Rafael Nadal vs Fedovic - Hard Court Comparison
- Thread starter tennisaddict
- Start date
True Fanerer
G.O.A.T.
Top 5 worst posts ever.
robthai
Hall of Fame
same poster claims that "Nadal 2007 was nowhere near Nadal 2010". Yet Federer stayed the same level since 2006.
True Fanerer
G.O.A.T.
He also claimed Federer was born in 1983 and argued the fact after it was pointed out smh
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
I would say Sampras is in that argument for greatest big match player, but of the current era, yes, Nadal is greatest big match player.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
He also claimed Federer was born in 1983 and argued the fact after it was pointed out smh
Really? Lol
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
You have made some excellent posts. I would add one other player. First, Laver for sure, who was unable to win HC slams but who was very VERY good on HCs and who was best on all fast surfaces. Great record on carpet.
https://www.atptour.com/en/players/rod-laver/l058/titles-and-finals
I would also want to take a careful look at Newcombe and Ashe, both of whom were very good on both hard and carpet. And Connors for sure.
I'm not trying to take anything away from Nadal, who I think is in every way an amazing ATG who belong right at the top of the list in overall accomplishments, but I just can't accept him as belonging quite so high up on the list of great fast court players. He's had the benefit of an era where HC is so dominant, and I often cringe at the way he plays on it. I can't see success coming from his style in previous eras. The other top guys are so much more flexible in their tactics and approach to the surface.
I've already laid out my arguments.
Clay is the dominant surface in Europe and South America. It is also the second most popular surface.
Hard is the most played surface due to current costs. It hardly existed when Borg Connors etc. played. It is also the a difficult surface for body.
There is no such thing like bread and butter surface for tennis. All depends upon your personal preference. If anything, grass is a specialist surface where you need a big serve to dominate.
The hard court you see now is like "clay" when compared with Sampras era. Slow. So your bread and butter surface of 90s is not the same as now.
So Federer was making up when he said he was better in 2017 than any time in his career? thats 4 years on from 2013
I think this year AO final confirms what you are saying. I think on fast hard the very best would expose Nadal.
RaulRamirez
Legend
This discussion seems to have gone from Rafa on hard court, to fast courts, and sometimes including grass.
I've already weighed in, but I popped by to further say that the true greats did (and would) find a way to be great in any era under all circumstances. For examples, Borg should not have been able to dominate Wimbledon as he did, and Rafa should not have been able to reach five finals in a 6-year period there (playing only five) and winning two.
By the "true greats", obviously Rafa more than qualifies;. I'm thinking of perhaps 10 in the last 50 years.
I've already weighed in, but I popped by to further say that the true greats did (and would) find a way to be great in any era under all circumstances. For examples, Borg should not have been able to dominate Wimbledon as he did, and Rafa should not have been able to reach five finals in a 6-year period there (playing only five) and winning two.
By the "true greats", obviously Rafa more than qualifies;. I'm thinking of perhaps 10 in the last 50 years.
Towser83
G.O.A.T.
Nadal struggled in 2015 but then so did Fed in on 2013 and Nole in 2010, so if they count 2015 has to as well. In terms of the clay h2h between Nole and Rafa, Djokovic also struggled in 2017/2018 and even 2012.
He has lost most of the big matches on clay since Nadal is 6-1 at RG and since 2011 even it's 3-1, but then again Nadal only has 2 wins over Djokovic at HC slams, should Djokovic beat Nadal at this year's RG he will have as many wins at RG vs Nadal as Nadal has vs Nole at HC slams and Nole could lead the HC h2h by more than Nadal leads the clay H2H. That would be pretty astonishing
Nadal on indoor hard is abysmal (for the standards of a GOAT candidate). Easily his worst surface/set of conditions. Fed on clay is a god compared to Nadal on indoor hard.
Cabeza del Demonio
Professional
Sampras didn't have to face anyone of Federer or Djokovic's caliber. He was a giant on the big stages, but Nadal is a giant on the big stages against players better than him (Federer and Djokovic often outplay him but still lose).
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Like I said, there is an argument.
Cabeza del Demonio
Professional
Yes. Pete Sampras was an absolute machine. No histrionics, no crowd-pleaser antics, no nonsense, just pure top-quality efficient tennis. Now that is a champion.
Sputnik Bulgorov
Professional
I removed the other members of the big 3 from their respective records. This means that Nadal's HC record lacks matches vs Federer and Djokovic, Djokovic's clay record lacks matches vs Nadal and Federer and so on.
Vs Top 10
Nadal on hard: 65-66 (49.6%)
Djokovic on clay: 36-28 (56.3%)
Federer on clay: 32-27 (54.2%)
Vs Top 5
Nadal on hard: 25-39 (39.1%)
Djokovic on clay: 19-21 (47.5%)
Federer on clay: 18-19 (48.6%)
Sorry it's difficult to dig up the numbers since I would have to look at their rankings in each of their individual h2hs. Not sure if @Lew II would have a better way. I would imagine the stats would favor Fed and Djokovic even more since we remove the lopsided clay h2h, especially for Fed. Nadal gets his lopsided HC h2h with Djokovic removed, but his HC h2h with Fed is pretty good, so it won't help him as much.
Pete Player
Hall of Fame
Truly amazing is, that Nadal and Federer never clashed in USO.
——————————
No more on pain meds - all contributed matter and anti-matter are still subject to disclaimer
——————————
No more on pain meds - all contributed matter and anti-matter are still subject to disclaimer
Sputnik Bulgorov
Professional
I highlight it (and ignore his obviously stratospheric clay stats) because the thread specifically zones in on Rafa's hard court performance. Someone else I think wanted to compare Rafa's record on his weakest surface to Federer and Djokovic's records on their weakest surface. It's certainly a triumph on Rafa's part that he's top 10 all time on HC despite his struggles vs the field. His peak level is certainly top 5 all time, even if it's seldom.
As for the slams, while Rafa has the better win %, it's all brought up by the FO. Federer and Djokovic are better in 3/4 slams. This is not to discount the FO, I would just imagine that the player with the best overall slam win% would be close to the best in all slams.
Sputnik Bulgorov
Professional
I always appreciate it when someone can shed some light on the past greats and the tour they played in. I'm too young to give a credible assessment of guys like Laver, Newcombe and Ashe, but from my understanding, HC was nowhere near as prominent during their time as it is now. Laver won his CYGS on 3 grass slams and 1 clay. I see though that he continued to win multiple titles on carpet and hard very deep into his 30's. This makes it difficult to curate a list of the top HC players of all time based solely on slams, and I completely get where you're coming from.
Perhaps I should correct my original statement. Rafa is top 10 since HC became the dominant playing surface. Comparisons beyond that just wouldn't be fair anymore. I agree with your opinions on the way he plays on HC though, especially the way he returns serve. But while it may be unconventional, or seen as better suited to clay, Rafa has made it work and achieved quite a resume for himself. For that, I give him full credit.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
It's complicated. If you read about Gonzalez, who was mostly before my time, you find out that as a touring pro he played on every surface imaginable, which not only included wood and carpet but also anything under the sun because those guys played on ANYTHING to make money. But he grew up playing hard courts in CA, so hard was perhaps his best surface, and he was incredibly on grass because he played like Sampras decades before we saw Sampras - and like JMac. Laver also played on everything, same reason, and if you look at the big WTC tournaments he won, a lot were on HC. HC was big then, just not in majors. The transition to HC happened at the USO during Connors career, so he had to play that on grass, green clay and HC.
I'm not taking credit away from him, but the others probably had stats about at the same level on HC as they did on grass. We can even do that with Laver, because although we don't have return points and all the breakdowns, we know he was very VERY good on HC in comparison to all others in his era. Just as we think of the best grass players as those who not only win a lot of majors but also as the guys who are pretty alpha in their own era, I think we need to do the same thing with other surfaces. Nadal is noticeably weaker than Fed and Djokovic on HC. Fed, by the way, is weak on clay in comparison to HC going on games won and stats. So I would be very reluctant to put Fed or Djokovic way up on the clay list, all time, for similar reasons. Both are near the top on hard. Sampras as Fed near the top on grass, with others. Borg and Nadal at the top on clay, and picking the 10 best there would be a hard thing.
Fedforever
Hall of Fame
I can't see how it's even remotely possible to be honest. I think to even get to the semi-finals/final given the surface and his age is highly unlikely, beating Djoko would be immensely difficult and beating Nadal near impossible. To do all three?? Just can't see it.
Obviously he can't come out and say "I have no chance" but I think this is just a goodbye tour.
It's possibly not relevant but just a little food for thought.
Federer playing 2GS per year on hard + 1GS on grass his other preferred surface 19 titles
Federer playing 6 M1000 per year on hard 21 titles
Federer playing 4 Olympic games (3 on hard, 1 on grass) 1 silver medal(singles), 1 gold medal (doubles)
Federer playing 2GS per year on hard + 1GS on grass his other preferred surface 19 titles
Federer playing 6 M1000 per year on hard 21 titles
Federer playing 4 Olympic games (3 on hard, 1 on grass) 1 silver medal(singles), 1 gold medal (doubles)
Eren
Professional
His Slam final conversion rate is incredible.
Sampras 14/18 = 77.78 %
Borg 11/16 = 68.75%
Nadal 17/25 = 68%
Federer 20/30 = 66.67%
Djokovic 15/24 = 62.5%
Sampras is head and shoulders above anyone else in the modern history of tennis regarding Slam final conversion rate.
Federer, Nadal and especially Djokovic look average in that regard.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Sampras never made a slam final on his worst surface tbf.
Eren
Professional
Yes, this is true.
Correcting for that will give something like this.
Worst Slam for Nadal is the AO, RG for Fed, RG for Djokovic, UO for Borg:
Borg 11/12 = 91.67%
Sampras 14/18 = 77.78%
Nadal 16/20 = 80%
Federer 19/25 = 76%
Djokovic 14/20 = 70%
Borg jumps to be the undoubted number one.
Last edited:
You have to count AO the worst slam for Borg.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Yeah Sampras' record there is crazy however you look at it.
Eren
Professional
Yes, but I meant the worst record in Slam finals at one particular event (i.e. which event decreases their Slam Final conversion rate the most). The AO does not affect Borg's Slam final conversion record at all. The UO (0/4) does that very much.
NatF
Bionic Poster
I think for Borg it doesn't really work as you're counting basically just his best two slams - if you did that for the others then Nadal/Djokovic leap up.
Im(moral) Winner
G.O.A.T.
RAFA and Fraud should be 16/20 and 19/25 if you remove their worst surfaces.
Of course Fraud was 14/15 at one point outshining PETE and Borg
Eren
Professional
You're right, dumb of me. I'll correct it. Somehow I subtracted the RU from the finals. Djoke would be 14/20 too.
Only Djokovic remains far behind in this scenario.
Last edited:
Im(moral) Winner
G.O.A.T.
Djoker is 14/21. He only lost 3 finals at the FO. 2013 was a SF.
Eren
Professional
Djoker is 14/21. He only lost 3 finals at the FO. 2013 was a SF.
15-9 now right? 15/24
Hypothetical scenario
14-6 right? So 14/20???
GabeT
G.O.A.T.
Not only in Europe. in South America it is far and away the most important surface, more so than hard.I’m a big Federer fan and obviously don’t like Nadal’s clay domination that much, but this is just completely untrue. In Europe clay is the absolutely dominating surface, at least in Spain, France, Germany and Italy. It is almost the only available outdoor surface at tennis clubs here in Germany (and I don’t think it is different in the other countries I mentioned). The only hardcourts here are at camping grounds or other holiday destinations where everyone is allowed to play and nothing should be destroyed by idiots.
So tennis literally is clay here and we talk about how the winter indoor play changes the dynamics of the “normal” sport.
It is grass that is a specialist surface today. That wasn’t always true but it’s how it is today.
Eren
Professional
He participated only once at the AO though.
NatF
Bionic Poster
He never made a final at the AO so it doesn't affect his percentage.
The AO was of course not a top event in Borg's day so I never count his performance (or lack of one) there against him - it's also why his slam count of 11 is a bit misleading, but let's not go the other way. I think it makes sense to compare three slams to three slams.
Yeah, crazy to think he won his 11th major a day after turning 25 and he only competed in three a year. Not sure we'll ever see another player put up some of the numbers Borg did.
FatFedererFanTurnsSlim
Semi-Pro
I dunno. Federer has had a better or equal record at every step of no of slam finals played.
After 15 slam finals
Federer 12-3
Nadal 10-5
After 20 slam finals
Federer 15-5
Nadal 14-6
After 25 slam finals
Federer 17-8
Nadal 17-8
You can stop at any level 16 finals, 17 finals, etc etc, Federer is betterer or equaler.
All this despite Nadal getting 3 freakiest of freak draws to win all his US Opens & virtual byes in Paree. He'd probably win 11 Parees even if it were the 90s if we're being honest though.
As he's gotten older, Federer's "clutchness" has certainly dropped but he was a terrific big match player in his halcyon days. At one stage his slam SF record was 22-3 & the 3 losses were to Safin (yes that match), Nadal (FO 05) & Djokovic (AO 08). After 30 slam SFs, Federer was 23-7 to Rafa's 25-5 but Federer's came between 2003-11, Rafa's has spanned his entire career so far. Which gives credence to the theory that even a below average Federer continues to reach the business end of slams whereas (outside clay) Rafa needs to be playing at a very high level.
Federer has made more slam SFs in his 30s (14) than Rafa (13) (age 25-32) in the same time period. He's bound to lose a few to younger ones.
Sampras truly is a big match player. So much so that I feel he would have surely won RG had he somehow made a final. I read somewhere that he was broken just 4 times out of 131 service games in his 7 WIM finals. For comparison, Federer, no serving slouch himself, was broken at least 5 times just by barely above average returner Roddick in Centre Court. Probably the GOAT in that department mefinks. I shudder to think how much better he would've been had he not suffered from mild anaemia throughout his career.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Only satan would say otherwise.
Similar threads
- Poll
