Nadal Consistently Beat Federer When It Mattered

2017 "matters" more than several previous seasons where Nadal was extremely good while Federer was in a slump, most notably 2013. Despite being past their best at least both are having a resurgence period this year, it's a more fair competition between them.

And of course - clay skew! I can't believe it's the 2nd page and nobody brought up this term. You're declining folks. :D
 
kevaninho said:
And the original point I made was about showing up :D. Nice try attempting to change the argument though ;)
Click to expand...
Showing up means nothing if you constantly lose in early rounds, Fed could've shown up and lose to Brands (again). :D

Five in a row, it happens, it's not a big deal and I'm sure you'll survive.
 
kevaninho said:
And the original point I made was about showing up :D. Nice try attempting to change the argument though ;)
Click to expand...
You assume Federer would have reached Nadal on clay had he played. Maybe he wouldn't have. He could have lost to the likes of Thiem and Ramos-Vinolas.
 
Martin J said:
Showing up means nothing if you constantly lose in early rounds, Fed could've shown up and lose to Brands (again). :D

Five in a row, it happens, it's not a big deal and I'm sure you'll survive.
Click to expand...

5 in a row means nothing to me. But truth be told if he played the CC masters and RG, he would've lost to Rafa had they met. Fact ?
 
kevaninho said:
5 in a row means nothing to me. But truth be told if he played the CC masters and RG, he would've lost to Rafa had they met. Fact ?
Click to expand...
Sure, dude. I was just trolling a bit.

I have no doubts that Rafa would've won their matches on clay, like I'm sure Fed would've been a winner on grass. The only problem is that I'm not sure if either of them would've reached each other on their worst surfaces, Federer would need to reach at least the SF at those clay tournaments and Nadal the final at Wimbledon.
 
Martin J said:
Sure, dude. I was just trolling a bit.

I have no doubts that Rafa would've won their matches on clay, like I'm sure Fed would've been a winner on grass. The only problem is that I'm not sure if either of them would've reached each other on their worst surfaces, Federer would need to reach at least the SF at those clay tournaments and Nadal the final at Wimbledon.
Click to expand...

I accept that Rafa on grass is done, but Roger on clay, would you not fancy him to have made a good run? I just feel the field was open as Rafa showed. He blitzed the competition easily, and by no means was he anywhere near his own clay best.
 
REKX said:
I am a Federer and Nadal fan, and I enjoy both. Whilst for me Federer is the greatest player to have played.
Click to expand...

The problem when a fan base tries to build its
Legacy on less titles or achievements but on soft factors like big match player, peak level etc this happens: the more you play the more your harm your legacy. As a pose to fed or Djokovic the more they play and win even if they lose on the way they add to their legacy

The more nadal plays the more he will lose FO. He already lost to Djoker at FO, AO, WIMB, US, WTF, all shared masters yet didn’t beat djoker at AO or most masters.

Nadals aura is gone and claim to be a big match winner is gone. He loses A0 17 his biggest sigle match to be a GOAT and directly damage fed. AO 12 in his OWN words was his best match of all time. He lost. He lost to fed the chance to win 100 matches consecutive on clay. He lost against fed chance to win WTF or multiple finals which could have given him masters set. He lost loads of huge slam matches. Going 7-0 7 finals lost ina row 3 slam finals ina row doesn’t help too. Going 5-0’against your biggest rivals and 7-0 and 7-0 again really hurts you when your trying to say you’re GOAT based on aoft factors when you have less AO, WIMB, US, WTF, most individual masters then your rivals and aren’t top 10’in those tournaments.

A 8 time wimbeldon champ like fed legacy isn’t going to be damaged if now he loses to a mug on top of his 8 wimbs. Vamos brigrade saying nadal with 2 Wimbledon’s claiming to be GOAT like on the surface despite not being top 10 lol results wise is certainly going to have his legacy damaged by repeatedly losing to
Mueller on the surface or any mug you can think of
 
Last edited:
kevaninho said:
I accept that Rafa on grass is done, but Roger on clay, would you not fancy him to have made a good run? I just feel the field was open as Rafa showed. He blitzed the competition easily, and by no means was he anywhere near his own clay best.
Click to expand...
I think that Roger's best chance would be in Madrid, due to the faster conditions where his serve/forehand could still do fair amount of damage. But, he's done with outgrinding those young guys on a slow clay, imo.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
peakin11mugs said:
The problem when a fan base tries to build its
Legacy on less titles or achievements but on soft factors like big matches - this happens: the more you play the more your harm your legacy. As a pose to fed or Djokovic the more they play and win even if they lose on the way they add to their legacy

The more nadal plays the more he will lose FO. He already lost to Djoker at FO, AO, WIMB, US, WTF, all shared masters yet didn’t beat djoker at AO or most masters.

Nadals aura is gone and claim to be a big match winner is gone. He loses A0 17 his biggest sigle match to be a GOAT and directly damage fed. AO 12 in his OWN words was his best match of all time. He lost. He lost to fed the chance to win 100 matches consecutive on clay. He lost against fed chance to win WTF or multiple finals which could have given him masters set. He lost loads of huge slam matches. Going 7-0 7 finals lost ina row 3 slam finals ina row doesn’t help too. Going 5-0’against your biggest rivals and 7-0 and 7-0 again really hurts you when your trying to say you’re GOAT based on aoft factors when you have less AO, WIMB, US, WTF, most individual masters then your rivals and aren’t top 10’in those tournaments.

A 8 time wimbeldon champ like fed legacy isn’t going to be damaged by losing to a mug on top of his 8 wimbs. A guy like nadal with 2 Wimbledon’s claiming to be GOAT like on the surface despite not being top 10 lol results wise is certainly going to have his legacy damaged by repeatedly losing to
Mueller on the surface or any mug you can think of
Click to expand...

Not sure Nadal has himself claimed to ATG on grass. Quote?
 
kevaninho said:
Not sure Nadal has himself claimed to ATG on grass. Quote?
Click to expand...

Lol VAMOS brigrade not Nadal. Fed and Nadal handle their GOATness very elegantly, wouldn’t say crap like that and would squirm at all the crap posted by us on this forum

Has nadal even ever called himself the best claycourter. I dunno maybe he has but I doubt it
 
Lol nothing but triggered Federer family members in this thread. I appreciate your honesty op. Fedal is a great rivalry and while I love it, I value their friendship even more.
 
kevaninho said:
You would need to look into this and give facts regarding how many times over his career he 'skipped the indoor season' for it to be considered a lot.
Click to expand...
It's been more than Fed skipping clay one time, which was what you and a lot of other VB-members have been crying about ;)
kevaninho said:
And it would've been 2 in a row had Federer shown up on clay. At least Nadal doesn't shy away from his worst surface :D
Click to expand...
End of this trolling. Ciao
 
Winning slams always count . Even nadal's US Open 2017 win where he did not encounter anyone inside top 30 count. Federer owning Nadal despite being 36 and Nadal playing his best tennis of Past 3 years also counts. Their tennis career is not over bro

As far as not getting top opponents is concerned , that just shows how top notch they are that a notch above this young Generation. Nole Murray and Stan will return in 2k18 . . Can't wait for AO now.
 
Haha
kevaninho said:
And it would've been 2 in a row had Federer shown up on clay. At least Nadal doesn't shy away from his worst surface :D
Click to expand...
I think if Sampras can retire 31 then federer can atleast take a break from clay to prolong his career at 36
 
mike danny said:
You assume Federer would have reached Nadal on clay had he played. Maybe he wouldn't have. He could have lost to the likes of Thiem and Ramos-Vinolas.
Click to expand...
I actually think Federer could have done well on clay this year had he played. Could see him going deep at both Madrid and RG.
 
Federer 2007 is probably the greatest he ever played, 3 slam year, utter domination. Nadal was able to take Federer to 5 sets, this is Nadal taking the greatest grass court player of all time to 5 sets. That says what you need to know about Nadal's game.

Federer 2008 was still in his greatest form, probably not as good as 2007, but still dispatching pretty much everyone except Nadal with ease. He got to the final of 2008 without losing a sweat - and he was in great form in the final. People act like Federer played bad in that game, excuse me did you see how Nadal was playing in Wimbledon 2008? His weakest surface, he was bossing the greatest grass court player around.

I don't understand why Nadal is not getting any credit for winning 2008 Wimbledon? Which other player in history could beat Federer 2008 at Wimbledon? Sampras couldn't even beat a half Federer aged 19, let alone a 2008 Prime Federer.

This is why Nadal is such a great player - he beat the best when the best was at his best - consistently.
 
REKX said:
Federer 2007 is probably the greatest he ever played, 3 slam year, utter domination. Nadal was able to take Federer to 5 sets, this is Nadal taking the greatest grass court player of all time to 5 sets. That says what you need to know about Nadal's game.

Federer 2008 was still in his greatest form, probably not as good as 2007, but still dispatching pretty much everyone except Nadal with ease. He got to the final of 2008 without losing a sweat - and he was in great form in the final. People act like Federer played bad in that game, excuse me did you see how Nadal was playing in Wimbledon 2008? His weakest surface, he was bossing the greatest grass court player around.

I don't understand why Nadal is not getting any credit for winning 2008 Wimbledon? Which other player in history could beat Federer 2008 at Wimbledon? Sampras couldn't even beat a half Federer aged 19, let alone a 2008 Prime Federer.

This is why Nadal is such a great player - he beat the best when the best was at his best - consistently.
Click to expand...
You're trying way too hard, love. Everyone has already laughed at how transparent you are with your attempt to convince us that your "a Federer fan."
 
REKX said:
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.
Click to expand...

OP should have thread deleted for Trolling, bait thread or whatever, but Nooooo.....
 
Well, I guess this is what happens when you are trying to win a grand slam final for three years! U r so desperate that this time u appoint a new coach and it backfires and u loose that same final so miserably. It creates a mental block , a bit like what Nadal is facing right now. Again u see that Kryptonite with same One Trick ! U have no answer too ( because one handed backhand can't do few things with a small head stick ). . . . . U are sure to play poor.
 
Zeref said:
Well, I guess this is what happens when you are trying to win a grand slam final for three years! U r so desperate that this time u appoint a new coach and it backfires and u loose that same final so miserably. It creates a mental block , a bit like what Nadal is facing right now. Again u see that Kryptonite with same One Trick ! U have no answer too ( because one handed backhand can't do few things with a small head stick ). . . . . U are sure to play poor.
Click to expand...
Wut?
 
To me it's pretty simple: Roger is the best man that has ever played the game! And yet, Rafa is a better tennis player than Roger.
 
As i have said many times before; i have no problem with their H2H except the 3-0 in HC slams before AO17. That was hard to swallow for any Federer-fan...

Roger has beat Rafa at 3 slams and WTF's, that definetly matters.
 
Last edited:
Jonas78 said:
As i have said many times before; i have no problem with their H2H except the 3-0 in HC slams before AO17. That was hard to swallow for any Federer-fan...

Roger was beat Rafa at 3 slams and WTF's, that definetly matters.
Click to expand...

Nadal isn't half as bad on HC as Maestronians make it out......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

REKX
This Is The True Head To Head Of Federer And Nadal
Replies
32
Views
2K
Deleted member 77403
D
REKX
  • Poll Poll
Did Nadal Hurt Federer More Than Federer Hurt Nadal?
2
Replies
55
Views
3K
Tennisanity
Tennisanity
REKX
I'm Sorry, the comments here about Nadal are ridiculus
2 3
Replies
118
Views
5K
Deleted member 77403
D
SABRvolley
Federer 2017 or Federer 2009 - Which season was better?
Replies
8
Views
872
Razer
Razer
REKX
Reasons Why Nadal Dominated Federer During Their Prime?
2 3 4
Replies
172
Views
13K
ewiewp
E
Back
Top