Nadal closer to Federer on Grass than Federer is to Nadal on clay

JackGates

Legend
One thing that is now not in doubt is Nadal is better on grass than Federer is on clay. Yesterday was confirmation that Nadal csn trouble Federer on grass but Federer cant lay a glove on Rafa on clay.
Yes, but so what, most tennis is played on HC anyway where Fed is way better than Nadal, so I don't see how this matters. Your argument would only make sense if grass and clay would be the only surfaces.
 

victorcruz

Hall of Fame
Lol this is true, but that does nothing for me. This was the case from the start. An L is an L whether it was in 3 sets or 5.
 

Pantera

Banned
Yes, but so what, most tennis is played on HC anyway where Fed is way better than Nadal, so I don't see how this matters. Your argument would only make sense if grass and clay would be the only surfaces.
Nadal is better on hard court...peak v peak Nadal 3 USOs Federer 0 and that is the premier HC Major historically.
 
One thing that is now not in doubt is Nadal is better on grass than Federer is on clay. Yesterday was confirmation that Nadal csn trouble Federer on grass but Federer cant lay a glove on Rafa on clay.
Not sure this is true but if he is what is your point? Its like saying Murray is a better olympics player than Nadal.

Also Nadal is the weakest of the big 3 at a surface indoor hard. 0 titles at the biggest ATP tournament. Unlike Novak and Fed who both won titles on their worst surface clay

Also Nadal has never beaten Novak on a full grass match so not sure how good lad
 

Pantera

Banned
Not sure this is true but if he is what is your point? Its like saying Murray is a better olympics player than Nadal.

Also Nadal is the weakest of the big 3 at a surface indoor hard. 0 titles at the biggest ATP tournament. Unlike Novak and Fed who both won titles on their worst surface clay

Also Nadal has never beaten Novak on a full grass match so not sure how good lad
Nadal beat Novak into submission the day Novak retired. And the irony is 2 mins ago u claimed delpo beat Rafa last year at USO lmao.
Oh the irony.
 

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
OP your thread doesn't make sense. X being closer to Y on R than Y is to X on P does not have to equate to X being better on R than Y is on P.
 

fundrazer

Legend
OP your thread doesn't make sense. X being closer to Y on R than Y is to X on P does not have to equate to X being better on R than Y is on P.
This is like some discrete math stuff.

Was trying to explain either the reflexive or transitive property to somebody a bit ago, but I don't think it quite registered.

Pantera claims all his posts/threads are based on facts and not opinions btw.
 

JackGates

Legend
OP your thread doesn't make sense. X being closer to Y on R than Y is to X on P does not have to equate to X being better on R than Y is on P.
Sorry, but your science and math won't work here on TW, you can't just use reason and expect to get away with it. Fed on clay is better than Ferrer on grass and Fed is undefeated versus Ferrer on clay, but Rafa has clay losses to Ferrer. And let's not even talk about Fed's undefeated record versus Almagro and Verdasco on clay. Plus Fed bageled Nadal on clay, Rafa never bageled Federer on grass. Even Djokovic bageled Nadal on clay. Didn't Fed also bagel top clay courters like Gaudio and Kuerten?
 

Towny

Hall of Fame
Nadal is better on grass than Federer is on clay (although there's not a lot in it). But I wouldn't base that on this year's matches. I'd base that on Nadal winning Wimbledon twice, including beating prime Federer to win it. However, Federer is also better than Nadal on hard court. So Federer has a substantial edge on 2 surfaces. Not sure how much comfort that is for OP
 

Towny

Hall of Fame
Nadal is better on hard court...peak v peak Nadal 3 USOs Federer 0 and that is the premier HC Major historically.
They've never played at the USO, so I'm not sure what you're getting 3-0 from. If you're talking title counts, it's 5-3 to Federer at the USO, and 6-1 to Federer at the AO, 6-0 to Federer at the YEC and 22-9 to Federer at Masters 1000
 

JackGates

Legend
They've never played at the USO, so I'm not sure what you're getting 3-0 from. If you're talking title counts, it's 5-3 to Federer at the USO, and 6-1 to Federer at the AO, 6-0 to Federer at the YEC and 22-9 to Federer at Masters 1000
He means Nadal was in his HC prime after 2010, so only post 2010 USO titles count. Hey, if you want to defeat the guy, you should at least understand his logic.
 

MasturB

Legend
I really think Fed pushes Nadal to 4, maybe even 5 had the conditions not been so ****ty at Roland Garros for semis this year.

We'll never know but I did like Fed's strategy on clay this year. Knew when to engage in extended rallies and knew when to try end point on a riskier earlier ending.
 

insideguy

Legend
Fed barely plays clay anymore. And Rafa doesn't play a lot of hard considering how much of the season it represents. I think Rafa played 2 and a half hard court tournaments this year? And probably will only play two more. He will probably take the fall off again.
 

Towny

Hall of Fame
He means Nadal was in his HC prime after 2010, so only post 2010 USO titles count. Hey, if you want to defeat the guy, you should at least understand his logic.
Fair enough, but it's laughable logic. It's like saying that Federer is 5-0 at the USO against Sampras because he entered his prime in 2004. Federer's prime at the USO ended at the latest 2011, and more likely 2008/9. Counting only from 2010 onwards is a waste of time
 

JackGates

Legend
Fair enough, but it's laughable logic. It's like saying that Federer is 5-0 at the USO against Sampras because he entered his prime in 2004. Federer's prime at the USO ended at the latest 2011, and more likely 2008/9. Counting only from 2010 onwards is a waste of time
No, it makes sense, he probably just means currently better, not better of all time.
 

73west

Semi-Pro
Fair enough, but it's laughable logic. It's like saying that Federer is 5-0 at the USO against Sampras because he entered his prime in 2004. Federer's prime at the USO ended at the latest 2011, and more likely 2008/9. Counting only from 2010 onwards is a waste of time
Andres Gomez was better than Laver because once Gomez entered his prime, he won 1 major and Laver won none.
 

Pantera

Banned
They've never played at the USO, so I'm not sure what you're getting 3-0 from. If you're talking title counts, it's 5-3 to Federer at the USO, and 6-1 to Federer at the AO, 6-0 to Federer at the YEC and 22-9 to Federer at Masters 1000
We cant include titles before nadal was 21..thats like punishing Tsitispas and Felix now for not winning.

My question is this. If Nadal beats Federer at USO i wonder if people will accept the result or people will cite Federers age.
 

Cup8489

G.O.A.T.
But then stopped when Nadal and Djokovic peaked.
We cant include titles before nadal was 21..thats like punishing Tsitispas and Felix now for not winning.

My question is this. If Nadal beats Federer at USO i wonder if people will accept the result or people will cite Federers age.
It didn't stop when they peaked, he beat Djokovic before losing the 2009 final. Djokovic admittedly defeated him in 10 and 11, but Nadal deserves zero credit whatsoever for Federer not winning the US Open after 2008. They're unrelated and so can't be compared. All that can be compared is the total titles for each. And you're damn straight we are punishing Tsitsi and Felix for being mugs.

Federer will be 38 during USO. He defeated Nadal yesterday because he's a better grass court player than Nadal even now. Not sure that's true on hardcourts... BECAUSE he's nearly 38.
 

Towny

Hall of Fame
We cant include titles before nadal was 21..thats like punishing Tsitispas and Felix now for not winning.

My question is this. If Nadal beats Federer at USO i wonder if people will accept the result or people will cite Federers age.
If you can't include results from before Nadal was 21, you can't include results from after Federer turned 35. Probably earlier in fact, but I'm being generous. So that's USO 2007 to USO 2015. In this period, Fed won 2 slams with 2 finals and 3 SF. Nadal won 2 slams with 1 final and 2 SF. And this was with Federer facing Djokovic 6 times, as opposed to Nadal facing him 3 times. So Federer was better.

In reality, their primes at the USO didnt overlap. Nadal didnt really play well there until 2010. Federer's best years were 2004-09. Counting from 2010 onwards doesn't work, because Federer has been in his 30s for most editions.

In answer to your question, it depends what you're looking at. Determining who is better at the USO involves looking at their success there. So Federer is ahead. If you mean who is better peak for peak, then no, Nadal beating Federer or the other way round won't really make much of a difference. Nadal and Federer are both quite far removed from their prime ages. Even though they can still play well, the outcome of mid to late 30s Fed vs Nadal wouldn't give accurate insight of who would win mid 20s Federer vs Nadal
 

Pantera

Banned
It didn't stop when they peaked, he beat Djokovic before losing the 2009 final. Djokovic admittedly defeated him in 10 and 11, but Nadal deserves zero credit whatsoever for Federer not winning the US Open after 2008. They're unrelated and so can't be compared. All that can be compared is the total titles for each. And you're damn straight we are punishing Tsitsi and Felix for being mugs.

Federer will be 38 during USO. He defeated Nadal yesterday because he's a better grass court player than Nadal even now. Not sure that's true on hardcourts... BECAUSE he's nearly 38.
Thats like a failsafe position..whenever federer loses its now not relevant due to age yet when he wins its more impressive.

It doesnt work like that. Its all on the line when these guys play. Nadal is 3rd or 4th of his era on grass. Federers great grass court rival is tomorrow. If he loses i hope the age excuse isnt rolled out
 

Pantera

Banned
If you can't include results from before Nadal was 21, you can't include results from after Federer turned 35. Probably earlier in fact, but I'm being generous. So that's USO 2007 to USO 2015. In this period, Fed won 2 slams with 2 finals and 3 SF. Nadal won 2 slams with 1 final and 2 SF. And this was with Federer facing Djokovic 6 times, as opposed to Nadal facing him 3 times. So Federer was better.

In reality, their primes at the USO didnt overlap. Nadal didnt really play well there until 2010. Federer's best years were 2004-09. Counting from 2010 onwards doesn't work, because Federer has been in his 30s for most editions.

In answer to your question, it depends what you're looking at. Determining who is better at the USO involves looking at their success there. So Federer is ahead. If you mean who is better peak for peak, then no, Nadal beating Federer or the other way round won't really make much of a difference. Nadal and Federer are both quite far removed from their prime ages. Even though they can still play well, the outcome of mid to late 30s Fed vs Nadal wouldn't give accurate insight of who would win mid 20s Federer vs Nadal
We need a computer game to resolve this lol. Any programmers on here?
 

Vanilla Slice

Semi-Pro
I really think Fed pushes Nadal to 4, maybe even 5 had the conditions not been so ****ty at Roland Garros for semis this year.

We'll never know but I did like Fed's strategy on clay this year. Knew when to engage in extended rallies and knew when to try end point on a riskier earlier ending.
5 sets is a stretch. We don’t know that Nadal wasn’t affected a lot by the conditions also. He just has the tools to deal with it better in clay.

I say Federer takes one set and loses in 4 if there was no wind. Probably that second set.
 

Cup8489

G.O.A.T.
Thats like a failsafe position..whenever federer loses its now not relevant due to age yet when he wins its more impressive.

It doesnt work like that. Its all on the line when these guys play. Nadal is 3rd or 4th of his era on grass. Federers great grass court rival is tomorrow. If he loses i hope the age excuse isnt rolled out
It's not a failsafe position, those two options aren't mutually exclusive. The expected outcome is a Nadal win. If Federer wins, it's impressive because he bear the odds. Sorry that you don't like it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

weakera

G.O.A.T.
I mean that and $1 will get you a cup of coffee, right? In the end history will weigh the numbers, but in truth all generations of athletes become marginalized in time by fans who always err towards recency bias.
 

Vrad

Professional
One thing that is now not in doubt is Nadal is better on grass than Federer is on clay. Yesterday was confirmation that Nadal csn trouble Federer on grass but Federer cant lay a glove on Rafa on clay.
This is incorrect. At worst they are equal.

What is true is Nadal is miles better on clay than anyone else is on any surface.

Federer hasn’t lost to a bunch of nobodies on clay for like 4 years in a row in the first few rounds. Especially not during his peak.
 
Top