Federer and Nadal's record in finals

[Crisstti]

Nadal got 3 of his Slam wins over Djokovic in 2006-2007 when Djokovic was still very raw and not even in the top 3(till late 2007). RG 2006, RG 2007, Wimby 2007.
Nadal got him again at RG 2008 and USO 2010.
Djokovic turned the tables on him in 2011. Nadal rebounded on his best surface in 2012. But who's the one with physical problems right now? Obviously all these fights against Djokovic have taken their toll on Nadal whereas Djokovic is still playing top tennis, having just won the China Open today on a surface which Nadal hasn't won on since 2010.
Nadal has yet to prove that he can beat Djokovic off clay. Nadal as a matter of fact has yet to prove that he can win anything off clay. He hasn't won a non-clay title since Japan 2010.
The days of domination are over for Nadal. Djokovic has surpassed Nadal on hardcourts. He's won more hardcourt Masters titles and hardcourt Slam titles and has a lopsided hardcourt H2H over Nadal 11-5

Uhm, no, he doesn't have to. He has won plenty. Really, how long does it have to be without winning titles on a certain surface (despite very good results, BTW) to say that someone has to "prove himself" over again?.

 

[sonicare]

Once again the stats show that the fed master is GOAT.

Not that we needed the stats because tennis historians and experts like myself already know that federer is the greatest player ever.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

That those 7 losses were not a typical period of Nadal's career.

You are absolutely hilarious. It's irrelevant, the matches were lost.

 

[RF20Lennon]

Once again the stats show that the fed master is GOAT.

Not that we needed the stats because tennis historians and experts like myself already know that federer is the greatest player ever.

LOL what a boss^^

 

[Mike Sams]

Uhm, no, he doesn't have to. He has won plenty. Really, how long does it have to be without winning titles on a certain surface (despite very good results, BTW) to say that someone has to "prove himself" over again?.

He doesn't have to prove himself OVER again. But he certainly has to IMPROVE though, don't you think? Because other players are improving including Djokovic and Murray who are both younger than Nadal. Hence Nadal has to improve if he's going to keep up with these younger players who are improving their game and getting physically stronger each season.

 

[Sartorius]

Uhm, no, he doesn't have to. He has won plenty. Really, how long does it have to be without winning titles on a certain surface (despite very good results, BTW) to say that someone has to "prove himself" over again?.

Pretty much.

But Federer beating Nadal is something very (very, very,...) important, he would have to "prove he can win a match" against Nadal, right?

 

[Crisstti]

wasnt a GS. That was my point back then in the 2004-2006 era except for RG it was almost impossible to beat fed in a GS

He was lucky Rafa wasn't still good enough off clay, that's all

He doesn't have to prove himself OVER again. But he certainly has to IMPROVE though, don't you think? Because other players are improving including Djokovic and Murray who are both younger than Nadal. Hence Nadal has to improve if he's going to keep up with these younger players who are improving their game and getting physically stronger each season.

He's improved against Djokovic, which is what he was needing. He has continually beaten Murray on slams.
We will have to see what his level is now though.

Pretty much.

But Federer beating Nadal is something very (very, very,...) important, he would have to "prove he can win a match" against Nadal, right?

Sorry, not sure what is your point...