Nadal 3 big titles away from matching Federer

D

drm025

Hall of Fame
Currently, Nadal has 42 big titles (14 slams + 27 masters + 1 OG). Federer has amassed 44 big titles in his career (17 slams + 6 WTFs + 21 masters). Will Nadal end his career with more big titles than Federer since he is currently only 2 below?

For comparison, here are the top 5 since the rise of masters tournaments as we know them today:

1. Federer: 17 slams + 6 WTFs + 21 masters = 44 titles
2. Nadal: 14 slams + 0 WTFs + 27 masters + 1 OG = 42 titles
3. Sampras:14 slams + 5 WTFs + 11 masters = 30 titles
4. Djokovic: 7 slams + 3 WTFs + 19 masters = 29 titles
5. Agassi: 8 slams + 1 WTFs + 17 masters + 1 OG = 27 titles

Edit: Added the olympics as a big title.
 
Last edited:
Ooh Nadal is so close. He's gonna do it!
In the end, Fed will become a mere asterisk to the legend Nadal is about to become :)
 
drm025 said:
Currently, Nadal has 41 big titles (14 slams + 27 masters). Federer has amassed 44 big titles in his career (17 slams + 6 WTFs + 21 masters). Will Nadal end his career with more big titles than Federer since he is currently only 3 below?

For comparison, here are the top 5 since the rise of masters tournaments as we know them today:

1. Federer: 17 slams + 6 WTFs + 21 masters = 44 titles
2. Nadal: 14 slams + 0 WTFs + 27 masters = 41 titles
3. Sampras:14 slams + 5 WTFs + 11 masters = 30 titles
4. Djokovic: 7 slams + 3 WTFs + 19 masters = 29 titles
5. Agassi: 8 slams + 1 WTFs + 17 masters = 26 titles

Are the olympics considered a big title? I would say if we are including Masters then we should include the olympics. This would give Nadal 42 titles and Agassi 27 titles, meaning Nadal is only 2 away.
Click to expand...

You are mixing apples and oranges. It does not work that way.
 
Irrelevant statistic unless Nadal does it by winning slams foremost and WTF's second most.
 
drm025 said:
Currently, Nadal has 41 big titles (14 slams + 27 masters). Federer has amassed 44 big titles in his career (17 slams + 6 WTFs + 21 masters). Will Nadal end his career with more big titles than Federer since he is currently only 3 below?

For comparison, here are the top 5 since the rise of masters tournaments as we know them today:

1. Federer: 17 slams + 6 WTFs + 21 masters = 44 titles
2. Nadal: 14 slams + 0 WTFs + 27 masters = 41 titles
3. Sampras:14 slams + 5 WTFs + 11 masters = 30 titles
4. Djokovic: 7 slams + 3 WTFs + 19 masters = 29 titles
5. Agassi: 8 slams + 1 WTFs + 17 masters = 26 titles

Are the olympics considered a big title? I would say if we are including Masters then we should include the olympics. This would give Nadal 42 titles and Agassi 27 titles, meaning Nadal is only 2 away.
Click to expand...

I don't really think this metric is always the best way of determining who the greater player is. For instance, would anyone consider Nole to be greater than Sampras if he just wins 2 more Masters titles and nothing else? Of course not because Pete has twice as many Slams and also 2 more WTFs.
 
NatF said:
Irrelevant statistic unless Nadal does it by winning slams foremost and WTF's second most.
Click to expand...
OK. How about we count 1 point for masters, 1 point and a half for WTF and 2 points for slams.
Then, Fed is at 64 and Nadal at 55 but maybe Nadal deserves a point for the Olympics, so 56. Just a little effort Rafa! Still close.
 
Clearly, this doesn't determine who is the great player overall. Of course, someone having a greater amount of bigger titles with significantly less slams would not be ranked above the player with more slams. It's more a measure of consistency, I guess. It's just telling us who has won the most tournaments with all of the top players in attendance.
 
veroniquem said:
OK. How about we count 1 point for masters, 1 point and a half for WTF and 2 points for slams.
Then, Fed is at 64 and Nadal at 55 but maybe Nadal deserves a point for the Olympics, so 56. Just a little effort Rafa! Still close.
Click to expand...

That's more accurate although I don't feel prestige wise the WTF is 75% of a slam, nor is a masters 50% of a slam.
 
veroniquem said:
OK. How about we count 1 point for masters, 1 point and a half for WTF and 2 points for slams.
Then, Fed is at 64 and Nadal at 55 but maybe Nadal deserves a point for the Olympics, so 56. Just a little effort Rafa! Still close.
Click to expand...

I see where you're going with this, but still in reality, winning 1 slam is winning one tournament just as winning a masters is winning one tournament.
 
NatF said:
That's more accurate although I don't feel prestige wise the WTF is 75% of a slam, nor is a masters 50% of a slam.
Click to expand...
According to the ATP, it is. I'm following their system, not my subjective opinion. They're the ones determining the value of events.
 
NatF said:
In reality winning 1 slam > several masters.
Click to expand...

Prestige wise, yes you are correct, but I'm not talking about prestige, just the number of big tournaments won by a player. Like I said, more a measure of consistency than greatness.
 
veroniquem said:
Fed's pet grass tournies are not worth a iota more than Rafa's clay ones. Actually less because Halle frankly...
Click to expand...

Mmm, Fed only had the chance to completely dominate 2 grass tournies though... and what is more is that he changed quickly from clay to grass, so successfu..... oh sorry...
 
drm025 said:
I see where you're going with this, but still in reality, winning 1 slam is winning one tournament just as winning a masters is winning one tournament.
Click to expand...
OK but all tournaments do not have the same value. Hence winning Halle doesn't equal winning Wimbledon.
 
drm025 said:
Prestige wise, yes you are correct, but I'm not talking about prestige, just the number of big tournaments won by a player. Like I said, more a measure of consistency than greatness.
Click to expand...

More a measure of having 4 "big" clay tournaments a year and only one grass tournament.
 
veroniquem said:
OK but all tournaments do not have the same value. Hence winning Halle doesn't equal winning Wimbledon.
Click to expand...

Very true, but Halle is a 250. Not saying Masters count the same, but I'm not using this list to determine greatness. Just stating who has won the most big titles.
 
veroniquem said:
According to the ATP, it is. I'm following their system, not my subjective opinion. They're the ones determining the value of events.
Click to expand...

The ATP isn't necessarily objective though Vero, the system is there to create a foundation for the rankings and give each individual tournament enough interest. It doesn't mean it has a bearing on prestige.

drm025 said:
Prestige wise, yes you are correct, but I'm not talking about prestige, just the number of big tournaments won by a player. Like I said, more a measure of consistency than greatness.
Click to expand...

Ok fair enough, I just disagree with weighting all these types of events the same. It's like when the posters from the Former Pro section try to equate amateur era majors with Open Era majors.

In terms of consistency Nadal has been incredibly steady with acquisition of slams and masters. Almost a tortoise and the hare scenario with him and Federer ;)
 
drm025 said:
Yes, 4 of 14 benefit Nadal. Looks like there are 10 others, though....
Click to expand...

Okay, Federer has 2/14 pet tournies (Wimby/WTF), Nadal has 4/14 (clay). The rest of them are neutral. In order for this data to be objective, you should divide the number of clay wins by two, then add wins together...
 
drm025 said:
Currently, Nadal has 41 big titles (14 slams + 27 masters). Federer has amassed 44 big titles in his career (17 slams + 6 WTFs + 21 masters). Will Nadal end his career with more big titles than Federer since he is currently only 3 below?

For comparison, here are the top 5 since the rise of masters tournaments as we know them today:

1. Federer: 17 slams + 6 WTFs + 21 masters = 44 titles
2. Nadal: 14 slams + 0 WTFs + 27 masters = 41 titles
3. Sampras:14 slams + 5 WTFs + 11 masters = 30 titles
4. Djokovic: 7 slams + 3 WTFs + 19 masters = 29 titles
5. Agassi: 8 slams + 1 WTFs + 17 masters = 26 titles

Are the olympics considered a big title? I would say if we are including Masters then we should include the olympics. This would give Nadal 42 titles and Agassi 27 titles, meaning Nadal is only 2 away.
Click to expand...

Yes, the ATP considers Olympic Singles Gold as a BIG title.
This is from an article on the ATP site last month:

'Big' Titles – Among the Big Four (Nadal, Djokovic, Federer and Andy Murray), Nadal has the highest percentage of titles coming from Grand Slams, the Olympics (gold), ATP World Tour Masters 1000s and the Barclays ATP World Tour Finals. Here is a 'big titles' breakdown for the Big Four:

download_1.png
Click to expand...

http://m.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2014/06/26/Nadal-700-Match-Wins.aspx
 
torpantennis said:
Okay, Federer has 2/14 pet tournies (Wimby/WTF), Nadal has 4/14 (clay). The rest of them are neutral. In order for this data to be objective, you should divide the number of clay wins by two, then add wins together...
Click to expand...

Why are the US Open and Cincinnati not pet tournies for Fed, but hamburg/madrid is for Nadal? You realize Fed has 6 hamburg/Madrid titles and Nadal has 4???
 
drm025 said:
Why are the US Open and Cincinnati not pet tournies for Fed, but hamburg/madrid is for Nadal? You realize Fed has 6 hamburg/Madrid titles and Nadal has 4???
Click to expand...
Cincy, Hamburg/Madrid, W, USO are all pet tournies foe Fed. No doubt about it
 
NatF said:
The ATP isn't necessarily objective though Vero, the system is there to create a foundation for the rankings and give each individual tournament enough interest. It doesn't mean it has a bearing on prestige.
Click to expand...


It is what it is. It is what determines ranking. If you're gonna question ranking too, then there is no more common stantard to judge players and any record assessment is futile.
 
veroniquem said:
It is what it is. It is what determines ranking. If you're gonna question ranking too, then there is no more common stantard to judge players and any record assessment is futile.
Click to expand...

Yes we've established that's what determines ranking. Obviously the order is correct I just question the weighting. If you go by the ATP's ranking points and tally them, then Lendl ranks above Sampras. Clearly there's a very real disjoint between the ATP rankings and the real prestige of events.

Do you think that Djokovic would be happy to trade his Wimbledon trophy for say 3 Paris Indoors titles?
 
veroniquem said:
OK, fair enough.
Click to expand...

The only thing is if you eliminate Halle because it's a 250 while masters are 1000, then you ARE taking tournament value into account and if you ARE taking tournament value into account, then you cannot suddenly decide that a master = a slam and drop the value distinction altogether. Logic my friend :)
 
veroniquem said:
The only thing is if you eliminate Halle because it's a 250 while masters are 1000, then you ARE taking tournament value into account and if you ARE taking tournament value into account, then you cannot suddenly decide that a master = a slam and drop the value distinction altogether. Logic my friend :)
Click to expand...

Halle isnt a mandatory event.... I'm talking about the tournaments that required the top players to play. Maybe they didn't require Masters in the 90's, but still valid to compare today's players.
 
NatF said:
Yes we've established that's what determines ranking. Obviously the order is correct I just question the weighting. If you go by the ATP's ranking points and tally them, then Lendl ranks above Sampras. Clearly there's a very real disjoint between the ATP rankings and the real prestige of events.

Do you think that Djokovic would be happy to trade his Wimbledon trophy for say 3 Paris Indoors titles?
Click to expand...
Not 3, 2. I understand what you mean. That no player would give up a slam for the world. But that is not quantifiable. I cannot grant arbitrary points for that. So if we're gonna establish a value, it can only be what the ATP decides it should be.
 
Last edited:
drm025 said:
Why are the US Open and Cincinnati not pet tournies for Fed, but hamburg/madrid is for Nadal? You realize Fed has 6 hamburg/Madrid titles and Nadal has 4???
Click to expand...

mike danny said:
Cincy, Hamburg/Madrid, W, USO are all pet tournies foe Fed. No doubt about it
Click to expand...

If a player can win on multiple surfaces, it doesn't mean that they all are pet tournies. When was the last time that old Federer reached USO final? What about Wimby? IMO it's just that grass is pet surface of Federer, and clay is pet surface of Nadal. Everything else is neutral.
 
drm025 said:
Halle isnt a mandatory event.... I'm talking about the tournaments that required the top players to play. Maybe they didn't require Masters in the 90's, but still valid to compare today's players.
Click to expand...
Neither is M-C. You see what I mean? Iffy issue. Value has nothing to do with mandatory or not, value is what the ATP says the event is worth.
 
UBPOY = Undisputed Best Player Of Year
SBPOY = Shared Best Player Of Year

Federer
2004 Undisputed Best Player Of Year = 1 point
2005 Undisputed Best Player Of Year = 1 point
2006 Undisputed Best Player Of Year = 1 point
2007 Undisputed Best Player Of Year = 1 point
2008 Undisputed Best Player Of Year = 1 point
Total = 5 points

Nadal
2008 Undisputed Best Player Of Year = 1 point
2010 Undisputed Best Player Of Year = 1 point
2013 SBPOY w/ Djokovic = .5 point
Total = 2.5 points

Sorry. Federer > Nadal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mainad
50th big title for Djokovic
Replies
5
Views
1K
MasturB
MasturB
WhiskeyEE
Novak trails Nadal by just one Big 5 title
Replies
34
Views
2K
G A S
G A S
DIMI_D
Current Big Title Holders (active players only)
2
Replies
59
Views
5K
DIMI_D
DIMI_D
D
Race to Most "Big" Title Wins
Replies
13
Views
1K
nolefam_2024
nolefam_2024
K
Djokovic 2018-2023 vs Federer 2004-2009
2 3 4
Replies
157
Views
9K
Dropshot777
Dropshot777
Back
Top