Nadal is ahead of Federer in Slams adjusted by difficulty

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.
He won 3 HC M1000s before Wimbeldon 2007.
Reached the final on Miami 2005 and Wimbeldon 2006 and he played one of his best indoor matches in YEC 2006 vs a Federer in a straight sets loss.
 
He won 3 HC M1000s before Wimbeldon 2007.
Reached the final on Miami 2005 and Wimbeldon 2006 and he played one of his best indoor matches in YEC 2006 vs a Federer in a straight sets loss.
After 2007, Nadal won 2 Wimbledon titles, 3 US Open titles and 1 Australian Open title. Before 2008 Nadal didn't get beyond the quarters at the US Open or the Australian Open and reached 2 Wimbledon finals.
 
Its not about age, but level of play. It makes no sense that Rafa doesnt count (according to some) as an ATG 2005-2007. As an example, Rafa played better on HC in 2005 than Federer did in 2013.
Its not so much about the actual tennis level, it is the mentality. A teenage Nadal was naïve and played off instinct not tactically so his best was never going to be before the age of 21. Same with all players, some indeed take a lot longer to mature, like Federer.
 
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.
Yes but what puzzles me to this day is the sudden decline. As you say he was out of the blue losing to guys he used no bagel regularly. Nobody has ever actually addressed that, it was not too dissimilar to how Becker's serve seemed to lose its potency from 1991 onwards.
 
A crazy Djokovic fan. Similar arguments though.
Has Federer ever done a book? I like players books (Nadals wasn't great too PC and way too early) as they often explain the reality of what caused losses to certain players in big moments.

I would love to see how Federer analysed his career post 2008 (still stellar by mere mortal standards but vastly inferior to 2003-2007).
 
Has Federer ever done a book? I like players books (Nadals wasn't great too PC and way too early) as they often explain the reality of what caused losses to certain players in big moments.

I would love to see how Federer analysed his career post 2008 (still stellar by mere mortal standards but vastly inferior to 2003-2007).
Yes, he has.

Generally these books are good to get an interesting detail from what happened, rather than how and why it happened. They all know that it is an image thing and all share things that mostly enhance their image (yes, even Agassi). Relying on them to get a perspective is absolutely the wrong approach, if you want to know how these players interpret (and sometimes present) events.

:cool:
 
Yes, he has.

Generally these books are good to get an interesting detail from what happened, rather than how and why it happened. They all know that it is an image thing and all share things that mostly enhance their image (yes, even Agassi). Relying on them to get a perspective is absolutely the wrong approach, if you want to know how these players interpret (and sometimes present) events.

:cool:
Please could you tell me the name of Federer's book...that's first item on Xmas list!!!

I thought Agassi book was woeful tbh, too much stuff in there that seemed embellished nonsense. Best ive read was Sampras and I loved his appendix with a short breakdown of his rivals games and h2h.

Nadal's was pointless, he wrote it way too early and needs to have a part 2 edition!
 
Please could you tell me the name of Federer's book...that's first item on Xmas list!!!

I thought Agassi book was woeful tbh, too much stuff in there that seemed embellished nonsense. Best ive read was Sampras and I loved his appendix with a short breakdown of his rivals games and h2h.

Nadal's was pointless, he wrote it way too early and needs to have a part 2 edition!
Look for René Stauffer Roger Federer Die Biografie

However, you will be disappointed if you are looking for very peculiar insight or similar.

:cool:
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
I buy into this in theory, but how the hell is Murray only slightly above his 3. He's been screwed by difficulty and era more than any other player in history I would think. He is more of a 7 major type player in most eras IMO. Everything else SF's, even finals, weeks at #1 etc. He's got to have the most difficulty.
This is just the difficulty for Slams won (in Murray's case UO12, WI13, WI16), not for all Slams played.
 
These stats have their logic. Thanks for providing them.
They measure the strength of the slams based on the ranking of the winners' opponents. Which is a pretty fair measurement.
In fact the slight margin of Nadal should be correct. On an average basis Nadal's opponents in his slams were better ranked (No 41.1) vs Fed's opponents (No 45.2). The average top 10 opponent of Nadal is 4.4, the Fed's one - 5.8. Djoko has the toughest opponents with a ratio of 4.3.
 
Top