Federer admits Nadal better now than when they first started

[VPhuc tennis fan]

Only Nadal fans can brag about missing slams. Like this is a good thing.
Federer being again penalized for his consistency.

I came back after a couple of days off, and what do I see? Another (great) thread Fed-bashing propped up by none other by other illustrious TDK (aka KOT). What a surprise! What a surprise!
The funniest thing is TDK must be laughing his *** off now in his dark basement, watching Rafa's and Fed's fans tear at each other. Come on, guys, you should know better than this. KOT just started the fight, he NEVER EVER finishes it, just like a certain weak era, lucky ******* KOT loves to bash, Fed.
Let's see: Fed admits Rafa's better now than before. And ...so...? Does that admission erase anything Fed has accomplished? HELL...NO. Does it enhance Rafa's achievements more than what they are? HELL...NO. Only KOT tried to pore in between the lines, projects, extends beyond what the words truly mean, and then claim, "Aha, Rafa must be GREATER, BETTER than Fed since Fed admits it" Load of bullcrap, if you ask my opinion.
KOT, you kept referring to "in my book". You wrote a book somewhere? Published where? LOL. Editor"Dark Basement"?!!! LOL.
Guys, stop feeding this freaking troll!
BTW, KOT, are you old enough to even watch Sampras, Rafter play? Or you just watch these youtube clips for lessons? I wouldn't even to ask if you know who Laver is!

 

[jg153040]

I came back after a couple of days off, and what do I see? Another (great) thread Fed-bashing propped up by none other by other illustrious TDK (aka KOT). What a surprise! What a surprise!
The funniest thing is TDK must be laughing his *** off now in his dark basement, watching Rafa's and Fed's fans tear at each other. Come on, guys, you should know better than this. KOT just started the fight, he NEVER EVER finishes it, just like a certain weak era, lucky ******* KOT loves to bash, Fed.
Let's see: Fed admits Rafa's better now than before. And ...so...? Does that admission erase anything Fed has accomplished? HELL...NO. Does it enhance Rafa's achievements more than what they are? HELL...NO. Only KOT tried to pore in between the lines, projects, extends beyond what the words truly mean, and then claim, "Aha, Rafa must be GREATER, BETTER than Fed since Fed admits it" Load of bullcrap, if you ask my opinion.
KOT, you kept referring to "in my book". You wrote a book somewhere? Published where? LOL. Editor"Dark Basement"?!!! LOL.
Guys, stop feeding this freaking troll!
BTW, KOT, are you old enough to even watch Sampras, Rafter play? Or you just watch these youtube clips for lessons? I wouldn't even to ask if you know who Laver is!

Well to be fair fan wars were here long before TDK. It's in people's nature.
And there are always two to argue. Fed fans are responding.

So I guess we can't blame TDK for this. If a smarter person gets dragged down to a lower level to argue he has only himself to blame.

So the smarter person is to blame I guess. When arguing with a fool you better watch out, because people watching can't tell the difference.

So I don't blame anyone if they have illogical arguments. It's actually quite fun to see what will the haters come up with next. Sometimes they surprise you still.

 

[bullfan]

I came back after a couple of days off, and what do I see? Another (great) thread Fed-bashing propped up by none other by other illustrious TDK (aka KOT). What a surprise! What a surprise!
The funniest thing is TDK must be laughing his *** off now in his dark basement, watching Rafa's and Fed's fans tear at each other. Come on, guys, you should know better than this. KOT just started the fight, he NEVER EVER finishes it, just like a certain weak era, lucky ******* KOT loves to bash, Fed.
Let's see: Fed admits Rafa's better now than before. And ...so...? Does that admission erase anything Fed has accomplished? HELL...NO. Does it enhance Rafa's achievements more than what they are? HELL...NO. Only KOT tried to pore in between the lines, projects, extends beyond what the words truly mean, and then claim, "Aha, Rafa must be GREATER, BETTER than Fed since Fed admits it" Load of bullcrap, if you ask my opinion.
KOT, you kept referring to "in my book". You wrote a book somewhere? Published where? LOL. Editor"Dark Basement"?!!! LOL.
Guys, stop feeding this freaking troll!
BTW, KOT, are you old enough to even watch Sampras, Rafter play? Or you just watch these youtube clips for lessons? I wouldn't even to ask if you know who Laver is!

Bingo. It's a no brainier that Rafa has improved from the time he became pro. And yes, that has zero impact on what Feds accomplished. It's a non-story.

 

[looseleftie]

Kinda wish that the acronym GOAT was never made up..

In tennis, there are several candidates from each 5-10yr period of the game, in both mens and womens who could qualify for the most part..

Laver,Borg, Mac, Lendyll, Sampras,Agassi,Fed and Nadal are all legends, a term I would rather apply than the singularly GOAT!!

Can someone tell me who the greatest NBA team is of all time? DO u go back to championships alone? or consistancy, or a combination of both?? Is it the Bulls, cause they beat LA Lakers more often H2H? however the LA Lakers might have won more championships... Is Man Utd or Real Madrid the GOAT in football??

There has to be an accurate criteria to judge anything , this relates to all sports ... 2c

My only real issue here, is what jg153040 mentioned, why the negatives.. I cannot understand why, but there seem to be many posters here who just hate on other players!!! Why?? It's one thing to support or have a favourite player, which I have several, but to continually look at bagging them out, or refer to the H2H thing, man, seems like they need to get some happiness in their lives...

Smile, cuddle and laugh more often, you will live longer!!

 

[NikeWilson]

Nadal has made it to 5 Wimbledon Finals. He won 2 Wimbledons. (He beat Federer and Berdych; Lost to Federer twice and Djokovic once)
Nadal made it to 2 US Open Finals. He won 1 US Open. (He beat Djokovic, Lost to Djokovic)
Nadal made it to 2 Australian Open Finals. He won 1 Australian. (He beat Federer; Lost to Djokovic)

This shows that he's not just a clay-court player.

 

[The Dark Knight]

Nadal has made it to 5 Wimbledon Finals. He won 2 Wimbledons. (He beat Federer and Berdych; Lost to Federer twice and Djokovic once)
Nadal made it to 2 US Open Finals. He won 1 US Open. (He beat Djokovic, Lost to Djokovic)
Nadal made it to 2 Australian Open Finals. He won 1 Australian. (He beat Federer; Lost to Djokovic)

This shows that he's not just a clay-court player.

Now lets compare Feds competition ....

Philopusis ....never won a wimby or slam
Roddick 4x .....never won a wimby or slam
Nadal 2x ....at that point never won a wimby
Safin....never won a wimby
Joker ....at that time never won a slam
Bagdatis ....never won an AO or any slam
Gonzales ....never won AO or slam
Hewitt..... I dont think he ever won an AO ....won slams in 1902
Soderling ....never won a FO or a slam
Murray ....at that point never won a slam

Who am I missing ?

 

[The Dark Knight]

Bingo. It's a no brainier that Rafa has improved from the time he became pro. And yes, that has zero impact on what Feds accomplished. It's a non-story.

No because people count the only two slams Fed was able to win against him when he still was a boy.

Since becoming a man Fed is 0-8 against Nadal.

 

[The Dark Knight]

I don't reply to TDK because he's on my ignore list. And of course, he's wrong if he said Jordan was perfect. He has some hiccups of his own, just like all the great one. Not only Jordan trailed h2h against Isiah in the 80s, Jordan was also 0-2 in the playoff series against Bird and Celtics. But no one care about their h2h either, they only know Jordan is the greatest because of his impressive numbers and championship rings.

The Bulls dynasty was greater than the Pistons and the Celtics between the 80s and 90s. But the superstar player...Isiah and Bird both has the edge over Jordan in h2h. Haha !

The problem is I didn't say it .....ESPN did.

So they can join the count of your labeled "fed haters"....from Sampras , to Borg , to Becker to wilander ....to anyone who has any opinion other than Fed is the goat.

 

[The Dark Knight]

I don't reply to TDK because he's on my ignore list.

Like I'm supposed to be offended ?

I'm on you ignore list because you can't respond and your like a little spoiled brat who when they don't get their way throws a temper tantrum and sticks their finger in their ears and yells "Feds the goat Feds the goat"

You keep repeating ignore list.....no one cares you look like a compete and utter idiot .

I can now just hit forehand winner after forehand winner and you can't do sheet about it you idiot.

 

[Nitish]

Now lets compare Feds competition ....

Philopusis ....never won a wimby or slam
Roddick 4x .....never won a wimby or slam
Nadal 2x ....at that point never won a wimby
Safin....never won a wimby
Joker ....at that time never won a slam
Bagdatis ....never won an AO or any slam
Gonzales ....never won AO or slam
Hewitt..... I dont think he ever won an AO ....won slams in 1902
Soderling ....never won a FO or a slam
Murray ....at that point never won a slam

Who am I missing ?

do you actually know anything abt tennis?
lets do one for nadal
fo 2005 puerta...never won a slam
fo2006-08 fed....never won fo at that point
fo 2010 soderling.....never won a slam
wim 2010 berdych....never won a slam
uso 2010 djokovic ....won a slam in 1950(he won in 2008, hewitt won his last slam in 2002 and played fed in the finals in 2004 so the analogy is similar)
fo 2012 djokovic ....never won fo

 

[beast of mallorca]

Kinda wish that the acronym GOAT was never made up..

In tennis, there are several candidates from each 5-10yr period of the game, in both mens and womens who could qualify for the most part..

Laver,Borg, Mac, Lendyll, Sampras,Agassi,Fed and Nadal are all legends, a term I would rather apply than the singularly GOAT!!

Can someone tell me who the greatest NBA team is of all time? DO u go back to championships alone? or consistancy, or a combination of both?? Is it the Bulls, cause they beat LA Lakers more often H2H? however the LA Lakers might have won more championships... Is Man Utd or Real Madrid the GOAT in football??

There has to be an accurate criteria to judge anything , this relates to all sports ... 2c

My only real issue here, is what jg153040 mentioned, why the negatives.. I cannot understand why, but there seem to be many posters here who just hate on other players!!! Why?? It's one thing to support or have a favourite player, which I have several, but to continually look at bagging them out, or refer to the H2H thing, man, seems like they need to get some happiness in their lives...

Smile, cuddle and laugh more often, you will live longer!!

I agree to where you're coming from But TDK (and other accounts) is the only Nadal fan who does this, whereas Nadal haters aka Worshippers are a dime and a dozen who make troll threads. So, either way, both sides are to be blamed. Guess, it's a circle.
That's why you just need to laugh about it and move on.

 

[Murrayfan31]

The funny thing is Nadal has actually gotten worse. He's in slow motion compared to a few years ago. Fed is just in denial that he's on the decline.

 

[socal1976]

Yes that is why he has been to every single final of every tournament he has entered since he has comeback, because apparently he has gotten worse? Nadal is lightyears better on a hardcourt than he was and has added about 10-12 miles an hour on his first serve, but he can't be as good as when he smoked Federer in his prime.

 

[zagor]

I was arguing that having poor record on clay and on non clay is not the same.Because of the distribution.

Nadal has 4 slams on non clay. But Sampras has 0 slams on clay.
Do you see the problem with this comparison?

Well sure, there was never more than one slam on clay but things change (as I said at one point there were zero slams on HC) and Nadal proved his mettle off his best surface much more than Sampras.

That said, of course Nadal and Toni were aware about surface distribution when he was starting out.

 

[zagor]

I agree to where you're coming from But TDK (and other accounts) is the only Nadal fan who does this, whereas Nadal haters aka Worshippers are a dime and a dozen who make troll threads. So, either way, both sides are to be blamed. Guess, it's a circle.
That's why you just need to laugh about it and move on.

No, not really, but continue keeping your head in the sand.

 

[zagor]

Are you kidding ?

He made like 5 Wimbledon finals in a row ????

And the only people who lost to were Federer ( whole still developing ) and joker .

The Wimbledon he missed he returned the very next year.

You're forgetting someone, maybe? Mighty Rosol?

Regardless you convinced us all that Fed sucks and losing to Novak was utterly embarrassing considering Novak has never won Wimbledon at that point

Lets not forget Nadal has missed 7 slams and still won 11.....who else can say they did that ?

Laver and Borg, learn some tennis history.

Now lets compare Feds competition ....

Philopusis ....never won a wimby or slam
Roddick 4x .....never won a wimby or slam
Nadal 2x ....at that point never won a wimby
Safin....never won a wimby
Joker ....at that time never won a slam
Bagdatis ....never won an AO or any slam
Gonzales ....never won AO or slam
Hewitt..... I dont think he ever won an AO ....won slams in 1902
Soderling ....never won a FO or a slam
Murray ....at that point never won a slam

Who am I missing ?

-Roddick won a slam.

-Safin never won Wimby? What has that got to do with anything?

-Hewitt won USO and Wimbledon, Fed beat him multiple times at both venues.

But here, let's do one for Nadal's FOs:

-2005 Puerta never won a slam

-2006 Fed, at that point never won FO

-2007 Fed, at that point never won FO

-2008 Fed, at that point never won FO

-2010 Soderling, never won a slam.

-2011 Fed, his most impressive win I guess.

-2012 Novak, never won a FO (so far).


Oh my, so I guess Nadal's claim to fame on clay is beating a one slam FO wonder once, a player who according to you is a mentally weak loser who crumbles under slightest pressure and who fluked his way to his one FO title.

 

[Federer20042006]

I'll just throw in the other side of the whole, "Federer got dominated by his main rival, Sampras didn't" argument.


Take Agassi away, and Sampras wins 2, maybe 3 more slams in his career (if we give him 1992 French Open, which is a stretch).

Take Nadal away and Federer wins 6 or 7 more slams (2008 French Open is a question mark if he plays Djokovic, and he wouldn't have won AO last year if he'd played Djokovic in the final).

And let's face it, if Federer dominated Nadal, Nadal would be seen as another bum in the "weak competition" era. His status is entirely dependent on beating Federer. Otherwise, he's Lleyton Hewitt or Andy Roddick...the clay excelling version.

 

[jg153040]

You're forgetting someone, maybe? Mighty Rosol?

Regardless you convinced us all that Fed sucks and losing to Novak was utterly embarrassing considering Novak has never won Wimbledon at that point



Laver and Borg, learn some tennis history.



-Roddick won a slam.

-Safin never won Wimby? What has that got to do with anything?

-Hewitt won USO and Wimbledon, Fed beat him multiple times at both venues.

But here, let's do one for Nadal's FOs:

-2005 Puerta never won a slam

-2006 Fed, at that point never won FO

-2007 Fed, at that point never won FO

-2008 Fed, at that point never won FO

-2010 Soderling, never won a slam.

-2011 Fed, his most impressive win I guess.

-2012 Novak, never won a FO (so far).


Oh my, so I guess Nadal's claim to fame on clay is beating a one slam FO wonder once, a player who according to you is a mentally weak loser who crumbles under slightest pressure and who fluked his way to his one FO title.

What people don't realize is that if you criticize Nadal you criticize Fed or vice versa.

So if Fed is bad, this means Nadals only clay to fame is like you've said one guy who fluked one FO title.

But if people citicize Nadal this means Federer played a weak player.

So the better Nadal does, the better Fed looks. Means Fed had a Borg-like player 5 years younger and a bad matchup. And he still won so much.

 

[beast of mallorca]

No, not really, but continue keeping your head in the sand.

As you do...........

 

[jg153040]

do you actually know anything abt tennis?
lets do one for nadal
fo 2005 puerta...never won a slam
fo2006-08 fed....never won fo at that point
fo 2010 soderling.....never won a slam
wim 2010 berdych....never won a slam
uso 2010 djokovic ....won a slam in 1950(he won in 2008, hewitt won his last slam in 2002 and played fed in the finals in 2004 so the analogy is similar)
fo 2012 djokovic ....never won fo

I hate to repeat myself mentioning circular reasoning again. But this forum would be so nice if some people could understand it.

You are right of course. If Nadal wins so much, he can't play vs multiple RG champions. The same goes for any player.

 

[jg153040]

Kinda wish that the acronym GOAT was never made up..

In tennis, there are several candidates from each 5-10yr period of the game, in both mens and womens who could qualify for the most part..

Laver,Borg, Mac, Lendyll, Sampras,Agassi,Fed and Nadal are all legends, a term I would rather apply than the singularly GOAT!!

Can someone tell me who the greatest NBA team is of all time? DO u go back to championships alone? or consistancy, or a combination of both?? Is it the Bulls, cause they beat LA Lakers more often H2H? however the LA Lakers might have won more championships... Is Man Utd or Real Madrid the GOAT in football??

There has to be an accurate criteria to judge anything , this relates to all sports ... 2c

My only real issue here, is what jg153040 mentioned, why the negatives.. I cannot understand why, but there seem to be many posters here who just hate on other players!!! Why?? It's one thing to support or have a favourite player, which I have several, but to continually look at bagging them out, or refer to the H2H thing, man, seems like they need to get some happiness in their lives...

Smile, cuddle and laugh more often, you will live longer!!

Yeah , I'm with you on that one.

Worshiping a player is ok as long as we do it together without the hate.
Non haters probably will live longer. I think scientific evidence shows that the most deaths in our history are caused by negative emotions.

 

[zagor]

As you do...........

Nope, I fully realize that mud slinging goes on both sides but it's just that mud slinging from one side bothers me far less because of my personal bias.

I don't claim one side is better than the other, or that one side only has one bad/rotten apple (like you did in this thread).

 

[sbengte]

do you actually know anything abt tennis?
lets do one for nadal
fo 2005 puerta...never won a slam
fo2006-08 fed....never won fo at that point
fo 2010 soderling.....never won a slam
wim 2010 berdych....never won a slam
uso 2010 djokovic ....won a slam in 1950(he won in 2008, hewitt won his last slam in 2002 and played fed in the finals in 2004 so the analogy is similar)
fo 2012 djokovic ....never won fo

LOL too much pwnage here. Don't think TDK saw it coming.

 

[TennisLovaLova]

TDK's biggest mistake is that he judges Fed's runner ups and states they were not great tennis players.
I really would like to see those guys (philipoussis, safin, gonzalez, hewitt) at their peak and playing on the tour right now.
This is the only way to prove that they were weak...

 

[Chanwan]

Fed says Nadal improved in 2008.

So how many slams does Fed have since 2008? That's when Nadal was no longer a boy but a man....according to Roger Federer.

Fed has i think 3 slams .....and one of them was when Nadal skipped.

Where does he say that? Certainly not in your quote. And get your facts straight. Five slams since 2008. Against the 'strongest field ever' - while being half old.

 

[jg153040]

I'll just throw in the other side of the whole, "Federer got dominated by his main rival, Sampras didn't" argument.


Take Agassi away, and Sampras wins 2, maybe 3 more slams in his career (if we give him 1992 French Open, which is a stretch).

Take Nadal away and Federer wins 6 or 7 more slams (2008 French Open is a question mark if he plays Djokovic, and he wouldn't have won AO last year if he'd played Djokovic in the final).

And let's face it, if Federer dominated Nadal, Nadal would be seen as another bum in the "weak competition" era. His status is entirely dependent on beating Federer. Otherwise, he's Lleyton Hewitt or Andy Roddick...the clay excelling version.

Yeah and on top of that Sampras and Agassi dynamics are completely different.
They are the same age. And Agassi was underachiever in his prime. His best tennis was when he was post prime.

The other thing is, what defines a main rival or an era? Nadal and Federer are from different generations like Agassi and Federer.

But Agassi and Federer both make it competitive in their post primes.
So is Agassi considererd a Feds rival?

What if you dominate a rival a lot, so does this mean he isn't your rival?
Like prime Fed did to all except Nadal on clay.

Was Becker the rival of Sampras? Is a guy with 2 slams a rival or not? Can you have more main rivals? Is Murray the rival of Nadal? They never met in slam finals.

But rivarly is also the atp race for nr.1 spot and slam count.

I mean who decides?

 

[The Dark Knight]

Here's the full article . Please don't give me the old crap. He was the same age as Joker and Nadal are now when he said it . Are Joker and Nadal washed up?

http://m.atpworldtour.com/News/Tenn...Garros-Wednesday-Federer-On-Nadal-Growth.aspx

Tennis - ATP World Tour - Federer: Nadal From Boy To Man

Roger Federer has witnessed Rafael Nadal’s transition from a boy to a man. On Wednesday at Roland Garros, the Swiss reflected on the growth in his rival’s game from their first meeting in 2004, when Nadal was 17 years of age.

“Well, he is more or less still the same player,” shared the 31-year-old Federer, “because when you come on the tour for the first time, you already have your own basis. So your strengths will remain your strengths and your weaknesses will remain your weaknesses, although you can improve them.

“I believe Rafa improved in both. His strengths are even better now and his weaknesses are better, although they're still not as good as his strengths. Of course also he's fitter. He's no longer a young boy. He's a man now. He has experience on top of that. So he really improved. It's spectacular and the results are there to show, to prove it.”

The pair faced off two weeks ago in Rome, their first meeting in a final since 2011 at Roland Garros, and Nadal won in straight sets to improve to a 20-10 mark in their FedEx ATP Head2Head series.

With the victory, the Spaniard claimed his sixth title from eight finals this season and his 41st clay-court crown, second best on the list of Open Era leaders behind Guillermo Vilas with 45. Last year, Nadal won Roland Garros for a seventh time to break the record he shared with Bjorn Borg.

Federer, who has a 2-13 mark against Nadal on clay, weighed how he’d fare against Borg on the surface. “Probably not so good,” he stated. “He was one of the greatest clay court players of all time. He was fighting with the wood racquets, and it was a different time. That's why I never quite know who was the greatest of all time.

“We will never know how we would have all matched up, because Borg would have played totally different in today's age. And Rafa would have played very different back then because you can't play the way he plays today, but great players find a way, and that's what Rafa is showing in these last 10 years.

“It's amazing how successful he is and how he brings it every single match, and he can really enjoy utmost respect [from] all the players for what he has achieved, not only just on clay. He is still stapled off as the clay court guy which he clearly is not anymore.”

View TV Schedule

Follow ATP World Tour On Twitter | Like Us On Facebook

 

[The Dark Knight]

. Five slams since 2008. Against the 'strongest field ever' - while being half old.

Thanks for that .

Well I forgot wimby 2009 because Nadal skipped that and Fed won against Yet again Roddick for a fourth time . That's not really the toughest filed ever.

He was 27 .....come on ???

And toughest field ever? Then you admit it !! Of this is the toughest field ever what was the filed before it??!

Fed had a cake walk by comparison . He ain't gonna be as succesful with this field no way no how .

 

[mike danny]

Thanks for that .

Well I forgot wimby 2009 because Nadal skipped that and Fed won against Yet again Roddick for a fourth time . That's not really the toughest filed ever.

He was 27 .....come on ???

And toughest field ever? Then you admit it !! Of this is the toughest field ever what was the filed before it??!

Fed had a cake walk by comparison . He ain't gonna be as succesful with this field no way no how .

shall i remind you how successful nadal got after djoker hit his prime?

 

[mike danny]

Thanks for that .

Well I forgot wimby 2009 because Nadal skipped that and Fed won against Yet again Roddick for a fourth time . That's not really the toughest filed ever.

He was 27 .....come on ???

And toughest field ever? Then you admit it !! Of this is the toughest field ever what was the filed before it??!

Fed had a cake walk by comparison . He ain't gonna be as succesful with this field no way no how .

and i really do not understand you. u said that as long as federer is pushed he deserves that slam. u said that as long as u have competition u deserve the slam. u said that as ling as u win a tough slam final it is deserved. seriously now i realize you are just bashing fed. roddick pushed him harder than djoker or murray for ex ever did that year. he won one of the most toughest slam finals ever against a good player who made 3 wimby finals and could have won one if not for fed. seriously do you think it was easy to do what fed did? so for a slam to count it does not matter who pushes him to 16-14 in the 5th. it has to be nadal or djokovic otherwise it does not count. serioulsy you are an idiot

 

[mike danny]

Thanks for that .

Well I forgot wimby 2009 because Nadal skipped that and Fed won against Yet again Roddick for a fourth time . That's not really the toughest filed ever.

He was 27 .....come on ???

And toughest field ever? Then you admit it !! Of this is the toughest field ever what was the filed before it??!

Fed had a cake walk by comparison . He ain't gonna be as succesful with this field no way no how .

name me another player in this decade besides nadal and federer who has made at least 3 wimby finals

 

[borg number one]

I agree with Federer. Nadal is not the same player he was in past years. In general, players are generally significantly better at 25-26 compared to when they were about 19-20 and the same holds true for Nadal. Nadal is definitely a better player overall now compared to his early years on the Tour, especially in hard, grass, and indoors. Just watch how he plays matches at Wimbledon and I think you see a significant difference. He may have lost a bit of quickness/speed, but that's the only area where he may have lost a bit. Yet, his anticipation and point construction are so much better, so he in essence moves smarter. Federer is on point in my opinion with his overall view that (1) great players would find ways to make adjustments to thrive under different conditions and that (2) it's very difficult to try and compare different eras/different all time greats.

Federer, who has a 2-13 mark against Nadal on clay, weighed how he’d fare against Borg on the surface. “Probably not so good,” he stated. “He was one of the greatest clay court players of all time. He was fighting with the wood racquets, and it was a different time. That's why I never quite know who was the greatest of all time.

“We will never know how we would have all matched up, because Borg would have played totally different in today's age. And Rafa would have played very different back then because you can't play the way he plays today, but great players find a way, and that's what Rafa is showing in these last 10 years.

 

[fed_da_man]

Tennis - ATP World Tour - Federer: Nadal From Boy To Man

Roger Federer has witnessed Rafael Nadal’s transition from a boy to a man. On Wednesday at Roland Garros, the Swiss reflected on the growth in his rival’s game from their first meeting in 2004, when Nadal was 17 years of age.

“Well, he is more or less still the same player,” shared the 31-year-old Federer, “because when you come on the tour for the first time, you already have your own basis. So your strengths will remain your strengths and your weaknesses will remain your weaknesses, although you can improve them.

“I believe Rafa improved in both. His strengths are even better now and his weaknesses are better, although they're still not as good as his strengths. Of course also he's fitter. He's no longer a young boy. He's a man now. He has experience on top of that. So he really improved. It's spectacular and the results are there to show, to prove it.”

The pair faced off two weeks ago in Rome, their first meeting in a final since 2011 at Roland Garros, and Nadal won in straight sets to improve to a 20-10 mark in their FedEx ATP Head2Head series.

With the victory, the Spaniard claimed his sixth title from eight finals this season and his 41st clay-court crown, second best on the list of Open Era leaders behind Guillermo Vilas with 45. Last year, Nadal won Roland Garros for a seventh time to break the record he shared with Bjorn Borg.

Federer, who has a 2-13 mark against Nadal on clay, weighed how he’d fare against Borg on the surface. “Probably not so good,” he stated. “He was one of the greatest clay court players of all time. He was fighting with the wood racquets, and it was a different time. That's why I never quite know who was the greatest of all time.

“We will never know how we would have all matched up, because Borg would have played totally different in today's age. And Rafa would have played very different back then because you can't play the way he plays today, but great players find a way, and that's what Rafa is showing in these last 10 years.

“It's amazing how successful he is and how he brings it every single match, and he can really enjoy utmost respect [from] all the players for what he has achieved, not only just on clay. He is still stapled off as the clay court guy which he clearly is not anymore.”

View TV Schedule

Follow ATP World Tour On Twitter | Like Us On Facebook

What a shocking revelation. Professional tennis player and former world number 1 has improved since he first joined the tour. Thanks for creating a thread about this.

 

[fed_da_man]

name me another player in this decade besides nadal and federer who has made at least 3 wimby finals

Nadal wouldn't have been able to handle Roddick at Wimby 09

 

[jg153040]

Nadal wouldn't have been able to handle Roddick at Wimby 09

Of course not. Roddick owned Murray. Roddick also has a leading h2h vs Djoker.

 

[mike danny]

Of course not. Roddick owned Murray. Roddick also has a leading h2h vs Djoker.

it is funny that 2 of federer's contemporaries have a positive h2h record against nafal and djokovic. guess they are not so weak after all. federer never trailed them in.h2h to begin with.

 

[borg number one]

During 2003-2007, Federer was unquestionably the best player in the world and his primary rivals were Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Philippoussis, Roddick, Hewitt, Agassi, Safin, Gonzalez, and Baghdatis. During this years, Nadal was ~17-21, while Murray and Djokovic were ~16-20 years of age. So, Federer was facing Murray and Djokovic as they were maturing, yet they both were already very good players by the time they were 19-20. Players tend to become much better by age 25-30 compared to when they were18-20, with some players still better at 30. Nadal is still just 26, soon to be 27, so he's still likely to have several more years of peak physicality, although of course he has to manage the injuries he has sustained.

 

[zagor]

During 2003-2007, Federer was unquestionably the best player in the world and his primary rivals were Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Philippoussis, Roddick, Hewitt, Agassi, Safin, Gonzalez, and Baghdatis. During this years, Nadal was ~17-21, while Murray and Djokovic were ~16-20 years of age. So, Federer was facing Murray and Djokovic as they were maturing, yet they both were already very good players by the time they were 19-20. Players tend to become much better by age 25-30 compared to when they were18-20, with some players still better at 30. Nadal is still just 26, soon to be 27, so he's still likely to have several more years of peak physicality, although of course he has to manage the injuries he has sustained.

Scud and Bagdathis were never main rivals for Fed, he barely played them from 2004-2007, Novak also didn't play him in slams until 2007 and Murray until 2008.

I'd say Fed's main rivals in that period were Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, older Agassi, younger Nadal and Nalbandian.

The 2nd half (so to speak) of Fed's career his main rivals were/are Nadal, Novak, Murray, Delpo and Roddick still in some ways (he played Fed twice in 2009 in slams).

Also Fed was unquestionably the best player in the world in 2009 (in addition to his 2004-2007 period), not in 2003 (people underrate Roddick's performance that year, Canada-Cincy-USO triple was an absolutely amazing feat to achieve).

 

[Incognito]

I agree with Federer. Nadal is not the same player he was in past years. In general, players are generally significantly better at 25-26 compared to when they were about 19-20 and the same holds true for Nadal. Nadal is definitely a better player overall now compared to his early years on the Tour, especially in hard, grass, and indoors. Just watch how he plays matches at Wimbledon and I think you see a significant difference. He may have lost a bit of quickness/speed, but that's the only area where he may have lost a bit. Yet, his anticipation and point construction are so much better, so he in essence moves smarter. Federer is on point in my opinion with his overall view that (1) great players would find ways to make adjustments to thrive under different conditions and that (2) it's very difficult to try and compare different eras/different all time greats.

It depends on what strengths you have though as a player. Nadal first and foremost has his excellent speed and footwork, second is forehand. Losing speed when he relies too much on it is detrimental to the foundation of his game, especially on clay.

He doesn't have the game that Federer has. Fed was a phenomenal retriever himself during his prime and his mobility is not the same today. However he has so many weapons that if one breaks down, he still has a lot to offer from his fully loaded arsenal. Thus, he can still compete with the younger ones even at 31.

 

[ScottleeSV]

I must admit, it will be very interesting to see who out of Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray (if any) will win a major past 30.

 

[kragster]

Very classy interview from Fed, if anyone is entitled to feel like the goat, it is him but even he realizes that there are too many variables.

 

[Towser83]

Are you kidding ?

He made like 5 Wimbledon finals in a row ????

And the only people who lost to were Federer ( whole still developing ) and joker .

The Wimbledon he missed he returned the very next year.

Lets not forget Nadal has missed 7 slams and still won 11.....who else can say they did that ?

5 wimbledon finals in a field of exactly who? A slamless Murray in 2008, 2010 and 2011? A slamless Djokovic in 2007? Schuettler in the 2008 semi? LMAO. Pathetic competition.

Nadal faced Federer who only has slams because he faced chumps,and Nadal barely won vs a mentally scarred Fed, even from 2 sets up. Embarrassing. He lost against first time wimby finalist Djokovic for crying out loud. Djokovic couldnt even beat an aging Federer when Djokovic was defending champ, so that shows you how bad he is. Then Nadal loses to Rosol. LMAO

Now lets compare Feds competition ....

Philopusis ....never won a wimby or slam
Roddick 4x .....never won a wimby or slam
Nadal 2x ....at that point never won a wimby
Safin....never won a wimby
Joker ....at that time never won a slam
Bagdatis ....never won an AO or any slam
Gonzales ....never won AO or slam
Hewitt..... I dont think he ever won an AO ....won slams in 1902
Soderling ....never won a FO or a slam
Murray ....at that point never won a slam

Who am I missing ?

Phil did beat the mighty Sampras twice in slams though. And it's not about titles it's about h2H right? So those wins over Pete are worth more than slam wins.

Roddick won a slam. The USO, and Federer beat Roddick there later.

Safin never won Wimby, so what? They never played a Wimbledon final.

Federer beat Djokovic several times in slams after he became a slam champ, just down to bad luck he always faced him in semis while Nadal got the easier semi opponent.

Gonzalez never won a slam but beat nadal. So that's more important than winning slams, and obviously if Nadal couldn't beat Gonzo, he wouldn't have beaten Fed.

Hewitt won 2 slams, Wimby and the US open, Federer beat hewitt in both slams, in the final of the USO.

Soderling beat Nadal so same point as my one about Gonzalez.

Murray beat Nadal in 2 of the slams Fed beat Murray.Same point again.

Also here's one for nadal

Puerta - never won a slam
Federer at RG x 3 - never won RG at that point
Soderling -Never won a slam
Berdych- Never won a slam
Djokovic - never won US or RG at the time
Federer at AO- won a AO in 1900

Federer.

I never said he was a nothing . He is just not the goat.

But it's a valid argument . Nadals competition on clay is not that great....

But he also beat everyone on everything else.

But everyone else is worse than Federer.

 

[Incognito]

Oh my God, I'm shocked about how the gents in here take these discussions seriously. Maybe I'll get used to it It's like EU political meetings behind closed doors.

 

[jg153040]

Oh my God, I'm shocked about how the gents in here take these discussions seriously. Maybe I'll get used to it It's like EU political meetings behind closed doors.

That's because we are emotional creatures. Emotion overrides logic. Unless you are really special and can control it well most of the time. Only a few are skilled. That is why 1% of the people own the rest of the world.

 

[Incognito]

That's because we are emotional creatures. Emotion overrides logic. Unless you are really special and can control it well most of the time. Only a few are skilled. That is why 1% of the people own the rest of the world.

It shouldn't be the case among grown educated men/women.


Who are these 1%?

 

[jg153040]

It shouldn't be the case among grown educated men/women.


Who are these 1%?

Grown doesn't mean mentally grown. Some people remain children forever. Some people are adults at 15 years.

Well it's safe to say we are not those 1%. They don't have time for forums like this.

The elite. The best in their fields. And the richest with all the power. Leaders and people influencing leaders.

 

[Incognito]

Grown doesn't mean mentally grown. Some people remain children forever. Some people are adults at 15 years.

I meant, grown-ups are supposed to be matured mentally too.

Well it's safe to say we are not those 1%. They don't have time for forums like this.

Don't be too sure. If you have enough money to last 2 lifetimes, you can sit all day and relax or take vacations anytime you want because you have someone doing everything for you.

 

[borg number one]

Scud and Bagdathis were never main rivals for Fed, he barely played them from 2004-2007, Novak also didn't play him in slams until 2007 and Murray until 2008.

I'd say Fed's main rivals in that period were Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, older Agassi, younger Nadal and Nalbandian.

The 2nd half (so to speak) of Fed's career his main rivals were/are Nadal, Novak, Murray, Delpo and Roddick still in some ways (he played Fed twice in 2009 in slams).

Also Fed was unquestionably the best player in the world in 2009 (in addition to his 2004-2007 period), not in 2003 (people underrate Roddick's performance that year, Canada-Cincy-USO triple was an absolutely amazing feat to achieve).

I agree that Federer's main rivals from 2003-2007 were Hewitt, Roddick, a young Nadal along with Safin and Nalbandian to a lesser extent. Scud was there in that first W final. Federer's rise started in 2003, although I'd agree that guys like Roddick, Ferrero and Agassi were ahead of him. Past 2007, his competition got tougher as Nadal, Murray, and Djokovic turned 20 and matured. Nadal has been his consistent rival from 2003 till the present.

 

[The Dark Knight]

I agree that Federer's main rivals from 2003-2007 were Hewitt, Roddick, a young Nadal along with Safin and Nalbandian to a lesser extent. Scud was there in that first W final. Federer's rise started in 2003, although I'd agree that guys like Roddick, Ferrero and Agassi were ahead of him. Past 2007, his competition got tougher as Nadal, Murray, and Djokovic turned 20 and matured. Nadal has been his consistent rival from 2003 till the present.

Thank you!

That's all I'm saying!

 

[The Dark Knight]

5 wimbledon finals in a field of exactly who? A slamless Murray in 2008, 2010 and 2011? A slamless Djokovic in 2007? Schuettler in the 2008 semi? LMAO. Pathetic competition.

Nadal faced Federer who only has slams because he faced chumps,and Nadal barely won vs a mentally scarred Fed, even from 2 sets up. Embarrassing. He lost against first time wimby finalist Djokovic for crying out loud. Djokovic couldnt even beat an aging Federer when Djokovic was defending champ, so that shows you how bad he is. Then Nadal loses to Rosol. LMAO



Phil did beat the mighty Sampras twice in slams though. And it's not about titles it's about h2H right? So those wins over Pete are worth more than slam wins.

Roddick won a slam. The USO, and Federer beat Roddick there later.

Safin never won Wimby, so what? They never played a Wimbledon final.

Federer beat Djokovic several times in slams after he became a slam champ, just down to bad luck he always faced him in semis while Nadal got the easier semi opponent.

Gonzalez never won a slam but beat nadal. So that's more important than winning slams, and obviously if Nadal couldn't beat Gonzo, he wouldn't have beaten Fed.

Hewitt won 2 slams, Wimby and the US open, Federer beat hewitt in both slams, in the final of the USO.

Soderling beat Nadal so same point as my one about Gonzalez.

Murray beat Nadal in 2 of the slams Fed beat Murray.Same point again.

Also here's one for nadal

Puerta - never won a slam
Federer at RG x 3 - never won RG at that point
Soderling -Never won a slam
Berdych- Never won a slam
Djokovic - never won US or RG at the time
Federer at AO- won a AO in 1900



But everyone else is worse than Federer.

Philopisis is a Roddick clone....but not as good as Roddick and never won a slam....in fact he's never even been #1.....what was his highest rank? You compare the scud to Nadal?

Safin never won Wimby....and that's a big deal. He is not the same player on grass as hard court....in fact the only slams he was ever able to win was hard.....it's like saying "Roddick never won the FO? So what he is still tough"....no he is not. Safin is nothing next to Nadal on grass....besides , Savin beat Roger on a hard court slam.

Yeah gonzo beat Nadal when Rafa was a boy on hard courts. Nevertheless less....I don't think that was "great" competition. What was gonzo s highest rank? He was a very good player....but he is no Nadal.

Yes Hewitt won slams a hundred years ago. He was nothing by the time he met Fed. It was a beat down. I think Sampras said it best.....Hewitts game was made to crush a serve and volleyer....when the game changed to baseline , Hewitt became a run of the mill baseliner....which explains why after Sampras retired it was all down hill for lleyton

Murray was not the same player he is today. When he met Fed he didn't even have a slam yet.

Agassi was an old man walking on one leg

Bagdatis....come on?

I'll give some credit to Federer though.....

I thought Feds win over Nadal 2007 was legit

2012 Wimby over murraywas legit

Now it gets tough....hmmmmm

Feds win over Joker at USO was I guess legit even though it was jokers first slam and he turned around to beat fed at the AO....but I'll give that one to Fed.

I'd like to give 2009 win over Roddick to Roger....I'm on the fence on that one because Nadal skipped that year......but I'll give roger the benefit of the doubt and give him that one as tough competition.

So at best I will give Roger 4 slams with stiff competition. I may be missing one or two? I can't think of anything else can you?