Nadal not good enough to meet Federer outside of clay from 2004-2008

Feather said:
I also think that a match up between Stan and Rafa is not good for Stan but on hard courts I will give Stan chances. WTF 2013 match, right before AO was decided in two tight tie breakers, AO Stan was up a set and break before Rafa's injury and also beat Rafa in Paris masters 2015. Stan post 2013 is different
Click to expand...

Ok, that's fair but I still disagree with the Stan is different post 2013 when it comes to the Nadal match-up. For me he's shown that he's different vs Djokovic in slam finals post 2013 but I don't get that same feeling when he plays Nadal.

I guess we'll probably find out eventually as I'm sure Stan and Nadal will meet in a non-clay slam again soon.
 
cc0509 said:
Ok, that's fair but I still disagree with the Stan is different post 2013 when it comes to the Nadal match-up. For me he's shown that he's different vs Djokovic in slam finals post 2013 but I don't get that same feeling when he plays Nadal.

I guess we'll probably find out eventually as I'm sure Stan and Nadal will meet in a non-clay slam again soon.
Click to expand...

I don't quite agree with that. Tsonga or Berdych may not beat Federer in Wimbledon again but that doesn't mean anything. They deserved their wins irrespective of whether they can do that again or not.
 
Feather said:
I don't quite agree with that. Tsonga or Berdych may not beat Federer in Wimbledon again but that doesn't mean anything. They deserved their wins irrespective of whether they can do that again or not.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying Stan didn't deserve his win vs Nadal at the AO 2014, I'm simply saying if both are playing well, I don't think Stan will repeat that result vs Nadal in a slam.
 
cc0509 said:
I'm not saying Stan didn't deserve his win vs Nadal at the AO 2014, I'm simply saying if both are playing well, I don't think Stan will repeat that result vs Nadal in a slam.
Click to expand...
I like Stan and I think he is a great player, but I think Djokovic is responsible for him achieving so much. If he had been good enough to stop Stan when he should have, then Stan wouldn't have won as much as he did.
 
mike danny said:
I like Stan and I think he is a great player, but I think Djokovic is responsible for him achieving so much. If he had been good enough to stop Stan when he should have, then Stan wouldn't have won as much as he did.
Click to expand...
Stan is a bad match up for Djokovic when he is playing. That said I don't think Djokovic should have lost 2 slam finals to Wawrinka.
 
Noleberic123 said:
Stan is a bad match up for Djokovic when he is playing. That said I don't think Djokovic should have lost 2 slam finals to Wawrinka.
Click to expand...
He hasn't even beaten him in one yet, which is quite surprising since Djokovic is a versitle player that can usually adapt. People (me included) thought Federer was a bad match-up for Djokovic, but he has prevailed quite a few times now.
 
Sabratha said:
He hasn't even beaten him in one yet, which is quite surprising since Djokovic is a versitle player that can usually adapt. People (me included) thought Federer was a bad match-up for Djokovic, but he has prevailed quite a few times now.
Click to expand...
I still think Nadal is a better match up for Djokovic than Federer.

I think when Stan is in Stanimal mode his ground game for some reason can hold up better against Djokovic than Federers. Djokovic has been better off the ground since 2011, not 2014 like some people believe. Federers ground game has been slightly behind Djokodals since 2011 I remember discussing this with people back then.

I also think Djokovic is tentative against Stan.
 
Sabratha said:
Ever since 2013 Djokovic has not choked a lot at the US Open. His final conversion rate their is quite poor actually.
Click to expand...
Its a shame. The USO should have been his second best slam. Its actually his most consistent slam. He hasn't even been that consistent at the AO
 
Noleberic123 said:
I still think Nadal is a better match up for Djokovic than Federer.

I think when Stan is in Stanimal mode his ground game for some reason can hold up better against Djokovic than Federers. Djokovic has been better off the ground since 2011, not 2014 like some people believe. Federers ground game has been slightly behind Djokodals since 2011 I remember discussing this with people back then.

I also think Djokovic is tentative against Stan.
Click to expand...
Federer mixes things up a lot more than Djokovic, who relies on hard groundstrokes and movement. When Djokovic and Becker were working together and he added more variety to his game he found more success against Federer.
 
Noleberic123 said:
Its a shame. The USO should have been his second best slam. Its actually his most consistent slam. He hasn't even been that consistent at the AO
Click to expand...
I don't know why he hasn't done better there, it suits his game quite well.

I still think his top level at the AO is definitely higher though. Like WAY higher, but he does have lower-lows there for sure.
 
Noleberic123 said:
Not really. From 2004 to 2007 he didn't have any bizarre losses at the slams. While Djokovic 2012-2014 had a few.
Click to expand...
That's why I try to explain to people that Federer was a different animal back then. They pick on Roddick and Hewitt, but what can you do against arguably the best of all time? The guy was always in the second week of slams, destroying virtually everyone.
 
mike danny said:
I like Stan and I think he is a great player, but I think Djokovic is responsible for him achieving so much. If he had been good enough to stop Stan when he should have, then Stan wouldn't have won as much as he did.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Stan has turned into a bad match-up for Djokovic but I have to say that Stan's FO 2015 performance against Djokovic was an incredible and classic performance. Enjoyable to watch. :D He was beasting in that match but Djokovic was too passive. With Stan you have to disrupt his pace with your own variety and aggressive play. Nadal was doing that beautifully in the recent FO final and of course Federer does it best against Stan.
 
Those who put the excuse of age to the fact that Nadal leads the h2h 23-14 over Federer are fanboys. It's the same that when people put the excuse of the "weak era" (old Agassi, Hewitt, Roddick, Philipoussis, teenager Rafa) to the fact that Roger has 18 Slams. Those are fanatic excuses in both cases.
 
Sport said:
Those who put the excuse of age to the fact that Nadal leads the h2h 23-14 over Federer are fanboys. It's the same that when people put the excuse of the "weak era" (old Agassi, Hewitt, Roddick, Philipoussis, teenager Rafa) to the fact that Roger has 18 Slams. Those are fanatic excuses in both cases.
Click to expand...

The h2h is a fact no one should have an excuse with.

But what needs emphasized is that it is extremely clay skewed.

The h2h would be 20-17 in Fed's favor should their ages align and they met 70% on hard and grass
 
Jonas78 said:
Fedal-fans are doing just great;). Ultronians deserved to get a taste of their own medicine. When that is said, i hope and believe Djoker will return, and that his nice fans will see him shine once again:)
Click to expand...

That's right Jonas! I'll definitely be back with renewed vigor if Djokovic returns in peak form :)
 
tennisaddict said:
The h2h is a fact no one should have an excuse with.

But what needs emphasized is that it is extremely clay skewed.

The h2h would be 20-17 in Fed's favor should their ages align and they met 70% on hard and grass
Click to expand...

A H2H of 23-14 is being converted in 17-20 by sheer imagination of Fedfan. When no Clay incolved at all and when Fed got enough chances to bulldoze a young Nadal (like two times in W) Fed leads non-clay barely by 12-10. But you say if 30% Clay was allowed h2h would be 20-17 in Fed's favor. I don't a normal human mind can get his head around such calculations.
 
ForumMember said:
A H2H of 23-14 is being converted in 17-20 by sheer imagination of Fedfan. When no Clay incolved at all and when Fed got enough chances to bulldoze a young Nadal (like two times in W) Fed leads non-clay barely by 12-10. But you say if 30% Clay was allowed h2h would be 20-17 in Fed's favor. I don't a normal human mind can get his head around such calculations.
Click to expand...

Fed will lead grass and hard like how he does today. Because we are saying 70% of the time they play on hard and grass why do you think Fed cannot get a 3 match lead over Rafa ?
 
tennisaddict said:
Fed will lead grass and hard like how he does today. Because we are saying 70% of the time they play on hard and grass why do you think Fed cannot get a 3 match lead over Rafa ?
Click to expand...
If you look at whole career with 100% on Grass and Hard, then too Fed leads just by 2 matches. And you think that with just 70% of play of Grass and Hard, he would have got a lead of 3 matches. What kind of math is that?
 
ForumMember said:
If you look at whole career with 100% on Grass and Hard, then too Fed leads just by 2 matches. And you think that with just 70% of play of Grass and Hard, he would have got a lead of 3 matches. What kind of math is that?
Click to expand...

Did we not say that their age aligned for this hypothesis?
 
It's a nonsense argument. Rafa was 18 - 22 from 2004 - 2008. During that time he won 5 slams and 13 M1000 titles. Federer at those same ages won 1 slam and 1 M1000 title. Considering that by the end of 2008 the Fedal H2H was 13 - 5 in Rafa's favour against peak Fed, Fed would be appreciative that baby Rafa didn't run into him more during that time, it could have gotten more embarrassing than it already is for the ''GOAT''.
 
titoelcolombiano said:
It's a nonsense argument. Rafa was 18 - 22 from 2004 - 2008. During that time he won 5 slams and 13 M1000 titles. Federer at those same ages won 1 slam and 1 M1000 title. Considering that by the end of 2008 the Fedal H2H was 13 - 5 in Rafa's favour against peak Fed, Fed would be appreciative that baby Rafa didn't run into him more during that time, it could have gotten more embarrassing than it already is for the ''GOAT''.
Click to expand...

Dude, 2014, 2015, start of 2016 as well.

Federer manned up and faced Nadal during 2013 and early 2014. Nadal pussied out of meeting Federer during his lacklustre years.

The h2h would be dead even otherwise.
 
US Open 2006 and AO 2007 were opportunities wasted by Nadal, I believe.
US Open 2008 , Nadal was in his last legs when he was defeated by Murray.
 
Sport said:
Those who put the excuse of age to the fact that Nadal leads the h2h 23-14 over Federer are fanboys. It's the same that when people put the excuse of the "weak era" (old Agassi, Hewitt, Roddick, Philipoussis, teenager Rafa) to the fact that Roger has 18 Slams. Those are fanatic excuses in both cases.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. It's not age. Fed was reaching finals of the clay events and was losing to Nadal. Nadal didn't play as much Fed on his favourite surfaces. They would have played 14 matches at the WTF for example Nadal would have lost just as much as Fed on clay.

MC 2006 2007 2008
Hamburg 2007 2008
Madrid 2009 2010
Rome 2006
FO 2005 2006 2007 2008 2011
 
VaporDude95 said:
Dude, 2014, 2015, start of 2016 as well.

Federer manned up and faced Nadal during 2013 and early 2014. Nadal pussied out of meeting Federer during his lacklustre years.

The h2h would be dead even otherwise.
Click to expand...

Would it really though? Or would it just get worse for Fed if they met more often... other than 2017, Nadal has owned the rivalry and baby Rafa routinely beat up peak Fed.
 
Benjamin Rio said:
Nop they've met mainly on clay.

Trust me they would have played 14 times at the WTF....Nadal would be losing the head to head.
Click to expand...

Is that just like at Wimby when they played three times and Fed won all three.... oh wait... It's like how they've played four times at the AO and Fed has won all four..... oh wait.... never mind - Fed has been beaten up by Rafa constantly on all surfaces.
 
VaporDude95 said:
You’re seriously telling me that 2014 Rafa off clay, 2015 and 2016 Rafa would beat Fed? Lol
Click to expand...

Probably - he owns the matchup, why not...

Djoker has dominated the Djokodal rivalry in the second half of their careers and was playing awefully in 2017 and the first half of 2018 but when Rafa was on the other side of the net in the Wimby semi he came to life. He had the confidence in the matchup to deal with him.
 
titoelcolombiano said:
Probably - he owns the matchup, why not...

Djoker has dominated the Djokodal rivalry in the second half of their careers and was playing awefully in 2017 and the first half of 2018 but when Rafa was on the other side of the net in the Wimby semi he came to life. He had the confidence in the matchup to deal with him.
Click to expand...

2014, 2015 and 2016 Nadal was not beating Fed off clay.

Like 0% chance.
 
VaporDude95 said:
2014, 2015 and 2016 Nadal was not beating Fed off clay.

Like 0% chance.
Click to expand...

Ok - so it was different to just about every other year in the rivalry other than 2017? Rafa had Fed's measure more often than not and that wouldn't have changed. I mean, he beat Fed at the 2014 AO for starters - lol
 
titoelcolombiano said:
It's a nonsense argument. Rafa was 18 - 22 from 2004 - 2008. During that time he won 5 slams and 13 M1000 titles. Federer at those same ages won 1 slam and 1 M1000 title. Considering that by the end of 2008 the Fedal H2H was 13 - 5 in Rafa's favour against peak Fed, Fed would be appreciative that baby Rafa didn't run into him more during that time, it could have gotten more embarrassing than it already is for the ''GOAT''.
Click to expand...
I don't think everyone realizes how absolutely insane young Nadal was against Federer. Nadal beat Fed at DUBAI, in 2006. In Fed's home tournament (literally and figuratively) during his best season.
It's one thing to dominate Federer in 2010-14 when Nadal was at his career peak and Federer was getting older. It's another to do it at 19 against possibly the most dominant player in history.
 
Peak Fed was simply better on clay than Rafa was off it during these years. If not the H2H would likely look different, all though there is no guarantee for this either. Rafa was a terrible matchup for peak Fed on any surface, just watch Dubai 2006 if you don't believe me.
 
LOL Nadal was minor in 2004. Now that I got that out of my system. They met plenty of times outside of clay during that time period (they played 3 Wimbledon finals in a row for example). Nadal was the better player in most of this rivalry, but Federer made it more respectable in 2017. Both guys have had amazing careers and are worthy candidates for the GOAT title.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
Federer/Sampras/Nadal comparison 6 years of prime
Replies
29
Views
4K
Ledigs
L
L
Comparison Sampras/Fed/Nadal 6 years of prime
Replies
0
Views
634
Ledigs
L
L
Grand Slam results Sampras/Nadal/Federer
Replies
41
Views
3K
Anaconda
A
G
Alcaraz vs. Big 3: Season-by-season breakdown !
4 5 6
Replies
267
Views
3K
TheFifthSet
TheFifthSet
Underdog
Nadal at USO vs AO
Replies
23
Views
1K
tudwell
T
Back
Top