Super Fed fan admitting Nadal is a better player for the "modern game".

[SublimeTennis]

You can all jump on me if you want, I'm not a turncoat. I am a huge Federer fan, I know tennis so I'm not coming from a point of ignorance, I just want to make my case, if you disagree lay out why, I guess you can call me names if you want, I don't care

This is how I see it;

The H2H isn't the end all. Murray leads Federer I don't think anyone would accuse Murray of being better. But his H2H is different, since around '07 Nadal has simply been a nightmare for Federer, his kryptonite.

It reminds me of Ken Norton/Muhammad Ali, Ali is considered by many experts as one or two top heavyweights of all time, Norton way down on the list, but one could make the case that Norton beat Ali all three times. STYLES MAKE FIGHTS.

Same deal with Tennis. I saw Federer EASILY beat Tsonga, Murray, that isn't a typical sentence, "Easy" and "Beat Tsonga or Murray", but Fed didn't have a chance really against Nadal.

Now don't misunderstand, if you are looking at who would do better throughout history, Fed would most certainly do better against the all time greats than Nadal, why?

Nadal excels on slow courts. Fed excels on fast courts. Please don't talk about today's "Fast Courts", they don't exist, Wimbledon for example today is as slow as the FO was in the 90's. In the 90's you wouldn't have heard of Nadal, perhaps a top ten player, that's all.

Think about it, Agassi, why did he last so long? Because they dramatically slowed down the courts. Likewise JUST AS NADAL IS COMING INTO HIS OWN they slow down the courts which helps him and hurts Federer

So I don't think there is any doubt that over the last decade, the "Modern Game", Nadal is simply better. Awkward, can't do as many things as Federer? Not as graceful? DOESN'T MATTER, Fed just can't get by him. In Wimby '08 Nadal was still a kid and beat a prime Federer.

So what am I saying? Pay attention to court speeds, I'm shocked at how many tennis fans pay such little regard to it. It is HUGE, one of the biggest factors. People were saying "Sampras is the GOAT", but he couldn't do anything at the FO, so IT MATTERS.

So in the "Dream tournament" all of the greats throughout the ages, Fed wins more against the competition, in other words he's great overall, he went from a S&Ver to an aggressive baseliner, not an easy task in the beginning of his career. Nadal would lose in the 90's to Sampras, Agassi, etc.

Some say "What about Borg, Lendle, they were great baseliners at a time when courts were fast, true, but check the stats, Borg spend about 30% of the time at the net, a huge contrast to todays baseliners

So this is difficult for me to admit, but in the "Modern Game", Nadal is better. Hopefully you'll appreciate the intellectually honesty even if I am wrong.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

GREAT post, and welcome, agree with everything u wrote

 

[tennisaddict]

OP, you could have just said in one sentence that the 'slowed down courts favor Nadal more than anybody'.

 

[storypeddler]

Things change over time---court conditions, technology, racquet size, nutrition, training methods, etc. I appreciate the argument you are making, but to say Federer would win more against the all-time greats can no more be proven than saying Nadal would or Tilden would or Laver would or Agassi would. Unless they were all the same age at the same time, using the same technology that they had grown up with, playing on surfaces they had grown up with, there is NO way to make that claim. Personally, I think under those regulated conditions, Laver would hold his own against anybody. SO would Gonzales. But things are NEVER the same and they NEVER stay the same. Courts speed up and slow down, racquets change in size and shape and length and width and technology, training methods improve, as does nutrition, etc. You can't take a player who grew up and established his legacy with one set of tools and conditions and make judgments about how he would have faired against another player who grew up and established his legacy with an entirely different set. Geez---if you put Michael Chang in the fifties and sixties, he would likely have won half a dozen slams, maybe more. His legs alone would have carried him there. But you can't.

If Fed or Rafa had come of age in the fifties or sixties, there is no way to know what sort of game they would have developed using the tools and courts of that time. All such hypotheticals are nothing more than guesswork.

 

[urban]

Actually, Ali won two of the three fights with Norton. It was close in all bouts, and the last decision at Yankee Stadium, which i saw on tv, was probably a gift for Ali. But Ali found a way to win, even if he was well past his prime in all his fights against Norton. Frazier was a nightmare matchup for Ali, but still he won the last two fights. Exactly this makes the greatness of Ali, that he could overcome seemingly impossible obstacles. Ask George Foreman.

 

[RF20Lennon]

You just read my mind and this post is really articulate! I had similar thoughts after this match! I have to agree. I was stubborn about it for quite a while but completely agree.