The_Order
G.O.A.T.
LOL that's it, keep subtracting things...
Nadal is really the best at beating his main rivals when it matters
- Thread starter mike danny
- Start date
LOL that's it, keep subtracting things...
monfed
Banned
Huh how does it prove I'm wrong? We both agree that grass and clay are minority surfaces so if you take them out, both Fed and Pete are comfortably ahead of Nadal on HC. Those are not even subjective arguments such as playing style, surfaces, eras etc just facts that you don't seem to want to come to terms with.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
v Djokovic:
RG: 06, 07, 08, 12, 13, 14
WIM: 07
USO: 10, 13
v Federer:
RG: 05, 06, 07, 08, 11
AO: 09, 12, 14
WIM: 08
v Murray:
RG: 11, 14
AO: 07
WIM: 08, 10, 11
USO: 11
The thing that stands out here is, Nadal was able to overcome all of them on each surface. They haven't beat Nadal on clay yet...
*As a side note, I figure you're the best person to ask this, was this the first major in which Nadal has beat both Murray and Novak to take the title?
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
No I don't agree that both grass and clay are minority surfaces. I agree that grass is the minority surface since it is significantly less prevalent on tour than clay.
HC is not the only measure of greatness lol, keep subtracting in your desperate attempt to try and boost Federer.
Grass is the minority surface that is the only fact here that's worth mentioning. Take it away and Nadal has 12 majors to Federer's 10 :lol:
ACE of Hearts
Bionic Poster
Monfed ur such a fanboy.Have u ever critize fed during a match? Did u make excuses for him in the aussie open 2009? I wish we had seen more on grass and the matchup at the u.s open.
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
Isn't Nadal 9-2 against Fed in grand slams ?
cc0509
Talk Tennis Guru
But it is true that Wimbledon remains the most prestigious tournament. All of the players admit that. Nadal was asked which slam win he would keep if he could only keep one and he said it would be his 2008 Wimbledon win.
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
FO 2005
FO 2006
FO 2007
FO 2008
FO 2011
Wimbledon 2008
Australia 2009
Australia 2012
Australia 2014
Too bad they didn't play at the US open 2013 :-?
FO 2006
FO 2007
FO 2008
FO 2011
Wimbledon 2008
Australia 2009
Australia 2012
Australia 2014
Too bad they didn't play at the US open 2013 :-?
monfed
Banned
I actually gave you some leverage by cancelling out clay and grass as minority surfaces thinking that you'd have a reasonable response but I should've known better. This is why I'll never like Nadal fans even though Nadal may have 1/2 good qualities.
ACE of Hearts
Bionic Poster
Most of those matches are on clay.He is 0-3 in australia against nadal and 2-1 in wimbledon against nadal.I am hoping to see a matchup at wimbledon again between them
wangs78
Legend
But you have to remember that Fed crushed his contemporary rivals when he was in his mid-late 20s. It was the youngsters that gave him trouble. We'll have to see how Nadal handles the generation. Problem is, the next generation looks like it sucks wind.
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
Federer won 9 grand slams on hardcourt
Nadal won 9 grand slams on clay
There are 2 grand slams on HC, only 1 on clay, Federer fans can be happy there are not 2 grand slams on clay, otherwise your man would be way behind Nadal at this point
Nadal won 9 grand slams on clay
There are 2 grand slams on HC, only 1 on clay, Federer fans can be happy there are not 2 grand slams on clay, otherwise your man would be way behind Nadal at this point
monfed
Banned
The new generation like the old generation can't deal with the BH abuse. They just can't, it's unnatural for them to hit 20-30 extra BHs.
ACE of Hearts
Bionic Poster
Federer started to win slams at 23 to 24 years old.After 2009 he manage to just win 2 slams
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Yes WIM is the most prestigious tournament. But I'm not talking about that, I'm talking exclusively about surfaces. RG is also a very prestigious tournament and monclown is trying to cancel it out. Just using his own logic against him...
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
In other words, you have no counter argument because you got rolled. Nice to see you admit that!
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Federer won 9 grand slams on hardcourt
Nadal won 9 grand slams on clay
There are 2 grand slams on HC, only 1 on clay, Federer fans can be happy there are not 2 grand slams on clay, otherwise your man would be way behind Nadal at this point
They don't like this point you make. I've told them before. Their counter argument is that if there were 2 slams on clay, more tour players would train to have a clay based game making it harder for Nadal to win clay majors.
LMFAO especialy considering both Federer and Djokovic grew up playing on outdoor clay :lol:
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Correction: Nadal is 9-2 vs Fed in slams, so that makes it 25-7 vs his main rivals. VAMOS!
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Yes because players like Rios, Kuerten, Hewitt, Roddick and Moya are all more marketable than Nadal.
The-Champ
Legend
What if someone stabs his rivals? Wouldn't that make him the luckiest of all slam winners?
ACE of Hearts
Bionic Poster
Nadal has to win another u.s open and another australian to be considered in the debate.3 hardcourt GS is weak.
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
ACE of Hearts
Bionic Poster
Take away those 9 french opens and u have a guy with 5 slams.Take roger's 7 wimbledon titles and u have a guy with 10 slams.Double what ur boy got.
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
a slam is a slam mate, makes no difference
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
I see you're playing both sides here. :???:
ACE of Hearts
Bionic Poster
I am talking about him having more success and winning more slams outside of the french
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Even if he doesn't, his career might eclipse Federer's anyway. He was a much better player as a teenager (I'd take 19 year old Nadal over 19 year old Federer any day) but Federer will always have a more diverse resume. That is the one big thing he has in his favor, along with his many other accolades.
tipsa...don'tlikehim!
Talk Tennis Guru
but add the fact that Nadal owns Federer, Djokovic and Murray in grand slams HEAD 2 HEAD even if you remove clay he still owns them, don't you think it's meaningful ?
ACE of Hearts
Bionic Poster
Federer was a late bloomer.Nadal's game was suited for clay from the start.I give props to nadal for his fighting spirit and probably going down as the greatest claycourter ever but his game has no elegance to it.Its basically a brute style.
ACE of Hearts
Bionic Poster
I will give u australia but we havent seen much at wimbledon and he never met fed at the u.s open.
TennisBatman
Semi-Pro
Agassi said it the best.
This is indeed a Golden Age of tennis, in the men's game!
Why do people make negative comments about Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, or even Murray? There is no reason to belittle the great accomplishments of any of these players!
The truth of the matter is, Nadal has achieved the most success at the Grand Slams against the strongest players.
If you could quantify the strength of a tennis player by a number, Nadal and Djokovic have proven, in the last 5 years, that their numerical strength is significantly above the rest of the field, when it comes to all 4 of the Grand Slams.
The same can be said of Federer and Nadal at the French open, from years 2005 to 2008, and also Wimbledon from 2007 to 2008.
The common denominator of these two (roughly defined) eras is Nadal. The way titles are awarded gives only one title to one player--that has always been the nature of the beast, even when there are two players of equal strength contending for the title.
The difference is that for the titles that Nadal earned at Grand Slam tournaments, the competition was the fiercest. The same goes for Djokovic and Murray, though their title count is lower due to poorer results.
This is indeed a Golden Age of tennis, in the men's game!
Why do people make negative comments about Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, or even Murray? There is no reason to belittle the great accomplishments of any of these players!
The truth of the matter is, Nadal has achieved the most success at the Grand Slams against the strongest players.
If you could quantify the strength of a tennis player by a number, Nadal and Djokovic have proven, in the last 5 years, that their numerical strength is significantly above the rest of the field, when it comes to all 4 of the Grand Slams.
The same can be said of Federer and Nadal at the French open, from years 2005 to 2008, and also Wimbledon from 2007 to 2008.
The common denominator of these two (roughly defined) eras is Nadal. The way titles are awarded gives only one title to one player--that has always been the nature of the beast, even when there are two players of equal strength contending for the title.
The difference is that for the titles that Nadal earned at Grand Slam tournaments, the competition was the fiercest. The same goes for Djokovic and Murray, though their title count is lower due to poorer results.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
I see what you're saying, however, Federer has a losing h2h against this nobody off clay.
So therefore, by your logic Federer is also a nobody.
Thanks for clarifying that you have nfi, but dw, it's actually really obvious to us anyway, no need for clarification :lol:
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Well I have heard the clay argument before. Time to settle this.
H2H between Fed and Nadal outside FO is 4-2. And during Fed's prime it was 2-2,with victories at W and AO. What does this tell us? That Federer never overcame Nadal on clay, while Nadal overcame him in grass and HC. If the clay skew was really a good argument, the H2H outside it would be 4-2 to Fed, not the other way around. If Fed lost to Nadal at a non-clay slam for the first time in 2012 at 30+ then this argument would work, since people would say prime Fed never lost to Nadal on 2/3 surfaces. So Nadal built his success only on clay vs him. But it is not the case.
As for Nole, well, outside FO they are tied at 3-3. Excluding grass which is Nole's worst surface,despite recording a victory over Rafa, we notice that he is not even undefeated in HC slams. The H2H is 2-2 between them on HC slams,which are played on Nole's most preffered surface, while the H2H at RG is a whooping 6-0 for Nadal. So again Nole was not able to overcome Nadal on clay, while Rafa was able to overcome him on HC. Twice even. The H2H on HC should have been 4-0 Nole, but it isn't. Nadal can beat him anywhere, while Nole can't beat him on clay. Rafa beat him easily on clay yesterday and also beat him easily on HC at the USO.
Fed would have still had a case for the best, had he defended his territories in his prime on grass and HC. But Nadal beat him on all surfaces, while being undefeated on clay.
All in all Fed still has the numbers and the slam record, but Nadal in 2 years max will get the slam record. He has RG guaranteed and at the USO he is above Nole. So he may win only RG's and USO's from now on to break the slam record
H2H between Fed and Nadal outside FO is 4-2. And during Fed's prime it was 2-2,with victories at W and AO. What does this tell us? That Federer never overcame Nadal on clay, while Nadal overcame him in grass and HC. If the clay skew was really a good argument, the H2H outside it would be 4-2 to Fed, not the other way around. If Fed lost to Nadal at a non-clay slam for the first time in 2012 at 30+ then this argument would work, since people would say prime Fed never lost to Nadal on 2/3 surfaces. So Nadal built his success only on clay vs him. But it is not the case.
As for Nole, well, outside FO they are tied at 3-3. Excluding grass which is Nole's worst surface,despite recording a victory over Rafa, we notice that he is not even undefeated in HC slams. The H2H is 2-2 between them on HC slams,which are played on Nole's most preffered surface, while the H2H at RG is a whooping 6-0 for Nadal. So again Nole was not able to overcome Nadal on clay, while Rafa was able to overcome him on HC. Twice even. The H2H on HC should have been 4-0 Nole, but it isn't. Nadal can beat him anywhere, while Nole can't beat him on clay. Rafa beat him easily on clay yesterday and also beat him easily on HC at the USO.
Fed would have still had a case for the best, had he defended his territories in his prime on grass and HC. But Nadal beat him on all surfaces, while being undefeated on clay.
All in all Fed still has the numbers and the slam record, but Nadal in 2 years max will get the slam record. He has RG guaranteed and at the USO he is above Nole. So he may win only RG's and USO's from now on to break the slam record
winstonplum
Hall of Fame
So much butthurt it's almost incomprehensible.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
It doesn´t work that way dude and you know it.
Your whole shaky arguments are based on excluding this and that. That is a poor job on your side. ;-)
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
he always seems to find a way to win Roland garros doesn't he ;( Nadal beating djokovic yesterday has made me so sad
Statistically, Federer's best surfaces are grass and indoor hard court, with 7 titles at wimbledon and 6 at the WTF. And he has positive H2H over Nadal in both events even to this day. His 3rd best sourface is fast hard court, where he hasn't meet Nadal in a slam even though he has 5 titles there.
In 2008 for example, Murray convincingly beat Nadal in 4 sets, and Federer schooled Murray in 3. That just shows the balance of power between 2004 and 2008 at USO. Moreover, in 2009, Del Potro destroyed Nadal, and played with Federer for life and death in the final, just to show that Federer was a bigger hill to climb at that time.
In his prime, Federer bettered Nadal in 4/5 most important tennis tournaments. Wimbledon, USO, AO and WTF. Moreover, Federer has better records than Nadal on all tournaments except RG. Your post is silly and it doesn't take into consideration that Federer is almost 5 years older than Nadal and that Nadal didn't play prime Federer in majors outside RG, except two times when Federer was arguably past his peak. Both times the match could have went either way.
In the time Federer was nearly unstoppable in the majors, that is 2004-2007, Nadal was barely making grand slam semifinals. And that is why Federer was not able to dominate Nadal outside RG in his prime. Nadal didn't show up in the latter stages of the important tournaments. And suggesting Nadal could beat prime Federer at AO or USO when he was in fact dispatched by Gonzales, Youzhny or Blake is ilogic. Fact of the matter is Nadal and Federer's prime coincided only on RG, where Nadal is GOAT, and the only place where young Nadal > prime Federer. In the other slams, when R. Nadal came into his own as a serious contender, Federer was undoubtedly past his prime (from 2009 onwards).
The fact that the only 3-slams-year Nadal had so far was in 2010, after Federer's era ended, should be an indication that that's where Nadal's domination truly started in all the majors. In fact, the 2010 USO final was the first one he made there. 2005-2010 at AO and USO for Nadal = 2 finals out of 10 attempts (just one in Federer's era so to speak). IMO, that's a clear indication that pre-2009 Rafael Nadal is no match for prime Federer on either AO or USO. That alone pretty much explains the skewed h2h in the majors.
Last edited:
So you expect Nadal in the range of 18-21 years to have battled a mid to late 20 years old Federer who was in his prime? How manny GS finals did Roger achieve at that very same age? He reached his 1st final at age of 23. Sampras won just 1 GS untill he started through at age of 23. Novak reached his 1st GS final at age of 21. Lendl reached his 1st GS final at age of 21 but it took him 3 more years to finally win a major.
I call myself a fan of Becker, Mac and Edberg and they were different, because they won when they were really young but for some reasons they didn´t last very long on top. Becker at age of 22 had already won Wimbledon 3 times and the US. Excluding his later career you would call him the best young tennis player ever (?), but it would be nonsense to do that.
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
Federer reached no slams finals in that age to be exact
I really don't. It's natural for Nadal to take some years to develop as player who can be a threat on HC slams. But that voids the h2h in the majors IMO. It's not Federer's fault that Nadal was a teenager when he was beasting in AO/USO. That's why you can't compare players that belong in different eras.
Well I said he reached his 1st GS final at age of 23.
Noleberic123
G.O.A.T.
and also djokovic reached his first slam final at 20 not 21
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
But he was still a strong, consistent top ten player capable of winning a major. Similar to 2013.
It´s nobodies fault at all. Therefore I made these comparisons between those players. Imagine if tennis was limited til 25.^^
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Yeah but then Rogi hasn't won Wimbledon even once whereas Nadal has won it twice...
mike danny
Bionic Poster
What do you mean by Rogi hasn't won W even once?
NatF
Bionic Poster
If you take away 7 slams on Federer's best surface he has no Wimbledons but if you take away 7 of Nadal's slams on his best surface he still has 2.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
NatF
Bionic Poster
Well I get his point now. Thanks
But extracting slams is never a great argument IMO
Nope, I'm trying not to argue quite so much these days. Just want that 8th Wimbledon. If Federer gets his 18th at the All England Club my amount of caring about Nadal's relentless match to the record will decrease a lot.
Similar threads
