Comparing Federer and Nadal's First 10 Grand Slam Championships

[ledwix]

the H2H is 4-4 on hard courts. So they are =

Wow, great argument. Davydenko > Nadal > Federer > Davydenko. So Davydenko > Davydenko.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Nobody is belittling Federer's achievements. We're merely pointing out that he's not the GOAT since he's not even the greatest in his era

Nadal owns Federer in and out of slams and always has. Federer has never had a positive H2H against Nadal on tour or in slams

All I can wish for is that you guys get the same medicine you are doling out today.

Somewhere, somehow I hope when Nadal is at the twilight of his career, he gets thumped around by Djokovic or whoever else, ends up with a bad H2H, and you guys get the same disrespect from Djoker fans that you're doling out now.



Enjoy it while it lasts...

Interesting...

 

[OrangePower]

Exactly. We have a winner.
Federer is more dominant overall NO DOUBT about it. The undisputed GOAT imo. But had he met Rafa in more GRAND SLAM FINALS, he'd be missing a few trophies, reguardless of the surface, so I don't think you guys should keep running to bring that up.

Thanks man, don't worry I know who the GOAT is.

I just said it's about matchups. Federer is more dominant over the FIELD on HC and Grass, without a doubt. What im saying though is you can't say bc Federer reached more finals that he would beat Nadal had Nadal made said finals.

Bingo, we have a winner.

Fed has been more dominant versus the field than Rafa. This is fact, and evidenced by his larger number of slams and weeks at #1. (Of course their careers are not over yet, so it's possible Rafa will catch up, although I don't personally think it's likely.)

Rafa is head-to-head a better player than Fed. This is fact - they are about even on non-clay surfaces, and Rafa has an overwhelming advantage on clay. (As above, since their careers are not over yet, it's possible Fed will catch up, but I don't personally think it's likely.)

Give them both credit for being all-time greats. As for which is greater, it depends on how much weight you give to who is better one-on-one versus who has been more dominant vs the field.

Personally I think dominance vs the field is the more significant, so I rate Fed higher than Rafa (but will change my mind if Rafa wins several more slams and/or spends a lot more time at #1).

 

[FitzRoy]

Bingo, we have a winner.

Fed has been more dominant versus the field than Rafa. This is fact, and evidenced by his larger number of slams and weeks at #1. (Of course their careers are not over yet, so it's possible Rafa will catch up, although I don't personally think it's likely.)

Rafa is head-to-head a better player than Fed. This is fact - they are about even on non-clay surfaces, and Rafa has an overwhelming advantage on clay. (As above, since their careers are not over yet, it's possible Fed will catch up, but I don't personally think it's likely.)

Give them both credit for being all-time greats. As for which is greater, it depends on how much weight you give to who is better one-on-one versus who has been more dominant vs the field.

Personally I think dominance vs the field is the more significant, so I rate Fed higher than Rafa (but will change my mind if Rafa wins several more slams and/or spends a lot more time at #1).

Good post, and well said. More people need to reach this conclusion.

 

[msc886]

I don't understand why people take the time to compute these type of statistics. Especially ranking, all that matters is how each opponent played on the day.

For example, Murray is highly ranked, but plays horrible in major finals, so that to me is not a barometer for comparison, and then you can get someone in the top 100, who comes in and plays lights out, well beyond their ranking.

Other factors include experience, in fact experience can be the biggest measure. Are you playing an experienced player, or someone who's never been there?

Guess they have to write something.

Yes. But Federer is highly ranked but plays badly against Nadal. I agree with annoying statistics. A win is a win.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Bingo, we have a winner.

Fed has been more dominant versus the field than Rafa. This is fact, and evidenced by his larger number of slams and weeks at #1. (Of course their careers are not over yet, so it's possible Rafa will catch up, although I don't personally think it's likely.)

Rafa is head-to-head a better player than Fed. This is fact - they are about even on non-clay surfaces, and Rafa has an overwhelming advantage on clay. (As above, since their careers are not over yet, it's possible Fed will catch up, but I don't personally think it's likely.)

Give them both credit for being all-time greats. As for which is greater, it depends on how much weight you give to who is better one-on-one versus who has been more dominant vs the field.

Personally I think dominance vs the field is the more significant, so I rate Fed higher than Rafa (but will change my mind if Rafa wins several more slams and/or spends a lot more time at #1).

Ofcourse dominance against the field is more significant. What would have happened if Nadal had made finals is speculation.

 

[DownTheLine]

Hahaha LOL April 2011 join date and all you can do is call me stupid because you can't provide anything to argue with what I say. What an inbred loser you are... and I mean that with all my heart.

Cool guy right here.

I really don't see any comparison here. Federer wins by a country mile.

 

[Agassifan]

What is impressive from Nadal side is that he had to beat Federer 7 times in his 10 slams won.

Twice out of RG