Better Season: Federer 2005 or Nadal 2008?

[Pheasant]

I can’t see how anyone but OGM obsessives would choose Nadal’s 2008 over Fed’s 2005.

Roger: 81-4 (95.29%) 11 titles YE #1

Rafa: 82-11 (88.2%) 8 titles YE #1

Game over. This should end the thread.

 

[Jaitock1991]

It's been a long break and every thread/subject under the sun has been beaten to death so I don't fault the OP. 2005 Fed is MUCH better than 2008 Nadal. I see Fed fans being nice and calling it close. That's fine I guess.

Oh. Sorry. I misunderstood your post then. Thought you were sarcastically poking fun of Fed fans putting his season over Rafa's for reasons that didn't even exist beyond the fact that it was just FED THE MAN, when it was quite obvious that reasons were presented. My bad

 

[King No1e]

happy thoughts

hxppythxoughts.png

 

[King No1e]

I think this can sometimes be an age thing. I remember tennis coming into the Olympics - and being very WTF about it and looking at early winners I'd say the players felt pretty much the same! So even now I find it hard to get worked up about it even though players now take it very seriously indeed. My guess is most would take an OGM over WTF which is surely the only relevant criterion.

Then again, I'm sure many players would take a Gold Medal over a Grand Slam title, given the occasion and playing for their country.

 

[NatF]

Then again, I'm sure many players would take a Gold Medal over a Grand Slam title, given the occasion and playing for their country.

Not sure about that at all, half the top 20 skipped it in 2016...Plus there's the money as well.

 

[JaoSousa]

How much of a problem is it, though, when he's ahead of Roger in M1000s, only one behind in slams, and has a slightly greater overall win percentage. Yes, he lags behind in weeks at #1, but how important is that when he matches YE#1s - even with his relatively weak stats in the indoor circuit?

I am not really considering this in terms of the "GOAT debate"(I don't think GOAT exists). I am basing it on just my observations over the years. A majority of his big titles have been on clay. His peak level on HC and grass is scary, but he hasn't shown overall consistency on the surface. An exception to this is the US Open, where he has gotten to the latter stages consistently over the last 12 years.

By the way, in terms of the GOAT debate, most people who engage in it seem to have only become serious fans of the sport in the current era. Ex: the 1 million people who go around on youtube proclaiming "Messi is the GOAT!" probably never even saw Pele even play football. Lots of people who consider Lebron to be the best never lived through the 1991-1998 where Jordan took the entire country by storm. So I think a view of the sport spanning multiple generations is what is really needed to asses Greatness. And greatness is really a pretty holistic term by itself.

 

[JoelSandwich]

For the majors Nadal only has a clearly better level at RG here

 

[RaulRamirez]

I am not really considering this in terms of the "GOAT debate"(I don't think GOAT exists). I am basing it on just my observations over the years. A majority of his big titles have been on clay. His peak level on HC and grass is scary, but he hasn't shown overall consistency on the surface. An exception to this is the US Open, where he has gotten to the latter stages consistently over the last 12 years.

By the way, in terms of the GOAT debate, most people who engage in it seem to have only become serious fans of the sport in the current era. Ex: the 1 million people who go around on youtube proclaiming "Messi is the GOAT!" probably never even saw Pele even play football. Lots of people who consider Lebron to be the best never lived through the 1991-1998 where Jordan took the entire country by storm. So I think a view of the sport spanning multiple generations is what is really needed to asses Greatness. And greatness is really a pretty holistic term by itself.

Per GOAThood, I'm not debating that here, and I largely agree with your point. (For the little it's worth, I essentially see three GOATs - defined as best of the OE to this point. Perhaps, Rocket, Muscles and Pancho, who is so hard to evaluate, also have a say. I've been following tennis, and MLB, NBA, NFL and NHL...and college FB and hoops for a lonnnng time!)

...Rafa's overall consistency on all surfaces outside clay - except for indoor hard - has actually been quite good, with great longevity. I'm aware of his Wimbledon drought, and some of his imbalance has been influenced by injuries - in part due to prioritizing clay.

 

[metsman]

It's really close, IMO.

Nadal had the better competition, but Fed hsd to beat a top 5 player in every GS semi in 2005, which is why he couldn't win more than 2 slams. Nadal also lost to too many players that were not Big 3, so it isn't the fault of the competition that he lost more.

Nadal was supreme on clay, while Fed was much better on HC. On grass, they were about equal.

Overall, it took a higher level to beat Fed than it took to bwat Nadal, despite the impressive 32 match winning streak Nadal had in the middle of the year.

As a season though, 2008 > 2005 at the top, but 2005 had more exciting matches overall than 2008.

Federer had to face tougher competition in 3 of 4 majors in 2005 compared to what Nadal faced in 2008. On top of that, Nadal arguably wasn't even a top 3 player at either HC slam. 05 Fed in place of 08 Nadal is arguably a favorite for CYGS. 2008 Nadal in place of 2005 Fed wins the same two majors.

Sure 2008 had a bit more consistency at the top than 2005, but so does 2015, so what? 2008 has basically 1 match going for it compared to 2005. It wasn't even really much better indoors.

 

[Bumbaliceps]

Fed was better, his year was better, more dominant, but what matters to me is not the level nor the titles but the memories you can associate, so a year with an olympic gold and a match that is remembered by most fans as "the best match ever" takes the cake.
But objectively Fed was better yes, I just don't care, if I was a player I would definitely trade some astonishing stats for the best and most memorable match of my life.

 

[King No1e]

Fed was better, his year was better, more dominant, but what matters to me is not the level nor the titles but the memories you can associate, so a year with an olympic gold and a match that is remembered by most fans as "the best match ever" takes the cake.
But objectively Fed was better yes, I just don't care, if I was a player I would definitely trade some astonishing stats for the best and most memorable match of my life.

Federer's best match of 2005 was a loss. Nadal's best match of 2008 (and one of the best matches ever, period) was a win.

 

[Pheasant]

As another poster pointed out:
Fed's 81-4 >>>>>>>> Nadal's 82-11
Fed's 11 titles >>>>>>Nadal's 8 titles

For fun, let's break down the slams

AO: 2005 Fed loses tight 5 setter to a GOATING Safin. Nadal gets demolished by Tsonga in straights. Big edge to Fed
FO: Big edge to 2008 Nadal.
WI: 2008 Nadal needed 5 sets to beat a bad version of Fed. And Fed was bad in 2008, except for a good showing at the USO. Slight edge to Fed
USO: 2005 Fed won the title. 2008 Nadal lost to Murray in 4 in the semis, who was later slaughtered by Fed in the final. massive edge to Fed

Fed's 2008 season was bad by his standards; the worst since 2002. He was 7-10 against the top 10. This includes a pathetic 4-6 mark against the to 10 on hard courts. His path to the Wimbledon final was his easiest ever. He got wash up Safin in the semis, an easy matchup on grass for Fed. Granted, Safin could serve quite big. But that was no problem for Fed back then. The players that Fed lost to all throughout 2008 was mind-boggling. But, kudos to Nadal for beating Federer on grass. That was a massive feat. But I don't think 2008 Nadal was better than 2005 on grass. That's just my opinion.

 

[mike danny]

As another poster pointed out:
Fed's 81-4 >>>>>>>> Nadal's 82-11
Fed's 11 titles >>>>>>Nadal's 8 titles

For fun, let's break down the slams

AO: 2005 Fed loses tight 5 setter to a GOATING Safin. Nadal gets demolished by Tsonga in straights. Big edge to Fed
FO: Big edge to 2008 Nadal.
WI: 2008 Nadal needed 5 sets to beat a bad version of Fed. And Fed was bad in 2008, except for a good showing at the USO. Slight edge to Fed
USO: 2005 Fed won the title. 2008 Nadal lost to Murray in 4 in the semis, who was later slaughtered by Fed in the final. massive edge to Fed

Fed's 2008 season was bad by his standards; the worst since 2002. He was 7-10 against the top 10. This includes a pathetic 4-6 mark against the to 10 on hard courts. His path to the Wimbledon final was his easiest ever. He got wash up Safin in the semis, an easy matchup on grass for Fed. Granted, Safin could serve quite big. But that was no problem for Fed back then. The players that Fed lost to all throughout 2008 was mind-boggling. But, kudos to Nadal for beating Federer on grass. That was a massive feat. But I don't think 2008 Nadal was better than 2005 on grass. That's just my opinion.

Well, that same washed up Safin routined Djokovic. The fact that he won 3 more matches to get to the semis was impressive.

 

[RS]

Federer had to face tougher competition in 3 of 4 majors in 2005 compared to what Nadal faced in 2008. On top of that, Nadal arguably wasn't even a top 3 player at either HC slam. 05 Fed in place of 08 Nadal is arguably a favorite for CYGS. 2008 Nadal in place of 2005 Fed wins the same two majors.

Sure 2008 had a bit more consistency at the top than 2005, but so does 2015, so what? 2008 has basically 1 match going for it compared to 2005. It wasn't even really much better indoors.

Is any year better than 2005 in this era then apart from 09 and 11/12?

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I can’t see how anyone but OGM obsessives would choose Nadal’s 2008 over Fed’s 2005.

Roger: 81-4 (95.29%) 11 titles YE #1

Rafa: 82-11 (88.2%) 8 titles YE #1

Close in titles. Federer clearly better overall but only slightly better in titles won (2 slams, 4 masters, 5 lesser vs 2 slams, 3 masters, lolympix, 2 lesser).

 

[mental midget]

2005 federer , no dobut
far better W/L

man roger was not all that far off from an undefeated season, with the nadal match i suppose being the exception.

 

[mike danny]

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.

He is right.

Number of matches against the Big 3 for Fed in 2006: 8

Number of matches for Djoker against the Big 3 in 2016: 4

Number of matches for Djoker against the Big 3 in 2013: 8

Number of Big 3 matches in 2010 for Rafa: 4

2006 >> 2016 and 2010 and 2006 = 2013.

Glad it's settled.

 

[JaoSousa]

True, while Federer's best seasons were in a vacuum of competition, with Roddick being the main competition a 3/4 slams..

This isn't true.

Best Seasons- 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012, 2017


Federer beat Nalbandian, Hewitt, Safin, and Ferrero to win AO 2004. He beat Agassi, Henman, and Hewitt to win USO 2004.

He beat Nalbandian, hewitt, and Agassi to win 2005 USO.

He beat Haas, Davydenko, Kiefer, and Baghdatis at 2006 AO. He beat, Berdych, Ancic, Bjorkman, and Nadal at 2006 Wimbledon.

He beat Ferrero, Gasquet, and Nadal in 2007 Wimbledon.

He beat Del Potro, Haas, and Soderling to win FO 2009. And then he beat a well playing Roddick to win Wimbledon 2009.
He beat Djokovic and Murray to win 2012 Wimbledon.

And who says Roddick is bad opposition? He would have won 5 slams without having to face Federer in arguably the most dominant stretch of 4 years ever seen in tennis. You go purely based on the name of the opponent, not how well they actually played.
He beat Nishikori, Wawrinka, Berdych, and Nadal to win AO 2017.
He beat Raonic, Berdych, and Cilic to win Wimbledon 2017.

 

[Third Serve]

This isn't true.

Best Seasons- 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2012, 2017


Federer beat Nalbandian, Hewitt, Safin, and Ferrero to win AO 2004. He beat Agassi, Henman, and Hewitt to win USO 2004. He beat Nalbandian, hewitt, and Agassi to win 2005 USO. He beat Haas, Davydenko, Kiefer, and Baghdatis at 2006 AO. He beat, Berdych, Ancic, Bjorkman, and Nadal at 2006 Wimbledon. He beat Ferrero, Gasquet, and Nadal in 2007 Wimbledon. He beat Djokovic and Murray to win 2012 Wimbledon. He beat Nishikori, Wawrinka, Berdych, and Nadal to win AO 2017.

You gotta include 2009 in there somewhere.

 

[RS]

This isn't true.

Best Seasons- 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2012, 2017


Federer beat Nalbandian, Hewitt, Safin, and Ferrero to win AO 2004. He beat Agassi, Henman, and Hewitt to win USO 2004. He beat Nalbandian, hewitt, and Agassi to win 2005 USO. He beat Haas, Davydenko, Kiefer, and Baghdatis at 2006 AO. He beat, Berdych, Ancic, Bjorkman, and Nadal at 2006 Wimbledon. He beat Ferrero, Gasquet, and Nadal in 2007 Wimbledon. He beat Djokovic and Murray to win 2012 Wimbledon. He beat Nishikori, Wawrinka, Berdych, and Nadal to win AO 2017.

The first 5 just support Lew case he is against 2003-06 generally.......

 

[JaoSousa]

The first 5 just support Lew case he is against 2003-06 generally.......

I was just refuting Lew's claim that Roddick was main opposition at AO , Wimbledon, USO all through Fed's peak years. Anyway, the draws in those years weren't weak at all excluding probably the 2006 AO.

 

[JaoSousa]

You gotta include 2009 in there somewhere.

Fixed

 

[mike danny]

I was just refuting Lew's claim that Roddick was main opposition at AO , Wimbledon, USO all through Fed's peak years. Anyway, the draws in those years weren't weak at all excluding probably the 2006 AO.

Lew doesn't even know what he is talking about. Roddick wasn't Fed's main opposition at 3/4 slams in his best years. Federer dealt with lots of guys, not just Roddick.

Despite all his stats, Lew doesn't even properly know the period he is criticizing.

 

[RS]

I was just refuting Lew's claim that Roddick was main opposition at AO , Wimbledon, USO all through Fed's peak years. Anyway, the draws in those years weren't weak at all excluding probably the 2006 AO.

Roddick was Federer main rival alongside with Nadal.......

Not saying it was weak but Lew will just respond that or something around those lines.

 

[mike danny]

Roddick was Federer main rival alongside with Nadal.......

Not saying it was weak but Lew will just respond that or something around those lines.

See, that isn't even true. Fed had several players not just Roddick.

If we're only talking about 2003-2006, Fed had Nadal/Hewitt/Roddick/Safin/Agassi. Also Davydenko, Nalbandian too, for good measure.

Before things started going haywire a bit in 2006, this is the consistent competition Fed had in 2004-2005 in the slams:

Hewitt/Safin at the AO (would have faced Hewitt in 2005 if he had beaten Safin).

Hewitt/Roddick at Wimb.

Hewitt/Agassi at the USO.

 

[RS]

See, that isn't even true. Fed had several players not just Roddick.

Overall, he had Nadal/Hewitt/Roddick/Safin/Agassi. Also Davydenko, Nalbandian and Djokovic too, for good measure.

Before things started going haywire a bit in 2006, this is the consistent competition Fed had in 2004-2005 in the slams:

Hewitt/Safin at the AO (would have faced Hewitt in 2005 if he had beaten Safin).

Hewitt/Roddick at Wimb.

Hewitt/Agassi at the USO.

He faced Roddick and Nadal most overall in those years though.

 

[mike danny]

He faced Roddick and Nadal most overall in those years though.

In overall number of meetings probably.

But in slam meetings, he faced Roddick 4 times, Nadal 3 times, Agassi 3 times and Hewitt 5 times.

 

[RS]

In overall number of meetings probably.

But in slam meetings, he faced Roddick 4 times, Nadal 3 times, Agassi 3 times and Hewitt 5 times.

Fair enough.

 

[DSH]

Federer from 2005 against Nadal from 2008 at Wimbledon would have been amazing to watch.
The Swiss would be the big favorite but the Spaniard would give him a run for his money.