Roger will always have the Nadal blemish on his record

LafayetteHitter

Hall of Fame
Actually what Federer has an 'asterik' next to his name for is having the common sense to play a game that allowed him to continue playing much longer than Nadal. The Nadal fanbois here slammed people that said Nadal would end up plagued with injuries. Hmmm that didn't work out so well for the Nadal lovers.
 

LafayetteHitter

Hall of Fame
And nadal will always have the murray blemish. So The GOAT goes to murray. But wait. Murray gets beat by fed. So it goes back to FED. But then back to Nadal !!

Do you see how stupid this thread is??? Every player has bad H2H matchups.
Just like Nadal has a bad matchup against murray who absolutely dominated him before his knee came into it.

Regardless I think Nadal is "better" than federer. But federer is the better player.

He's a quitter and couldn't handle getting blasted off the court by Murray plain and simple. If it was Federer that had retired the Nadal boyfriend fan club would be yelling and screaming on these forums.
 
Hardly- More like "If Nadals' knees did not give out, do you think he could have won more titles?"

Federer doesn't need to shake anything- He's proven his worth to tennis.

Nadal needs to prove he can make a career out of tennis in the near future.

The fact is that for a period in time Nadal was the better player....thats why rafa was ranked number 1.

Roger may have the better grand slam record but Nadal beat the crap out of Roger.
 
He's a quitter and couldn't handle getting blasted off the court by Murray plain and simple. If it was Federer that had retired the Nadal boyfriend fan club would be yelling and screaming on these forums.

I happen to agree.....I think Nadal quit as well, the same as Sampras quit against Edberg and the same as Federer quit against Delpotro or even how Fed quit against Rafa at the AO.

But I digress.....The fact still remains that for a period of time Rafa was the greatest player the world has ever seen.
 

bruce38

Banned
The fact is that for a period in time Nadal was the better player....thats why rafa was ranked number 1.

Roger may have the better grand slam record but Nadal beat the crap out of Roger.

Nadal was playing like in 2008 yesterday for the first 2 sets. Best he could manage, and Murray still dismantled him. That's pretty sad being beaten so soundly by a non-slam winner. Roger could never claim that.
 

LafayetteHitter

Hall of Fame
Nadal was playing like in 2008 yesterday for the first 2 sets. Best he could manage, and Murray still dismantled him. That's pretty sad being beaten so soundly by a non-slam winner. Roger could never claim that.

His style of play is what is causing all these problems which in ends up making his style of play 'not the best'. It was hilarious watching the match on my DVR knowing the results and listening to Pmac talking up Rafa like he is the best player in the world only to have him eat those words. Pmac is just pitiful.
 

Mustard

Bionic Poster
Nadal winning AO2009 was a continuation of his 2008. Nadal said he played as well as he did in AO09. His own words.

I agree, but have I travelled back in time 1 year? We're at the 2010 Australian Open now. Nadal has not played to 2008 form since 2009 Rome at the latest.
 

bruce38

Banned
I agree, but have I travelled back in time 1 year? We're at the 2010 Australian Open now. Nadal has not played to 2008 form since 2009 Rome at the latest.

In 2008 form he barely won W08. It stands to reason where he barely won A09, he played at a similar level.
 

bruce38

Banned
Mate, he could have won in straight sets. And without the hypothesis, the fact remains that Nadal did win 2008 Wimbledon.



He won the 2009 Australian Open in style.

You'd think if Rafa could have won in straight sets he would have. I wonder why he chose not to.
 

kishnabe

Talk Tennis Guru
Federer having a blemish on his records makes his other records seem very significant. Having a losing H2H with Nadal makes his case interesting. No person should be perfect and Federer is close to perfection in records by having Nadal put that blemish on him makes it much more acceptable!
 

aphex

Banned
Mmm, he was close. Beating roger in FO, Wimbledon, and AO.

In that rush nadal seemed to play just GREAT. But he was never unbeateable, like roger. For example he lost to murray being healthy in the USO 2008.

Nadal took advantage of rogers one handed backhand. In ten years no one should be playing one handed backhand at all.

whaaaaaat? he was healthy??

when did that happen???
 

bruce38

Banned
Mate, he could have won in straight sets. And without the hypothesis, the fact remains that Nadal did win 2008 Wimbledon.



He won the 2009 Australian Open in style.

You just contradicted yourself mate. On the one hand you say without hypothesis, and on the other you hypothesize he could have won in straight sets. Pick one, and be consistent.
 

namelessone

Legend
Nadal was playing like in 2008 yesterday for the first 2 sets. Best he could manage, and Murray still dismantled him. That's pretty sad being beaten so soundly by a non-slam winner. Roger could never claim that.

Sure he can,he lost to a 19 year old slamless player in the semifinals of RG 2005.
 

Sartorius

Hall of Fame
Federer vs Nadal h2h

smallestcat0ip8.jpg






Federer's career

4389_2195_huge-cat.jpg
 

namelessone

Legend
That's ok if you're the GOAT. Rafa is not. Period.

So what you are saying is that it is ok to lose to a slamless 19 year old when you the best of all time but it isn't ok to lose to slamless guys when you are not? Somehow I thought that the standards for Roger were higher. And to think that he lost 4 RG's to this guy,what does that say about Federer?
 

volleynets

Hall of Fame
because the Nadal Vs. Federer rivalry is just about over , Roger will never get an opportunity for revenge against Nadal.

Therefore for the rest of Rogers life there will be an asterisk next to his name which will say : "Nadal in his prime was better than Roger".

Roger may be the greatest Grand Slam champion of all time but he will never be considered the greatest of all time because he just could not beat Nadal.

Uhhh Nadal never won three slams a year three times. Also, Nadal never had something like a 95-4 record at the end of a year. What the hell are you talking about better in his prime???
 

bruce38

Banned
So what you are saying is that it is ok to lose to a slamless 19 year old when you the best of all time but it isn't ok to lose to slamless guys when you are not? Somehow I thought that the standards for Roger were higher. And to think that he lost 4 RG's to this guy,what does that say about Federer?

Nadal is a GREAT player. He's simply wayyyyy overrated by *********s.
 

volleynets

Hall of Fame
So what you are saying is that it is ok to lose to a slamless 19 year old when you the best of all time but it isn't ok to lose to slamless guys when you are not? Somehow I thought that the standards for Roger were higher. And to think that he lost 4 RG's to this guy,what does that say about Federer?

That Nadal is either the greatest claycourter of all time or simply one of the only people who can take Federer. How does that say anything about Federer?
 
scene: a typical dining room of a suburban home. a handsome man in his early thirties sits reading a newspaper dressed in his suit. his lovely blonde wife scurries around the kitchen, as she makes his plate of breakfast and places it in front of him on the table. she sits opposite her husband at as she puts on her heels and applies her make-up.

the year: 2060

wife: darling, eat before it gets cold.

husband: yes, dear.

wife: i'll be in meetings all day so i'll probably be in late tonight.

husband: gotcha. honey . . . there's a fascinating article about roger federer in here.

wife: who?husband: roger federer. you know, the guy who won all those slamtitles at the start of the century. was no #1 for all those weeks, broke all


sorts of records, inducted into the tennis hall of fame . . .

(silent pause)

. . . the guy who lost to nadal all those times.

wife: ohhhhhhhh, that roger federer! eat your waffle, dear.

.

Shakespeare!
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Nadal in his prime was better than Roger.

Right,wake me up when Nadal has a season like Fed's 2004,2006 and 2007.

Agree that H2H is a blemish on Fed's record and a valid argument against Fed being the GOAT but don't agree with Nadal in his prime(which is what one year? some prime)being better than Fed.
 
J

Jchurch

Guest
Um .... no. It does not convey as much information as 15-6, which shows how well each player performed against all their contemporaries. No tennis player would prefer to have a 13-7 record against one rival if it also meant that he would win 6 majors instead of 15.

You forgot to add 267+ to 46. and 5 to 1. That head to head is the only area that *******s can grasp at and even then it's only by a thread.
 
J

Jchurch

Guest
exactly the asterisk is against that one player who was better than Federer.

It will be mentioned for eternity. Federer will never be able to shake it.

By *******s. The only ones who bring it up will be the ones who seek to devalue Federer's achievement and simultaneously enhance Nadals.
 
J

Jchurch

Guest
Anyone who thinks a prime Nadal is better than a prime Federer on grass and hardcourt is insane. *******s seem to bring up that Nadal dismantled Federer at Wimbledon and the AO. What a great dismantling it was then, taking 5 sets on each occasion. The tennis that Federer played at both the 08 W and 09 AO were far from the best that he ever displayed on those surfaces. Nadal at his absolute peak barely beat Federer at W and took 5 sets to beat him at the AO.

For anyone to claim that prime Nadal is better on hardcourt and grass than Federer is as crazy as saying Federer is better than Nadal on clay. The results just don't show that.
 

longst

New User
I guess I am unique in rthat I like them both. Nadal IF healthy COULD of passed RF for most slams in his career. Now that is a moot point. Nadal though was making gains in hardcourt slams and IF he would of stayed healthy would of likely surpassed RF. I mean didn't he win the FO at like 18?? RF didn't do that and didn't lose until 2009?!?! Thats nuts!! IF he would of stayed healthy he would of most likely passed RF.
 

namelessone

Legend
Anyone who thinks a prime Nadal is better than a prime Federer on grass and hardcourt is insane. *******s seem to bring up that Nadal dismantled Federer at Wimbledon and the AO. What a great dismantling it was then, taking 5 sets on each occasion. The tennis that Federer played at both the 08 W and 09 AO were far from the best that he ever displayed on those surfaces. Nadal at his absolute peak barely beat Federer at W and took 5 sets to beat him at the AO.

For anyone to claim that prime Nadal is better on hardcourt and grass than Federer is as crazy as saying Federer is better than Nadal on clay. The results just don't show that.

Against the field,federer is better on HC and grass. Nadal takes clay.

Against eachother however it's a toss-up because they match up badly and in Rafa's favour. Almost everybody agrees that Nadal's peak was 2008-early 2009 and Federer's peak somewhere in the 2004-2006,maybe 2007 period. So at their respective peaks they never met,so why do we analize them if they weren't at their respective peaks at the time? They are five years apart people,no way do they peak in the same time. In fact this rivalry was only born because Nadal is such an amazing prodigy.
 
Last edited:

svijk

Semi-Pro
contrary to the OP's thought, i think rafa and fed will surely play more matches.....just not finals, with the former's declining ranking
 

bruce38

Banned
Against the field,federer is better on HC and grass. Nadal takes clay.

Against eachother however it's a toss-up because they match up badly and in Rafa's favour. Almost everybody agrees that Nadal's peak was 2008-early 2009 and Federer's peak somewhere in the 2004-2006,maybe 2007 period. So at their respective peaks they never met,so why do we analize them if they weren't at their respective peaks at the time? They are five years apart people,no way do they peak in the same time. In fact this rivalry was only born because Nadal is such an amazing prodigy.

Why is Nadal better against the field on Clay? Who has roger lost to at RG and who has Nadal lost to? Doesn't Roger have as many consecutive finals at RG?
 

bruce38

Banned
Against the field,federer is better on HC and grass. Nadal takes clay.

Against eachother however it's a toss-up because they match up badly and in Rafa's favour. Almost everybody agrees that Nadal's peak was 2008-early 2009 and Federer's peak somewhere in the 2004-2006,maybe 2007 period. So at their respective peaks they never met,so why do we analize them if they weren't at their respective peaks at the time? They are five years apart people,no way do they peak in the same time. In fact this rivalry was only born because Nadal is such an amazing prodigy.

Why is Nadal such an amazing prodigy? Borg was better.
 
Shadow of Nadal Hangs Over Federer's Claim to Be the Greatest

Steve Bierley: Roger Federer's head-to-head record against Rafael Nadal means the title of 'greatest ever' may remain just out of his reach
It is always unwise to predict with any degree of certainty what is going to happen in sport in the long term, particularly tennis which is open to sudden and dramatic shifts of fortune. This time last year, after Rafael Nadal had beaten Roger Federer in the greatest of all men's finals at Wimbledon, one of the questions being asked was whether the Swiss was a spent force.

He answered that promptly by winning the US Open and this year has added the French Open, for the first time, and a sixth Wimbledon title to break Pete Sampras's record of 14 majors. Even when not playing at his best, which has been the case for the past 18 months, Federer has lifted his game at crucial moments and clearly deserves all the plaudits coming his way.

When, in 2000, Sampras broke Roy Emerson's record of 12 majors which the American also achieved on the Center Court after winning his seventh Wimbledon title - this was Federer's sixth - it seemed it would be a mark that would stand for perhaps two or three decades, particularly when he added a further slam title at the US Open two years later on his final bow. Then along came Federer. It is tempting to conclude that no player will ever match that richest of runs between Wimbledon 2005 and the 2007 US Open, when he won eight out of 10 slam finals. In all he has now played in 20 major finals, itself a record.

But here comes the uneasy part of the great man's towering performances. All those five slam finals he has lost have been against Nadal, while the last three he has won have seen the Spaniard either absent, as at Wimbledon, or knocked out before the final - by Andy Murray at Flushing Meadows and Sweden's Robin Soderling in Paris, both of whom lost to Federer in the final. Nadal, almost five years younger than Federer, has won 13 of their 20 meetings; in slam finals he holds a 5–2 advantage, and in all finals leads 11–5. While not detracting from the achievements of the Swiss, these results might, with some justification, call into question whether he can really be deemed the greatest player of the modern era.

Statistics, their head-to-heads aside, point overwhelmingly Federer's way, although this year he had a huge slice of good fortune in Paris. Had the Spaniard been fully fit it seems unlikely Federer would have won the French Open; Wimbledon is more debatable.

The degeneration of Nadal's knees is something that has yet to be fully explained. The problems began some time ago, though at the start of this year's clay-court season the young Spaniard abandoned the support strapping above them, the reason apparently being that they were no longer hurting him as much. He duly defended his Monte Carlo and Rome Masters titles, as well as the lesser tournament in Barcelona, but even then there were signs he was short of his best.

The Madrid Masters, just before Roland Garros, was a tournament too far with Nadal beaten in the final by Federer the day after a four-hour semi-final against Novak Djokovic. Toni Nadal, the uncle and coach, monitors his nephew's physical condition constantly, while also modifying his style. As he showed when beating Federer on the Australian hard courts, his game is still developing, and this shook the confidence of the Swiss to the roots. The new fascination will be to see how he will react when he plays Nadal again.

By regaining the Wimbledon title, Federer also deposed Nadal as the world No1. His aim is to stay there until the end of the year, just as he intends to carry on playing the game he so dearly loves for some time yet: "[My wife] Mirka would not let me retire. She wants to see me play, and just sitting at home is not the life for me." Just how much the arrival of their first child will change matters, nobody can be sure. He only managed to get two hours' sleep on Sunday night, and he may have to start getting used to that.

Between them Federer and Nadal have now won 17 of the last 18 slams, with only Djokovic breaking up the duopoly in the 2008 Australian Open. Andy Roddick came preciously close on Sunday and the rest, including Andy Murray, will take encouragement from this. But most eyes will now be fixed on Nadal in New York. Privately he let it be known, even before the French Open, that his main aim after winning the Australian Open was to capture the US Open title.

Tennis has been fortunate to have two such great players around at the same time, and it is to be hoped it stays that way for another couple of years at least. It might be harsh to suggest that to be truly deserving of the "greatest ever" title (and many remain on Rod Laver's side) then Federer needs to beat Nadal a few more times in slam finals, but it remains an intriguing basis for an argument.

© Guardian News & Media 2008
Published: 7/6/2009
Ads by Google
 
Last edited:

Araxen

Rookie
Call me when Nadal is healthy enough to make 20+ GS Semi's in a row. Injury prone also defines one career. His style is good enough to beat Roger but it isn't good enough to preserve his health and have a long career like Roger so that in effect makes Roger the better player.
 
But here comes the uneasy part of Federers towering performances. All those five slam finals he has lost have been against Nadal, while the last three he has won have seen the Spaniard either absent, as at Wimbledon, or knocked out before the final - by Andy Murray at Flushing Meadows and Sweden's Robin Soderling in Paris, both of whom lost to Federer in the final. Nadal, almost five years younger than Federer, has won 13 of their 20 meetings; in slam finals he holds a 5–2 advantage, and in all finals leads 11–5. While not detracting from the achievements of the Swiss, these results might, with some justification, call into question whether he can really be deemed the greatest player of the modern era.
 

Federiffic

Rookie
But here comes the uneasy part of Federers towering performances. All those five slam finals he has lost have been against Nadal, while the last three he has won have seen the Spaniard either absent, as at Wimbledon, or knocked out before the final - by Andy Murray at Flushing Meadows and Sweden's Robin Soderling in Paris, both of whom lost to Federer in the final. Nadal, almost five years younger than Federer, has won 13 of their 20 meetings; in slam finals he holds a 5–2 advantage, and in all finals leads 11–5. While not detracting from the achievements of the Swiss, these results might, with some justification, call into question whether he can really be deemed the greatest player of the modern era.

You have swayed my fanaticism now towards Nadal, I did not know all this information you have presented. I am no longer a Roger Federer fan.

I am now a ******* just like you, I will now buy some Nadal pirate pants, a pink polo and perhaps some cotton candy colored shoes.

Where do you *******s meet? I am looking forward to having my wedge pulled out by other *******s, while yelling "Vamos"
 
Call me when Nadal is healthy enough to make 20+ GS Semi's in a row. Injury prone also defines one career. His style is good enough to beat Roger but it isn't good enough to preserve his health and have a long career like Roger so that in effect makes Roger the better player.

Whoever beats the other player is the winner. Nadal beat federer so nadal was the better player.
 
You have swayed my fanaticism now towards Nadal, I did not know all this information you have presented. I am no longer a Roger Federer fan.

I am now a ******* just like you, I will now buy some Nadal pirate pants, a pink polo and perhaps some cotton candy colored shoes.

Where do you *******s meet? I am looking forward to having my wedge pulled out by other *******s, while yelling "Vamos"



Are there any blemishes on federers record at all?

if you answer "No" then you are a *******......but if your answer = Nadal then you are actually just being truthful.
\....and someone who goes by the name "Federeriffic" must be a well.....ya know ;-)
 
Top