Fed's 2006 season vs. Nadal's 2010 season

Fed 2006 vs. Nadal 2010

  • Total voters
    144
TMF said:
Even Wilander’s 3 slams/year in the 80s is arguably better than 2010 Nadal.
Click to expand...

umm, no, he didn't win on 3 "different" surfaces, didn't have clay sweep, won 6 titles ( rafa has 6 already ) , win % was "only" 83% ( rafa will end up with a higher % most probably )
 
I have to go with Fed here.
He has a win on 2 different HC surfaces which is impressive.

AO-WB-UO done 5 times
Laver(69), Conners(74), Federer(04,06,07)

When Laver and Conners did this the USO was grass(I think).

Sop the combination AO-HC, WB-grass, UO-HC,
no one has ever won this except Federer and he did it 3 times!!!

Nadal gets some credit too.
RG-WB-UO done 2 time
Laver (69), Nadal (10 ).
Nadal is the only one to do this on 3 different surfaces.

BTW. I consider there to be four surfaces, The AO and USO are both hard but play differently so are not the same surface.
 
Federer had the better consistency and performance in 2006 than Rafa's 2010.
This thread is pointless...it more like a kick in the sack to *********s for being happy than a justfied poll!
 
P_Agony said:
Fed's winning percentage and him not making just one final the entire year are pretty special achievements. To me they are in fact more special than Nadal's 3 consecutive slams. Nadal's "clay slam" is mighty impressive though.
Click to expand...

Okayyy... I'll try something else.

Is a career grand slam and 14 + channel slam and 15 less impressive than 92% winning percentage and a bunch of final? Do you honestly think it is less 'special'?
If the case, ok then, we just differ completely about, let say, what story we're gonna tell our grandchildren.
If not, you can't make a case with 92% being more 'special' than what Nadal has done without losing credibility.
 
Of course Federer's 2006 is better. So what? No matter how good you are, there's always somebody better. Nadal will never have a single year where he dominated as much as Federer did for 4 years. So what? I still like Rafa better. These threads are trash.
 
ashitaka2010 said:
Okayyy... I'll try something else.

Is a career grand slam and 14 + channel slam and 15 less impressive than 92% winning percentage and a bunch of final? Do you honestly think it is less 'special'?
If the case, ok then, we just differ completely about, let say, what story we're gonna tell our grandchildren.
If not, you can't make a case with 92% being more 'special' than what Nadal has done without losing credibility.
Click to expand...

Yes.

That is why anyone who's not a Nadal-troll considers 1984 and 2006 the best years in the open era.

In 1984, McEnroe won "only" 2 slams. His winning percentage was .9647 (82-3). No channel slams...no clay sweeps...no any crap like that...

In 2006, Federer won 3 slams. His winning percentage was .9485 (92-5).


Winning percentage is what matters.

You're welcome:)
 
To
yper_schtroumpf01.gif


Let's look at the stats:

Slams:

2006 Fed: AO winner, FO finalist, W winner, USO winner
2010 Nadal: AO QF, FO winner, W winner, USO winner

Advatnage: Federer (one more final is better than QF)

MS titles:

2006 Fed: IW, Miami, Toronto, Madrid (all on hard)
2010 Nadal: Monte Carlo, Rome, Madrid (all on clay)

advantage: Federer (because 4 is greater than 3)

YEC titles:

2006 Fed: 1
2010 Nadal: Still unknown.

Advantage: Fed (so far)

Special achievements:

2006 Fed: Missed just one final the whole year, won IW-Miami combo 2nd year in a row, lost to only two players the whole year, was ranked #1 the WHOLE year.

2010 Nadal: 3 consecutive slams, 3 consecutive MS titles on clay.

Advantage: Federer.

How can Nadal match Fed's 2006? If Nadal wins Paris and then the YEC this might become debatable because then he would be tied with Fed's MS titles in 2006 as well as his YEC title. In that case, I would still go with Fed's 2006 due to that extra slam final which Nadal failed to make in 2010.

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...

You lost me here.
IW-Miami: done before (because we are counting 1 year, aren't we?)
ranked #1 the whole year: done before
Missed just one final the whole year, lost to only two players the whole year: true that's impressive, as much as losing only 2 sets in 4 tournaments.
3 consecutive slams (clay, grass, hard), 3 consecutive MS titles on clay: never ever done before.
Click to expand...

It's funny that when some people are trying to 'make a case' about the 'special achievement' you don't bother to reply.

If the numbers and facts are you're main arguments, you should give up the 'special' thing. In no way Fed is winning on THIS particular subject.
Click to expand...

Where on earth did I say 2010 was a better year than 2006 or 1984?

You are welcome :neutral:
 
ashitaka2010 said:
Okayyy... I'll try something else.

Is a career grand slam and 14 + channel slam and 15 less impressive than 92% winning percentage and a bunch of final? Do you honestly think it is less 'special'?
If the case, ok then, we just differ completely about, let say, what story we're gonna tell our grandchildren.
If not, you can't make a case with 92% being more 'special' than what Nadal has done without losing credibility.
Click to expand...

I don't mind your threats for losing credibility. I'm with it actually. My opinions stay the same. I don't think winning 3 slams in a row is such a great achievement. What if the USO came after AO and before Wimbly, and FO was last? Fed would have won 3 in a row in 2006 AND 2007 AND 2004. It means nothing.
 
MichaelNadal said:
Of course Federer's 2006 is better. So what? No matter how good you are, there's always somebody better. Nadal will never have a single year where he dominated as much as Federer did for 4 years. So what? I still like Rafa better. These threads are trash.
Click to expand...

Huh? Why are they trash? Big Bang had an argument with TMF in some other thread about this exactly. Big Bang thinks Nadal's 2010 is more impressive and TMF thinks Fed's 2006 was more impressive. I opened a thread to see what most people think.
 
I don't mind your threats for losing credibility. I'm with it actually.
Click to expand...

Are you implying this...

- missing just one final the whole year
- winning IW-Miami combo
- losing to only two players the whole year
- being ranked #1 the whole year
- 94,85% / 92-5 (thanks Papa Smurf, see i'm generous it wasn't even in your first criteria)

>

-Career Grand Slam, Channel Slam and 15 Majors
OR
-Career Golden Slam, RG-W-USO and Clay Slam
​


Or something else?

In any case, my grandchildren will be lucky!

EDIT: All this in the 'special achievement' category... of course
 
Last edited:
The-Champ said:
unrelated....but it caught the attention of a ******* disguised as borg fan.


Federer's 2006 is better than Rafa's 2010...I'd be a fool not to admit that. but Rafa's 3 majors in a row is a remarkable achievement since Laver was the last man to do it. Overall though, Federer's 2006 was a bit better.
Click to expand...

Off topic. Why did you bring H2H statistics into this? Don't try to change the topic. Calling you out for nonsense does not imply I'm a *******.
 
ashitaka2010 said:
>

-Career Grand Slam, Channel Slam and 15 Majors
OR
-Career Golden Slam, RG-W-USO and Clay Slam
[/CENTER]


Or something else?

In any case, my grandchildren will be lucky!

EDIT: All this in the 'special achievement' category... of course
Click to expand...


[B ][ SIZE="5"]>[/S IZE][ /B]

-Career Grand Slam, [COLOR ="Orange"]Channel [/C OLOR][COLOR="Li me"]Slam [/COLOR]and 15[/ B] Majors
OR
-Career Golden Slam, [COLOR="Dark Orange"]RG[/CO LOR]-[COLOR="Li me"]W[/COLOR]-USO [/ COLOR]and Clay Slam[/C OLOR]
[/CENT ER]


Lol, you obviously put a lot of work into this (I like your use of DeepSkyBlue)...you win...it's the coloured ones!!:neutral:
 
P_Agony said:
I don't mind your threats for losing credibility. I'm with it actually. My opinions stay the same. I don't think winning 3 slams in a row is such a great achievement. What if the USO came after AO and before Wimbly, and FO was last? Fed would have won 3 in a row in 2006 AND 2007 AND 2004. It means nothing.
Click to expand...

i think its the fact that fo > ao. also 3 slams on 3 diff surfaces.
 
I thought of a new RECORD! for nadal this morning. First person to enter the TMC with wins at the FO, W, USO on 3 different surfaces in the same calender year. RECORD!.

And here's another one: First person to enter the TMC with wins at the FO, W, USO + All 3 clay court masters in the same calender year. RECORD!.

I am sure there is a sub-record in the last one too!

Amazing this Nadal, he truly owns the tennis universe at this moment in time. :)
 
On the topic of the majors, if you keep all other things equal, yes 3 titles and a final trumps 3 titles and an early loss. That's true, but all other things are not equal. Nadal won his majors on red clay, grass, and a hard court. Federer won his majors in 2006 on either a hard court or a grass court. So, winning majors on 3 surfaces does trump winning them on two 2 surfaces. So in my opinion, it's very debatable in terms of which player has the better track record at the 4 majors. Don't many try and severely discount Laver's Grand Slams because three of the majors were on grass back then? (2 surfaces, not 3). Yet, Laver actually has won a lot on every surface if you look at his career record.
 
Last edited:
borg number one said:
On the topic of the majors, if you keep all other things equal, yes 3 titles and a final trumps 3 titles and an early loss. That's true, but all other things are not equal. Nadal won his majors on red clay, grass, and a hard court. Federer won his either on a hard court and grass court. 3 surfaces also trumps 2 surfaces, so in my opinion, it's very debatable in terms of which player has the better track record at the 4 majors.
Click to expand...

If those where the only factors.
 
borg number one said:
On the topic of the majors, if you keep all other things equal, yes 3 titles and a final trumps 3 titles and an early loss. That's true, but all other things are not equal. Nadal won his majors on red clay, grass, and a hard court. Federer won his either on a hard court and grass court. 3 surfaces also trumps 2 surfaces, so in my opinion, it's very debatable in terms of which player has the better track record at the 4 majors.
Click to expand...

Yes but Grand slam Final > Grand Slam quarter final
 
borg number one said:
On the topic of the majors, if you keep all other things equal, yes 3 titles and a final trumps 3 titles and an early loss. That's true, but all other things are not equal. Nadal won his majors on red clay, grass, and a hard court. Federer won his majors in 2006 on either a hard court or a grass court. So, winning majors on 3 surfaces does trump winning them on two 2 surfaces. So in my opinion, it's very debatable in terms of which player has the better track record at the 4 majors. Don't many try and severely discount Laver's Grand Slams because three of the majors were on grass back then? (2 surfaces, not 3). Yet, Laver actually has won a lot on every surface if you look at his career record.
Click to expand...

Even if I'd agree with you, what about the more MS titles and the YEC?
 
P_Agony said:
Even if I'd agree with you, what about the more MS titles and the YEC?
Click to expand...

Ok, that's a different story. That's a valid thing to look at certainly. There, based on the numbers, yes, you could validly argue that Federer's results were better overall. So, then, there you go. That's why to THIS DAY, we have arguments as to whether Connors, Vilas, or Borg was #1 in 1977. That's 33 years ago and they all played at the same time. Nadal in 2010 or Federer in 2006. Much depends on what you choose to emphasize. So what are the "weights" to be applied to each category so to speak. So, guess what? Folks are going to most likely this topic even 30 years from now as well (a subjective and objective analysis, just like the "greatest" topic).
 
borg number one said:
Ok, that's a different story. That's a valid thing to look at certainly. There, based on the numbers, yes, you could validly argue that Federer's results were better overall. So, then, there you go. That's why to THIS DAY, we have arguments as to whether Connors, Vilas, or Borg was #1 in 1977. That's 33 years ago and they all played at the same time. Nadal in 2010 or Federer in 2006. Much depends on what you choose to emphasize. So what are the "weights" to be applied to each category so to speak. So, guess what? Folks are going to most likely this topic even 30 years from now as well (a subjective and objective analysis, just like the "greatest" topic).
Click to expand...

There's a reason the poll is 70 to 8, and it's not 'cause everyone is a *******.
 
fed_the_savior said:
There's a reason the poll is 70 to 8, and it's not 'cause everyone is a *******.
Click to expand...

It's a little soon. Nadal still has the YEC left, and what one more Masters tourney right? For me, winning the FO, W, and US Open is a huge factor. In my opinion, you have to take these poll results with a huge grain of salt though, if you asked who has the best two handed BH in history, Federer may very well win that internet poll (I'm being facetious, but you get my drift..) Also, as the years pass, the majors tend to be focused more than just about anything else, and all the other tourneys are really seen as "tiebreakers" once you compare the records at the majors. That's just what I've seen happen in other rivalries, but when things get close, basically everything gets put on the table. What about the strength of the prime rivals? That's another thing to consider. In 2006, Nadal was still 20, whereas Federer won the AO in 2010 and was 29, so it could be argued that Nadal had a tougher primary rival. Then, what about say the top 10 in 2006 vs. the top 10 in 2010? That could be considered too.
 
Last edited:
As an objective comparison, does someone know how many ATP points Fed earned 1/1/06 though 10/22/06, versus how many point Rafa has 1/1/10 - 10/22/10 (today)?

That still might not be accurate because of changes to how points are calculated and awarded, so maybe someone can translate Feds 2006 points into what they would have been if earned this year?
 
OrangePower said:
As an objective comparison, does someone know how many ATP points Fed earned 1/1/06 though 10/22/06, versus how many point Rafa has 1/1/10 - 10/22/10 (today)?

That still might not be accurate because of changes to how points are calculated and awarded, so maybe someone can translate Feds 2006 points into what they would have been if earned this year?
Click to expand...

all you have to do is look at his year end ranking for 2006 and that how many points he earned that year it was well over 8000, someone had already calculated in another thread and it is definitely higher than what nadal will have this year even if he went undefeated the rest of the year because he would only pick up another 2500-3000 (rough estimate-paris is 1000, undefeated at WTF is 1500, not sure if he is playing anything else) either way it would leave him under 15000 for the year. the calculation of fed's 2006 to the current system was around 15300.
 
Even If Nadal wins everything in sight that is left in 2010...he would have a less stellar perfomance than Federer in 2006!
 
borg number one said:
It's a little soon. Nadal still has the YEC left, and what one more Masters tourney right? For me, winning the FO, W, and US Open is a huge factor. In my opinion, you have to take these poll results with a huge grain of salt though, if you asked who has the best two handed BH in history, Federer may very well win that internet poll (I'm being facetious, but you get my drift..) Also, as the years pass, the majors tend to be focused more than just about anything else, and all the other tourneys are really seen as "tiebreakers" once you compare the records at the majors. That's just what I've seen happen in other rivalries, but when things get close, basically everything gets put on the table. What about the strength of the prime rivals? That's another thing to consider. In 2006, Nadal was still 20, whereas Federer won the AO in 2010 and was 29, so it could be argued that Nadal had a tougher primary rival. Then, what about say the top 10 in 2006 vs. the top 10 in 2010? That could be considered too.
Click to expand...
How so? :confused:

If anything Fed is doing much worse in 2010 than Nadal was doing in 2006.Also unlike 06 Fed and Nadal have met only once this year (so far..)
Maybe I misunderstood something.. :neutral:
 
Last edited:
mandy01 said:
How so? :confused:

If anything Fed is doing much worse in 2010 than Nadal was doing in 2006.Also unlike 06 Fed and Nadal have met only once this year (so far..)
Maybe I misunderstood something.. :neutral:
Click to expand...

Borg number one is forgetting that Federer just made one slam final and is his worst year since 2003 and met just once this year with Nadal while they met 6 times in 2006 two of them being slam finals.
 
borg number one said:
It's a little soon. Nadal still has the YEC left, and what one more Masters tourney right? For me, winning the FO, W, and US Open is a huge factor. In my opinion, you have to take these poll results with a huge grain of salt though, if you asked who has the best two handed BH in history, Federer may very well win that internet poll (I'm being facetious, but you get my drift..) Also, as the years pass, the majors tend to be focused more than just about anything else, and all the other tourneys are really seen as "tiebreakers" once you compare the records at the majors. That's just what I've seen happen in other rivalries, but when things get close, basically everything gets put on the table. What about the strength of the prime rivals? That's another thing to consider. In 2006, Nadal was still 20, whereas Federer won the AO in 2010 and was 29, so it could be argued that Nadal had a tougher primary rival. Then, what about say the top 10 in 2006 vs. the top 10 in 2010? That could be considered too.
Click to expand...

You always seem to care about win %. How come you don't mention the win % of Federer 2006 which is the second best in history just behind Mcenroe's season. You just mention winning 3 slam in different surfaces for sure its a great feat, its a record but the level of domination that federer had in 2006 was just unreal he played the finals of 16 out of 17 tourneys.
 
The-Champ said:
means nothing? 3 slams in a row, 3 different surfaces? if that's nothing, how come federer couldn't do it?


what if what if what if what if.... the slams are there to be played.
Click to expand...

like dan said the only reason nadal won 3 in a row and not federer was because of the order of the tournaments. French open is never the first or last tournament of the season, so Federer would usually have his yearly gs streak broken by getting beaten by one of the greatest clay courters ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GasquetGOAT
  • Poll Poll
Nadal's 2010 season Vs. Fed's 2007 season....
2 3
Replies
106
Views
6K
MichaelNadal
MichaelNadal
Hitman
Who dethroned the big 3 for all the big titles won in each 3 slam season?
Replies
28
Views
606
Hitman
Hitman
GasquetGOAT
Let's put Nadal's 2010 season into perspective: How impressive it is really?
2
Replies
52
Views
3K
sennoc
S
TJfederer16
2006 Season Comparison to 2017
Replies
0
Views
333
TJfederer16
TJfederer16
skypadq
rafael nadal 's 2010 season is nadal 's best season ever ?
Replies
3
Views
516
OldschoolKIaus
OldschoolKIaus
Back
Top