Boris Becker: Rafael Nadal Is The Favorite To Win The French Open

[Fiero425]

Sampras is not as highly regarded as McEnroe now even though he achieved more. Forget about the numbers, the players who have captured the imagination of the public are Laver, Borg, McEnroe, Federer and Nadal. I am not talking about achievements.

Pls seek professional help; STAT! McEnroe shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as these other ATG's! He had one great year and disappeared for good only taking a WCT champ. several years later! I'll give him '84 and that's about it! '81 was noteworthy, but not uncommon taking a Wimbl./USO double over Borg!

 

[Steve0904]

The stats were to compare Federer with Nadal between the ages of 20-22. Nothing to with 2011 or Kyrgios.

I just wonder what kind of sig worthy gem I can get from you if I press the issue here. We already have one in this thread.

 

[clayqueen]

For example David Ferrer has beaten Nadal at 2 slams in their careers. A guy Federer owns, and a guy Djokovic hasn't lost to since 2011, and has beaten in all 5 of their slam match ups.

USO 2007 Nadal lost to Ferrer

Nadal, who has never advanced past the US Open quarter-finals, has been battling tendonitis in his left knee and also received treatment on a sore finger during the match. But speaking after his defeat, Nadal admitted he was not looking for excuses and instead praised the level of tennis produced by his opponent, and friend, Ferrer.

"It's disappointing for me, but that is part of the sport," said Nadal. "I prefer that I don't speak about my body right now because I don't want to make an excuse. [Ferrer] is a very tough player. He's having an unbelievable season. He's one of the best players in the world right now. He's very fast. For me it's not a surprise. Sure it's disappointing for me but that's tennis. That's the sport."

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2007/sep/05/tennis.usopentennis20071

**************************

Australian Open 2011: Rafael Nadal denied 'Rafa Slam' dream by injury and David Ferrer at Melbourne Park
Rafael Nadal's bid to become the first player to hold all four majors since Rod Laver in 1969 has been ended by injury at the Australian Open.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/te...njury-and-David-Ferrer-at-Melbourne-Park.html

 

[Steve0904]

USO 2006 Nadal lost to Ferrer

Nadal, who has never advanced past the US Open quarter-finals, has been battling tendonitis in his left knee and also received treatment on a sore finger during the match. But speaking after his defeat, Nadal admitted he was not looking for excuses and instead praised the level of tennis produced by his opponent, and friend, Ferrer.

"It's disappointing for me, but that is part of the sport," said Nadal. "I prefer that I don't speak about my body right now because I don't want to make an excuse. [Ferrer] is a very tough player. He's having an unbelievable season. He's one of the best players in the world right now. He's very fast. For me it's not a surprise. Sure it's disappointing for me but that's tennis. That's the sport."

**************************

Australian Open 2011: Rafael Nadal denied 'Rafa Slam' dream by injury and David Ferrer at Melbourne Park
Rafael Nadal's bid to become the first player to hold all four majors since Rod Laver in 1969 has been ended by injury at the Australian Open.

Out of interest, is there any match that Nadal has lost in his career because the opponent played better? According to clayqueen, I mean.

P.S. His loss to Ferrer at the USO was in 2007. You are not a very good Nadal fanatic are you?

 

[clayqueen]

Out of interest, is there any match that Nadal has lost in his career because the opponent played better? According to clayqueen, I mean.

P.S. His loss to Ferrer at the USO was in 2007. You are not a very good Nadal fanatic are you?

That was a typo.

You have to accept the facts.

 

[Steve0904]

That was a typo.

You have to accept the facts.

And what facts would those be my dear?

 

[clayqueen]

And what facts would those be my dear?

The facts are, Rafa was injured when he lost to Ferrer in the two slams so no need to go on about how Federer or Djokovic own Ferrer.

 

[Steve0904]

The facts are, Rafa was injured when he lost to Ferrer in the two slams so no need to go on about how Federer or Djokovic own Ferrer.

But why not? They own Ferrer regardless of Nadal's injuries. It is a fact.

 

[Urkezi]

Amazing things happen when Claytroll reaches full troll-ttle

I sense an epic thread which will be told around internet campfires for ages to come.

 

[clayqueen]

But why not? They own Ferrer regardless of Nadal's injuries. It is a fact.

You can discount Nadal's losses to Ferrer at the USO and the AO because of his injuries, so your statement:

"For example David Ferrer has beaten Nadal at 2 slams in their careers. A guy Federer owns, and a guy Djokovic hasn't lost to since 2011, and has beaten in all 5 of their slam match ups."

is meaningless.

What's the fact that Djokovic hasn't lost to Ferrer since 2011 got to do with anything in the context od Nadal losing to Ferrer in 2007?

 

[clayqueen]

Head to Head

Federer vs Ferrer - 16:0
Nadal vs Ferrer - 24:6
Djokovic vs Ferrer 16:5

 

[Steve0904]

You can discount Nadal's losses to Ferrer at the USO and the AO because of his injuries, so your statement:

"For example David Ferrer has beaten Nadal at 2 slams in their careers. A guy Federer owns, and a guy Djokovic hasn't lost to since 2011, and has beaten in all 5 of their slam match ups."

is meaningless.

But Ferrer has beaten Nadal in 2 majors. It is written in the history books. I don't think Nadal himself would like the disrespect that you are showing his Spanish compatriot. Humble guy that he is.

 

[clayqueen]

But Ferrer has beaten Nadal in 2 majors. It is written in the history books. I don't think Nadal himself would like the disrespect that you are showing his Spanish compatriot. Humble guy that he is.

Facts are facts.

 

[Deleted member 512391]

But Ferrer has beaten Nadal in 2 majors. It is written in the history books. I don't think Nadal himself would like the disrespect that you are showing his Spanish compatriot. Humble guy that he is.

 

[Steve0904]

Facts are facts.

Shame. You've given up. I hoped for better from you. I'll have to move on to the bigger challenge @octobrina10.

 

[clayqueen]

Shame. You've given up. I hoped for better from you. I'll have to move on to the bigger challenge @octobrina10.

I take that to mean you've lost the argument.

 

[Steve0904]

I take that to mean you've lost the argument.

You would take it like that.

 

[Mustard]

But Ferrer has beaten Nadal in 2 majors. It is written in the history books. I don't think Nadal himself would like the disrespect that you are showing his Spanish compatriot. Humble guy that he is.

Tennis is all about on the day. Nadal was injured, but that's tough luck for him. All the same, I'd be most interested to see you explain how you think anyone can beat Ferrer after pulling a hamstring early in a best of 5 sets match, like Nadal at the 2011 Australian Open. It was just terrible luck, which Nadal has had a huge amount of at the Australian Open over the years.

Also, I really believe that the low moments of Nadal's career have served to make the high moments of Nadal's career all the better. Nadal has had the terrible despair, and the amazing highs.

 

[Steve0904]

Tennis is all about on the day. Nadal was injured, but that's tough luck for him. All the same, I'd be most interested to see you explain how you think anyone can beat Ferrer after pulling a hamstring early in a best of 5 sets match, like Nadal at the 2011 Australian Open. It was just terrible luck, which Nadal has had a huge amount of at the Australian Open over the years.

I don't have to explain it. He got injured. It sucked for him yes, but he still lost.

Also, I really believe that the low moments of Nadal's career have served to make the high moments of Nadal's career all the better. Nadal has had the terrible despair, and the amazing highs.

I feel this way about Federer's career so we agree on that.

 

[Tennisanity]

I suppose the error is assuming that had Nadal not gotten "injured", he would have won. Sorry, but no one knows that. That he got injured in the first place is an indication that he was pushing himself beyond his tennis capabilities, which alone were not good enough to defeat the opponent.

 

[clayqueen]

I suppose the error is assuming that had Nadal not gotten "injured", he would have won. Sorry, but no one knows that. That he got injured in the first place is an indication that he was pushing himself beyond his tennis capabilities, which alone were not good enough to defeat the opponent.

Fake argument.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Oh, but they do. You don't, but everyone else does.

Who are "they"?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

It's called the weak era.

You missed 2012 I guess.

Oh, and almost all of Nadal's career it seems as it took place exactly during the weak era you are talking about (including the weak clay era).

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Tennis is all about on the day. Nadal was injured, but that's tough luck for him. All the same, I'd be most interested to see you explain how you think anyone can beat Ferrer after pulling a hamstring early in a best of 5 sets match, like Nadal at the 2011 Australian Open. It was just terrible luck, which Nadal has had a huge amount of at the Australian Open over the years.

Also, I really believe that the low moments of Nadal's career have served to make the high moments of Nadal's career all the better. Nadal has had the terrible despair, and the amazing highs.

I hear mostly excuses.

I know that they are excuses, because I never heard you giving the benefit of doubt to the same extent to Nadal's opponents when they lost to him.

You can talk as much as you like about you "opinion". It doesn't equal facts and luckily you are right and we have every second and every circumstance to judge the achievements of the modern tennis players.

Every gamesmanship, MTO, illegal coaching, made up excuse and weakness is there for every reseracher of the game to see.

There is no hiding from that.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

It's always amused me how Nadal critics want us to remove clay from the discussion, as if it's not a real or fair surface. That's a testament to Nadal's dominance on clay over the years, yet Nadal has many big wins over his biggest rivals on all surfaces, and he's responded well to adversity many times.

Ignorant Mustard as usual.

Most people who mention the clay surface actually are emphasizing that it skews the match-up characteristic too much, not that they want it "removed"(or rather that the clay matches are considered for what they are).

It has been shown that the wins and losses compared to the matches played on surfaces with different speeds and bounces are distributed roughly proportionally for the strengths of each player and that despite of the heavy match-up problem in favour of Nadal and the moving of surface speeds away from Federer's strenghts and closer to Nadal's.

You are too dishonest to ever acknowledge that, that is why you are talking about "amusement".

Fear not. We are amused by fakestorians like you as well.

 

[clayqueen]

Ignorant Mustard as usual.

Most people who mention the clay surface actually are emphasizing that it skews the match-up characteristic too much, not that they want it "removed"(or rather that the clay matches are considered for what they are).

It has been shown that the wins and losses compared to the matches played on surfaces with different speeds and bounces are distributed roughly proportionally for the strengths of each player and that despite of the heavy match-up problem in favour of Nadal and the moving of surface speeds away from Federer's strenghts and closer to Nadal's.

You are too dishonest to ever acknowledge that, that is why you are talking about "amusement".

Fear not. We are amused by fakestorians like you as well.

It's the people who discount clay that are dishonest. They condemn Nadal for not having won the WTF, yet they never acknowledge that the conditions are skewed against Nadal as it's always on his least favourite environment. They should move the surface around. Just imagine if DC was always on outdoor clay.

 

[clayqueen]

You missed 2012 I guess.

Oh, and almost all of Nadal's career it seems as it took place exactly during the weak era you are talking about (including the weak clay era).

2012? Do you mean the year that Nadal only played half a season?

 

[chut]

It's the people who discount clay that are dishonest. They condemn Nadal for not having won the WTF, yet they never acknowledge that the conditions are skewed against Nadal as it's always on his least favourite environment. They should move the surface around. Just imagine if DC was always on outdoor clay.

The conditions are not skewed against Nadal, lol, WTF is an indoor HC event since way before Nadal started to play tennis (except for the Houston stop, which was a mistake). Stop crying about it like it's some kind of conspiracy against Nadal...

Could you imagine some Lendl fan saying "you condemn him for not winning Wimbledon, yet you don't aknowledge that the conditions were skewed against him as it's always on his least favourite environment. They should move the surface around" Or a Sampras fan sying the same thing about RG.
Nadal and other players knew what the conditions were before playing. It's up to players to adapt, not to tournaments to help them win.

And about Nadal being the best since he was the best between 20 and 22... cherrypicking maybe?
Just for reference, since it's not being updated anymore:

By titles and GS titles standard, Federer is a late bloomer compared to Nadal, but his sucess between 21,5yo to 26,5yo is far more impressive imo.

 

[clayqueen]

The conditions are not skewed against Nadal, lol, WTF is an indoor HC event since way before Nadal started to play tennis (except for the Houston stop, which was a mistake). Stop crying about it like it's some kind of conspiracy against Nadal...

Could you imagine some Lendl fan saying "you condemn him for not winning Wimbledon, yet you don't aknowledge that the conditions were skewed against him as it's always on his least favourite environment. They should move the surface around" Or a Sampras fan sying the same thing about RG.
Nadal and other players knew what the conditions were before playing. It's up to players to adapt, not to tournaments to help them win.

And about Nadal being the best since he was the best between 20 and 22... cherrypicking maybe?
Just for reference, since it's not being updated anymore:

By titles and GS titles standard, Federer is a late bloomer compared to Nadal, but his sucess between 21,5yo to 26,5yo is far more impressive imo.

I think it would be helpful if people follow the trail of conversations and not just dive into a particular comment in isolation. My comparison of Federer and Nadal between ages 20-22 was in direct response to this comment by KINGROGER:

Of course. It's still clay and circumstance skewed in my eyes. Fed never failed to reach a clay final / SF even when he played crap that year (08, 10, 11, 13 spring to mind) but rafa during mid 14, 15, 06-08 at HC gs nowhere to be seen the other way round.

OK, the WTF has always been an indoor event, but that doesn't make it right. Times have moved on. In years gone by, tennis was very 'British' so they couldn't have an outdoor tournament in the winter, hence it being indoors. Nowadays, there are numerous places all over the world were the WTF can take place indoors.You should also note that clay and grass were the natural tennis surfaces for decades, hardcourt have taken over simply because they are easier to maintain.

Re your graph, you do realise that Nadal has hardly played a full season due to injury since 2012.

 

[chut]

I think it would be helpful if people follow the trail of conversations and not just dive into a particular comment in isolation. My comparison of Federer and Nadal between ages 20-22 was in direct response to this comment by KINGROGER:



OK, the WTF has always been an indoor event, but that doesn't make it right. Times have moved on. In years gone by, tennis was very 'British' so they couldn't have an outdoor tournament in the winter, hence it being indoors. Nowadays, there are numerous places all over the world were the WTF can take place indoors.You should also note that clay and grass were the natural tennis surfaces for decades, hardcourt have taken over simply because they are easier to maintain.

Re your graph, you do realise that Nadal has hardly played a full season due to injury since 2012.

I followed the conversation. I see you picking the 20-22yo span of time to compare Federer and Nadal, point it to you that it's non sense, you tell me to follow the the conversation...

I don't see how WTF being an indoor HC tournament is wrong, since it's how you seem to think. As i said, it's not like it's new. Way back, most tournaments were on grass and pro tennis would use extremely fast wooden surfaces indoor. Racquets were made of wood, were very small. Players adapted to this, especially by rushing the net. But when they had to play at RG, they had to adapt and maybe play differently.
Nowadays, they play mostly outdoor, mostly slow courts, with bigger racquets and poly strings. Players adapted by grinding behind the baseline most of the time. When WTF comes, maybe they could just adapt a bit? And even WTF had a slow court for a few years lately. It's the same for Nadal and for anyone else.
Again, look at my point about Lendl or Sampras and tell me how it's different with Nadal and WTF? Oh yes, i know, it's just that your his fan and you think it's wrong that he didn't win everything.

And i do realise Nadal, even before 2012 has hardly played a full season. In his early years it was his Thiem like schedule. Same cause, same effect, got injured often. Then came something else, Nadal took way, way too long to learn how to properly move outside of clay, ie he spent way too much time sliding from side to side on HC or on grass and it's been bad for his knees, which led to most of his sidelines.
See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzDx6gRYKnw
The last one is famous, but i like this version where you can see in slow motion how Nadal slides, while Federer actually makes little steps after his squash shot, when sliding would have been much easier.

I think Nadal decided to develop an extremely physical version of tennis. He isn't the same, Djokovic or Monfils to name a few do the same thing and guess what, they get injured too. Professional sport has had the same kind of transformation in pretty much every sport (football, rugby, basketball, whatever the sport i have the feeling injury count is way up from the 90's for instance), emphasis on physical abilities (especially goo in tennis for retrieval abilities) whih will lead to more injuries. I don't blame Nadal, but i won't weep on him either. He made his choices according to his best abilities and developed a style of play prone to injure himself.

 

[clayqueen]

Nadal took way, way too long to learn how to properly move outside of clay,

I suppose you are blaming Nadal for winning everything on clay for years because his opponents took way too long to learn how to play on clay. From 2006-2008, the years featured in my post, Nadal lost 1 match on clay and that was because of blisters on his feet. That is some domination.

 

[chut]

I suppose you are blaming Nadal for winning everything on clay for years because his opponents took way too long to learn how to play on clay. From 2006-2008, the years featured in my post, Nadal lost 1 match on clay and that was because of blisters on his feet. That is some domination.

Hell no, Federer, Djokovic, Murray and many others can perfectly learn how to move and play on clay or at least they should, since they learn since they were kids. Nadal is just way better than them of clay.

Now that you tried to change the subject, i guess that means you have no answer to the points i made?

 

[clayqueen]

Hell no, Federer, Djokovic, Murray and many others can perfectly learn how to move and play on clay or at least they should, since they learn since they were kids. Nadal is just way better than them of clay.

Now that you tried to change the subject, i guess that means you have no answer to the points i made?

I just don't know what point you are making.

I'm on my way out, so don't assume my lack of response is because I don't have an answer.

 

[chut]

Points i've made:
WTF is not "right" or "wrong" to be a HC indoor tournament, you're whining without any argument just because you're salty.
Nadal gets injured not because of bad luck but because of his own choices, so there's also no reason to whine about it and pretend he could have done a lot better without injuries.
Also, you can't say player A is better than player B because he was better when they were both X years old.

You can sure be on your way out, possibly forever.

 

[KINGROGER]

I suppose you are blaming Nadal for winning everything on clay for years because his opponents took way too long to learn how to play on clay. From 2006-2008, the years featured in my post, Nadal lost 1 match on clay and that was because of blisters on his feet. That is some domination.

He only won Rome 06 thanks to huge luck in the final, esp at 1-3 down in the 5th set tie breaker with a classic lucky passing shot from nowhere

 

[Urkezi]

Points i've made:
WTF is not "right" or "wrong" to be a HC indoor tournament, you're whining without any argument just because you're salty.
Nadal gets injured not because of bad luck but because of his own choices, so there's also no reason to whine about it and pretend he could have done a lot better without injuries.
Also, you can't say player A is better than player B because he was better when they were both X years old.
You can sure be on your way out, possibly forever.

Mate, you've just come across the head RaFanatic, the leader of the ************* (VB) on this forum, so there is no reason for wasting common sense on her. She more or less repeats the following while at the same time ignoring everything you say or just digressing from the topic completely:
-Rafa has never lost a match unless he was injured/coming off an injury/tired/lacked confidence
-Rafa would have won any tournament he was unable to participate in
-Rafa has never cheated or exploited the MTO rule
-Every Rafa's loss is a moral win for Rafa

All of these are backed up with an inordinate amount of questionable photographic/image material from the VB's own private "This is real evidence" storage.

And her famous quotes in the past year and only by memory:
-Rafa doesn't look a day older than 25
-Rafa wasn't match fit in 2015 (the whole year)
-ATP most popular player is a rigged award (don't even mention the Stefan Edberg award. No, I really mean it. Don't mention it.)
-Rafa is just as popular as Roger, but a lot of his fans are on Social networks (which is why Roger gets bigger crowds, awards, recognition and marketing contracts)
-It was not a weak era for Nadal (2004-2007) because he was 5-6 years younger than Federer

Her posts are pure gold, really, you just have to keep in mind she's ... well, you fill in the blanks

 

[chut]

Hehe, i guess you're right and i already realized a long time ago it was essentially useless, but sometimes, it's good to corner those silly fans and their stupid logic. I know she won't change her mind, but letting fake news and alternative facts spread out is never a good idea. Reality must be defended, even in tennis.

 

[Feather]

Hell no, Federer, Djokovic, Murray and many others can perfectly learn how to move and play on clay or at least they should, since they learn since they were kids. Nadal is just way better than them of clay.

Now that you tried to change the subject, i guess that means you have no answer to the points i made?

he lost two matches in the period.

In 2007 Hamburg final to Roger Federer and in 2008 Rome to Juan Carlos Ferrero due to foot blisters

 

[TheFifthSet]

It's the people who discount clay that are dishonest. They condemn Nadal for not having won the WTF, yet they never acknowledge that the conditions are skewed against Nadal as it's always on his least favourite environment. They should move the surface around. Just imagine if DC was always on outdoor clay.

The WTF is the biggest indoor tournament. Without it, the indoor season would be a slew of 250's, 500's and Paris. As unfortunate as Nadal is to have the WTF played on indoor HC every year, his luck is counterbalanced by there being no tournaments on fast carpet.

The point about DC is a non sequitur.

 

[TheFifthSet]

OK, the WTF has always been an indoor event, but that doesn't make it right.

One can say the same for Rome, MC, and RG being on clay. Although fwiw, the YEC was on outdoor HC for a few years in the 2000's, so it hasn't always been an indoor event.

That notwithstanding, what exactly is wrong about it being a permanent indoor event? It's essentially the only prestigious indoor tournament, as Paris is a blip on the radar. Change it to outdoor and the indoor season becomes completely irrelevant.

 

[TheFifthSet]

I suppose you are blaming Nadal for winning everything on clay for years because his opponents took way too long to learn how to play on clay. From 2006-2008, the years featured in my post, Nadal lost 1 match on clay and that was because of blisters on his feet. That is some domination.

Did you forget what happened in Hamgburg 2007? I noticed in another post you made, you counted it as a win for Nadal.

You should compare Federer and Nadal at the same age. Between 2006-2008, Nadal was aged between 20-21 and his achievements far outweigh Federer's by a long way. We all know that Rafa had wrist and back injury for most of 2014 and he lost his form through anxiety in 2015.

Lets compare their stats at age 20-22 on all the surfaces. You will see that Federer was a serial loser up to age 21 and Nadal was a serial winner. Rafa hardly lost in the early rounds whilst it was common place for Federer. Federer wasn't even good on grass and hardcourt to start with.

In 2006 at age 20, Nadal won 5 titles, 6 in 2007 and 8 in 2008. Federer at age 20 in 2001, he won 1 title, 3 in 2002 and 7 in 2003.

Nadal 2006-2008 Aged 20-22

Clay

Rome Ferrero R32 2008

M. Carlo Federer Won 2006

Barcelona Robredo Won 2006

Rome Federer Won 2006

RG Federer Won 2006

M. Carlo Federer Won 2007

Barcelona Canas Won 2007

Rome Gonzalez Won 2007

Hamburg Federer Won 2007

RG Federer Won 2007

Stuggart Wawrinka Won 2007

M.Carlo Federer Won 2008

Barcelona Ferrer Won 2008

Hamburg Federer Won 2008

R Garros Federer Won 2008









Hard


Miami Moya R64 2006

Cincy Monaco R32 2007 Ret

Sydney Guccione R32 2006 Ret

Madrid Berdych R16 2006

Stockholm Johansson R16 2006

Canada Berdych R16 2006

USO Ferrer R16 2007

R’dam Seppi R16 2008

Cincy Ferrero QF 2006

USO Youzhny QF 2006

AO Gonzalez QF 2007

Dubai Youzhny QF 2007

Miami Djokovic QF 2007

Madrid Nalbandian QF 2007

Dubai Roddick QF 2008

Paris Davydenko QF 2008

Marseille Clement SF 2006

IW Blake SF 2006

TMC Federer SF 2006

Chennai Malisse SF 2007

Canada Djokovic SF 2007

TMC Federer SF 2007

AO Tsonga SF 2008

IW Djokovic SF 2008

Cincy Djokovic SF 2008

USO Murray SF 2008

Madrid Simon SF 2008

Paris Nalbandian Final 2007

Chennai Youzhny Final 2008

Miami Davydenko Final 2008

Dubai Federer Won 2006

IW Djokovic Won 2007

Canada Kiefer Won 2008

Olympics Gonzalez Won 2008






Grass

Queens Hewitt QF 2006

Queens Mahut QF 2007

Wim Federer Final 2006

Wim Federer Final 2007

Queens Djokovic Won 2008

Wim Federer Won 2008



Carpet

Did not play on carpet


Federer 2001-2003 aged 20-22
Clay

RG Azari R128 2002

Hamburg Squillani R64 2001

Rome Guafdenzi R64 2001

Gstaad Ljubicic R32 2001

M. Carlo Nalbandian R32 2002

RG Horna R32 2003

Gstaad Stepanek R16 2002

Rome Ferreira R16 2001

Hamburg Phillipoussis R16 2003

Monte Carlo Grosjean QF 2001

Roland G Corretja QF 2001

Rome Mantilla Final 2003

Gstaad J. Novak Final 2003

Hamburg Won 2002

Munich Won 2003





Hard


IW Kiefer R64 2001

Cincy Ljubicic R64 2002

Paris Jiri Novak R32 2001

Stuttgart Ferreira R32 2001

AO Clement R32 2001

Long Island Massu R32 2002

Sydney Squillanni R32 2003

IW Kuerten R32 2003

USO Agassi R16 2001

AO Haas R16 2002

Dubai Schueltter R16 2002

IW Enqvist R16 2002

Canada Canas R16 2002

USO Mimyi R16 2002

AO Nalbandian R16 2003

Cincy Nalbandian R16 2003

Vienna Koubek QF 2001

Miami Rafter QF 2001

Sydney Grosjean QF 2001

Rottdm Escude QF 2002

Paris Hewitt QF 2002

Madrid Santoro QF 2002

Doha Gambill QF 2003

Miami A. Costa QF 2003

Paris Henman QF 2003

TMC Hewitt SF 2002

Marseille Kafelnikov SF 2001

R’dam Mimyi SF 2003

Canada Roddick SF 2003

Madrid Ferrero SF 2003

Rottdm Esude F 2001

Miami Agassi F 2002

Sydney Won 2002

Vienna Won 2002

Marseille Won 2003

Dubai Won 2003

Vienna Won 2003

TMC Won 2003


Grass

Wim Ancic R128 2002

Wimble Henman QF 2001

Halle Rafter QF 2001

Holland Hewitt SF 2001

Halle Kiefer SF 2002

Halle Won 2003

Wim Won 2003


Carpet


Moscow Kiefer R32 2001

Basel Ljubicic R16 2003

Moscow Safin QF 2002

Basel Nalbandian SF 2002

Basel Henman Final 2001

Milan Sanguinnetti F 2002

 

[TheFifthSet]

It's called the weak era.

Interesting. So, Federer's 78-20 edge in titles on HC and grass can be attributed to him playing in a weak era?

I wonder if you can answer this question without being evasive: who do you think was the better player on each surface? As in, if both were healthy and played in the same era, who would be more accomplished on grass and hard courts? I think admitting that Federer was better at anything makes you squirm, and you'll either finesse your way out of answering the question altogether or predictably cite injuries and quality of competition without directly answering it.

 

[Mustard]

I suppose you are blaming Nadal for winning everything on clay for years because his opponents took way too long to learn how to play on clay. From 2006-2008, the years featured in my post, Nadal lost 1 match on clay and that was because of blisters on his feet. That is some domination.

Twice. Nadal lost the 2007 Hamburg final against Federer too. Nadal wanted to play Hamburg that year because he had pulled out of the tournament for the previous 3 years, in 2004 due to an ankle stress fracture, in 2005 due to hand blisters following the epic Rome final against Coria, and in 2006 following the epic Rome final against Federer (Federer also pulled out of 2006 Hamburg, and best of 5 sets masters finals were numbered).

 

[clayqueen]

He only won Rome 06 thanks to huge luck in the final, esp at 1-3 down in the 5th set tie breaker with a classic lucky passing shot from nowhere

Oh dear, you're still bitter about that?

 

[KINGROGER]

Oh dear, you're still bitter about that?

If you make excuses for Hamburg ownage then Nadal's 2nd luckiest win ever Rome 06.

 

[Charlemagne]

You should compare Federer and Nadal at the same age. Between 2006-2008, Nadal was aged between 20-21 and his achievements far outweigh Federer's by a long way. We all know that Rafa had wrist and back injury for most of 2014 and he lost his form through anxiety in 2015.

Lets compare their stats at age 20-22 on all the surfaces. You will see that Federer was a serial loser up to age 21 and Nadal was a serial winner. Rafa hardly lost in the early rounds whilst it was common place for Federer. Federer wasn't even good on grass and hardcourt to start with.

In 2006 at age 20, Nadal won 5 titles, 6 in 2007 and 8 in 2008. Federer at age 20 in 2001, he won 1 title, 3 in 2002 and 7 in 2003.

Nadal 2006-2008 Aged 20-22

Clay

Rome Ferrero R32 2008

M. Carlo Federer Won 2006

Barcelona Robredo Won 2006

Rome Federer Won 2006

RG Federer Won 2006

M. Carlo Federer Won 2007

Barcelona Canas Won 2007

Rome Gonzalez Won 2007

Hamburg Federer Won 2007

RG Federer Won 2007

Stuggart Wawrinka Won 2007

M.Carlo Federer Won 2008

Barcelona Ferrer Won 2008

Hamburg Federer Won 2008

R Garros Federer Won 2008









Hard


Miami Moya R64 2006

Cincy Monaco R32 2007 Ret

Sydney Guccione R32 2006 Ret

Madrid Berdych R16 2006

Stockholm Johansson R16 2006

Canada Berdych R16 2006

USO Ferrer R16 2007

R’dam Seppi R16 2008

Cincy Ferrero QF 2006

USO Youzhny QF 2006

AO Gonzalez QF 2007

Dubai Youzhny QF 2007

Miami Djokovic QF 2007

Madrid Nalbandian QF 2007

Dubai Roddick QF 2008

Paris Davydenko QF 2008

Marseille Clement SF 2006

IW Blake SF 2006

TMC Federer SF 2006

Chennai Malisse SF 2007

Canada Djokovic SF 2007

TMC Federer SF 2007

AO Tsonga SF 2008

IW Djokovic SF 2008

Cincy Djokovic SF 2008

USO Murray SF 2008

Madrid Simon SF 2008

Paris Nalbandian Final 2007

Chennai Youzhny Final 2008

Miami Davydenko Final 2008

Dubai Federer Won 2006

IW Djokovic Won 2007

Canada Kiefer Won 2008

Olympics Gonzalez Won 2008






Grass

Queens Hewitt QF 2006

Queens Mahut QF 2007

Wim Federer Final 2006

Wim Federer Final 2007

Queens Djokovic Won 2008

Wim Federer Won 2008



Carpet

Did not play on carpet


Federer 2001-2003 aged 20-22
Clay

RG Azari R128 2002

Hamburg Squillani R64 2001

Rome Guafdenzi R64 2001

Gstaad Ljubicic R32 2001

M. Carlo Nalbandian R32 2002

RG Horna R32 2003

Gstaad Stepanek R16 2002

Rome Ferreira R16 2001

Hamburg Phillipoussis R16 2003

Monte Carlo Grosjean QF 2001

Roland G Corretja QF 2001

Rome Mantilla Final 2003

Gstaad J. Novak Final 2003

Hamburg Won 2002

Munich Won 2003





Hard


IW Kiefer R64 2001

Cincy Ljubicic R64 2002

Paris Jiri Novak R32 2001

Stuttgart Ferreira R32 2001

AO Clement R32 2001

Long Island Massu R32 2002

Sydney Squillanni R32 2003

IW Kuerten R32 2003

USO Agassi R16 2001

AO Haas R16 2002

Dubai Schueltter R16 2002

IW Enqvist R16 2002

Canada Canas R16 2002

USO Mimyi R16 2002

AO Nalbandian R16 2003

Cincy Nalbandian R16 2003

Vienna Koubek QF 2001

Miami Rafter QF 2001

Sydney Grosjean QF 2001

Rottdm Escude QF 2002

Paris Hewitt QF 2002

Madrid Santoro QF 2002

Doha Gambill QF 2003

Miami A. Costa QF 2003

Paris Henman QF 2003

TMC Hewitt SF 2002

Marseille Kafelnikov SF 2001

R’dam Mimyi SF 2003

Canada Roddick SF 2003

Madrid Ferrero SF 2003

Rottdm Esude F 2001

Miami Agassi F 2002

Sydney Won 2002

Vienna Won 2002

Marseille Won 2003

Dubai Won 2003

Vienna Won 2003

TMC Won 2003


Grass

Wim Ancic R128 2002

Wimble Henman QF 2001

Halle Rafter QF 2001

Holland Hewitt SF 2001

Halle Kiefer SF 2002

Halle Won 2003

Wim Won 2003


Carpet


Moscow Kiefer R32 2001

Basel Ljubicic R16 2003

Moscow Safin QF 2002

Basel Nalbandian SF 2002

Basel Henman Final 2001

Milan Sanguinnetti F 2002

How do you have time to write all of this? Dear god....

 

[Charlemagne]

McEnroe above Djokovic
When Nole retires he'll be in Tier 1 of the Open Era along with Rafa, Roger, Borg and Sampras

I'm sorry, but Nole isn't tier 1 alongside Federer, Nadal and Sampras. Completely wrong. Look at when Nole started collecting titles; when Nadal and Federer were no longer in their respective peaks.

 

[DerekNoleFam1]

I'm sorry, but Nole isn't tier 1 alongside Federer, Nadal and Sampras. Completely wrong. Look at when Nole started collecting titles; when Nadal and Federer were no longer in their respective peaks.

12 slams, 220+ weeks at Number 1 and a CGS is tier 1, whether you like it or not.
On the OP, RG is fairly open imo amongst the current big 5 slam winners, I do not think there will be a new slam winner there.

 

[ChanceEncounter]

It's always amused me how Nadal critics want us to remove clay from the discussion, as if it's not a real or fair surface. That's a testament to Nadal's dominance on clay over the years, yet Nadal has many big wins over his biggest rivals on all surfaces, and he's responded well to adversity many times.

No one is advocating removing clay from the discussion outright. They just want people to acknowledge that H2H is not like a league where you play each other round robin on all the surfaces.

During Federer's best years, Nadal frequently was not good enough on other surfaces to get far enough to play against him. He would only get to play against Federer on other surfaces if he was playing particularly well.

That's why half their meetings are on clay while only ~30% of the ATP tour takes place on that surface.

 

[ChanceEncounter]

It's the people who discount clay that are dishonest. They condemn Nadal for not having won the WTF, yet they never acknowledge that the conditions are skewed against Nadal as it's always on his least favourite environment. They should move the surface around. Just imagine if DC was always on outdoor clay.

There are zero indoor hard majors. So if Indoor Hard is your best surface, do you buy the argument that the ATP tour is skewed against you?

According to the ATP court index, there are no fast courts on tour at the moment. So if fast courts are preferable to you, are the tour conditions skewed against you?

Your argument would only make sense if you feel it's the ATP's obligation to tailor the surfaces to help the players, and not be an equal arbiter and try to represent as many diverse surfaces and conditions as possible.