Fed on Clay or Nadal on Grass?
- Thread starter Talker
- Start date
RF20Lennon
Legend
Against the field or each other?
Against the field Federer on clay is harder than Nadal on grass.
Against each other Nadal obviously.
Against the field Federer on clay is harder than Nadal on grass.
Against each other Nadal obviously.
Talker
Hall of Fame
Overall results.
mattavery24
Rookie
Overall results would obviously be Fed since he is a very accomplished clay court player, he just played with the best on clay of all time.
Hillarious since the record on grass is 2-1 and Federer is by far the better grass-court player.
And if it took the after-affects of mono, Federer on his first "mediocre" year, and playing until it was so dark the players could barely see the ball (which obviously benefits the player who is less aggressive) for that one victory late in the 5th set. Lets not even mention how much greater the disparity would be if it was fast grass, on which Nadal probably never would have made the finals.
If we're talking about prime Federer, I'm definitely going for him. I had the feeling that he was just as good as Nadal on clay versus the rest of the ATP field, he just couldn't beat Nadal. The topspin shots to his backhand, enhanced by the clay court, were too much for him.
Nadal just doesn't have a grass court-style game. It's like he still plays his clay game while on grass. I think that explains why he's so prone to upsets from players who do play a grass type game. I'm surprised he never lost to players like Tsonga or Berdych on the surface.
Nadal just doesn't have a grass court-style game. It's like he still plays his clay game while on grass. I think that explains why he's so prone to upsets from players who do play a grass type game. I'm surprised he never lost to players like Tsonga or Berdych on the surface.
NADALRECORD
Banned
This year I like Nadal's chances at Wimbledon more than Federer's chances at Roland Garros. Since Nadal had the stem-cell therapy, he's been talking like his knees are the best they've been for years (and I think he moved better at 2014 AO than he did at 2013 USO). Whereas Federer may claim to be improved, but he lost Nadal in straight sets last week (the first time he's lost to Nadal in straight sets at a slam, since 2008 RG).
Last edited:
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Comparing performance at majors:
Federer at RG:
RG finals - 5
RG titles - 1
W/L v Nadal - 0:5
Nadal at WIM:
WIM finals - 5
WIM titles - 2
W/L v Federer - 1:2
Common sense tells us that Nadal is better on grass than Federer on clay. But of course, none of the Fed****s will ever agree to that...
Federer at RG:
RG finals - 5
RG titles - 1
W/L v Nadal - 0:5
Nadal at WIM:
WIM finals - 5
WIM titles - 2
W/L v Federer - 1:2
Common sense tells us that Nadal is better on grass than Federer on clay. But of course, none of the Fed****s will ever agree to that...
N
NadalDramaQueen
Guest
I could agree to that. I do think that it might have more to do with Nadal being better on clay than Federer on grass though. Is that line of thought objectionable to you?
NADALRECORD
Banned
I'm not surprised that Berdych can't beat Nadal at Wimbledon. Did you see the 2010 Wimbledon final? That was Berdych at his absolute best (he beat Federer that year), and Nadal won in 3 comfortable sets.
Nadal goes for clean winners and stands closer to the baseline on grass, compared to clay/hardcourt. The only reason why Nadal hasn't done well at Wimbledon the last 2 years is because he's played smart by not bending his knees as much (they were not in good health, so the risk was too great as Nadal said). Now that Nadal's knees are the best they've been in years (as Nadal said after the stem-cell therapy this year), you will see him use his knees more on grass.
Last edited:
Federer never lost in the 1st and 2nd round at RG even when he's past his prime. However prime Nadal who lost 1st and 2nd round back-to-back year.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Fair enough, but you need to consider these as well :
How about stats on early round losses ?
Federer has only lost to Nadal in those finals, while Nadal has lost to Novak in addition.
Federer has lost to Tsonga, Soderling, Novak and Nadal
Nadal has lost to Rosol, Darcis, Novak, Fed and Injury.
NADALRECORD
Banned
I think we should count the "before prime" results. In 2006, Nadal had not reached his prime, and yet we count the fact he made the 2006 Wimbledon Final and lost in 4 sets. Just to be fair, lets count Federer's "before prime" results too. Federer lost in the 1st Round of Roland Garros (3 times) and also lost in the 1st Round of Wimbledon (3 times).
Nice try. Nadal was already the #2 rank player in the world in 2005 and have won a slam. Federer won his 1st slam in 2003 so to count his 1st round loss at RG in 1999 is ridiculous.
Nadal was in his prime in 2012 and 2013 when he lost 2nd and 1st round respectively. That is an equivalent to Roger losing early in 2007 and 2008 at RG. However he end up making final in both of those years.
Manus Domini
Hall of Fame
I'm reading this as, "Who would beat the other on his opponent's best surface."
A: Nadal, no questions asked.
A: Nadal, no questions asked.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Let me explain this to you, there is 1 grass major and 1 clay major. Federer has 1 RG title and Nadal has 2 Wimbledon titles including beating prime Federer in a final and pushing him to the limit in 2007 as well.
Federer has never taken even 2 sets against Nadal at RG.
Therefore, Nadal on grass > Federer on clay but because you're too in love with Federer, you will never be able to accept that.
Look at early round losses as much as you want, Federer lost 3 times at both RG and WIM in the first round. In fact, as a top 10 player in 2002, he had consecutive first round exits at both RG and WIM.
Murrayfan31
Hall of Fame
Nadal has 1 more slam on grass. He beat Fed there. Nadal wins.
Backspin1183
Talk Tennis Guru
1 FO > 2 Wimbledons. Roger Federer FTW!
Anti-Fedal
Professional
Nadal on grass definitely. More slams and he's beaten better players at Wimbledon than Federer has at RG.
Manus Domini
Hall of Fame
:lol: Fed beat a Soderling who took out Rafa.
T
TheAnty-vic
Guest
It's funny how Nadal never wins any positive polls in this forum, but wins all the negative ones.
Clearly they both have made 5 finals, but Nadal has 2 Wimbledon's and Federer has 1 RG. Nadal defeated Federer(toughest opponent there) at Wimby, but Federer could never defeat Nadal at RG.
People here are saying Fed better vs field at Clay( which of course is their reasoning, to override the fact that Nadal has more Wimbledon's), but in fact he still made 5 finals at RG, the same as Nadal did at Wimby.
Nadal has won whatever Grass has to offer - Queens + Wimbledon.
Federer hasn't won Montecarlo & Rome, still.
Objectively, Nadal on Grass > Federer on Clay.
But again tells you how ridiculous and lopsided, the poll results here are.
Fed fanboys dominate every place!
Clearly they both have made 5 finals, but Nadal has 2 Wimbledon's and Federer has 1 RG. Nadal defeated Federer(toughest opponent there) at Wimby, but Federer could never defeat Nadal at RG.
People here are saying Fed better vs field at Clay( which of course is their reasoning, to override the fact that Nadal has more Wimbledon's), but in fact he still made 5 finals at RG, the same as Nadal did at Wimby.
Nadal has won whatever Grass has to offer - Queens + Wimbledon.
Federer hasn't won Montecarlo & Rome, still.
Objectively, Nadal on Grass > Federer on Clay.
But again tells you how ridiculous and lopsided, the poll results here are.
Fed fanboys dominate every place!
SystemicAnomaly
Bionic Poster
I believe that the OP had indicated he was talking about overall results against the field, not slam matches against each other. Given that, your (bolded) stats are not all that relevant.
Let's take a look at overall results. Roger has a 190-58 (77%) record on clay, whereas Rafa has a 50-13 (79%) record on grass. Roger has a lot more experience on clay (as a pro) than Rafa has on grass. Overall, Rafa has done slightly better on grass than Roger has on clay.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Berdych's lone slam final came at Wimbledon. He also beat Fed and Djokovic in a row to get there, although Djokovic was 1.0 and he has never been great on grass.
but federer only converted one breakpoint out of 13 i believe and he lost the first 2 sets during light
so darkness towards end of 5th set is not an excuse
Last edited:
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
So it's irrelevant that Nadal had to win his Wimbledon title by beating one of, if not the greatest grass courter of all time in his prime while Federer couldn't even take 2 sets of teenage Nadal at RG?
The only thing irrelevant is your contribution to this thread.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Nadal was better on grass than Federer was on clay. But I think unless Nadal picks his game up at Wimbledon Federer will have had better longevity on clay.
I give the edge to Nadal, although I don't think it's massive. The two finals in 07 and 08 seal it. He'd have several masters if the tour had them too.
I give the edge to Nadal, although I don't think it's massive. The two finals in 07 and 08 seal it. He'd have several masters if the tour had them too.
Federer is clearly better at the FO than Nadal is at Wimbledon because:
1) Federer only lost to the FO GOAT.
2) Nadal's five finals at Wimbledon is less than the five finals that Federer made at the FO.
3) Nadal intentionally lost early at Wimbledon in some years to avoid playing Federer, thus protecting his H2H record against Federer.
4) Nadal faked his injury the year after he won Wimbledon because he could not handle the pressure of being the defending champion.
5) The field at the French is alot tougher than the field at Wimbledon.
6) You can't count H2H
7) Federer is 5 year olders so any match at any time which involves Federer losing does not count. However, you must count the Nadal losses when he was still in diapers.
8) 1 = 2
9) Federer is Federer.
10) The 79% record Nadal has at Wimbledon is very close to the 77% record Federer has at the French Open, so they cancel each other out.
/thread
1) Federer only lost to the FO GOAT.
2) Nadal's five finals at Wimbledon is less than the five finals that Federer made at the FO.
3) Nadal intentionally lost early at Wimbledon in some years to avoid playing Federer, thus protecting his H2H record against Federer.
4) Nadal faked his injury the year after he won Wimbledon because he could not handle the pressure of being the defending champion.
5) The field at the French is alot tougher than the field at Wimbledon.
6) You can't count H2H
7) Federer is 5 year olders so any match at any time which involves Federer losing does not count. However, you must count the Nadal losses when he was still in diapers.
8) 1 = 2
9) Federer is Federer.
10) The 79% record Nadal has at Wimbledon is very close to the 77% record Federer has at the French Open, so they cancel each other out.
/thread
mike danny
Bionic Poster
let's see if Nadal will be able to make a W final at almost 30 like fed did at RG then i may give the edge completely to him.
Fed reaching a FO final at almost 30 has an edge for me
Fed reaching a FO final at almost 30 has an edge for me
NatF
Bionic Poster
2 wins > 1 win and a final at 30
mellowyellow
Legend
Could we please stop referring to that wimby as grass, it was anything but... maybe Fed would have beat Rafa in a RG final if they tailored the surface for low bounce.... like they did the grass for high above the shoulder bounce.
mellowyellow
Legend
Also, till they have both retired stats are meaningless. Percentages are also not relevant if totals are very skewed.
Murrayfan31
Hall of Fame
lol Fed fans can't vote objectively.
rafafan20
Professional
EZEZEZEZEZ
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
this. end thread/
p.s. Nadal's slam results at Wimbledon is obviously better than Fed's at FO. 2->1. But that's because of the above.
Fed_Djoker_Fan
Banned
Similar threads
- Poll
