ilovetennis212
Professional
Got it wrong brother. It's 302 not 287.
is nadal better than federer? yes or no
- Thread starter Death Master
- Start date
Got it wrong brother. It's 302 not 287.
ilovetennis212
Professional
NO
Nadal just said "Roger is better for sure. No?"
"Let's play on clay sometimes, por favor"
--------------------------------
X player loses against Y player a lot of the time.
But X player wins much more titles than Y player and X player holds a lot more records than Y player.
Would you want to be Y player with your NTRP ranking??
I'd rather be X player to win a lot of tourneys.
.....
Yes, I'm sure you are going to brag H2H all the time if you are Y player.
But I'll be just smiling and laughing for looking my titles and records if I was X player.
And I will say to you like ...
"I think you are much better player than me cuz you beat me many times. But the titles and records love me more. I can do nothing with it. Sorry man. But I have one thing to say.. You have to take care of your body beside tennis. Think about your life after tennis. Do not over-run or do not over-train yourself."
Last edited:
Death Master
Banned
excellent thread.
post away and have fun.
post away and have fun.
Roger Wawrinka
Professional
Sorry man good catch.
Tennis_Sud
New User
I'm a beginner tennis player .. I watched top players on tour and found that the best player to mimic his strokes style is Nasal.
Why ?
Cos Nasal plays a very save tennis, way above the net with tremendous top spin.
When I became more experience I will change to Federer cos his style is more elegant and less effort.
The true measure for talent will be ( IMHO ) is:
How much a player hits the ball above the net ?
The less ( by inches ) the ball above net, the more talented the player.
Why ?
Cos Nasal plays a very save tennis, way above the net with tremendous top spin.
When I became more experience I will change to Federer cos his style is more elegant and less effort.
The true measure for talent will be ( IMHO ) is:
How much a player hits the ball above the net ?
The less ( by inches ) the ball above net, the more talented the player.
RF20Lennon
Legend
Im sure thats the same attitude Leonidas had.
well let's have an impartial analysis:
Accomplishments - Fed although Nadal is clearly catching up
H2H: Nadal although there are a few things you need to take into account with that h2h. Firstly 21-10 is unfair as Fed is clearly fading with age. I'd say the rivalry ended at 18-10 in 2012. So Nadal still dominant. Secondly Nadal met Fed only twice off clay between 2005-07 in slams out of a possible 7 (post his first slam win) while Fed met Nadal and lost clay from 05-08 in every game. It is likely that Fed would've won most (but not necessarily all of them). So, that clay bias in the early years and Fed's prime probably contributes a bit so perhaps the real rivalry if Nadal hat met Fed would've looked something like 19-13. Just speculation of course. Not that different from the 20-14 Sampras holds over Agassi and most people consider Sampras the superior.
But, Fed has better records over the field. And while that stands that's important and a 4 slam advantage is big. But if Nadal gets to 16 and I think he will then you can't realistically call a 1 slam advantage a decider. There are other factors.
In summary I think Nadal is a bit better than Fed due to a huge physical strength advantage and an ability to adjust his game nore than Fed. Perhaps if Fed had had to do that when he was younger then things may have been different....but he didn't. And nadal has sorely exposed his backhand. This is not about match up, match up is clearly weaker doing relatively well against clearly better. Nadal is not clearly weaker.
Accomplishments - Fed although Nadal is clearly catching up
H2H: Nadal although there are a few things you need to take into account with that h2h. Firstly 21-10 is unfair as Fed is clearly fading with age. I'd say the rivalry ended at 18-10 in 2012. So Nadal still dominant. Secondly Nadal met Fed only twice off clay between 2005-07 in slams out of a possible 7 (post his first slam win) while Fed met Nadal and lost clay from 05-08 in every game. It is likely that Fed would've won most (but not necessarily all of them). So, that clay bias in the early years and Fed's prime probably contributes a bit so perhaps the real rivalry if Nadal hat met Fed would've looked something like 19-13. Just speculation of course. Not that different from the 20-14 Sampras holds over Agassi and most people consider Sampras the superior.
But, Fed has better records over the field. And while that stands that's important and a 4 slam advantage is big. But if Nadal gets to 16 and I think he will then you can't realistically call a 1 slam advantage a decider. There are other factors.
In summary I think Nadal is a bit better than Fed due to a huge physical strength advantage and an ability to adjust his game nore than Fed. Perhaps if Fed had had to do that when he was younger then things may have been different....but he didn't. And nadal has sorely exposed his backhand. This is not about match up, match up is clearly weaker doing relatively well against clearly better. Nadal is not clearly weaker.
Death Master
Banned
anybody knows nadal`s winning percentage?
it is the highest in the sport. he owns the top 30 players.
so the so called matchup issue with roger has zero traction. in fact it never did have any traction except with the trolls but what do they know anyway.
it is the highest in the sport. he owns the top 30 players.
so the so called matchup issue with roger has zero traction. in fact it never did have any traction except with the trolls but what do they know anyway.
M
monfed
Guest
How many Laureus sports awards has Ralph won? Has he even got an invite for it yet? :lol:
Death Master
Banned
whaz shaking monTROLLfed.
who gives a damn about that crap?
lets see how long you can hang your hat on that nonsense.
tennis historians will never mention that even once so you know how important that must be.
talk about the real issues? why did somebody as talented as roger fail to find any solutions against nadal all these years?
Last edited:
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
10is
Professional
Well said! Also, the slowing down of courts (hard courts playing like fast-clay courts) and the 5-year age difference also skews results in favor of Nadal. As far as I am concerned the "true" rivalry H-H ended at a respectable 6-8 (in favor of Nadal) with the demise of Rogers prime in 2007.
Death Master
Banned
did I mention that I am not all that happy with the clay warrior?
and oh by the way, they do play tennis on clay last time I checked.
lets hear the next excuse. I will grab some popcorn.
and oh by the way, they do play tennis on clay last time I checked.
lets hear the next excuse. I will grab some popcorn.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
i keep reading the words, but collectively they dont make any sense.
Death Master
Banned
I was just messing around.
I like to say that I am not happy with nadal.
its because he could have been even better than he is.
tennis_badger
Rookie
assuming they're on the same age, I'll go with "no", fed at his peak is better than nadal.
if we're talking at right at this moment, then yes, nadal is better
if we're talking at right at this moment, then yes, nadal is better
Crisstti
Legend
He's playing an exo in Perú with Ferrer, one in Chile with Djokovic, one in Argentina with Djokovic, and two in Argentina with Nalbandián.
No idea about the surfaces.
Indoor isn't a surface. If he needs such specific conditions to beat Nadal, well...
Not true.
Last edited:
Crisstti
Legend
Lol, Fed fans should be grateful they're not the same age.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
yeah true, because conditions dont change depending on indoor/outdoor or speed/bounce of the court. cuz you know, whatever.
LOL
and lol..you arent whining about 'specific conditions' when fed and rafa have met most often on a surface that most heavily favored rafa.
now imagine if the h2h were reversed on most of fed and rafa's meetings were on indoor hard or fast hc. the excuses would be fast and furious
Crisstti
Legend
yeah true, because conditions dont change depending on indoor/outdoor or speed/bounce of the court. cuz you know, whatever.
LOL
and lol..you arent whining about 'specific conditions' when fed and rafa have met most often on a surface that most heavily favored rafa.
now imagine if the h2h were reversed on most of fed and rafa's meetings were on indoor hard or fast hc. the excuses would be fast and furious
They change, but that doesn't make it a separate surface.
It's as if Rafa needed, say, the specific conditions of Montecarlo to beat Federer.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
how many times have rafa and roger played on clay vs say wtf/uso/wimbledon?
please stop embarrassing yourself even more than you have already
NEW_BORN
Hall of Fame
Oh you've been mentioning that for years if my memory serves me correctly ;-)
Death Master
Banned
he is crazy. too much activity on the hard courts could put him on the sidelines again.
Death Master
Banned
don't forget that he has also thrown away at least 2 years of his prime years to injuries.
Crisstti
Legend
The only one embarrassing yourself here is you. And they haven't even played half the times on clay as on other surfaces, despite Fed fans insisting that they've played mostly on clay.
He has. It's incredible what he's achieved considering this especially.
Well, we don't know the surfaces. Maybe it's a good sign?, he must be feeling well enough to have scheduled these exos.
I cannot say I'm not exited at the possibility of seeing him again. And it's great he's going to play in Argentina where they missed him this year.
When Massú announced his retirement, it was mentioned by the press here that there would be a good bye match and that it'd probably be against Djokovic "or another big name", I thought they were crazy since Djokovic surely wouldn't come all the way here for this, but since he's going to be here anyway, I guess it's quite possible. And the other possible "big names" must be Rafa or Ferrer.
From 2005 to 2008 Nadal play his best on clay. Yet, 10 out of 16 meetings were on clay. Only 3 were on Fed's best surface(grass).
Last edited:
RF20Lennon
Legend
I wonder whose fault that is....mmm.......
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Yeah well Fed wasn't exactly dominating Nadal on grass now was he? He lost WIM08 final and in 07 he was within a bee's dick of losing that one too.
Not to mention on outdoor HC Nadal was owning him as well, winning Miami04 & Dubai 06 along with dominating Fed in Miami05 final only to choke because it was his first big final.
The only place Fed can dominate Nadal is one tournament. He's just not good enough to dominate Nadal anywhere else.
Nadal otoh, has a 7-2 outdoor HC record against him, as well as beating Fed at 3/4 majors, a fact which no doubt scars Federer so bad that he tanks before he has to play Nadal at the US Open all the time.
Death Master
Banned
I don't understand why people rely on a democratic process to get answers for questions that have a mathematical answer. A clear one.
If you, timmy, played a guy, jimmy, 31 times and you beat him 21 times, and someone asked you "hey timmy, are you better than jimmy?", what would you say????
Would you say: "Ummmm pre-2008, he was better; post-2008, I am better?" Or would you say "yeah, i can beat him around 67% of the time", or perhaps you would say "I'm better."
And if Jimmy overheard you and said "duuuude, you're not really better than me. it's just a mis-match between your skills and mine", would you say "You're right, Jimmy", or would you say "Jimmy, you're so delusional. Just accept it already. you're beginning to sound like a real d-bag."
If you, timmy, played a guy, jimmy, 31 times and you beat him 21 times, and someone asked you "hey timmy, are you better than jimmy?", what would you say????
Would you say: "Ummmm pre-2008, he was better; post-2008, I am better?" Or would you say "yeah, i can beat him around 67% of the time", or perhaps you would say "I'm better."
And if Jimmy overheard you and said "duuuude, you're not really better than me. it's just a mis-match between your skills and mine", would you say "You're right, Jimmy", or would you say "Jimmy, you're so delusional. Just accept it already. you're beginning to sound like a real d-bag."
Death Master
Banned
that old "matchup" nonsense does not work anymore considering he has a winning record against ALL of the top 30 players.
it is just possible that the guy is good. he is good at winning matches.
so good that his winning percentage is over 83% which is the highest in the sport.
so he is good at winning matches. last time I checked, that was the one and the only bloody objective of the match. it was to win matches.
he is required to kill so he kills. what else is there?
it is just possible that the guy is good. he is good at winning matches.
so good that his winning percentage is over 83% which is the highest in the sport.
so he is good at winning matches. last time I checked, that was the one and the only bloody objective of the match. it was to win matches.
he is required to kill so he kills. what else is there?
Bud
Bionic Poster
Good story :lol:
granddog29
Banned
Wishful thinking. Many highly valued voices already consider Nadal better than Federer- McEnroe, Courier, Bud Collins, Navratilova, Virginia Wade, Becker. That being said once Nadal reaches 17 slams (he will win more than 17 but once he reaches that point) nobody will consider Federer better than Nadal anymore.
Yes, forget about the most important thing in the game..
17>13. Sorry. People also seem to forget that it took Nadal 3 years to win a GS outside of clay.
Tenez101
Banned
ur cool how can i be liek u?
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
On clay yes, on grass no, on hard: he didn't seem like he was going to be but if he can maintain his current level (= unbeatable) for a while longer, things could get interesting!
Death Master
Banned
Yes, forget about the most important thing in the game..
17>13. Sorry. People also seem to forget that it took Nadal 3 years to win a GS outside of clay.
so they don't play tennis on clay or what?
what do they do exactly on clay?
Death Master
Banned
you are cool too.
thanks.
check this out if you want to be like me:
http://castleknights.createaforum.com/index.php
its my own site. I call it Camelot.
Last edited:
Death Master
Banned
if the federereeeeeeeeeesians had any sense at all they would stop comparing their god to the clay warrior king.
its a losing argument for them.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Given all the records Fed has , most important differential being the 300 weeks, it will take an 18th major to be anointed as a better achiever than Fed. At 17, historians will place Fed above Nadal. Let us watch how 2014 turns out.
granddog29
Banned
It is so cute you honestly believe that. :lol:
Death Master
Banned
true insiders of the sport already believe that nadal rates higher than roger.
Similar threads
