Roger Federer: Why His Grand Slam Record Will Stand Forever

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
1. Clay
2. Clay
3. Clay
4. Mostly FO
5. Was lucky because olympics fell on the same year
6. Basically counted the same thing, doulbes doesn't count when talking about singles
7. Youngest doesn't matter, only winning titles matters. Age is irrelevant
8. Double counting.
9. Clay
10. Again, doubles
11. Clay
12. Clay
13. Clay
14. Clay
15. Clay
16. Clay.

According to @clayqueen logic, Nadal is only good on clay. Fortunately, this is far from the truth. Kind of sad to see this user exposed so hard. Hope he/she can evict Federer from his/her head very soon. He isn't even paying rent.
So why has no one else done it on hard where they have far more opportunities as the majority of tournaments are on hard court?
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
1. Clay
2. Clay
3. Clay
4. Mostly FO
5. Was lucky because olympics fell on the same year
6. Basically counted the same thing, doulbes doesn't count when talking about singles
7. Youngest doesn't matter, only winning titles matters. Age is irrelevant
8. Double counting.
9. Clay
10. Again, doubles
11. Clay
12. Clay
13. Clay
14. Clay
15. Clay
16. Clay.

According to @clayqueen logic, Nadal is only good on clay. Fortunately, this is far from the truth. Kind of sad to see this user exposed so hard. Hope he/she can evict Federer from his/her head very soon. He isn't even paying rent.
Tennis at the 2008 Summer Olympics ( Hard court)


Players who won both the US Open Series and the US Open in the same year, receiving $1 million bonus prize money
Men: Roger Federer (2007) & Rafael Nadal (2013).


Nadal has the 2nd most USO titles, holding 4 of them, just one behind Sampras & Federer who are tied with 5.



Why Nadal Is Even Better On Hard Courts Than You Think

World No. 2 Rafael Nadal has long been lauded for his clay success. But not only has the Spaniard compiled one of the best hard-court records in history; the lefty is performing significantly better than his career average.

According to the ATP Performance Zone, Nadal leads the ATP Tour over the past 52 weeks with a 90.5 winning percentage on hard courts. That puts him well ahead of World No. 1 Novak Djokovic (86%), Roger Federer (81.1%), Daniil Medvedev (75.5%) and Andrey Rublev (75.4%).

View ATP Performance Zone

Hard-Court Winning Percentage — Past 52 Weeks


PlayerWinning Percentage
1. Rafael Nadal90.5%
2. Novak Djokovic86%
3. Roger Federer81.1%
4. Daniil Medvedev75.5%
5. Andrey Rublev75.4%
Nadal has won 38 of his 42 hard-court matches over the past year. Not only is he winning at a high rate, but he's doing so against highly-ranked players. The 33-year-old has earned 11 of those 38 victories against Top 20 opponents, with seven of those triumphs coming in straight sets. The lowest-ranked opponent Nadal has lost to on hard courts since the start of the 2019 BNP Paribas Open was then-World No. 11 David Goffin at this year’s ATP Cup.

The Mallorcan’s efforts on the surface might always be compared to his spectacular efforts on clay, on which he has a career winning percentage of 91.8 per cent, but his career numbers stack up well in the history books. Nadal currently ranks 11th in career winning percentage on hard courts at 78.1 per cent, ahead of former World No. 1s Boris Becker, Bjorn Borg, Jim Courier, Mats Wilander and more.

.
 
Last edited:

blablavla

Hall of Fame
This is a good example of how a player should behave if they have an issue with an umpire not attack the umpire with obscene language. Rafa followed the correct procedure by reporting Carlos to the ATP and asked for Carlos not to call his matches for a while. The ATP investigated the complaint, found in Rafa's favour and banned Carlos from his matches for 10 months. Exemplary conduct by Rafa.
How many other players get such rulings in their favor? If they are not named Nadal or Williams?
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
'Your guy has done it too, only more transparently, much less frequently and less egregiously, and usually with more considerate timing.'

A truly stalwart bastion.
I like to deal with facts. Facts are stubborn things because whatever our wishes, inclinations, or passion might be, they cannot alter the facts and evidence. I don't insult people in making my case, I just stick to the facts. That's why I always find evidence to back up what I'm stating as facts.
 

marc45

G.O.A.T.
Last edited:

blablavla

Hall of Fame
Are you ashamed of Federer's records?
that's a huge twist.
could you please explain step by step how did you get there?

P.S.
I admire not only Fed achievements, but as well Novak and Rafa. And achievements of many other tennis players in particular and athletes in general.
I think they are all great athletes and it's a pity that some fanbois / fangirls are inundating such forums with endless GOAT debates and arguing "my boi vs your boi" which doesn't do anything positive neither to the sport, nor to the some of the greatest athletes
 
I like to deal with facts. Facts are stubborn things because whatever our wishes, inclinations, or passion might be, they cannot alter the facts and evidence. I don't insult people in making my case, I just stick to the facts. That's why I always find evidence to back up what I'm stating as facts.
I refer you to my cold reading analogy. There are facts that pertain to Nadal taking more MTOs, at 5-2 in a set, being supposedly injured then running unimpaired, etc. But your cutoff for suitable evidence is hard enough for his antics to be infalsifiable by your own interpretation. Nadal could literally tell you he had nefarious intentions, you'd still get away with saying there's no hard evidence. There's nothing to get him banged up over, but one's own judgement can still be made. Who the hell would even bother trying to convince you anyway? You probably don't even believe he time-wastes.
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
that's a huge twist.
could you please explain step by step how did you get there?

P.S.
I admire not only Fed achievements, but as well Novak and Rafa. And achievements of many other tennis players in particular and athletes in general.
I think they are all great athletes and it's a pity that some fanbois / fangirls are inundating such forums with endless GOAT debates and arguing "my boi vs your boi" which doesn't do anything positive neither to the sport, nor to the some of the greatest athletes
Coming from a Fedfan.
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
I refer you to my cold reading analogy. There are facts that pertain to Nadal taking more MTOs, at 5-2 in a set, being supposedly injured then running unimpaired, etc. But your cutoff for suitable evidence is hard enough for his antics to be infalsifiable by your own interpretation. Nadal could literally tell you he had nefarious intentions, you'd still get away with saying there's no hard evidence. There's nothing to get him banged up over, but one's own judgement can still be made. Who the hell would even bother trying to convince you anyway? You probably don't even believe he time-wastes.
This is not fact it's an opinion. You cannot prove that Rafa has ever taken an MTO when he didn't need it.
MTOs are not against the rules. It's taking them, when you are not hurt or need them, for strategic reasons that's wrong.
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
Because Nadal couldn't achieve them I guess? Too busy losing in the 1st RD of Wimbledon to a journeyman I suppose.
I will let Federer claim to be the King of not quite making the grade. Rafa has won more titles per tournament played than Federer because Fedr makes just the terrible trio of QF, SF and F so often. I'll take that.
 
This is not fact it's an opinion. You cannot prove that Rafa has ever taken an MTO when he didn't need it.
MTOs are not against the rules. It's taking them, when you are not hurt or need them, for strategic reasons that's wrong.
They ARE facts. He has taken more MTOs. He has taken an MTO at 5-2 in a set. He has claimed an injury before and then run with very similar speeds and gait (visual inference notwithstanding). The interpretation of these facts as him using extensive gamesmanship is what is my opinion. I don't need to prove it with hard evidence to at least use my judgement - just like I wouldn't need to prove that my next door neighbour doesn't have a diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in his back garden to judge the potential accuracy of his claims to the contrary.
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
They ARE facts. He has taken more MTOs. He has taken an MTO at 5-2 in a set. He has claimed an injury before and then run with very similar speeds and gait (visual inference notwithstanding). The interpretation of these facts as him using extensive gamesmanship is what is my opinion. I don't need to prove it with hard evidence to at least use my judgement - just like I wouldn't need to prove that my next door neighbour doesn't have a diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in his back garden to judge the potential accuracy of his claims to the contrary.
No evidence. Case dismissed.
 
No evidence. Case dismissed.
Fair enough. As long as you maintain Usain Bolt was clean, Richard Gasquet tested positive for coke because he kissed a girl at a party and Michael Schumacher didn't deliberately park his car at Rascasse, by all means stay in your rigid, self-immunized bubble of binary conviction.
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
Fair enough. As long as you maintain Usain Bolt was clean, Richard Gasquet tested positive for coke because he kissed a girl at a party and Michael Schumacher didn't deliberately park his car at Rascasse, by all means stay in your rigid, self-immunized bubble of binary conviction.
Be careful of making defamatory claims against people with no evidence. You have never even been within 200 miles of these people yet you are certain that they have committed offences; in your head.
 
Be careful of making defamatory claims against people with no evidence. You have never even been within 200 miles of these people yet you are certain that they have committed offences; in your head.
It isn't no evidence, it's a judgement call based on evidence that isn't direct proof. I am making claims as to my judgement of behaviour on an anonymous internet sounding board. Certainty doesn't enter into it, other than me certainly not being particularly careful.
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
It isn't no evidence, it's a judgement call based on evidence that isn't direct proof. I am making claims as to my judgement of behaviour on an anonymous internet sounding board. Certainty doesn't enter into it, other than me certainly not being particularly careful.
Complete admission that your accusations against Rafa are not based on facts but on your judgement. Case closed.
 

blablavla

Hall of Fame
This is not fact it's an opinion. You cannot prove that Rafa has ever taken an MTO when he didn't need it.
MTOs are not against the rules. It's taking them, when you are not hurt or need them, for strategic reasons that's wrong.
It was proven many times that Nadal + Djokovic violate rules by taking too much time between serves.
 

blablavla

Hall of Fame
Coming from a Fedfan.
You are confusing me with someone.
I just like to tease kids who believe that being a fanboi / fangirl gives sense to their life.
Unfortunately it happens on this board that most of these kids are Djokovic or Nadal fans.
Which doesn't make me Fed fanboi ;-)
 
Complete admission that your accusations against Rafa are not based on facts but on your judgement*. Case closed.
*Judgement based on facts. Your misuse of terminology is consistently problematic.

In your world, anything short of Nadal saying 'I exaggerated/lied about injuries and took MTOs at times that would cause the most disruption to the rhythm of my opponent' is insufficient to make a judgement call that he likely did just that. It wouldn't take much to pull the wool over your eyes, would it? A player could fake absolutely anything as obviously as they liked; as long as they maintained a veil of sincerity, you'd give them a pass.
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
It was proven many times that Nadal + Djokovic violate rules by taking too much time between serves.
Enforcement of time between points is very subjective even with the on court timer. The enforcement will only be justified when every player gets a time violation warning/penalty every single time they go beyond the stipulated time allowed. Umpires still have the discretion about when they start the clock. Some of them allow time for crowd noise or not settling down and some don't. They still have the discretion to enforce or not to enforce the rule. Just picking on one or two players is not enforcing the rule. If the rule is not enforceable every time it's violated then it's a bad rule. The rule is a joke. A player gets a TV warning, he then takes as long as he likes after that because there is no time limit between the warning and when he actually serves by which time he's taken much much longer than the 25 seconds. There is no time limit for the 2nd serve either. It's just a nonsense.

As for the time allowed, that's just plucked from the air. Players were allowed 25 seconds between points in ATP BO3 tournaments and 20 points in ITF BO5 events. What was the logic in that? Then overnight, they scrapped the 20 seconds and made it 25 seconds to align it with the ATP. Why did the ATP and ITF allow different times between points in the first place?
 

blablavla

Hall of Fame
Enforcement of time between points is very subjective even with the on court timer. The enforcement will only be justified when every player gets a time violation warning/penalty every single time they go beyond the stipulated time allowed. Umpires still have the discretion about when they start the clock. Some of them allow time for crowd noise or not settling down and some don't. They still have the discretion to enforce or not to enforce the rule. Just picking on one or two players is not enforcing the rule. If the rule is not enforceable every time it's violated then it's a bad rule. The rule is a joke. A player gets a TV warning, he then takes as long as he likes after that because there is no time limit between the warning and when he actually serves by which time he's taken much much longer than the 25 seconds. There is no time limit for the 2nd serve either. It's just a nonsense.

As for the time allowed, that's just plucked from the air. Players were allowed 25 seconds between points in ATP BO3 tournaments and 20 points in ITF BO5 events. What was the logic in that? Then overnight, they scrapped the 20 seconds and made it 25 seconds to align it with the ATP. Why did the ATP and ITF allow different times between points in the first place?
that is more blah blah blah blah then I am able to process.

the time rule was in the text book since ever.
given the tiny margins, you probably understand that being within the time or not might make the difference between for example winning 52% of point or 51% of points, and given your affinity to various stats published by ATP you might know what impact this has for ranking and titles.
but sure, go after Fed and keep ignoring the rules violations of your "God"
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
that is more blah blah blah blah then I am able to process.

the time rule was in the text book since ever.
given the tiny margins, you probably understand that being within the time or not might make the difference between for example winning 52% of point or 51% of points, and given your affinity to various stats published by ATP you might know what impact this has for ranking and titles.
but sure, go after Fed and keep ignoring the rules violations of your "God"
This is just pure guesswork. Stick to the facts.
 
Enforcement of time between points is very subjective even with the on court timer. The enforcement will only be justified when every player gets a time violation warning/penalty every single time they go beyond the stipulated time allowed. Umpires still have the discretion about when they start the clock. Some of them allow time for crowd noise or not settling down and some don't. They still have the discretion to enforce or not to enforce the rule. Just picking on one or two players is not enforcing the rule. If the rule is not enforceable every time it's violated then it's a bad rule. The rule is a joke. A player gets a TV warning, he then takes as long as he likes after that because there is no time limit between the warning and when he actually serves by which time he's taken much much longer than the 25 seconds. There is no time limit for the 2nd serve either. It's just a nonsense.

As for the time allowed, that's just plucked from the air. Players were allowed 25 seconds between points in ATP BO3 tournaments and 20 points in ITF BO5 events. What was the logic in that? Then overnight, they scrapped the 20 seconds and made it 25 seconds to align it with the ATP. Why did the ATP and ITF allow different times between points in the first place?
This is the problem when officials and the like let Nadal get away with clear infringements. Suddenly him taking forever at opportune moments (including on his opponent's serve) isn't his fault and now when he does finally get called on it he gets to join you in throwing a hissy fit at the inconsistency (which would be understandable but for it usually being to the extent that the actual infringement is spiritually annulled). I suppose he could always ban the umpire from his matches if they were a little too consistent.

Anyway, what's with the 20 seconds vs 25 seconds stuff? If you were talking in the order of 35 seconds I'd understand. Hell, I've seen Nadal take 25 seconds between 1st and 2nd serves.
 

blablavla

Hall of Fame
This is just pure guesswork. Stick to the facts.
fact is that "Your God" violated the time rule multiple times and even tried to put pressure on the umpire at AO 2020 for enforcing the rules
the video is available in one of previous posts

fact is Nadal received a time violation at AO 2017 vs Dimitrov and the TV even counted average time between point = 27 second for Nadal.

you can see here a whole compilation of Nadal relationships with referees.
it's interesting that it starts with Nadal "happily embracing" a challenge

here is a story about a time violation Nadal received when playing vs Millman at USO 2019

here Nadal got 2 time violations at Wimbledon.

and all of these while just barely scratching the surface on google + youtube.
 

clayqueen

G.O.A.T.
fact is that "Your God" violated the time rule multiple times and even tried to put pressure on the umpire at AO 2020 for enforcing the rules
the video is available in one of previous posts

fact is Nadal received a time violation at AO 2017 vs Dimitrov and the TV even counted average time between point = 27 second for Nadal.

you can see here a whole compilation of Nadal relationships with referees.
it's interesting that it starts with Nadal "happily embracing" a challenge

here is a story about a time violation Nadal received when playing vs Millman at USO 2019

here Nadal got 2 time violations at Wimbledon.

and all of these while just barely scratching the surface on google + youtube.
All videos taken out of context. If he was arguing with the umpire for no reason, he would have got a fine. The fact that he didn't is proof that he wasn't doing anything against the rules. Average time of 27 seconds is pretty spot on.
 
Top