Nadal most dominant athlete in the world

[Fed_Djoker_Fan]

On clay says the article.
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/04/7-reasons-rafael-nadal-clay-dominant-athlete-tennis/

1. Rafa has won more clay court tournaments than the rest of the top 10 combined.

(USA TODAY Sports Images)Share this image:
(USA TODAY Sports Images)
Nadal has 43 clay court wins in his career. The clay tournament wins for the rest of the current top 10:

2. Novak Djokovic: 8
3. Stan Wawrinka: 3
4. Roger Federer: 10
5. Tomas Berdych: 2
6. David Ferrer: 11
7. Juan Martin Del Potro: 4
8. Andy Murray: 0
9. Richard Gasquet: 2
10. Milos Raonic: 0
Total — 40

nadalShare this image:

2. His lifetime record at the French Open is a mind-boggling 59-1.

(AP)Share this image:
(AP)
Nadal has won the year’s second Grand Slam a record eight times, including four straight. His only loss at Roland Garros was in 2009 when he was stunned in a fourth-round match against Soderling.

3. At 27, Nadal is three clay court titles away from setting the all-time record.

(USA TODAY Sports Images)Share this image:
(USA TODAY Sports Images)
With at least three clay-court tournament wins this season (he’s done that in each of the past nine years), Nadal will have the most clay court titles for any player in history and he’s only 27 years old. Guillermo Vilas has held the record for more than 30 years with 45 clay tourney victories.

4. His career clay-court record is 298-21.

(USA TODAY Sports Images)Share this image:
(USA TODAY Sports Images)
Or you can take your pick on which jaw-dropping clay stat is your favorite. Nadal is:

• …a staggering 118-5 since 2010, a winning percentage of nearly .960.

• … 272 out of his last 283.

• … 88-3 lifetime in Monte Carlo and Barcelona.

His career winning percentage on clay is .934. Only two other men in history (Bjorn Borg and Ivan Lendl) are over .800. Roger Federer’s .871 winning percentage on grass is the highest on any other surface and it’s still more than .060 points behind Nadal’s mark on clay.

5. Rafael Nadal has won four clay court tournaments at least six times each.

In the history of tennis, such a feat on any surface has been accomplished 10 other times. Only Roger Federer, who’s done it three times (Wimbledon, Dubai, ATP World Tour Finals), has accomplished the feat more than once.

6. Since 2005, his worst yearly winning percentage on clay is 92%.

(USA TODAY Sports Images)Share this image:
(USA TODAY Sports Images)
These won/loss records make UConn’s women’s basketball look pedestrian.

2005: 50-2
2006: 26-0
2007: 31-1
2008: 24-1
2009: 23-2
2010: 22-0
2011: 29-2
2012: 23-1
2013: 39-2
2014: 5-0

7. Nadal is getting 10/11 odds to win in Monte Carlo


He’s at even odds to win the French Open. These odds would be unheard of for tennis tournaments that involve five or more victories to hoist a trophy, but they’ve been fairly standard in the recent era of Nadal’s clay-court dominance.

 

[Praetorian]

So shouldn't the title be "Nadal most dominant athlete in the world... On Clay"? or, "Weakest Clay Court Era"?

I keed I keed

 

[Maximagq]

The most dominant athlete in the world has never defended a title off clay.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Great achievements no doubt but sadly compiled in the weakest clay era there's probably ever been. I say this as someone who started watching tennis in the early 90s when you had terrific clay courters like Bruguera, Courier, Muster and Kuerten. Where are those type of natural clay experts nowadays? Oh how I long for the good old days.........

 

[Vensai]

Great achievements no doubt but sadly compiled in the weakest clay era there's probably ever been. I say this as someone who started watching tennis in the early 90s when you had terrific clay courters like Bruguera, Courier, Muster and Kuerten. Where are those type of natural clay experts nowadays? Oh how I long for the good old days.........

I really enjoy watching their matches back in the day too.

 

[Bender]

The most dominant athlete in the world has never defended a title off clay.

Something tells me you haven't read the OP.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Nadal should feel like a hard court mug then. He's got half as many hard court titles at Djokovic, 30% fewer than Murray, and only two more than Del Potro. Those last two are nobodies overall and yet he struggles to be better than either in hc titles.

 

[smoledman]

The most dominant athlete in the world has never defended a title off clay.

That has to hurt, especially since Federer has defended titles on all 3 surfaces.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Nadal should feel like a hard court mug then. He's got half as many hard court titles at Djokovic, 30% fewer than Murray, and only two more than Del Potro. Those last two are nobodies overall and yet he struggles to be better than either in hc titles.

Ooh I hope for your sake Mainad doesn't enter this thread! :wink:

 

[objectivity]

Great achievements no doubt but sadly compiled in the weakest clay era there's probably ever been. I say this as someone who started watching tennis in the early 90s when you had terrific clay courters like Bruguera, Courier, Muster and Kuerten. Where are those type of natural clay experts nowadays? Oh how I long for the good old days.........

if djokovic is already able to get possibly the greatest mover in history of tennis (aka Nadal) in such trouble on clay, i seriously wonder if courier can even take a set off djokovic.

 

[Djokovic2011]

if djokovic is already able to get possibly the greatest mover in history of tennis (aka Nadal) in such trouble on clay, i seriously wonder if courier can even take a set off djokovic.

Perhaps I shouldn't have bundled Courier in with those other guys but surely you can't deny that clay specialists like Muster and Kuerten just aren't around anymore. I think it's kinda sad.

 

[helloworld]

Perhaps I shouldn't have bundled Courier in with those other guys but surely you can't deny that clay specialists like Muster and Kuerten just aren't around anymore. I think it's kinda sad.

Courier has more accomplishments on clay than Djokovic could dream of. Djokovic is not even better than Federer on clay(see 2011), and Courier and Muster are probably above Fed on clay.

 

[LazyNinja19]

FDF why the troll thread title? You should have mentioned "Clay" in the title as well. You know how you'll be (have been) attacked for this :?

The most dominant athlete in the world has never defended a title off clay.

Has your No.1 ever defended a title off Hard court?

Great achievements no doubt but sadly compiled in the weakest clay era there's probably ever been. I say this as someone who started watching tennis in the early 90s when you had terrific clay courters like Bruguera, Courier, Muster and Kuerten. Where are those type of natural clay experts nowadays? Oh how I long for the good old days.........

And then you crib about how people here don't give your Djoko credit.
You do the same in almost every post of yours to Nadal. Then you go about "how you want to bring more love here blah blah....".
It's just for your Djoko love.
This is the "weakest Clay era there's probably ever been", still Djoko hasn't been able to win RG. Awesome no?

 

[Noleberic123]

Courier has more accomplishments on clay than Djokovic could dream of. Djokovic is not even better than Federer on clay(see 2011), and Courier and Muster are probably above Fed on clay.

call me when federer leads agaisnt nadal 4-2 in the fifth set at the french open
seriously though u cant say that because of one match. what about the other clay court matches djokovic and federer have played do those not count. djokovic beat federer in straight sets at the 2012 FO and also in straight sets in rome 2012.

 

[Mainad]

Nadal should feel like a hard court mug then. He's got half as many hard court titles at Djokovic, 30% fewer than Murray, and only two more than Del Potro. Those last two are nobodies overall and yet he struggles to be better than either in hc titles.

Well, I guess Nadal, Djokovic and Federer must be a right trio of HC mugs, then. I mean, fancy losing twice in HC finals (Nadal and Federer), or losing 4 times in HC finals (Djokovic) to an 'overall nobody' like Murray! And, in the case of the last 2, they also risk turning into grasscourt mugs as well, if they're not careful!

Thank goodness for clay, is all I can say!

Ooh I hope for your sake Mainad doesn't enter this thread! :wink:

Should I need to? If someone had said that about Djokovic, I would be among the first to spring to his defence!

 

[jg153040]

Yeah, Rafa is that on clay.

But the clay field is a bit weaker. Fed, Nole aren't natural clay courters. Murray, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin all sucked on clay but they are all champions on grass/HC.

I think Fed's dominance on 2 surfaces is better than Rafa's on one. Cuz, it's two surfaces vs one. And also tons off talented competition on grass and HC.

And no, it's not Rafa dominating clay that makes his competition look bad. Roddick, Murray, Hewit, Safin, old Agassi... weren't consistently making RG semis/finals, even if we remove Fed and Rafa.

But if we remove Fed and Rafa those guys still made tons of finals/semis on grass and HC.

Does this take away from Rafa's legacy? And adds to Fed's legacy? I don't know. Maybe not. I'm just stating facts.

Facts are that most top champions in the last 10 years have greater consistency on HC and grass than on clay. Even 2nd tierr guys are average on clay and great on HC/grass. Like Delpo, Wawrinka, Berdych.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Again, this weak era stuff doesn't hold up. Since Safin in 05, Delpo and Wawrinka are the only 2 guys to win a slam besides the big 4. In almost 10 years!! It's the same 4 guys winning everything on every surface, it's not just clay. Look how Fed dominated the US Open for 5 years... why? Weak era? 7 Wimbledons.... weak grass era? You can't just single out clay, when at the end of the day it doesn't matter if there's clay specialists or not, the same 4 guys will be in the semi's and 2 of those 4 are usually in the final, regardless of the surface. It only looks weak because Rafa is THAT good on clay.

 

[Noleberic123]

Again, this weak era stuff doesn't hold up. Since Safin in 05, Delpo and Wawrinka are the only 2 guys to win a slam besides the big 4. In almost 10 years!! It's the same 4 guys winning everything on every surface, it's not just clay. Look how Fed dominated the US Open for 5 years... why? Weak era? 7 Wimbledons.... weak grass era? You can't just single out clay, when at the end of the day it doesn't matter if there's clay specialists or not, the same 4 guys will be in the semi's and 2 of those 4 are usually in the final, regardless of the surface. It only looks weak because Rafa is THAT good on clay.

perfect post!!!! Because people seem to forget the one person who troubles rafa the most on clay djokovic. Is djokovic really that weak because i remember him winning 4-2 in the fifth set against rafa last year and also actually beating him in monte carlo. Also rome 2011 and madrid 2011
so its not like rafa has no competition on clay

 

[jg153040]

Again, this weak era stuff doesn't hold up. Since Safin in 05, Delpo and Wawrinka are the only 2 guys to win a slam besides the big 4. In almost 10 years!! It's the same 4 guys winning everything on every surface, it's not just clay. Look how Fed dominated the US Open for 5 years... why? Weak era? 7 Wimbledons.... weak grass era? You can't just single out clay, when at the end of the day it doesn't matter if there's clay specialists or not, the same 4 guys will be in the semi's and 2 of those 4 are usually in the final, regardless of the surface. It only looks weak because Rafa is THAT good on clay.

The thing is even if we remove Rafa and Fed, Murray, Roddick, Safin, Hewitt, still don't make it deep on clay consistently. While those guys make it deep consistently on HC/grass even if we remove Fed and Rafa.

It's both. Competition is weaker on clay and Rafa is that good on clay.

 

[jg153040]

perfect post!!!! Because people seem to forget the one person who troubles rafa the most on clay djokovic. Is djokovic really that weak because i remember him winning 4-2 in the fifth set against rafa last year and also actually beating him in monte carlo. Also rome 2011 and madrid 2011
so its not like rafa has no competition on clay

I didn't say clay competition is weak. Just weaker than on HC/grass.

Partly they look weak due to Rafa dominating them, but that's not the whole story.

Hewitt, old Agassi, Murray, Safin aren't good on clay even if we remove Fedal.
How do you explain Rafa being nr.2 as a teen due to clay? He couldn't even make a HC final.

 

[Noleberic123]

I didn't say clay competition is weak. Just weaker than on HC/grass.

Partly they look weak due to Rafa dominating them, but that's not the whole story.

Hewitt, old Agassi, Murray, Safin aren't good on clay even if we remove Fedal.
How do you explain Rafa being nr.2 as a teen due to clay? He couldn't even make a HC final.

its definetely weaker if it wasnt for fed or nole then they should just give nadal the french open trophy without even playing because no one else stands a chance. And also rafa beat fed on HC as a teen in Miami 2003

 

[jg153040]

its definetely weaker if it wasnt for fed or nole then they should just give nadal the french open trophy without even playing because no one else stands a chance. And also rafa beat fed on HC as a teen in Miami 2003

Well, if peak Fed isn't a competition to TEEN Rafa on HC, that means Rafa had it easy even on HC .

This is true. Rafa is bad matchup to Fed. Fed is tough for other on HC, much easier for Rafa.

So in a sense Rafa has weaker competition on clay and on HC. Fed isn't that great on clay. Only top 10 all time. Nole too. The only reason Fed and Nole do so well on clay is weaker fields. That was my point. They aren't natural clay courters. Hey Soderling made 2 RG finals, when his game is not suited for clay due to weak fields.

 

[Noleberic123]

Well, if peak Fed isn't a competition to TEEN Rafa on HC, that means Rafa had it easy even on HC .

This is true. Rafa is bad matchup to Fed. Fed is tough for other on HC, much easier for Rafa.

So in a sense Rafa has weaker competition on clay and on HC. Fed isn't that great on clay. Only top 10 all time. Nole too. The only reason Fed and Nole do so well on clay is weaker fields. That was my point. They aren't natural clay courters. Hey Soderling made 2 RG finals, when his game is not suited for clay due to weak fields.

i dont think nole can be classified in the top 10 clay courters of all time until he actually wins RG. Then he will be because he won it during the era of the greatest clay courter of all time.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

The title should be saying Nadal most dominant tennis player in the world on clay, very misleading title.

 

[jg153040]

i dont think nole can be classified in the top 10 clay courters of all time until he actually wins RG. Then he will be because he won it during the era of the greatest clay courter of all time.

I know. But you said Nole is tough competition for Rafa. But if old Fed took god mode Nole at RG 11, I don't think Nole is that great on clay.

And even Soderling managed 2 RG finals.

The point is Rafa's clay competition also has to be examined. Like Fed's.

Yeah, there are some decent specialist on clay, but none is champion level player overall like Nole, Fed, Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Kuerten, Murray.
And those guys didn't make it deep on clay even without Rafa and Fed.

At least Roddick, Hewitt have a case they make finals and they lost cuz Fed is great, stopping them. Murray, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt can't claim that on clay even if we remove Rafa. They still won't win multiple RG and clay titles.

BUT, out of those, Kuerten was past his best, Rafa didn't play him. Hewitt, Safin, Roddick and Murray are champions but they suck on clay.

So, Rafa has only Fed, who is average on clay compared to all-time greats. Also Fed benefited from weaker clay field making those finals. And Fed was mostly past his best and is a good matchup for Rafa on clay.

So, Nole is the only decent guy that Rafa has. I give you that. But that is not enough compared to what Fed had to deal on HC/grass. Old Agassi, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Djokovic, Murray, Rafa... And lower talented shotmakers like Davy, Nalby, Gonzo, tons of those.

 

[kOaMaster]

The title should be saying Nadal most dominant tennis player in the world on clay, very misleading title.

true and intended by the opener of course.

nothing new but always impressive.

although I think federer's stats would look +/- the same or even better if there were as many tournaments on grass.

 

[jg153040]

true and intended by the opener of course.

nothing new but always impressive.

although I think federer's stats would look +/- the same or even better if there were as many tournaments on grass.

Yeah, they seem very close on grass/clay. Both 8 finals. The only difference is clay has 3 masters, grass has not.

And Fed's grass streak is as impressive considering this. Also considering that on a fast surface you are more prone to upsets to a lesser player. On clay better player will mostly win.

 

[Noleberic123]

I know. But you said Nole is tough competition for Rafa. But if old Fed took god mode Nole at RG 11, I don't think Nole is that great on clay.

And even Soderling managed 2 RG finals.

The point is Rafa's clay competition also has to be examined. Like Fed's.

Yeah, there are some decent specialist on clay, but none is champion level player overall like Nole, Fed, Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Kuerten, Murray.
And those guys didn't make it deep on clay even without Rafa and Fed.

At least Roddick, Hewitt have a case they make finals and they lost cuz Fed is great, stopping them. Murray, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt can't claim that on clay even if we remove Rafa. They still won't win multiple RG and clay titles.

BUT, out of those, Kuerten was past his best, Rafa didn't play him. Hewitt, Safin, Roddick and Murray are champions but they suck on clay.

So, Rafa has only Fed, who is average on clay compared to all-time greats. Also Fed benefited from weaker clay field making those finals. And Fed was mostly past his best and is a good matchup for Rafa on clay.

So, Nole is the only decent guy that Rafa has. I give you that. But that is not enough compared to what Fed had to deal on HC/grass. Old Agassi, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Djokovic, Murray, Rafa... And lower talented shotmakers like Davy, Nalby, Gonzo, tons of those.

for me fed was close to his best at RG 11 just because he is old doesnt mean he isnt playing amazing tennis but i agree with ur statements cant argue with that. Nole is worse on grass than clay just saying

 

[jg153040]

for me fed was close to his best at RG 11 just because he is old doesnt mean he isnt playing amazing tennis but i agree with ur statements cant argue with that. Nole is worse on grass than clay just saying

In any case, I think it's both. Rafa is amazing on clay plus clay competition is a bit worse. It's part of both. People always think it has to be one or the other.

I just think when comparing competition and just saying names, we need to take surfaces into consideration.

I mean on paper Nole is tough with 6 GS. But we know he is worse on grass and clay. Sampras on paper with 14 GS is tough, but we know he isn't good on clay. It's misleading that way.

Also current form matters. Wawrinka is poor on paper. But this year he was playing crazy level. Like Gonzo, AO 07 for example.

So we need to take current form and surfaces into consideration.

You do have a point about Fed. Just because he was past his best, doesn't mean he can't play some matches in god mode.

 

[clayqueen]

So shouldn't the title be "Nadal most dominant athlete in the world... On Clay"? or, "Weakest Clay Court Era"?

I keed I keed

Sour grapes.

 

[clayqueen]

I didn't say clay competition is weak. Just weaker than on HC/grass.

Partly they look weak due to Rafa dominating them, but that's not the whole story.

Hewitt, old Agassi, Murray, Safin aren't good on clay even if we remove Fedal.
How do you explain Rafa being nr.2 as a teen due to clay? He couldn't even make a HC final.

Why is it weaker on h/c and grass? Are they not the same players.

 

[jg153040]

Why is it weaker on h/c and grass? Are they not the same players.

No, they are not. You can't say Roddick is the same on clay and grass for example.

Not even talking results, but the level of play.

But since you have 70% chance to win on HC, it's logical that more pros will make their games better on HC.

Also on grass there is W. That could be the reason why people are motivated so much on grass even if the grass season is so short.

If W weren't so big, I doubt so many people would be good on grass.

The thing is this, let's take out Fed/Rafa. Murray, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, old AGassi still don't make RG semis/finals consistently.

 

[spinovic]

Again, this weak era stuff doesn't hold up. Since Safin in 05, Delpo and Wawrinka are the only 2 guys to win a slam besides the big 4. In almost 10 years!! It's the same 4 guys winning everything on every surface, it's not just clay. Look how Fed dominated the US Open for 5 years... why? Weak era? 7 Wimbledons.... weak grass era? You can't just single out clay, when at the end of the day it doesn't matter if there's clay specialists or not, the same 4 guys will be in the semi's and 2 of those 4 are usually in the final, regardless of the surface. It only looks weak because Rafa is THAT good on clay.

Nice post.

What exactly is a "natural clay courter"? Seems to me, to be considered a natural clay courter the only real requirement is that you win big on clay and do next to nothing everywhere else.

In reality, there are some clay court players on tour. The problem is, the top guys, even if clay isn't their best surface are still better than those guys. If Nadal hadn't came around, Federer would probably have at least 5 Roland Garros titles and quite a few more Masters shields and he would be in the discussion of greatest clay court players. There have been very few players better on clay than Federer over the years and better than Djokovic's current level.

Was Borg a clay or grass court specialist? Does it diminish McEnroe's Wimbledon accomplishments because he struggled to get over the hump against a clay courter? Was that a weak grass era because a clay courter could win Wimbledon for 5 consecutive years (almost 6)?

I think Federer's ability on clay is vastly underrated because Nadal's presence prevented him from the same level of achievement there that he enjoyed on other surfaces. I don't think there is a huge difference between his level on clay and hard courts. The difference is Nadal.

 

[jg153040]

Nice post.

What exactly is a "natural clay courter"? Seems to me, to be considered a natural clay courter the only real requirement is that you win big on clay and do next to nothing everywhere else.

In reality, there are some clay court players on tour. The problem is, the top guys, even if clay isn't their best surface are still better than those guys. If Nadal hadn't came around, Federer would probably have at least 5 Roland Garros titles and quite a few more Masters shields and he would be in the discussion of greatest clay court players. There have been very few players better on clay than Federer over the years and better than Djokovic's current level.

Was Borg a clay or grass court specialist? Does it diminish McEnroe's Wimbledon accomplishments because he struggled to get over the hump against a clay courter? Was that a weak grass era because a clay courter could win Wimbledon for 5 consecutive years (almost 6)?

I think Federer's ability on clay is vastly underrated because Nadal's presence prevented him from the same level of achievement there that he enjoyed on other surfaces. I don't think there is a huge difference between his level on clay and hard courts. The difference is Nadal.

My point was that even if we remove Fedal, Roddick, Murray, Safin, Hewiit, old Agassi still don't make it deep on clay. So, top champions in Fedal era were weaker on clay.

That could be the reason why Fed made so many finals and teen Rafa was dominating clay and was nr.2 due to clay.

I mean older Kuerten won vs Fed. That would suggest my theories could be correct.

I think it's combination of both. Rafa being amazing on clay and having a bit easier on clay.

Fed is uncomfortable on clay. He doesn't slide as well. He looks strange.

 

[Rock Strongo]

I wonder if Jahangir Khan's era was a weak one...

 

[Jam]

Yeah, Rafa is that on clay.

But the clay field is a bit weaker. Fed, Nole aren't natural clay courters. Murray, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin all sucked on clay but they are all champions on grass/HC.

yes it probably is. But I doubt anyone in history could have stopped Nadal the majority of time. maybe Borg about 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 on clay. Djokovic has turned into an excellent clay courter but still hasn't managed it past Nadal at RG the last 2 years. Fed was in his prime in 05, 06 and 07 but couldn't get past Nadal at RG either. Admittedly it's Fed's weakest surface but part of the reason it's his weakest is the existence of Nadal there. So, in summary yes the competition is a bit weaker on it but there are also some clay court specialists out there who are routinely dismissed by Nadal. His style of play with huge 4000+ revolutions per minute forehand topspin lends itself to that surface. That is undeniably true irrespective of who you put in front of him.

 

[Jam]

and yes 2 surface domination is greater than 1. But Fed's domination of those 2 surfaces is not as great as Nadal's clay domination. And nadal is way better on grass and hard court than Fed is on clay. Which in my opinion is a legitimate counterbalance. Not to mention his outdoor hard court dominance over Fed and he's recorded a victory against Fed at Wimbledon. He only is 2-1 down on grass with the most recent being a victory to Nadal - tells you the direction the grass rivalry was going. All these are legitimate counterbalances to Fed's greater 2 surface accomplishments.

 

[Djokovic2011]

and yes 2 surface domination is greater than 1. But Fed's domination of those 2 surfaces is not as great as Nadal's clay domination. And nadal is way better on grass and hard court than Fed is on clay. Which in my opinion is a legitimate counterbalance. Not to mention his outdoor hard court dominance over Fed and he's recorded a victory against Fed at Wimbledon. He only is 2-1 down on grass with the most recent being a victory to Nadal - tells you the direction the grass rivalry was going. All these are legitimate counterbalances to Fed's greater 2 surface accomplishments.

I wouldn't say Nadal is "way better" on grass and HC than Fed is on clay by any means. Are you sure you like Roger more than Nadal Jam?

 

[Jam]

I wouldn't say Nadal is "way better" on grass and HC than Fed is on clay by any means. Are you sure you like Roger more than Nadal Jam?

who I like has nothing to do with who is better on their respective surfaces. Nadal has a huge winning record on outdoor hard courts over Federer and has beaten both Djokovic and Federer on both surfaces. He has 5 hard court and grass slam titles compared to Federer's one clay court. He has a significantly higher winning percentage. And as many have argued on this thread the grass court and hard court competition was greater. Well Nadal beat them. He also has winning record over Murray at Wimbledon and on hard court surfaces overall. Just last year he won the whole North American hard court circuit - Montreal, Cincinatti and US Open going through Fed and Djokovic (twice). Federer has never beaten Nadal at RG and has never been close. Yes I think it's fair and impartial to say Nadal is significantly better off clay than Fed is on clay.

But you think it you like someone you have t make up stories to make them look better than they are. Why else did you say Are you sure you like Roger more than Nadal????

 

[clayqueen]

No, they are not. You can't say Roddick is the same on clay and grass for example.

Not even talking results, but the level of play.

But since you have 70% chance to win on HC, it's logical that more pros will make their games better on HC.

Also on grass there is W. That could be the reason why people are motivated so much on grass even if the grass season is so short.

If W weren't so big, I doubt so many people would be good on grass.

The thing is this, let's take out Fed/Rafa. Murray, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, old AGassi still don't make RG semis/finals consistently.

What I mean is, the Big 4 who make this a strong era are the same ones with whom Rafa has to compete on clay. So this can't be a strong era on the one hand on grass and H/C and on the other hand, a weak one on clay.

 

[clayqueen]

But you think it you like someone you have t make up stories to make them look better than they are. Why else did you say Are you sure you like Roger more than Nadal????

It's not a question of who you like most. it's just a fact.

 

[jg153040]

What I mean is, the Big 4 who make this a strong era are the same ones with whom Rafa has to compete on clay. So this can't be a strong era on the one hand on grass and H/C and on the other hand, a weak one on clay.

Rafa didn't even play Murray on any surface for almost 3 years.

 

[Djokovic2011]

who I like has nothing to do with who is better on their respective surfaces. Nadal has a huge winning record on outdoor hard courts over Federer and has beaten both Djokovic and Federer on both surfaces. He has 5 hard court and grass slam titles compared to Federer's one clay court. He has a significantly higher winning percentage. And as many have argued on this thread the grass court and hard court competition was greater. Well Nadal beat them. He also has winning record over Murray at Wimbledon and on hard court surfaces overall. Just last year he won the whole North American hard court circuit - Montreal, Cincinatti and US Open going through Fed and Djokovic (twice). Federer has never beaten Nadal at RG and has never been close. Yes I think it's fair and impartial to say Nadal is significantly better off clay than Fed is on clay.

But you think it you like someone you have t make up stories to make them look better than they are. Why else did you say Are you sure you like Roger more than Nadal????

You'll be giving NADALRECORD a run for his money at this rate!:lol: Where's he been recently by the way?

 

[mike danny]

and yes 2 surface domination is greater than 1. But Fed's domination of those 2 surfaces is not as great as Nadal's clay domination. And nadal is way better on grass and hard court than Fed is on clay. Which in my opinion is a legitimate counterbalance. Not to mention his outdoor hard court dominance over Fed and he's recorded a victory against Fed at Wimbledon. He only is 2-1 down on grass with the most recent being a victory to Nadal - tells you the direction the grass rivalry was going. All these are legitimate counterbalances to Fed's greater 2 surface accomplishments.

I doubt that rivalry would have gone Nadal's way at W. The guy barely edged a mentally weak Federer in the final 9-7 in the 5th.
I don't know if this argument hold any water but think a bit: Nadal had everything going for him. Lead 2 sets to love, had 2 Championship Points and had Fed mentally damaged after the FO final(where he suffered a breadstick and a bagel). Yet Fed still came back and was 1 point away from serving for the match. Federer is the best grass player of this era (and probably all-time as well)who even in his worst state managed to give Nadal a hard time even when the spaniard was in his best ever form on the surface. You have no proof Nadal would have won all their grass meeting from that point on.

And are you sure Nadal is better on grass than Fed on clay? Let me remind you that Fed has not missed a FO QF in 9 years, while Nadal already got upset early 2 years in a row during his prime. Just saying...

 

[mike danny]

who I like has nothing to do with who is better on their respective surfaces. Nadal has a huge winning record on outdoor hard courts over Federer and has beaten both Djokovic and Federer on both surfaces. He has 5 hard court and grass slam titles compared to Federer's one clay court. He has a significantly higher winning percentage. And as many have argued on this thread the grass court and hard court competition was greater. Well Nadal beat them. He also has winning record over Murray at Wimbledon and on hard court surfaces overall. Just last year he won the whole North American hard court circuit - Montreal, Cincinatti and US Open going through Fed and Djokovic (twice). Federer has never beaten Nadal at RG and has never been close. Yes I think it's fair and impartial to say Nadal is significantly better off clay than Fed is on clay.

But you think it you like someone you have t make up stories to make them look better than they are. Why else did you say Are you sure you like Roger more than Nadal????

It is not fair to count Nadal's success on 2 surfaces and compare it to Fed's only on 1 surface.

It is pure math. Since there are 3 total slams on HC and grass, compared to only 1 on clay, obviously Nadal is going to look better with more titles. It is obvious why he does have more titles since there are 3 times as many slams on the other surfaces compared to clay

 

[objectivity]

I doubt that rivalry would have gone Nadal's way at W. The guy barely edged a mentally weak Federer in the final 9-7 in the 5th.
I don't know if this argument hold any water but think a bit: Nadal had everything going for him. Lead 2 sets to love, had 2 Championship Points and had Fed mentally damaged after the FO final(where he suffered a breadstick and a bagel). Yet Fed still came back and was 1 point away from serving for the match. Federer is the best grass player of this era (and probably all-time as well)who even in his worst state managed to give Nadal a hard time even when the spaniard was in his best ever form on the surface. You have no proof Nadal would have won all their grass meeting from that point on.

And are you sure Nadal is better on grass than Fed on clay? Let me remind you that Fed has not missed a FO QF in 9 years, while Nadal already got upset early 2 years in a row during his prime. Just saying...

yeah i totally agree. Federer is one of the best ever on clay.

i would even go as far as to suggest that being a baseliner, Federer's game is best on slow courts like clay. but he wins more on "fast" courts because everyone else is even worse than him on those courts.

 

[mike danny]

who I like has nothing to do with who is better on their respective surfaces. Nadal has a huge winning record on outdoor hard courts over Federer and has beaten both Djokovic and Federer on both surfaces. He has 5 hard court and grass slam titles compared to Federer's one clay court. He has a significantly higher winning percentage. And as many have argued on this thread the grass court and hard court competition was greater. Well Nadal beat them. He also has winning record over Murray at Wimbledon and on hard court surfaces overall. Just last year he won the whole North American hard court circuit - Montreal, Cincinatti and US Open going through Fed and Djokovic (twice). Federer has never beaten Nadal at RG and has never been close. Yes I think it's fair and impartial to say Nadal is significantly better off clay than Fed is on clay.

But you think it you like someone you have t make up stories to make them look better than they are. Why else did you say Are you sure you like Roger more than Nadal????

Federer has 9 HC slam titles and 7 grass slam titles, compared to only 3 and 2 for Rafa.

Even at the same age for both, Fed had 8 HC slam titles and 5 grass slam titles. Even comparing them at the same age, Fed still leads by a mile

 

[Jam]

Federer has 9 HC slam titles and 7 grass slam titles, compared to only 3 and 2 for Rafa.

Even at the same age for both, Fed had 8 HC slam titles and 5 grass slam titles. Even comparing them at the same age, Fed still leads by a mile

god you're struggling. I said Nadal is better on grass and hard court than Fed is on clay. Given you can't provide any evidence to deny that you quote Fed's hard court and grass slams.

What has Fed's hard court and grass slams got to do with whether Fed is as good on clay as Nadal is on grass or hard court? Answer: Nothing.

Care to provide any evidence you know numbers and stuff like that that Fed is as good on clay as Nadal is off clay? I await with (non) interest.

And as to your other point I know Fed is probably the greatest grass courter of all time. I just suspect the rivalry was going in Nadal's direction. But I have no evidence to support this as they never played again so I agree we'll never know.

 

[mike danny]

god you're struggling. I said Nadal is better on grass and hard court than Fed is on clay. Given you can't provide any evidence to deny that you quote Fed's hard court and grass slams.

What has Fed's hard court and grass slams got to do with whether Fed is as good on clay as Nadal is on grass or hard court? Answer: Nothing.

Care to provide any evidence you know numbers and stuff like that that Fed is as good on clay as Nadal is off clay? I await with (non) interest.

And as to your other point I know Fed is probably the greatest grass courter of all time. I just suspect the rivalry was going in Nadal's direction. But I have no evidence to support this as they never played again so I agree we'll never know.

Fed struggles with Nadal on HC and grass when they play against each other.

H2H Nadal is better.

Accomplishemnts wise, Fed is miles better.

This is the best explanation i can provide

 

[Jam]

Federer has an 80.56% win percentage at RG
Nadal has 83.67% at US and Oz Open and 83.72% at Wimbledon
On all clay courts Fed has 77% win ratio on clay. Nadal has 78% on hard and 79% on grass.

Nadal has 5 non-clay slams Fed has 1 clay slam.

In Masters terms has won shanghai, montreal, cincinnati and Indiana Wells.

The only clay court Fed has won is Madrid with most of his wins when in fact it was a hard court.

Nadal has a huge outdoor h2h lead over Federer. On the other hand Federer has a very poor clay record against Nadal and has lost 5 times at RG to him without reply. Nadal has beaten Federer at Wimbledon when Fed was in his prime and narrowly trails the rivalry on grass a mere 2-1.

Yep a litany of facts all which point to Nadal being better on grass and hard court than Federer is on clay.

And as for you saying thats the best explanation you can provide really??? What about my explanation? That's a much better explanation. The explanation being that Nadal is better off clay than Fed is on clay. There is a wealth of evidence that supports it.