Federer on Clay

[Eragon]

5 French Open Finals- Only Nadal and Borg have more

5 Consecutive French Open Semifinals- Nobody matches

9 Consecutive French Open Quarterfinals*- Nobody matches

6 Masters 1000 Titles- To lend some perspective, Lendl has 6, Kuerten has 4, Wilander has 3, Courier has 2

14 Masters 1000 Finals, at least 3 at every event


A combined head-to-head of 12-0 against the storied Claycourt Champions of his time: Ferrero, Coria, Moya, Gaudio, and Kafelnikov. And 1-1 against Gustavo Kuerten.

And Clay is his worst surface :shock:

 

[6-3 6-0]

He is surely excellent on clay despite being his 3rd best surface and is hugely underrated because of the Clay G.O.A.T.

 

[swedenparty]

Great stuff

"In your face" haters!!!

You are right, Federer is not the GOAT. He is the God of tennis who came to show mortals how at its finest is supposed to be played.

 

[Eragon]

Great stuff

"In your face" haters!!!

You are right, Federer is not the GOAT. He is the God of tennis who came to show mortals how at its finest is supposed to be played.

Hehe, thanks! I would have mentioned how many Masters Finals the other greats have made but that research would've taken a while. Suffice it to stay, I wouldn't be surprised if only Nadal happened to make more.

 

[Incognito]

Without Nadal, he probably has 6 FOs now. He will be more successful there than he is at the USO and AO. How many masters on clay would he have without Nadal? lol. Without Nadal, people would be writing, "Fed's worst major is the USO or AO"?


Federer grow up on clay, he said so himself.

 

[monfed]

If a layman would've bumped into this thread, he'd have thought that Fed's a better claycourter than Coria,Gaudio even Guga. :lol:

 

[manley0702]

Without Nadal, he probably has 6 FOs now. He will be more successful there than he is at the USO and AO. How many masters on clay would he have without Nadal? lol. Without Nadal, people would be writing, "Fed's worst majors is the USO or AO"?


Federer grow up on clay, he said so himself.

Yes. Without Nadal, he probably wins 4 of 5 of 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2011 to go along with his 2009 title.

 

[smoledman]

If Fed is GOAT surely he would have beaten Nadal ONE time @the French Open.

 

[Incognito]

If a layman would've bumped into this thread, he'd have thought that Fed's a better claycourter than Coria,Gaudio even Guga. :lol:

Federer is better than those 2.

 

[floide]

Very interesting topic. I always said he was better on clay than everybody assumes, but you put it in (amazing) numbers.

 

[Eragon]

If Fed is GOAT surely he would have beaten Nadal ONE time @the French Open.

Too bad Nadal wasn't good enough to make the 2009 final. The clay head-to-head for the year was 1-0 for Federer, and Federer would've beaten him that year at Roland Garros. Unfortunately, it was not to be

 

[Eragon]

Very interesting topic. I always said he was better on clay than everybody assumes, but you put it in (amazing) numbers.

Thanks!

 

[Incognito]

If Fed is GOAT surely he would have beaten Nadal ONE time @the French Open.

Pure BS. He was unlucky he had to contend with the best of Nadal on the clay. Peak Federer would beat current Nadal on clay, I have no doubt.

 

[abmk]

If a layman would've bumped into this thread, he'd have thought that Fed's a better claycourter than Coria,Gaudio even Guga. :lol:

federer is better than coria and gaudio on clay and quite easily so ..

 

[abmk]

Without Nadal, he probably has 6 FOs now. He will be more successful there than he is at the USO and AO. How many masters on clay would he have without Nadal? lol. Without Nadal, people would be writing, "Fed's worst major is the USO or AO"?


Federer grow up on clay, he said so himself.

yeah, only problem if you take out rafa, you have to put in atleast one pretty good CCer in there, say level of lendl or wilander or kuerten at their primes as fed's competition, who'd probably take away 2-3 RGs from him out of those "6" .....

the CC field as it is clearly weaker than the HC field, if you take out rafa without putting in another strong CCer, it becomes much much weaker ...

 

[Eragon]

yeah, only problem if you take out rafa, you have to put in atleast one pretty good CCer in there, say level of lendl or wilander or kuerten at their primes as fed's competition, who'd probably take away 2-3 RGs from him out of those "6" .....

the CC field as it is clearly weaker than the HC field, if you take out rafa without putting in another strong CCer, it becomes much much weaker ...

I'm of the opinion that Nadal shouldn't be taken out. What disadvantage Federer has on Clay is made up for on Grass. In my mind, no era is weak and no era is strong, because it's not possible to compare them. We can only assume all are the same, at least since the 80s. Tennis was almost a Club Sport back in the 50s and 60s, that era was definitely weak.

Just like luck (in the form of fluke shots, net cords, line calls) evens out for a player over his career, so does the field across eras. That's the only reasonable assumption.

 

[Omega_7000]

Yeah and that too because Nadal has a inherent match-up advantage against Fed that gets amplified on clay.

So Fed came up against the greatest clay-court player who has a match-up advantage over him...

 

[monfed]

federer is better than coria and gaudio on clay and quite easily so ..

Yes Fed has the numbers but Fed doesn't have a better claycourt game than Gaudio let alone Coria,the latter was a beast on clay in his prime. Coria was strong of both wings and didn't really have a chink in his armour that could be exploited like Fed's exploitable topspin 1HBH.

Federer has been successful because he uses his serve, variety and allcourt prowess to win on clay. He still likes to end points quickly and likes to win a lot of free points on his serve which isn't standard claycourt tennis. Guys like Almagro,Coria,Gaudio,Ferrero,Kuerten would grind Fed down quite easily on a standard high bouncing clay court from a neutral rally position.
Look clay is Fed's weakest surface and he's been plenty successful on it because of the weakest clay era(comprising of HCers trying to play on clay) and just using his overall game to outfox his opponents(didn't work against Ralph coz of the moonballing).

 

[90's Clay]

Did you see Fed's draws (2005-2008) to get to most of those French Open finals? That says alot

 

[Eragon]

Yeah and that too because Nadal has a inherent match-up advantage against Fed that gets amplified on clay.

So Fed came up against the greatest clay-court player who has a match-up advantage over him...

Yeah, without the match-up problem, I think Federer would have 3 French Open titles.

 

[Incognito]

yeah, only problem if you take out rafa, you have to put in atleast one pretty good CCer in there, say level of lendl or wilander or kuerten at their primes as fed's competition, who'd probably take away 2-3 RGs from him out of those "6" .....

the CC field as it is clearly weaker than the HC field, if you take out rafa without putting in another strong CCer, it becomes much much weaker ...

If you take out Nadal, Federer would have to contend with Djokovic. Nadal has stopped Novak maybe 5 times since 2006 at RG. He is not a bad clay courter at all and very consistent too. I just don't see him beating peak Federer on clay though. Like Fed, he's just unlucky too to be playing alongside Nadal. He would have made more FO finals if not for the Spaniard. Then Robin S. emerged and was great those two years, a bigger hitter than both Guga and Lendl, sorry but that's the truth.

 

[Eragon]

Did you see Fed's draws (2005-2008) to get to most of those French Open finals? That says alot

Those are facts up there. Facts don't lie. And Federer is 12-0 on clay against genuine Claycourters; most matches being before his prime. The guy is a beast.

 

[namelessone]

Those are facts up there. Facts don't lie. And Federer is 12-0 on clay against genuine Claycourters; most matches being before his prime. The guy is a beast.

I find it funny to this day how people seem to believe that Federer is not a great claycourter, usually bringing up his Kuerten loss to justify this. Look, Federer did have a couple of "shock" defeats on clay in his prime(that I can count on one hand) but not only did he make countless MS finals on clay(the last time Roger lost in a clay MS final to someone not named Nadal was in 2003), he also beat legitimate claycourters many times on this surface.

Why is it that people believe Coria would be a threat to Nadal yet when Fed beats him twice in Hamburg, no one seems to mention it as a credential to Fed's clay prowess? Fed also beat Gaudio twice on clay, with a breadstick in each match.

Coria and Gaudio are seen as "real" claycourters who could match Nadal but their losses to Fed always seem to be dismissed.

The real barrier for Fed on clay was Nadal.

He lost 7 MS finals to Nadal and was beaten 5 times in RG by him, 3 of those times at his peak.

Why are "real" claycourters Coria and Gaudio(pick any other guy from the early 00's) only able to reach one/a couple of RG finals when Federer has 5 finals plus another 2 SF. Do people really think that clay field got really so incredibly weak in a just a couple of years? Do they really go to such lengths to deny Fed's talent on this surface?

The late 90's - early 00's had good claycourters but the only great one among them was Kuerten IMO. With all due respect to guys like JCF, Corretja, aging Kafelnikov, Albert Costa, they were good not great(heck, not one of them made more tha one RG final).

I have no problem seeing Fed beat any of them on a claycourt, especially in RG with silveware on the table. Kuerten maybe, but that's because Kuerten was elite. Without Nadal, I can see Fed EASILY bagging around 4 RG overall, if not more.

 

[mike danny]

Did you see Fed's draws (2005-2008) to get to most of those French Open finals? That says alot

please. at least fed got to those finals. your hero pete was not always losing to the best clay courters

 

[forzamilan90]

He's versatile on clay no doubt. One of the greats.

 

[abmk]

If you take out Nadal, Federer would have to contend with Djokovic. Nadal has stopped Novak maybe 5 times since 2006 at RG. He is not a bad clay courter at all and very consistent too. I just don't see him beating peak Federer on clay though. Like Fed, he's just unlucky too to be playing alongside Nadal. He would have made more FO finals if not for the Spaniard. Then Robin S. emerged and was great those two years, a bigger hitter than both Guga and Lendl, sorry but that's the truth.

well, djokovic being taken out by nadal in 06,07 isn't a factor for me as many others could've taken out djokovic in 06 and all the 3 SFists in 07 - federer, nadal and davydenko would've beaten djokovic @ RG in 07.

so its really 08, 12 and 13 - out of which djokovic would've won 12 and 13 if not for nadal , 08 would be b/w fed and djoker.

yeah, soderling was great in 09,10 @ RG, a bigger hitter than guga and lendl, but not a better CC player, as the other 2 were better at other aspects like movement, defense etc.

 

[abmk]

Yes Fed has the numbers but Fed doesn't have a better claycourt game than Gaudio let alone Coria,the latter was a beast on clay in his prime. Coria was strong of both wings and didn't really have a chink in his armour that could be exploited like Fed's exploitable topspin 1HBH.

Federer has been successful because he uses his serve, variety and allcourt prowess to win on clay. He still likes to end points quickly and likes to win a lot of free points on his serve which isn't standard claycourt tennis. Guys like Almagro,Coria,Gaudio,Ferrero,Kuerten would grind Fed down quite easily on a standard high bouncing clay court from a neutral rally position.
Look clay is Fed's weakest surface and he's been plenty successful on it because of the weakest clay era(comprising of HCers trying to play on clay) and just using his overall game to outfox his opponents(didn't work against Ralph coz of the moonballing).

absolutely disagree ..

coria did have 2 weaknesses that could be exploited , even on clay, his serve and relative lack of power off both wings

you do realise federer is 2-0 vs both coria and gaudio on clay , all matches from 2003-05 when both were in their primes

LOL @ almagro being able to grind down federer. Federer's movement and defense on clay ( or anywhere else for that matter ) is miles better.

If you can end points quickly on any court, you do it .

watch federer vs del potro in RG 2009 for an instance where he defended ridiculously win and outlasted an opponent playing quality clay court tennis.

watch federer vs coria in hamburg 04 , you could barely make out the difference in quality of movement and defense b/w these 2.

watch rome 06 final vs nadal - ridiculous offense and defense from federer. Only rafa from the past 30 years or so could've survived that level of play and even he barely did so.

 

[abmk]

Did you see Fed's draws (2005-2008) to get to most of those French Open finals? That says alot

he beat moya, nalbandian, davydenko,gonzalez, monfils , all of whom would've had a pretty good shot of beating your boy sampras at RG ....

 

[The_Order]

yeah, only problem if you take out rafa, you have to put in atleast one pretty good CCer in there, say level of lendl or wilander or kuerten at their primes as fed's competition, who'd probably take away 2-3 RGs from him out of those "6" .....

the CC field as it is clearly weaker than the HC field, if you take out rafa without putting in another strong CCer, it becomes much much weaker ...

How can you just "put" another one in there? If Rafa wasn't there his final opponents would've been:

2005: Puerta
2006: Ljubicic
2007: Djokovic
2008: Djokovic
2011: Sod or Murray

You can't just throw Wilander, Llendl or Kuerten in there for the sake of it, their time had already passed.

Fed would've won all those finals with 2008 being the only one I could see him losing (but I don't like the chances of Fed losing to Novak 2 majors in a row).

Clay really should be considered one of Fed's best surfaces, he grew up on it and his only problem is the real clay goat just happened to turn up during his reign.

 

[abmk]

How can you just "put" another one in there? If Rafa wasn't there his final opponents would've been:

2005: Puerta
2006: Ljubicic
2007: Djokovic
2008: Djokovic
2011: Sod or Murray

You can't just throw Wilander, Llendl or Kuerten in there for the sake of it, their time had already passed.

Fed would've won all those finals with 2008 being the only one I could see him losing (but I don't like the chances of Fed losing to Novak 2 majors in a row).

Clay really should be considered one of Fed's best surfaces, he grew up on it and his only problem is the real clay goat just happened to turn up during his reign.

@ bold part : you can't just take out nadal just like that either then.

that makes the clay court field considerably weaker and you know it. You have to have some other very good CCer at the very least if you want to remove rafa.

We're talking in hypotheticals here.

federer is excellent on clay, but it is still his worst surface. Rafa's prowess amplifies his weaknesses there, but it still easily remains his worst surface.

growing up on a surface has less impact than the playing style and what a player is comfortable with. federer's style and comfort level has always been higher on grass & any kind of HC than on clay.

even djokovic grew up on clay, but he's far better on HC.

becker grew up on clay, but it was clearly his worst surface.

 

[Down_the_line]

Even if his record against Nadal is pitiful, especially in Slams, at least he has done way better on his "worst surface" than Nadal has done on all surfaces outside of clay. 5 French Open finals, 1 title, and 6 clay court Masters 1000 titles is a fantastic set of achievements on his least preferred surface.

In contrast, Nadal at Wimbledon bettered Federer's performance at the French Open slightly, with 5 finals and 2 titles, but only won 1 title at both the Australian Open and US Open and reached only 1 additional final at the Australian Open in 2012. In terms of Masters titles, he ties Federer's 6 on clay with 6 titles on hard courts (Indian Wells x 3, Canada x 2, Madrid pre-2009 x 1).

We won't even get into Nadal's dismal career performance at the World Tour Finals, where Federer has won a record 6 titles...

 

[The_Order]

5 French Open Finals- Only Nadal and Borg have more

5 Consecutive French Open Semifinals- Nobody matches

9 Consecutive French Open Quarterfinals*- Nobody matches

6 Masters 1000 Titles- To lend some perspective, Lendl has 6, Kuerten has 4, Wilander has 3, Courier has 2

14 Masters 1000 Finals, at least 3 at every event


A combined head-to-head of 12-0 against the storied Claycourt Champions of his time: Ferrero, Coria, Moya, Gaudio, and Kafelnikov. And 1-1 against Gustavo Kuerten.

And Clay is his worst surface :shock:

Nadal on HC

4 slam finals

6 Masters 1000 Titles- To lend some perspective, Roddick has 5, Safin has 5 Hewitt has 2

12 Masters 1000 Finals

2 slams (AO09, USO10)

Olympic singles gold

A staggering 6-2 outdoor HC record against the storied HC legend Federer (undefeated against him in HC majors)

And HC is his worst surface :shock:

 

[The_Order]

@ bold part : you can't just take out nadal just like that either then.

The point isn't taking him away, the point is if Nadal didn't exist at the time.

that makes the clay court field considerably weaker and you know it. You have to have some other very good CCer at the very least if you want to remove rafa.

Of course it makes the clay field weaker when you take out the clay goat, but we are not replacing batteries here, we are saying if Nadal hadn't have been around...

We're talking in hypotheticals here.

Really? Thanks.

federer is excellent on clay, but it is still his worst surface. Rafa's prowess amplifies his weaknesses there, but it still easily remains his worst surface.

growing up on a surface has less impact than the playing style and what a player is comfortable with. federer's style and comfort level has always been higher on grass & any kind of HC than on clay.

even djokovic grew up on clay, but he's far better on HC.

becker grew up on clay, but it was clearly his worst surface.

Clay wouldn't be Roger's worst surface if Rafa didn't exist. He'd probably have 6 RG titles and a boat load of clay Masters titles as well. Wimbledon would be the only major where he has more titles.

HC is Rafa's worst surface, yet he was still able to overcome that and beat your boy (and in your opinion one of the greatest slow HC players of all time) 6-2 on outdoor conditions (which are the conditions at the majors unless AO roof is closed from rain)

 

[Eragon]

Nadal on HC

4 slam finals

6 Masters 1000 Titles- To lend some perspective, Roddick has 5, Safin has 5 Hewitt has 2

12 Masters 1000 Finals

2 slams (AO09, USO10)

Olympic singles gold

A staggering 6-2 outdoor HC record against the storied HC legend Federer (undefeated against him in HC majors)

And HC is his worst surface :shock:

Perhaps it's you who needs some perspective.

1. There are twice as many Hardcourt Slams and Hardcourt Masters as Clay Slams and Clay Masters. 4 finals in 2 tournaments is hardly as impressive as 5 finals in 1 tournament.

2. 6 Masters 1000 titles, you say? That's the number of Hardcourt Masters there are a year. Compared to just 3 Claycourt Masters a year.

3. 12 Masters Finals in 6 events. Versus 14 in 3 events

4. Blah. That's a Masters-level event, if that. 750 points.

5. No, no. It's 6-6. Maybe we should only consider Federer's record against Nadal on Indoor Clay? No, no?


Nadal's worst surface/conditions are definitely Indoor Hards. The guy has 0 WTF titles, 1 Masters title, and a 0-4 record against Federer there (having only ever won one set against him). And most of those beatdowns were against a Federer past his best. Do you know what Nadal's record is at the 5th biggest event on the ATP Calendar? 9-10. That's a winning record of 47%. Fairly pathetic.

 

[The_Order]

Perhaps it's you who needs some perspective.

1. There are twice as many Hardcourt Slams and Hardcourt Masters as Clay Slams and Clay Masters. 4 finals in 2 tournaments is hardly as impressive as 5 finals in 1 tournament.

2. 6 Masters 1000 titles, you say? That's the number of Hardcourt Masters there are a year. Compared to just 3 Claycourt Masters a year.

3. 12 Masters Finals in 6 events. Versus 14 in 3 events

4. Blah. That's a Masters-level event, if that. 750 points.

5. No, no. It's 6-6. Maybe we should only consider Federer's record against Nadal on Indoor Clay? No, no?


Nadal's worst surface/conditions are definitely Indoor Hards. The guy has 0 WTF titles, 1 Masters title, and a 0-4 record against Federer there (having only ever won one set against him). And most of those beatdowns were against a Federer past his best. Do you know what Nadal's record is at the 5th biggest event on the ATP Calendar? 9-10. That's a winning record of 47%. Fairly pathetic.

Well then going by that logic Nadal's 8 RG titles must be FAR more impressive than Federer's 9 HC titles since there are 2 HC majors and only 1 clay major.

:lol:

If there were 2 clay majors per year instead of HC, Nadal would have the slam record by now by a mile, in fact he'd probably have close to 20 slams already.

 

[Eragon]

Well then going by that logic Nadal's 8 RG titles must be FAR more impressive than Federer's 9 HC titles since there are 2 HC majors and only 1 clay major.

:lol:

If there were 2 clay majors per year instead of HC, Nadal would have the slam record by now by a mile, in fact he'd probably have close to 20 slams already.

Yes, Nadal's capability on Clay far surpasses Federer's on Hards. I thought that was general knowledge.

Nadal knew what the tour was when he picked up a racquet. It's his fault he didn't temper his game to be more suited to the most important surface of his time.

 

[The_Order]

Yes, Nadal's capability on Clay far surpasses Federer's on Hards. I thought that was general knowledge.

Nadal knew what the tour was when he picked up a racquet. It's his fault he didn't temper his game to be more suited to the most important surface of his time.

Just like it's Federer's fault that he's Nadal's turkey :lol:

 

[Eragon]

Just like it's Federer's fault that he's Nadal's turkey :lol:

He's nobody's turkey with the greatest career Tennis has ever seen. If anything, Nadal is WTF's turkey

PS- Federer has beaten Nadal on every surface/conditions they've played on. Federer is Nadal's Daddy's Daddy on Indoor Hards. Go figure.

 

[The_Order]

He's nobody's turkey with the greatest career Tennis has ever seen. If anything, Nadal is WTF's turkey

PS- Federer has beaten Nadal on every surface/conditions they've played on. Federer is Nadal's Daddy's Daddy on Indoor Hards. Go figure.

20-10 :lol: TURKEY

And lol at ******* being a daddy's daddy...

PS - Federer has only beaten Nadal at one major, Nadal has beat Federer at 3/4 (undefeated at RG and AO) and it would've been 4/4 if scarederer didn't tank to Novak 2 years in a row at USO...

 

[Eragon]

20-10 :lol: TURKEY

And lol at ******* being a daddy's daddy...

PS - Federer has only beaten Nadal at one major, Nadal has beat Federer at 3/4 (undefeated at RG and AO) and it would've been 4/4 if scarederer didn't tank to Novak 2 years in a row at USO...

Yes, 30 year-old ******* spanked 25 year-old Nadal 6-3 6-0 at WTF. He's Nadal's Daddy's Daddy all right.

And that's rich coming from a Nadal fan, "scarederer". Who's the guy that took off last year after his loss to Rosol and only came back for Clay this year? All 5 of Nadal's last matches against Djokovic have come on Clay and he hasn't beaten him off-clay since when? Maybe Federer should take a leaf out of Nadal's book and only play Nadal at the WTF. The head-to-head would then be 4-0

 

[abmk]

The point isn't taking him away, the point is if Nadal didn't exist at the time.


Of course it makes the clay field weaker when you take out the clay goat, but we are not replacing batteries here, we are saying if Nadal hadn't have been around...


Clay wouldn't be Roger's worst surface if Rafa didn't exist. He'd probably have 6 RG titles and a boat load of clay Masters titles as well. Wimbledon would be the only major where he has more titles.

HC is Rafa's worst surface, yet he was still able to overcome that and beat your boy (and in your opinion one of the greatest slow HC players of all time) 6-2 on outdoor conditions (which are the conditions at the majors unless AO roof is closed from rain)

huh, taking nadal out of the equation and b/w putting another strong CCer in the mix - both are hypothetical.

If you want to say federer didn't win those RGs only because rafa is the clay court GOAT and that other strong CCers couldn't have beaten federer , that's not correct, nowhere near true.

Hence the point about replacing rafa with another strong CCer in a hypothetical scenario

why don't you take out both nadal and djokovic and say federer wins 7 RGs and say that would be his best surface :roll:

reality is taking rafa out of the field would weaken it considerably . you have to atleast put in another strong CCer, if you want to take out rafa

so, yes, in any other era, clay would still be federer's worst surface based on his own skill set, performance over the years and comfort level on that surface. He'd win multiple RGs, but he's not near rafa or borg level on clay to reach 5-6 RGs ..

 

[Eragon]

huh, taking nadal out of the equation and b/w putting another strong CCer in the mix - both are hypothetical.

If you want to say federer didn't win those RGs only because rafa is the clay court GOAT and that other strong CCers couldn't have beaten federer , that's not correct, nowhere near true.

Hence the point about replacing rafa with another strong CCer in a hypothetical scenario

why don't you take out both nadal and djokovic and say federer wins 7 RGs and say that would be his best surface :roll:

reality is taking rafa out of the field would weaken it considerably . you have to atleast put in another strong CCer, if you want to take out rafa

so, yes, in any other era, clay would still be federer's worst surface based on his own skill set, performance over the years and comfort level on that surface. He'd win multiple RGs, but he's not near rafa or borg level on clay to reach 5-6 RGs ..

Don't sweat it, logic doesn't seem to be his strong suit. If he had his way, he'll say, "remove Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Roddick, Davydenko, Gonzalez, Tsonga, Del Potro, Blake and Nadal would be the Hardcourt GOAT."

 

[bullfan]

5 French Open Finals- Only Nadal and Borg have more

5 Consecutive French Open Semifinals- Nobody matches

9 Consecutive French Open Quarterfinals*- Nobody matches

6 Masters 1000 Titles- To lend some perspective, Lendl has 6, Kuerten has 4, Wilander has 3, Courier has 2

14 Masters 1000 Finals, at least 3 at every event


A combined head-to-head of 12-0 against the storied Claycourt Champions of his time: Ferrero, Coria, Moya, Gaudio, and Kafelnikov. And 1-1 against Gustavo Kuerten.

And Clay is his worst surface :shock:

Given that resume, one wonders about his inability to follow through against his prime competitor. The numbers look good until you factor in that he could never beat Nadal on Nadal's home turf, while Nadal could beat Fed on Fed's home turf. I think that sums it up.

 

[Eragon]

Given that resume, one wonders about his inability to follow through against his prime competitor. The numbers look good until you factor in that he could never beat Nadal on Nadal's home turf, while Nadal could beat Fed on Fed's home turf. I think that sums it up.

Federer's home turf is Indoor Hards. It's 4-0 to Federer there. And Federer did beat Nadal on Clay. Twice, including a bagel-set.

Perhaps Nadal can beat 32 year-old Fatherer there? We'll see.

 

[bullfan]

Federer's home turf is Indoor Hards. It's 4-0 to Federer there.

Feds GS home turf is Wimbledon. Nadal's is RG. Based on the big matches, Nadal encroached on Feds turf, not the other way around.

Sad to see the year end matches above GS!

 

[Eragon]

Feds GS home turf is Wimbledon. Nadal's is RG. Based on the big matches, Nadal encroached on Feds turf, not the other way around.

Sad to see the year end matches above GS!

Federer's best surface is Indoor Hards. But by all means, keep clutching at straws.

 

[6-3 6-0]

Given that resume, one wonders about his inability to follow through against his prime competitor. The numbers look good until you factor in that he could never beat Nadal on Nadal's home turf, while Nadal could beat Fed on Fed's home turf. I think that sums it up.

I don't think its a new fact that RNadal is the favourite when these two meets because of the match-up and the mental advantage, but you don't win titles just by beating one player in the final. You have to play against the entire field.

 

[edmondsm]

Would have had 3 or more FO titles in any other era.

 

[edmondsm]

Given that resume, one wonders about his inability to follow through against his prime competitor. The numbers look good until you factor in that he could never beat Nadal on Nadal's home turf, while Nadal could beat Fed on Fed's home turf. I think that sums it up.

Nadal spent a lot of time losing in the early rounds when Fed was cleaning up at Wimbledon and the USO. It would have been great to see them meet at those tourneys back then. If only Nadal hadn't been losing to (insert player here) maybe their h2h would be different.

 

[monfed]

Nadal spent a lot of time losing in the early rounds when Fed was cleaning up at Wimbledon and the USO. It would have been great to see them meet at those tourneys back then. If only Nadal hadn't been losing to (insert player here) maybe their h2h would be different.

USO is Fed's best surface ,it always has been. He gave the most astonishing performance of his career in USO 2004 and Fast HC has always suited his game even more than grass. ******* always showed up on clay but absconded at the USO where he would've got a beating which would've reminded him why he's the luckiest dirtballer ever to play the game.