Comparing Federer and Nadal at age 28.5

[The_Mental_Giant]

Who cares about fedal? roddick wins he dates hotter chick, plus super cocky amurrikan personality.

 

[Chanwan]

Reality

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

That is actually wrong. OP is about 28,5 years old. While Rafa ain't quite that yet (but he will be before the AO), Fed was that old for the AO 2010, which he won.

Fail better next time Octo.

That is what. If he had chickened out because of injury to save his stats he'd have had better overall numbers.

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.

true that.

Btw, funny username. Who is this Aggasi-character?

 

[R0ger Federer]

Keep it up. This double account of yours is going to get banned soon.

Just because an account is new doesn't make it a double account.

 

[R0ger Federer]

Interesting facts shows how much more dominant Federer has been in general compared to nadal just dominating 1 surface.

 

[octobrina10]

That is actually wrong. OP is about 28,5 years old. While Rafa ain't quite that yet (but he will be before the AO), Fed was that old for the AO 2010, which he won.
Fail better next time Octo...

Fed 16/45 = 35,6 %
Rafa 14/39 = 35,9%

35,6 % < 35,9%

 

[Bartelby]

Again the statistics reveal Nadal as a clay court specialist who transitioned well in the slow court era.

 

[Chanwan]

Fed 16/45 = 35,6 %
Rafa 14/39 = 35,9%

35,6 % < 35,9%

I didn't say anything to the contrary, merely corrected your mistake.
No need to thank me though ;-)

The difference is miniscule and really not worth arguing about. Had Rafa played and lost one just one of the many he missed, he would be at 35,0 %.
35-36 winning percentage in slams is ridiculous good for any player (safe Borg).

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

Nadal is getting a bit late, but Federer won only 2 grand slams from 2010 to 2014, now up to Nadal if he can do better...

 

[Chanwan]

Nadal is getting a bit late, but Federer won only 2 grand slams from 2010 to 2014, now up to Nadal if he can do better...

For all the talk of Fed's weak era, Rafa has it easier competition-wise from when they both turned 27 or so and onwards. No truly great youngsters about to overtake him and Nole.

 

[Bartelby]

Not only is the competition easier now given the failure of youth to arrive, it is glaringly absent on the clay courts.

 

[irishnadalfan1983]

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.

I agree with that - if Fed only won 2 slams after 28.5 I don't think Nadal has much hope.

 

[Russeljones]

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.

Problem with this comparison is that it only has an end point. This renders it useless in terms of showing who has been more prolific. Which is the aim of this, isn't it? If we look at the ages at which the two respectively hit their stride and started winning ATP tournaments, I trust you will see a very contrasting picture.

 

[falstaff78]

Problem with this comparison is that it only has an end point. This renders it useless in terms of showing who has been more prolific. Which is the aim of this, isn't it? If we look at the ages at which the two respectively hit their stride and started winning ATP tournaments, I trust you will see a very contrasting picture.

Good point. I will make a separate thread about it.

What comparison years do you think would be best? Least controversial would be Major winning span, which in both cases is exactly a decade.

Federer 2003-2012
Nadal 2005-2014

Anyone have any thoughts?!?

I will try and do the analysis later this evening.

 

[Chanwan]

Problem with this comparison is that it only has an end point. This renders it useless in terms of showing who has been more prolific. Which is the aim of this, isn't it? If we look at the ages at which the two respectively hit their stride and started winning ATP tournaments, I trust you will see a very contrasting picture.

You will. In essence, Fed needed some years to become Fed. Rafa was Rafa almost from the get-go, beating top-10'ers on clay and winning HC Masters in 2005 already.

 

[Russeljones]

Good point. I will make a separate thread about it.

What comparison years do you think would be best? Least controversial would be Major winning span, which in both cases is exactly a decade.

Federer 2003-2012
Nadal 2005-2014

Anyone have any thoughts?!?

I will try and do the analysis later this evening.

I think 2009 would be the cut-off for Federer and 2013 for Nadal.

 

[falstaff78]

I think 2009 would be the cut-off for Federer and 2013 for Nadal.

Hmm. Happy to do it that way.

It is however only 7 years for Fed and 9 years for Nadz. This would raise two issues:

1) the analysis would be open to the counter-argument that the time frames are cherry picked in favour of Federer.

2) since the lengths of time are unequal, we would have to look at "strike rates" to gauge dominance as opposed to total numbers of titles won. as we have seen from this thread, the former can be debated till the cows come home, whereas the latter are absolute and less open to interpretation.

a decade each solves these two problems, nicely eliminates the "ramp-up" years, and also provides a non-arbitrary definition, namely major-winning span.

WDYT? Actually, would also be great to hear what Clayqueen, Octobrina, IrishNadalfan and other Nadal supporters who have been contributing to this thread think.

 

[Russeljones]

Hmm. Happy to do it that way.

It is however only 7 years for Fed and 9 years for Nadz. This would raise two issues:

1) the analysis would be open to the counter-argument that the time frames are cherry picked in favour of Federer.

2) since the lengths of time are unequal, we would have to look at "strike rates" to gauge dominance as opposed to total numbers of titles won. as we have seen from this thread, the former can be debated till the cows come home, whereas the latter are absolute and less open to interpretation.

a decade each solves these two problems, nicely eliminates the "ramp-up" years, and also provides a non-arbitrary definition, namely major-winning span.

WDYT? Actually, would also be great to hear what Clayqueen, Octobrina, IrishNadalfan and other Nadal supporters who have been contributing to this thread think.

I think differing cut-off points would be in line with the differing rates at which the two accumulated major titles. One was more prolific in a sustained manner over a relatively short time, while the other over a longer period due to an early start. Hard to compare, no doubt about it.

 

[LazyNinja19]

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.

 

[Bender]

Interesting stats.

Not sure what use such stats would be, but it's interesting nonetheless. Surely someone will find a good application for the stats.

That said, I'm not sure if you should include absences when crunching percentages. You can't calculate success rates based on things you haven't done.

 

[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.

Not sure what you are trying to say. This thread took a fair amount of time to put together. And a number of users appreciated the contents. If you have nothing constructive to say, not saying anything might be best.

 

[falstaff78]

Interesting stats.

Not sure what use such stats would be, but it's interesting nonetheless. Surely someone will find a good application for the stats.

That said, I'm not sure if you should include absences when crunching percentages. You can't calculate success rates based on things you haven't done.

Thanks for responding in a fair and balanced manner.

I made this point to another poster earlier - even if we change the strike rates, the absolute number of titles doesn't change. So Fed would still have one more major in the time period being considered, and regardless of strike rate, that would still be a better overall performance...

 

[Bender]

Thanks for responding in a fair and balanced manner.

I made this point to another poster earlier - even if we change the strike rates, the absolute number of titles doesn't change. So Fed would still have one more major in the time period being considered, and regardless of strike rate, that would still be a better overall performance...

Fair enough.

I was thinking that since strike rate was one of many statistics you took the time and effort to crunch (and marvellous job, btw), it would be worth pointing out, that's all.

 

[Agassifan]

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

bingo........

 

[jg153040]

For all the talk of Fed's weak era, Rafa has it easier competition-wise from when they both turned 27 or so and onwards. No truly great youngsters about to overtake him and Nole.

Not only that, but Murray who is the only one who can give Rafa and Nole run for their money is done and was weak on clay.

 

[Bartelby]

The thing about Nadal's career is that he won on clay as an adolescent and he will win as an old man.

That gives his career profile a rather unusual shape compared to anyone else.

 

[Chico]

Federer at 28.5 >>>>>>>> Nadal at 28.5

 

[LazyNinja19]

Federer at 28.5 >>>>>>>> Nadal at 28.5

Federer and Nadal at ANY age >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Djokovic :lol:

 

[jg153040]

The thing about Nadal's career is that he won on clay as an adolescent and he will win as an old man.

That gives his career profile a rather unusual shape compared to anyone else.

True. Nadal is special. He is a baby at 22 and old man past his grass prime at 26. Only a special kind of talent can pull something this off.

And he did all this while being injured not even having a prime.

That's why he is considered the greatest by some all-time greats. Imagine what he could have done if he was healthy and a grown man for more than just 4 years.

 

[Bobby Jr]

So tell me genius, Nadal skips slams to boost his%? :shock:

Whatever the reason he has skipped slams it has improved his percentages.

It's pretty simply as far as tournaments are concerned - if you don't play, it's your own tough luck. The OP explained his rationale and, as far as majors which have occurred in a career a did not play is too much of a get out of jail free card in terms of career percentages.

Now, if you were looking at it purely in terms of majors played then you have a point. In this case I think the OP called it right.

It's simple math, you can't include missed slams to this combination since Nadal hadn't a even theoretical chance to win them...

How convenient that Nadal has never missed the French Open - which comes at the end of the most gruelling 10 weeks of tennis of the entire calendar season. Wouldn't then be the most likely time someone was suffering from overuse injuries?

Yep.

 

[BringBackSV]

Federer and Nadal at ANY age >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Djokovic :lol:

Who is Djokovic?

 

[Djokovic2011]

Who is Djokovic?

 

[MichaelNadal]

Who is Djokovic?

Right? I just asked him that a couple days ago

 

[kandamrgam]

The only time Nadal's had competition on clay was 2011-and-beyond Djokovic. Weak clay era.

Thanks for admitting Federer is a mug on clay.

 

[kandamrgam]

For all the talk of Fed's weak era, Rafa has it easier competition-wise from when they both turned 27 or so and onwards. No truly great youngsters about to overtake him and Nole.

Dunno, since Djoker 26 is running hot along side him.. Nevertheless weigh which is more serious, that Nadal getting easier from 27 yrs or Federer getting easier since 22?

 

[kandamrgam]

Federer at 28.5 >>>>>>>> Nadal at 28.5

The guy he hates the most: Nadal, the guy he hates after that: Federer. The guy he hates the least: Djoker

 

[jg153040]

Thanks for admitting Federer is a mug on clay.

Well, he sort of is. He also feasted on weak clay field, that's why he has so many finals. But as soon as he meets decent clay guys like Kuerten, Rafa, Soderling, Nole, he doesn't win.

 

[kandamrgam]

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!

 

[kandamrgam]

Well, he sort of is. He also feasted on weak clay field, that's why he has so many finals. But as soon as he meets decent clay guys like Kuerten, Rafa, Soderling, Nole, he doesn't win.

Ok, so now Federer meets Nole and he doesn't win? Ok Soderling is more decent clay courter? Ok, Federer doesn't win against him? Ok, so having 80% win record on the surface is not good enough? Not even Kuerten has that kind of record. I dont know if you make sense. May be sarcasm?

 

[jg153040]

Ok, so now Federer meets Nole and he doesn't win? Ok Soderling is more decent clay courter? Ok, Federer doesn't win against him? Ok, so having 80% win record on the surface is not good enough? Not even Kuerten has that kind of record. I dont know if you make sense. May be sarcasm?

I was talking RG only of course. I mean who cares if Fed can defeat those guys in masters. He lost when it counted.

He bageled Rafa and Kuerten on clay, I think. But too bad it was where it didn't count.

And you saying Soderling is not good on clay makes my point even more valid. Soderling who isn't good is making RG finals. And Fed and Rafa are losing to a guy who isn't good? That proves weak field and that they aren't as good on clay as their record says.

 

[kandamrgam]

I was talking RG only of course. I mean who cares if Fed can defeat those guys in masters. He lost when it counted.

He bageled Rafa and Kuerten on clay, I think. But too bad it was where it didn't count.

And you saying Soderling is not good on clay makes my point even more valid. Soderling who isn't good is making RG finals. And Fed and Rafa are losing to a guy who isn't good? That proves weak field and that they aren't as good on clay as their record says.

I was talking of RG too, what makes you think otherwise? I dont think you have answered me. I will quote you again:

But as soon as he meets decent clay guys like Kuerten, Rafa, Soderling, Nole, he doesn't win.

1. So Soderling is a decent clay courter? For making two finals? For having two good years? More than Federer?

2. So Federer doesn't win against Soderling?

3. So Federer doesn't win against Djoker? From when?

4. I didn't mean Soderling is great on clay, nor bad on clay. He is what he achieved. He could play peak level for some two years, and that's it. Now this is serious cherry picking. You mean one of those rare instances Federer and Nadal lost to an outsider suddenly exposes their clay weakness? What on earth are you talking? You mean even Nadal???? Losing to some nobody ONCE, much less Soderling, would make Nadal's record inferior?

5. So if Soderling reaching finals beating Nadal and Federer proves weak clay era, please tell me one strong era. Please.. Just once. I want to know which player had 100% win record against players lesser than Soderling.

 

[jg153040]

I was talking of RG too, what makes you think otherwise? I dont think you have answered me. I will quote you again:



1. So Soderling is a decent clay courter? For making two finals? For having two good years? More than Federer?

2. So Federer doesn't win against Soderling?

3. So Federer doesn't win against Djoker? From when?

4. I didn't mean Soderling is great on clay, nor bad on clay. He is what he achieved. He could play peak level for some two years, and that's it. Now this is serious cherry picking. You mean one of those rare instances Federer and Nadal lost to an outsider suddenly exposes their clay weakness? What on earth are you talking? You mean even Nadal???? Losing to some nobody ONCE, much less Soderling, would make Nadal's record inferior?

5. So if Soderling reaching finals beating Nadal and Federer proves weak clay era, please tell me one strong era. Please.. Just once. I want to know which player had 100% win record against players lesser than Soderling.

Ok, maybe I was exaggerating Soderling being decent. He is on paper, but he only got those finals cuz weak clay field.

Ok, strong clay field for me is that when top GS champions in an era are at least decent on clay. Guys who won GS. Roddick, old Agassi, Murray, Hewitt, Safin, are all GS champions and terrible on clay compared to other surfaces. At least make a few semis or some finals.

I mean, it's that players who have championship mentality who can win slams, aren't great on clay. And it's not due to only Rafa stopping them. And how else do you explain Federer not winning RG, while he was good on other surfaces? And he lost before Nadal was even good. Till 2005, Fed had chances and blew it. He isn't that great. Even in 2006, Rafa was a teen.
How do you explain a teenager dominating GS champions Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Federer on clay, while he wasn't able to make a HC final till 2009?

The truth is, that it's a weaker clay field, and Fed, Rafa are very inflated on that surface.

Not only they didn't beat RG champions on their way to finals, they didn't even beat normal GS champions on clay on the way to finals. Cuz those champions suck on clay, that's why weak era.

Strong clay era is when GS champions are also going consistently deep on clay.

How can Ferrer and Soderling be in RG finals? Because even if they are there they don't have mentality to win. But, if Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Murray were good to made it there, clay field would be tough.

 

[kandamrgam]

You dont answer to my questions specifically. I have numbered it for you. Leave it.

Ok, strong clay field for me is that when top GS champions in an era are at least decent on clay. Guys who won GS. Roddick, old Agassi, Murray, Hewitt, Safin, are all GS champions and terrible on clay compared to other surfaces. At least make a few semis or some finals.

Ok, so but there was Federer and Nadal. They were there since '05. And one guy alone didn't win RG before that year. The ascendency to top happened together, that's why it was tougher for both of them.

Going by your argument, I agree '05 was weak clay. But since '06, they themselves were the top dogs on the surface. Nothing can be tougher for the top players. Or Do you have the opinion, more than 2 champion players are required for an era to be deemed strong?

And how else do you explain Federer not winning RG, while he was good on other surfaces? And he lost before Nadal was even good. Till 2005, Fed had chances and blew it. He isn't that great.

You mean for 2 years? 03 and 04? May be that Federer needed time to find his footing on the surface? May be because individuals are individualistic and no linear transformation happens all the time? It happens only in fantasy world. Ok, so do tell me how did Federer manage to reach Finals from 05 onwards (considering he lost to Nadal in SF its ok) at RG? Which amazing clay courter quit tennis to pave way for Federer at RG? Do you seriously believe he was of the same quality as in 03 all those years on clay? That's delusional. The quality tennis player between Kuerten-Nadal era is Coria. Federer has quality wins over Coria in 04 and 05.

How do you explain a teenager dominating GS champions Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Federer on clay, while he wasn't able to make a HC final till 2009?.

Goodness me, so you seriously watch matches? Let me be honest, I'm no way attacking you. I'm just baffled. Nadal wasn't able to make HC SFs and Fs because he wasn't as good a hard courter then. His game, from serve to bh improved in 2008. It was evident. His FH got flatter in '08, even more from AO '10. You should seriously seriously get off of the philosophy "players mature and bloom in some standard linear fashion. Why have Youzhny, Blake and Berdych become bunnies of Nadal post '08?

Nadal was an excellent clay courter from the beginning. I will explain. He grew on clay, he feels home there. Clay requires physicality to quite some extreme and Nadal was from an early age. How did Becker as 17 yr old win Wimbledon in one of the most competitive era? How did Chang? How did Seles? Forget all that. Do you doubt the quality of Coria? I have watched tennis, and I don't. He lacked a big game, surely. But he was out and out pure clay breed. Nadal have quality wins over him in '05, just like Federer had.

On a side note: I have a question. What do you think will happen if prime Kuerten meets prime Federer on clay? Federer's overall game is much better, and imo that would give him 3-3 score in a 6 match bout. What say?

Strong clay era is when GS champions are also going consistently deep on clay.

How can Ferrer and Soderling be in RG finals? Because even if they are there they don't have mentality to win. But, if Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, Murray were good to made it there, clay field would be tough.

You're seriously nitpicking here. Not only you not answer some of my specific questions, but you're giving vague answers to some. I asked you not to give a definition. Give me one strong era, on clay or elsewhere. I will do the same Ferrer-Soderling game and prove that era was weak .

Since Ferrer reached RG F as late as in 2013, I'm assuming your weak era is the entire 05-13. Right?

 

[NatF]

I've missed watching jg troll people :lol:

 

[falstaff78]

I've missed watching jg troll people :lol:

Yes. Poor kandamragim, with his month long tenure on the boards, and his appreciation for good tennis in general, has been worked up into a fine head of steam. The amusement is partially making up for the annoyance of having this thread hijacked into a ridiculous clay weak era debate.

 

[falstaff78]

Repeat post

 

[jg153040]

You dont answer to my questions specifically. I have numbered it for you. Leave it.



Ok, so but there was Federer and Nadal. They were there since '05. And one guy alone didn't win RG before that year. The ascendency to top happened together, that's why it was tougher for both of them.

Going by your argument, I agree '05 was weak clay. But since '06, they themselves were the top dogs on the surface. Nothing can be tougher for the top players. Or Do you have the opinion, more than 2 champion players are required for an era to be deemed strong?



You mean for 2 years? 03 and 04? May be that Federer needed time to find his footing on the surface? May be because individuals are individualistic and no linear transformation happens all the time? It happens only in fantasy world. Ok, so do tell me how did Federer manage to reach Finals from 05 onwards (considering he lost to Nadal in SF its ok) at RG? Which amazing clay courter quit tennis to pave way for Federer at RG? Do you seriously believe he was of the same quality as in 03 all those years on clay? That's delusional. The quality tennis player between Kuerten-Nadal era is Coria. Federer has quality wins over Coria in 04 and 05.



Goodness me, so you seriously watch matches? Let me be honest, I'm no way attacking you. I'm just baffled. Nadal wasn't able to make HC SFs and Fs because he wasn't as good a hard courter then. His game, from serve to bh improved in 2008. It was evident. His FH got flatter in '08, even more from AO '10. You should seriously seriously get off of the philosophy "players mature and bloom in some standard linear fashion. Why have Youzhny, Blake and Berdych become bunnies of Nadal post '08?

Nadal was an excellent clay courter from the beginning. I will explain. He grew on clay, he feels home there. Clay requires physicality to quite some extreme and Nadal was from an early age. How did Becker as 17 yr old win Wimbledon in one of the most competitive era? How did Chang? How did Seles? Forget all that. Do you doubt the quality of Coria? I have watched tennis, and I don't. He lacked a big game, surely. But he was out and out pure clay breed. Nadal have quality wins over him in '05, just like Federer had.

On a side note: I have a question. What do you think will happen if prime Kuerten meets prime Federer on clay? Federer's overall game is much better, and imo that would give him 3-3 score in a 6 match bout. What say?



You're seriously nitpicking here. Not only you not answer some of my specific questions, but you're giving vague answers to some. I asked you not to give a definition. Give me one strong era, on clay or elsewhere. I will do the same Ferrer-Soderling game and prove that era was weak .

Since Ferrer reached RG F as late as in 2013, I'm assuming your weak era is the entire 05-13. Right?

That is too much information. I will just try to simplify. I don't like complicated.

The reason why I say weak clay era is that the best guys in last 12 years were poor on clay. Multiple slam champions all have worse surface clay.
Djokovic has worse win % on clay. Murray too. Then Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, old Agassi old did bad on clay.

Also Kuerten owning prime Fed on clay. Teen Nadal owning prime Fed on clay.

Then there is logical argument. W is holy grail. So the field wants to win it, so they will be more motivated. Also faster surfaces have less margins for error, so the field is tougher there by default. Then of course HC has 70% of the tour, so of course the entire tour will make their games for HC, since more chances to win, the field will be deeper.

The other argument is nature of the game. Fed's game is not made for clay, yet he owns specialists. That means they aren't that great on clay.

I'm not saying that means Nadal can't be clay goat. He proabably still is, but we will never know for sure due to clay inflation. Or maybe it's both, weak field and Nadal still great. But he didn't have to deal with the likes of Lendl and Kuerten on clay or Borg.

 

[kandamrgam]

That is too much information. I will just try to simplify. I don't like complicated.

The reason why I say weak clay era is that the best guys in last 12 years were poor on clay. Multiple slam champions all have worse surface clay.
Djokovic has worse win % on clay. Murray too. Then Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, old Agassi old did bad on clay.

Also Kuerten owning prime Fed on clay. Teen Nadal owning prime Fed on clay.

Then there is logical argument. W is holy grail. So the field wants to win it, so they will be more motivated. Also faster surfaces have less margins for error, so the field is tougher there by default. Then of course HC has 70% of the tour, so of course the entire tour will make their games for HC, since more chances to win, the field will be deeper.

The other argument is nature of the game. Fed's game is not made for clay, yet he owns specialists. That means they aren't that great on clay.

I'm not saying that means Nadal can't be clay goat. He proabably still is, but we will never know for sure due to clay inflation. Or maybe it's both, weak field and Nadal still great. But he didn't have to deal with the likes of Lendl and Kuerten on clay or Borg.

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:

 

[SpinToWin]

^^^^^guys get a room... Or more like a seperate thread for this discussion

 

[jg153040]

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:

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.

 

[Aggasirules5]

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:

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