Ironically, if Federer were a better claycourt player, his record would look better!

[rubberduckies]

Federer has played Nadal 10 times on clay and only won once. And everyone of those matches except one have been in the final of a tournament. But if he had been more like Nadal and had far superior abilities, shotmaking, and talent, then his record against his main rival would be something like 10 to Federer, 9 to Nadal.

If Sampras had been better at Clay but not the best, like #2, he would possibly have won a French Open, or at least made some finals, enhancing his legacy and furthering his case for GOAT.

Ironically, Federer being so inferior to another player actually hurts him!

 

[tennis-hero]

LOL- would expect nothing less from ducks

 

[egn]

...way to state the obvious?

 

[rubberduckies]

LOL- would expect nothing less from ducks

I'm gonna set that as my desktop background.

 

[S H O W S T O P P E R !]

Really? I mean, if he was a better clay-court player he would be better on clay! It all makes sense now :roll:

 

[Breaker]

If I had four apples then I ate one I'd only have three.

 

[Lotto]

Please, do not feed the trolls.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

is this thread a repeat of the last one

 

[Morpheus]

If I had four apples then I ate one I'd only have three.

No, you'd still have four, at least for a day or so...

 

[Serve_Ace]

How is this ironic?

 

[Serendipitous]

This is not ironic. Of course it hurts Federer to be inferior to Nadal on clay.

 

[harr]

How is this ironic?

Link. (Though I still don't see the point of this thread.)

 

[timnz]

Irony

Its ironic is the sense that him being the #2 player on clay causes him to reach clay finals consistently, but waiting on the other side of the court is Nadal. If he was a shade poorer on clay, he wouldn't be meeting Nadal anywhere as much, hence the head to head would look much better. Doesn't make him a better player, but I thought it was ironic - that's all.

So irony - poorer clay ability = better Head to Head vs Nadal. I used Sampras as an example of someone who didn't have to meet a dominant clay court player in finals all of the time, mainly because he didn't make finals often (though he did make a few) - and their wasn't a dominant clay court player on the 90's (there was various ones - Agassi (3 French Open finals), Courier (3 French Open finals, Brugera (3 French Open finals), Muster (1 French Open + Truck Load of Clay titles), Guga (3 French Opens) - none overwhelmingly as dominant as Nadal).

Interestingly they have played 10 times on clay and met in finals 9 times!

Federer is what he is. A great player but not as good as Nadal on Clay (but who is as good as Nadal on clay? - maybe Borg at his peak but no-one else).

 

[slicefox]

The reason Federer and Nadal have not met on hard courts as much is because Nadal got spanked way too early in the rounds (by other top 10 players) to meet federer in the finals.

Federer was better than the rest of the top 10 on clay, so he made more finals and got to play Nadal more (on clay).

Makes sense.

 

[Morpheus]

^^ So you are saying that if Nadal was better on hard courts, his record would be better?

 

[veroniquem]

is this thread a repeat of the last one

It's a parody of the "Fed would have a better head to head with Nadal if he was not so good on clay" threads.

 

[jeffreyneave]

laver a great hard court player

at the start of open tennis (may 1968 onwards) laver had a fantastic record on hard court. the 2 major ITF events that he could play were the PSW and south african open.

His record here was great between 68-70 ie he won 4 out of 5.

he won south african open in '69 and '70

he won PSW '68 and '70. His only loss was to ray moore in psw '69 when he had just completed his unique oen slam and his only child was born; in otherwords he did not care if he won or lost.

On the pro circuit of the 1960s, laver domninated the south african circuit in '64 and '65 to guarantee he was the world number one rather than rosewall.


In a recent interview Laver claims his best ever performance was defeating rosewall 4-6,6-0,6-0 in the PSW '68 final. he said all the games were very close despite the 6-0 scores. ashe also confirmed that the 2 sets laver played were the best he had ever seen; much higher quality than the 1980 borg/mcenroe final at wimbledon.

Laver was a great hard court player, whether fast in psw or rather slower in south africa (like the aussie open surface played 1988 to 2006 approx). Hard coutrts are probably laver's best surface in his peak years of 1964-70



jeffrey

 

[theduh]

^^ So you are saying that if Nadal was better on hard courts, his record would be better?

Fed would have destroyed Nadal during his prime (04-07) because the old Nadal doesn't have the necessary tools to get into hard court finals on a consistent basis.

 

[gj011]

Lol. Yet another desperate thread.

Sure, one SF and two QFs for example would be a better record than 3 finals. :roll:

Also losing to some lower ranked player earlier on clay would give Federer more confidence that losing in the final

 

[Pirao]

^^ So you are saying that if Nadal was better on hard courts, his record would be better?

Mmm, he already has a winning record against every top 10 player? How could his record be any better?

 

[tennis-hero]

hehehehe

o rly