I enjoy your critiques on facts, reasoning, etc., very helpful. But I know how to copy edit. I was a journalist and editor for 10 years, and for the last 22 years a lawyer writing briefs to Courts. This forum is supposed to be recreation, and I don’t care if I misspell Stuttgart or make a typo on abbreviation of Tennis Champions Classic. You can spare yourself the trouble of pointing out typos and the like.
You either have a short memory, or you are splitting hairs, and the latter would be consistent with your style. Carlo Giovanni Colussi did not say “all”, but he did say virtually all, and this is an important example of his again being simply wrong. Mr. Colussi said, on May 7:
“Only on fast indoor courts, peak Nadal was less good than peak Federer.
In other words
peak Nadal is better than peak Federer on most surfaces.”
Now, about how many tournaments have either of them even played on fast indoor courts? Does Federer generally play more than three tournaments a year on indoor courts? He said all surfaces except fast indoor. That is essentially saying “all”. You get mired in what we call tecnisimos
, which does not translate well as technicalities – at least as used in Mexico City it is much more like “minutia” or even smaller. I did not use the word “all” in my direct response to his Federer-Nadal comments, and if I used the word “all” in a later post, then, okay, I’ll say “virtually all”, or "all" except the surface the players almost never play on.
Carlo Giovanni Colussi’s entire post of May 7 on the subject is quoted immediately below and it can be found on page 33 of this thread. My response to him was posted on May 16 and is on page 37 I believe, and your related comment was posted the same day, same page. My response politely showed that he had no basis and no business for his assertion that Nadal is/was superior on all surfaces except “fast indoor.”
To the extent that tennis analysis should ever deserve to be called “brilliant”, some of Mr. Colussi’s pieces can be called that, and I used that word in my response. He can also be reckless. The notion that Rosewall was 10-6 against Laver in their 16 most important matches was most reckless. Everybody who reads these posts for fun can decide Federer-Nadal for themselves. Not all the readers are such nerds that they are steeped in the details of the Laver-Rosewall rivalry, and some may actually believe his misleading figures.
Here is a copy of his complete post, which I think you can find on p. 33 of this thread.
Carlo Giovanni Colussi
, May 7, 2017
And Federer superior to Nadal ? This is also very debatable.
Federer is superior to Nadal
a) in the number of Slam tournaments won,
b) in the number of “Masters Cup” won,
c) on true fast (indoor) courts
On all the other points, Nadal is better than Federer.
Peak Nadal is clearly better than peak Federer on clay.
Peak Nadal is better than peak Fed on slow outdoor hardcourts
as almost all their Australian Open
(usually slow courts in the 2000’s and early 2010’s but fast courts since 2016 and especially 2017)
and Indian Wells
(not always but usually slow courts in California)
results had shown :
on slow outdoor hardcourts Nadal had lost only twice to Federer both at Indian Wells, in 2012 when the Spanish was slightly injured and in 2017 when Nadal played badly (but apparently Federer played even better than at the 2017 AO final).
peak Nadal has been better than peak Federer on fast outdoor hardcourts.
But I have to recognize that
it is likely that
“Federer early 2017” is on fast (and perhaps even slow)
hard courts better than peak Nadal (early 2009 / 2010 / 2013)
I still do not claim “surely” but “likely”
because “Nadal early 2017” is not as good as he was in 2009 (before his injury) or 2010 or 2013.
Nadal is not anymore as fast as he was in his young years
and besides in his three matches against Federer in 2017, the Spaniard has played too often Federer’s forehand including on the serve which he didn’t do in previous years (in some ancient matches Nadal had fully served to Fed’s backhand).
On the contrary “Federer early 2017” is better than he ever was on hard court surfaces.
Peak Nadal is better than peak Federer on XXIth Wimbledon slow grass.
Only on fast indoor courts, peak Nadal was less good than peak Federer.
In other words
peak Nadal is better than peak Federer on most surfaces.
Nadal has a much better record in Davis Cup,
Nadal has a much better record in Olympic Games singles event,
Nadal has a much better record in “Masters 1000”.
On August 19, 2013, Nadal had a positive head-to-head record against every other Top30 player in the world.
Since that date the Top30 list has changed
but it is very likely that Nadal has still a positive record today against everyone except of course Djokovic
(and perhaps a new rising player)
who leads Nadal in head-to-head confrontations since their 2016 Doha final on Saturday, January 9th.
It just shows how Nadal has been a dominant player
(before his recent years decline)
Federer at the same age
(27 years 2 months 16 days)
had not such a positive record
(in particular he was already dominated by Nadal in head-to-head record).
When Nadal was at his top he was superior to any player except Djokovic when the latter was on “stratospheric” heights
while Federer had and still has enormous problems to say the least when he met (meets) Nadal
or when he faces Murray when the Scots is in form
(though the Swiss has won their last 5 matches to lead 14-11 up to April 2017).
Federer is possibly the only player in tennis history who, as a world #1 was dominated during his reign by the supposed world #2, then Nadal.