Nadal is Epic.

Nadal is one of the best hard court and grass players of all time. His record cannot be questioned. It just so happens that on clay he is essentially God.
Care to back up the bolded part of this claim? Nadal has 2 Wimbleon titles and 2 USO titles and he's played both venues 13 or 14 times. To claim Nadal is one of the best grass court players of all title is patently ludicrous, especially since he's lost in the first round at Wimbledon 3 or 4 times. These guys are so far ahead of Nadal on HC's it's not worth discussing:

Connors
Lendl
Sampras
Agassi
Djokovic (you may have heard of him)
Federer (you probably HAVE heard of him)
McEnroe
Becker
Laver
Newcombe
 
Last edited:
Honestly I don't see the need for that Chart. Even Nadal's detractors have nothing to say about it and derail the Topic to Versatility across Surfaces. Still, it's interesting to see how few times he's lost Sets in those Matches, especially considering that in Best-Of-Five his opponents have more chances to rip one. I would never have guessed it happened less than thirty times in so many years.

Anyway the Chart isn't 100% accurate, as he lost three Matches (not that it isn't still most impressive, obviously). I wonder if they forgot about some wins as well o_O
 
If Federer and Djokovic had had the opportunity to play Berdych in one of their FO finals, I strongly suspect they'd have at least 2 titles as well. ;)
Fed got Soderling, and Djokovic got Murray for their RG titles, and you want a second RG final against a Berdych calibre player for both of them?

I must have missed the memo that Fed's level at Wimbledon 2008 is eclipsed by Soderling and Murray.
 
The fact that you are asking me this question says it all really. I'm not going to try and reason with you of all people on this subject. There is no tennis analyst in the world who would say Nadal is more versatile than Federer and I say that as somebody who likes Nadal.

Their slam resumes tell the story.
Let's just look forward to how 'versatile' Nadal will be at 36. It's going to be a laugh.
 
Nadal got Puerta, Söderling, Djokovic, Ferrer for some of his RG titles. Your point being?
Let me explain. You're probably unimpressed because of the way I brought Murray into this I'm guessing.

The original point is this:
  • According to @Djokovic2011, Nadal only has two WCs because he got Berdych in one of his finals
  • He conveniently left out the fact that Nadal beat Federer to win his first WC
My point is this:
  • Federer beat Soderling, who in this case is a similar situation as Berdych (he beat the main man Nadal, then lost to Fed, the same way Nadal beat Berdych, who in turn beat the main man Fed)
  • Djokovic beat Murray, who at this point has won M1000s on clay, but was making his first ever RG appearance
  • If Nadal has two WCs because he beat the grass GOAT (Fed) and then someone significantly weaker in comparison (Berdych), then @Djokovic2011 's post would only make sense if Fed and Djokovic had beaten the clay GOAT (Nadal) for their first RG title AND THEN got a Berdych.
  • Beating Federer + Berdych is harder than beating Soderling + Berdych or beating Murray + Berdych
So this is not really an insult to Murray, even if the phrasing would suggest that. Even you must agree that Soderling and Murray on clay is not the same as Federer on grass.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Let me explain. You're probably unimpressed because of the way I brought Murray into this I'm guessing.

The original point is this:
  • According to @Djokovic2011, Nadal only has two WCs because he got Berdych in one of his finals
  • He conveniently left out the fact that Nadal beat Federer to win his first WC
My point is this:
  • Federer beat Soderling, who in this case is a similar situation as Berdych (he beat the main man Nadal, then lost to Fed, the same way Nadal beat Berdych, who in turn beat the main man Fed)
  • Djokovic beat Murray, who at this point has won M1000s on clay, but was making his first ever RG appearance
  • If Nadal has two WCs because he beat the grass GOAT (Fed) and then someone significantly weaker in comparison (Berdych), then @Djokovic2011 's post would only make sense if Fed and Djokovic had beaten the clay GOAT (Nadal) for their first RG title AND THEN got a Berdych.
  • Beating Federer + Berdych is harder than beating Soderling + Berdych or beating Murray + Berdych
So this is not really an insult to Murray, even if the phrasing would suggest that. Even you must agree that Soderling and Murray on clay is not the same as Federer on grass.
But it is a bit because Murray had already beaten Djokovic in 2 Slam finals and had also recently beaten him on clay in the Rome final.
 
But it is a bit because Murray had already beaten Djokovic in 2 Slam finals and had also recently beaten him on clay in the Rome final.
We're talking about clay specifically not overall performance, because this whole thing was about how Nadal has two WC titles despite grass being his weakest surface, compared to Fed and Djok who only have RG each.

Murray on clay is certainly better than Berdych on grass, but neither of them come close to Federer on grass, and it would be insulting to Federer to suggest otherwise.

If Nadal only won once at Wimbledon, and it was against Berdych, then Djokovic's win over Murray at RG would be a stronger win by virtue of Murray's M1000 performance and overall calibre, but that's not what happened. Nadal beat Fed first, then beat Berdych second. @Djokovic2011 is suggesting that beating Fed then Berdych on grass is the same as beating Soderling then Berdych on clay, or beating Murray then Berdych on clay.

So again, no insult to Murray...it's only an insult when you compare Clayray to grass Fed.
 
Nadal got Puerta, Söderling, Djokovic, Ferrer for some of his RG titles. Your point being?
In 2005, Rafa beat Federer in the Semi-Final before beating Puerta in the final.

In 2010, Soderling had already beaten Federer in the QF before Rafa beat Sod in the final.

In 2013, Rafa beat Djokovic in the SF before beating Ferrer in the final.

What's your point about Rafa beating Djokovic in the final?

At Wimbledon in 2010, Berdych beat Federer in the QF and Djokovic in the SF before Rafa beat him in the final.
 
Last edited:
Not really, the joke is over bc he was supposed to be done at 26. Nadal won a slam in his teens, no one has THAT much longevity.
2003 Wimbledon to 2018 Aus Open just under 15 years. 2005 RG to 2017 US Open is just under 13 years. My post was in response to someone claiming that if Federer was more versatile than Nadal he'd be playing on clay at 36. If Nadal isn't able to play

You do realise that winning a grand slam as a teenager doesn't equal longevity, right? I guess Chang has the most longevity of all since he won a grand slam at 17.

And my post wasn't even about longevity. It was in response to one of the pathetic Nadal shills trying to argue that Federer not playing on clay at 36 years means that Nadal will go down as more versatile. If you can't recognise that is a ridiculous argument then all I can say is I wish that life was as much of a blind fantasy for all of us.
 
Last edited:
2003 Wimbledon to 2018 Aus Open just under 15 years. 2005 RG to 2017 US Open is just under 13 years. My post was in response to someone claiming that if Federer was more versatile than Nadal he'd be playing on clay at 36. If Nadal isn't able to play

You do realise that winning a grand slam as a teenager doesn't equal longevity, right? I guess Chang has the most longevity of all since he won a grand slam at 17.

And my post wasn't even about longevity. It was in response to one of the pathetic Nadal shills trying to argue that Federer not playing on clay at 36 years means that Nadal will go down as more versatile. If you can't recognise that is a ridiculous argument then all I can say is I wish that life was as much of a blind fantasy for all of us.
It is ridiculous. But it's even more ridiculous to use 36 in context for Nadal like we do for Federer bc Nadal was playing top level tennis years earlier than Federer age-wise.
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
Let's just look forward to how 'versatile' Nadal will be at 36. It's going to be a laugh.
I don't know, man. Nadal keeps on trucking. He may not retire until he's 80 as long as the youngins aren't beating him at RG. He's done well on all surfaces but no, he isn't as versatile as Federer, obviously. I'd like to see Fedal compete in a couple more slams(off clay obviously) where Federer continues to beat the stuffing out of Nadal. A little payback would be nice, no?
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
It is ridiculous. But it's even more ridiculous to use 36 in context for Nadal like we do for Federer bc Nadal was playing top level tennis years earlier than Federer age-wise.
Nadal also has had substantial breaks and time off the tour that Federer did not do until he was in his mid 30s. You cannot compare Nadal's longevity to the guy who owns the record for most consecutive slams played, and is winning slams as a near 37 year old...
 
Last edited:
If I'm using a powerlifting analogy if you had a guy who could bench 600 but only squat and deadlift 225 wouldn't you encourage him to improve upon his squat and deadlift numbers?
No because powerlifters call themselves powerlifters as an excuse for being fat. Therefore powerlifters are crappy athletes. Plus their form omg, terrible. Your argument is null and void
 
It's very difficult to go toe to toe with Nadal on clay for 3 sets. Forget about playing five sets.

Federer simply ran out of gas in fourth set of RG11 Final. He had give his all to win third set (just one set).
 
It's very difficult to go toe to toe with Nadal on clay for 3 sets. Forget about playing five sets.

Federer simply ran out of gas in fourth set of RG11 Final.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
We're talking about clay specifically not overall performance, because this whole thing was about how Nadal has two WC titles despite grass being his weakest surface, compared to Fed and Djok who only have RG each.

Murray on clay is certainly better than Berdych on grass, but neither of them come close to Federer on grass, and it would be insulting to Federer to suggest otherwise.

If Nadal only won once at Wimbledon, and it was against Berdych, then Djokovic's win over Murray at RG would be a stronger win by virtue of Murray's M1000 performance and overall calibre, but that's not what happened. Nadal beat Fed first, then beat Berdych second. @Djokovic2011 is suggesting that beating Fed then Berdych on grass is the same as beating Soderling then Berdych on clay, or beating Murray then Berdych on clay.

So again, no insult to Murray...it's only an insult when you compare Clayray to grass Fed.
Speaking of @Djokovic2011, I do wish we would hear from him again!
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
In 2005, Rafa beat Federer in the Semi-Final before beating Puerta in the final.
Federer was not yet an RG champion.

In 2010, Soderling had already beaten Federer in the QF before Rafa beat Sod in the final.
Again, Federer was not yet an RG champion.

In 2013, Rafa beat Djokovic in the SF before beating Ferrer in the final.

What's your point about Rafa beating Djokovic in the final?
In 2013, Djokovic was not yet an RG champion.

At Wimbledon in 2010, Berdych beat Federer in the QF and Djokovic in the SF before Rafa beat him in the final.
That was an extremely impressive run from Berdych because Federer and Djokovic were former Wimbledon champions. Had he managed to take down Nadal in the final it would undoubtedly have been one of the most impressive runs to the Wimbledon title of all time!
 
Federer was not yet an RG champion.



Again, Federer was not yet an RG champion.



In 2013, Djokovic was not yet an RG champion.



That was an extremely impressive run from Berdych because Federer and Djokovic were former Wimbledon champions. Had he managed to take down Nadal in the final it would undoubtedly have been one of the most impressive runs to the Wimbledon title of all time!
How much opportunity has Rafa got to beat a former RG Champion when he is always the Champion? Stan was a former champion when Rafa beat him in the final.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
How much opportunity has Rafa got to beat a former RG Champion when he is always the Champion? Stan was a former champion when Rafa beat him in the final.
Bender's original point was that Djokovic beating Murray in the 2016 final was not a big deal because he didn't consider Murray's clay resumé to be all that impressive especially at RG (despite having beaten him in 2 Slam finals and recently in Rome). I just pointed out to him all the times Nadal beat someone in the final of RG who weren't former champions.
 
Bender's original point was that Djokovic beating Murray in the 2016 final was not a big deal because he didn't consider Murray's clay resumé to be all that impressive especially at RG (despite having beaten him in 2 Slam finals and recently in Rome). I just pointed out to him all the times Nadal beat someone in the final of RG who weren't former champions.
If Nadal is the 10 time champion, when would he be able to beat a former champion? Everyone knows that beating Nadal to win the RG title is the Holy Grail.
 
That's great but why can't he replicate this on a surface with competition like hard court. How is he that much worse on hard court?
Worse?!? he has dominated on the hard court..!! He is just that good at clay...he is a prodigy on clay..!! No one can touch him, that how WORSE everyone else is on Clay.

..and i dont even root for Nadal, but you gotta respect him as one of the best.
 
That's great but why can't he replicate this on a surface with competition like hard court. How is he that much worse on hard court?
Worse?!? he has dominated on the hard court..!! He is just that good at clay...he is a prodigy on clay..!! No one can touch him, that how WORSE everyone else is on Clay.

..and i dont even root for him, but you gotta respect him as one of the all time greats..!!
 

cc0509

Talk Tennis Guru
He is not. Federer only has 1 GS on clay. Nadal doesn't have only 1 GS on any surface (hard, grass or clay).
Nadal has only 1 at the AO!

Compare these slam spreads:

1, 10, 2, 3

to

6, 1, 8, 5

There's no question Federer has the more diversified slam resume winning at least five each at three out of four slams, the only player to do so.
 
Nadal has only 1 at the AO!

Compare these slam spreads:

1, 10, 2, 3

to

6, 1, 8, 5

There's no question Federer has the more diversified slam resume winning at least five each at three out of four slams, the only player to do so.
It's not even worth arguing about it. Tennis historians and unbiased fans will recognise the difference and that's what matters.
 
Bender's original point was that Djokovic beating Murray in the 2016 final was not a big deal because he didn't consider Murray's clay resumé to be all that impressive especially at RG
Actually no, that wasn't my point. My point is that Djokovic and Fed shouldn't get a Berdych in a RG final each, because the guys they beat for their first RG title were not as strong as Federer on grass.

Fed on grass > Murray + Soderling on clay
(despite having beaten him in 2 Slam finals and recently in Rome). I just pointed out to him all the times Nadal beat someone in the final of RG who weren't former champions.
Murray beat Djokovic in two slam finals but they weren't on clay, they were on grass and HC. Winning Rome (and Madrid before that, don't forget) is impressive, but is nowhere near enough to put him on par with Fed's grass resume.

The tl;dr is this:

Djokovic2011's reasoning:
  • Fed + Berdych = Soderling + Berdych
  • Fed + Berdych = Murray + Berdych
  • which means Fed = Soderling = Murray
And I'm saying Fed > Murray > Soderling

His burn is that Rafa only got a second Wimbledon because his second opponent was Berdych. That's fair enough.

He also suggests that Fed and Djokovic were unlucky they didn't get a Berdych for a second RG final. That's NOT fair enough because Nadal's first opponent at Wimbledon was Fed, whereas Fed and Djokovic got easier opponents at RG in Soderling and Murray.

So unless you also want to claim that Clay Soderling = Clayray = Grass Federer, there is no quarrel to be had here.
I just pointed out to him all the times Nadal beat someone in the final of RG who weren't former champions.
Again, I'm not saying Murray sucks, I'm saying Murray on clay isn't an equal to Federer on grass.

Bringing up Nadal's finalists in RG finals is irrelevant because we're talking about Nadal's opponents in Wimbledon finals, and comparing them to Fed and Djokovic's RG finals opponents.

This can't be difficult to understand...
 
Last edited:

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Actually no, that wasn't my point. My point is that Djokovic and Fed shouldn't get a Berdych in a RG final each, because the guys they beat for their first RG title were not as strong as Federer on grass.

Fed on grass > Murray + Soderling on clay

Murray beat Djokovic in two slam finals but they weren't on clay, they were on grass and HC. Winning Rome (and Madrid before that, don't forget) is impressive, but is nowhere near enough to put him on par with Fed's grass resume.

The tl;dr is this:

Djokovic2011's reasoning:
  • Fed + Berdych = Soderling + Berdych
  • Fed + Berdych = Murray + Berdych
  • which means Fed = Soderling = Murray
And I'm saying Fed > Murray > Soderling

His burn is that Rafa only got a second Wimbledon because his second opponent was Berdych. That's fair enough.

He also suggests that Fed and Djokovic were unlucky they didn't get a Berdych for a second RG final. That's NOT fair enough because Nadal's first opponent at Wimbledon was Fed, whereas Fed and Djokovic got easier opponents at RG in Soderling and Murray.

So unless you also want to claim that Clay Soderling = Clayray = Grass Federer, there is no quarrel to be had here.

Again, I'm not saying Murray sucks, I'm saying Murray on clay isn't an equal to Federer on grass.

Bringing up Nadal's finalists in RG finals is irrelevant because we're talking about Nadal's opponents in Wimbledon finals, and comparing them to Fed and Djokovic's RG finals opponents.

This can't be difficult to understand...
So, in short, you're saying that Nadal had a tougher 1st opponent at Wimbledon (because a multiple champion) than Fed and Djokovic had at their 1st RG titles (because neither a former champion)? Well, I guess most of us can agree with that.
 

Rafa24

Hall of Fame
That's great but why can't he replicate this on a surface with competition like hard court. How is he that much worse on hard court?
Why can't Federer replicate his HC and grass court success to clay? He has 1 on clay. Can't even win multiple on each surface. Rafa has 11 clay, 4 hard and 2 grass.
 
I don't know, man. Nadal keeps on trucking. He may not retire until he's 80 as long as the youngins aren't beating him at RG. He's done well on all surfaces but no, he isn't as versatile as Federer, obviously. I'd like to see Fedal compete in a couple more slams(off clay obviously) where Federer continues to beat the stuffing out of Nadal. A little payback would be nice, no?
Keep on trucking mutha truckin VAMOS
 
Top