Nadal Consistently Beat Federer When It Mattered

REKX

Rookie
I am a Federer and Nadal fan, and I enjoy both. Whilst for me Federer is the greatest player to have played, we have to take a minute to remember how great of a player Nadal is and how much problems he caused Federer - when it mattered.

Federer's prime years say from 2003 to 2009. Nadal consistently beat Federer during these years. For me after 2009, the head to head matches became less relevant because Federer was around 30 and his greatest form had clearly gone - whilst Nadal was still in his prime.

Also the 2017 part is less relevant, because they are both very far away from their best form and close to retirement. Federer acknowledged this after winning Australian Open 2017 by saying he didn't mind if he lost, he didn't react like that after 2009 where he was crying because he didn't know how to beat Nadal.

Consider the overall quality of the Australian Open 2017 vs 2009, 2009 people remember as one of the greatest matches of all time but the 2017 simply did not have the same level of play. Of course that is natural as both players are far away from their prime form.

2007 2008 WImbledon final, Nadal pushed Federer to 5 sets both matches and this was Federer at his absolute prime form. 2007 he won 3 slams and 2008 Wimbledon he didn't lose a set til the final, he was playing amazing.

2017 is even more irrelevant as their main grand slam competitors, Djokovic and Murray are away. There is no challengers from their generation, and by this time the new generation would have emerged and this hasn't happened - otherwise it is unlikely Federer and Nadal would have faced each other in finals.

For me 2017 as a Federer Nadal fan has been amazing, but a bit empty knowing these are just little bonuses. But it is ruined by people redefining the rivalry from 2017 onwards, and not when it mattered most.

Nadal will be remembered as the player that had the upper hand on Federer when Federer was at his prime and absolute best. He managed to beat Prime Federer on hardcourt and grass court, which is amazing.
 

TripleATeam

Legend
I am a Federer and Nadal fan, and I enjoy both. Whilst for me Federer is the greatest player to have played, we have to take a minute to remember how great of a player Nadal is and how much problems he caused Federer - when it mattered.
AO 2017 is no trivial matter. It definitely mattered. If Nadal had won that, he'd have his second 3 slam year, he'd be on 17 compared to Fed's 18, he would have beaten Federer the only time they met in a GS this year, he likely would have momentum going into the other matches, and he'd have another hard court slam to his name. It didn't matter? I don't think so. In fact, it may have been the most important meeting.

And Federer won it.
Federer's prime years say from 2003 to 2009. Nadal consistently beat Federer during these years. For me after 2009, the head to head matches became less relevant because Federer was around 30 and his greatest form had clearly gone - whilst Nadal was still in his prime.
Okay, sure, but Federer still had some great form in some post-2009 years. It's not great to say all of a player's matches post-prime don't matter.
Also the 2017 part is less relevant, because they are both very far away from their best form and close to retirement. Federer acknowledged this after winning Australian Open 2017 by saying he didn't mind if he lost, he didn't react like that after 2009 where he was crying because he didn't know how to beat Nadal.
To be fair, it is easier to cry when you lose and it's easier to say winning doesn't matter when you just did.
Consider the overall quality of the Australian Open 2017 vs 2009, 2009 people remember as one of the greatest matches of all time but the 2017 simply did not have the same level of play. Of course that is natural as both players are far away from their prime form.
Maybe not, but AO 2017 will stick in my memory as the tournament that Fedal proved they aren't simply going to fade away. 2009 was not the same.
2017 is even more irrelevant as their main grand slam competitors, Djokovic and Murray are away. There is no challengers from their generation, and by this time the new generation would have emerged and this hasn't happened - otherwise it is unlikely Federer and Nadal would have faced each other in finals.

For me 2017 as a Federer Nadal fan has been amazing, but a bit empty knowing these are just little bonuses. But it is ruined by people redefining the rivalry from 2017 onwards, and not when it mattered most.

Nadal will be remembered as the player that had the upper hand on Federer when Federer was at his prime and absolute best. He managed to beat Prime Federer on hardcourt and grass court, which is amazing.
A rivalry must take into account all points in its duration. Regardless of whether or not the best matches were mid-2000s or not, the rivalry still continues with or without a prime player between the two. 2017 is not irrelevant since Murray and Djokovic are gone because this rivalry is about Federer and Nadal. Much in the same way, we can't say 2016 wasn't a year of Murrovic because Fedal were subpar that year. The rivalry is measured not by a single time in its duration, but by the whole.

Also, Nadal won't be remembered as the guy that troubled Federer- he will be remembered as a legitimate GOAT candidate who amassed an insurmountable record at one of the slams and wasn't too shabby in the other 3.
 
Last edited:

mike danny

Bionic Poster
The most insecure Nadal fan....cough cough.... sorry.... "Fedal" fan strikes again.

2017 counts and Fed has got the better of Nadal in their last 5 matches. Deal with it. The only reason you say is irrelevant is because Nadal isn't the one who is currently in the driver's seat as far as this rivalry is concerned.
 

User123

Hall of Fame
Are you going to start every thread with the words "I am a Federer and Nadal fan"?
I must say I never met a person who is a fan of both. It looks impossible. You can be a fan of one of them, and if you are a normal person you will respect the other. But just respect, not be a fan of him. So sorry, I don't believe you.
 

TheAverageFedererFan

Professional
I am a Federer and Nadal fan, and I enjoy both. Whilst for me Federer is the greatest player to have played, we have to take a minute to remember how great of a player Nadal is and how much problems he caused Federer - when it mattered.
.

The 2017 Australian Open was completely worthless, it is not worth anything, in fact we should count that title towards Federer's losses. :rolleyes:
 

Lexibra

New User
I am a Federer and Nadal fan, and I enjoy both. Whilst for me Federer is the greatest player to have played, we have to take a minute to remember how great of a player Nadal is and how much problems he caused Federer - when it mattered.

Federer's prime years say from 2003 to 2009. Nadal consistently beat Federer during these years. For me after 2009, the head to head matches became less relevant because Federer was around 30 and his greatest form had clearly gone - whilst Nadal was still in his prime.

Also the 2017 part is less relevant, because they are both very far away from their best form and close to retirement. Federer acknowledged this after winning Australian Open 2017 by saying he didn't mind if he lost, he didn't react like that after 2009 where he was crying because he didn't know how to beat Nadal.

Consider the overall quality of the Australian Open 2017 vs 2009, 2009 people remember as one of the greatest matches of all time but the 2017 simply did not have the same level of play. Of course that is natural as both players are far away from their prime form.

2007 2008 WImbledon final, Nadal pushed Federer to 5 sets both matches and this was Federer at his absolute prime form. 2007 he won 3 slams and 2008 Wimbledon he didn't lose a set til the final, he was playing amazing.

2017 is even more irrelevant as their main grand slam competitors, Djokovic and Murray are away. There is no challengers from their generation, and by this time the new generation would have emerged and this hasn't happened - otherwise it is unlikely Federer and Nadal would have faced each other in finals.

For me 2017 as a Federer Nadal fan has been amazing, but a bit empty knowing these are just little bonuses. But it is ruined by people redefining the rivalry from 2017 onwards, and not when it mattered most.

Nadal will be remembered as the player that had the upper hand on Federer when Federer was at his prime and absolute best. He managed to beat Prime Federer on hardcourt and grass court, which is amazing.
Nadal has ensured the goat debate will go on for eternity. This year has been amazing but in terms of goathood we are where we were in 2014.

While the fans continue to bicker looking at Nadal and Federer recently im not clear whether either strive for goat or whether both are happy to be one of the two greatest ever.

If Djokovic comes back with a vengeance and wins say 2 majors the smiles may disappear. Its difficult to assess but it seems strange to me that two players locked in a battle for goathood would spend as much time off court as they have the past year.

As for how good they really are at the moment we will only know next year if Djokovic gets back to near his best. Nadal and Federer both went through a couple of years not being able to beat Djokovic on anything, even their best surfaces. If next season Nadal and Federer get beat by Djokovic in the Majors then this year will lose some of the gloss. If they beat Djokovic then this year will have been glorious as at their advanced stage they re-invented themselves.

It will be interesting to see how it maps out. Good post you did.
 
Can we at least agree that this so-called Federer age disadvantage was, and has always been, a poor excuse? If he isn't too old to beat Nadal now, certainly he wasn't too old 8 years ago.
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
The most insecure Nadal fan....cough cough.... sorry.... "Fedal" fan strikes again.

2017 counts and Fed has got the better of Nadal in their last 5 matches. Deal with it. The only reason you say is irrelevant is because Nadal isn't the one who is currently in the driver's seat as far as this rivalry is concerned.
You tell him mike :p
 

REKX

Rookie
Are you going to start every thread with the words "I am a Federer and Nadal fan"?
I must say I never met a person who is a fan of both. It looks impossible. You can be a fan of one of them, and if you are a normal person you will respect the other. But just respect, not be a fan of him. So sorry, I don't believe you.
I was a Federer only fan to begin with, started watching tennis in 2008 because I had chicken pox and couldn't leave the house.

And I was amazed with Federer's play even after watching a few matches. The Wimbledon 2008 defeat hurt me at the time, and 2009 Australian Open, upset me as well because I felt upset watching Federer cry. I really didn't like Nadal at the time.

But I watched them both live a few times since then, and I started appreciating Nadal. Federer/Nadal wasn't as important after 2009 because Federer declined, and I felt Federer done enough to be the greatest of all time by winning French Open.

My view of Nadal changed, for him to beat Federer whilst Federer was in his greatest form, you have to hand it to him - no other player achieved that.

So I am a fan of both.
 

peakin11mugs

Semi-Pro
I am a Federer and Nadal fan, and I enjoy both. Whilst for me Federer is the greatest player to have played, we have to take a minute to remember how great of a player Nadal is and how much problems he caused Federer - when it mattered.

Federer's prime years say from 2003 to 2009. Nadal consistently beat Federer during these years. For me after 2009, the head to head matches became less relevant because Federer was around 30 and his greatest form had clearly gone - whilst Nadal was still in his prime.

Also the 2017 part is less relevant, because they are both very far away from their best form and close to retirement. Federer acknowledged this after winning Australian Open 2017 by saying he didn't mind if he lost, he didn't react like that after 2009 where he was crying because he didn't know how to beat Nadal.

Consider the overall quality of the Australian Open 2017 vs 2009, 2009 people remember as one of the greatest matches of all time but the 2017 simply did not have the same level of play. Of course that is natural as both players are far away from their prime form.

2007 2008 WImbledon final, Nadal pushed Federer to 5 sets both matches and this was Federer at his absolute prime form. 2007 he won 3 slams and 2008 Wimbledon he didn't lose a set til the final, he was playing amazing.

2017 is even more irrelevant as their main grand slam competitors, Djokovic and Murray are away. There is no challengers from their generation, and by this time the new generation would have emerged and this hasn't happened - otherwise it is unlikely Federer and Nadal would have faced each other in finals.

For me 2017 as a Federer Nadal fan has been amazing, but a bit empty knowing these are just little bonuses. But it is ruined by people redefining the rivalry from 2017 onwards, and not when it mattered most.

Nadal will be remembered as the player that had the upper hand on Federer when Federer was at his prime and absolute best. He managed to beat Prime Federer on hardcourt and grass court, which is amazing.
In the same vein Djokovic beat nadal at AO, FO, WIMB, US, WTF, All shared masters. Nadal never beat djoker at AO and most masters. He beat the absolute best version of a mid twenties peak nadal 7-0 then did it again 7-0. 7 finals in a row, 7 consecutive matches without losing a set. 3 slams at a row.

That’s why he is better than nadal and after 2011 (djoker doesn’t even need the other 7-0) nothing else matters right OP? Thanks to 2011 he is and always will be better than nadal. Nothing else after that matters right OP? Glad we agree
 
Last edited:

REKX

Rookie
Can we at least agree that this so-called Federer age disadvantage was, and has always been, a poor excuse? If he isn't too old to beat Nadal now, certainly he wasn't too old 8 years ago.
I don't see how it is fair to compare Federer over 30 to Nadal when he was in his prime. And it's even worse now in 2017, both are way behind their prime (Aus Final 2009 vs 2017 is example to that).

It mattered most during 2003-2009, they were both in their prime, Nadal was still a bit young and not fully developed till about 2007. And the fact is he beat prime Federer 2008 Wimbledon - many regard that match as the greatest ever because Federer was playing amazing, but Nadal had something more.
 

73west

Semi-Pro
All victories and all losses count. I don't buy the "prime" and "peak" talk. If you are good enough to play, put up with the result.
I do think peak matters. There are two main reasons I say that:
1. Some times, H2Hs are grossly lopsided by older players sticking around long after their prime and getting routed by the younger challenger again and again. The best example ever may be Connors vs Lendl. Lendl owns the H2H by a decent margin, but that's in large part because Connors refused to ever retire (I think he is trying for a WC to Paris as we speak). Lendl won something like 17 straight against the increasingly post-prime Connors to stake that H2H edge. It doesn't tell us much about who was actually a better player, Lendl or Connors, because those were not matches against the Connors we are talking about.

But federer and Nadal are largely contemporaries. There is an age difference, of course, and Nadal is closer in age to Djok and Murray, but age matters less than wear on the tires, and Nadal came up so soon after Federer that it's fair to call him a Federer contemporary.

2. When comparing careers, it's really hard to measure guys with short bursts vs guys with great longevity. How do you compare Agassi to McEnroe? McEnroe was amazing for a shorter period. Agassi was very good for a long period. How short is long enough? If we're talking best ever, and people want to give credit for "peak performance", how long do you have to maintain that peak? A season? 3 seasons? A match?

That's why I floated (some months ago) by 8 years hypothesis. It's not that every player is in his prime for exactly 8 years. Of course not. Fed and Nadal are putting a lie to that claim this year. But looking at the great men's players of my lifetime (say, starting with Borg/Connors) giving each guy 8 years and saying 'what did they do over their best 8 year span - I'm calling that their prime' gives you a fair basis for comparison. So you're not comparing one guy's 3 season peak to another guy's 8 year average, and you're also not dragging someone down because they stuck around long after their prime and hurt their career averages
 

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
I do think peak matters. There are two main reasons I say that:
1. Some times, H2Hs are grossly lopsided by older players sticking around long after their prime and getting routed by the younger challenger again and again. The best example ever may be Connors vs Lendl. Lendl owns the H2H by a decent margin, but that's in large part because Connors refused to ever retire (I think he is trying for a WC to Paris as we speak). Lendl won something like 17 straight against the increasingly post-prime Connors to stake that H2H edge. It doesn't tell us much about who was actually a better player, Lendl or Connors, because those were not matches against the Connors we are talking about.

But federer and Nadal are largely contemporaries. There is an age difference, of course, and Nadal is closer in age to Djok and Murray, but age matters less than wear on the tires, and Nadal came up so soon after Federer that it's fair to call him a Federer contemporary.

2. When comparing careers, it's really hard to measure guys with short bursts vs guys with great longevity. How do you compare Agassi to McEnroe? McEnroe was amazing for a shorter period. Agassi was very good for a long period. How short is long enough? If we're talking best ever, and people want to give credit for "peak performance", how long do you have to maintain that peak? A season? 3 seasons? A match?

That's why I floated (some months ago) by 8 years hypothesis. It's not that every player is in his prime for exactly 8 years. Of course not. Fed and Nadal are putting a lie to that claim this year. But looking at the great men's players of my lifetime (say, starting with Borg/Connors) giving each guy 8 years and saying 'what did they do over their best 8 year span - I'm calling that their prime' gives you a fair basis for comparison. So you're not comparing one guy's 3 season peak to another guy's 8 year average, and you're also not dragging someone down because they stuck around long after their prime and hurt their career averages
It only compares some sort of sustained best prime period so how does it account for unusually longevity? It's too constricted.
 

73west

Semi-Pro
It only compares some sort of sustained best prime period so how does it account for unusually longevity? It's too constricted.
It's not constricted if it's one piece of data. Any time you are going to get into a debate like "who was better, Sampras or Djokovic" you need a dozen pieces of analysis coming together. And one of them is "how consistent/good was each of them in his prime". But that begs the question of what a prime is. If you let it float (it's 5 years for this guy, 10 years for that guy) you get unfair comparisons. You need a common definition of "prime" in order to answer that question. Which is only one of the many questions you need to ask.

In general, I argue this, with respect to any of these career comparison questions:
Some stats are best measured as totals (slams, titles, weeks at #1, years finishing in the top 5, etc)
Some stats are best measured as averages (winning %age, tournaments won/entered, average penetration at a major)

Totals are totals. If you stick around 6 extra years and win 1 more major, congrats to you for winning 1 more major
Averages are best measured prime vs prime. It's not fair to compare Borg's averages to Connors's, because Borg's will be artificially high (retired before decline) and Connors will be artificially low (playing way, way, way past his prime).
So define a prime in a way that is fair to everyone and use that.
 

-NN-

G.O.A.T.
It's not constricted if it's one piece of data. Any time you are going to get into a debate like "who was better, Sampras or Djokovic" you need a dozen pieces of analysis coming together. And one of them is "how consistent/good was each of them in his prime". But that begs the question of what a prime is. If you let it float (it's 5 years for this guy, 10 years for that guy) you get unfair comparisons. You need a common definition of "prime" in order to answer that question. Which is only one of the many questions you need to ask.

In general, I argue this, with respect to any of these career comparison questions:
Some stats are best measured as totals (slams, titles, weeks at #1, years finishing in the top 5, etc)
Some stats are best measured as averages (winning %age, tournaments won/entered, average penetration at a major)

Totals are totals. If you stick around 6 extra years and win 1 more major, congrats to you for winning 1 more major
Averages are best measured prime vs prime. It's not fair to compare Borg's averages to Connors's, because Borg's will be artificially high (retired before decline) and Connors will be artificially low (playing way, way, way past his prime).
So define a prime in a way that is fair to everyone and use that.
It's fine for defining the peak/prime period or whatever you call it but it can't be the whole appraisal but it seems that you agree with that. Anyway it sounds very interesting. Could you link me to your work?
 

73west

Semi-Pro
It's fine for defining the peak/prime period or whatever you call it but it can't be the whole appraisal but it seems that you agree with that. Anyway it sounds very interesting. Could you link me to your work?
Thanks. It's not in a linkable or uploadable format right now, but I'll get it there soon.
 

Luckydog

Professional
I am a Federer and Nadal fan, and I enjoy both. Whilst for me Federer is the greatest player to have played, we have to take a minute to remember how great of a player Nadal is and how much problems he caused Federer - when it mattered.

Federer's prime years say from 2003 to 2009. Nadal consistently beat Federer during these years. For me after 2009, the head to head matches became less relevant because Federer was around 30 and his greatest form had clearly gone - whilst Nadal was still in his prime.

Also the 2017 part is less relevant, because they are both very far away from their best form and close to retirement. Federer acknowledged this after winning Australian Open 2017 by saying he didn't mind if he lost, he didn't react like that after 2009 where he was crying because he didn't know how to beat Nadal.

Consider the overall quality of the Australian Open 2017 vs 2009, 2009 people remember as one of the greatest matches of all time but the 2017 simply did not have the same level of play. Of course that is natural as both players are far away from their prime form.

2007 2008 WImbledon final, Nadal pushed Federer to 5 sets both matches and this was Federer at his absolute prime form. 2007 he won 3 slams and 2008 Wimbledon he didn't lose a set til the final, he was playing amazing.

2017 is even more irrelevant as their main grand slam competitors, Djokovic and Murray are away. There is no challengers from their generation, and by this time the new generation would have emerged and this hasn't happened - otherwise it is unlikely Federer and Nadal would have faced each other in finals.

For me 2017 as a Federer Nadal fan has been amazing, but a bit empty knowing these are just little bonuses. But it is ruined by people redefining the rivalry from 2017 onwards, and not when it mattered most.

Nadal will be remembered as the player that had the upper hand on Federer when Federer was at his prime and absolute best. He managed to beat Prime Federer on hardcourt and grass court, which is amazing.
Stop pretending you are a Fed fan,you are just a low-ranking nadal fan,that's all. No need any explaining,your post has told everything .
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Are you going to start every thread with the words "I am a Federer and Nadal fan"?
I must say I never met a person who is a fan of both. It looks impossible. You can be a fan of one of them, and if you are a normal person you will respect the other. But just respect, not be a fan of him. So sorry, I don't believe you.
I am a fan of both....... for different reasons.

:oops:
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
09 AO is a surface that favours Nadal. Slow HC where he can run side to side retrieving winners and playing ridiculous passing shots that wouldn’t be possible at the USO in 04-09.

08 Wimbledon was a blow, but as Federer said he was mentally scarred from the clay losses. 08 Hamburg epic choke set off a chain reaction of events.
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
I am a Federer and Nadal fan, and I enjoy both. Whilst for me Federer is the greatest player to have played, we have to take a minute to remember how great of a player Nadal is and how much problems he caused Federer - when it mattered.

Federer's prime years say from 2003 to 2009. Nadal consistently beat Federer during these years. For me after 2009, the head to head matches became less relevant because Federer was around 30 and his greatest form had clearly gone - whilst Nadal was still in his prime.

Also the 2017 part is less relevant, because they are both very far away from their best form and close to retirement. Federer acknowledged this after winning Australian Open 2017 by saying he didn't mind if he lost, he didn't react like that after 2009 where he was crying because he didn't know how to beat Nadal.

Consider the overall quality of the Australian Open 2017 vs 2009, 2009 people remember as one of the greatest matches of all time but the 2017 simply did not have the same level of play. Of course that is natural as both players are far away from their prime form.

2007 2008 WImbledon final, Nadal pushed Federer to 5 sets both matches and this was Federer at his absolute prime form. 2007 he won 3 slams and 2008 Wimbledon he didn't lose a set til the final, he was playing amazing.

2017 is even more irrelevant as their main grand slam competitors, Djokovic and Murray are away. There is no challengers from their generation, and by this time the new generation would have emerged and this hasn't happened - otherwise it is unlikely Federer and Nadal would have faced each other in finals.

For me 2017 as a Federer Nadal fan has been amazing, but a bit empty knowing these are just little bonuses. But it is ruined by people redefining the rivalry from 2017 onwards, and not when it mattered most.

Nadal will be remembered as the player that had the upper hand on Federer when Federer was at his prime and absolute best. He managed to beat Prime Federer on hardcourt and grass court, which is amazing.

Slay.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
I am a Federer and Nadal fan, and I enjoy both. Whilst for me Federer is the greatest player to have played, we have to take a minute to remember how great of a player Nadal is and how much problems he caused Federer - when it mattered.

Federer's prime years say from 2003 to 2009. Nadal consistently beat Federer during these years. For me after 2009, the head to head matches became less relevant because Federer was around 30 and his greatest form had clearly gone - whilst Nadal was still in his prime.

Also the 2017 part is less relevant, because they are both very far away from their best form and close to retirement. Federer acknowledged this after winning Australian Open 2017 by saying he didn't mind if he lost, he didn't react like that after 2009 where he was crying because he didn't know how to beat Nadal.

Consider the overall quality of the Australian Open 2017 vs 2009, 2009 people remember as one of the greatest matches of all time but the 2017 simply did not have the same level of play. Of course that is natural as both players are far away from their prime form.

2007 2008 WImbledon final, Nadal pushed Federer to 5 sets both matches and this was Federer at his absolute prime form. 2007 he won 3 slams and 2008 Wimbledon he didn't lose a set til the final, he was playing amazing.

2017 is even more irrelevant as their main grand slam competitors, Djokovic and Murray are away. There is no challengers from their generation, and by this time the new generation would have emerged and this hasn't happened - otherwise it is unlikely Federer and Nadal would have faced each other in finals.

For me 2017 as a Federer Nadal fan has been amazing, but a bit empty knowing these are just little bonuses. But it is ruined by people redefining the rivalry from 2017 onwards, and not when it mattered most.

Nadal will be remembered as the player that had the upper hand on Federer when Federer was at his prime and absolute best. He managed to beat Prime Federer on hardcourt and grass court, which is amazing.
LOL - This again???? :)

Did Shanghai hurt THAT much, that you had to make the same thread twice.
 

tennis_pro

Bionic Poster
How is 2008-2014 any more relevant than 2017? So Federer is still sitting at 17 Slams while Nadal almost got him at 16?
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
Well, considering that AO 2017 was hailed by some as "the most important match ever in GS history", and that it was agreed amongst the higher ranks of VB that "whoever wins this is the GOAT--NO EXCUSES!!!", I'd say Nadal lost at least a pretty important match in their rivalry.
 
Top