Federer vs Nadal hypothetical: Who would have had the better career?

Benben245 said:
Imagine Federer, Nadal, and Djoker were the same age, how rapidly Fed would have improved his backhand and strategy from defensive to aggressive. Federer may have demoralized djoker and nadal to the point where it would have affected them mentally and changed everything.
Click to expand...

Federer only 'improved' his backhand once Nadals movement declined. Coincidence huh?
 
kevaninho said:
Federer only 'improved' his backhand once Nadals movement declined. Coincidence huh?
Click to expand...

You need a new set of eyes, and a new center to process the information they will deliver.

As a start, he would have started with raquet that is on par with the ones of the other two.

We know what happened after he switched and got used to it, even in his declined state.

:cool:
 
Tennis_Hands said:
You need a new set of eyes, and a new center to process the information they will deliver.

As a start, he would have started with raquet that is on par with the ones of the other two.

We know what happened after he switched and got used to it, even in his declined state.

:cool:
Click to expand...

So what happened after he switched? Give me facts and figures.
Im pretty sure his inferior raquet won him most of his titles.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
Weeks at No 1 are linked to the points ATP awards to the individual tournaments which are more or less arbitrary and do not reflect true greatness. Otherwise we must believe that when defining greatness two masters equals one slam which is ******** or that two lost slam finals make a player greater than one slam win. I dare you to ask any one time slam winner like ivanisevic or Johansson for how many runner up trophies they would exchange their elusive slam win. They will think you are completely crazy.
Click to expand...
You can't be better than someone when that someone spent more time than you at no.1. Since tennis is played against the field, that's a better criteria than H2H.
 
mike danny said:
His back injury became a thing starting with IW. At the AO back issues weren't the reason Fed lost to Murray.
Click to expand...
He was wearing a compression garment the whole tournament; pull up the videos. Is that the status quo in fed's attire a compression garment underneath his shirt, or do we usually see his luscious thick nest of chest hair saying peekaboo above his collar?
 
kevaninho said:
Federer only 'improved' his backhand once Nadals movement declined. Coincidence huh?
Click to expand...
Your point is unfalsifiable, as a corollary you could also make the point that a 36 year old man all of a sudden improving his backhand is absurd. I don't think 2017 was an optical illusion however and we may never know what the 2009 AO would have looked like if fed had a bigger racquet but given how close it was......

It never struck you as odd how federer would be dismantled by nadal but play better against djokovic while djokovic consistently had nadal's number? This disparity has nothing to do with federer's backhand?
 
Last edited:
mike danny said:
You can't be better than someone when that someone spent more time than you at no.1. Since tennis is played against the field, that's a better criteria than H2H.
Click to expand...
So in your opinion Nadal was better than Federer in 2017 and Agassi better than Sampras in 1999?
 
Towny said:
I think most of us would put Federer ahead in the GOAT debate at present or at least have the two about level (vocal minority would have Nadal ahead). However, had Federer retired after his terrible 2013 season and if Nadal had retired after this season, who would you have considered to have the better career?

Assume for this that any wins Federer has had over Nadal since then, somebody else beats Nadal so he doesn't win extra tournaments.

Both would have 17 slams with 7 finals. Nadal would have won his first and last slam 13 years apart, Federer 9 years apart
Federer 6 YEC, Nadal 0 YEC
Nadal 1 OSG, Federer 0 OSG
Nadal 33 masters, Federer 21 masters
Nadal 80 titles, Federer 77
Federer 5 YE#1, Nadal 4 YE#1
Federer 302 weeks #1, Nadal 196 weeks #1
H2H would be 22-10 in Nadal's favour

Who would you have considered greater?
Click to expand...


If Fed had retired at the end of 2013:

Slams: 17 v 17
ms1000: 33 v 21
Olympics: 1 SG v 0SG
Davis Cup: 4 v 0
ms 500 : 20 v 12
h2h : 22 v 10
yec: 0 v 6

Fed's case: He was superior at the year end exo
 
mike danny said:
Nadal was deservedly the best player of 2017, but he didn't really outperform Fed overall, as opposed to Fed overperforming Rafa in most cases if he retired in 2013.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t call that outperform. In slams they would be equal, Nadal would be comfortably ahead in masters while Fed in weeks at No 1. Then it comes down to Olympic gold vs WTF and winning percentage vs final/semi final streaks. Even ignoring the H2H I cannot see where exactly Fed completely outperforms Rafa in this case.
 
NatF said:
Agassi was lucky his DADDY Pete was injured going into the USO.
Click to expand...
Yep and the reason why you call him Agassi’s daddy is that he completely destroyed him in H2H this year. Nobody, not even Agassi himself felt that he was the best player in 1999.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
Yep and the reason why you call him Agassi’s daddy is that he completely destroyed him in H2H this year. Nobody, not even Agassi himself felt that he was the best player in 1999.
Click to expand...

Sampras was really clicking in the summer of 1999, he was quite unfortunate with injuries at the USO - injured/returning from injury in 1994, 1998 and 1999. Would have been a heavy favourite in at least 1994 and 1999 otherwise.
 
NatF said:
Sampras was really clicking in the summer of 1999, he was quite unfortunate with injuries at the USO - injured/returning from injury in 1994, 1998 and 1999. Would have been a heavy favourite in at least 1994 and 1999 otherwise.
Click to expand...
He would have completely annihilated Andre at the US in 99. IMHO only Borg at the French in 77 was an even heavier favourite who did not compete at a specific slam.
 
kevaninho said:
So what happened after he switched? Give me facts and figures.
Im pretty sure his inferior raquet won him most of his titles.
Click to expand...

Asking for details is a direct admission that you need guidance, because you don't seem to know the facts in the first place.

Federer switched for short period at the beginning of the HC summer season in 2013 for a couple of matches, but felt uncomfortable at the time due to physical issues, and the lack of necessary time to adjust mid-season, so he reverted back to his old frame.

He started training with it full time at the beginning of 2014, and was at full flight with it somewhere around mid-season.

The facts are, after he adapted fully Nadal has not won a single match against him,and he also won 3 Majors, and gave major trouble to the only player who was able to counter him successfully, and that major trouble happened despite of the significant age disadvantage.

Whatever he has won with his old frame is totally irrelevant to the switch and the resulting successes.

8-)
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
Wouldn’t call that outperform. In slams they would be equal, Nadal would be comfortably ahead in masters while Fed in weeks at No 1. Then it comes down to Olympic gold vs WTF and winning percentage vs final/semi final streaks. Even ignoring the H2H I cannot see where exactly Fed completely outperforms Rafa in this case.
Click to expand...
Well, there would be also domibance on 2 different surfaces.
 
mike danny said:
2016 Nadal at RG is still the biggest question mark for me recently.
Click to expand...
Not sure whether he could have beaten djokovic. Prime for prime Nadal wins, but 2016 was far away from prime Nadal and even on clay Novak has always put up problems to Rafa. As for a hypothetical Borg vs Vilas match in 1977 there is no doubt at all, Borg always owned him big time and this was Borg reaching his absolute peak. Sampras against Agassi in 99 I have also very little doubt. Sampras was way better at the US Open in general and especially in 99 he was playing some of his best tennis. Too bad he started declining in 2000.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
Not sure whether he could have beaten djokovic. Prime for prime Nadal wins, but 2016 was far away from prime Nadal and even on clay Novak has always put up problems to Rafa. As for a hypothetical Borg vs Vilas match in 1977 there is no doubt at all, Borg always owned him big time and this was Borg reaching his absolute peak. Sampras against Agassi in 99 I have also very little doubt. Sampras was way better at the US Open in general and especially in 99 he was playing some of his best tennis. Too bad he started declining in 2000.
Click to expand...
At RG Djokovic, other than 2013, hasn't done better than Fed against Nadal.
 
mike danny said:
At RG Djokovic, other than 2013, hasn't done better than Fed against Nadal.
Click to expand...
Well he actually beat him in 2015 so he did better, however as we all know any close to prime version of Fed would of course have beaten THAT Nadal as well. In 2013 this should never have gone to 5 sets anyways so yes, Djokovic did not do significantly better.

However, after 2011 I always had the impression that Djokovic was a little in Nadals head. He beat him several times on clay outside the French and even the two matches during Djokovics slump in 2017/2018 there were moments in the match where Nadal played nervous and the momentum seemed to shift. His chokes in the 5th set of AO 2012, in the 4th of FO 2013 and Djokovic winning 8 games in a row in FO 2012 are such instances which showed that even when Nadal had Djokovic at the ropes there was always some danger left whereas against Fed he showed much more confidence. Anyways a hypothetical 2016 FO match between Nadal and Djokovic would be a 50/50 thing Imho.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
Well he actually beat him in 2015 so he did better, however as we all know any close to prime version of Fed would of course have beaten THAT Nadal as well. In 2013 this should never have gone to 5 sets anyways so yes, Djokovic did not do significantly better.
Click to expand...

Fantasy.

Reality: Djoko beat Nadal in his 3 feuds (RG, Rome and MC) while Fed didn't.
 
Lew said:
Fantasy.

Reality: Djoko beat him in his 3 feuds (RG, Rome and MC) while Fed didn't.
Click to expand...
You should read carefully. Djokovic DID better against Nadal than Federer at RG and on clay in general. But this was also partly due to the fact that prime Federer faced a stronger version of Nadal than prime Djokovic. Nadal in 2015 lost against every decent player so it was just coincidence that Djokovic was the first formidable opponent at the French and therefore the one who got the honor to finally beat Rafa at RG. Outside of 2015 there is little difference between djokovic and Fed in terms of how they fared against Nadal except for 2013. As I pointed out this match shouldn’t have gone to five to begin with.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
You should read carefully. Djokovic DID better against Nadal than Federer at RG and on clay in general. But this was also partly due to the fact that prime Federer faced a stronger version of Nadal than prime Djokovic. Nadal in 2015 lost against every decent player so it was just coincidence that Djokovic was the first formidable opponent at the French and therefore the one who got the honor to finally beat Rafa at RG. Outside of 2015 there is little difference between djokovic and Fed in terms of how they fared against Nadal except for 2013. As I pointed out this match shouldn’t have gone to five to begin with.
Click to expand...

On clay:

2005-11 Federer vs Nadal 2-12

2011-16 Djokovic vs Nadal 7-5
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@BorgTheGOAT

Lew said:
On clay:

2005-11 Federer vs Nadal 2-12

2011-16 Djokovic vs Nadal 7-5
Click to expand...

clay wins over top-10s:

Nadal 2005-11 excluding Federer: 32 (4.6 per year)

Nadal 2011-16 excluding Djokovic: 31 (5.2 per year)


This in a 6-11 years more modern tennis.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.. wrong thread
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RaulRamirez said:
Rafa, by a little bit..Same amount of "slams" won, but Rafa has more big titles here. Other numbers (except for H2H which goes Rafa's way (but I don't value it that much) are close to even, with Roger holding one more YE#1. Think about it: Roger is 5 years older, so if he retired after 2013 (obviously, he didn't), they would have done so at the same age, if Rafa retired now. Without even saying "weak era" (as I find that demeaning to several players and to what Roger achieved), I think it would be safe to say that Rafa's career was just a little stronger against slightly higher competition.

Some comments below:

Both would have 17 slams with 7 finals. Nadal would have won his first and last slam 13 years apart, Federer 9 years apart
1)Slight edge to Rafa for longevity at the top, but not a huge disparity.

2) Federer 6 YEC, Nadal 0 YEC 6 more big titles to Fed, but (see just below)...
Nadal 1 OSG, Federer 0 OSG
3) Nadal 33 masters, Federer 21 masters ...Considering the Olympics as well, that's 34-27 Rafa (Big "non-Slam" titles - a sizable edge in this category

4) Nadal 80 titles, Federer 77 Close enough to be negligible
5) Federer 5 YE#1, Nadal 4 YE#1 Slight edge to Fed
6) Federer 302 weeks #1, Nadal 196 weeks #1 Edge to Fed here, of course, but doesn't offset the "Big Titles" edge, even with one more YE#1 - which I value more than Weeks at #1
7) H2H would be 22-10 in Nadal's favour Of course, an edge numerically for Rafa, but it's not that huge of a deal for me
Click to expand...
Look, we all have our biases - myself included. But just to illustrate - with all of them, you could write more or less the opposite:
1) Slight edge to Roger for showing more dominance during his reign (winning the same amount in a shorter time span)
2) 6 to 0, huge gap to Fed
3) You're equaling Masters and Olympics (worth 1000 and 750) with YEC (worth 1.500 5 or 6 of the times Fed's won it). At best, a slight edge to Rafa in big titles below slams.
4) agree
5) agree
6) Pretty big edge - to me it far outweighs Rafa's slight edge in 3.
7) This stat is important to me, when all other things are close. Huge edge to Rafa. That being said - that edge is already reflected in their other numbers (had it been equal, Fed would be ahead by miles in the slam race)
 
Chanwan said:
Look, we all have our biases - myself included. But just to illustrate - with all of them, you could write more or less the opposite:
1) Slight edge to Roger for showing more dominance during his reign (winning the same amount in a shorter time span)
50/50 call - I leaned slightly the other way.
2) 6 to 0, huge gap to Fed
3) You're equaling Masters and Olympics (worth 1000 and 750) with YEC (worth 1.500 5 or 6 of the times Fed's won it). At best, a slight edge to Rafa in big titles below slams. I look at the achievement of it. I'm simply not a huge fan of the YEC, but won't go into exhaustive reasoning here. I see it as indoor 1000 with a funky format. i get that winners usually get either 1300 or 1500. I think that the Olympics (and it really doesn't figure in too much to player ranking (though a nice boost to Murray) has a lot of prestige...probably more prestige than the other two, but I couldn't rate it higher.
4) agree
5) agree
6) Pretty big edge - to me it far outweighs Rafa's slight edge in 3. That's a reasonable position; I care more about seasonal YE-#1s.
7) This stat is important to me, when all other things are close. Huge edge to Rafa. That being said - that edge is already reflected in their other numbers (had it been equal, Fed would be ahead by miles in the slam race)
If we're ranking players, I don't know how much to factor in H2H. Let's say A&B (may never happen) split all 4 majors one year, and actually end up tied in ranking points for the year. However A defeated B 4-1 in H2H. Tiebreaker goes to A, right? I'm not sure, as B played the rest of the field better. I don't think I'm being a contrarian here - I just don't know how much to factor it in. I do get that in other sports, it is a leading tie-breaking criterion for two teams tied in the standings.
Click to expand...

(Good points - some comments next to yours, but we don't disagree by too much.)
 
I smell a how do we make Rafa look better than Fed thread here. I say how's
about we include all years but instead limit ourselves to the first 3 months of
every year, Jan-Feb-March. Who's had the better career then?

Hint : it ain't the beady eyed sweathog from hell. Vamos!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
  • Poll Poll
Stan with the hypothetical Career Grand Slam vs Andy Murray
2
Replies
88
Views
5K
tennis_pro
tennis_pro
M
Comparing Federer to Nadal after 2008/2013
Replies
34
Views
3K
TMF
TMF
B
How to statistically measure greatness in the OE. The Nadal vs Federer debate.
2
Replies
64
Views
4K
GoatNo1
GoatNo1
M
Summary of the Big 3 and Damage They Have Done to Each Other's Legacy
Replies
16
Views
1K
Fedforever
F
M
Do you think Nadal/Djokovic would have won less majors/retired by now if Fed had already retired? Whereas, Fed has had to manufacture motivation?
Replies
1
Views
372
Jonesy
J
Back
Top