Nadal's 7 at Roland Garros vs Federer's 7 at Wimbledon

kishnabe

Talk Tennis Guru
That's my point. Nadal won all his finals but not Federer. You're putting all the emphasis merely on finals made instead of on finals both made AND won. 100% vs. 88%

Not only that but Nadal won his 7 titles in 8 years. Took Federer 10.

Better grass competition than clay competition. It not Nadal fault that this is the easiest Clay era of all time.
 

fedfan08

Professional
If Fed dominated Wimbledon the way Nadal dominated RG the anti-Fed brigade would say Nadal's was more impressive because he faced tougher ompetition.
 

MTF07

Semi-Pro
LOL that's like saying Murray's career is more impressive than del Potro because he made 3 more finals.

Murray's career IS more impressive.
Are you telling me that if Murray loses in 10 grand slam finals (without a win), he's had a worse career than Del Potro, just because he won his lone finals appearance?

Come on, don't be ridiculous.
 

Tony48

Legend
Murray's career IS more impressive.
Are you telling me that if Murray loses in 10 grand slam finals (without a win), he's had a worse career than Del Potro, just because he won his lone finals appearance?

Come on, don't be ridiculous.

That's EXACTLY what I'm telling you.

1 > 0
 
N

NadalAgassi

Guest
Better grass competition than clay competition. It not Nadal fault that this is the easiest Clay era of all time.

LOL this is the weakest grass era of all time. The competition on grass is every bit as weak as clay, probably even worse. Who is Federer's biggest rival on grass, Nadal a clay court specialist (and non clay mug according to Federer fans).
 

Zarfot Z

Professional
There's no doubt that Nadal's dominance at Roland Garros exceeds that of Federer's at Wimbledon.

I mean, the man's record at the French Open is unprecedented. He's only lost once there in his entire career, whereas Federer has lost on multiple occasions at Wimby.
 

Rhino

Legend
We have to wait until both careers are over. Federer got his game together later than Nadal did, but that does not make Nadal's achievement any greater. Seven slams is seven slams.
Nadal's game will almost certainly drop off earlier than Federer's (looks like it's already happening) so the losses could even out in the end. If Nadal loses the next 4 or 5 Roland Garros tournaments (very possible) then we can say that the dominance at each event was equal at the end of the day. Also Nadal didn't play in 2004 event despite being on the pro tour already, and therefore avoided an early RG loss.

All that aside, Wimbledon is the biggest tournament in tennis. The one tennis tournament that everybody - including Nadal - wants the most. So it stands to reason that it is where the competition is at it's most fierce.
 

Apun94

Hall of Fame
Nadal dominated FO in a way that no other player I've ever seen dominated any slam (Borg was way before my time). He lost one single match there in all these years and his level of play in 2008 FO was beyond ridiculous.



LOLville! It's good to see you're alive and well, you had as all worried.

Who the hell is LOLville?!!
 

MTF07

Semi-Pro
That's EXACTLY what I'm telling you.

1 > 0

Murray is a better player than Del Potro and has had the better career. I don't see how any sane person could argue against that. Slams are not the be- all, end all. Murray's been in 4 times as many slam finals as Del Po. And he has a handful of Masters titles.
 

martini1

Hall of Fame
Great trick poll because *******s would need to say Rafa's run is impressive as well when he had to beat the GOAT of GOATs 4 difficult times to do it. :lol:
 
Top