Better Season: Federer 2005 or Nadal 2008?

Fed 2005 or Rafa 2008?

  • Fed 2005

    Votes: 26 63.4%

  • Nadal 2008

    Votes: 15 36.6%
  • Total voters
    41
JaoSousa

JaoSousa

Hall of Fame
Federer 2005
2 slam wins, 2 slam SFs
TMC Final
4 M1000 titles
81-4 win/loss
11 total titles

Loss to Safin AO SF: 7–5, 4–6, 7–5, 6–7(6), 7–9
Loss to Gasquet MC QF : 7–6(1), 2–6, 6–7(8)
Loss to Nadal RG SF: 3–6, 6–4, 4–6, 3–6
Loss to Nalby TMC F: 7–6(4), 7–6(11), 2–6, 1–6, 6–7(3)

Nadal 2008
2 slam wins, 2 slam SFs
Won Singles Olympic Gold
Did not play TMC
3 M1000 titles
82-11 win/loss
8 total titles.

Loss to Youzhny Chennai F: 0–6, 1–6
Loss to Tsonga AO SF: 2–6, 3–6, 2–6
Loss to Seppi Rotterdam 2R: 6–3, 3–6, 4–6
Loss to Roddick Dubai QF: 6–7(5–7), 2–6
Loss to Djokovic IW SF: 3–6, 2–6
Loss to Davydenko Miami F: 4–6, 2–6
Loss to Ferrero Rome 2R: 5–7, 1–6
Loss to Djokovic Cincinnati SF: 1–6, 5–7
Loss to Murray USO SF: 2–6, 6–7(5–7), 6–4, 4–6
Loss to Simon Madrid SF: 6–3, 5–7, 6–7(6–8)
Retirement against Davydenko in Paris: 1–6 RET

Thoughts?
 
About equal at the Slams, Fed with a lead in TMC and Ned with a lead in OSG, Fed with a lead in Masters, a massive lead in win percentage, and a lead in overall title haul. Nadal has the competition argument in his favor, but 2005 was not a bad year at all and it’s probably that same competition that prevented Fed from reaching the AO final. Nadal also has his all-surface win streak in 2008.

In the end, though, I think Fed wins this debate based on results and level of play. imo 2005 was his second-best season (and probably best overall if we ignore results and discuss pure level of play). Make no mistake, though, Nadal’s 2008 season is still very impressive and also deserves its own spot in the list of best two-Slam seasons.
 
Peak Elo Ratings of the Top 5, Year-End 2005 and 2008
2005:
Federer - 2550
Nadal - 2552
Roddick - 2274
Hewitt - 2295
Davydenko - 2290
Total: 11961

2008:
Nadal - 2552
Federer - 2550
Djokovic - 2629
Murray - 2500
Davydenko - 2290
Total: 12521

2008 had tougher competition, so more losses are understandable. It's easy to do what Fedr did when your competition is Baby Nadal, Roddick, and Hewitt.

Mury GOAT
 
Lew II said:
vs Big3

2005 Federer --> 1-1
2008 Nadal --> 8-2
Click to expand...
I still don’t get why you keep posting the same stats even when many here (including myself) have pointed out the several issues with using this methodology. The Big 3 can’t be used to justify strong competition by their names alone.

I do agree that 2008 had the stronger competition (a bit closer than you make it sound, however), but I’d use a much different way to measure it.

And then there’s the issue of competition not always being an indicator of level.
 
Third Serve said:
I still don’t get why you keep posting the same stats even when many here (including myself) have pointed out the several issues with using this methodology. The Big 3 can’t be used to justify strong competition by their names alone.

I do agree that 2008 had the stronger competition (a bit closer than you make it sound, however), but I’d use a much different way to measure it.

And then there’s the issue of competition not always being an indicator of level.
Click to expand...
Not names alone but also ranking (Federer, Djokovic and Murray were top4 in the year) and rounds they played in (all of their matches were in finals or semis except two vs Murray).
 
King No1e said:
Tough one. Nadal has the Olympic Gold going for him, but Federer was more consistent overall. I'm going with Supreme Sexi Lord Fedr.
Click to expand...
I think Olympic gold is a lot more important than a lot of Fed fans on here give it credit for. I would say Federer by a bit because of the level of play. Also Nadal had a few weird losses in 2008 like to Ferrero and Youzhny(1-6 0-6 no less, @tennis_pro). So Federer edges it out because of the extra masters, more titles, and far superior win-loss.

BTW, how many masters do you think an OG is worth? I would say like 3-4. Personally, I think it is more important than the WTF, but feel free to disagree.
 
How many slams 2005 Federer wins in 2008?

2008 AO - faces Djokovic in one of his best forms, plus Tsonga
2008 RG - faces Nadal in one of his best forms
2008 WI - faces Nadal in one of his best forms
2008 UO - faces Djokovic and Murray

I think he'd win just UO as it's what he actually did.
 
Lew II said:
Not names alone but also ranking (Federer, Djokovic and Murray were top4 in the year) and rounds they played in (all of their matches were in finals or semis except two vs Murray).
Click to expand...
Yeah, that’s better, but you should apply that reasoning to the players Fed faced in 2005.

Even so, that doesn’t look at individual match performances which is what I really want to get at. Fed being top 4 in 2008 doesn’t imply that he played like a top 4 player in all the four matches he played against Nadal that year. He certainly did so in the Wimbledon final and perhaps in the Hamburg final (minus the massive choking job). Less so in MC and definitely not in the RG final. Meanwhile, 2005 Agassi was well outside the top 4 in the US Open final, but for at least a good part of the first three sets he played like a top 4 player. As I’ve said before, name and ranking is great for general statements, but not good for specific comparisons.
 
Lew II said:
How many slams 2005 Federer wins in 2008?

2008 AO - faces Djokovic in one of his best forms, plus Tsonga
2008 RG - faces Nadal in one of his best forms
2008 WI - faces Nadal in one of his best forms
2008 UO - faces Djokovic and Murray

I think he'd win just UO as it's what he actually did.
Click to expand...
40/60 AO
10/90 RG
70/30 W (Nadal took down Fed’s sixth best Wimbledon form and needed five sets to do so. 2005 is probably his second or third best. Nadal is good on grass, but he’s not better than peak Federer, cmon lol. I’ve seen this narrative pushed by plenty of Nadal fans on YouTube but I could make the same argument for 2006 Federer since he beat Nadal by a pretty wide margin; what’s that? Nadal wasn’t at his best?)
80/20 USO

I say Fed does about as well in 2008 as 2005. A little worse, probably, but not significantly so.
 
Third Serve said:
40/60 AO
10/90 RG
70/30 W (Nadal took down Fed’s sixth best Wimbledon form and needed five sets to do so. 2005 is probably his second or third best. Nadal is good on grass, but he’s not better than peak Federer, cmon lol. I’ve seen this narrative pushed by plenty of Nadal fans on YouTube but I could make the same argument for 2006 Federer since he beat Nadal by a pretty wide margin; what’s that? Nadal wasn’t at his best?)
80/20 USO
Click to expand...
Federer was just 26 years old and didn't drop a set before the final. The fact that it is not considered "peak" is worrying.
 
Nadal, wins the Olympic gold, and against prime Federer on grass in arguably the greatest match ever.
 
JaoSousa said:
I think Olympic gold is a lot more important than a lot of Fed fans on here give it credit for. I would say Federer by a bit because of the level of play. Also Nadal had a few weird losses in 2008 like to Ferrero and Youzhny(1-6 0-6 no less, @tennis_pro). So Federer edges it out because of the extra masters, more titles, and far superior win-loss.

BTW, how many masters do you think an OG is worth? I would say like 3-4. Personally, I think it is more important than the WTF, but feel free to disagree.
Click to expand...
I'd put OG a little above WTF, but not quite at Slam tier. Either way, it's the biggest non-Slam event.
 
Lew II said:
In the h2h it's a close match.
Click to expand...
Very impressive indeed, but we’re talking about strictly the 2008 match. Tell me what would make 2008 Fed equal to or stronger than 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 Fed (2007 excludes because I acknowledge that it’s on a similar caliber to 2008). Judging by the stats, I can’t see how you could make the argument. It’s true that Fed didn’t drop a set before the final, but it was a very weak Wimbledon draw for him up until the final. Even compared to some of his other Wimbledon runs (2005 and 2006 weren’t great up to the final but still better than 2008).

It’s fair to say that 2008 was technically prime Fed at Wimbledon, but I have doubts that you could consider it “peak” (that is, the best) when his streak of five straight Wimbledon wins exists.
 
JaoSousa said:
Federer 2005
2 slam wins, 2 slam SFs
TMC Final
4 M1000 titles
81-4 win/loss
11 total titles

Loss to Safin AO SF: 7–5, 4–6, 7–5, 6–7(6), 7–9
Loss to Gasquet MC QF : 7–6(1), 2–6, 6–7(8)
Loss to Nadal RG SF: 3–6, 6–4, 4–6, 3–6
Loss to Nalby TMC F: 7–6(4), 7–6(11), 2–6, 1–6, 6–7(3)

Nadal 2008
2 slam wins, 2 slam SFs
Won Singles Olympic Gold
Did not play TMC
3 M1000 titles
82-11 win/loss
8 total titles.

Loss to Youzhny Chennai F: 0–6, 1–6
Loss to Tsonga AO SF: 2–6, 3–6, 2–6
Loss to Seppi Rotterdam 2R: 6–3, 3–6, 4–6
Loss to Roddick Dubai QF: 6–7(5–7), 2–6
Loss to Djokovic IW SF: 3–6, 2–6
Loss to Davydenko Miami F: 4–6, 2–6
Loss to Ferrero Rome 2R: 5–7, 1–6
Loss to Djokovic Cincinnati SF: 1–6, 5–7
Loss to Murray USO SF: 2–6, 6–7(5–7), 6–4, 4–6
Loss to Simon Madrid SF: 6–3, 5–7, 6–7(6–8)
Retirement against Davydenko in Paris: 1–6 RET

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I feel like 2008 Nadal overrated on these boards. Everyone focuses on the dominant RG and the Wimbledon but he was uninspiring for first and last months of year. 2005 Fed was much more dominant.
 
Nadalgaenger said:
I feel like 2008 Nadal overrated on these boards. Everyone focuses on the dominant RG and the Wimbledon but he was uninspiring for first and last months of year. 2005 Fed was much more dominant.
Click to expand...
This is generally the problem with Nadal's best seasons; In his three best ones, he had many perplexing losses. It really shows that his peak level on all three surfaces is incredible, but he struggles to be consistent on grass and HC. Clay is a lock almost every season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH
Federer clearly played the better season, but if I could choose which one I want to have for myself, I would say 2008 because of the Gold Medal.

However, for a statistical comparison this is useless, because 2005 wasn’t an Olympic year of course.
 
Lew II said:
Federer was just 26 years old and didn't drop a set before the final. The fact that it is not considered "peak" is worrying.
Click to expand...
Third Serve said:
Very impressive indeed, but we’re talking about strictly the 2008 match. Tell me what would make 2008 Fed equal to or stronger than 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 Fed (2007 excludes because I acknowledge that it’s on a similar caliber to 2008). Judging by the stats, I can’t see how you could make the argument. It’s true that Fed didn’t drop a set before the final, but it was a very weak Wimbledon draw for him up until the final. Even compared to some of his other Wimbledon runs (2005 and 2006 weren’t great up to the final but still better than 2008).

It’s fair to say that 2008 was technically prime Fed at Wimbledon, but I have doubts that you could consider it “peak” (that is, the best) when his streak of five straight Wimbledon wins exists.
Click to expand...
2008 Wimbledon was prime Federer. Not peak. I don't think this is particularly offensive to Nadal fans as Federer still ended up playing a brilliant match in the finals, especially in the last 3 sets. It is ridiculous, however, to suggest that a peak Federer would lose to a peak Nadal at Wimbledon citing only the 2008 match as evidence.

Nadal in 2006 dropped just 2 sets before the final, and both were in the same match. He looked dominant against basically everyone he played. Federer dropped 0 sets heading into the final and then beat Nadal in 4(including a bagel).

In 2003, Federer only dropped 1 set, and dismantled 5th seed Roddick, who proceeded to make 2 more Wimbledon finals in 2004 and 2005.
In 2004, Federer dropped 1 set to Hewitt (who he bageled and breadsticked in the same match), and 1 set to Roddick, who was playing incredibly.
In 2005, Federer dropped 1 set the whole tournament to Keifer, and then steamrolled the rest of his opponents including Gonzalez, Hewitt, and Roddick
In 2007, Federer dropped a set to Ferrero, and beat everyone else in straights coming into the final. Took 5 sets to beat Nadal.

Now, in 2008 Wimbledon, Federer faced only 1 seed, Hewitt, coming into the final, which is partly why he dropped no sets. In the final against Nadal, however, he played extremely well. Just not peak. Nadal, on the other hand, played the best grasscourt match of his life. Citing 2008 Wimbledon as peak Nadal versus peak Federer is being disingenuous. Despite it being one of the highest quality encounters of all time, it is not sufficient evidence to suggest Nadal would beat Federer at his peak on grass.
 
Third Serve said:
Very impressive indeed, but we’re talking about strictly the 2008 match. Tell me what would make 2008 Fed equal to or stronger than 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 Fed (2007 excludes because I acknowledge that it’s on a similar caliber to 2008). Judging by the stats, I can’t see how you could make the argument. It’s true that Fed didn’t drop a set before the final, but it was a very weak Wimbledon draw for him up until the final. Even compared to some of his other Wimbledon runs (2005 and 2006 weren’t great up to the final but still better than 2008).

It’s fair to say that 2008 was technically prime Fed at Wimbledon, but I have doubts that you could consider it “peak” (that is, the best) when his streak of five straight Wimbledon wins exists.
Click to expand...
Yeah I know, we're always back to the same stuff that Federer played until 40 but was never peak after turning 26, when Djokovic and Nadal became the major threats in place of Roddick and Hewitt.
 
Third Serve said:
40/60 AO
10/90 RG
70/30 W (Nadal took down Fed’s sixth best Wimbledon form and needed five sets to do so. 2005 is probably his second or third best. Nadal is good on grass, but he’s not better than peak Federer, cmon lol. I’ve seen this narrative pushed by plenty of Nadal fans on YouTube but I could make the same argument for 2006 Federer since he beat Nadal by a pretty wide margin; what’s that? Nadal wasn’t at his best?)
80/20 USO

I say Fed does about as well in 2008 as 2005. A little worse, probably, but not significantly so.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't rule out 2008 Nadal beating 2005 Fed just on virtue of the matchup alone. I'd call it 60-40 in favor of Fed.
2005 Fed would crush Nadal at the HC majors and 2005 Nadal would crush at RG. Wimbledon would be the interesting one.
 
King No1e said:
I wouldn't rule out 2008 Nadal beating 2005 Fed just on virtue of the matchup alone. I'd call it 60-40 in favor of Fed.
2005 Fed would crush Nadal at the HC majors and 2005 Nadal would crush at RG. Wimbledon would be the interesting one.
Click to expand...
He was answering to what Federer would do in 2008. In the hardcourt Slams he'd play Djokovic, not Nadal.
 
JaoSousa said:
This is generally the problem with Nadal's best seasons; In his three best ones, he had many perplexing losses. It really shows that his peak level on all three surfaces is incredible, but he struggles to be consistent on grass and HC. Clay is a lock almost every season.
Click to expand...
True, while Federer's best seasons were in a vacuum of competition, with Roddick being the main competition a 3/4 slams..

Djokovic had it all instead in 2011 and 2015.
 
Lew II said:
Would you prefer to have 8 wins over Big3 level player or just 1?
Click to expand...

Look at Rafael's losses if you want to look at his wins.

Compare those losses to what Federer had. And see how close he was actually to win each one of them except 1 , that was Nadal at RG. He had match points in AO SF,was in control of Gasquet match and almost won the YEC F.

Nadal was amazing, but if you are going to overlook the second best win percentage ever especially when Nadal lost to worse players then you are doing it wrong.

Of 11 losses 9 came from non big 3, weak field or not Fed almost went unbeaten, while Nadal did lose to the kind of players Fed beat. His mid season streak was outstanding. But Federer takes it for overall consistency.
 
ForehandCross said:
Look at Rafael's losses if you want to look at his wins.

Compare those losses to what Federer had. And see how close he was actually to win each one of them except 1 , that was Nadal at RG. He had match points in AO SF,was in control of Gasquet match and almost won the YEC F.

Nadal was amazing, but if you are going to overlook the second best win percentage ever especially when Nadal lost to worse players then you are doing it wrong.

Of 11 losses 9 came from non big 3, weak field or not Fed almost went unbeaten, while Nadal did lose to the kind of players Fed beat. His mid season streak was outstanding. But Federer takes it for overall consistency.
Click to expand...
You didn't answer my question though.
 
Lew II said:
You didn't answer my question though.
Click to expand...

If you are hell overlooking other merits for one single parameter, specifically when it only indicates that Rafael wasn't as consistent against the entire tour , we won't reach an agreement .And if he beat the better players(he got 11 chances to do so, while Fed had only 2) , he also lost to those who he shouldn't have lost to much more.
 
ForehandCross said:
If you are hell overlooking other merits for one single parameter, specifically when it only indicates that Rafael wasn't as consistent against the entire tour , we won't reach an agreement .And if he beat the better players(he got 11 chances to do so, while Fed had only 2) , he also lost to those who he shouldn't have lost to much more.
Click to expand...
Still no answer.
 
Lew II said:
Still no answer.
Click to expand...
I would have liked more big 3 wins,but given one of them wasn't prominent and the strength of the tour can't be measured by simply 3 players, specifically when the against entirety of the field Federer was a lot better ,I refuse to give some kind of overwhelming extra merit to beating 2 good players while losing to worse player through the year.




Now Would you have 9 losses against Non big3 players or just 3 with matchpoints/or serving for the match in 2?

If Big 3 only are measure of tour strength and If you can't even beat Non big 3 players consistently how is your season better? What does that speak about your season?


You do realize Federer would have to lose 8 straight matches to big 3 players just to make Rafael's percentage better?



And remember I said it's Federer by a hair.
 
JaoSousa said:
Loss to Youzhny Chennai F: 0–6, 1–6
Loss to Tsonga AO SF: 2–6, 3–6, 2–6
Loss to Seppi Rotterdam 2R: 6–3, 3–6, 4–6
Loss to Roddick Dubai QF: 6–7(5–7), 2–6
Loss to Djokovic IW SF: 3–6, 2–6
Loss to Davydenko Miami F: 4–6, 2–6
Loss to Ferrero Rome 2R: 5–7, 1–6
Loss to Djokovic Cincinnati SF: 1–6, 5–7
Loss to Murray USO SF: 2–6, 6–7(5–7), 6–4, 4–6
Loss to Simon Madrid SF: 6–3, 5–7, 6–7(6–8)
Retirement against Davydenko in Paris: 1–6 RET

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
happy thoughts
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

USO
1-4, 1-4, 1-4
Replies
12
Views
738
Third Serve
Third Serve
duaneeo
Players Born In The 90s In Slam Finals
Replies
19
Views
1K
mavsman149
mavsman149
AnOctorokForDinner
  • Poll Poll
Who had the better Slam seasons by level: Federer in 2018-19 or Djokovic in 2024-25?
Replies
45
Views
1K
BauerAlmeida
BauerAlmeida
N
Top-ten wins for Djokovic in Slams from 2011-2015
Replies
19
Views
1K
Nathaniel_Near
N
JaoSousa
  • Poll Poll
Let us settle this once and for all: What is Nadal's best season?
2
Replies
87
Views
5K
mehdimike
mehdimike
Back
Top