Nadal is ahead of Federer in Slams adjusted by difficulty

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
Funny how this happens after every French open. Well the dust has nearly settled again until the VB have to scurry back into their holes for another year only to reappear on May 25 - June 8th 2020 to desperately state their man's claim to the throne again after yet another irrelevant clay title.
No GS title is irrelevant and no GS title is more relevant. Do better, thanks in advance.
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
like I said peak to peak ,
2005-2009
Federer = 6 HC slams, Nadal = 1 HC slam
Federer = 4 grass slams, Nadal = 1 grass slam
Nadal = 4 clay slams, Federer = 1 slam
So its obvious.

And you got owned with the return stats ----- if you had a modicum of shame, you'd be embarassed.
Hahahaha, claiming 18, 19, 20, 21 year old Rafa was at his peak is decent level trolling, I'll give you that.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
You argue that Rafa wasn't good enough on HC yet, which is totally reasonable given his age, then you say no excuses? Lol, wtf? Who needs excuses? We just need to look at Rogers best competition at the time to see comparatively something was lacking. As to Novak, outside of injury and the slump, still had to deal with another ATG throughout his career. I dont care about the self serving "weak competition" arguments but if we are going down that road, Feddy is #3.
Djokovic's competition is reflective of Fed's at best lol. Old man Fed and Mugray isn't amazing.
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
You didn't understand me: I wasn't asking about your age, it's obvious YOU are 12, but at what age was Nadal peak?
Sick burn bud. Honestly, the implication of your initial question bores me, hence the response. If you need me to explain to you why he wasn't at his peak between 17-21, I'll just pass and not waste my time.
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
Djokovic's competition is reflective of Fed's at best lol. Old man Fed and Mugray isn't amazing.
I don't find the subjective evaluation of relative competition to be particularly compelling for any one of these guys. Each of these guys has benefited from a lack of strong competition at one point and suspect it will be fairly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things in terms of how these guys are remembered. Novak did have a couple years without too much of note admittedly but Fed was still playing some pretty decent tennis, Stan emerged to some extent and Andy, well I agree with you that Andy's challenges were a bit lacking.
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
Is my question so hard that you cannot answer it?

:cool:
Well, what do you think? You are suggesting your point validates the prior contention (presumably) and I don't agree for a number of seemingly obvious reasons. Anyway, it's true that Rafa was still a good player prior to his peak and this is particularly true off of hard but it's quite the stretch to suggest that his peak coincided with Fed's. Then again, perhaps you have a different interpretation of what constitutes one's peak years.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Well, what do you think? You are suggesting your point validates the prior contention (presumably) and I don't agree for a number of seemingly obvious reasons. Anyway, it's true that Rafa was still a good player prior to his peak and this is particularly true off of hard but it's quite the stretch to suggest that his peak coincided with Fed's. Then again, perhaps you have a different interpretation of what constitutes one's peak years.
I asked a pretty simple question. If it is obvious that what I am suggesting is wrong then the rebuttal should be quite straightforward, no?

:cool:
 

EasyGoing

Professional
Sick burn bud. Honestly, the implication of your initial question bores me, hence the response. If you need me to explain to you why he wasn't at his peak between 17-21, I'll just pass and not waste my time.
No, I need you to explain me WHEN was he at his peak. Because you Nadal fans have so many different opinions - from peak by surface, to split peak periods, to a long continous peak that was cut off by injuries. And usually you switch them around to suit a particular argument.

Just post the years, buddy, and let's take it from there.
 

True Fanerer

G.O.A.T.
@BringBackSV or any of the other Nadal faithful:

Here is an interesting stat that I've seen here before, but it's been a while. One of the Fed faithful posted it. Can't remember who it was. Many knowledgeable Federer fans on this board. Anyways, feast your eyes on this.

Nadal vs players on HC who were Top 10 at some point in their careers:

2005-2008 73-34 (68.2%)

2009-2012 70-32 (68.6%)

Virtually identical records here.
 

TJfederer16

Hall of Fame
No GS title is irrelevant and no GS title is more relevant. Do better, thanks in advance.
As much as you would like to think that, there are GS titles that are more relevant, particularly to Rafa's career. In order for one to become GOAT they have to have a diverse and well rounded resume. The more claycourt titles Rafa adds to his portfolio only accentuates his lopsided dominance over one surface.
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
I asked a pretty simple question. If it is obvious that what I am suggesting is wrong then the rebuttal should be quite straightforward, no?

:cool:
Your question was simple enough but the implication was not compelling. I don't particularly enjoy explaining the obvious but I'll briefly humor you. Injuries somewhat derailed his 09 but his combination of athletic ability, development and experience made him a better player in 08-09-10-11 than he was in 05-06-07, particularly 05-06.
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
As much as you would like to think that, there are GS titles that are more relevant, particularly to Rafa's career. In order for one to become GOAT they have to have a diverse and well rounded resume. The more claycourt titles Rafa adds to his portfolio only accentuates his lopsided dominance over one surface.
Arguing that they don't add to his legacy and his status among the greats is deluded. I'll save the arguments about who the mythical GOAT is to the people that live and die over that stuff, I don't particularly care.

Edit: I agree that it would be better if he had won more off of clay but there is difference between that and suggesting that the clay titles don't particularly matter, which is just crazy. I appreciate hyperbole as much as the next at points but I don't think it's particularly useful here.
 
@BringBackSV or any of the other Nadal faithful:

Here is an interesting stat that I've seen here before, but it's been a while. One of the Fed faithful posted it. Can't remember who it was. Many knowledgeable Federer fans on this board. Anyways, feast your eyes on this.

Nadal vs players on HC who were Top 10 at some point in their careers:

2005-2008 73-34 (68.2%)

2009-2012 70-32 (68.6%)

Virtually identical records here.
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
No, I need you to explain me WHEN was he at his peak. Because you Nadal fans have so many different opinions - from peak by surface, to split peak periods, to a long continous peak that was cut off by injuries. And usually you switch them around to suit a particular argument.

Just post the years, buddy, and let's take it from there.
Cool story bud.
 

BringBackSV

Hall of Fame
@BringBackSV or any of the other Nadal faithful:

Here is an interesting stat that I've seen here before, but it's been a while. One of the Fed faithful posted it. Can't remember who it was. Many knowledgeable Federer fans on this board. Anyways, feast your eyes on this.

Nadal vs players on HC who were Top 10 at some point in their careers:

2005-2008 73-34 (68.2%)

2009-2012 70-32 (68.6%)

Virtually identical records here.
That's pretty compelling. Roger's winning percentage in 2017 was better than 2007, perhaps he peaked in 2017...
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
Your question was simple enough but the implication was not compelling. I don't particularly enjoy explaining the obvious but I'll briefly humor you. Injuries somewhat derailed his 09 but his combination of athletic ability, development and experience made him a better player in 08-09-10-11 than he was in 05-06-07, particularly 05-06.
Still no answer to my question.

:cool:
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
@BringBackSV or any of the other Nadal faithful:

Here is an interesting stat that I've seen here before, but it's been a while. One of the Fed faithful posted it. Can't remember who it was. Many knowledgeable Federer fans on this board. Anyways, feast your eyes on this.

Nadal vs players on HC who were Top 10 at some point in their careers:

2005-2008 73-34 (68.2%)

2009-2012 70-32 (68.6%)

Virtually identical records here.
Federer after Wimbledon 2007 final:

''Nadal is improving so much, he'll soon win them all''

Federer's words always come to help. (y)
 
Federer after Wimbledon 2007 final:

''Nadal is improving so much, he'll soon win them all''

Federer's words always come to help. (y)
2007 was around the time Nadal began to show he was more than just a clay court specialist. Wimbledon 2007 Federer was at one stage two rounds ahead of Nadal (a rare event in a slam). Federer got a fourth round walkover from Tommy Haas, putting Fed into the quarters, while Nadal was still in the third round trying to finish his match with Robin Soderling. Playing day after day took its toll on Nadal (he had treatment on court towards the end of the final). Nadal lost the 2007 Wimbledon final, but Federer was right, Nadal had improved.
 

Jonas78

Legend
@BringBackSV or any of the other Nadal faithful:

Here is an interesting stat that I've seen here before, but it's been a while. One of the Fed faithful posted it. Can't remember who it was. Many knowledgeable Federer fans on this board. Anyways, feast your eyes on this.

Nadal vs players on HC who were Top 10 at some point in their careers:

2005-2008 73-34 (68.2%)

2009-2012 70-32 (68.6%)

Virtually identical records here.
Ita pretty hilarious. Nadal 2005-2007 off-clay doesnt count, but Federer 2008, 2010 and 2013 count:-D
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
This is unrelated to the topic, but I'm just curious: what are your top 10 Federer seasons?
2006>2004/2005>2007>2009>2012>2003>2008>2011>2010

Something like that. 2003 > 2008 for higher peak, more titles, YEC win. I can’t rank 2015 higher than any of those with 0 slam wins, 0 YEC, early losses at AO/RG.
 

King No1e

Legend
Nadal had more difficulty winning his Slams than Federer.

Water is wet.

Worthy of respect? Yes

Nadal leads the Slam count? No

:cool:
 

Pantera

Banned
@ bold part : ha ha ha ha, ha ha ha ha :-D:-D:-D

federer outside of clay = 19 slams
nadal outside of clay = 6 slams
peak to peak, 2005-2009, federer = 4 USOs, nadal = 0 USOs
oh and deluded one, federer did win USO in 2008. :)
Outside of clay? Why are we ignoring clay, what sort of crazy comparison is that lmao. And any way, what Federer did before Nadal was an adult is irrelevant when comparing them, GOAThood is defined by the best compared at their peaks and if we are arguing outside clay as Federer needs a sort of head start then it is Nadal 6 Majors Federer 6 Majors.

So what exactly is your point other than confirming Nadal is better?
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
Does it make you feel better talking tough behind a keyboard? If you think you know me, then PM me elsewhere, always happy to meet an audience for a coffee. :)
125 straight down the middle.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
As you like to talk tough, may I ask why you limit who sees your profile? Just saying......
If you're not 125downthemiddle and you're just another Djokovic or Nadal fan I apologize. But if you are him just lol at this attempt.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
2 of those years Federer was less than 30...since when was 30 old lmao?
It's not about age and more to do with form.

Michael Chang was 25 when he stopped playing good tennis. That's young. Age is irrelevant until players hit early to mid 30s.
 

Pantera

Banned
It's not about age and more to do with form.

Michael Chang was 25 when he stopped playing good tennis. That's young. Age is irrelevant until players hit early to mid 30s.
The form point is different to past peak arguments and we could spend ages arguing the form point.
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
The form point is different to past peak arguments and we could spend ages arguing the form point.
Look at the players Federer lost to in those years. Roddick? Baghdatis? Come on. Federer had utterly dominated Roddick and had only lost to him once in 2003 up to that point. 2008 was a so-so year for Andy too, dropping as low as 9th in the world and only getting as high as 6th.
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
2006>2004/2005>2007>2009>2012>2003>2008>2011>2010

Something like that. 2003 > 2008 for higher peak, more titles, YEC win. I can’t rank 2015 higher than any of those with 0 slam wins, 0 YEC, early losses at AO/RG.
I'm sure 2017 deserves a spot somewhere on the list. Two slams and three Masters is very hard to ignore. I'd put that around where 2012 is at. There's no way it's worse than 2010 and 2011 at the least.

Other than that, this list seems pretty agreeable. I'd maybe put 2005 just a bit higher than 2004 purely for having lost just four matches, but that's more of a nitpick.
 
Top