Federer: Murray Number 1 Rival, Not Nadal.

[volleynets]

Well, I didn't find your argument convincing, but with that compelling coda, how could one possibly disagree?

Why don't you read some other posts in this thread. Nadal didn't make the rest of the finals. if Federer played him more in the Aussie/Wimbledon/Us Open than at FO then there is a good chance Federer would win more than lose. Nadal has clearly not been able to even reach all of these finals as much as Federer. So in other words, Nadal could be a better rival if he actually reaches more slam finals.

 

[Terr]

2-6 in slams because nadal didn't make it far enough into slams to get owned by federer.

Wimbledon 2009
USO 2008
USO 2007
AO 2007
USO 2006
AO 2006
USO 2005
Wimbledon 2005

Where was nadal in the finals at these championships???? Huh???


Also, all the slams that nadal won were against federer, except for FO 2005. Federer actually had the balls to make it far into tournaments and meet nadal on his best surface (clay of course) where rafa has the edge.

Wimbledon 2008 was close, fed was having problems that year and rafa played great.

AO 2009, fed served like crap in the fifth, and ROGER FEDERER won more points in that match and still lost. You remember that ok?

You kids need to stop this (oh Sh1t, 2-6 in slams omg fed gets owned by nadal). You are making yourself look like an idiot

But what you're suggesting is that Fed could have beat Nadal on any one of those occasions and yet he didn't. Because he was having problems that year and Rafa played great. He served like crap in the fifth, won more points than Nadal and still lost.

Time and time again I see Fed fans complain that the one disappointing characteristic of Federer's career is his H2H record against his biggest rival.

And I believe Nadal made it to the finals of SW19 3 years in a row, where clearly Fed has the edge.

I'm afraid it's you, sir, who are making yourself look like an idiot with your biased and uncompelling argument.

 

[feetofclay]

What has Nadal done for us lately?

Well he has earned more points this year than anyone else, even though he missed out on FO, Queens and Wimledon.
Nadal 6,985
Federer 6,640
Murray 5,500

 

[Dutch-Guy]

Murray getting hypped up as usual lol.Let him win his first slam then we'll talk about "rivalry".Btw Fed vs Murray 1-0 in slam finals.

 

[Sartorius]

How sweet that Federer's rivals are at least 5 years younger than him.

Well, actually, how bad for Federer...

 

[fps]

But what you're suggesting is that Fed could have beat Nadal on any one of those occasions and yet he didn't. Because he was having problems that year and Rafa played great. He served like crap in the fifth, won more points than Nadal and still lost.

Time and time again I see Fed fans complain that the one disappointing characteristic of Federer's career is his H2H record against his biggest rival.

And I believe Nadal made it to the finals of SW19 3 years in a row, where clearly Fed has the edge.

I'm afraid it's you, sir, who are making yourself look like an idiot with your biased and uncompelling argument.

the head to head is definitely skewed in rafa's favour because federer is always in the frame at slams and rafa has only recently come into the hard court picture, before getting injured.

nadal did make it to the finals 3 years in a row at Wimbledon. 2-1 federer. that doesn't exactly support your argument when we look at the hard court slams rafa hasn't made it to, does it?

 

[Rippy]

Here's the logical rebuttal: Rafa has more grand slams and significantly better numbers than Fed at the same age, and completely owns the guy head-to-head.

So, no.

Yes, and Federer's knees were in a much better state when he was Nadal's age. You can't just compare them at the same age.

 

[Aabye]

Nadal is still Federer's main rival until someone else can beat Federer and win a Slam. Djokovic did it once, but hasn't been able to back it up since.

 

[asafi2]

Here's the logical rebuttal: Rafa has more grand slams and significantly better numbers than Fed at the same age, and completely owns the guy head-to-head.

So, no.

Chang and Becker had far more success than Federer, Borg, Sampras, Nadal at age 17 and 18....I guess that makes those two better than everyone right?

 

[backhand winner]

Nadal Clay (when healthy)
Fed Grass
Murray hardcourts. (mainly the fast ones)

 

[Nadalfan89]

Nadal Clay (when healthy)
Fed Grass
Murray hardcourts. (mainly the fast ones)

Federer is better than Murray on GS hardcourts (USO).

3 set rinky dink tournements don't mean anything.