Comparing Federer and Nadal at age 28.5

[Aggasirules5]

Who is Djokovic?

He's the guy who went 7-0 vs a certain someone, doesn't skip slams and pretend to have injuries whenever he loses. Oh I forgot to mention, he's a father, the current World number 1 and the best player on tour right now

 

[jg153040]

Federer has beaten Sampras albeit not in a slam won. Maybe you don't know, look it up on youtube.

How many multiple RG champs did Rafa beat? None. How many single RG champs did he beat in finals? One?

How many multiple W champs did Fed beat? 3. How many at least one W champions did Federer beat? 5.

And no excuses that Rafa won all, preventing others. Fed made 9 W finals the same as Rafa RG finals and still beat tons more W champions.

Not to mention wining on grass is harder by default because of the nature of the surface also the field is more motivated in the most important grass tournament.

Go watch Goran how big W is. How a lot of all-time greats are frustrated without W title. Are there any single slam champions that will be remembered more than Goran?

 

[jg153040]

He's the guy who went 7-0 vs a certain someone, doesn't skip slams and pretend to have injuries whenever he loses. Oh I forgot to mention, he's a father, the current World number 1 and the best player on tour right now

That could also be Federer. Federer wen't 7-0 vs a lot of guys. Federer is also a father. And technically he is nr.1 currently if we count points after W.

 

[kandamrgam]

I don't care which is the strong era. I know this one is not strong. I really don't care about other eras. Strong era is when top slam champions are consistently also good on clay. I don't know if such an era exists, it is irrelevant, I know this one is not.

Kuerten beat him in straight sets. And wasn't even prime Kuerten. So this is good indicator.

No Fed's game is for all courts except ultra slow clay. He wins more vs tougher competition off clay. So, you can't say he adapts well. The only reason he does well on clay is cuz he gets mugs before finals and he is still a champion and of course he uses his genius to bail him out of poor clay skills.

Federer has beaten Sampras on grass. He beat multiple W champs and finalists. Rafa beat just Fed, whose only RG title is suspect.

So, beating Fed on clay is now a great achievement? He lost 1st round in 2003 at the start of his prime.

Ok, since others have commented I will stop it here. I got to learn a bit about the average intelligence of some of the posters here.

1. So one win over someone in their only match is owning right? Thanks.

2. Circular arguments.. Since A won beating B, now C beating A is a big deal.

3. Federer and 03 clay... You dont reply to me. Way to go.

4. You fail to find a stronger era. Personally I do know how logically weak Soderling-Ferrer argument is. Not a big bloat on Nadal's resume since all eras were weaker according to that logic.

 

[kandamrgam]

Federer has beaten Sampras albeit not in a slam won. Maybe you don't know, look it up on youtube.

I love the tennis IQ of people here :shock:. Thanks for the heads up. Appreciate it.

 

[helloworld]

1. Djoker and Federer are bound to have worse record on clay, since Nadal is stopping them almost everywhere. What's your point?

2. Kuerten didn't own prime Fed. He beat him once. That's way too much sample size isn't it?

3. Fed's game is the best for all court adaptability. The guy grew on clay, won on clay initially. And no he owns no specialists, neither Kuerten, nor Nadal. You just contradict yourself too much.

4. Lolll... So Federer's grass resume is weak, since he hadn't beaten Sampras or Borg. Forget it, who were the best competition for Borg or Kuerten anyway?

5. You still dont answer me. Which is the strong clay court era :twisted:

This guy just created an account last month and he's already making some enemies. I wonder if we're looking at the future troll GOAT here. :twisted:

 

[jg153040]

Ok, since others have commented I will stop it here. I got to learn a bit about the average intelligence of some of the posters here.

1. So one win over someone in their only match is owning right? Thanks.

2. Circular arguments.. Since A won beating B, now C beating A is a big deal.

3. Federer and 03 clay... You dont reply to me. Way to go.

4. You fail to find a stronger era. Personally I do know how logically weak Soderling-Ferrer argument is. Not a big bloat on Nadal's resume since all eras were weaker according to that logic.

Ok, then what is your take on this? I'm ready to listen to you. You tell me which clay areas are strong/weak without using circular reasoning.

I don't think I have used it. My argument was top champions have lower winning % on clay and that is without their losses to Nadal and Federer on clay.

Maybe Soderling and Kuerten is weak argument, so let's skip it. But you didn't respond to my logical argument. That faster surfaces have lower margins, so harder to win and also W has more motivation. Also HC having majority of tournaments, so depth on HC is deeper.

 

[sunny_cali]

I love the tennis IQ of people here :shock:. Thanks for the heads up. Appreciate it.

Which previously banned poster are you, btw ? Talking about IQ - your moniker is that of a large-bodied ungulate not really known for it's IQ is it Were you seeking other's of similar IQ ? BTW, the white rhino is near extinction :evil: -- which is a reflection of the IQ of the human race on average

 

[jg153040]

Which previously banned poster are you, btw ? Talking about IQ - your moniker is that of a large-bodied ungulate not really known for it's IQ is it Were you seeking other's of similar IQ ? BTW, the white rhino is near extinction :evil: -- which is a reflection of the IQ of the human race on average

He implied my IQ is lower than 100. Which I consider it a compliment, I always thought I would be lucky to max that puppy to 75 max. So, I feel great.

Also me and Einstein probably have about 220 IQ combined .

 

[kandamrgam]

Ok, then what is your take on this? I'm ready to listen to you. You tell me which clay areas are strong/weak without using circular reasoning.

I don't think I have used it. My argument was top champions have lower winning % on clay and that is without their losses to Nadal and Federer on clay.

Maybe Soderling and Kuerten is weak argument, so let's skip it. But you didn't respond to my logical argument. That faster surfaces have lower margins, so harder to win and also W has more motivation. Also HC having majority of tournaments, so depth on HC is deeper.

1. I hope you meant eras. Why should I tell? You're the one who raised the argument Clay era is weak today. That's valid only if you know stronger eras. Which are they?

2. No Novak's win record outside Federer and Nadal on clay will almost touch 90%. Do you have stats to back? You're the accuser, not me.

3. Haha, since Grass constitutes around 5% of the surface on tour, it should have the least deep competition then. Regardless, I dont rate a surface based on such dumb margin games. So if grass is tougher, why dont those grass monsters dominate clay? The dynamics are entirely different.!

 

[NatF]

This guy just created an account last month and he's already making some enemies. I wonder if we're looking at the future troll GOAT here. :twisted:

Your position is safe don't worry...

 

[jg153040]

1. I hope you meant eras. Why should I tell? You're the one who raised the argument Clay era is weak today. That's valid only if you know stronger eras. Which are they?

2. No Novak's win record outside Federer and Nadal on clay will almost touch 90%. Do you have stats to back? You're the accuser, not me.

3. Haha, since Grass constitutes around 5% of the surface on tour, it should have the least deep competition then. Regardless, I dont rate a surface based on such dumb margin games. So if grass is tougher, why dont those grass monsters dominate clay? The dynamics are entirely different.!

I didn't claim strong clay era has to exist. Maybe all are weak. I asserted Fedal clay era is weak. But if you assert you know this era isn't weak, the burden of proof is also on you, not just on me. Do you assert era is not weak, or you just reject my assertion and take the default position?

Why would I need stats? Faith is evidence.

Yeah, but grass also has W, so players try extra hard on grass. Otherwise competition would probably be weaker. Why do you say that if grass is tougher that this means grass courters should dominate clay? If Chinese is harder to learn than English, this means Chinese people should be better at English? No, you know it doesn't mean that.

 

[kandamrgam]

I didn't claim strong clay era has to exist. Maybe all are weak. I asserted Fedal clay era is weak. But if you assert you know this era isn't weak, the burden of proof is also on you, not just on me. Do you assert era is not weak, or you just reject my assertion and take the default position?

Why would I need stats? Faith is evidence.

Yeah, but grass also has W, so players try extra hard on grass. Otherwise competition would probably be weaker. Why do you say that if grass is tougher that this means grass courters should dominate clay? If Chinese is harder to learn than English, this means Chinese people should be better at English? No, you know it doesn't mean that.

Faith is evidence? Amen. Good logic.

Yes I get your point, I made a bad argument there, but no, clay and grass are equally harder, former may be more by virtue of having 6 times more play on the tour. The margin theory I dont accept it. It's just different dynamics.

Side note: Historically, WC has been more dominated than RG. Not arguing about toughness, just a pointer.

 

[Djokovic2011]

I didn't claim strong clay era has to exist. Maybe all are weak. I asserted Fedal clay era is weak. But if you assert you know this era isn't weak, the burden of proof is also on you, not just on me. Do you assert era is not weak, or you just reject my assertion and take the default position?

Why would I need stats? Faith is evidence.

Yeah, but grass also has W, so players try extra hard on grass. Otherwise competition would probably be weaker. Why do you say that if grass is tougher that this means grass courters should dominate clay? If Chinese is harder to learn than English, this means Chinese people should be better at English? No, you know it doesn't mean that.

It's great to have you back jg. :lol:

:wink:

 

[donquijote]

I'd rather compare them at 27 years 3 months and 11 days.

 

[BringBackSV]

He's the guy who went 7-0 vs a certain someone, doesn't skip slams and pretend to have injuries whenever he loses. Oh I forgot to mention, he's a father, the current World number 1 and the best player on tour right now

Who did he go 7-0 against?

 

[BringBackSV]

I didn't claim strong clay era has to exist. Maybe all are weak. I asserted Fedal clay era is weak. But if you assert you know this era isn't weak, the burden of proof is also on you, not just on me. Do you assert era is not weak, or you just reject my assertion and take the default position?

Why would I need stats? Faith is evidence.

Yeah, but grass also has W, so players try extra hard on grass. Otherwise competition would probably be weaker. Why do you say that if grass is tougher that this means grass courters should dominate clay? If Chinese is harder to learn than English, this means Chinese people should be better at English? No, you know it doesn't mean that.

Grass has obviously become an obscure surface and the competition has been as weak as can be.

 

[TMF]

Another worthless argument

Weak, strong competition, blah blah blah.

Can't people just accept that there's no way of knowing Federer or Nadal face weaker or stronger competition? No amount of biased opinion is going to convince the other fans. Just let it go !

 

[Steve0904]

Weak, strong competition, blah blah blah.

Can't people just accept that there's no way of knowing Federer or Nadal face weaker or stronger competition? No amount of biased opinion is going to convince the other fans. Just let it go !

I don't agree TMF!!!!!! We must find out somehow!!

 

[BringBackSV]

I don't agree TMF!!!!!! We must find out somehow!!

It's really important stuff.

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

I'd rather compare them at 27 years 3 months and 11 days.

Why so? probably works for some agenda, no?

 

[falstaff78]

Good job! Please also make a thread 3 months from now, "at age 28.75".
And then "at age 29".

Not to mention, the one "at age 29.25".


And let's not forget "at age 29.50".

Totally serious.


We need such threads after every 3 months.


And if possible, every 2 weeks.

Hahahaahaha!

I'd rather compare them at 27 years 3 months and 11 days.

Please stop guys! You're killing us with your scintillating wit and scathing insights!!!!! You're sooooo smarrrt to notice that 28.5 is an arbitrary number!!!

28.5, or 28.4 to be precise, is Nadal's current age. Also happens to be Federer's age at the conclusion of the 2009 season. The idea is to compare Nadal's career to-date with Federer at roughly the same age, to gauge Nadal's chances to catch up with his career achievements.

(A fact most posters picked up on)

 

[kandamrgam]

I didn't claim strong clay era has to exist. Maybe all are weak. I asserted Fedal clay era is weak. But if you assert you know this era isn't weak, the burden of proof is also on you, not just on me. Do you assert era is not weak, or you just reject my assertion and take the default position?

Why would I need stats? Faith is evidence.

Yeah, but grass also has W, so players try extra hard on grass. Otherwise competition would probably be weaker. Why do you say that if grass is tougher that this means grass courters should dominate clay? If Chinese is harder to learn than English, this means Chinese people should be better at English? No, you know it doesn't mean that.

1. First and foremost, your argument that clay today is weak because Soderling and Ferrer made to FO finals is clearly a logical failure. I've already asked you tell me one good era on any surface which didnt have Ferrers and Soderlings making to final of a Slam. Soderling is any day better than Baghdatis, for instance.

2. Burden of proof is not on my shoulder. I have already stated why is clay stronger today considering there are three players all having a win% above 80% on clay. That's as strong as it can get. Of course is grass is quite strong too, and I know why, but you dont provide anything to substantiate it.

3. Yup good point. I made a mistake there.