Prime Federer vs Prime Nadal
- Thread starter TheLoneWolf
- Start date
T1000
Legend
Fed only had mono for AO 2008, and if I recall correctly he only lost to Djokovic there and never played Nadal. He didn't have mono at MC 2008, Hamburg 2008, RG 2008, Wimby 2008, AO 2009, Madrid 2009, Madrid 2010. It was 8-6 Nadal before that
J
Jchurch
Guest
And yes Mono threw off the most important part of Federer's game. His fitness. He has enough natural talent to carry himself to semis, but are you going to honestly tell me that a below average Federer would get blown away by Mardy Fish. he wasn't back into his normal playing shape until Indian Wells 09 and even then he was still out of rhythm.
T1000
Legend
And Nadal's knees are the reason he lost Madrid 2009, I can play the excuse game too. Federer chose to play so there's no excuse for him to lose unless mono suddenly happens in the middle of the match. If you start the match with an injury/sickness, you can't use it as an excuse for losing since you knew it was there to begin with.
Nadal still would have won those meetings regardless. He was beating Federer as a teenager on hardcourts when Federer was at his best in 04/05. Nadal has the edge no matter what because all he has to do is hit that lefty forehand to the backhand and produce a short ball to pounce on.
Aha, 8-6, just as I suspected, pretty even. Most of the losses that skewed the H2H came after mono.
TheFifthSet
Legend
Agreed with this mostly, although I would give new grass a slight edge to Fed, and outdoor HC a slight edge to Fed as well . . . I'm not sure Nadal can be considered better on any non-clay surface.
okdude1992
Hall of Fame
nadal on clay: 90-10
federer on grass: 60-40
federer on hard: 70-30
very close overall. but nadal's clay prowess gives him the advantage
federer on grass: 60-40
federer on hard: 70-30
very close overall. but nadal's clay prowess gives him the advantage
Last edited:
Baikalic
Semi-Pro
Surfaces complicate it, but I think Nadal has an inherent matchup advantage that carries on every surface. That's why the H2H would likely always end up in favor of nadal, although it would certainly be balanced by more HC meetings.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Well,I was talking about H2H match-up not about who's a better overall player on a specific suface.
Obviously Fed is much better on slow HC(I mean he has 4 AO titles)but in their primes on slow outdoor HC I'd favour Nadal in matchups.
Nadal is the only player who was able to constantly defeat and trouble a prime Federer, even when he was not himself in his prime.
70/30 for Federer on outdoor hardcourt is a joke. Nadal defeated Federer when Federer was number one and Nadal 17, he was leading two set to love in 2005, beat Federer at Dubai and beat Federer at the final of OA.
70/30 for Federer on outdoor hardcourt is a joke. Nadal defeated Federer when Federer was number one and Nadal 17, he was leading two set to love in 2005, beat Federer at Dubai and beat Federer at the final of OA.
thalivest
Banned
I am a Nadal fan but if you dont think he has already started his prime you are smoking some strong stuff. That doesnt mean he is finished off course, in fact he is still in his prime IMO, but he has been in it for a number of years now.
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
Then you are ignorant of the fact that Nadal's capabilities increase each and ever year. His serve can and will continue to get better, agressiveness, etc.
Heck, do you deny that Nadal is ending points much faster than before?
thalivest
Banned
His best tennis was in 2008 easily and that is still the case. There is no way he is playing better now than in 2008. If he were he would actually be winning some events on hard courts which he hasnt for over a year now.
Nadal was better during his RG-Olympics run and at the OA2009 than now.
Nadal just started to come back at MC. Let's see if he can reach his old level.
He would have beaten Ljubicic and Roddick at IW and Miami for sure.
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
That 2008 season is a completely different season than the 2009, so how can you include that?
Really Nadal was even better in 2009 than 2008 until he had his family problems and physical problems. Nadal would have done just as well in 2009 hardcourt, but had a really bad injury to the mid section.
Further more, you are refering to titles, I am refering to his actual game.
Finally Nadal has achieved the Clay Court Grand Slam, which as never been done before as well as other records, and regained #1
You assume he's in his prime because of his rank. He's only 23, he'll probably peak at 26. His attack on hard courts is improving, so is his serve. He only started serving with his left hand when he was a teen.
His injury has proven to be temporary and he's back on track now.
Delusional. Nadal only has a few more years of prime play at best, his best shot to win the USO is this year. He can get to 11 GS if he can avoid injuries, but the idea that he'll peak at 26 (hence have a number of still prime years after) is ridiculous, given his style of game and injury-history.
He is not improving on HC. If anything, he's worse than he was in 2008-2009. And even in 2008 and 2009, he was dominated in HC slams (except the AO) by guys like Cilic and Murray.
davey25
Banned
For once we agree. I am a Nadal fan but thinking he hasnt even started his prime yet and his "peak" will be in 2-3 years time is beyond laughable. I guess some *********s can be as bad as the *******s on occasion after all.
- Delusional is thinking a 23 year old has reached his prime and is on the decline.
- His "injury-history" is confined to a brief period last year.
- We have no proof that he has any chronic problems with his legs.
- He hasn't slowed down whatsoever.
- Federer is the one on the decline and there is daylight between Nadal and the rest.
anointedone
Banned
There is a difference between having reached your prime and being on the decline. Nadal isnt on decline but he has definitely reached his prime and been in it a couple years atleast already, probably longer. I am a big Nadal fan but dont kid yourself.
Well he had a foot injury in 2005 that caused him to miss AO '06 and gave him problems on and off til then end of 2007. He had problems with tendonitis in the altter half of 2007, latter half of 2008, early 2009 and the middle of 2009. He had an abdominal tear late 2009, and a minor knee injury early 2010.
So he does have an injury history that is far more extensive than "a brief period last year. But it isn't unusually extensive for a player on the ATP tour. However, he definitely is more injury-prone than the majority of the current top players.
I'd say he has reached his peak, or very close to it, but I wouldn't say he is on the decline. I'd just say that it's going to be hard to play consistently at that peak level if he can't stay relatively healthy.
anointedone
Banned
Good accessment.
gold soundz
Professional
Nadal's beaten Federer in his prime many many times. The answer is obvious.
Well maybe injury could throw a spanner in the works. But if he does stay healthy there's no reason to think he won't keep improving for the next several years. The body doesn't start going south until about 28.
I think he is slowly changing his game. I remember a few years ago he never got within 4 meters of the baseline. I bet if we looked at this board back then everyone would have been saying he'll never win Wimbledon in a million years.
Fact is he's within a wisker of being the best hard (and grass) courter already. Only a little more improvement required.
I think a prime Federer has all kinds of trouble with any version of Nadal on any surfrace!
I think Federer is the vastly superior player especially on hard but something Nadal does to him causes him to fold too often when the two do play!
I understand that people say Fed reached far more clay finals than Nadal did hard court BUT even if Nadal did meet Fed in these hard court finals I give him a great chance to win!
History suggests it!
I think Federer is the vastly superior player especially on hard but something Nadal does to him causes him to fold too often when the two do play!
I understand that people say Fed reached far more clay finals than Nadal did hard court BUT even if Nadal did meet Fed in these hard court finals I give him a great chance to win!
History suggests it!
thejoe
Hall of Fame
Which surely suggests that the matchup is largely irrelevant in deciding which one of them is the better player? Nadal can beat Fed in Clay masters' events all he wants, but he's not even got half of the slams. Sure, Nadal has an effective strategy against Federer, but the latter is far stronger against the rest of the field.
Dream on mate.
rovex
Legend
We should also take into account that Nadal is merely 24 while Federer is 28. There's still time to catch up on the slam count so it's better not to speak as though their careers are over.
thejoe
Hall of Fame
Nadal flourished far earlier than Federer did, though, so you would expect him to burn out quicker - especially given his style and history of injuries.
Cesc Fabregas
Legend
Federer doesn't do better against the rest of the field than Nadal, Nadal has a higher career win percentage which shows he does better against the rest of the field.
If Nadal does better against the rest of the field AND he dominates Federer H2H, then shouldn't Nadal have won more slams in the past 5 years than Federer? Please explain the discrepancy.
The discrepancy is this. Both of them perform better at slams than overall (as did Borg and Sampras) but the difference is larger for Federer than for Nadal.
Other players like Lendl, Connors and McEnroe perform virtually the same at slams as outside slams.
Career winning %
Borg 608-127 (82.7%)
Nadal 439–95 (82.2%)
Lendl/Connors 1071-239 / 1241-277 (81.8%)
McEnroe 875-198 (81.5%)
Federer: 701–168 (80.7%)
Sampras 762-222 (77.4%)
Grand Slam Win %
Borg 141-17 89.2%
Fed 195–27 87.8%
Nadal 106–17 86.1%
Sampras 203-38 84.2%
Connors 233-49 82.6%
Lendl 222-49 81.9%
Mac 167-38 81.5%
He won't admit it, but the discrepancy really is explained by Federer being the better player. Nadal has the higher career winning percentage largely because he was better in his early years on tour than Federer was in his early years on tour. The reason for this is that Nadal was an early bloomer while Federer took longer to put his game together.
This "early/late bloomer" factor is the reason I don't put much stock in career winning percentages. Winning percentage in slam winning years is a much better indicator of a player's worth, IMO. So for Federer this would be 03-10 and for Nadal 05-10.
D
Deleted member 3771
Guest
It could also easily be argued that Nadal is the better player, but Fed is the most achieved. When they're both fit, Nadal wins as much as Fed and dominated Fed. Unfortunately he has only been injury free for 5 of the last 13 slams, but he won 4 of those 5.
You could use 'winning percentage in big finals' (ie Slams and MS) as a better indicator of a player's worth, as long as the # of slam and MS finals is high.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Baseline
Professional
Would Nadals mega spin have been to much for Federer? Thats the question of a lifetime.
Well I think the results of the two at their respective (and un-injured) bests clearly place Federer as the better player over the field - Nadal has been dominant, but certainly not as dominant as Federer has been.
But if your method for determining who is the better player is h2h, then I can see how you would think Nadal is better. But using h2h to determine who is better leads to outcomes that I consider absurd. For example, by that method, Federer is better than Davydenko, Davydenko is better than Nadal, and Nadal is better than Federer. This, to me, is absurd, because whilst "beating a player most of the time" might not be a transitive property, "being better at tennis than a player" clearly is. But using h2h as the measure of betterness contravenes this obvious truth.
Furthermore, this method gives straight-up absurd results. Santoro owned Safin. Therefore Santoro is better than Safin. This seems downright ludicrous. And it should do in the case of Nadal and Federer too, IMO, because Federer has 9 more slams than Nadal and Safin has only 2 more than Santoro.
D
Deleted member 3771
Guest
Haha I know why you need that caveat
How high is "high"?
In the top 2 of the era is high enough.
D
Deleted member 3771
Guest
Injury comes into it. Fed is only a better player if you categories better as 'most achieved'. If some printer wins all year most of the time but Usain Bolt competes a few times a year at big events but dominates him, that would make Bolt the better sprinter, though the other guy would be the most achieved. The Nadal and Fed scenario is similar to that.
H2h is particularly significant because most of their matches were in slam or ms finals, and Nadal dominates both. If Davydenko had dominated Nadal overall and in the same quantity of slam and MS finals as Nadal does over Fed then Davydenko would clearly be better than Nadal.
So if Player A and Player B start winning slams in the same year, and for 3 straight years Player A wins 3 slams and makes the final of the other, and player B wins the remaining slam but makes no further finals, and these are the only matches player A and player B play against each other, then player B is better than player A?
A better analogy would be a sprinter who wins all year round, including most of the big events, and only loses when Bolt makes the final round. In the other big events Bolt doesn't qualify for the final because of not good enough times in some of the earlier rounds.
In this scenario I would say our hypothetical sprinter has some kind of mental block against Bolt.
This is not quite accurate. Federer turned pro in 98 and his breakthrough year came in 03, that´s 5 pre-blooming years. Nadal turned pro in 2001 and his break through year was in 05. That´s 4 pre-blooming years. That´s only a one year difference in pre-blooming time since they turned pro. The fact is Nadal has so far played most of his career in Federer´s prime. Both his career winning % and his slam winning % should therefore be lower than Federer´s, whereas the first is clearly higher and the latter just 1 point below. In the case of Federer, his career wining percentage is much more relevant than Nadal´s at this point because, at 29, he is just barely off his prime. The guy just won 3 of the last 4 slams, so I don´t know how much primy you can get. If you wish to take out Federer´s record prior for his 5 pre-bloom years that´s fine, but then you should also take out Nadal´s record for his 4 pre-bloom years and see what the results are. So far Nadal does have a better record against the field, no doubt. And since Federer is 5 years older, and already 29, it doesn´t seem very likely that Federer´s record against the field will improve with respect to Nadal´s in the next few years. Rather the opposite. I suppose we will only know by the time they retire.
The Baseline
Professional
No doubt nadals body takes a physical beating, but nadal spun his way to the top. nadal used spin and speed to take over the number 1 world ranking.
D
Deleted member 3771
Guest
All I'm saying is the huge # of MS and slam finals that Fed and Nadal have made is a large enough number that winning % in big finals can be a very good indicator of a player's worth or greatness. And this also takes some of the bias of Nadals injuries out of it since he has only been injury-free in 5 of the last 13 slams.
Federer:
Grand Slam Finals 16 6 73%
Nadal:
Grand Slam Finals 7 2 78%
Federer:
ATP Masters 1000 16 10 62%
Nadal:
ATP Masters 1000 18 6 75%
abmk
Bionic Poster
federer played 252 matches from 1998 to 2002
nadal played 74 matches from 2001-2004
BIG difference
excluding those
federer has a win % of 87.8
nadal has a win % of 85.53
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
