Federer and Nadal - their h2h vs the field in their primes.
- Thread starter jg153040
- Start date
NatF
Bionic Poster
I'd probably put it as 2008 - 2011 for Nadal, those were his peak years.
Feddy Kruegerer
Banned
Nadal was in his prime 2009-2012? You mean from the year he lost in Roland Garros and withdrew from Wimbledon all through the year ye spent 7 months out for injury? LMFAO. That's some peak years alright! I bet if you wait until he is 80 years old in a retirement home you might need to adjust your calculations, as those might be his true peak years according to you.
Pathetic thread, such an obvious trolling attempt.
Yes, but I wanted to be fair and use the same age.
M
monfed
Guest
Ralph won 3 slams in 2010 including the USO with his big bad serve which you and the brotherhood love to brag about.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Not everyone is in their prime at the same age. Fair would be to compare their best 4 years.
Yes he was in his prime in 2009. But he overplayed and overtrained so he injured himself. He has a very brutal game.
While 23 - 26 would seem logical to compared between two players as generally that is when players are in their prime though Nadal is an exception here. He peaked higher overall at a younger age and his level between the 3 (4 if you are including indoors) surfaces were at different times during his career (Prime for clay is earlier than his prime for hard). Nadal was injured as well during those years.
Not to mention that surface conditions has changed considerably since 2007 so that will have an effect on the result as well.
Not to mention that surface conditions has changed considerably since 2007 so that will have an effect on the result as well.
Last edited:
Feddy Kruegerer
Banned
2010 just happens to be in that year range. He achieved a lot that year, but 2009, and particularly 2012 were crap. Not peak years, that notion is risible.
Tennis Fanatic 070
Banned
Nice, this is on of the many reasons why Fed is the GOAT.
I didn't want to make any arguments. Just posting pure facts.
But most Nadal fans say that he was not in his prime, that he was developing before 2009.
So I threw them a bone.
Tennis Fanatic 070
Banned
So are you saying Nadal has two primes? Clay prime and non clay prime?
Feddy Kruegerer
Banned
I'm just going to say this once, and hopefully you will take notice: The concept of "prime" is worthless when talking about Nadal. Nadal is far too inconsistent, and his career has been plagued with far too many physical problems.
Last edited:
PSNELKE
Legend
LOL so this is more significant than the H2H against each other?
Depends whom you ask, lol.
Feddy Kruegerer
Banned
HAHAHAHAHA. Good one.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Feddy Kruegerer
Banned
Yeah, and Federer's prime was up to 2009 (*)
(*) Except when he had to play against Nadal.
You didn't make your point. We can compare Borg and Fedex from 23-26 years age. We can compare every player. Because those are their physical primes.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
no, fed's prime was til 2007 regardless of nadal or not
2008 was the start of the decline
2009 til current was/is fed past the peak of his powers
you can tell because he needed 5 sets to get past roddick at wimbledon( thank god for his serve and his nerve because his ground game was so avg in that match)
also letting delpo come back from 2 sets down in the uso final. best believe that would not have happened in 2006.
anything else?
Last edited:
doobiedoodoo
Rookie
Federer by the years.
Year Age Grand Slams ATP Wins Total Wins Wins Loses Total Percentage
1998 17 0 0 0 2 3 5 40.00%
1999 18 0 0 0 13 17 30 43.33%
2000 19 0 0 0 36 30 66 54.55%
2001 20 0 1 1 49 21 70 70.00%
2002 21 0 3 3 58 22 80 72.50%
2003 22 1 6 7 78 17 95 82.11%
2004 23 3 8 11 74 6 80 92.50%
2005 24 2 9 11 81 4 85 95.29%
2006 25 3 9 12 92 5 97 94.85%
2007 26 3 5 8 68 9 77 88.31%
2008 27 1 3 4 66 15 81 81.48%
2009 28 2 2 4 61 12 73 83.56%
2010 29 1 4 5 65 13 78 83.33%
2011 30 0 4 4 64 12 76 84.21%
2012 31 1 5 6 71 12 83 85.54%
Nadal by the years.
Year Age Grand Slams ATP Wins Total Wins Wins Loses Total Percentage
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002 16 0 0 0 1 1 2 50.00%
2003 17 0 0 0 14 11 25 56.00%
2004 18 0 1 1 30 17 47 63.83%
2005 19 1 10 11 79 10 89 88.76%
2006 20 1 4 5 59 12 71 83.10%
2007 21 1 5 6 70 15 85 82.35%
2008 22 2 6 8 82 11 93 88.17%
2009 23 1 4 5 66 14 80 82.50%
2010 24 3 4 7 71 10 81 87.65%
2011 25 1 2 3 69 15 84 82.14%
2012 26 1 3 4 42 6 48 87.50%
Year Age Grand Slams ATP Wins Total Wins Wins Loses Total Percentage
1998 17 0 0 0 2 3 5 40.00%
1999 18 0 0 0 13 17 30 43.33%
2000 19 0 0 0 36 30 66 54.55%
2001 20 0 1 1 49 21 70 70.00%
2002 21 0 3 3 58 22 80 72.50%
2003 22 1 6 7 78 17 95 82.11%
2004 23 3 8 11 74 6 80 92.50%
2005 24 2 9 11 81 4 85 95.29%
2006 25 3 9 12 92 5 97 94.85%
2007 26 3 5 8 68 9 77 88.31%
2008 27 1 3 4 66 15 81 81.48%
2009 28 2 2 4 61 12 73 83.56%
2010 29 1 4 5 65 13 78 83.33%
2011 30 0 4 4 64 12 76 84.21%
2012 31 1 5 6 71 12 83 85.54%
Nadal by the years.
Year Age Grand Slams ATP Wins Total Wins Wins Loses Total Percentage
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002 16 0 0 0 1 1 2 50.00%
2003 17 0 0 0 14 11 25 56.00%
2004 18 0 1 1 30 17 47 63.83%
2005 19 1 10 11 79 10 89 88.76%
2006 20 1 4 5 59 12 71 83.10%
2007 21 1 5 6 70 15 85 82.35%
2008 22 2 6 8 82 11 93 88.17%
2009 23 1 4 5 66 14 80 82.50%
2010 24 3 4 7 71 10 81 87.65%
2011 25 1 2 3 69 15 84 82.14%
2012 26 1 3 4 42 6 48 87.50%
Feddy Kruegerer
Banned
Excellent job. Look at the difference in consistency. Nadal's consistency is so bad.
Yes his record is better even though he wasn't at his prime in 2008 and was in 2011. Because Feds mono and Djokovic amazing 2011.
The same way I didn't include Federer 2009 because Nadal was injured. While Nadal was in his prime in 2009 and Federer wasn't Federer still had better results.
But that doesn't matter. Physical prime is physical prime.
This is unfair comparison since it isn't covering Nadals decline years yet.
But Nadal did better at his early age From 19-22. That is the only edge Nadal has. So Kudos to Nadal that he was a prodigy. Let's see if he is going to be able to take advantage of this edge and surpass Federer. But until than Fedex is still the man. But records are meant to be broken.
So lets wait for both to retire,rafa was a prodigy but fed is playing well in his 30s so i think both would cancel out each other.I dont see rafa playing into his 30s,iirc he himself has said this.
It doesn't make sense to wait when Rafa retires. Than we have to wait for Djokovic to retire. And Dimitrovs generation. Then the generation younger than Dimitrov. So we have to wait for entire tennis to stop?
We can use the current results. I don't know why Nadals fans can't wait their turn. We Fed fans had to wait that he surpassed Sampras. But untill he won the French and 15 slams he wasn't proclaimed better than Sampras.
So why don't you tell us when was his prime. Was it 2005-2008 or 2009-2012?
Or is it Nadal is something unique that he never had prime years except pre and post prime.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
We already saw a pre prime Nadal own prime Federer, so what is there to speculate on. Against a prime Nadal the head to head would only be alot worse. Nadal easy like always.
We already saw a post prime Federer being nr.1 in 2012 owning Nadal + all the others, so what is there to speculate on. Against a prime Federer the head to head would only be a lot worse. Federer easy like always.
And that is only for the h2h. I didn't even mentioned weeks at nr.1 and other records.
But I guess you use only the stats Nadal has the edge, ignoring all the other stats.
But nadals decline is not taken into account right now,i was responding to the record against top10 its tough to see him improving it anymore .So the best thing to do would be to wait and see who have better records when they both retire.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Yes in 2012 he owned Djokovic who he ended the year with a losing record against, and even losing to on his beloved indoors, and who had by far a better overall year than Federer and was thousands of points ahead by the end of the year. He also owned Nadal who was only able to play half the year due to a huge injury, yet still reached more slam finals than Fedeer was able to. He also owned the previously slamless Murray who had a better year in the big events, and roughly split his matches with. Cute theory.
Well he did own them for 4 months.Still decent for old Feddy. He beat Murray and Djokovic back to back. I don't know when Nadal beat those 2 back to back. If he ever did.
Although ownage is too strong of a word here. He outperformed them slightly. Nadal went missing only after Federer was nr.1. Federer got nr.1 at wimby which Nadal played.
You can't use Federers longevity against him. He has a playing style that he doesn't get so much injuries. More efficient. But it's not fair to use this against him.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
well at least he was the one to dethrone djokovic at 31 something nadal.in his prine was unable to do
TennisMaven
Banned
Doesn't this mean the old Nadal is 5 years younger than Federer argument is meaningless?
Yes, it is meaningless if you compare their achievements.
But it is not meaningless in the sense that Nadal has time to catch up. But until than Fed has a better career.
But why do we have to wait that Nadal finishes his career? We can have the king.
When and if Nadal surpasses Fed it can be a new king. Simple really.
TennisMaven
Banned
But how can it be said that Nadal has time to catch up when we have no idea if he'll be playing as long as Fed into his 30s.
Gonzo_style
Hall of Fame
I don't know exactly what you mean.
We don't know. But because of the 5 year difference he has a chance at least.
I don't believe he will. I'm extrapolating from his peak and his style of play.
He wasn't as dominant at his peak so I guess he wont win as much past his prime. And he has a style that isn't suited for longevity.
But you never know. Maybe I'm miscalculating.
To win a title in slams I mean. But WTF win against them is very impressive for Nadal. On their best surfaces.
Gonzo_style
Hall of Fame
Never. At the Wimbledon and USO 2011 Nadal def Murray but lost both finals against Djokovic.
OK.. pick any 3 or 4 years then
Feddy Kruegerer
Banned
This is a stupid premise. Why not pick 3 or 4 tournaments instead? Nadal has had too many interruptions due to physical problems for 3 or 4 years to be a good gage. He has the same number of slams and many more masters titles than Federer had when he was his age, plus he owns him in the H2H. Doesn't that say everything?
NatF
Bionic Poster
Federer won as many slams as Nadal has in his entire career in 4 years. So no that doesn't say everything. Federer has also had far more time at #1. It's not like Federer hasn't had injuries that could have cost him slams, masters or WTF's.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Oh cmon. You cant pick individual tournaments and even pretend to have any objectivitu. That is totally favoring nadal.
kragster
Hall of Fame
I agree with this, not sure what your OP has to do with this argument though. At the end of the day it doesn't matter if you win a Slam at 17 or 31, only total slams count.
Similar threads
