Prime Federer vs Prime Nadal

[piece]

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.

Federer's w/l% from 2003-2009 (inclusive) is 87.26% I believe. Anyone know what Nadal's is?
Also Nadal had played fewer matches in his first yaers on tour if I remember correctly. And he certainly bloomed more in 2005 than Federer in 2003, IMO, so on top of winning a slam after one less year on tour, and after playing many less matches, he had a more impressive breakout year. So he was an earlier bloomer even in that sense.

EDIT: I see abmk has supplied the stats.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

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

This suggests that Nadal has more natural talent and a higher tennis IQ. Fed needed almost 200 extra matches than Nadal to develop, tennis skills came a lot quicker and more naturally for Nadal.

 

[piece]

This suggests that Nadal has more natural talent and a higher tennis IQ. Fed needed almost 200 extra matches than Nadal to develop, tennis skills came a lot quicker and more naturally for Nadal.

Or perhaps he had less options so could pursue tennis with more of a one-track-mind rather than Federer's "ahh what shot should I hit now?! i have so many options!" mentality.

I believe people of note were saying Federer was one of the most naturally gifted players they had ever seen when he was around 18 or so, so I'm not sure you could call Nadal the more talented player. What you could say, perhaps, is that playing at a consistently high level came easier to Nadal than to Federer.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

Or perhaps he had less options so could pursue tennis with more of a one-track-mind rather than Federer's "ahh what shot should I hit now?! i have so many options!" mentality.

I believe people of note were saying Federer was one of the most naturally gifted players they had ever seen when he was around 18 or so, so I'm not sure you could call Nadal the more talented player. What you could say, perhaps, is that playing at a consistently high level came easier to Nadal than to Federer.

Fed's tennis IQ and smarts must have severely lagged his shot making talent if he took 200 extra matches to develop compared to Nadal. Nadal had the natural smarts to begin with, and still has that inherent tennis IQ advantage over Fed. Being a lefty may have helped him be an inherently smarter player due to being more right brain dominant while playing tennis.

 

[piece]

Fed's tennis IQ and smarts must have severely lagged his shot making talent if he took 200 extra matches to develop compared to Nadal. Nadal had the natural smarts to begin with, and still has that inherent tennis IQ advantage over Fed. Being a lefty may have helped him be an inherently smarter player due to being more right brain dominant while playing tennis.

I think that's probably spot on.

 

[The Baseline]

I think that's probably spot on.

I disagree with passion. Federer is highly intelligent and anticipates the shot better than any player maybe to play the game. Federer is probally the smartest player on tour because shotmaking and inelligence go hand in hand. To be honest federer thrives on his shot selection to create his shot making. Ive never seen a player who made the game look soo effortless, thats an attribute to Federers wisdom of the game.

 

[piece]

I disagree with passion. Federer is highly intelligent and anticipates the shot better than any player maybe to play the game. Federer is probally the smartest player on tour because shotmaking and inelligence go hand in hand. To be honest federer thrives on his shot selection to create his shot making. Ive never seen a player who made the game look soo effortless, thats an attribute to Federers wisdom of the game.

I don't disagree with anything you've just said. All I was assenting to was the bolded part of TheNatural's post. I think Federer's tennis smarts lagged behind his shotmaking ability in his early years on tour. Not that they do now, or did in his prime (although it's hard for any part of his game to be on par with his shotmaking)

 

[Benhur]

federer played 252 matches from 1998 to 2002

nadal played 74 matches from 2001-2004

BIG difference

What matches do you count? The ATP lists 160 matches for Nadal in that period, and some 275 for Federer. I imagine all of these enter into their respective total W/L record, don´t they?

 

[abmk]

What matches do you count? The ATP lists 160 matches for Nadal in that period, and some 275 for Federer. I imagine all of these enter into their respective total W/L record, don´t they?

no, the listings include ITF futures and challenger events .

I gave the official ATP matches stats ...the ones which enter their W/L record

 

[thejoe]

Fed's tennis IQ and smarts must have severely lagged his shot making talent if he took 200 extra matches to develop compared to Nadal. Nadal had the natural smarts to begin with, and still has that inherent tennis IQ advantage over Fed. Being a lefty may have helped him be an inherently smarter player due to being more right brain dominant while playing tennis.

Hey, when you've got infinitely more options on court, your game's going to take longer to develop. Simple.

 

[Berundi]

When you win a slam and continue to dominate that slam, you are in your prime. Nadal won FO in 2005 and his prime started then. Federer's prime started in 2003. From 2005 to 2007 both Federer and Nadal have been in their prime. In those prime years, Federer won 8 slams and Nadal won 3 slams. Therefore Federer is the better player when BOTH are in their primes. After 2007 Federer was not in his prime, but Nadal still is. Since then both have won 4 slams.

When speaking about 'betterness', fitness in staying healthy is a direct component of how good you are, because less skilled players have to put in much more intensity and effort and therefore get injured more often. This too means Federer is a better player since he gets injured much less overall.

 

[big bang]

well didnt we allready see the result of that? FO 08 No wait Rafa Improved since didnt he?

Millenium post, thought I needed a good one

 

[mandy01]

When speaking about 'betterness', fitness in staying healthy is a direct component of how good you are, because less skilled players have to put in much more intensity and effort and therefore get injured more often. This too means Federer is a better player since he gets injured much less overall.

Fitness is definitely a part of the game and shouldn't be underestimated.I'm amused when people come up with this "Oh if Nadal wasn't injured he'd have X/Y/Z slams by now" argument .What amuses me even more is that Nadal is supposed to have some kind of injury everytime he ends up losing in a slam.We can never know how much he could,would,should've won.What we DO KNOW is that Roger held his end of the bargain and won.Of course if people want to give Nadal brownie points for imaginery major victories what can we do..it's their choice I guess.

 

[big bang]

When you win a slam and continue to dominate that slam, you are in your prime. Nadal won FO in 2005 and his prime started then. Federer's prime started in 2003. From 2005 to 2007 both Federer and Nadal have been in their prime. In those prime years, Federer won 8 slams and Nadal won 3 slams. Therefore Federer is the better player when BOTH are in their primes. After 2007 Federer was not in his prime, but Nadal still is. Since then both have won 4 slams.

When speaking about 'betterness', fitness in staying healthy is a direct component of how good you are, because less skilled players have to put in much more intensity and effort and therefore get injured more often. This too means Federer is a better player since he gets injured much less overall.

what if Nadal wins 8-10 slams within the next 3 years, would you still say his prime started in 05 then?

 

[Berundi]

what if Nadal wins 8-10 slams within the next 3 years, would you still say his prime started in 05 then?

If Nadal wins 8-10 slams in the next 3 years then he's as good or better than Federer (assuming Roger doesn't win anymore). But yes his prime still started in 2005, just like 2003 for Roger.

 

[big bang]

If Nadal wins 8-10 slams in the next 3 years then he's as good or better than Federer (assuming Roger doesn't win anymore). But yes his prime still started in 2005, just like 2003 for Roger.

ok I can see what you mean by that, but he wasnt at his peak level, thats what I meant

 

[Berundi]

ok I can see what you mean by that, but he wasnt at his peak level, thats what I meant

Peak level is a very ambiguous term. Peak can change from match to match. Look at how *********s claim that whenever Rafa doesn't win a match or a point for that matter, he isn't playing well, i.e. not at peak level.

 

[big bang]

Peak level is a very ambiguous term. Peak can change from match to match. Look at how *********s claim that whenever Rafa doesn't win a match or a point for that matter, he isn't playing well, i.e. not at peak level.

agreed, but right now most ppl think that 08-beginning of 09 was Rafas peak, but then again this year he had the best CC season ever..

 

[BounceHitBounceHit]

When Federer was in his prime Nadal was still winning on clay, but he wasn't at his best yet on grass (Wimbledon 06.) Not to mention hardcourt.

Assuming both their primes are past them (almost definitely true in the case of Federer, and potentially true for Nadal, although that's more arguable,) if they could be pitched against each other at both of their primes, what would you expect to have taken place?

I see Nadal taking clay clearly (undeniable,) Roger with a slight edge on grass, and a more marked advantage on hardcourt. All in all a very tight contest.

Both great champions. Would have been very entertaining to watch. I think it's part of what made the Borg vs. Mac rivalry so good. They were BOTH 'peaking' at the same time. I give Clay to Nadal (clearly) and the rest to Fed, owing to his greater variety. But you have to love Nad's competitive fire! BHBH

 

[Berundi]

agreed, but right now most ppl think that 08-beginning of 09 was Rafas peak, but then again this year he had the best CC season ever..

Correction: *********s.

 

[big bang]

Correction: *********s.

not only, many ppl does.. but ok he won 3 slams in that period, quite an achievement.

 

[Berundi]

not only, many ppl does.. but ok he won 3 slams in that period, quite an achievement.

*******s can argue that in the period Nadal won 3 slams, Federer had the effects of mono affecting his game. How else could a one-slam wonder like Djokovic beat him and win nothing since?

 

[big bang]

*******s can argue that in the period Nadal won 3 slams, Federer had the effects of mono affecting his game. How else could a one-slam wonder like Djokovic beat him and win nothing since?

ppl can make arguments about anything they wish to, maybe Fed had mono, but maybe djoker would have won anyway? Fed was healthy enough to reach the final. even if he was weakened by mono at AO, he had nearly 5 months to get well before FO started, and again he was fit enough to reach the final! generally I dont buy any of the "****s" excuses, If a player is injured or ill, then he wont compete.. like Nadal 09 when he pulled out of wimby, I truly believe he was injured at the given time.

 

[Berundi]

ppl can make arguments about anything they wish to, maybe Fed had mono, but maybe djoker would have won anyway? Fed was healthy enough to reach the final. even if he was weakened by mono at AO, he had nearly 5 months to get well before FO started, and again he was fit enough to reach the final! generally I dont buy any of the "****s" excuses, If a player is injured or ill, then he wont compete.. like Nadal 09 when he pulled out of wimby, I truly believe he was injured at the given time.

I agree except for the Djoker winning it anyways. If this were true, the up and coming Djoker would have at least won something in the 10 slams that followed. That he can't do it now even against an aging Federer is pretty good proof that AO08 was a fluke.

 

[viduka0101]

I agree except for the Djoker winning it anyways. If this were true, the up and coming Djoker would have at least won something in the 10 slams that followed. That he can't do it now even against an aging Federer is pretty good proof that AO08 was a fluke.

no it isn't
...

 

[Berundi]

no it isn't
...

Yes it is...

 

[viduka0101]

Yes it is...

na uh!

............

 

[Berundi]

na uh!

............

yeah huh....

 

[viduka0101]

yeah huh....

na uh time one million

 

[Berundi]

na uh time one million

Anything you post from this point on........PLUS ONE.

 

[big bang]

I agree except for the Djoker winning it anyways. If this were true, the up and coming Djoker would have at least won something in the 10 slams that followed. That he can't do it now even against an aging Federer is pretty good proof that AO08 was a fluke.

i think djoker was a better player back in 08, after he signed with head and started to make silly changes on his serve with Todd Martin it went downhill for him. he seems less motivated nowadays..

 

[viduka0101]

Anything you post from this point on........PLUS ONE.

oh yeah well you're a poopy head

...

...

damn it

 

[Berundi]

oh yeah well you're a poopy head

...

...

damn it

= you're more of a poopy head )

 

[viduka0101]

= you're more of a poopy head )

OK I give up
stinky breath

 

[Berundi]

OK I give up
beautiful breath

Woww, a TW forum first! :shock:

 

[Benhur]

When you win a slam and continue to dominate that slam, you are in your prime. Nadal won FO in 2005 and his prime started then. Federer's prime started in 2003. From 2005 to 2007 both Federer and Nadal have been in their prime. In those prime years, Federer won 8 slams and Nadal won 3 slams. Therefore Federer is the better player when BOTH are in their primes. After 2007 Federer was not in his prime, but Nadal still is. Since then both have won 4 slams.

These definitions are very confusing.

Nadal winning 1 slam per year from 2005 through the present (2 in 2008 ) causes him to be in his prime from 2005 to the present. And at the same time, Federer winning 4 slams over the last 2 years (starting with the USO 2008 ) causes him to be no longer in his prime starting in 2008.

Whatever.

Priminess seems like a very malleable trait. Now you see it, now you don.t.

It´s also rather comical that, according to this wisdom, Nadal´s prime is already 1 year longer than Federer´s, though he is 24 and Fed is 29.

 

[davey25]

Even if Federer's prime lasted from 2004-2007 and Nadal's only starting in 2008 until today Nadal is still likely to end up with a longer prime than Federer considering he only has to be in his prime until 2012 for that to happen.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

On clay, Prime Rafa

On grass, Prime Roger

On hard, Prime Roger

 

[msc886]

Yes it is...

No Djokovic played the match of his life in that semifinal.

 

[Berundi]

No Djokovic played the match of his life in that semifinal.

Oh so only one match of his life in his young and up and coming arsenal. How perplexing.

 

[dh003i]

Even if Federer's prime lasted from 2004-2007 and Nadal's only starting in 2008 until today Nadal is still likely to end up with a longer prime than Federer considering he only has to be in his prime until 2012 for that to happen.

How about something more objective, like number of years between first and last GS? (although this isn't perfect, as didn't Sampras have years where he didn't win a slam within that period?)

Federer: 2003 - 2010, so far (7 years)
Nadal: 2005 - 2010, so far (5 years)

Nadal needs to win slams for another 2 years just to catch up. Its certainly doable. However, I don't think Federer is done winning slams as of 2010; depending on how he does at Wimbledon and the USO, he may even have 2-slam years left in him. But he can stick around for a number of years winning 1 slams.

Nadal's big problem is going to be longevity, because it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect him to be done with his slam-winning years after a couple more years, given his recurring injuries.