Have you been more amazed by Federer's or Nadal's Grand Slam winning seasons?

#1
Have you been more amazed by Federer's or Nadal's winning Grand Slam winning seasons.

I think there has been a big difference between the two in how they have accumulated their 20 and 18 Grand Slams respectively.

3 Slam Winning Year
Federer - 3
Nadal - 1

2 Slam Winning Year
Federer - 6
Nadal - 4

1 Slam Winning Year
Nadal - 13
Federer - 11

Federer's 8 Grand Slams in 10 Grand Slams is a well-known measure of his dominance, whereas Nadal's 10 consecutive years or winning at least one Grand Slam is well-known measure of his consistency.
 
#9
Have you been more amazed by Federer's or Nadal's winning Grand Slam winning seasons.

I think there has been a big difference between the two in how they have accumulated their 20 and 18 Grand Slams respectively.

3 Slam Winning Year
Federer - 3
Nadal - 1

2 Slam Winning Year
Federer - 6
Nadal - 4

1 Slam Winning Year
Nadal - 13
Federer - 11

Federer's 8 Grand Slams in 10 Grand Slams is a well-known measure of his dominance, whereas Nadal's 10 consecutive years or winning at least one Grand Slam is well-known measure of his consistency.
Where are the factors for time frame and conversion rate?
Are there bonus points for doing this while number 1 in the world, or is it more impressive if they were not number1?
How many where against each other and how many where just against other mugs?
No clay reference? There HAS TO BE A CALY REFERENCE WHEN TALKING ABOUT NADAL AND SLAM COUNT OR YOUR POINT IS MOOT.
What about that footnote thrid wheel player in the Nadal/Fed era?
 
#15
I am more impressed by Nadal of course, because of the competition he faced. Not the same beating Federer at WB/AO than defeating Roddick, Phillippoussis, Hewitt, old Agassi, etc.
Nadal didn't face federer to win his slams. He faced Ferrer, berdych, anderson, peurta, soderling, thiem, thiem etc. And no he didn't win slams vs above players you mention as he was too busy losing to them or others in early rounds. I mean even Gonalez crushed a peak nadal at the AO for petes sake or nadal lost 1R wimbeldon in 2013 during Nadals best ever year or lost to brown 1R right after winning the FO and being peak in the form of his life and then lost again to brown just to prove it wasnt a fluke
 

Druss

Hall of Fame
#18
I am more impressed by Nadal of course, because of the competition he faced. Not the same beating Federer at WB/AO than defeating Roddick, Phillippoussis, Hewitt, old Agassi, etc.
Federer slam winning years - 2003 to 2018
Nadal slam winning years - 2005 to 2019.

That's a very similar time frame if you ask me. The main difference is that in 2003-05 there was Agassi, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin and in 2017-19 you had Raonic, Nishikori, Dimitroll, Zverev.
 
#20
Fed’s game translates to anything. Rafa’s...not so much (but obviously built/tailored to dirt). If it weren’t for the clay season, one of them would be waiting tables near the Algarve.
 
#22
To me, the year that surprised me most was 2017. For both it was incredible. To think they would split the slams after both taking extended periods off at their age. Without that year playing out like it did, things would be very different.
 

Ann

Hall of Fame
#23
To me, the year that surprised me most was 2017. For both it was incredible. To think they would split the slams after both taking extended periods off at their age. Without that year playing out like it did, things would be very different.
2017 will always be incredibly special because of the AO. I thought Fred was dead and then he pulled off one of the greatest victories of his 82 year career. I still get goosebumps.
 
#26
I am more impressed by Nadal of course, because of the competition he faced. Not the same beating Federer at WB/AO than defeating Roddick, Phillippoussis, Hewitt, old Agassi, etc.
Funny how its "old agassi" when he was 33 to 35 at the the time Fed was beating him, but when when Fed is this age, 33 is not old at all and Fed of the AO 2017 who defeated Nadal is not old.

Also funny how Thiem with zero slams is a great player in your eyes because he would be an all time great if it wasnt for Nadal and Nadal gets praised for stopping him, but Fed gets no praise for Stopping Roddick, Hewitt, Safin (2 of those players that actually beat Sampras at his best events and all e won slams) without which they would also be all time greats
 
#27
Let's see.... every single Fed fan will vote for Roger and every single Nadal fan will choose Rafa. Not trashing your thread, just pointing out the obvious. ;)
As Nole's fan I say Nadal... 5 years younger... 2 more slam winning years... Much stronger oponents... Say no more....
 
#28
I have always been a Nadal fan, but not so much of early Fed. I always appreciated his play, just never caught the bug. Anymore though I can step back and see what a treat both have been in their careers, so it is hard to pick one over the other. 2017 was just amazing for both and I think was the feather in the cap to it all.
 

ledwix

Hall of Fame
#31
As a 15-year Fed fan, I have to admit that the most mind-boggling and impressive statistic in tennis is 12 RG championships by Rafael Nadal. He has 90% of Fed's slam titles, so the slam record, while it decides who I believe to be the greatest player, slightly lags behind in comparison to the guy who has twice the RG titles as the next guy, and who won twice the RG titles after losing to Soderling as before.
 
Top