Sharpshooter
Banned
So? Does Rafa HAVE to do that? I think not, he's doing okay with his current game plan.
Comparing Federer and Nadal's First 10 Grand Slam Championships
- Thread starter McEnroeisanartist
- Start date
So? Does Rafa HAVE to do that? I think not, he's doing okay with his current game plan.
sonicare
Hall of Fame
my point is..he CANT do it even if he wanted.. hes not as talented.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Ok this is my last reply cause this is getting boring. You're starting to sound serious and I lose all fun 
Davydenko has a winning formula for Nadal, he's 6-1 on hard courts (5-0 on OUTDOOR as some of you like to point out) against the Spaniard (only 1 loss in the very first meeting in 2006 and even there Davydenko should've won), besides Nadal's 3 other wins came on clay (and 1 of them Davydenko also had his chance to win - 2007 Rome).
Look at Sampras-Krajicek now, also a rather small margin of 6-4 for Krajicek but out of 10 matches they played he had a chance to win nearly all of them. And now compare their achievements...(also Davydenko to Nadal).
So Federer at 30-years old is supposed to beat a 24-year old Murray on hard courts, just as 30-year old Sampras was supposed to beat 21-year old Hewitt? I'm not making any excuses for Federer but how many matches Murray won was a best-of-3 format on a hard court? 8 out of 8. Federer never really cares about Murray cause he can't trouble him when it matters.
Oh just wait and see, just as Federer is 5 years older than Rafa, Nadal will find someone 5 younger than him who might well find a solution. Unless Nadal keeps his promise and does a "win as much as possible in a short period of time and then retire!" not giving any players a chance to beat his post-prime self, just like post-prime Federer allows Djokovic, Murray, Nadal and Del Potro to beat him when he's nearly 30 years old.
That's why the h2h means nothing.
Davydenko has a winning formula for Nadal, he's 6-1 on hard courts (5-0 on OUTDOOR as some of you like to point out) against the Spaniard (only 1 loss in the very first meeting in 2006 and even there Davydenko should've won), besides Nadal's 3 other wins came on clay (and 1 of them Davydenko also had his chance to win - 2007 Rome).
Look at Sampras-Krajicek now, also a rather small margin of 6-4 for Krajicek but out of 10 matches they played he had a chance to win nearly all of them. And now compare their achievements...(also Davydenko to Nadal).
So Federer at 30-years old is supposed to beat a 24-year old Murray on hard courts, just as 30-year old Sampras was supposed to beat 21-year old Hewitt? I'm not making any excuses for Federer but how many matches Murray won was a best-of-3 format on a hard court? 8 out of 8. Federer never really cares about Murray cause he can't trouble him when it matters.
Surely you could've found somebody with a dominating h2h against Nadal to backup your bad matchup story ...oh wait
Oh just wait and see, just as Federer is 5 years older than Rafa, Nadal will find someone 5 younger than him who might well find a solution. Unless Nadal keeps his promise and does a "win as much as possible in a short period of time and then retire!" not giving any players a chance to beat his post-prime self, just like post-prime Federer allows Djokovic, Murray, Nadal and Del Potro to beat him when he's nearly 30 years old.
That's why the h2h means nothing.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Well 7-6 6-4 6-4 (serving for the set and having 2 consecutive set points) is better than being bageled and losing like 14 of the last 16 games. Nobody pushed Federer harder than Gonzalez in AO 2007, therefore the conclusion is simple. Besides Gonzalez himself was owning everyone en route to the final, he smashed Nadal, then pwned Haas in the semi.
illuminati
Rookie
federer is definitelyt not GOAT. u cant get murdered by ur biggest rival 17 times and claim ur the best ever.
illuminati
Rookie
federer simply not good enough to beat nadal when it matters.
powerangle
Legend
Nadal started winning majors earlier (age-wise) and had the luxury of a head start in that case. But Fed really started to pick up the pace very soon and kept up that pace for some years...and had overcome Nadal even with Nadal's initial lead. (12 slams to Roger compared to 9 or 10 slams to Rafa). Nadal really "needed" his 3-slam year last year to keep it close to Federer.
Federer looked pretty good for 3 slams a year for awhile there (as Agassi had said, you would bet on Fed winning 3 slams in a year over him winning "just" 1 slam a year....which is crazy in the big picture).
That said, Rafa was and still is a bigger "lockdown" to win RG year after year, even more so than Roger at Wimby or US Open. So if Nadal keeps trodding along winning RG every year or most of time for the remainder of his career...and just picks up a few slams between all the remaining AO, Wim, or USO he will play...he can pass Roger's tally. Not so far-fetched at all.
Federer looked pretty good for 3 slams a year for awhile there (as Agassi had said, you would bet on Fed winning 3 slams in a year over him winning "just" 1 slam a year....which is crazy in the big picture).
That said, Rafa was and still is a bigger "lockdown" to win RG year after year, even more so than Roger at Wimby or US Open. So if Nadal keeps trodding along winning RG every year or most of time for the remainder of his career...and just picks up a few slams between all the remaining AO, Wim, or USO he will play...he can pass Roger's tally. Not so far-fetched at all.
Last edited:
IvanisevicServe
Banned
Djokovic is a bad matchup for Nadal. Nadal = toast at Wimbledon 2007 if he doesn't get hurt.
Djokovic leads hardcourt H2H.
Only reason Nadal has the lead is all their clay meetings, which Djokovic finally won this year.
Prepare for the swing.
Djokovic leads hardcourt H2H.
Only reason Nadal has the lead is all their clay meetings, which Djokovic finally won this year.
Prepare for the swing.
illuminati
Rookie
Djokovic is a bad matchup for Nadal. Nadal = toast at Wimbledon 2007 if he doesn't get hurt.
Djokovic leads hardcourt H2H.
Only reason Nadal has the lead is all their clay meetings, which Djokovic finally won this year.
Prepare for the swing.
only reason djokovic is even close to nadal in the h2h is because of all thr hardcourt. u take away the hardcourt matches and djokovic is nowhere near nadal.
djokovic is yet to beat nadal at a slam.
Keep telling yourself that. A player owned in his own era in all of the biggest stages, against his biggest rival, cannot be the GOAT. Never.
Who's the greatest tennis player?
And if Federer was owned in his own era, why does he have the most grand slams of all time and have the most #1 rankings of his era?
The answer is "he played in a weak era," which contradicts the idea that Federer didn't dominate his own era.
BULLZ1LLA
Banned
(The key stat is how many times Federer beat Rafa during Federer's 10 slams = 2 [both at Wimbledon when Rafa was age 20 and 21].
Rafa beat Federer 7 times during his 10 slams [6 of them in the Final, 1 in SF]. This is how history will see it, that Rafa earned his slams more than Federer did, by beating the fan-proclaimed GOAT 7 times)
Rafa beat Federer 7 times during his 10 slams [6 of them in the Final, 1 in SF]. This is how history will see it, that Rafa earned his slams more than Federer did, by beating the fan-proclaimed GOAT 7 times)
The idea that Federer is the greatest is false because he cannot beat a guy from his own era at the biggest stages. This doesn't increase his chances for claiming something as prestigious as GOAT.
There is no GOAT, I repeat you cannot compare era's. And if we ever have to declare someone GOAT, he needs to have absolutely no weakness in his resume.
BULLZ1LLA
Banned
Djokovic is a bad matchup for Nadal. Nadal = toast at Wimbledon 2007 if he doesn't get hurt.
Djokovic leads hardcourt H2H.
Only reason Nadal has the lead is all their clay meetings, which Djokovic finally won this year.
Prepare for the swing.
(Djokovic will never be able to beat Rafa in a slam. Rafa beat Djokovic in 2010 US Open, and the 2008 Olympics on fast hardcourt. Djokovic beat Rafa 3 times in a row in 2009, and it was meaningless, as it is in 2011. Rafa owns Djokovic mentally, and that is why Djokovic can't beat Rafa in a slam or big match. Rafa has also beat Djokovic in the Indoor World Tour Finals. Djokovic can't beat Rafa in slams. That is why Djokovic has 2 Australian Opens - it is Rafa's worst slam)
Sharpshooter
Banned
Djokovic is a bad matchup for Nadal. Nadal = toast at Wimbledon 2007 if he doesn't get hurt.
Djokovic leads hardcourt H2H.
Only reason Nadal has the lead is all their clay meetings, which Djokovic finally won this year.
Prepare for the swing.
Hate to bring this to you, but it's now 2011.
So welcome to 2011 buddy
There's a difference between the greatest player and a perfect player. I think if the GOAT has to have absolutely no weaknesses, then logically no player deserves to win a grand slam title unless they win it without losing a set. Why would you have a grand slam champion if they didn't play a perfect tournament? We should only award a title to those who won it without losing a set. Same concept.
No, when we say someone is the greatest ever it also depends upon if he was able to dominate his era and his rival. Federer is no where close to dominating his biggest rival when it matters.
There are many holes in Federer's resume due to Nadal for something as prestigious as GOAT.
D
Deleted member 3771
Guest
Correct, he grabbed the majority of his slams in the weak era, its only now that the era has become stronger.so we are seeing how good Fed REALLY is now.
Bud
Bionic Poster
What stats are those? I owned an earlier poster who tried making up some stats about Nadal :lol:
He/she said Nadal was active on the tour playing grand slam tournaments at 14-15 years old :shock:
Because Roger was in his prime at that time, and pre prime Rafa was still figuring out how to play on grass and hard?
Sharpshooter
Banned
Disagree. Because with that, we have to assume the Federer that played in the weak era is the exact same Federer that is playing now, which is not true. Fed since 2007 AO has declined significantly from his peak years, even though he still won Wimby and the US Open that year.
So 29 year old Federer with slower movement and a shanky backhand is how good he REALLY was all along? I could have sworn he was explosive and godly in 2007 and earlier, and he almost never shanked the backhand.
People who want to discredit Federer's achievements should keep their story straight. Federer clearly dominated his prime, which is why he was top-ranked for five out of seven years, second-ranked for the other two years, and racked up the most grand slams of all time. From his extended prime of 2003 to 2010, he was clearly the best player. Nadal is not the best player of that period, because he was too young when it started. He might (might) end up being the best player from 2005-2013, though. They overlap but don't totally share eras...
Their primes do not match up. It's a different era. Nadal can be the master of his era while at the same time, Federer can be the master of his.
Also, we should probably judge Michael Jordan by how weak his last season was with the Wizards, because that's who he REALLY was.
People who want to discredit Federer's achievements should keep their story straight. Federer clearly dominated his prime, which is why he was top-ranked for five out of seven years, second-ranked for the other two years, and racked up the most grand slams of all time. From his extended prime of 2003 to 2010, he was clearly the best player. Nadal is not the best player of that period, because he was too young when it started. He might (might) end up being the best player from 2005-2013, though. They overlap but don't totally share eras...
Their primes do not match up. It's a different era. Nadal can be the master of his era while at the same time, Federer can be the master of his.
Also, we should probably judge Michael Jordan by how weak his last season was with the Wizards, because that's who he REALLY was.
Last edited:
ninman
Hall of Fame
You could just check on wikipedia. But you know that Federer has never withdrawn from any GS due to injury.
feetofclay
Semi-Pro
Then he should thank the 'Tennis Gods' for his very good fortune.
some say the era of Claycourt now is weak, because only one guy really dominates it, Nadal... while in 2004-2007, which Fed is in his prime and almost won all the tournamnts he played,which some idiots considered the WEAK YEARS of tennis because one guy, Roger,dominated the game.. that's plainly stupid, if you watched 2003-2007. watch great players like Roddick, Davydenko, and others, you really never thought they'll end up in 2011 like this, roddick in slump and i think he's done, and Davydenko, is sleeping... they're great players back then, they're just good now, but 2004-2007 were great years, it's just most of the great players back then declined too fast now..and Fed's was just amazing when he was 24-27..
and Fed is declining, at almost 30, it's obvious,in a NEW game where athleticism and stamina[nadal and younger guys excels than fed ] has become greater factors than before and Shotmaking[federer really excels] is almost a secondary,with a slower movement, having more commitments[being a father..LOL] still, he's still a threat to win a GS and be no.1 at 30,
this just justified that Sharpshooter is....stupid...and i mean it with all my heart.
mandy01
G.O.A.T.
Or he should get credit for not quitting in extenuating circumstances or because 'he didn't think he could win'.Afterall it's not just slams.Roger has never quit from a single match in his entire career .
i really don't find that interesting..
zagor
Bionic Poster
Fortune has hardly that much to do with it,think about it,it will come to you eventually(I hope).
Sharpshooter
Banned
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.
Sharpshooter
Banned
Why? Can't you handle that your dream "grand slam king" boyfriend got beat in the first round at a major he's supposed to be "dominant" in amongst other first round major losses while Rafa has always gotten past at least the first opponent at all the majors.
DjokovicForTheWin
Banned
This is very interesting to me. In so many ********* posts, the person says something and then immediately contradicts themselves. Does this have to do with age or education or something of the sort? Quite bemusing.
so what's with my Join Date? is it relevant? LOL, i read a lot of threads now, i always come across to some of your NON SENSE, IRRELEVANT posts, you always have a fight with REASONABLE people, bec they analyzed your posts IRRELEVANT, UNREASONABLE, and IRRATIONAL.i just agreed to ledwix, and then i realized how stupid you are.. you can't even COUNTER-PUNCH of what ledwix post about Jordan...and you're the one who's loser, keep posting irrelevant when you can't support what have you just posted, like your very own idea,
"FEDERER, 29 years of age, is the same of FEDERER, 25 years old."
(pretty genius post huh)...
LOL
that was 2002, Federer Underestimated Ancic back then... it was obviously Federer fault,but it was 2002, he'd never won a GS in that time so i don't think it's pretty interesting, if it happens twice at wimby, then i would consider it interesting,he was one of the favorite, he underestimated the opponent, and that cause him. and if you want to talk about a GS a player supposed to "dominate," do Nadal made 7 Straight RG finals? oppose to 7 straight finals of Fed in Wimby?,
i know you will come up with "BECAUSE NADAL IS INJURED."
but why Nadal was injured? because he was like a COMPUTER PROCESSOR, he overclocked himself, always having a risk to be injure..
and like always, i respect Nadal, and thinks that he'll surpass Fed in GS count, but GOAT, it's Fed...
Last edited:
DeShaun
Banned
Something seems wrong with this contention...maybe it's the fact that Rafa would have had greater difficulty getting his shots to bounce as high to Roger's backhand off of clay as on, depending on how bouncy those hard courts would have been playing. Look, a 29 yo Federer flicked Rafa like lint off his shoulder at the WTO seven months ago because the courts did not provide Rafa that extra bounce his matchup advantage depends on, and I'm not sure the faster playing balls and hardcourts from 5-7 years ago when Roger was snagging three slams per year would have offered Rafa much extra bounce with which to moonball Roger's backhand and you can almost see Rafa playing fetch until his wheels fell off if he had had to deal with Federer more often on the hardcourts from 04-06. I'm sorry but I really am not flaming right now. Roger was a fire breathign dragon from the baseline on hardcourts back then.
Last edited:
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
I am fairly new here, but this has to be the most useless comment I have seen here to date.
Ray Mercer
Hall of Fame
All I know is this:
US Open: 5 vs. 1
Aussie: 4 vs. 1
Wimbledon 6 vs. 2
How is Nadal a better hardcourt and grass player than Federer?
The end
US Open: 5 vs. 1
Aussie: 4 vs. 1
Wimbledon 6 vs. 2
How is Nadal a better hardcourt and grass player than Federer?
The end
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
Age, perhaps? Five years is a huge difference. It's like comparing even someone as good as del Po, 20 to Nadal at 25. It doesn't compute, nor does it assign superiority. It would be unfair to del Potro to say Nadal is better because he has 10-1 and not give del Po five years to make up the difference.
That's blatantly unfair, no matter how you slice it.
Sid_Vicious
G.O.A.T.
Good point. Age was definitely a factor that played a part in the Federer-Nadal rivalry.
However, Del Potro is not a great example. He is only 2 years younger than Rafa. There is not much of a generation gap there.
One important fact you're leaving out is that Nadal missed the French Open two years in a row, IIRC, because of injury.
One year he had a stress fracture in his foot playing against Gasquet in Estoril. He won the match but then pulled out, and had to take a few wks off, missing the French.
Another yr, I think he fractured an elbow clowning around trying to jump over the net. Not 100% sure about this one.
Edit: Wasnt Monte Carlo, but Estoril.
Re-Edit: I guess this is more about him winning the French the 1st time he played it, rather than when he started playing Slams.
Last edited:
Are you aware that one can read the forums without joining?
I don't think the join date translates to meaning much. For instance, I have been following the forums from much before until I registered in April 2008. And I really didn't need to join unless I wanted to discuss, debate or find specific answers.
I am not sure how there was a contradiction in what was said. If you read carefully, sharpshooter said he/she is not sure what the total number of times Federer has exited in the first round is but is certain that he did it once in 2002 against Ancic in Wimbledon.
Your comment would amount to saying many *********s have a problem with reading, comprehension and understanding the context and then go on to question one's maturity or education. I am certain this is not the case with you and other Djokovic fans.
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
Right, a little less than three years difference. For some reason I keep thinking he's younger. They seem like a tennis generation apart since Nadal had already established himself as a force on clay when JMDP just turned pro (2005).
I guess it could go either way, depending on one's perspective. Do you consider him to be a part of the Nadal, Novak, Murray generation?
aphex
Banned
Great point!
Nadal will reach 27 slams next year. Completely agree.
Great point, great poaster!
the H2H is 4-4 on hard courts. So they are =
D
Deleted member 25923
Guest
i gave this very argument, that it shouldn't be measured in age, and rather in years on tour. But, the ****s would not accept it.
Similar threads
