H2H against the field, Nadal 0.815 vs Federer 0.807

[Dash]

"Nadal is just a bad matchup to Federer. But Federer is more talented and has better record against the field than Nadal." Most of Fed's fans think so, say so and believe so. But is this a fact or myth?





BUSTED!

http://www.tenniscorner.net/index.php?corner=m&action=headtohead&playerid=NAR004

http://www.tenniscorner.net/index.php?corner=m&action=headtohead&playerid=FER001

Was I shocked the first time I saw this stats. Federer had the best 4 years in tennis history but still lost to Nadal in this comparison. I think Nadal's number will keep going up for the next 2 or 3 year, barring serious injury.
I am not saying Federer is inferior.
Tennis is changing. Which all started from the new techs, especially the poly strings. Players are getting stronger and faster. The surfaces become homogenized. Different playing styles and stroke kinetics will emerge. They are not necessarily looking beautiful, measured by the standards of the OLD textbook and they won't be praised by the commentators or fans, who think the textbook is the only truth.
The Nadal phenomenon will change the way we see tennis a little bit. Actually, if you see Nadal's forehand in a pure physics perspective, it does make sense for modern games. However, his forehand is not fully developed for HC yet. I am sure many of teaching pros have already started to experiment. We will see more Nadal-like swings in the future.

 

[RestockingTues]

"Nadal is just a bad matchup to Federer. But Federer is more talented and has better record against the field than Nadal." Most of Fed's fans think so, say so and believe so. But is this a fact or myth?





BUSTED!

http://www.tenniscorner.net/index.php?corner=m&action=headtohead&playerid=NAR004

http://www.tenniscorner.net/index.php?corner=m&action=headtohead&playerid=FER001

Was I shocked the first time I saw this stats. Federer had the best 4 years in tennis history but still lost to Nadal in this comparison. I think Nadal's number will keep going up for the next 2 or 3 year, barring serious injury.
I am not saying Federer is inferior.
Tennis is changing. Which all started from the new techs, especially the poly strings. Players are getting stronger and faster. The surfaces become homogenized. Different playing styles and stroke kinetics will emerge. They are not necessarily looking beautiful, measured by the standards of the OLD textbook and they won't be praised by the commentators or fans, who think the textbook is the only truth.
The Nadal phenomenon will change the way we see tennis a little bit. Actually, if you see Nadal's forehand in a pure physics perspective, it does make sense for modern games. However, his forehand is not fully developed for HC yet. I am sure many of teaching pros have already started to experiment. We will see more Nadal-like swings in the future.

What's the breakdown on Nadal's forehand, purely with physics Mr. Expert?

 

[egn]

Okay? This is kind of ridiculous and besides isn't whats important record against them in prime. H2H vs overall field is ridiculous. First of all Fed had to deal with more players, has played nearly twice as many matches as Nadal...lets see where they line up at the end. Besides 80.5 percent and 81.5 percent is not HUGEEE...lets not troll for small percentages. Besides field would be the players today, these H2Hs include a lot of the guys Fed faced in the late 90s and early 00s..are you going to take the time to subtract guys like Henman, Sampras, Agassi etc. When you actually make it comparing the top 200 I guess then you have the field, but taking their whol career record to say one is better against a specific field than another is a lot. Fed played from 98-present Nadal played what 02-present.

 

[luckyboy1300]

Okay? This is kind of ridiculous and besides isn't whats important record against them in prime. H2H vs overall field is ridiculous. First of all Fed had to deal with more players, has played nearly twice as many matches as Nadal...lets see where they line up at the end. Besides 80.5 percent and 81.5 percent is not HUGEEE...lets not troll for small percentages. Besides field would be the players today, these H2Hs include a lot of the guys Fed faced in the late 90s and early 00s..are you going to take the time to subtract guys like Henman, Sampras, Agassi etc. When you actually make it comparing the top 200 I guess then you have the field, but taking their whol career record to say one is better against a specific field than another is a lot. Fed played from 98-present Nadal played what 02-present.

number of matches federer = 751. nadal = 407. useless stat if you ask me. it's like comparing someone who has a 100% breakpoint conversion with 1/1 as better than 33% with 33/100.

 

[Jonny S&V]

number of matches federer = 751. nadal = 407. useless stat if you ask me. it's like comparing someone who has a 100% breakpoint conversion with 1/1 as better than 33% with 33/100.

Quoted for truth.

 

[Dash]

All right, you guys are really good at analyzing numbers. Before I am done with this thread. Last questions for you: how about using Roger's H2H against his field from 98-04 to compare with Rafael's 2002-2008? Is it fair and what would this comparison look like?
Please, don't tell me they were facing different players. When you compare Roger's 13 slams to pete's 14, were they playing some players? When you are saying Roger's 13 is better than Rafael's 6, are you fair?

number of matches federer = 751. nadal = 407. useless stat if you ask me. it's like comparing someone who has a 100% breakpoint conversion with 1/1 as better than 33% with 33/100.

 

[edberg505]

All right, you guys are really good at analyzing numbers. Before I am done with this thread. Last questions for you: how about using Roger's H2H against his field from 98-04 to compare with Rafael's 2002-2008? Is it fair and what would this comparison look like?
Please, don't tell me they were facing different players. When you compare Roger's 13 slams to pete's 14, were they playing some players? When you are saying Roger's 13 is better than Rafael's 6, are you fair?

What exactly are you fishing for here? Are you really trying to start a flame war? What are you trying to prove?

 

[norbac]

sad enough to say that alone i could barly lht a match but togeter we could brn ths plcace down!!! Gor Fed!

 

[Slicendicer]

number of matches federer = 751. nadal = 407. useless stat if you ask me. it's like comparing someone who has a 100% breakpoint conversion with 1/1 as better than 33% with 33/100.

Not hardly... consider Nadal is 6 years younger than Fed. Just admit Nadal's record owns Fed... Nadal is a superior athelete... it's ok...


BTW 1/1 is better than 33/100.

 

[thejoe]

Not hardly... consider Nadal is 6 years younger than Fed. Just admit Nadal's record owns Fed... Nadal is a superior athelete... it's ok...


BTW 1/1 is better than 33/100.

Fool. Yes, Nadal is a superior athlete, but the bold statements?

The fact that he is younger and has played less matches renders the stat useless. How can you not see that?

 

[Slicendicer]

Fool. Yes, Nadal is a superior athlete, but the bold statements?

The fact that he is younger and has played less matches renders the stat useless. How can you not see that?

Then following your logic, Agassi is greater than Fed because he has played more matches... ok... I'll buy that. Even though Agassi's record against Fed is 3-8, his is the better player because he has played more matches... thanks.

 

[certifiedjatt]

number of matches federer = 751. nadal = 407. useless stat if you ask me. it's like comparing someone who has a 100% breakpoint conversion with 1/1 as better than 33% with 33/100.

well, 407 is more than half of 751. where as 1 is less than 3 percent of 33.
so, his percentage is pretty reliable. it may fluctuate a bit (if he keeps going at this pace), but it's a good comparison.

the 1/1 vs 33/100 is not!

 

[luckyboy1300]

Then following your logic, Agassi is greater than Fed because he has played more matches... ok... I'll buy that. Even though Agassi's record against Fed is 3-8, his is the better player because he has played more matches... thanks.

no, it means that unequal denominators, when talking about ratios, is always unfair, especially the difference is more than 300 matches! the same reason i gave the breakpoint %.

and another, how do you think one can win if he isn't getting enough breakpoint opportunities?

 

[luckyboy1300]

well, 407 is more than half of 751. where as 1 is less than 3 percent of 33.
so, his percentage is pretty reliable. it may fluctuate a bit (if he keeps going at this pace), but it's a good comparison.

the 1/1 vs 33/100 is not!

please stop joking. i only gave that as an example so we can clearly see how comparing ratios when the denominators are different will be useless. 751-407 is still 344, and that's still a heck of a lot of matches. ok, when the difference is less than 100 matches then we can make a fair comparison. but 344? please, not even close.

 

[thejoe]

Then following your logic, Agassi is greater than Fed because he has played more matches... ok... I'll buy that. Even though Agassi's record against Fed is 3-8, his is the better player because he has played more matches... thanks.

No, it doesn't. It means that they cannot yet be compared. Again, how did you get that from what I said?

 

[oneleggedcardinal]

The number of stupid threads has skyrocketed since the AO.

 

[abmk]

The number of stupid threads has skyrocketed since the AO.

Did you really expect anything different ?

 

[Satch]

number of matches federer = 751. nadal = 407. useless stat if you ask me. it's like comparing someone who has a 100% breakpoint conversion with 1/1 as better than 33% with 33/100.

some people here don't know maths enough to understand that, but they are Rafa fans so i understand it...

 

[Nadal_Freak]

Great thread. Nadal is GOAT.

 

[GameSampras]

Nadal is going to have to deal with a much more deep and talented field especially top talented to maintain his dominance over the ATP than Roger did IMO. Just djokovic and Murray alone, while maybe not the most consistent at the slams yet, along with Del Potro, Gulbis, Monfils maybe, Verdasco, Simon, and even some of the others up and coming guys should be a tougher order than what Roger went through with typically two consistent guys at the slams and Roger's rivals for most of the 04-07 time period outside of a young Nadal, such as Hewitt and Roddick. Then you had all man agassi on his last leg by 04-05 and Nalbandian who never did much to speak of at the slams only outside of them, and Safin who was either injured or MIA for almost all those years of Fed's dominance.

Just Murray and Djoker alone (once they reached the peak and prime of their careers in a few years) will be some tough guys to throw out of the slams. Nadal will have his work cut for him in 2-3 years I think.

Imagine what a prime Nadal would be doing to Hewit or old Agassi or Baghaditis and Gonzales

 

[Deleted member 3771]

Nadal is ahead of Fed in several categories)
I posted this several days ago:

Nadal's stats compared to Fed's so far:

Grand slam titles :

Federer: 13/39 (33%)
Nadal : 6/20 (30%)

Grand Slam final Conversion rate:

Nadal 6/8 (75%)
Federer 13/18 (72%)

Masters series titles:

Federer 14/70 (20%)
Nadal 12/39 (31%)

career titles:

Federer: Won 57 Lost 22 (72%)
Nadal : Won 32, lost 8 (80%)

Head to Head

h2h Nadal 13-6 (68%)
h2h in finals: Nadal 11-4 (73%)
h2h in slam finals: Nadal 5-2 (71%)

Career win/loss %
Fed: 626–151 (80.56%)
Nadal: 344–78 (81.51%)

Year-End Championship:
Fed 4:
Nadal 0

year End #1
Fed : 4
Nadal 1

Olympic singles Medals:
Nadal 1 Gold
federer: 0

Davis Cups:
Nadal : 2
federer : 0

The Calendar Grand Slam:
federer: 0
Nadal : 0

Career Grand Slam:
Federer: 0
Nadal: 0
---------------------

 

[GameSampras]

Fed is ahead of Nadal in some cases naturally because Nadal is just beginning his prime-peak years. Nadal bearing injury and stays healthy could match Fed's weeks of #1, year end number 1's, and a few other categories.

But as mentioned, it will be a tougher order for Nadal, not because he isnt capable but because he will have to deal with a tougher field

 

[aldeayeah]

You're right; the comparison is unfair.

A fair comparison would be to measure Nadal's 407 results against Federer's first 407 results, which include everything before the quarterfinals of Toronto '04.

Federer's record back then was 293-114, which yields a 0.720 ratio.

 

[FiveO]

Comparing their last 4 complete years:

Federer:

2005: 81-4 minus Nadal 80-3
2006: 92-5 minus Nadal 90-1
2007: 68-9 minus Nadal 65-7
2008: 66-15 minus Nadal 66-11
Fed vs. the field.........301-22; Winning percentage 93.19

Nadal:

2005: 79-10 minus Fed 78-9
2006: 59-12 minus Fed 55-10
2007: 70-15 minus Fed 68-12
2008: 82-11 minus Fed 78-11
Nadal vs. the field. 279-42; Winning percentage 86.92

5

 

[danb]

Why don't you compare first 5 years of Fed macthes vs first 5 years of Nadal. That should do it

 

[Rhino]

Why don't you compare first 5 years of Fed macthes vs first 5 years of Nadal. That should do it

Not really because people peak at different times. Becker would probably look better than Federer with that comparison.

 

[danb]

Not really because people peak at different times. Becker would probably look better than Federer with that comparison.

OK - we have to take this statistics with a grain of salt anyway... They do not mean much. TO me (subjectively) the H2H is the important thing. Tennis is mano-a-mano in the end.

 

[Dash]

Thank TheNatural for having done a comprehensive data-mining. And I sorry for reposting something similar without giving you the credit.

 

[FiveO]

Why don't you compare first 5 years of Fed macthes vs first 5 years of Nadal. That should do it

Well if we're talking about opponents they shared in common this is about a valid comparison as one can make. Nadal wasn't on tour full time until 2005. It doesn't make any difference if Fed was 0-3 v. Rafter when Nadal never played him and never will.

If your point is that Nadal was more successful when he first played the tour full-time, that's valid and no one will argue it. Nadal is one of the remarkable teens to have ever come down the pike, along with Rosewall, Borg, Wilander and Becker.

If your trying to use that fact to prove that Nadal was that AND was better vs. the field than Federer was, you're way off base...for now. That could, and probably should change over the next couple of years. Against the field, their field, the field that both Federer and Nadal were playing at the same time and approached from about the same level #'s 1 and 2, Fed was clearly and by a large margin better v. that field than Nadal was.


5

 

[Dash]

My point is Nadal has a great deal of talent not he is more talented than Federer. The latter should be compared at the end of their career. Back to Becker, did any people consider him lacking of talent before Pete came into the scene? Definitely not. When Hewitt was in his best two years, did anyone say he is mediocre in talent department? I doubt there were many people having such a great judgement to do that. So, just give credit where it is due. Don't become so defensive when others make a comparison using your idol as a standard. Instead, Fed fans should be comfortable with this, because Fed will be the highest standard far into the future, if he is the greatest. Nadal keeps surprising us, doesn't he? So, don't appear foolish, which will hurt the image of Fed's fans. Rhino, I just re your post to express my view in general not to you and all Fed's fans.

Not really because people peak at different times. Becker would probably look better than Federer with that comparison.

 

[egn]

Davis Cups:
Nadal : 2
federer : 0

---------------------

Explain to me how that is even fair. Davis Cups is team, spain has far more talented tennis players than Switzerland. If from 2004-2007 Fed had been allowed to play all the singles matches I bet he actually has Davis Cup titles it wasn't until like last year that Wawrinka showed up and provided Switzerland with a second decent player..compare it to Spain in the past 10 years, they have had multiple guys hanging out in the top 20 for a long time...Roddick has a davis cup title..who says Roddick is better than Fed cause of that..

I won't get started on the olympic gold medal.

Nadal is going to have to deal with a much more deep and talented field especially top talented to maintain his dominance over the ATP than Roger did IMO. Just djokovic and Murray alone, while maybe not the most consistent at the slams yet, along with Del Potro, Gulbis, Monfils maybe, Verdasco, Simon, and even some of the others up and coming guys should be a tougher order than what Roger went through with typically two consistent guys at the slams and Roger's rivals for most of the 04-07 time period outside of a young Nadal, such as Hewitt and Roddick. Then you had all man agassi on his last leg by 04-05 and Nalbandian who never did much to speak of at the slams only outside of them, and Safin who was either injured or MIA for almost all those years of Fed's dominance.

Just Murray and Djoker alone (once they reached the peak and prime of their careers in a few years) will be some tough guys to throw out of the slams. Nadal will have his work cut for him in 2-3 years I think.

Imagine what a prime Nadal would be doing to Hewit or old Agassi or Baghaditis and Gonzales

Lets throw out some interesting stats.

Nadal vs. Hewitt 4-4
Nadal vs. Nalbandian 0-2
Nadal vs. Blake 2-3
Nadal vs Gaudio 3-3
Nadal vs Gonzo 5-3 (not much..)
Nadal vs Safin is only 1-0..1 match is not much to judge

Lets go with this also
Federer vs. DelPotro 4-0
Federer vs. Monfils 4-0
Federer vs. Djokovic 7-2
Federer vs. Verdasco 2-0
You get Fed vs. Murray 2-5
Fed vs. Simon 0-2

Note this is old Roger fighting most of these guys...and young Nadal fighting most of those guys..so really I don't see this huge increase in talent. From 07-now outside of Djokovic who made a statement? Murray's one slam final run? Hmm Gonzo did that, Baghdatis did that, Nalbandian did that...nothing special. Federer also had outstanding records against all his rivals except Nadal. How much longer are we going to wait for the Murray and DJokovic trains to pull in and keep saying oh well they will provide more of a threat. Nadal's prime has started and his main competition is Federer, deja vu. Fed dealt with young Nadal now Nadal is dealing with old Fed. Beg to argue this but the last 4 slams have been won by either Nadal or Fed. The last 9 outside of one have been won by Nadal or Fed...these other guys will probably hit prime when Nadal falls out. Nadal is not going to be number 1 for the next 5 years..and Djokovic and Murray will probably take over for him, but I doubt Nadal will be a threat to them outside of clay..so lets not keep praising Djokovic and Murray, let them establish themselves before we say they will.

 

[TheTruth]

Nadal is going to have to deal with a much more deep and talented field especially top talented to maintain his dominance over the ATP than Roger did IMO. Just djokovic and Murray alone, while maybe not the most consistent at the slams yet, along with Del Potro, Gulbis, Monfils maybe, Verdasco, Simon, and even some of the others up and coming guys should be a tougher order than what Roger went through with typically two consistent guys at the slams and Roger's rivals for most of the 04-07 time period outside of a young Nadal, such as Hewitt and Roddick. Then you had all man agassi on his last leg by 04-05 and Nalbandian who never did much to speak of at the slams only outside of them, and Safin who was either injured or MIA for almost all those years of Fed's dominance.

Just Murray and Djoker alone (once they reached the peak and prime of their careers in a few years) will be some tough guys to throw out of the slams. Nadal will have his work cut for him in 2-3 years I think.

Imagine what a prime Nadal would be doing to Hewit or old Agassi or Baghaditis and Gonzales

Oh, that Rafa could have Fed's field:::sigh:::

 

[TheTruth]

Comparing their last 4 complete years:

Federer:

2005: 81-4 minus Nadal 80-3
2006: 92-5 minus Nadal 90-1
2007: 68-9 minus Nadal 65-7
2008: 66-15 minus Nadal 66-11
Fed vs. the field.........301-22; Winning percentage 93.19

Nadal:

2005: 79-10 minus Fed 78-9
2006: 59-12 minus Fed 55-10
2007: 70-15 minus Fed 68-12
2008: 82-11 minus Fed 78-11
Nadal vs. the field. 279-42; Winning percentage 86.92

5

That's not a fair comparison because Fed was in his prime vs. an emerging Rafa. The only true comparison would be to measure them by their accomplishments at the same age. People forget that Rafa and Fed are not peers. Five years older than another player is basically another tennis generation.

 

[egn]

That's not a fair comparison because Fed was in his prime vs. an emerging Rafa. The only true comparison would be to measure them by their accomplishments at the same age. People forget that Rafa and Fed are not peers. Five years older than another player is basically another tennis generation.

Same age isn't fair either though Rafa rose up early, Fed did not rise until 22..You compare COurier and Fed at 22 Courier has a lot more than Fed did, but who says Courier is greater than Fed?

 

[seffina]

These comparisons are just silly. They're not going to make a Nadal fan into a Federer fan or vice versa.

They're both very good, you know, no?

 

[FiveO]

That's not a fair comparison because Fed was in his prime vs. an emerging Rafa. The only true comparison would be to measure them by their accomplishments at the same age. People forget that Rafa and Fed are not peers. Five years older than another player is basically another tennis generation.

It's the ONLY VALID COMPARISON based on the OP's premise.

"Nadal is just a bad matchup to Federer. But Federer is more talented and has better record against the field than Nadal." Most of Fed's fans think so, say so and believe so. But is this a fact or myth?

Were the OP's point have been about who was better earlier, that's another story, and perhaps a topic for another thread, but to attack a claim about player A being better against the field than player B, what sense would it make to compare two different players vs. two different fields? And as I said earlier those numbers will likely continue to swing toward Nadal in the next year or two.

5

 

[zagor]

These comparisons are just silly. They're not going to make a Nadal fan into a Federer fan or vice versa.

They're both very good, you know, no?

True but according to some people here Nadal is the second coming of Jesus while Fed is an average player who shanks all the time and won all of his slams due to pure luck and weak draws.

 

[icedevil0289]

True but according to some people here Nadal is the second coming of Jesus while Fed is an average player who shanks all the time and won all of his slams due to pure luck and weak draws.

hmmm, Jesusnadal. Doesn't quite have the same ring to it as Jesusfed.

 

[gj011]

True but according to some people here Nadal is the second coming of Jesus while Fed is an average player who shanks all the time and won all of his slams due to pure luck and weak draws.

True but according to some people here Federer is the second coming of Jesus while Nadal is an average player who dirtballs all the time and won all of his slams due to pure luck and because he plays lefthanded..

 

[Deleted member 25923]

True but according to some people here Nadal is the second coming of Jesus while Fed is an average player who shanks all the time and won all of his slams due to pure luck and weak draws.

Your signature says it all, no?

 

[Puma]

All right, you guys are really good at analyzing numbers. Before I am done with this thread. Last questions for you: how about using Roger's H2H against his field from 98-04 to compare with Rafael's 2002-2008? Is it fair and what would this comparison look like?
Please, don't tell me they were facing different players. When you compare Roger's 13 slams to pete's 14, were they playing some players? When you are saying Roger's 13 is better than Rafael's 6, are you fair?

1. There was a guy who posted some kind of tennis player rating system on these boards. I looked at it a couple of days ago, I don't know exactly when it was posted. I thought his analysis was pretty good. Yours is incomplete.

2. Nadals forehand is great. But, it is his and his alone. Implying that others will copy his forehand is silly. Of course they will. But, very few people have the body, mind, training and spirit of Rafa. Its not his forehand that makes him great. Its HIM and all of his components.

3.Rafa is awesome no one will dispute that. But, give this some time before you make comparisons that imply that his run he is involved in at the present is greater than what Fed has achieved.

 

[zagor]

True but according to some people here Federer is the second coming of Jesus while Nadal is an average player who dirtballs all the time and won all of his slams due to pure luck and because he plays lefthanded..

Haha,nice comeback .The truth is that both of them are great and talented players,nobody achieves as much as those 2 without a great amount of hardwork,talent and determination.

 

[icedevil0289]

Haha,nice comeback .The truth is that both of them are great and talented players,nobody achieves as much as those 2 without a great amount of hardwork,talent and determination.

agree and instead of fighting we should be greatful that we have two extremely talented players and two great champions.

 

[Deleted member 25923]

Guys, Sampras is .807 as well. Despite the fact that he has 762 wins and has never played Nadal, Nadal owns him!

And guess what, some guy that I don't even know just won his first match on the pro tour. He is now 1-0 and has a 100% win percentage. Take that Rafa!

 

[seffina]

Haha,nice comeback .The truth is that both of them are great and talented players,nobody achieves as much as those 2 without a great amount of hardwork,talent and determination.

Exactly. Those that say Fed won because of his superior talent are discrediting the hard work he has put in through the years. He had to develop that talent. You don't win the second most amount of slams by relying simply on talent. It's a combination of hard work, talent, determination, and as always a bit of luck.

Same for Nadal. He is obviously incredibly talented. All the hard work in the world won't win you slams if you don't have a knack for tennis. There's a reason he chose to play tennis over other sports.

As far as against the field stat that is being discussed here, all it tells me is that the two of them are the most consistent players on the tour. That they are both very good at figuring out how to win against very different opponents. Their styles are different, but what they've achieved is amazing.

Overall I think Federer and Nadal both have this amazing talent to inspire threads.

 

[Deleted member 25923]

Exactly. Those that say Fed won because of his superior talent are discrediting the hard work he has put in through the years. He had to develop that talent. You don't win the second most amount of slams by relying simply on talent. It's a combination of hard work, talent, determination, and as always a bit of luck.

Same for Nadal. He is obviously incredibly talented. All the hard work in the world won't win you slams if you don't have a knack for tennis. There's a reason he chose to play tennis over other sports.

As far as against the field stat that is being discussed here, all it tells me is that the two of them are the most consistent players on the tour. That they are both very good at figuring out how to win against very different opponents. Their styles are different, but what they've achieved is amazing.

Overall I think Federer and Nadal both have this amazing talent to inspire threads.

If Fed was that good from talent, he wouldn't have needed 5 years on tour to hone his skills.

 

[zagor]

Exactly. Those that say Fed won because of his superior talent are discrediting the hard work he has put in through the years. He had to develop that talent. You don't win the second most amount of slams by relying simply on talent. It's a combination of hard work, talent, determination, and as always a bit of luck.

Same for Nadal. He is obviously incredibly talented. All the hard work in the world won't win you slams if you don't have a knack for tennis. There's a reason he chose to play tennis over other sports.

As far as against the field stat that is being discussed here, all it tells me is that the two of them are the most consistent players on the tour. That they are both very good at figuring out how to win against very different opponents. Their styles are different, but what they've achieved is amazing.

Overall I think Federer and Nadal both have this amazing talent to inspire threads.

Great post,a lot of fanatics from both sides should read it to get some perspective.

 

[TennezSport]

Off base.............

If Fed was that good from talent, he wouldn't have needed 5 years on tour to hone his skills.

This is completely off base and not true. Just because you are extremely talented doesn't mean that you kow how to properly use your talents. Add to that when you have a large number of talents it can slow your progress. Actually when players have less talent they cam make improvements much quicker with hard work as there is less to hone and think about.

It continues to amaze me on how many people confuse natural talent with working talent. This is probably due to the diss-information that we get in broadcasts today.

Cheers, TennezSport

 

[NamRanger]

This is completely off base and not true. Just because you are extremely talented doesn't mean that you kow how to properly use your talents. Add to that when you have a large number of talents it can slow your progress. Actually when players have less talent they cam make improvements much quicker with hard work as there is less to hone and think about.

It continues to amaze me on how many people confuse natural talent with working talent. This is probably due to the diss-information that we get in broadcasts today.

Cheers, TennezSport

Federer had to develop his talent just as Nadal did. Nadal just progressed quicker. No one naturally steps onto a tennis court and starts hitting 100 mph forehands.

 

[egn]

Federer had to develop his talent just as Nadal did. Nadal just progressed quicker. No one naturally steps onto a tennis court and starts hitting 100 mph forehands.

=] exactly

10 char.