Nadal most dominant athlete in the world
- Thread starter Fed_Djoker_Fan
- Start date
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Like i said it is unfair to put non-clay slams together in one and clay separately. There are 3 times as many slams on grass and HC so obviously more opportunities to win titles as campared to only 1 on clay.
Given how many opportunities nadal had over the years it is safe to say he underachieved outisde clay
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Are these percentages from the same age or current? Because if it is current, then Federer at his age is naturally going to lose more. So, can you clarify where these numbers come from regarding their careers.
Sure he does. He also has three times more chances to win non clay slams each year than Federer. It would be nice if you mentioned that also.
Well, Federer has also won Hamburg, even though it was replaced by Madrid. So he has won at two venues, and won a combined six masters titles on clay, so not so bad, right? He also defended a clay masters title....
Yes, credit to Nadal, he is better in H2H, but that huge h2h got bigger significantly bigger as Federer passed 30, while Nadal had just come off his greatest HC season. Regarding the grass rivalry, I wonder how narrow it would have been if Federer got to play Nadal three times on grass in 06 instead of one, just like how Nadal did that year on clay...Can't fault Federer, when there was only one place he could play Nadal on grass.
Yes, the gap between Nadal and Federer on grass and hard is much closer than the gap between them on clay. This is true. Doesn't change the fact that Federer dominated two surfaces, and Nadal dominated one - but what domination!
[/QUOTE]
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Oh and btw i am not so sure about the grass and clay thing. Like i said, Fed has not missed a FO QF in 9 years while Nadal during his prime gou upset early 2 years in a row.
This has to count for something. Fed even when not playing his best can still reach the quarters at the FO. Can't say the same for Nadal on grass
mike danny
Bionic Poster
[/QUOTE]Are these percentages from the same age or current? Because if it is current, then Federer at his age is naturally going to lose more. So, can you clarify where these numbers come from regarding their careers.
Sure he does. He also has three times more chances to win non clay slams each year than Federer. It would be nice if you mentioned that also.
Well, Federer has also won Hamburg, even though it was replaced by Madrid. So he has won at two venues, and won a combined six masters titles on clay, so not so bad, right? He also defended a clay masters title....
Yes, credit to Nadal, he is better in H2H, but that huge h2h got bigger significantly bigger as Federer passed 30, while Nadal had just come off his greatest HC season. Regarding the grass rivalry, I wonder how narrow it would have been if Federer got to play Nadal three times on grass in 06 instead of one, just like how Nadal did that year on clay...Can't fault Federer, when there was only one place he could play Nadal on grass.
Yes, the gap between Nadal and Federer on grass and hard is much closer than the gap between them on clay. This is true. Doesn't change the fact that Federer dominated two surfaces, and Nadal dominated one - but what domination!
H2H on outdoor HC can be a bit misleading.
Miami 2004: he beats Fed, extends the H2H, but does he win the tournament? Nope...
Miami 2011: beats Fed, extends the H2H, but does he win the tournament? Nope....
AO 2012 and 2014: beats Fed both times, extends the H2H, but does he win those tournaments? Nope and nope
So H2H means squat if it does not give you the trophy
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
You're making the mistake that spinovic mentioned though. Claiming that Nadal is "way better" on grass and HC than Fed is on clay is very debatable. It is just the Nadal factor. If you remove Nadal, Federer probably has at least 4 RG, whereas the same is not true for Nadal if you remove Fed from the grass or hard court equation since he loses to other people on the surfaces besides Federer. And not necessarily top players. See Rosol and Darcis, and even Wawrinka before he won the AO. And if we wanted we could go back a little further to his losses to Ferrer and Youzhny at the USO for example. And you are comparing 2 surfaces to 1. A better comparison is probably Federer on clay vs Nadal on grass since HC is too big a chunk of the season and has 2 GS. Even so, clay vs hard is debatable as well given the factors involved as mentioned.
In that case, I'm not sure Nadal is "way better" on grass than Federer is on clay. On pure achievement of 2 Wimbledons vs 1 RG yes, but this is the Nadal factor again. Then you factor in that Federer hasn't had losses on clay in the 1st and 2nd rounds to journeyman, and you have a nice debate.
And for the record, yes Nadal has dominated on one surface more than any other dominant player on their respective surfaces. Credit to him.
I think Hitman has done a good job above. Truth is, if you soon don't start qualifying your stats to mention very pertinent factors the jury is still out on who you're a fan of. Not to mention it makes for a crappy debate when you're posting biased stats, and then you get angry when people pick them apart, all the while claiming that you're objective.
And % stats are constantly misleading and really what's the difference between a couple of percent. Why do you think Borg has almost every % record in tennis?
Last edited:
mike danny
Bionic Poster
By his logic i can say that Fed has dominated HC and grass more than Nadal dominated clay.
12 titles vs 8 titles. Just like his argument of 5 non-clay slams vs 1 clay slam
La_Para
Rookie
Just saw some stats of nadal on clay, just makes you remember how mindboggling his domination of the surface is:
http://m.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2014/04/16/Clay-Records-Nadal.aspx
Nadal has lost to only three players in clay-court finals: Djokovic (three times), Federer (twice) and Zeballos.:shock:
Truly amazing stuff
http://m.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2014/04/16/Clay-Records-Nadal.aspx
Nadal has lost to only three players in clay-court finals: Djokovic (three times), Federer (twice) and Zeballos.:shock:
Truly amazing stuff
[/QUOTE]
it's their whole career. if we stop Fed at 27 he's worse as he was yet to win RG. Fed's poor clay was in the early years of his career when he kept getting knocked out (before Nadal even existed).
Interestingly, many on this board have talked of hard and grass being more competitive than clay where it was only Nadal. Probably true. But this also supports the contention that Nadal is better off clay than Fed on clay. To win his 5 slams he's gone through Federer on grass and hard court, Murray twice on grass and Djokovic and grass and hard court. He's also beaten all these top players severe other times on route to losing finals. He has a winning head to head against all of them in slams off clay. In slams off clay he has a winning h2h against the 3 other big four. Conversely, Djokovic, Nadal and Murray have lost every game they've played at RG against Nadal.
It's blatantly obvious he's better off clay than Federer is on clay. Usual fanboys in denial.
Fed_Djoker_Fan
Banned
Lol.. What happened to your circular logic? Where you'd argue the field appears to be weak because Rafa was dominant? Oh by the way, now you see how Federer enjoyed a weak era till 2007 ?
Fed_Djoker_Fan
Banned
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Nah. Djokovic destroying Nadal's peak was even better! :lol:
It is still there. Even if we remove Rafa and Fed on clay, old Agassi, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Murray still don't go deep on clay.
But if we Remove Fed and Rafa on HC/grass, those guys go deep.
I'm saying clay competition in 2003-2007 was weak, non clay was strong.
I wouldn't think about this, but Nadal fans brought it up trying to say Fed's competition was weak in 2003-2007. They were partly right, it was weak, but only on clay. Fed was owned by past prime Kuerten. Then Fed makes all those RG finals. Fed makes RG finals cuz his competition weak. So, this helps Rafa too.
I'm not saying RAfa isn't a great clay court player. He is. But I think it's both. He is great, but he also benefited by weaker field on clay.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
objectivity
Banned
Fed's poor clay was in the early years of his career when he kept getting knocked out (before Nadal even existed).
.[/QUOTE]
that is not true. roger's first Masters series title was on clay, as was 2 of his first 4. he was an accomplished clay court player first, before he mastered other surfaces.
.[/QUOTE]
that is not true. roger's first Masters series title was on clay, as was 2 of his first 4. he was an accomplished clay court player first, before he mastered other surfaces.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
ouch! 3 slam Finals, 6 masters final, 1 wtf final, 1 500 final lost since 2011. H2H 11-6. I like most this kind most dominant players can't win even set during 7 months against main rival!
I am talking about RG. Slam form is the most important. He was getting knocked out in the first few rounds for about 6 years. The fact that I gave him later years increased his winning percentage. I was being generous to him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer#Career_statistics
But you didn't refute all of his points which are all very valid. And you refuted none of mine while continually adding accomplishments on 2 surfaces against 1.
And just because anyone points out huge flaws in most of your "stats" it means they're fanboys.
Brilliant
please quote the point that you think needs refuting.
But you didn't refute all of his points which are all very valid. And you refuted none of mine while continually adding accomplishments on 2 surfaces against 1.
And just because anyone points out huge flaws in most of your "stats" it means they're fanboys.
Brilliant
YEah. When they ran out of arguments, the insults come. I take this as a compliment actually.
[/QUOTE]Are these percentages from the same age or current? Because if it is current, then Federer at his age is naturally going to lose more. So, can you clarify where these numbers come from regarding their careers.
Sure he does. He also has three times more chances to win non clay slams each year than Federer. It would be nice if you mentioned that also.
Well, Federer has also won Hamburg, even though it was replaced by Madrid. So he has won at two venues, and won a combined six masters titles on clay, so not so bad, right? He also defended a clay masters title....
Yes, credit to Nadal, he is better in H2H, but that huge h2h got bigger significantly bigger as Federer passed 30, while Nadal had just come off his greatest HC season. Regarding the grass rivalry, I wonder how narrow it would have been if Federer got to play Nadal three times on grass in 06 instead of one, just like how Nadal did that year on clay...Can't fault Federer, when there was only one place he could play Nadal on grass.
Yes, the gap between Nadal and Federer on grass and hard is much closer than the gap between them on clay. This is true. Doesn't change the fact that Federer dominated two surfaces, and Nadal dominated one - but what domination!
yes he does have 3 times more. Fed has a 1 from 15 record at RG. Nadal has a 5 from 28 record from the 3 slams he has been at. Fed has a 6.666% return ratio. Nadal has around 18%. His record is significantly better.
Nadal has many more hard court titles than Fed does clay. He has 16 hard court titles and 3 grass court ones. Fed has 10 clay. Nadal's hard court titles are much higher ranked on average than Fed's. I do accept though with this point that Fed is an accomplished clay courter and maybe the gap isn't as wide as I presupposed.
On the last point I agree Fed dominated 2 surfaces and Nadal one. But Fed's domination of those two was nowhere near as strong as Nadal on clay. Why....well partly a function of Nadal being brilliant on clay but also that Nadal evolved into an all court player capable of winning multiple slams off clay and beating the very best in the other big four more or equal number of times (Djoko is equal) on their preferred surfaces when it counts the most.
Most of the stats back Nadal to be the beater off their favored surfaces. The 10 clay court titles does suggest that Fed is good on clay which I've no doubt he is. But given who Nadal has had to beat on grass and hard court it clearly is him who is the superior as well as a range of stats around slams, masters and h2hs. Indoors is another thing. I'm only talking about outdoors here. Fed is better on clay than Nadal indoors.
Last edited:
yes he does have 3 times more. Fed has a 1 from 15 record at RG. Nadal has a 5 from 28 record from the 3 slams he has been at. Fed has a 6.666% return ratio. Nadal has around 18%. His record is significantly better.
Nadal has many more hard court titles than Fed does clay. He has 16 hard court titles and 3 grass court ones. Fed has 10 clay. Nadal's hard court titles are much higher ranked on average than Fed's. I do accept though with this point that Fed is an accomplished clay courter and maybe the gap isn't as wide as I presupposed.
On the last point I agree Fed dominated 2 surfaces and Nadal one. But Fed's domination of those two was nowhere near as strong as Nadal on clay. Why....well partly a function of Nadal being brilliant on clay but also that Nadal evolved into an all court player capable of winning multiple slams off clay and beating the very best in the other big four more or equal number of times (Djoko is equal) on their preferred surfaces when it counts the most.
Most of the stats back Nadal to be the beater off their favored surfaces. The 10 clay court titles does suggest that Fed is good on clay which I've no doubt he is. But given who Nadal has had to beat on grass and hard court it clearly is him who is the superior as well as a range of stats around slams, masters and h2hs. Indoors is another thing. I'm only talking about outdoors here. Fed is better on clay than Nadal indoors.[/QUOTE]
why nadal dominated just 1 surface? he's most dominant player according to op, he should do better than one who dominated 2 surfaces!
Nadal has many more hard court titles than Fed does clay. He has 16 hard court titles and 3 grass court ones. Fed has 10 clay. Nadal's hard court titles are much higher ranked on average than Fed's. I do accept though with this point that Fed is an accomplished clay courter and maybe the gap isn't as wide as I presupposed.
On the last point I agree Fed dominated 2 surfaces and Nadal one. But Fed's domination of those two was nowhere near as strong as Nadal on clay. Why....well partly a function of Nadal being brilliant on clay but also that Nadal evolved into an all court player capable of winning multiple slams off clay and beating the very best in the other big four more or equal number of times (Djoko is equal) on their preferred surfaces when it counts the most.
Most of the stats back Nadal to be the beater off their favored surfaces. The 10 clay court titles does suggest that Fed is good on clay which I've no doubt he is. But given who Nadal has had to beat on grass and hard court it clearly is him who is the superior as well as a range of stats around slams, masters and h2hs. Indoors is another thing. I'm only talking about outdoors here. Fed is better on clay than Nadal indoors.[/QUOTE]
why nadal dominated just 1 surface? he's most dominant player according to op, he should do better than one who dominated 2 surfaces!
oh talk sense fanboy. Fed has an 87% career grass ratio. Which is about the same even if you ignore the last 5 years for age parity with Nadal. Nadal has an 83.72% win ratio. So 3-3.5% difference. Meanwhile on clay Fed is 77%...Nadal is 93% on clay. A difference roughly speaking 5 times greater.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Nadal_career_statistics#Performance_timeline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer_career_statistics#Singles
fanboys don't do stats. they just make assertions without them!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Nadal_career_statistics#Performance_timeline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer_career_statistics#Singles
fanboys don't do stats. they just make assertions without them!
didn't you read thread title?
why you seems to be on back foot reading 303? don't you think this most dominant player achieving this?!
the ratio of wins to losses is the correct way of measuring ability and domination on the relevant surface as is titles won and h2hs against rivals. On all of these metrics Nadal is ahead of Federer on clay vs grass. Conversely Nadal is ahead on all of these metrics on non their non-favoured surface.
Ergo, Nadal is more dominant on clay than Fed on either grass or hard court.
Also, Nadal is better off clay than Federer is on clay.
Now, crawl back under your little fanboy rock.
Ergo, Nadal is more dominant on clay than Fed on either grass or hard court.
Also, Nadal is better off clay than Federer is on clay.
Now, crawl back under your little fanboy rock.
LazyNinja19
Banned
Hey Ninja, don't be lazy. This is off topic, but I always wanted to say this
Haha... I'm not lazy btw. But then, i'm not a ninja either.
Btw, congrats on your 5000 posts of utter insignificance!
Do you even English?
If you read the OP's first line, he states that it's about Clay. If you read the post #13 on the first page, i myself called out the OP for not mentioning "Clay" in the thread title.
Not that you weren't gonna post instigatory comments, even if the OP had written the title correctly.
nadal can't be dominant player even it he achieves 100% clay winning ratio because it's about weeks at no 1.
there can't be another yardstick to prove he's dominant player or not.
he needs to get 303 or sell this theory to donkeys and muggies! they even won't buy this weak troll attempt!
not a Nadal fan nor am I trying to prove he is the more dominant player. I'm arguing with a range of statistics 2 things:
1. Nadal is more dominant on clay than Federer on grass.
2. Nadal is better off clay than Federer is on clay.
Given that Federer is better than Nadal on 2 of the 3 surfaces though then this does not mean that Nadal is dominant. Try and use your brain, be impartial and think about it rather than be a total Fed fanboy. It's dull. I've produced countless statistics to back up my assertions. And I know I'm correct.
I'm not manipulating anything. You are fanboy.
Haha... I'm not lazy btw. But then, i'm not a ninja either.
Btw, congrats on your 5000 posts of utter insignificance!
Do you even English?
If you read the OP's first line, he states that it's about Clay. If you read the post #13 on the first page, i myself called out the OP for not mentioning "Clay" in the thread title.
Not that you weren't gonna post instigatory comments, even if the OP had written the title correctly.
my point is nadal/ fanbois don't have any right to call him most dominant player till he achieves 303.
he may be best clay court bully ever nothing more!
moonballs
Hall of Fame
How to rule out weak clay era hypothesis?
Can you prove Rafa's dominance on clay is not because of a very weak clay era?
again dominance = weeks at no 1.
it's not even questionable! how can you dominant player based on performance of 3 months?
fed dominated tour like no one before, 237 straight weeks are solely representative of his brilliance, longevity, versatility of game.
lesser player like nadal can dream for 302, heck even djoko is more dominant player than nadal!
Fed_Djoker_Fan
Banned
You have your answer to your circular reason right in your post.
See the semi finalists of all grand slams from 2002 to 2007 and also top 10 players every quarter in that period, you know its the weakest. You just want to close your eyes.
Concentrated dominance is worth more. CYGS is better than winning 4 GS. And that's the point. Weeks nr.1 is concentrated dominance.
Because that is different sequence tougher to achieve. You can't interrupt the sequence. Can't be sick or tired or whatever.
10 consecutive finals is worth more than 5x2 finals with interruption. This is how tennis works. That's why streaks are so rare and worth more.
Being nr.1 and then nr.3 is worth a lot more than being nr.2 all the time.
And you don't get this concept. ABSOLUTE DOMINANCE.
Fed_Djoker_Fan
Banned
lol..Rafa won the last 3 slam meeting. its 13 vs 7 now. Rafa can retire right now and all fans will be happy. He achieved enough to be in the goat discussion (by the pros not you and me)...
Djoker is 27 now and prime might last for max 2 more years...He took the most damage.It evident from you guys posts. lol
Fed_Djoker_Fan
Banned
oh btw, if Djoker cant win FO this year, he will be broken for good.
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
But but your username suggest you're a NDjokovic fan, no?
OrangePower
Legend
"He’s better on clay than any other athlete is on anything."
Fun article, but really there is no way to objectively compare dominance across sports.
And then to further limit it to an athlete's performance in just a specific aspect of the sport (Nadal on clay) means you can't objectively compare anything.
But yeah, a fun read. No disputing Rafa's amazing credentials on clay.
Fun article, but really there is no way to objectively compare dominance across sports.
And then to further limit it to an athlete's performance in just a specific aspect of the sport (Nadal on clay) means you can't objectively compare anything.
But yeah, a fun read. No disputing Rafa's amazing credentials on clay.
One thing. If 2003-2007 is weak, how come Rafa and Nole didn't win HC/grass majors?
I mean you say they are better than Fed and their competition is tougher, you say.
So, they should have no problems winning. I mean Fed is worse than them you say and weak Era champ and he still won HC/grass majors past 2010. Still was nr.1.
Why couldn't Rafa and Nole be nr.1 in Fed's era, but Fed was nr.1 in their era?
Last edited:
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Hahaha this post of mine must've really rattled you if you had to refer to it TWICE. I'm lovin' it, lovin' it, lovin' it, I'm lovin' it like this. I'm lovin' it, lovin' it, lovin' it, I'm lovin' it like that! :lol:
Last edited:
