Federer and Nadal - their h2h vs the field in their primes.

[DeShaun]

I see Rafa nearing but not matching or exceeding Roger's slam count. There is just no way Rafa can keep winning the way he has for so long without his physique disintegrating. Some of what he does on a court simply does not pass the eye test of what natural humans can do. I think he is exciting to watch and has been a great promoter of tennis but, at his current age, he cannot afford to take months of time off if he is going to catch up to Roger's total.

 

[Agassifan]

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.

No Nadal fan will reply to this post. Ever.

 

[Feddy Kruegerer]

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.

Fair enough. Look, Federer is a great player, no doubt about it. And I'm not going to question his achievements. All I'm saying is that Nadal has had far more problems during his career than Federer, and thus trying to compare a 3 or 4 year "prime" period is just not going to work.

 

[Feddy Kruegerer]

Oh cmon. You cant pick individual tournaments and even pretend to have any objectivitu. That is totally favoring nadal.

Alright, I won't. But picking a period of time also doesn't make any sense, sorry. What's the point of this experiment, anyway? Fabricate a stat in which Federer is not getting owned by Nadal to counteract the H2H?

 

[Feddy Kruegerer]

No Nadal fan will reply to this post. Ever.

I just did.

 

[spinovic]

Fair enough. Look, Federer is a great player, no doubt about it. And I'm not going to question his achievements. All I'm saying is that Nadal has had far more problems during his career than Federer, and thus trying to compare a 3 or 4 year "prime" period is just not going to work.

I agree with that. It is hard to pin down a peak run for Nadal, unlike Federer who dominated tennis and would have won virtually everything for 4 years had it not been for Rafa and the clay.

Nadal's slam count is largely the result of his sustained dominance on one surface plus one dominant season in 2010.

 

[jg153040]

Fair enough. Look, Federer is a great player, no doubt about it. And I'm not going to question his achievements. All I'm saying is that Nadal has had far more problems during his career than Federer, and thus trying to compare a 3 or 4 year "prime" period is just not going to work.

Great. You admitted Federer is a great player and you are not questioning his achievements . I'm happy, thanks.

 

[sbengte]

So are you saying Nadal has two primes? Clay prime and non clay prime?

Yes, according to bullzie, Nadal reached his HC prime in 2010 while de-priming on clay ;-) I wonder when he will hit his grass court prime and obliterate all records at Wimby.

 

[jg153040]

Yes, according to bullzie, Nadal reached his HC prime in 2010 while de-priming on clay ;-) I wonder when he will hit his grass court prime and obliterate all records at Wimby.

I see. Well in this case Fed also has a different clay prime. He was developing on clay until 2009. But in 2010 he had some family problems that sped up his clay decline.

Imagine Nadal, Borg playing Fed in his prime on clay. In his prime Federer even had more clay points than prime Nadal.

 

[NatF]

Fair enough. Look, Federer is a great player, no doubt about it. And I'm not going to question his achievements. All I'm saying is that Nadal has had far more problems during his career than Federer, and thus trying to compare a 3 or 4 year "prime" period is just not going to work.

Nadal has had injury problems yes, but he also started winning slams alot earlier. Federer has had back injuries on and off, foot problems in 05 and mono in early 08. I agree that comparing a 3-4 year period doesn't work, although I'm not sure why Nadal's 09 was so bad after the FO. He only missed Wimbledon, he came back stronger after 7 months this time oddly...

 

[moonballs]

So are you saying Nadal has two primes? Clay prime and non clay prime?

Not two, but 30 primes: every time Nadal beats Fed, he reachs his prime. So his H2h over his strongest opponent at his PRIME is actually 100%.

 

[moonballs]

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?

Why not pick twenty or thirty matches instead? Is that too subjective, eh?

 

[Bender]

You said "prime" in your title yet left out Nadal's 2008? You know, the only other year where he won more than RG?

 

[sbengte]

Not two, but 30 primes: every time Nadal beats Fed, he reachs his prime. So his H2h over his strongest opponent at his PRIME is actually 100%.

Actually everytime Nadal beats Fed, Fed reaches his prime

Those of you trying to put a time frame for Nadal's prime should give it up. According to some of the Nadal experts here, his prime was somewhere between April 1, 2008 3:58 pm to July 10th 2008, 8:51 pm.

 

[jg153040]

You said "prime" in your title yet left out Nadal's 2008? You know, the only other year where he won more than RG?

Prime is prime. Results have nothing to do with it. Some players have better results before their primes, some after. Age 23-26 is the physical prime of a tennis player.

Federer had better results in 2009 where Nadal was in his prime.
But Nadal had better results in 2008 when he wasn't in his prime.
Injuries also have nothing to do with it.

I didn't make even any arguments. I just posted numbers of their h2h in their physical primes.

People here are paranoid.

 

[DRII]

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.

You’re egregiously miscalculating and showing extreme bias!

It just so happens that Federer’s peak coincided with a very transitional and relatively weak period in terms of competition, unlike Nadal who had to deal with Federer and priming to prime Nole and Murray…

 

[DRII]

Prime is prime. Results have nothing to do with it. Some players have better results before their primes, some after. Age 23-26 is the physical prime of a tennis player.

Federer had better results in 2009 where Nadal was in his prime.
But Nadal had better results in 2008 when he wasn't in his prime.
Injuries also have nothing to do with it.

I didn't make even any arguments. I just posted numbers of their h2h in their physical primes.

People here are paranoid.

you're fooling no one!

who are you to decide when any player's prime is

sorry, but you're not dealing with all fools here...

 

[jg153040]

You’re egregiously miscalculating and showing extreme bias!

It just so happens that Federer’s peak coincided with a very transitional and relatively weak period in terms of competition, unlike Nadal who had to deal with Federer and priming to prime Nole and Murray…

This is funny. How am I miscalculating if the results aren't known yet.
You say Fed is a weak era champ but suddenly he is the toughest competition for Nadal?

Yes Federer didn't get to play himself. He never got to play a 17 grand slam champion. And guess what most of his slam wins he never get to beat nr.1 player.

You are just making noise. No content. Just attacking.

 

[jg153040]

you're fooling no one!

who are you to decide when any player's prime is

sorry, but you're not dealing with all fools here...

Again noise. Who are you to decide that I'm wrong?

 

[NatF]

You’re egregiously miscalculating and showing extreme bias!

It just so happens that Federer’s peak coincided with a very transitional and relatively weak period in terms of competition, unlike Nadal who had to deal with Federer and priming to prime Nole and Murray…

Nadal has faced the same field as Federer from 2005 onwards. When Djokovic actually 'primed' Nadal couldn't beat him etc a few times on clay lol.

 

[SLD76]

Nadal's clay prime was 2005-2008.

Then he had a small overall prime from April 2008 til Feb 2009.

Then he declined from May 2009 til Arpil 2010. Then he primed again from the FO 2010 all the way tot the WTF 2010.

Then 2011, he was somewhat prime, but mostly post prime til the FO where he had a small prime again but then went back to mostly post prime for the rest of 2011.

Then 2012, he was injured except for the FO.

Now he is working his way be to pre post prime.

 

[jg153040]

Nadal's clay prime was 2005-2008.

Then he had a small overall prime from April 2008 til Feb 2009.

Then he declined from May 2009 til Arpil 2010. Then he primed again from the FO 2010 all the way tot the WTF 2010.

Then 2011, he was somewhat prime, but mostly post prime til the FO where he had a small prime again but then went back to mostly post prime for the rest of 2011.

Then 2012, he was injured except for the FO.

Now he is working his way be to pre post prime.

And the excuse Nadal was a baby. But only for his losses. All his wins count when he was a baby.

 

[DRII]

This is funny. How am I miscalculating if the results aren't known yet.
You say Fed is a weak era champ but suddenly he is the toughest competition for Nadal?

Yes Federer didn't get to play himself. He never got to play a 17 grand slam champion. And guess what most of his slam wins he never get to beat nr.1 player.

You are just making noise. No content. Just attacking.

your second sentence just explained it all, its called competition!

from 2004-07 Federer only had a great clay courter in Nadal with flashes of brilliance on grass to deal with as far as the slams were concerned. the Roddick/Hewitt bunch were relative clowns when compared to Federer, Nadal, Nole...

 

[DRII]

Again noise. Who are you to decide that I'm wrong?

facts and context show that you are worng, regardless of anyone's decision...

 

[Tennis Fanatic 070]

LOL so this is more significant than the H2H against each other?

I said: this is on of the many reasons why Fed is the GOAT. Thank you.

 

[jg153040]

facts and context show that you are worng, regardless of anyone's decision...

So what? It bothers you more than me though. But I still like you. I don't even blame you.

 

[jg153040]

your second sentence just explained it all, its called competition!

from 2004-07 Federer only had a great clay courter in Nadal with flashes of brilliance on grass to deal with as far as the slams were concerned. the Roddick/Hewitt bunch were relative clowns when compared to Federer, Nadal, Nole...

But I'm happy. Don't wanna argue anymore. You should come on my side. Being a delusional Fed worshiper is amazing. You could at least try it first. How do you know that you won't like it?

 

[Slayer]

Who are you to decide that I'm wrong?

But that's not the point. You created a post and tried to show that Federer's prime is better than Nadal's when looked at their performance against the field.

In doing that, you in no uncertain terms defined 23-26 as a tennis players' prime. To give your piece of analysis any credibility, the onus is on you to provide evidence that for a tennis player, the prime is, indeed, between 23-26. There are many proxy stats that you can use to attempt to do this, but you seemingly haven't bothered.

In my honest opinion, you'll be hard pressed to find empirical evidence that backs your statement of a 'prime'. But here's a chance for you to prove us all wrong.

It's true that numbers don't lie, but anecdotal evidence is just that, anecdotal. All I see is that you picked 3 years of Fed's life where he performed better than Nadal. Nowhere in your piece does it say that Nadal should have performed to a certain standard during the same age.

TL;DR": Back up your definitions with facts or expect to get ripped to shreds.

 

[jg153040]

But that's not the point. You created a post and tried to show that Federer's prime is better than Nadal's when looked at their performance against the field.

In doing that, you in no uncertain terms defined 23-26 as a tennis players' prime. To give your piece of analysis any credibility, the onus is on you to provide evidence that for a tennis player, the prime is, indeed, between 23-26. There are many proxy stats that you can use to attempt to do this, but you seemingly haven't bothered.

In my honest opinion, you'll be hard pressed to find empirical evidence that backs your statement of a 'prime'. But here's a chance for you to prove us all wrong.

It's true that numbers don't lie, but anecdotal evidence is just that, anecdotal. All I see is that you picked 3 years of Fed's life where he performed better than Nadal. Nowhere in your piece does it say that Nadal should have performed to a certain standard during the same age.

TL;DR": Back up your definitions with facts or expect to get ripped to shreds.

I used because most players perform athletically best in mid twenties.
I define mid twenties as the athletic prime.
But some players don't have the best results in their athletic primes.
But usually they do.

And I picked 4 years, not 3. So Federer outperforms Nadal in their physical primes.

 

[Steve0904]

I have to agree here that 23-26 may or may not be a player's prime. It was for Federer, but it is not necessarily true for Nadal or anyone else. In order to make a fair comparison you would have to compare Federer of 2004-2007 to the Nadal of 2008, then perhaps 2010 and 2011.

The problem arises in 2009, but I think you would have to include it regardless since he was likely to do well if he never got injured. But that also includes his great first half of 2009 and then the second half (because he never missed that much time anyway), which wasn't that good, but that is really nothing new so I don't see why we can't say that Nadal's prime was from 2008-2011. And coincidentally Nadal was between the ages of 22 and 25 then, pretty much the same as Federer, but then of course there are other players like Ferrer who did next to nothing when he was between the ages of 23-26, and has been great much later in his career, and what most would call his "prime." What do we do with those people? Prime is not a super simple concept that we can just define by ranges of age for absolutely every player.

 

[falstaff78]

But that's not the point. You created a post and tried to show that Federer's prime is better than Nadal's when looked at their performance against the field.

In doing that, you in no uncertain terms defined 23-26 as a tennis players' prime. To give your piece of analysis any credibility, the onus is on you to provide evidence that for a tennis player, the prime is, indeed, between 23-26. There are many proxy stats that you can use to attempt to do this, but you seemingly haven't bothered.

In my honest opinion, you'll be hard pressed to find empirical evidence that backs your statement of a 'prime'. But here's a chance for you to prove us all wrong.

It's true that numbers don't lie, but anecdotal evidence is just that, anecdotal. All I see is that you picked 3 years of Fed's life where he performed better than Nadal. Nowhere in your piece does it say that Nadal should have performed to a certain standard during the same age.

TL;DR": Back up your definitions with facts or expect to get ripped to shreds.

here is empirical evidence that 22-26 is, at least ON AVERAGE a top flight player's prime.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=453446

everyone is not the same of course, so without further analysis I am not taking a position on EXACTLY when nadal's prime was. but there is overwhelming statistical proof that 22-26 is in the ballpark.

 

[jg153040]

I have to agree here that 23-26 may or may not be a player's prime. It was for Federer, but it is not necessarily true for Nadal or anyone else. In order to make a fair comparison you would have to compare Federer of 2004-2007 to the Nadal of 2008, then perhaps 2010 and 2011.

The problem arises in 2009, but I think you would have to include it regardless since he was likely to do well if he never got injured. But that also includes his great first half of 2009 and then the second half (because he never missed that much time anyway), which wasn't that good, but that is really nothing new so I don't see why we can't say that Nadal's prime was from 2008-2011. And coincidentally Nadal was between the ages of 22 and 25 then, pretty much the same as Federer, but then of course there are other players like Ferrer who did next to nothing when he was between the ages of 23-26, and has been great much later in his career, and what most would call his "prime." What do we do with those people? Prime is not a super simple concept that we can just define by ranges of age for absolutely every player.

It is athletic prime not by results. That is the reason to avoid excuses when they didn't perform well. You can be in you prime and still use.
See, you are trying to excuse 2009 already even though Nadal didn't perform well. I was trying to avoid this.

I even threw Nadal fans a bone so they can't say Nadal was developing. And also didn't use Fed post prime excuses.

Fact is Federer outperformed Nadal in their athletic primes. I used athletic primes and the same age. How more fair can you get?

Because this is a fair comparison. And avoiding cherry picking stats that suit either of the players. Nadal had some great results pre-prime also Federer post-prime. But I only use their primes.

I'm not saying this tells the full story. But facts are what they are.

But shocking that anti-Fed fans don't want to compare them prime vs prime.
I wonder why.

 

[Feddy Kruegerer]

Yes, according to bullzie, Nadal reached his HC prime in 2010 while de-priming on clay ;-) I wonder when he will hit his grass court prime and obliterate all records at Wimby.

Nadal adjusted his game for faster, lower bouncing surfaces. It's not too tough to see how the mechanics of this might work (how his success in faster surfaces might be paralelled by a decline in clay):
1. Game adjustments affecting adversely his clay game.
2. More success in more tournaments, leading to physical wearing off. This factor here is undeniable.

 

[Feddy Kruegerer]

Why not pick twenty or thirty matches instead? Is that too subjective, eh?

You are exaggerating. You know Nadal's career has suffered from interruptions a few times.

 

[Feddy Kruegerer]

Nadal's clay prime was 2005-2008.

Then he had a small overall prime from April 2008 til Feb 2009.

Then he declined from May 2009 til Arpil 2010. Then he primed again from the FO 2010 all the way tot the WTF 2010.

Then 2011, he was somewhat prime, but mostly post prime til the FO where he had a small prime again but then went back to mostly post prime for the rest of 2011.

Then 2012, he was injured except for the FO.

Now he is working his way be to pre post prime.

This is primarily correct.

 

[Steve0904]

It is athletic prime not by results. That is the reason to avoid excuses when they didn't perform well. You can be in you prime and still use.
See, you are trying to excuse 2009 already even though Nadal didn't perform well. I was trying to avoid this.

I even threw Nadal fans a bone so they can't say Nadal was developing. And also didn't use Fed post prime excuses.

Fact is Federer outperformed Nadal in their athletic primes. I used athletic primes and the same age. How more fair can you get?

Because this is a fair comparison. And avoiding cherry picking stats that suit either of the players. Nadal had some great results pre-prime also Federer post-prime. But I only use their primes.

I'm not saying this tells the full story. But facts are what they are.

But shocking that anti-Fed fans don't want to compare them prime vs prime.
I wonder why.

Yes, but I said 2009 should be included. Nadal performed great in 2009. The problem for you is how you worded the OP, like it is your word and your word only that should be taken on tennis primes. I'm well aware that Federer was better than Nadal against the field in their "primes." I am not particularly a Nadal fan, but I respect his talents and accomplishments.

So now we are differentiating between athletic primes and age primes (results), but that makes no sense since it is not true for ALL players, and some players may have shorter primes than others. We have to go by results to an extent since by your logic we can compare players aged 23-26 (prime) and determine who's better than who when it is not always the case. And it has to be proven that this is the right way to compare any two players, not MOST of them. And that will never stand up to any scrutiny.

In this vein, Djokovic is a pretty good example. If we wanted to compare Djokovic to Federer aged 23-26 it would simply be wrong because he performed better in 2007 and 2008, and even 2009 than he did the year he turned 23 (2010), which you have used for both Federer and Nadal. All I'm saying is that the notion of prime is not as simple as you are trying to make it out to be in order to avoid any "excuses" or leeway to certain fans.

 

[jg153040]

Yes, but I said 2009 should be included. Nadal performed great in 2009. The problem for you is how you worded the OP, like it is your word and your word only that should be taken on tennis primes. I'm well aware that Federer was better than Nadal against the field in their "primes." I am not particularly a Nadal fan, but I respect his talents and accomplishments.

So now we are differentiating between athletic primes and age primes, but that makes no sense since it is not true for ALL players, and some players may have shorter primes than others.

In this vein, Djokovic is a pretty good example. If we wanted to compare Djokovic to Federer aged 23-26 it would simply be wrong because he performed better in 2007 and 2008, and even 2009 than he did the year he turned 23 (2010), which you have used for both Federer and Nadal. All I'm saying is that the notion of prime is not as simple as you are trying to make it out to be in order to avoid any "excuses" or leeway to certain fans.

So just because people don't perform their best in their primes, we can't use it? Look Agassi performed poorly in his prime. That means Prime vs Prime he would do badly.

Just because a player doesn't have results in their prime it doesn't mean it is not their prime. A person who uses his prime the best should be awarded.

 

[Steve0904]

So just because people don't perform their best in their primes, we can't use it? Look Agassi performed poorly in his prime. That means Prime vs Prime he would do badly.

Just because a player doesn't have results in their prime it doesn't mean it is not their prime. A person who uses his prime the best should be awarded.

So that means then that we shouldn't award Agassi for what he did later in his career?

Ok so it's prime vs prime, great but what does it prove, and why should it be worth more than someone who does better later or earlier in their career?

I really don't like trying to be a Nadal apologist, believe me. It's just that it's unnecessary to needlessly be a Federer "worshipper." He has the records. He doesn't need over the top fans. You had to know when you made the OP with no room for debate that it would incite Nadal fans and we don't need to make more of them angrier than they already are.

P.S. This is not directed at you jg. I seem to remember a certain poster (Clarky) who was skeptical that I would call out bad threads started by Federer fans, well here it is. I hope you read this. If not me or somebody else will remember it, and you will be wrong (again.) And believe me, you were the last person I was thinking about before I made these last few posts. I didn't do it for you. I only edited the P.S in after I remembered, but of course if you don't believe me that's ok too.

 

[DRII]

As ridiculous as trying to pigeon-hole what any player's individual prime is; even accepting that extremely flawed premise, the trolling OP is assuming that competition was the same during the respective 'prime' periods???

which is completely ludicrous…

 

[NatF]

As ridiculous as trying to pigeon-hole what any player's individual prime is; even accepting that extremely flawed premise, the trolling OP is assuming that competition was the same during the respective 'prime' periods???

which is completely ludicrous…

It was. Unless you think 2010 Novak who didn't beat a top 10 player until the USO semi was strong competition lol. Roddick actually leads the h2h with Djokovic...

 

[TMF]

As ridiculous as trying to pigeon-hole what any player's individual prime is; even accepting that extremely flawed premise, the trolling OP is assuming that competition was the same during the respective 'prime' periods???

which is completely ludicrous…

We are discussing about fact which is base on numbers/stats, not opinion. Nadal is 2nd best behind Roger.

 

[jg153040]

So that means then that we shouldn't award Agassi for what he did later in his career?

Ok so it's prime vs prime, great but what does it prove, and why should it be worth more than someone who does better later or earlier in their career?

I really don't like trying to be a Nadal apologist, believe me. It's just that it's unnecessary to needlessly be a Federer "worshipper." He has the records. He doesn't need over the top fans. You had to know when you made the OP with no room for debate that it would incite Nadal fans and we don't need to make more of them angrier than they already are.

P.S. This is not directed at you jg. I seem to remember a certain poster (Clarky) who was skeptical that I would call out bad threads started by Federer fans, well here it is. I hope you read this. If not me or somebody else will remember it, and you will be wrong (again.) And believe me, you were the last person I was thinking about before I made these last few posts. I didn't do it for you. I only edited the P.S in after I remembered, but of course if you don't believe me that's ok too.

All this proves is that Federer had an amazing prime. And that you don't have to be in your prime to have the best results.

We can also compare players pre-prime and post-prime. But most of the people choose prime vs prime. I don't know why. I never saw a post: Who wins - pre-prime Fed or pre-prime Sampras?

I'm not saying it is worth more. But obviously when you are in your prime you have the best chance to maximize your results. And some people didn't take advantage of this.

Why can't I compare prime vs prime? Others compare even prime vs non prime. Or pre-prime vs prime. Or pre-prime vs pre-prime.

I can't compare post-prime vs post-prime yet, since Nadal didn't have post prime yet. But now when he is finally out of his prime it's ok.

And instead of same old boring stuff 17 vs 11 slams that has been done to death I did something new for a change. I didn't see anyone who used this system before.

 

[jg153040]

As ridiculous as trying to pigeon-hole what any player's individual prime is; even accepting that extremely flawed premise, the trolling OP is assuming that competition was the same during the respective 'prime' periods???

which is completely ludicrous…

OK, since you are so nice I will throw you a bone. What is the definition of a different competition? Is it the level of play? Is it their records?

I mean Rosol was tough competition for Nadal but he doesn't have the numbers.
Sometimes a top player plays badly and he isn't the toughest competition.

Just give me exact time frames when Federer had / didn't have competition.
And how do you measure the level of competition? It's easy for you to dismiss a theory. But you have to substitute it with your own. If you even have any.
How is there any scientific way to prove what is the level of competition?

Let's say 2 players play. One loses. Does this mean one is better or the other was just bad? How do you measure this since you compare them relative to the others?

I would really like to hear your scientific way of measuring the competition since you are so smart.

 

[TennisMaven]

OK, since you are so nice I will throw you a bone. What is the definition of a different competition? Is it the level of play? Is it their records?

I mean Rosol was tough competition for Nadal but he doesn't have the numbers.
Sometimes a top player plays badly and he isn't the toughest competition.

Just give me exact time frames when Federer had / didn't have competition.
And how do you measure the level of competition? It's easy for you to dismiss a theory. But you have to substitute it with your own. If you even have any.
How is there any scientific way to prove what is the level of competition?

Let's say 2 players play. One loses. Does this mean one is better or the other was just bad? How do you measure this since you compare them relative to the others?

I would really like to hear your scientific way of measuring the competition since you are so smart.

People like that tend to go more on 'feelings' . They prefer to think the world is flat.

 

[jg153040]

People like that tend to go more on 'feelings' . They prefer to think the world is flat.

You gave great example of flat earth. People use this example as somehow that minority is always right. Most of the time the minority is probably wrong.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

your second sentence just explained it all, its called competition!

from 2004-07 Federer only had a great clay courter in Nadal with flashes of brilliance on grass to deal with as far as the slams were concerned. the Roddick/Hewitt bunch were relative clowns when compared to Federer, Nadal, Nole...

Him going nr. 1 5-7 years later indicates that the explanation was more Federers quality in his prime.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

you're fooling no one!

who are you to decide when any player's prime is

sorry, but you're not dealing with all fools here...

I guess the problem is that you can not find three years in Nadals carreer that matches up to Federers prime. Which is also why Federer is the greater better player, and goat candidate. I sense it makes you very angry...

 

[Povl Carstensen]

LOL so this is more significant than the H2H against each other?

Of course it is. Tennis is not a play-off, but played against the field.

 

[TennisMaven]

So just because people don't perform their best in their primes, we can't use it? Look Agassi performed poorly in his prime. That means Prime vs Prime he would do badly.

Just because a player doesn't have results in their prime it doesn't mean it is not their prime. A person who uses his prime the best should be awarded.

This is actually a good point. Just because Fed won Wimby in 2012, doesn't all of a sudden mean he was in his prime again.

 

[TennisMaven]

There is actually some depth to the OP's post that I did not originally appreciate. Otherwise you get into the that old situation of Nadal was not prime unless he wins. You apply the same to all players and then it simply comes down to 17 > 11 in the end if you go that route.