Nadal-Federer rivalry not fair to roger

[RF-18]

If you look at their meetings, roger has made it to the final of RG like five times where he has met Nadal, while in wimby nadal cant proceed longer in the tournament. Also in US open where they have never met eachother. Also in clay masters tournament where federer puts up consistent results, but nadal cant to the same on federers best surface.

Many of their meetings on Hard court just came a few years ago, when federer had problem with his back, but they never met eachother so many times when federer was in his prime on hard court.

If you look at their grass and carpet meetings, federer leads 4-1, his best surfaces. Now im not saying that all their meetings should have been on federers best surface, but if it could have been more divided then i dont think the h2h would look the same.

its unfair to roger a little bit.

what do you guys think?

 

[gambitt]

I'm just amazed that no one has discovered this before. Let's create another 5 billion threads to discuss it in mind numbing detail.

 

[mistik]

If you look at their meetings, roger has made it to the final of RG like five times where he has met Nadal, while in wimby nadal cant proceed longer in the tournament. Also in US open where they have never met eachother. Also in clay masters tournament where federer puts up consistent results, but nadal cant to the same on federers best surface.

Many of their meetings on Hard court just came a few years ago, when federer had problem with his back, but they never met eachother so many times when federer was in his prime on hard court.

If you look at their grass and carpet meetings, federer leads 4-1, his best surfaces. Now im not saying that all their meetings should have been on federers best surface, but if it could have been more divided then i dont think the h2h would look the same.

its unfair to roger a little bit.

what do you guys think?

Fedrer has a losing record against Nadal from day one.They didnt even begin to face on clay first. Their first match is on hards. Fed never has the comfort zone outside of indoors.

 

[TheMusicLover]

I'm just amazed that no one has discovered this before. Let's create another 5 billion threads to discuss it in mind numbing detail.

LOL yeah.

OP, this has been discussed in trillions of threads before.

 

[Sentinel]

Facing big servers on grass not fair to me, no ?

 

[RF-18]

haha ok sorry then, i have never seen it before.

 

[SublimeTennis]

If you look at their meetings, roger has made it to the final of RG like five times where he has met Nadal, while in wimby nadal cant proceed longer in the tournament. Also in US open where they have never met eachother. Also in clay masters tournament where federer puts up consistent results, but nadal cant to the same on federers best surface.

Many of their meetings on Hard court just came a few years ago, when federer had problem with his back, but they never met eachother so many times when federer was in his prime on hard court.

If you look at their grass and carpet meetings, federer leads 4-1, his best surfaces. Now im not saying that all their meetings should have been on federers best surface, but if it could have been more divided then i dont think the h2h would look the same.

its unfair to roger a little bit.

what do you guys think?

AHHH! Pulling hair out!!!!

Of course it's not been fair to Federer, but not because of what you said.

Courts have slowed down steadily since 2000, giving Nadal a huge advantage and hurting Federer, why do you think Nadal is so successful on Clay, Fed on Grass?

Todays grass is as slow as 90's clay, it's super slow out there. Wimbledon now uses 100% Rye Grass, US Open and Oz Open put extra sand in the paint, slowing their courts way down.

So Nadal may be the best super slow court player even, but not even close to the GOAT, you'd never hear of him on other periods of time GO All TIME, he wouldn't do anything in the 90's, 80's, 70's, that swing with gut? He can't even do anything now when courts are fast, which is unusual rare situations.

 

[helloworld]

Nadal beats Federer pretty much everywhere, while Federer can't beat Nadal at RG to save his own life.

 

[MichaelNadal]

AHHH! Pulling hair out!!!!

Of course it's not been fair to Federer, but not because of what you said.

Courts have slowed down steadily since 2000, giving Nadal a huge advantage and hurting Federer, why do you think Nadal is so successful on Clay, Fed on Grass?

Todays grass is as slow as 90's clay, it's super slow out there. Wimbledon now uses 100% Rye Grass, US Open and Oz Open put extra sand in the paint, slowing their courts way down.

So Nadal may be the best super slow court player even, but not even close to the GOAT, you'd never hear of him on other periods of time GO All TIME, he wouldn't do anything in the 90's, 80's, 70's, that swing with gut? He can't even do anything now when courts are fast, which is unusual rare situations.

Think about what you just said. Regardless of how you feel, Nadal has achieved multiple slams on both grass and at the US Open.... what does it say about the rest of the entire ATP who can't even win titles on today's courts?

The fact of the matter is, Nadal is a product of the current generation playing today, and could, (would actually) play different if it was a previous era because he would have had to. Nadal actually plays well on fast courts, the bounce is what matters... which is why he struggles indoors, despite the WTF being slow.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Nadal beats Federer pretty much everywhere, while Federer can't beat Nadal at RG to save his own life.

You have to admit though that things would have been a lot different had they met more during the second half of the season. Such a shame that Nadal wasn't good enough to reach Roger more often. Oh well.

 

[TheMusicLover]

You have to admit though that things would have been a lot different had they met more during the second half of the season. Such a shame that Nadal wasn't good enough to reach Roger more often. Oh well.

This, of course.

And well, what's 'better', getting beaten all the time by a colleague who's a GOAT candidate himself, or getting beaten quite regularly by all kinds of Tom, ***** and Harry's, as is happening to said player this year?

 

[MichaelNadal]

You have to admit though that things would have been a lot different had they met more during the second half of the season. Such a shame that Nadal wasn't good enough to reach Roger more often. Oh well.

Things get twisted here too. Nadal has LITERALLY beaten Federer on HC since day 1. His game on ANY surface, has always been a nightmare for Fed as far back as 2004. Nadal's problem is that he has always been more vulnerable against the field. It's hilarious that Federer fans swear they wish there were more HC matches between 05 and 2007, but the only place Federer would have had an advantage had Nadal made it to him, would be the WTF. Which Roger has capitalized on plenty of times. Sure big hitters were taking Nadal out back then, as they occasionally still do today, but that has zilch to do with the Fedal matchup. No matter how crappy Nadal plays or how majestic Federer looks marching to finals, when they actually play... if it's not at the O2, Roger winning is nowhere near a given. If I was a Fed fan the last thing I'd be upset about is Nadal getting knocked out early during slams Federer won.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Nadal beats Federer pretty much everywhere, while Federer can't beat Nadal at RG to save his own life.

Interesting, but to the OP's notion, the Nadal/Federer H2H is fair; if one party cannot overcome such a one-sided H2H, then it is--obviously--due to the shortcomings of the individual. It does not come from external factors which do not make one better (or worse) than they are--that's just making a rather poor excuse.

 

[The Green Mile]

Things get twisted here too. Nadal has LITERALLY beaten Federer on HC since day 1. His game on ANY surface, has always been a nightmare for Fed as far back as 2004. Nadal's problem is that he has always been more vulnerable against the field. It's hilarious that Federer fans swear they wish there were more HC matches between 05 and 2007, but the only place Federer would have had an advantage had Nadal made it to him, would be the WTF. Which Roger has capitalized on plenty of times. Sure big hitters were taking Nadal out back then, as they occasionally still do today, but that has zilch to do with the Fedal matchup. No matter how crappy Nadal plays or how majestic Federer looks marching to finals, when they actually play... if it's not at the O2, Roger winning is nowhere near a given. If I was a Fed fan the last thing I'd be upset about is Nadal getting knocked out early during slams Federer won.

Amen. Nadal + No Early Upset + Deep Run In GS = Less Slams For Fed.

 

[mistik]

Things get twisted here too. Nadal has LITERALLY beaten Federer on HC since day 1. His game on ANY surface, has always been a nightmare for Fed as far back as 2004. Nadal's problem is that he has always been more vulnerable against the field. It's hilarious that Federer fans swear they wish there were more HC matches between 05 and 2007, but the only place Federer would have had an advantage had Nadal made it to him, would be the WTF. Which Roger has capitalized on plenty of times. Sure big hitters were taking Nadal out back then, as they occasionally still do today, but that has zilch to do with the Fedal matchup. No matter how crappy Nadal plays or how majestic Federer looks marching to finals, when they actually play... if it's not at the O2, Roger winning is nowhere near a given. If I was a Fed fan the last thing I'd be upset about is Nadal getting knocked out early during slams Federer won.

Couldnt agree with you more. Fed fans has to be happy that Rafa not reached Us open finals in 07 and 08 not the other way around.Fed would probably have 0 slams in 2008 if Murray wouldnt beaten Nadal in the semis in Us open that year.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Amen. Nadal + No Early Upset + Deep Run In GS = Less Slams For Fed.

And they all know it deep down, which is why the hypocrisy is astounding. Nadal can lose to Joe Blows all day long and twice on Sunday, but when Federer is across the net, things change. Look at how Nadal clowned his way to the AO semi with the blister drama and how Fed DESTROYED everyone .....

Amen. Nadal + No Early Upset + Deep Run In GS = Less Slams For Fed.

This is so sig-worthy it's ridiculous. You filthy boy :lol:

 

[90's Clay]

Its VERY fair to Roger. Nadal (and to a lesser extent Djoker) has made up for the weak era Fed played in from 2004-2007

Fed needed at least needed someone that was good to play that was challenge. No one else really provided it and those that did (Nalbandian and Safin) were off the radar 90 percent of the time and spent more time outside the top 10 than in it.

2 great rivals make up for NO depth of talent in the men's game. Something that other greats had to contend with in the past when there was more talent in the men's game opposed to Fed's time

 

[UW_Husky88]

If you look at their meetings, roger has made it to the final of RG like five times where he has met Nadal, while in wimby nadal cant proceed longer in the tournament. Also in US open where they have never met eachother. Also in clay masters tournament where federer puts up consistent results, but nadal cant to the same on federers best surface.

Many of their meetings on Hard court just came a few years ago, when federer had problem with his back, but they never met eachother so many times when federer was in his prime on hard court.

If you look at their grass and carpet meetings, federer leads 4-1, his best surfaces. Now im not saying that all their meetings should have been on federers best surface, but if it could have been more divided then i dont think the h2h would look the same.

its unfair to roger a little bit.

what do you guys think?

Nadal has made 3 Wimbledon finals facing Federer and 5 Wimbledon finals total. Unlike Fed, Nadal has actually found a way to beat "the king" on his worst surface while the mental midget hasn't. Hell, Roger should thank Soderling for having the match of his life. If it weren't for him, he wouldn't even have a French Open title to complete his career slam because Rafa would have spanked him and made him cry all over again.

Fed stans are cute.

 

[robert.s]

Nadal has made 3 Wimbledon finals facing Federer and 5 Wimbledon finals total. Unlike Fed, Nadal has actually found a way to beat "the king" on his worst surface while the mental midget hasn't. Hell, Roger should thank Soderling for having the match of his life. If it weren't for him, he wouldn't even have a French Open title to complete his career slam because Rafa would have spanked him and made him cry all over again.

Talktennis should hire some people to erase comments like this one as soon as they are posted. You can almost smell the hate in them.

 

[UW_Husky88]

Talktennis should hire some people to erase comments like this one as soon as they are posted. You can almost smell the hate in them.

Lol, I love how you quoted the part of my post that wasn't unnecessary/hateful to make your point. The OP claims that the rivalry is unfair because Roger has made it to the French Open "like 5 times" while Rafa "can't proceed" (despite laughably having the same number of finals appearances in the Wimby finals as Fed at RG) and that Fed couldn't get results against Rafa on hard courts because of a back injury (don't Fed fans ridicule Rafa fans for making excuses about "injuries").

Someone already mentioned why the hard court nonsense is BS. I come in and say that Rafa beats Fed after losing to him twice in a row while Fed can't beat Rafa and suddenly my post is full of hate? Are you so in denial about the fact that Rafa has owned Fed on everything except grass/carpet (grass too only being 1 and 3 and beating him while Fed was in form on the biggest stage) that any evidence to the contrary is "smell(ing) of hate"?

Here's a tip, don't let facts get in the way of your undying love for Fed. And lol at OP's username. Talk about counting chickens before they hatch.

 

[fps]

What a new and interesting twist on the head to head.

 

[rodrigo_palacio88]

Its VERY fair to Roger. Nadal (and to a lesser extent Djoker) has made up for the weak era Fed played in from 2004-2007

Fed needed at least needed someone that was good to play that was challenge. No one else really provided it and those that did (Nalbandian and Safin) were off the radar 90 percent of the time and spent more time outside the top 10 than in it.

2 great rivals make up for NO depth of talent in the men's game. Something that other greats had to contend with in the past when there was more talent in the men's game opposed to Fed's time

they were lucky , especially djokovic , if nole would played against peak federer in 2003-2007 surfaces more times , he would be lost the great part of times.

and if nadal would faced federer both in peak in hardcourts and grass more times and not only in clay , the mental advantage would not be so big for nada.