Did Nadal Hurt Federer More Than Federer Hurt Nadal?

Who Hurt Who More?

  • Nadal Hurt Federer More

    Votes: 28 90.3%
  • Federer Hurt Nadal More

    Votes: 3 9.7%

  • Total voters
    31

REKX

Rookie
As a Federer and Nadal fan, I would say Federer is the greatest of all time and Nadal falls second no contest. I would say the slam count is not the most important tool, because Federer at the start and end of his career had very little competition, whilst Nadal competed in an era with Prime Federer and Prime Djokovic.

But as a comparison between the two as thread title says, who hurt who more? Who damaged who more?

I would say Nadal hurt Federer more overall, Wimbledon 2008 was probably the most defining moment in both their careers. To beat Federer at Wimbledon, this is whilst Federer was at his absolute best, he did not lose a set during 2008 Wimbledon until the final, and his 2008 stats leading up to Wimbledon that year were some of the best of his career. Nadal shouldn't have even got close to Federer in that final or previous finals on grass because Federer is the greatest grass court player of all time but Nadal managed to beat him.

The second moment was the 2009 Australian Open final. Again Federer was playing amazing, hitting the backhand clean and powerful, Nadal had little rest and played one of the longest ever matches for the semi, and it was a close high quality match but somehow Nadal managed to win.

Afterwards Federer was obviously very upset, at the fact that he could not beat Nadal whilst playing so well, it would break anyone knowing you are playing at your absolutely best and not being able to settle it. After his 2017 Australian win, he said he didn't mind if he lost and wouldn't mind sharing it with Nadal - the pressure was off at the time, it meant more in 2009 because they were both in their prime.
 

smoledman

G.O.A.T.
Rafa obviously took many more slams away from Roger than vice-versa. Roger would be sitting on 24 slams now if he had at least an even H2H in slams. Slam count would be 24-12!
 

Sudacafan

G.O.A.T.
As a Federer and Nadal fan, I would say Federer is the greatest of all time and Nadal falls second no contest. I would say the slam count is not the most important tool, because Federer at the start and end of his career had very little competition, whilst Nadal competed in an era with Prime Federer and Prime Djokovic.

But as a comparison between the two as thread title says, who hurt who more? Who damaged who more?

I would say Nadal hurt Federer more overall, Wimbledon 2008 was probably the most defining moment in both their careers. To beat Federer at Wimbledon, this is whilst Federer was at his absolute best, he did not lose a set during 2008 Wimbledon until the final, and his 2008 stats leading up to Wimbledon that year were some of the best of his career. Nadal shouldn't have even got close to Federer in that final or previous finals on grass because Federer is the greatest grass court player of all time but Nadal managed to beat him.

The second moment was the 2009 Australian Open final. Again Federer was playing amazing, hitting the backhand clean and powerful, Nadal had little rest and played one of the longest ever matches for the semi, and it was a close high quality match but somehow Nadal managed to win.

Afterwards Federer was obviously very upset, at the fact that he could not beat Nadal whilst playing so well, it would break anyone knowing you are playing at your absolutely best and not being able to settle it. After his 2017 Australian win, he said he didn't mind if he lost and wouldn't mind sharing it with Nadal - the pressure was off at the time, it meant more in 2009 because they were both in their prime.
And here’s the Federer and Nadal fan again.
Hermaphrodite tennis.
 

Devin

Semi-Pro
As a Nadal fan, I would say Nadal is the greatest of all time and Federer falls second no contest. I would say the slam count is not the most important tool, because Federer at the start and end of his career had very little competition, whilst Nadal competed in an era with Prime Federer and Prime Djokovic.

But as a comparison between the two as thread title says, who hurt who more? Who damaged who more?

I would say Nadal hurt Federer more overall, Wimbledon 2008 was probably the most defining moment in both their careers. To beat Federer at Wimbledon, this is whilst Federer was at his absolute best, he did not lose a set during 2008 Wimbledon until the final, and his 2008 stats leading up to Wimbledon that year were some of the best of his career. Nadal shouldn't have even got close to Federer in that final or previous finals on grass because Federer is the greatest grass court player of all time but Nadal managed to beat him.

The second moment was the 2009 Australian Open final. Again Federer was playing amazing, hitting the backhand clean and powerful, Nadal had little rest and played one of the longest ever matches for the semi, and it was a close high quality match but somehow Nadal managed to win.

Afterwards Federer was obviously very upset, at the fact that he could not beat Nadal whilst playing so well, it would break anyone knowing you are playing at your absolutely best and not being able to settle it. After his 2017 Australian win, he said he didn't mind if he lost and wouldn't mind sharing it with Nadal - the pressure was off at the time, it meant more in 2009 because they were both in their prime.

Fixed your post.
 

Sudacafan

G.O.A.T.
As a Nadal fan, I would say Nadal is the greatest of all time and Federer falls second no contest. I would say the slam count is not the most important tool, because Federer at the start and end of his career had very little competition, whilst Nadal competed in an era with Prime Federer and Prime Djokovic.

But as a comparison between the two as thread title says, who hurt who more? Who damaged who more?

I would say Nadal hurt Federer more overall, Wimbledon 2008 was probably the most defining moment in both their careers. To beat Federer at Wimbledon, this is whilst Federer was at his absolute best, he did not lose a set during 2008 Wimbledon until the final, and his 2008 stats leading up to Wimbledon that year were some of the best of his career. Nadal shouldn't have even got close to Federer in that final or previous finals on grass because Federer is the greatest grass court player of all time but Nadal managed to beat him.

The second moment was the 2009 Australian Open final. Again Federer was playing amazing, hitting the backhand clean and powerful, Nadal had little rest and played one of the longest ever matches for the semi, and it was a close high quality match but somehow Nadal managed to win.

Afterwards Federer was obviously very upset, at the fact that he could not beat Nadal whilst playing so well, it would break anyone knowing you are playing at your absolutely best and not being able to settle it. After his 2017 Australian win, he said he didn't mind if he lost and wouldn't mind sharing it with Nadal - the pressure was off at the time, it meant more in 2009 because they were both in their prime.

Fixed your post.
Fixing other people’s posts is legal?
 

REKX

Rookie
As a Nadal fan, I would say Nadal is the greatest of all time and Federer falls second no contest. I would say the slam count is not the most important tool, because Federer at the start and end of his career had very little competition, whilst Nadal competed in an era with Prime Federer and Prime Djokovic.

But as a comparison between the two as thread title says, who hurt who more? Who damaged who more?

I would say Nadal hurt Federer more overall, Wimbledon 2008 was probably the most defining moment in both their careers. To beat Federer at Wimbledon, this is whilst Federer was at his absolute best, he did not lose a set during 2008 Wimbledon until the final, and his 2008 stats leading up to Wimbledon that year were some of the best of his career. Nadal shouldn't have even got close to Federer in that final or previous finals on grass because Federer is the greatest grass court player of all time but Nadal managed to beat him.

The second moment was the 2009 Australian Open final. Again Federer was playing amazing, hitting the backhand clean and powerful, Nadal had little rest and played one of the longest ever matches for the semi, and it was a close high quality match but somehow Nadal managed to win.

Afterwards Federer was obviously very upset, at the fact that he could not beat Nadal whilst playing so well, it would break anyone knowing you are playing at your absolutely best and not being able to settle it. After his 2017 Australian win, he said he didn't mind if he lost and wouldn't mind sharing it with Nadal - the pressure was off at the time, it meant more in 2009 because they were both in their prime.

Fixed your post.
No.
 

fedtennisphan

Hall of Fame
As a Federer and Nadal fan, I would say Federer is the greatest of all time and Nadal falls second no contest. I would say the slam count is not the most important tool, because Federer at the start and end of his career had very little competition, whilst Nadal competed in an era with Prime Federer and Prime Djokovic.

But as a comparison between the two as thread title says, who hurt who more? Who damaged who more?

I would say Nadal hurt Federer more overall, Wimbledon 2008 was probably the most defining moment in both their careers. To beat Federer at Wimbledon, this is whilst Federer was at his absolute best, he did not lose a set during 2008 Wimbledon until the final, and his 2008 stats leading up to Wimbledon that year were some of the best of his career. Nadal shouldn't have even got close to Federer in that final or previous finals on grass because Federer is the greatest grass court player of all time but Nadal managed to beat him.

The second moment was the 2009 Australian Open final. Again Federer was playing amazing, hitting the backhand clean and powerful, Nadal had little rest and played one of the longest ever matches for the semi, and it was a close high quality match but somehow Nadal managed to win.

Afterwards Federer was obviously very upset, at the fact that he could not beat Nadal whilst playing so well, it would break anyone knowing you are playing at your absolutely best and not being able to settle it. After his 2017 Australian win, he said he didn't mind if he lost and wouldn't mind sharing it with Nadal - the pressure was off at the time, it meant more in 2009 because they were both in their prime.

Nope. 20 GS. SUK IT.
 

Praetorian

Professional
20 > 16, all you need to know. No amount of selective pseudo analysis is going to change that. When Nadal reaches the same amount as Nadal, then we can throw out that equalizing factor, an discuss minutia intangibles. But hey, if Nadal surpasses Federer, I'll consider him the GOAT.
 

Backspin1183

G.O.A.T.
I would respect you more if you just admitted that you’re only a Rafa fan and you hate Fed’s guts.
There are Federer and Nadal fans too out in the real world, you know. Although I suppose none of them follows them as closely as those of us that spend hours each day on a tennis forum.

I liked Federer before Nadal and were my favourite players. Then I started following their careers and achievements and it became difficult to root for both players when they are fighting each other for titles. My support and loyalty shifted to Nadal more and more and less and less with Federer. Now I don't mind Federer winning but I don't want him to win too much.
 

AiRFederer

Hall of Fame
As a djokovic fan, i am happy that he has tennis elbow. I had tennis elbow too you know, and now I can feel that I can really relate to my idol.
 

fedtennisphan

Hall of Fame
There are Federer and Nadal fans too out in the real world, you know. Although I suppose none of them follows them as closely as those of us that spend hours each day on a tennis forum.
The so-called Federer and Nadal fans I come across are really just Nadal fans and a Federer when it’s convenient kind of like Nadal. Did you think Nadal congratulate his friend Federer for winning his 20 GS title?
 

Backspin1183

G.O.A.T.
The so-called Federer and Nadal fans I come across are really just Nadal fans and a Federer when it’s convenient kind of like Nadal. Did you think Nadal congratulate his friend Federer for winning his 20 GS title?
What has this got to do with Nadal congratulating Federer? Does it matter to you if he does or doesn't? There are many casual fans who like them both which is why you they are so popular because many tennis fans like them both. Now I don't think these casual fans care too much about who is GOAT or not and do not follow them as closely as fans like us do. It's difficult for us to like them both equally because we always want the other to win more.
 

fedtennisphan

Hall of Fame
What has this got to do with Nadal congratulating Federer? Does it matter to you if he does or doesn't? There are many casual fans who like them both which is why you they are so popular because many tennis fans like them both. Now I don't think these casual fans care too much about who is GOAT or not and do not follow them as closely as fans like us do. It's difficult for us to like them both equally because we always want the other to win more.
Nadal cares who is GOAT. Nah, Federer is popular. Nadal is popular by proxy.
 

Backspin1183

G.O.A.T.
As a Federer and Nadal fan, I would say Federer is the greatest of all time and Nadal falls second no contest. I would say the slam count is not the most important tool, because Federer at the start and end of his career had very little competition, whilst Nadal competed in an era with Prime Federer and Prime Djokovic.

But as a comparison between the two as thread title says, who hurt who more? Who damaged who more?

I would say Nadal hurt Federer more overall, Wimbledon 2008 was probably the most defining moment in both their careers. To beat Federer at Wimbledon, this is whilst Federer was at his absolute best, he did not lose a set during 2008 Wimbledon until the final, and his 2008 stats leading up to Wimbledon that year were some of the best of his career. Nadal shouldn't have even got close to Federer in that final or previous finals on grass because Federer is the greatest grass court player of all time but Nadal managed to beat him.

The second moment was the 2009 Australian Open final. Again Federer was playing amazing, hitting the backhand clean and powerful, Nadal had little rest and played one of the longest ever matches for the semi, and it was a close high quality match but somehow Nadal managed to win.

Afterwards Federer was obviously very upset, at the fact that he could not beat Nadal whilst playing so well, it would break anyone knowing you are playing at your absolutely best and not being able to settle it. After his 2017 Australian win, he said he didn't mind if he lost and wouldn't mind sharing it with Nadal - the pressure was off at the time, it meant more in 2009 because they were both in their prime.
Just read the OP. The way you put it, it shows bias towards Nadal imho. You need to be fair to them both if you want to make an objective post about them.
 

fedtennisphan

Hall of Fame
After his 2017 Australian win, he said he didn't mind if he lost and wouldn't mind sharing it with Nadal - the pressure was off at the time, it meant more in 2009because they were both in their prime.

Bwaaaaaaaaahwaaaaaaaa!!!!
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
Stop saying youre a Fedal fan when each time you s*it all over Federer and drool over Nadal.

Nadal won multiple Slams in both periods too you know.
 

Tennease

Hall of Fame
Nadal only hurts himself and his fans and his image by cheating (on court coaching fines, time violation penalties, strategical MTOs) and constantly whining about tennis schedule, injuries and court surfaces.

 

Neil_Fedfan

Rookie
It's a no-brainer Nadal has hurt Fed in terms of career accomplishment than vice versa. 6 slam finals to 3 slam finals (not counting SFs like AO '12 and '14 since Fed would get beaten in final anyway) and last year he could've gotten #1 without Nadal as well (or if he gained some points during clay season) so no doubt about that. What Fed cost Nadal was the massive amount of time at #1, dating as far as back in '06 for those who value time spent at #1 (atleast 2 more YE #1 from '06-'07 and 100+ weeks as #1) and a second 3 slams season last year ;)
 

augustobt

Legend
Jesus christ. This poster may actually be some kind of algorithm in test. Every single post from him/her:

- As a Federer and Nadal fan (check)
- Wimbledon 2008 mentioned at least twice (check)

Please, Dude. Change the fn' record.
 

Kalin

Legend
By all metrics but one Nadal hurt Federer more.

OTOH, without Roger, Rafa would have been leading all kinds of GOAT lists and now he isn't. Roger is still on top, with or without Rafa.

So, I voted Nadal, but it is not a one-way street.
 

fedtennisphan

Hall of Fame
By all metrics but one Nadal hurt Federer more.

OTOH, without Roger, Rafa would have been leading all kinds of GOAT lists and now he isn't. Roger is still on top, with or without Rafa.

So, I voted Nadal, but it is not a one-way street.
Federer keeps several fanbases whining about how their fave doesn’t get enough attention when he’s around like their player some kind of star.
 

Fedforever

Hall of Fame
By all metrics but one Nadal hurt Federer more.

OTOH, without Roger, Rafa would have been leading all kinds of GOAT lists and now he isn't. Roger is still on top, with or without Rafa.

So, I voted Nadal, but it is not a one-way street.
It is actually an interesting question although I doubt the OP is interested in genuine debate. In terms of the numbers it's clear that Nadal hurt Federer more since Fed would presumably have won a lot of FOs without him. I suppose the main thing Nadal lost away from the statistics is that to some extent he is seen as the "anti-Federer" rather than standing in his own light. If you asked 1000 people on the street what was the most notable thing about Nadal I bet a high percentage would say "he beats Federer" - possibly even more than "he's good on clay."
 
Last edited:

fedtennisphan

Hall of Fame
It is actually an interesting question although I doubt the OP is interested in genuine debate. In terms of the numbers it's clear that Nadal hurt Federer more since Fed would presumably have won a lot of FOs without him. I suppose the main thing Nadal lost away from the statistics as that to some extent he is seen as the "anti-Federer" rather than standing in his own light. If you asked 1000 people on the street what was the most notable thing about Nadal I bet a high percentage would say "he beats Federer" - possibly even more than "he's good on clay."
No, they wouldn’t. They would be like who? That tennis player that picks his butt.
 

icazares

Rookie
Eh, no, Federer hurt the entire field. All major rivals are either injured or lacking motivation. Chasing Federer can be tolling.
 

fedtennisphan

Hall of Fame
Eh, no, Federer hurt the entire field. All major rivals are either injured or lacking motivation. Chasing Federer can be tolling.
That’s how I see as well. Roger’s consistency forces them to either stop him themselves or hope someone does it. They also have to stay healthy to go deep in the draws to match Federer.
 

Skyblues

New User
20 > 16, all you need to know. No amount of selective pseudo analysis is going to change that. When Nadal reaches the same amount as Nadal, then we can throw out that equalizing factor, an discuss minutia intangibles. But hey, if Nadal surpasses Federer, I'll consider him the GOAT.
So you have Laver below Sampras and Djokovic?
 

Skyblues

New User
At the Majors they have met 12 times Nadal winning 9. Obviously Nadal has hurt Federer a lot more.

Injuries have hurt Nadal. A congenitical birth defect has affected his knees. However on the other hand I refuse to subscribe to the view that two gentlemen with 36 grand slam titles between them have had their careers hurt. They have ensured the next 10 generations of their family line are secure for life!
 
Top