This is why Federer is 100x better than Nadal and Djokovic

[Backspin1183]

Yeah, and your point is? A couple better shots/attributes and ability to dictate play /= more versatile.

If Federer was so much better he wouldn't be pushed around every time by Nadal.

 

[Backspin1183]

If hes so much better the h2h would show it in regards to both guys.. Unfortunately, it does not

I might as well say Llodra is better than Nole and Nadal because he can S&V well too

Stakhovsky SnV much better than Federer in their Wimbledon match.

 

[Federer20042006]

The "100x better" hyperbole doesn't help establish a credible thread.

Federer's certainly much more entertaining to watch than them, IMO, but unfortunately, entertaining tennis doesn't always mean the best results.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

He can successfully play serve-and-volley grass tennis, fast hard court attacking tennis, fast hard court baseline tennis, slow hard court baseline tennis, and he's even good at playing on clay. Nadal and Djokovic can only play slow court baseline tennis.

Serve-and-volley:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSIx60skGJM

Fast hard court attacking:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7L_MCt9yTU

Fast hard court baselining:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ikx0Du735Y

Slow hard court baselining:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bNNWzBmk_c

Clay:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV87WmB3WNY

If Nadal was only good at your "slow court baseline tennis," he would not have two Wimbledon titles--one against your "god" Federer.

Thiis thread is dead on arrival.

 

[Steve0904]

If Federer was so much better he wouldn't be pushed around every time by Nadal.

Again, better /= more versatile. This is not hard. Nadal beats Federer mostly because of ONE primary tactic. He doesn't beat him with variety. Nadal doesn't really beat anyone with variety. Usually he just stays at the baseline apart from the odd knock off volley because it's good enough to win against 99.9% of players 99.9% of the time. And there's nothing wrong with that. Federer can be as versatile as he likes. He has a ton of versatility. Problem is, that doesn't work against Nadal like it does against most players.

 

[sam_p]

Only 6 times during his peak and in one of those in 2004 Miami he was sick. In another one 2006 Dubai he won more points but lost anyway so it's not like Nadal dominated him. Other 4 were clay and everyone knows that Nadal is all time clay GOAT so no shame losing to him. Fed was simply too good not to get to finals on clay.

All other loses to Nadal where no longer peak Federer. That's what happens when you play much younger opponent. Time works against you. Same with Sampras and Hewitt. Nobody says Sampras sucks because Hewitt started completely owning him in 2000. No big deal. If anything it is very embarrassing for Nadal that even last year Fed was still able to beat him once. Lets see how well Nadal is doing in 5 years vs much younger #1 or #2 ranked opponents.

By then Nadal will be sitting on 19 GS and a 43-12 H2H with Fed...

 

[Djokovic2011]

By then Nadal will be sitting on 19 GS and a 43-12 H2H with Fed...

Well at least you give Fed 2 more wins against Rafa.

 

[sam_p]

Yea that's the why I consider him the GOAT cause he can do anything on a tennis court.

Except win of course

 

[sam_p]

Well at least you give Fed 2 more wins against Rafa.

I'm generous and was trying to get in the hyperbolic spirit of the OP

 

[Rozroz]

IMO, losses and wins don't matter much when the ESSENCE is overwhelming to a degree that's not even worth comparing.

 

[Magnetite]

100x better?