Comparing Federer and Nadal at age 28.5

falstaff78

falstaff78

Hall of Fame
There was a thread recently which attempted to compare Federer's and Nadal's careers at the same age.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=466280

In the thread I pointed out some issues with the comparison. As a result I have attempted to do a similiar analysis here. I have taken Nadal's professional career to-date and compared it to Federer's at the end of the 2009 season.

I am intentionally not putting a poll here. It's gratifying enough to look at some of these awesome numbers, and think how privileged we are to see these guys play. Without having to make it a popularity contest.


Majors
Nadal 14 / 46 = 30%
Federer 15 / 43 = 35%

(denominator looks at all Majors held in the player's career span - not just the ones each guy participated in)


Weeks at no 1
Nadal 141
Federer 285


Tour finales
Nadal 0 / 12 = 0%
Federer 4 / 11 = 36%


MS1000s
Nadal 27 / 83 = 33%
Federer 16 / 78 = 21%

Here it's very instructive to break the number down into clay and hard.

MS 1000s on Clay
Nadal 19 / 30 = 63%
Federer 5 / 27 = 19%

MS 1000s on Hard
Nadal 8 / 53 = 15%
Federer 11 / 51 = 22%

On hard courts, Nadal's got a very high strike rate of winning about 1/6 - 1/7 of MS1000s that he enters. Which is not a lot worse than Federer who wins only 1/4 - 1/5. On clay courts. Well, let's just allow the number of 63% to speak for itself....


Overall titles
Nadal 64 / 199 = 32%
Federer 61 / 213 = 29%

Again, good to break down by surface. Leaving out carpet, which accounts for 2 of Federer's titles

Overall titles on clay
Nadal 45 / 69 = 65%
Federer 9 / 46 = 20%

Overall titles on hard
Nadal 16 / 107 = 15%
Federer 39 / 127 = 31%

Overall titles on grass
Nadal 3 / 18 = 17%
Federer 11 / 22 = 50%

Nadal has won 2/3 of every clay court tournament he has entered in his professional career. Read that again folks. 2/3!!!

These numbers demonstrate Federer's all-court prowess. On the three surfaces he wins 20, 31 and 50% his tournies. In fact, his clay tournament strike rate is higher than Nadal's hard or grass court strike rates!

Another implication here is that Federer really lost out by there not being a regular grass season. On hard courts he wins about 20% of his MS1000s, and there is every indication that he would have won 40-50% of MS1000s on grass. So if there had been a couple of grass MS1000, he would probably have 2-3 more MS1000 overall.

Hope you guys enjoyed.
 
Last edited:
NatF

NatF

Bionic Poster
Thanks for this. Interesting comparison. Nadal's conversion in clay court tournaments is certainly crazy but I'm surprised it's not higher tbh...
 
Failed overrule

Failed overrule

Rookie
Nice try

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Nadal

wik.jpg
 
cknobman

cknobman

Legend
Taking the comparison given by the OP it shows that both players are beasts.

With that said it also shows Nadal clearly trailing Federer.
 
falstaff78

falstaff78

Hall of Fame
cknobman said:
Taking the comparison given by the OP it shows that both players are beasts.
Click to expand...

thanks. this was entirely my point.

I am finding it hard to believe that the first thing some people notice when confronted with these incredible numbers is....you robbed my guy of 5% on the conversion ratio for his majors won!!!

I mean seriously....
 
Failed overrule

Failed overrule

Rookie
falstaff78 said:
Please re-read OP. I deliberately included As in the denominator. You have to play a Major to win it. A first round loss gets you more ranking points than an absence.
Click to expand...

Yes and this is brilliant logic i have to say. Lowered percentage because of player's absence? Give me a break. Why not count 2001 and 2002 as well since he turned PRO? :lol::lol::cool:
 
falstaff78

falstaff78

Hall of Fame
Failed overrule said:
Yes and this is brilliant logic i have to say. Lowered percentage because of player's absence? Give me a break. Why not count 2001 and 2002 as well since he turned PRO? :lol::lol::cool:
Click to expand...

I used the time span since the player first played a major.

Suppose for argument's sake that I change it, and Rafa's strike rate goes from 30% to 36%. So what?!?!? Would that mean he would have performed better in Majors than Roger at age 28.5?

Of course not! Because he would have had one fewer major!
 
cknobman

cknobman

Legend
Failed overrule said:
Yes and this is brilliant logic i have to say. Lowered percentage because of player's absence? Give me a break. Why not count 2001 and 2002 as well since he turned PRO? :lol::lol::cool:
Click to expand...

Same logic as boosting your percentage by skipping Grand Slams?

Seriously.

Whats next, not counting losses because the player was "injured"? Guess Nadal has only actually lost like 2 matches in his entire career then :-?
 
clayqueen

clayqueen

Talk Tennis Guru
falstaff78 said:
There was a thread recently which attempted to compare Federer's and Nadal's careers at the same age.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=466280

In the thread I pointed out some issues with the comparison. As a result I have attempted to do a similiar analysis here. I have taken Nadal's professional career to-date and compared it to Federer's at the end of the 2009 season.

I am intentionally not putting a poll here. It's gratifying enough to look at some of these awesome numbers, and think how privileged we are to see these guys play. Without having to make it a popularity contest.


Majors
Nadal 14 / 46 = 30%
Federer 15 / 43 = 35%

(denominator looks at all Majors held in the player's career span - not just the ones each guy participated in)


Weeks at no 1
Nadal 141
Federer 285


Tour finales
Nadal 0 / 12 = 0%
Federer 4 / 11 = 36%


MS1000s
Nadal 27 / 83 = 33%
Federer 16 / 78 = 21%

Here it's very instructive to break the number down into clay and hard.

MS 1000s on Clay
Nadal 19 / 30 = 63%
Federer 5 / 27 = 19%

MS 1000s on Hard
Nadal 8 / 53 = 15%
Federer 11 / 51 = 22%

On hard courts, Nadal's got a very high strike rate of winning about 1/6 - 1/7 of MS1000s that he enters. Which is not a lot worse than Federer who wins only 1/4 - 1/5. On clay courts. Well, let's just allow the number of 63% to speak for itself....


Overall titles
Nadal 64 / 199 = 32%
Federer 61 / 213 = 29%

Again, good to break down by surface. Leaving out carpet, which accounts for 2 of Federer's titles

Overall titles on clay
Nadal 45 / 69 = 65%
Federer 9 / 46 = 20%

Overall titles on hard
Nadal 16 / 107 = 15%
Federer 39 / 127 = 31%

Overall titles on grass
Nadal 3 / 18 = 17%
Federer 11 / 22 = 50%

Nadal has won 2/3 of every clay court tournament he has entered in his professional career. Read that again folks. 2/3!!!

These numbers demonstrate Federer's all-court prowess. On the three surfaces he wins 20, 31 and 50% his tournies. In fact, his clay tournament strike rate is higher than Nadal's hard or grass court strike rates!

Another implication here is that Federer really lost out by there not being a regular grass season. On hard courts he wins about 20% of his MS1000s, and there is every indication that he would have won 40-50% of MS1000s on grass. So if there had been a couple of grass MS1000, he would probably have 2-3 more MS1000 overall.

Hope you guys enjoyed.
Click to expand...
You have to break total number of titles into 250s, 500s, 1000s, WTF, Olympic and Slams.
 
Prostaffguru

Prostaffguru

Rookie
Majors

Nadal 14 / 46 = 30%

Federer 15 / 43 = <font color="red">35%

This stat surprised me most. I feel that nadals game will not have the longevity that Feds has had and hence won't catch up to the final slam count.
 
Failed overrule

Failed overrule

Rookie
cknobman said:
Same logic as boosting your percentage by skipping Grand Slams?

Seriously.

Whats next, not counting losses because the player was "injured"? Guess Nadal has only actually lost like 2 matches in his entire career then :-?
Click to expand...

So tell me genius, Nadal skips slams to boost his%? :):):shock:
It's simple math, you can't include missed slams to this combination since Nadal hadn't a even theoretical chance to win them. Just imagine you a working as sales manager, and your % of sales (and salary) decreased because of consignment which was delayed by contractor or because of sick leave.
 
clayqueen

clayqueen

Talk Tennis Guru
Roger Federer:


Grand Slams - 17
M1000s.........- 23
Olympics........ 0
ATP 500...........13
ATP 250............22
WTF..................06


RafaeL Nadal

Grand Slams - 14
M1000s.........- 27
Olympics........ 01
ATP 500...........15
ATP 250............07
WTF..................00

Fed has a high % of 250 titles in his career compared to Nadal.
 
Last edited:
mike danny

mike danny

Bionic Poster
clayqueen said:
Roger Federer:


Grand Slams - 17
M1000s.........- 23
Olympics........ 0
ATP 500...........13
ATP 250............22
WTF..................06


RafaeL Nadal

Grand Slams - 14
M1000s.........- 27
Olympics........ 01
ATP 500...........15
ATP 250............07
WTF..................01

Fed has a high % of 250 titles in his career compared to Nadal.
Click to expand...
When did Nadal win a WTF title?
 
falstaff78

falstaff78

Hall of Fame
clayqueen said:
Roger Federer:


Grand Slams - 17
M1000s.........- 23
Olympics........ 0
ATP 500...........13
ATP 250............22
WTF..................06


RafaeL Nadal

Grand Slams - 14
M1000s.........- 27
Olympics........ 01
ATP 500...........15
ATP 250............07
WTF..................01

Fed has a high % of 250 titles in his career compared to Nadal.
Click to expand...

These numbers don't look accurate. Does Rafa have a WTF?
 
falstaff78

falstaff78

Hall of Fame
clayqueen said:
You have to break total number of titles into 250s, 500s, 1000s, WTF, Olympic and Slams.
Click to expand...

It's quite hard to do the split for Federer's career upto 2009, broken out by surface. I invested the time to do it for MS1000.

You are welcome to complete for MS500, MS250 etc.

:)
 
octobrina10

octobrina10

Talk Tennis Guru
falstaff78 said:
There was a thread recently which attempted to compare Federer's and Nadal's careers at the same age.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=466280

In the thread I pointed out some issues with the comparison. As a result I have attempted to do a similiar analysis here. I have taken Nadal's professional career to-date and compared it to Federer's at the end of the 2009 season.

I am intentionally not putting a poll here. It's gratifying enough to look at some of these awesome numbers, and think how privileged we are to see these guys play. Without having to make it a popularity contest.


Majors
Nadal 14 / 46 = 30%
Federer 15 / 43 = 35%...
Click to expand...

You are wrong! Rafa has won 35,9 % of GS tournaments he has entered into (14 of 39).
 
falstaff78

falstaff78

Hall of Fame
clayqueen said:
I don't think the surface matters.
Click to expand...

I agree surface doesn't matter. A title is a title.

But that's not the same as saying there is no insight to be had from looking at surface-wise records.

You are most welcome to look up the title splits and post them on the thread. I'm done procrastinating from work for the day!!!
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
At the same age

Federer won 3 slams per year 3 times. Nadal only once.

Federer has 3 years of winning over 90%. Nadal only once.

Federer holds a record for most consecutive wins on two surfaces(grass and hard court). Nadal holds the record on clay

Federer holds a record of 237 consecutive weeks at #1. Nadal 56.

Federer made 4 slam finals per year 3 times. Nadal none.


No question Federer is not only more dominant than Nadal, but the most dominant tennis player of all time/
 
cknobman

cknobman

Legend
clayqueen said:
Roger Federer:


Grand Slams - 17
M1000s.........- 23
Olympics........ 0
ATP 500...........13
ATP 250............22
WTF..................06


RafaeL Nadal

Grand Slams - 14
M1000s.........- 27
Olympics........ 01
ATP 500...........15
ATP 250............07
WTF..................00

Fed has a high % of 250 titles in his career compared to Nadal.
Click to expand...

Fed also has 18 total more titles than Nadal so go figure.

It all evens though, I mean Fed does have 3 more Grand Slams and 6 World Tour Finals to make up for the 4 fewer Masters.
 
octobrina10

octobrina10

Talk Tennis Guru
falstaff78 said:
There was a thread recently which attempted to compare Federer's and Nadal's careers at the same age.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=466280

In the thread I pointed out some issues with the comparison. As a result I have attempted to do a similiar analysis here. I have taken Nadal's professional career to-date and compared it to Federer's at the end of the 2009 season.

I am intentionally not putting a poll here. It's gratifying enough to look at some of these awesome numbers, and think how privileged we are to see these guys play. Without having to make it a popularity contest.


Majors
Nadal 14 / 46 = 30%
Federer 15 / 43 = 35%
Click to expand...

Reality
B0abFRPCYAA2IBe.png


Rafa has won 35,9 % of GS tournaments he has entered into (14 of 39).
 
A

Aggasirules5

Banned
octobrina10 said:
Reality
B0abFRPCYAA2IBe.png


Rafa has won 35,9 % of GS tournaments he has entered into (14 of 39).
Click to expand...

Gosh, so pedantic; as if some decimal numbers even matter. Even ignoring that, it is blatantly obvious that it is far easier to maintain a better win% when you pick and choose events as per your liking. Federer could have easily skipped a number of GS in 2008 and 2013 but he played on. Honestly, why are you so defensive?
 
SpinToWin

SpinToWin

Talk Tennis Guru
To all the people who say that it is not right to count the Slams Rafa missed due to injury or otherwise:

Health and fitness is another factor of being a great tennis player and if your style of play causes you to often be injured, then not taking part in a tournament is your own fault and essentially the same as losing it. Rafa had the chance to win all those tournaments if he had a less physically demanding playing style/less injuries. Therefore, it is quite logical to do the calculations as the OP did.
 
A

Aggasirules5

Banned
octobrina10 said:
It's his personal choice!
GS tournaments are the ITF events and they are not mandatory tourneys for the ATP players.
Click to expand...

That is what. If he had chickened out because of injury to save his stats he'd have had better overall numbers. Nothing is mandatory, even playing tennis isn't; don't be daft and reply to what is said.

There are players who miss slams for stomach bugs (whilst playing China Open, Beijing and Basel with "appendicitis") and there are those who never take a break despite injured backs and mono. Obviously if you pick and choose your events and play only when you are feeling 150% fit and ready, then odds are you'll have better overall win%. That is elementary.
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
SpinToWin said:
To all the people who say that it is not right to count the Slams Rafa missed due to injury or otherwise:

Health and fitness is another factor of being a great tennis player and if your style of play causes you to often be injured, then not taking part in a tournament is your own fault and essentially the same as losing it. Rafa had the chance to win all those tournaments if he had a less physically demanding playing style/less injuries. Therefore, it is quite logical to do the calculations as the OP did.
Click to expand...

And conveniently never skipped his pet slam(FO) but have skipped the other 3 slam events. He doesn't play when he knows he isn't going to do well.
 
Steve0904

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
TMF said:
And conveniently never skipped his pet slam(FO) but have skipped the other 3 slam events. He doesn't play when he knows he isn't going to do well.
Click to expand...

He has skipped RG before actually. He skipped it due to injury in 2003 and 2004 if I'm not mistaken.
 
A

Aggasirules5

Banned
octobrina10 said:
A lot of things are mandatory for the ATP players!
You should read the ATP Rulebook!
Click to expand...

Do you comprehend English? Read the context in which it was written. Playing tennis itself is not mandatory. They won't get killed if they don't. If you don't have a proper reply as you clearly don't, jog on.

It is easier to have a better win% when you pick and choose tournaments. End of.
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Steve0904 said:
He has skipped RG before actually. He skipped it due to injury in 2003 and 2004 if I'm not mistaken.
Click to expand...

Since 2005, he has never skipped RG because he knows he's always the favorite, although he often downplay his chance but I don't think anyone believes him.
 
D

dh003i

Legend
If we don't add Majors we think she "would have won" to Monica Seles, we also don't make adjustments for anyone else. Bo Jackson isn't in the NFL Hall of Fame because he got injured and didn't play enough to justify being there.

Nadal is a tier-1 all-time great player, without a doubt. He also had a shot at any event that occurred during his tenure, whether he played it or not, just like Federer did. It's a player's responsibility to maintain good health, and sometimes "unfair things" happen, like a player catching mono or having to have an appendix removed. Those events have nothing to do with the way either player plays, but that doesn't mean they should benefit by being absent.

That's life.
 
Steve0904

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
TMF said:
Since 2005, he has never skipped RG because he knows he's always the favorite, although he often downplay his chance but I don't think anyone believes him.
Click to expand...

Well he may have won it in 2004 too, maybe even 2003. So obviously he wouldn't want to skip it, favourite or not. Michael Chang won RG at 17. I think we all know Nadal could've done it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

falstaff78
Comparison of Federer and Nadal's most dominant periods
Replies
24
Views
2K
falstaff78
falstaff78
granddog29
Comparing Federer and Nadal by surface
Replies
7
Views
1K
mike danny
mike danny
M
Comparing Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic since 2009
Replies
42
Views
3K
Evan77
Evan77
M
Federer and Nadal and Tournaments Won by Surfaces
Replies
7
Views
809
viduka0101
viduka0101
F
Comparing Fed 2010-2017 to Nadal of 2010-17
Replies
11
Views
630
abmk
abmk
Top