Comparing Nadal's Greatest Season to Federer's Dominance

[McEnroeisanartist]

With Nadal pulling out of the Tennis Masters Cup, I thought it would be interesting to compare Nadal’s Greatest Season to Federer’s dominance.

In 2008, Nadal went 82-11, winning 8 Titles, including two grand slams.

In 2005, Federer went 81-4, winning 11 Titles, including two grand slams, and this was considered a down year by his ridiculously high standards.

Between 2005 and 2006, Federer lost two less matches than Nadal in 2008, but won 91 more matches.

This was Nadal’s first year ever winning two grand slams in one year. Federer has achieved this feat for four consecutive years. Nadal didn’t manage to reach three grand slam finals this year, something Federer has done in four different years.

Between 2003-2008, Federer averaged more tournament wins each year than Nadal in 2008.

 

[aaron 3000]

???

This is already a given. It's common sense that Federer's career > Nadal's career.

What's to compare?

Nadal had a great year but Fed's been pulling 3 slams a year and making the FO final on a regular basis.

Close thread.

 

[tennis-hero]

2006
92-5

4 losses to Nadal- 3 in clay finals, one slow HC final ( in 06 Fed bagled Rafa in the Wimbledon final and took the first set at Roland Garros 6-1.... a title he should have won.... and a title that would have given him the calender grandslam as well as holding all four titles simultaneously)

1 loss to Murray of all people

possibly the single best year in the open era.... (perhaps Laver in 69 had a better year)

 

[wangs78]

I think Fed's dominance has clearly been superior to Nadal's achievement this year. Any of his seasons with 3 GSs, IMO, is greater than Nadal's. I think ppl give the FO-Wimby back to back win for Nadal a bit too much credit. Grass is a lot slower today than in years past and that is why Nadal was able to win it.

Nadal made two finals at the GS this year. Roger made it to all 4 in both 2006 and 2007. The Olympics I don't weigh any more than a Masters to tell you the truth. Its prestige is largely due to 1) it being played only once every 4 years and 2) the national pride thing (similar to Davis cup). Had the Olympics been played in 2006, I would have put excellent odds on Fed winning that.

But don't get me wrong, Nadal's year this year is nothing short of spectacular. I just don't agree with ppl who think that what he's done this year compares to Fed's dominance (2006 in particular was the most dominant year for Fed).

 

[Zaragoza]

2006
92-5

4 losses to Nadal- 3 in clay finals, one slow HC final ( in 06 Fed bagled Rafa in the Wimbledon final and took the first set at Roland Garros 6-1.... a title he should have won....

Nadal beat Federer in Dubai, FAST hardcourt. Thanks. Yes Federer should have won a match he lost in 4 sets, keep up the good comedy.

 

[LurkingGod]

How many 'newbies' in tennis are on board, seriously??

Fed's 4 years reign as number 1 would be superior to 99.9% of the other no.1s in history not just Nadal's. We all know he's the most dominant no.1 in history. What do you want to prove here? How many time you want to hear people say that Fed's better than anyone else?

Saying 1+1=2 repeatly 1,000 times a day doesn't make it anymore corrected. It just makes people annoyed.

Nadal fans didn't expect him to be as dominant as Fed. They're happy that he's reached no.1 eventually. If Nadal only beat Fed by 1 point to get his no.1 they'd still be happy for him.

 

[veroniquem]

In 2003 (the year Fed turned 22 as Nadal did this year), this is what Fed did in slams: AO 4th round
FO 1st round
W winner (his first slam ever)
USO 4th round.
That doesn't compare favorably with Nadal's year, does it? You want to try the master series? Fed in 2003:
Indian Wells 2nd round
Miami quarter
Monte-Carlo didn't play
Rome finalist
Hamburg 3rd round
Canada semi
Cincinnati 2nd round
Madrid semi
Paris quarter
Now do you see the difference with Nadal's year yet or you still have mud in your eyes?
1- You have no clue what you're talking about. Until now every Nadal year has been vastly superior to Federer at the same age, so you don't have any valid argument to claim that Federer is superior to Nadal in any way.
2- Every career is different. Every great player achieved different things and in different ways. What do you want, clones? How interesting would that be? Every career has its own measure of unpredictability and none is perfect. Often great players complement (not exclude) each other.

 

[flying24]

In 2003 (the year Fed turned 22 as Nadal did this year), this is what Fed did in slams: AO 4th round
FO 1st round
W winner (his first slam ever)
USO 4th round.
That doesn't compare favorably with Nadal's year, does it? You want to try the master series? Fed in 2003:
Indian Wells 2nd round
Miami quarter
Monte-Carlo didn't play
Rome finalist
Hamburg 3rd round
Canada semi
Cincinnati 2nd round
Madrid semi
Paris quarter
Now do you see the difference with Nadal's year yet or you still have mud in your eyes?
1- You have no clue what you're talking about. Until now every Nadal year has been vastly superior to Federer at the same age, so you don't have any valid argument to claim that Federer is superior to Nadal in any way.
2- Every career is different. Every great player achieved different things and in different ways. What do you want, clones? How interesting would that be? Every career has its own measure of unpredictability and none is perfect. Often great players complement (not exclude) each other.

Yes there is no doubt Nadal has been ahead of Federer's pace up to this point in time. The coming years is when that will become a much bigger challenge though, as it was the years Federer turned 23, 24, 25, and 26 where he was winning 3 slams a year almost every year. In all likelihood this is where you will see Federer chewing up that early ground Nadal was ahead quickly.

 

[veroniquem]

Yes there is no doubt Nadal has been ahead of Federer's pace up to this point in time. The coming years is when that will become a much bigger challenge though, as it was the years Federer turned 23, 24, 25, and 26 where he was winning 3 slams a year almost every year. In all likelihood this is where you will see Federer chewing up that early ground Nadal was ahead quickly.

Maybe but since nobody can predict the future, the time is not right for bashing. Nadal should be praised for his extraordinary achievements at the moment. The OP's contempt is outlandish in the face of Nadal's awesome career so far.

 

[gj011]

In 2003 (the year Fed turned 22 as Nadal did this year), this is what Fed did in slams: AO 4th round
FO 1st round
W winner (his first slam ever)
USO 4th round.
That doesn't compare favorably with Nadal's year, does it? You want to try the master series? Fed in 2003:
Indian Wells 2nd round
Miami quarter
Monte-Carlo didn't play
Rome finalist
Hamburg 3rd round
Canada semi
Cincinnati 2nd round
Madrid semi
Paris quarter
Now do you see the difference with Nadal's year yet or you still have mud in your eyes?
1- You have no clue what you're talking about. Until now every Nadal year has been vastly superior to Federer at the same age, so you don't have any valid argument to claim that Federer is superior to Nadal in any way.
2- Every career is different. Every great player achieved different things and in different ways. What do you want, clones? How interesting would that be? Every career has its own measure of unpredictability and none is perfect. Often great players complement (not exclude) each other.

Check and mate. Thread closed.

 

[bladepdb]

Disregarding all the current accomplishments of both players, let's not forget Nadal is much younger than Fed is. The significance of that is that Nadal has not had as many "dominant" seasons as Federer has. Let's pick up on this topic after giving Nadal 5 more years (sadly, assuming he can keep up his rhythm for that long).

 

[zagor]

In 2003 (the year Fed turned 22 as Nadal did this year), this is what Fed did in slams: AO 4th round
FO 1st round
W winner (his first slam ever)
USO 4th round.
That doesn't compare favorably with Nadal's year, does it? You want to try the master series? Fed in 2003:
Indian Wells 2nd round
Miami quarter
Monte-Carlo didn't play
Rome finalist
Hamburg 3rd round
Canada semi
Cincinnati 2nd round
Madrid semi
Paris quarter
Now do you see the difference with Nadal's year yet or you still have mud in your eyes?
1- You have no clue what you're talking about. Until now every Nadal year has been vastly superior to Federer at the same age, so you don't have any valid argument to claim that Federer is superior to Nadal in any way.
2- Every career is different. Every great player achieved different things and in different ways. What do you want, clones? How interesting would that be? Every career has its own measure of unpredictability and none is perfect. Often great players complement (not exclude) each other.

While I overall I agree with you here,this is a bit of a double standard from you IMO.You are always quick to acknowledge how Sampras has a superior career to Fed while you fail to mention that Sampras is retired while Fed is 27.Sampras won his 13th slam one month shy of his 29th birthday while Fed won his 13th slam at the age of 27,so if we you use your logic then Fed is ahead of Sampras at his age hence you don't have a valid argument to claim that Sampras is superior to Federer in any way.

 

[NadalForever]

While I overall I agree with you here,this is a bit of a double standard from you IMO.You are always quick to acknowledge how Sampras has a superior career to Fed while you fail to mention that Sampras is retired while Fed is 27.Sampras won his 13th slam one month shy of his 29th birthday while Fed won his 13th slam at the age of 27,so if we you use your logic then Fed is ahead of Sampras at his age hence you don't have a valid argument to claim that Sampras is superior to Federer in any way.

Sampras at the same age finished 6 years year end #1 whereas Federer finished only 4 years year end #1. This is an actual statistic to be able to make a claim that Sampras is a superior player.

 

[LurkingGod]

Maybe but since nobody can predict the future, the time is not right for bashing. Nadal should be praised for his extraordinary achievements at the moment. The OP's contempt is outlandish in the face of Nadal's awesome career so far.

Damn right he should be. That's the main reason I'm here defending him left right and center as if I'm his fanboy when in fact if anyone said I like Nadal last year I'd laugh my butts off.

The kid just achieved his life long dream winning his first big W when even himself thought he'd blown his last chance the year before. He reached no.1 a few months after being one match away from losing his no.2 twice. He arrived at the Olympics with the last drop of his strength and won the gold. He's had the best year of his career so far, the career that could've ended with his foot injury 3 years ago.

It's great to be a tennis fan.

 

[zagor]

Damn right he should be. That's the main reason I'm here defending him left right and center as If I'm his fanboy when in fact if anyone said I like Nadal last year I'd laugh my butts off.

The kid just achieved his life long dream winning his first big W when even himself thought he'd blown his last chance the year before. He reached no.1 a few months after coming one match away from losing his no.2 twice. He arrived at the Olympics with the last drop of his strength and won the gold. He had the best year of his career so far, the career that could've ended with his foot injury 3 years ago.

Yeah he did have an amazing year,no question about it.His display of emotion when he won Wimbledon this year was touching no doubt,even though I'm a Fed fan I have to admit I was moved by it.This year Nadal ascended from a great player to an all-time great in my eyes,definitely amazing achivements so far,especially for someone so young.

 

[Cup8489]

In 2003 (the year Fed turned 22 as Nadal did this year), this is what Fed did in slams: AO 4th round
FO 1st round
W winner (his first slam ever)
USO 4th round.
That doesn't compare favorably with Nadal's year, does it? You want to try the master series? Fed in 2003:
Indian Wells 2nd round
Miami quarter
Monte-Carlo didn't play
Rome finalist
Hamburg 3rd round
Canada semi
Cincinnati 2nd round
Madrid semi
Paris quarter
Now do you see the difference with Nadal's year yet or you still have mud in your eyes?
1- You have no clue what you're talking about. Until now every Nadal year has been vastly superior to Federer at the same age, so you don't have any valid argument to claim that Federer is superior to Nadal in any way.
2- Every career is different. Every great player achieved different things and in different ways. What do you want, clones? How interesting would that be? Every career has its own measure of unpredictability and none is perfect. Often great players complement (not exclude) each other.

while this is indeed a good argument, you have to give nadal credit for literally exploding into the pro tour. i mean, he beat the world number 1 in the semi-finals of roland garros during his first tournament there, and won his first title at the french just days after turning 19. so if we were to examine nadal's form since his first slam with with federer's form since HIS first, we'd find that federer is in fact ahead of nadal IN THAT RESPECT.

but nadal has definitely got a head start on Greatness, and if he can manage to find a game plan a little similar to federers (in that he dictates play more and wears himself out less quickly) there's no reason to think he could be just as successful.

but federer's 2005 and 2006 seasons were, by any standard, awesomely incredible. oh, and someone said that the '05 season was subpar for federer, yet statistically, at least match wise, it was his winningest year to date, and likely to be period. but the 2006 year, didnt he lose to 2 people only, nadal and murray?

any other player, even JMac, would love to have either year in their repertiore (spelling. probably wrong )

but nadal's had a stellar year, for sure.

 

[LurkingGod]

Yeah he did have an amazing year,no question about it.His display of emotion when he won Wimbledon this year was touching no doubt,even though I'm a Fed fan I have to admit I was moved by it.This year Nadal ascended from a great player to an all-time great in my eyes,definitely amazing achivements so far,especially for someone so young.

I'm glad to hear that from a fed fan. As I said in another thread, you're fair.

 

[zagor]

I'm glad to hear that from a fed fan. As I said in another thread, you're fair.

Thanks,I try to be.I understand why you defend Nadal,you're right that his accomplishments should be respected no matter if you like his game or not.

 

[LurkingGod]

Thanks,I try to be.I understand why you defend Nadal,you're right that his accomplishments should be respected no matter if you like his game or not.

Lol... Even you had to defend Nadal sometimes. Personal opinion and the truth are two different things. I'd have to defend Fed too if people didn't stop talking about how he's done but Fed's Fed and he shut the haters up with his racket by winning US Open:twisted:.

 

[Mungo73]

Nadal dominates in a much tougher era. 2 slams,3 MS,olympics,davis cup???
Fed dominated mediocre competition, hasbeens past their primes,old players and youngsters not yet in their primes. Ljubicic world number 3 LMAO oh yeah and Baghdatis ROFL :lol:

 

[veroniquem]

While I overall I agree with you here,this is a bit of a double standard from you IMO.You are always quick to acknowledge how Sampras has a superior career to Fed while you fail to mention that Sampras is retired while Fed is 27.Sampras won his 13th slam one month shy of his 29th birthday while Fed won his 13th slam at the age of 27,so if we you use your logic then Fed is ahead of Sampras at his age hence you don't have a valid argument to claim that Sampras is superior to Federer in any way.

Sampras is superior in absolute terms but I think I've often written things like "so far" or "as it stands". Those remarks only came because people claimed that Fed was already the GOAT and I felt it was fair to reply "not yet". I'm very aware that Fed is close to overcoming Sampras and probably will if he stays healthy.

 

[oneleggedcardinal]

Sampras is superior in absolute terms but I think I've often written things like "so far" or "as it stands". Those remarks only came because people claimed that Fed was already the GOAT and I felt it was fair to reply "not yet". I'm very aware that Fed is close to overcoming Sampras and probably will if he stays healthy.

I would even go so far as to say that every GOAT candidate is, by definition, always "so far" or "as it stands." Time hasn't ended and tennis will still be played in the future. It's more realistic to compare players in similar fields with stats, etc., which is what I think this cutesy GOAT acronym is trying to get at anyway.

 

[aaron 3000]

How many 'newbies' in tennis are on board, seriously??

Fed's 4 years reign at number 1 would be superior to 99.9% of the other no.1s in history not just Nadal's. We all know he's the most dominated no.1 in history. What do you want to prove here? How many time you want to hear people say that Fed's better than anyone else?

Saying 1+1=2 repeatly 1,000 times a day doesn't make it anymore corrected. It just makes people annoyed.

Nadal fans didn't expect him to be as dominated as Fed. They're happy that he's reached no.1 eventually. If Nadal only beat Fed by 1 point to get his no.1 they'd still be happy for him.

The word is DOMINANT. DOMINANT! not dominated!

 

[LurkingGod]

The word is DOMINANT. DOMINANT! not dominated!

Another snobbish gramma & spelling police?

I marely wanted to get my point across. I didn't feel like rereading every single post of mine just so I could get a full mark from you. If you don't have anything to contribute to the subject you're entitled to shut up.

 

[aaron 3000]

Another snobbish gramma & spelling police?

I marely wanted to get my point across. I didn't feel like rereading every single post of mine just so I could get a full mark from you. If you don't have anything to contribute to the subject you're entitled to shut up.

Aw. Someone's upset? I was just helping you out so you don't look illiterate next time.

On a more intelligent note, Rafa's greatest season still does not compare to Federer's greatest. Fed's whole composition of work is overwhelming. Are we not comparing Federer's dominance to Nadal's single, great season? There's not much to compare.

 

[joeri888]

Fed was more dominant than Nadal will probably ever be. We all know that and there's no need to make a new thread for that. I think there's few people that want to argue that Nadal will dominate the tour like Federer did. However, it's mostly about what's now, and now Nadal is no.1 and Federer no.2.

 

[LurkingGod]

Aw. Someone's upset? I was just helping you out so you don't look illiterate next time.

In that case, my English teacher says thank you.

On a more intelligent note, Rafa's greatest season still does not compare to Federer's greatest. Fed's whole composition of work is overwhelming. Are we not comparing Federer's dominance to Nadal's single, great season? There's not much to compare.

I already answered that question. Fed's greatest year as no.1 has been considered among the greatest seasons in history. Nobody expected Nadal's season to be better. What's the point starting a thread just to state the obvious? There's nothing to compare here.

What I see is, there're some Fed fans who don't want Nadal fans to feel superior so they keep bringing up such fact to put them on their place. Am I right?

 

[Rhino]

In 2003 (the year Fed turned 22 as Nadal did this year), this is what Fed did in slams: AO 4th round
FO 1st round
W winner (his first slam ever)
USO 4th round.
That doesn't compare favorably with Nadal's year, does it? You want to try the master series? Fed in 2003:
Indian Wells 2nd round
Miami quarter
Monte-Carlo didn't play
Rome finalist
Hamburg 3rd round
Canada semi
Cincinnati 2nd round
Madrid semi
Paris quarter
Now do you see the difference with Nadal's year yet or you still have mud in your eyes?
1- You have no clue what you're talking about. Until now every Nadal year has been vastly superior to Federer at the same age, so you don't have any valid argument to claim that Federer is superior to Nadal in any way.
2- Every career is different. Every great player achieved different things and in different ways. What do you want, clones? How interesting would that be? Every career has its own measure of unpredictability and none is perfect. Often great players complement (not exclude) each other.

What does this have to do with anything? Don't you realize that people reach their potential at different ages, and they also lose it at different ages too? This thread had nothing to do with what age anybody was. Boris Becker won his 3 Wimbledons at age 17, 18 and 21 but nobody is going to say he's better than Federer just because he won it earlier. Winning a slam at a certain age doesn't make any difference. Is Michael Chang better than Goran Ivanisevic because of their ages when they won?
Will Nadal still be winning slams at 27? - it's unlikely.
I'm can assure you if Federer ends his career with 15 slams, and Nadal ends with 7, nobody will think Nadal is better because he reached puberty earlier.

 

[vtmike]

What does this have to do with anything? Don't you realize that people reach their potential at different ages, and they also lose it at different ages too? This thread had nothing to do with what age anybody was. Boris Becker won his 3 Wimbledons at age 17, 18 and 21 but nobody is going to say he's better than Federer just because he won it earlier. Winning a slam at a certain age doesn't make any difference. Is Michael Chang better than Goran Ivanisevic because of their ages when they won?
Will Nadal still be winning slams at 27? - it's unlikely.
I'm can assure you if Federer ends his career with 15 slams, and Nadal ends with 7, nobody will think Nadal is better because he reached puberty earlier.

Exactly.....people here fail to realize its not the age at which u reach your peak...it is the period you can maintain it for.....nobody can predict how long Nadal can maintain his current form.....i would guess not too long judging by his style of play!

 

[veroniquem]

Fed was more dominant than Nadal will probably ever be. We all know that and there's no need to make a new thread for that. I think there's few people that want to argue that Nadal will dominate the tour like Federer did. However, it's mostly about what's now, and now Nadal is no.1 and Federer no.2.

I'm challenging that assertion. I want to put the last nail in the coffin of 2 enduring myths on this board:
1- that Fed ever played a season that was MUCH more dominant
that Nadal's 2008 (to the point that it would even be ridiculous to try and compare)
2- that when Federer was dominant he would win (practically) everything and could go far in every tournament without getting tired (one extravagant myth that somehow refuses to die.)
Let's take 2004 (beginning of Federer's reign right?). Now Fed was a little older than Rafa but it's a very interesting year for comparison as Fed became #1 and it was an Olympic year too.
Fed won 3 slams which is 1 better than Rafa but in the 4th slam (FO) he lost in 3rd round (vs 2 wins 2 semis for Rafa). Fed has the edge on this one but still very comparable. Now let's see what happened in masters that same year (2004): Fed: 3 wins (IW, Hamb, Canada)
Miami 3rd round
Rome 2nd round
Cincinnati 1st round
Rome, Madrid, Paris (DID NOT PLAY AT ALL)
Olympics 2nd round
Compare with Rafa this year:
3 wins (MC, Hamb, Canada) + wins the Olympics.
1 final (Miami)
3 semis (IW, Cinci, Madrid)
1 quarter (Paris)
Rome: 2nd round.
0 SKIPPED MASTER.
So what does this stuff tells us? In terms of overall dominance, Rafa was more present, more consistent and more reliable than Fed. I think in terms of stamina and physical endurance, nobody compares to Rafa actually and certainly not Fed. Sure, Fed won a lot that year but he also skipped several masters and did poorly in 3 of them, that is 6 masters where he didn't go far at all (not even remotely) out of 9! (so much for going far in every tournament!) I can compare the other seasons if you want me to, I don't mind. I just think that this legend of Fed winning everything and effortlessly for 4 years has lived long enough, it's about time somebody debunked it. The way Fed is being idealized on this board is mindlessly overboard.

 

[ThugNasty]

I'm challenging that assertion. I want to put the last nail in the coffin of 2 enduring myths on this board:
1- that Fed ever played a season that was MUCH more dominant
that Nadal's 2008 (to the point that it would even be ridiculous to try and compare)
2- that when Federer was dominant he would win (practically) everything and could go far in every tournament without getting tired (one extravagant myth that somehow refuses to die.)
Let's take 2004 (beginning of Federer's reign right?). Now Fed was a little older than Rafa but it's a very interesting year for comparison as Fed became #1 and it was an Olympic year too.
Fed won 3 slams which is 1 better than Rafa but in the 4th slam (FO) he lost in 3rd round (vs 2 wins 2 semis for Rafa). Fed has the edge on this one but still very comparable. Now let's see what happened in masters that same year (2004): Fed: 3 wins (IW, Hamb, Canada)
Miami 3rd round
Rome 2nd round
Cincinnati 1st round
Rome, Madrid, Paris (DID NOT PLAY AT ALL)
Olympics 2nd round
Compare with Rafa this year:
3 wins (MC, Hamb, Canada) + wins the Olympics.
1 final (Miami)
3 semis (IW, Cinci, Madrid)
1 quarter (Paris)
Rome: 2nd round.
0 SKIPPED MASTER.
So what does this stuff tells us? In terms of overall dominance, Rafa was more present, more consistent and more reliable than Fed. I think in terms of stamina and physical endurance, nobody compares to Rafa actually and certainly not Fed. Sure, Fed won a lot that year but he also skipped several masters and did poorly in 3 of them, that is 6 masters where he didn't go far at all (not even remotely) out of 9! (so much for going far in every tournament!) I can compare the other seasons if you want me to, I don't mind. I just think that this legend of Fed winning everything and effortlessly for 4 years has lived long enough, it's about time somebody debunked it. The way Fed is being idealized on this board is mindlessly overboard.

ridiculous arguing about this,federer was more dominant than nadal in 2004,2005,2006, and 2007. In all of those years federer won more titles than nadal except 2007 where he tied nadal with 8. you love bragging about nadals age yet the guy is an old man with knee tendonits all the time. You have a habit of forgetting everything good federer has done. Having consecutive years with records 74-6, 82-3, 92-5 are worthy of praise. Federer did win tournaments almost effortlessly and this is an indication that you dont watch any tennis except for nadal.

 

[veroniquem]

Aw. Someone's upset? I was just helping you out so you don't look illiterate next time.

On a more intelligent note, Rafa's greatest season still does not compare to Federer's greatest. Fed's whole composition of work is overwhelming. Are we not comparing Federer's dominance to Nadal's single, great season? There's not much to compare.

Rafa is 22, there is 0 ground or basis to claim that this was his best season ever. At his age, it's very likely he will have other (more?) dominant seasons, that was his first one, that's the only thing we can say about it and also that it was more spectacular in many areas than Fed's first one.

 

[grafrules]

ridiculous arguing about this,federer was more dominant than nadal in 2004,2005,2006, and 2007. In all of those years federer won more titles than nadal except 2007 where he tied nadal with 8. you love bragging about nadals age yet the guy is an old man with knee tendonits all the time. You have a habit of forgetting everything good federer has done. Having consecutive years with records 74-6, 82-3, 92-5 are worthy of praise. Federer did win tournaments almost effortlessly and this is an indication that you dont watch any tennis except for nadal.

ITA. This veroniquem is almsot as annoying and delusional a Nadal obsessive addict as Nadal_Freak, Mungo, and NadalwonTheMostSlams. To argue Nadal's 2008 is even closer to any of Federer's most dominant years is hilarious. Isnt this the same poster who was trying to argue Nadal is the best hard court player of 2008 as well, LOL!

 

[veroniquem]

ridiculous arguing about this,federer was more dominant than nadal in 2004,2005,2006, and 2007. In all of those years federer won more titles than nadal except 2007 where he tied nadal with 8. you love bragging about nadals age yet the guy is an old man with knee tendonits all the time. You have a habit of forgetting everything good federer has done. Having consecutive years with records 74-6, 82-3, 92-5 are worthy of praise. Federer did win tournaments almost effortlessly and this is an indication that you dont watch any tennis except for nadal.

I watch everything in tennis and all the stats I gave are correct. They prove that Federer NEVER won EVERYTHING or made every final. It was just never true. You want me to continue with the so-called dominant years? Ok, let's do 2005. Slams: Fed: 2 wins 2 finals, exactly the same as Rafa right? Now masters:
Fed: 4 wins (IW, Miami, Hamb, Cinci)
1 quarter (Monte-carlo)
4 MASTERS SKIPPED (Rome, Canada, Madrid, Paris.)
The only difference is 4 masters wins, Rafa had 3 but also won the Olympics. As for the other masters, Rafa made semis and final as opposed to not playing them at all, which I'm sure even you would agree is more impressive.

 

[veroniquem]

ITA. This veroniquem is almsot as annoying and delusional a Nadal obsessive addict as Nadal_Freak, Mungo, and NadalwonTheMostSlams. To argue Nadal's 2008 is even closer to any of Federer's most dominant years is hilarious. Isnt this the same poster who was trying to argue Nadal is the best hard court player of 2008 as well, LOL!

All the information I gave is rigorously true. Since we're comparing overall dominance I took the slams and masters (or super 9) which are the tournaments that involve the best players on tour. And what we found out by looking at the ACTUAL results is that Fed was less dominant than his fans have claimed especially compared to Nadal's performance. You're the one who is deluded, blinded and refusing to confront facts. I'd say you need some serious brain de-conditioning, after all that brainwashing you have gone through, lol!

 

[David L]

Rafa is 22, there is 0 ground or basis to claim that this was his best season ever. At his age, it's very likely he will have other (more?) dominant seasons, that was his first one, that's the only thing we can say about it and also that it was more spectacular in many areas than Fed's first one.

The age argument is meaningless. Practically every past great had a better early career than Federer, but now they are all behind him and he is only half way through his career. Age is less of a factor than the skills and ability you bring to the table. It's not about when you bring them, but what you bring. Nadal is not likely to dominate on anything other than clay simply because he does not have the all-round ability Federer does. Success is not perpetual by necessity. It can come and go. Have a look at the history.

Wilander is a huge fan of Nadal, but even he knows when to call a spade a spade.

Ben in New York: Hi Mats. It is quite clear that you are one of the true Roger admirers amongst the pros. With Rafa winning the clay-grass double and Olympic gold, do you feel that in a way Nadal has already achieved more than Federer? Do you think that Roger's legacy might not be as glorious as it should?

Mats: I don't think so, just because he won the French and Wimbledon titles in the same year. Roger has won Wimbledon, the Australian and the US Open and made the French Open final three years in a row. He's so far ahead of Rafael Nadal in terms of legacy, it's scary. But a strange thing has been happening: even when Federer was the world number one, the only player he failed to beat regularly was the world number two, Nadal. And he now has a deficit against him. So that has added a strange twist to the whole story. But Federer has to lose to somebody and at least he's losing mainly to Nadal. Nothing is going to cast a shadow over Roger Federer's career.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/27082008/58/u-s-open-ask-mats-wilander-open-edition.html

 

[flying24]

I'm challenging that assertion. I want to put the last nail in the coffin of 2 enduring myths on this board:
1- that Fed ever played a season that was MUCH more dominant
that Nadal's 2008 (to the point that it would even be ridiculous to try and compare)
2- that when Federer was dominant he would win (practically) everything and could go far in every tournament without getting tired (one extravagant myth that somehow refuses to die.)
Let's take 2004 (beginning of Federer's reign right?). Now Fed was a little older than Rafa but it's a very interesting year for comparison as Fed became #1 and it was an Olympic year too.
Fed won 3 slams which is 1 better than Rafa but in the 4th slam (FO) he lost in 3rd round (vs 2 wins 2 semis for Rafa). Fed has the edge on this one but still very comparable. Now let's see what happened in masters that same year (2004): Fed: 3 wins (IW, Hamb, Canada)
Miami 3rd round
Rome 2nd round
Cincinnati 1st round
Rome, Madrid, Paris (DID NOT PLAY AT ALL)
Olympics 2nd round
Compare with Rafa this year:
3 wins (MC, Hamb, Canada) + wins the Olympics.
1 final (Miami)
3 semis (IW, Cinci, Madrid)
1 quarter (Paris)
Rome: 2nd round.
0 SKIPPED MASTER.
So what does this stuff tells us? In terms of overall dominance, Rafa was more present, more consistent and more reliable than Fed. I think in terms of stamina and physical endurance, nobody compares to Rafa actually and certainly not Fed. Sure, Fed won a lot that year but he also skipped several masters and did poorly in 3 of them, that is 6 masters where he didn't go far at all (not even remotely) out of 9! (so much for going far in every tournament!) I can compare the other seasons if you want me to, I don't mind. I just think that this legend of Fed winning everything and effortlessly for 4 years has lived long enough, it's about time somebody debunked it. The way Fed is being idealized on this board is mindlessly overboard.

Sorry Nadal fangirl (hmm Nadalgirl with a new username perhaps) but you are wrong. For starters 2004 is only Federer's 4th greatest year, so even if you were right that Nadal's 2008 was close to as good as Federer's 2004 (and you are wrong on that, Federer's 2004 is also far superior to Nadal's 2008 which I will get to at the end) you would still be wrong.

In 2005 Federer won 2 slams and was in 2 semis like Nadal this year. Nadal though has a 80-11 record for the 2008, while Federer had a 81-4 for 2005. Close, ummm NO. Federer also won 11 of 15 tournaments in 2005 vs 8 of 19 for Nadal in 2008, 4 Masters title and the Masters Cup vs Nadal's 3 Masters titles, so no comparision.

In 2006 Federer won 3 slams, was runner up in the other, which far trumps Nadal's 2 slam and 2 semis from this year. Federer also compiled a 90-5 record for the year, this time winning 12 of 17 tournaments. In fact the gap is even more enormous over Nadal's best ever year in 2006 then it already was in 2005.

In 2007 Federer won 3 slams, was runner up in the other, again far superior to winning 2 and losing in the semis of the other two. He won 8 of 17 tournaments and was 67-9 for the year, a slightly better match record and winning tournaments ratio then Nadal. He won only 2 Masters but won the Masters Cup. Still easily a better year then Nadal when considering the slam results.

So Nadal's 2008 is easily trumped by Federer's 2005, 2006, and 2007, by a significant margin, not a small one by any mean. 2005 has Federer with equal slam performance but far better overall performance, 2006 has Federer with far better slam and overall performance, and 2007 Federer with atleast as good of performance outside the slams and far better in the slams.

For the record I now point out you are quite wrong on 2004 as well. A 72-6 record, winning 11 of 17 tournaments, winning 3 Masters titles even while missing 3 with injury (including 2 on hard courts) and the Masters Cup, combined with 3 slam wins, is far superior to Nadal's 2008 as well.

 

[ThugNasty]

I watch everything in tennis and all the stats I gave are correct. They prove that Federer NEVER won EVERYTHING or made every final. It was just never true. You want me to continue with the so-called dominant years? Ok, let's do 2005. Slams: Fed: 2 wins 2 finals, exactly the same as Rafa right? Now masters:
Fed: 4 wins (IW, Miami, Hamb, Cinci)
1 quarter (Monte-carlo)
4 MASTERS SKIPPED (Rome, Canada, Madrid, Paris.)
The only difference is 4 masters wins, Rafa had 3 but also won the Olympics. As for the other masters, Rafa made semis and final as opposed to not playing them at all, which I'm sure even you would agree is more impressive.

nice of you to use 2005 when federer had many injuries as well a terrible one before the indoor season where he was on crutches for more than a month and amazingly made a come back at almost won 2005 TMC without playing a match on indoor this year.

 

[ThugNasty]

Sorry Nadal fangirl (hmm Nadalgirl with a new username perhaps) but you are wrong. For starters 2004 is only Federer's 4th greatest year, so even if you were right that Nadal's 2008 was close to as good as Federer's 2004 (and you are wrong on that, Federer's 2004 is also far superior to Nadal's 2008 which I will get to at the end) you would still be wrong.

In 2005 Federer won 2 slams and was in 2 semis like Nadal this year. Nadal though has a 80-11 record for the 2008, while Federer had a 81-4 for 2005. Close, ummm NO. Federer also won 11 of 15 tournaments in 2005 vs 8 of 19 for Nadal in 2008, 4 Masters title and the Masters Cup vs Nadal's 3 Masters titles, so no comparision.

In 2006 Federer won 3 slams, was runner up in the other, which far trumps Nadal's 2 slam and 2 semis from this year. Federer also compiled a 90-5 record for the year, this time winning 12 of 17 tournaments. In fact the gap is even more enormous over Nadal's best ever year in 2006 then it already was in 2005.

In 2007 Federer won 3 slams, was runner up in the other, again far superior to winning 2 and losing in the semis of the other two. He won 8 of 17 tournaments and was 67-9 for the year, a slightly better match record and winning tournaments ratio then Nadal. He won only 2 Masters but won the Masters Cup. Still easily a better year then Nadal when considering the slam results.

So Nadal's 2008 is easily trumped by Federer's 2005, 2006, and 2007, by a significant margin, not a small one by any mean. 2005 has Federer with equal slam performance but far better overall performance, 2006 has Federer with far better slam and overall performance, and 2007 Federer with atleast as good of performance outside the slams and far better in the slams.

For the record I now point out you are quite wrong on 2004 as well. A 72-6 record, winning 11 of 17 tournaments, winning 3 Masters titles even while missing 3 with injury (including 2 on hard courts) and the Masters Cup, combined with 3 slam wins, is far superior to Nadal's 2008 as well.

great post except for 2 corrections. In 2004 rogers record was 74-6 and in 2006 it was 92-5. Better Yet!

 

[bladepdb]

Disregarding all the current accomplishments of both players, let's not forget Nadal is much younger than Fed is. The significance of that is that Nadal has not had as many "dominant" seasons as Federer has. Let's pick up on this topic after giving Nadal 5 more years (sadly, assuming he can keep up his rhythm for that long).

Seriously...