roddick worked nearly half as hard as Nadal you're dead wrong!! Justin Gimblestob, Jim Courier, JMac have all said in practice sessions Federer is so calm and just rallies and never plays to full capacity while Nadal throttles each and every ball and tries to hit a winner. All the commentators widely agree Federer has the most NATURAL talent out of all of them. He doesnt need to try as hard as Nadal. Thats what talent is all about, making things look easy. Look at the teenage Gasquet vs. Nadal matches. Gasquet was really talented.
 
O

objectivity

Banned
RF20Lennon said:
The underdog is inspiring no doubt!! But there is nothing "special" about him if you will. The reason I admire Federer's natural talent so much is because he just carves and paints and makes it look so damn easy!!! Its very blissful and calm and its just magnificent to watch.

People admire figures like Sherlock Holmes, most superhero's and such figures because there is something special about them and we all feel the need to be special. The underdog although inspiring doesnt have the X factor in him.
Click to expand...

well i admire nadal, because he shows that with sufficient grit, hardwork and gumption, even a god can bleed. a bit like Leonidas against Xerxes.
 
TheTruth

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
RF20Lennon said:
If you think Roddick worked nearly half as hard as Nadal you're dead wrong!! Justin Gimblestob, Jim Courier, JMac have all said in practice sessions Federer is so calm and just rallies and never plays to full capacity while Nadal throttles each and every ball and tries to hit a winner. All the commentators widely agree Federer has the most NATURAL talent out of all of them. He doesnt need to try as hard as Nadal. Thats what talent is all about, making things look easy. Look at the teenage Gasquet vs. Nadal matches. Gasquet was really talented.
Click to expand...

How do you know? The commentators? Ha ha ha ha. The ones associated with TTC who put Pancho as 25 on their list? Seriously. I think the U.S. commentators are a bunch of tools. No way do I take them seriously.

Gasquet was talented? What happened to his natural talent after 13? if it's natural, it's innate isn't it? It doesn't come and go, does it?

Anyway, I do not share a brain with the commentators. My opinions are based on what I see, not what someone else says.

Don't you remember them talking about how elegant Maria's game was? They actually tried to get that over on the viewers. Yep, they have 0 credibility with me.
 
RF20Lennon

RF20Lennon

Legend
objectivity said:
well i admire nadal, because he shows that with sufficient grit, hardwork and gumption, even a god can bleed. a bit like Leonidas against Xerxes.
Click to expand...

Oooh!! nice parallel!

But I guess its what you prefer really. I like Fed's persona better, he's more stylish, more classy, and IMO the greatest ambassador the sport has ever had. And hes a really decent and nice guy.

In the end it comes out to this to break it down. Fed- Superman, Rafa- Batman. I prefer Superman, you prefer Batman thats all. Because for me there needs to be something special about a person. Holmes had the intellect, Supes had the powers etc.
 
O

objectivity

Banned
RF20Lennon said:
Oooh!! nice parallel!

But I guess its what you prefer really. I like Fed's persona better, he's more stylish, more classy, and IMO the greatest ambassador the sport has ever had. And hes a really decent and nice guy.

In the end it comes out to this to break it down. Fed- Superman, Rafa- Batman. I prefer Superman, you prefer Batman thats all. Because for me there needs to be something special about a person. Holmes had the intellect, Supes had the powers etc.
Click to expand...

agreed. my guess is that your favorite tennis clip is probably something like one of those seriously sick forehands that only federer can do. while mine is watching federer's shoulder give out at the end of each FO final (against nadal) as the ball is spun higher and higher...
 
RF20Lennon

RF20Lennon

Legend
TheTruth said:
How do you know? The commentators? Ha ha ha ha. The ones associated with TTC who put Pancho as 25 on their list? Seriously. I think the U.S. commentators are a bunch of tools. No way do I take them seriously.

Gasquet was talented? What happened to his natural talent after 13? if it's natural, it's innate isn't it? It doesn't come and go, does it?

Anyway, I do not share a brain with the commentators. My opinions are based on what I see, not what someone else says.

Don't you remember them talking about how elegant Maria's game was? They actually tried to get that over on the viewers. Yep, they have 0 credibility with me.
Click to expand...

I meant "is" sorry! You might think they are fools but out of all of us they are the only ones who have some knowledge and some credibility.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG4iNFxScak you cant work your way to that much control.
 
TheTruth

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
RF20Lennon said:
I meant "is" sorry! You might think they are fools but out of all of us they are the only ones who have some knowledge and some credibility.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG4iNFxScak you cant work your way to that much control.
Click to expand...

Oh, I definitely think they're fools. Do you know how many times Carillo and Shriver have taken Clijsters out to lunch to give her tips on how to beat Serena?

Or how Cahill went to Roger's house and broke down how to beat Nadal. It didn't work as you probably already know.

Or Cahill, who was obviously mad at Lleyton at the time, sat there and told trade secrets about Lleyton on the air, regarding his tendencies, etc.

And do you think they didn't know Agassi was doing drugs while they continually put him up as a ******* of virtue, and still do.

And Maria's game was elegant?

The ESPN crew had no credibility as far as in a positive way for me. So, no, I don't care one whit about what they say.

I listen during the matches and I catch all of these subtleties, that's why I know that they're full of garbage and they get no respect from me. At all. They've actually said these things on the air.
 
AudreyBlue

AudreyBlue

New User
RF20Lennon said:
If you think Roddick worked nearly half as hard as Nadal you're dead wrong!! Justin Gimblestob, Jim Courier, JMac have all said in practice sessions Federer is so calm and just rallies and never plays to full capacity while Nadal throttles each and every ball and tries to hit a winner. All the commentators widely agree Federer has the most NATURAL talent out of all of them. He doesnt need to try as hard as Nadal. Thats what talent is all about, making things look easy. Look at the teenage Gasquet vs. Nadal matches. Gasquet was really talented.
Click to expand...

I have to agree on that. I had the chance to see Nadal practice just right before his match with Djokovic in Montreal this summer and boy he was hitting every single ball so hard, I felt like I was watching a match. It was very impressive.
 
N

nippurr

New User
RF20Lennon said:
They are both great!! no doubt about it but Federer is obviously the more talented one. Gasquet would probably be second.
Click to expand...


It must be quite embarrassing for Fed to be the most talented player and yet be so lacking in success against a less talented player such as Nadal.
 
A

Advantage Roddick

New User
Federers game and strokes overall are a little better than Nadals. Nadal is probably a better athlete. Where Nadal has the edge is mental toughness. He is on his way to being the best player of his generation by winning slams and beating all of his main rivals on the big stage.
 
N

nippurr

New User
TheTruth said:
Oh, I definitely think they're fools. Do you know how many times Carillo and Shriver have taken Clijsters out to lunch to give her tips on how to beat Serena?

Or how Cahill went to Roger's house and broke down how to beat Nadal. It didn't work as you probably already know.

Or Cahill, who was obviously mad at Lleyton at the time, sat there and told trade secrets about Lleyton on the air, regarding his tendencies, etc.

And do you think they didn't know Agassi was doing drugs while they continually put him up as a ******* of virtue, and still do.

And Maria's game was elegant?

The ESPN crew had no credibility as far as in a positive way for me. So, no, I don't care one whit about what they say.

I listen during the matches and I catch all of these subtleties, that's why I know that they're full of garbage and they get no respect from me. At all. They've actually said these things on the air.
Click to expand...

Now that is funny. Cahill giving one of the greatest players of all time tips on how to beat another player. Does anyone here believe Cahill in his prime could take even a single point off Federer?
 
W

wy2sl0

Hall of Fame
It certainly looks like it is heading that way.

I truly believe Federer could have been considerably better than he was if he did a few things differently and had a great coach for more of his career - along with being in better shape.

Nadal to me is an example of someone with immense mental fortitude on the court, which has allowed him to work at the highest of levels to achieve greatness.

P.S Nadal is extremely talented as well.
 
T

timnz

Legend
tipsa...don'tlikehim! said:
If you take off clay + indoor matches from the H2H, it's:

8/4 for Nadal


Get a life Nadal haters :lol:
Click to expand...

Yes it is a shame they have played so few times Indoor. It would be much better if they had played the same number of times they had played on clay.

Haters.....goodness.......why use that term. I am a Federer fan, but I also like watching Nadal play. One can make a point without being a 'hater'.
 
T

Tennisean

Rookie
Considering that Nadal had a winning record against every seed at the US Open, do you have to ask?

Not only is Nadal is better than that old hair-twirling, twiggy-armed, metrosexual cro-mag, he's the best ever, period.
 
O

objectivity

Banned
Death Master said:
I hear nadal is going back to south America in December. anybody knows more about this? is it for exos on the hard courts?
Click to expand...

to me, nadal represents hope. he is really like Leonidas (and the 300). he represents hope because he shows us that determination can overcome the odds. that we mortals have a place on this earth. that it isn't just about talent or family wealth. that there is hope to break through uneven hands dealt by fate.
 
RF20Lennon

RF20Lennon

Legend
objectivity said:
to me, nadal represents hope. he is really like Leonidas (and the 300). he represents hope because he shows us that determination can overcome the odds. that we mortals have a place on this earth. that it isn't just about talent or family wealth. that there is hope to break through uneven hands dealt by fate.
Click to expand...

You do realize Nadal grew up in the riches! His family was extremely wealthy and they sent him to the best academy and he had his uncle to train him. It was Federer on the other hand that grew up in a middle class family and went far away form home to train and was homesick and away from his parents. But his talent and work ethic got him to where he is today just like Nadal.
 
O

objectivity

Banned
RF20Lennon said:
You do realize Nadal grew up in the riches! His family was extremely wealthy and they sent him to the best academy and he had his uncle to train him. It was Federer on the other hand that grew up in a middle class family and went far away form home to train and was homesick and away from his parents. But his talent and work ethic got him to where he is today just like Nadal.
Click to expand...

my point about the family wealth is more to do with situations outside of tennis. talking about underprivileged children of the 99% etc.
 
ibbi

ibbi

G.O.A.T.
Nadal is not as complete and majestic a tennis player as Federer is, that much is obvious to anyone with two eyes, and a brain in their head. What he happens to be is a man of ferocious competitive spirit, iron will, steely nerve, bullish determination, seemingly ceaseless energy and drive, and whether it is him, or more exclusively his uncle, an incredible intelligence, and brain for the game.

Ultimately, to me, I feel like his qualities are more important to greatness than Federer's mastery of his art, because ultimately tennis is not art, it is competition, and Nadal is a greater competitor than anyone. To others that may not be the case, and I can understand that. It's why I feel there is basically nothing between them.
 
P

pvaudio

Legend
The_Order said:
You know why we fail to mention this? Because it's WRONG!

They have played 31 matches, 15 of them on clay.

15/31 = 48%

In what Universe is < 51% the majority?

As for aging Fed, what about peak Fed losing to baby Rafa on HC in 04 and 06? And going down 2 sets and a break in the third in Miami 05 before relying on baby Rafa to choke while playing in his first big final?
Click to expand...
You fail at mathematics.
 
TheTruth

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
RF20Lennon said:
You do realize Nadal grew up in the riches! His family was extremely wealthy and they sent him to the best academy and he had his uncle to train him. It was Federer on the other hand that grew up in a middle class family and went far away form home to train and was homesick and away from his parents. But his talent and work ethic got him to where he is today just like Nadal.
Click to expand...

This is what I've read too.
 
90's Clay

90's Clay

Banned
Nadal just has more of the overall package in terms of talent/ability/Fire/Competiveness/Mental Toughness.

That makes him "better" than Federer. Hes more tools of the trade than Rog does

Fed is a great player, Nadal is just better. That shows in the h2h and domination over ALL main rivals
 
Death Master

Death Master

Banned
TheTruth said:
He did. Unbelievable, isn't it?
Click to expand...

so cahill takes blind worship to another level:

he dupes roger--and himself obviously--- into thinking that he can help.

roger immediately invites him to his home to discuss cahill`s master plan.

how is that working out for you cahill you clueless clown?



memo to cahill: you and roger combined would get your asses handed to you on the court.

it is not that easy to beat nadal.

he is not called "the ultimate doomsday stroking machine" for nothing.
 
Last edited:
Death Master

Death Master

Banned
roger has a better resume because he is 5 years older. he has been at it a while.

folks give it up. roger does not measure up to nadal. there is only one way to deal with this agony, torment, grief, and seemingly endless misery:


join nadal. embrace him. if you cant beat them then join them.

don't let nadal ruin your life.
 
TheTruth

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
Death Master said:
so cahill takes blind worhip to another level:

he dupes roger--and himself obviously--- into thinking that he can help.

roger immediately invites him to his home to discuss cahill`s master plan.

how is that working out for you cahill you clueless clown?



memo to cahill: you and roger combined would get your asses handed to you on the court.

it is not that easy to beat nadal.

he is not called "the ultimate doomsday stroking machine" for nothing.
Click to expand...

The ESPN commentators are always doing things of this nature, and then going to the opponent and expecting them to respect them. Goofy! That's probably why Djokovic's girlfriend was listening to their broadcast during the match. She must have gotten that from Mr. Federer. They mentioned that Mr. Federer listens to their broadcast from the stands. That probably keeps them honest.
 
Death Master

Death Master

Banned
cahill is another one of those hate infested, legless rats who is stricken with grief over the runaway success of the clay warrior.
 
B

bullfan

Legend
TheTruth said:
The ESPN commentators are always doing things of this nature, and then going to the opponent and expecting them to respect them. Goofy! That's probably why Djokovic's girlfriend was listening to their broadcast during the match. She must have gotten that from Mr. Federer. They mentioned that Mr. Federer listens to their broadcast from the stands. That probably keeps them honest.
Click to expand...

Definitely. Of course, it was never more clear than in this years USOpen, whee they had folks responding during Mitch's without chatting. Not to say it hasn't happened in the past. Of course, it's a very tight knit tennis community, so kid gloves are used.
 
Federer20042006

Federer20042006

Banned
Once again with references to the weak era nonsense.

Federer was hyped as a potential all-time great when he had just 2-3 majors. Heck, he was hyped as the next great player in 2001.

That had nothing to do with supposedly "weak competition." A lot of newer tennis fans/"Nadal fans"(Federer haters) make the mistake of thinking Federer's hype as an all-time great emanated from his results. It didn't.

It emanated from his play.

No such hype with Nadal. Guy was dominating on clay right away but apparently was just a baby on all other surfaces for years.
 
Death Master

Death Master

Banned
nadal has had to beat the so called the greatest player of all time at least 6 times that I can remember in slam finals to get his slams. and that is on ALL surfaces: clay, grass, and the hard courts.

he is 21-10 against him.

nole is also an all time great and nadal has had to gun him down at least 3 times in slam finals: 2 times in new York and once at RG.

nadal is 5-0 against nole at RG and 5-0 against roger there.

last time I checked, they do play tennis on clay.


you guys are better off embracing nadal because you cant defeat him in battle.

I have a feeling that he is not done yet. the most ruthless version ever may show up in 2014.
 
ilovetennis212

ilovetennis212

Professional
Is nadal better than fed in H2H? Yes
Is Nadal better than fed in clay? Yes
Is Nadal better than fed in masters titles? Yes
Is nadal batter than fed in Olympic? Yes
Is nadal better than fed in Davis cup titles? Yes


But...
Is Nadal better than fed in Grand Slam titles record? Nope. Or not yet.
Is nadal better than fed in No.1 ranking weeks holding? No. Never going to happen.
Is nadal better than fed in consecutive SF record? No. Never gonna happen.
Is nadal better than fed in career titles? Nope. Not yet.
Is nadal better than fed in most grand slam finals? Nope.
Is nadal better than fed in year end no.1? Nope.
Is nadal better than fed in World tour final titles? Nope. Never gonna happen.
Is nadal better than fed in hard court GS? Nope
Is nadal better than fed in grass? Nope. Never gonna happen.
Is nadal better than fed in consecutive GS final? Nope. Never gonna happen.
Is nadal better than fed in most semi final in GS? Nope
Is nadal better than fed in consecutive QF in GS? Nope. Never gonna happen.
Is nadal better than fed in winning 3GS every year for 3 times? Nope never gonna happen.
Is nadal better than fed in 4titles in 3different GS? Nope never gonna happen.
Is nadal better than fed in 5finals at each GS? Nope never gonna happen.
...
Now I'm tired of copy-pasting his records..
There are bunch of records still.
.
.
.
But the judgement is all yours.
You can always say nadal is better.
Whatever works for ya.
.
Let ask one question.
Would you watch prime Nadal's human-backboard-worth-54 rallies? Or prime Federer's shot making and jaw dropping shots?
.
I know you are going to say Federer's prime time is gone and he must retire or something.
But remember, when nadal will be retiring in 5-7 years.. His records and titles will still be there as remained and be remembered by all of us.
So do Federer's records and titles are do the same now.
1175574_588599681183651_1950309768_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
Roger Wawrinka

Roger Wawrinka

Professional
Death Master said:
I said there are only 2 players on the planet:

just roger and just nadal.


will 21-10 in the favor of nadal will help you find the right answer?

how is that "comparable?


looks pretty damn lopsided to me.
Click to expand...



Federer also had 287 weeks at #1. Just saying, I don't think it's completely lobsided. Plus, you asked my opinion and then your telling me Nadals better anyway. Why'd you post it in the first place?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Death Master
is nadal good for 15 slams? yes or no
2
Replies
75
Views
6K
Death Master
Death Master
vtmike
  • Poll
Would Nadal trade places with Federer in RG 2009?
2 3 4
Replies
190
Views
8K
Serve_Ace
Serve_Ace
M
Federer is greater than Nadal
Replies
46
Views
3K
SoBad
SoBad
T
Who is better Rafael Nadal or Roger Federer?
2
Replies
92
Views
4K
The Pusher Terminator
T
skypadq
djokovic is better hard court player than federer and much better player than nadal
Replies
0
Views
254
skypadq
skypadq
Top