What is more damaging or detrimental to Nadal's Career?

[timnz]

Definitely one of the best

No, career achievement is more important. Federer is clearly ahead of Nadal when it comes to things like number of major wins, number of weeks at number 1, number of major quarter finals in a row etc. Where Nadal enters the GOAT discussion is his ability to beat all of his big rivals more often than they beat him, dominate clay so thoroughly, whilst also being able to win all the majors on other surfaces as well. And as you say, he is one of the best fighters and is also excellent at adapting to challenges over time. Even when a vastly improved Djokovic arrived on the scene, Nadal eventually overcame the problem.

As I say, Nadal is definitely one of the best. But what I was talking about was the discussion about being the very best guy ever. I just can't accept that when Federer holds or equals the open era record for each one of 4 out of 5 of the top 5 titles (the slams + the WTF) that Nadal could rate over him (not unless, and this is possible, Nadal exceeds Federer's achievements - but we can only talk about historical achievements - not future possible ones).

 

[WhiskeyEE]

I didn't know that clay court tournaments were slower than before. you should start watching old clay matches before talking.

In the 90s he would've been competing against a much stronger clay field, back when some players actually cared about it. Yeah, he probably would've won a few RG titles, but so what? It's not like that would mean much today.

 

[The Pure One]

1. Career Grand Slam

So does RF.

2. Arguably the best of all time on clay

He is. No doubt about it. And that’s about it. Finals losing records on the rest surfaces does not help.

3. 8-2 head-to-head against Federer in majors

Are you saying that H2H is the definition of GOAT? Does clay has to do something with this?

4. 18-10 head-to-head against Federer, 19-14 head-to-head against Djokovic and 13-5 head-to-head against Murray

And the rest of field? Most recent loss: to a 100+ ranking journey man.

BTW, care to explain how does that change been most of his career in the No. 2 world ranking?

8-2 head-to-head against Federer in majors.

Let me borrow your own words: “It's more to do with the clay conditions”.

And Nadal has turned that around by beating Djokovic 3 times in a row.

Only on clay. Care to explain how does that change or erase the beat down of 7 finals in a row?

Nadal has a career Grand Slam.

Again, so does RF.

If he wants something that badly, he will get it. See the 2010 US Open for proof.

LOL. Really. I’ll bet he did not wanted to lose 7 finals in a row!

Besides, clay is as legitimate a surface as any other.

I’m not saying the contrary. But having these records on finals 3-3 on grass (lost 3 Wimbledon’s finals) and 11-12 on hard court and 1-2 on carpet, HURTS anyone who wants to claim a GOAT status, no?

And this:

Regarding the WTF

With full repect, saying Nadal not having a WTF because it is 'more to do with the indoor conditions' is the same as saying, Federer lost to Nadal in so many French Open finals because it is 'more to do with the clay conditions'. The WTF tournament is what it is. The premier indoor tournament. Indoor is a legitimate surface.

And this:

If he is the best player, why not [adequately] address the points posed by the OP:

- Why is Nadal consistently second fiddle in the rankings for most of his career?
- Why has Nadal never defended a title outside of clay?
- Why does Nadal have a losing finals record outside of clay?

 

[rommil]

Being cursed with **** fans.

This, of course

 

[Tcbtennis]

Why do these damn irrevelant posts keep popping up.

right now fed if Goat...if we look at his accomplishments and his era. Nadal could be Goat if runs the field the next few years.

Mostly, who the hell cares...you fanbois act like its your accomplishments or a matter worth debating. Roger or Rafael don't care who's GOAT neither should you.

Btw, Rafael has stated on several occasions Roger is Goat. Is he a liar? Or just misinformed.

Words of wisdom.

 

[stringertom]

His penchant for disappearing after early July. Guess he heard the fish were running early this year.

 

[Towser83]

The most damaging thing on Nadal's resume is that he sucks on fast courts. Without the slowing of the courts he'd be a journeyman type player at best. If he was born 10 years earlier he would've been a nobody, so there's no point speculating about how he'd do against Sampras, etc. as he'd obviously lose outside of clay 100% of the time.

100%? seriously? :lol:

Journeymen don't win 7 RG titles, come on man.Obviously I rate Federer higher,but this is too far

 

[The-Champ]

In the 90s he would've been competing against a much stronger clay field, back when some players actually cared about it. Yeah, he probably would've won a few RG titles, but so what? It's not like that would mean much today.

Nice speculation.

Here's mine:

With more hardcourt and grass specialist in 90's, Federer wouldn't win half of what he has today on those surfaces. Roland Garros? LOL! Forget it, he wouldn't even reach the final.

 

[SoCalJay]

Why do these damn irrevelant posts keep popping up.

right now fed if Goat...if we look at his accomplishments and his era. Nadal could be Goat if runs the field the next few years.

Mostly, who the hell cares...you fanbois act like its your accomplishments or a matter worth debating. Roger or Rafael don't care who's GOAT neither should you.

Btw, Rafael has stated on several occasions Roger is Goat. Is he a liar? Or just misinformed.

^This. On a side note, Laver also said Fed is the GOAT earlier this week. So did McEnroe (repeatedly).

 

[Mustard]

^This. On a side note, Laver also said Fed is the GOAT earlier this week. So did McEnroe (repeatedly).

Laver said Federer is the GOAT, but he also seemed to put Nadal on the same level.

 

[Talker]

^This. On a side note, Laver also said Fed is the GOAT earlier this week. So did McEnroe (repeatedly).

The debate is slowly going away about Fed's GOAT credentials.

You can compare Nadal to Sampras, Laver and Borg but Fed has pulled away from this group IMO.

 

[anantak2k]

So H2H is all we care about now? Who cares about his world ranking or total slam count. Let's look at H2H?

Yeah H2H vs someone is what makes you the greatest, no?
I mean who cares about the rest of the field, no?

 

[MichaelNadal]

The only reason Rafa was number 2 so long is because he played in the same era as Federer. Nothing wrong with being the 2nd fiddle to the GOAT. I hate "if" things, but it's stupid to harp so bad on him about not being number one longer when the only person better than him was losing 4 matches a year. Without Federer, Nadal would have been number 1 from 2005-2010. Not bad, and definitely nothing wrong with that.

 

[DoubleDeuce]

OP, you need to add he never defended a title outside clay.

 

[kishnabe]

Just having no WTF hurts him. Everything else is normal.

He will win a YEC one day....just don't know which year.

 

[coloskier]

Nobody care about WTF, except Federer.

Nobody cares about clay, except Nadal.... and pigs in a mud puddle.

 

[Deleted member 21996]

indoor is a surface? do they play in the roof?

 

[tata]

At the end of the day. Despite whatever the shortcomings are for RF and Rafa, I really doubt anyone would say they had a bad career. Hard to ground those two given what they have achieved.

 

[scineram]

5. Losing record against: Dominik Hrbaty, Joachim Johansson, Paradorn Srichaphan and Nikolay Davydenko. H2H anyone?

Do not forget: 1-0!

 

[Leto]

Both Rafa and Fed have had ridiculously great careers.

But since nobody's perfect, the areas where there resumes would look better would be:

For Fed: a better H2H record vs Rafa

For Rafa: more weeks at #1

 

[Flash O'Groove]

I’m not saying the contrary. But having these records on finals 3-3 on grass (lost 3 Wimbledon’s finals) and 11-12 on hard court and 1-2 on carpet, HURTS anyone who wants to claim a GOAT status, no?

Actually reaching finals shouldn't be considerer as a drawback for a goat claim, as it is in itself a great achievement. Federer reached many clay finals which he lost against Nadal, either in RG or Masters 1000, thus allowing a bad H2H. As you said yourself, this H2H, when put in context, shows how consistent Fed has been on clay and how dominant Nadal has been on clay. I think thoose finals add to Fed's resume, they don't diminish it. In the same way, the 12 HC finals lost by Nadal add to his resume too. It is true that he hasn't been the best player on HC, but he has been one of the very best for several years now, and he should be credited for it.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

What is more damaging to Nadal’s career? 1. Have spent most of his career in the No. 2 world ranking. He couldn’t No. 1 during most of his career, but some people here think is the best of all time. Could not be No. 1 against his contemporaries, but is the best of all time, go figure!

Yes, that is a very important lack in his resume. He wasn't consistent enough all year long to challenge Fed then Nole. N°1 is ont of the most significant achievement in goat discussion.

2. Not winning a single Year-End championship. In fact, only once has reached the finals... and lost of course… against RF btw. Not cakewalk draws like in GS, just the best 8 players.

That hurts but it is not too important. Not that the YEC is not important. Winning it is an important feat, Nalbandian and Davydenko will agree, but it is not so different than a master 1000. Sure, only the best-8 play it, but some of them are out often out of shape at the moment, or qualified because they had a very strong early year, fading at the end (Verdasco). After all, Nadal never won Miami, Cincinnati, Paris and Shanghai too.
The YEC is very important in Fed resume because he won it 6 time, which is a very impressive feat. But winning it only once don't change somebody resume (Nole).

3. Having lost 7 finals in a row ... 3 of those in GS. What great champion, no?

4. Having a record in finals of 3-3 on grass (lost 3 Wimbledon’s finals) and 11-12 finals on hard court (losing record!) and 1-2 on carpet, again a losing record (Won Madrid 2005 but lost Paris 2007 and London 2010). Clay seems to save the day ... and his career is 36-4. And of those 4 losses on clay 2 were handed by none other than RF (Hamburg in 2007 and Madrid 2009). To resume, besides clay, Nadal has a losing record on finals on other surfaces.

Reaching finals is an accomplishment, not a failure.

5. Losing record against: Dominik Hrbaty, Joachim Johansson, Paradorn Srichaphan and Nikolay Davydenko. H2H anyone?

The first three don't really matter as they didn't played a lot of match, just as H2H with Rosol is not significant. It remains only one bad H2H against Davydenko, which also shows how strong Nadal is with is main opponent. Above all, H2H don't matter. Nadal has a far better carreer thant any of thoose guy. The NSK and TDK arguments are not valid, so don't use them.

 

[primetennis]

If we take out clay, Nadal leads Federer 3-2 in majors

u cant even glorify nadal without mentioning his h2h or talking abt federer which is not even a proper record..lets talk about total grandslams buddy..no age 25 or 26 barrier..just right here right now who has more grandslam titles??end of it..no more silly posts..just go n sleep at home n dont bother coming here if u wanna post anymore of ur crap..

 

[Sentinel]

Oh great, another GOAT thread in disguise.

p.s. I was gonna say Rafa's career is just fine, no damage, but on second thought I;ll go with SLD's initial post.

 

[merlinpinpin]

If we take out clay, Nadal leads Federer 3-2 in majors

No need to take out clay, that 3-2 or 8-2 is a meaningeless stat anyway when you take into account the history of the game (and *you* should, Mustard, considering your stance on so many subjects on this forum). Is Becker a better player than Lendl?

 

[merlinpinpin]

Simple - his head to head with Federer has been based primarily on the fact that the majority of times they have played has been on clay. Head to head without reference to surface means nothing. If Nadal played Federer another 90 times on clay - he would win 85 of them. So then the H2H would be 103-15 to Nadal. But what would it prove? It would only prove that Nadal is a better clay court player. It would say nothing about their overall abilities.

H2H is over-rated as a measure though. It is legitimate to talk about it (but only if you factor in surface). But career achievement is so much more important. I can't even understand why Nadal is in the discussion for the very Greatest of all time. He has a quarter of the AO that Federer has, less than a third of the Wimbledon's, 1 fifth of the USO and zero season end finals compared to Rogers 6.

So the biggest mystery is why Nadal in this discussion about the very greatest of all time? He is certainly the greatest clay courter of all time (and I am a big fan of Borg saying this), but overall - no.

He isn't, actually. That's just the ************* who like to pretend and stir up things...

 

[Wolfman Jack]

What is more damaging to Nadal’s career?

1. Have spent most of his career in the No. 2 world ranking. He couldn’t No. 1 during most of his career, but some people here think is the best of all time. Could not be No. 1 against his contemporaries, but is the best of all time, go figure!

2. Not winning a single Year-End championship. In fact, only once has reached the finals... and lost of course… against RF btw. Not cakewalk draws like in GS, just the best 8 players.

3. Having lost 7 finals in a row ... 3 of those iun GS. What great champion, no?

4. Having a record in finals of 3-3 on grass (lost 3 Wimbledon’s finals) and 11-12 finals on hard court (losing record!) and 1-2 on carpet, again a losing record (Won Madrid 2005 but lost Paris 2007 and London 2010). Clay seems to save the day ... and his career is 36-4. And of those 4 losses on clay 2 were handed by none other than RF (Hamburg in 2007 and Madrid 2009). To resume, besides clay, Nadal has a losing record on finals on other surfaces.

5. Losing record against: Dominik Hrbaty, Joachim Johansson, Paradorn Srichaphan and Nikolay Davydenko. H2H anyone?

6. Besides clay, I believe Nadal has a losing record against RF. In fact, in non clay finals Nadal record against RF is 1-4 (lost 2 Wimbledon’s, one YEC and Miami 2005).

7. Nadal never defended a title outside clay.

Finally, to put Nadal as the GOAT, above RF because their deceiving H2H (deceiving because you can argue that is because of clay dominance only) and above Sampras (14) and Roy Emerson (12), when Nadal is only tied with Bjorn Borg and Rod Laver in slams count (11), you just have to be….mad!

You can spin the data many different ways. Nadal has won against Fed in GS finals on all surfaces, the same cannot be said of Fed. Positive H2H against the other top players. Career GS before anybody else. Davis Cup titles. Olympic singles gold. Masters all time record.

Nadal might not have the stylish and precise game of Fed, but if it were not for his health prob!ems he would be 2 or 3 slams behind Fed right now, at almost 5 years younger.

Injuries and upsets to nobodies like Rosol and Soderling are the only reason Nadal is not on top at the moment.

 

[The_Order]

The fact that Nadal has the H2H advantage over his chief rivals should mean that he should be winning more, not less. Given this, how come Nadal has been #2 in the rankings for most of his career?

It's quite simple really. What age was Fed when he first reached world #1? 22.5 years old. Nadal's age when he first reached #1: 22 yrs and 2 months old.

Now why didn't Rafa stay at #1? Well his injury plagued 09 was the result of that, had he stayed fit and healthy he would've won 09 RG and WIM because tbh Fed's form in those tournaments wasn't great.

Anyways, comes back in 2010 and recaptures it, holds on till WIM 11. But Novak starts playing out of his mind and dominates the entire field in 2011.

Rafa was one BH away from AO12, won RG12 convincingly and had a slip up in WIM12. I just think that Rafa will be #1 again soon and will hold onto it for longer than a year. In fact, put your house on him winning the USO, he'll beat Novak, Murray and/or Fed no prob and he won't be losing early either.

weeks at #2: 141 (all whilst under the age of 22 apart from a couple months) + 73 = 214
weeks at #1: 90

Since capturing #1,

weeks at #1: 90
weeks at #2: 73

So despite his 09 injury prblems, Rafa has managed to stay #1 longer than not (even if you include weeks at #3 and #4).

 

[mandy01]

Now why didn't Rafa stay at #1? Well his injury plagued 09 was the result of that, had he stayed fit and healthy he would've won 09 RG and WIM because tbh Fed's form in those tournaments wasn't great.
.

I remember you stating you didn't think Nadal lost RG due to injury whilst accusing Federer fans of bringing up mono as an excuse. Gee, what a lying troll. You can't remain consistent at all.
Anyway, Nadal had no one but himself to blame for that injury. Nobody asked him to overplay.

 

[Leto]

It's quite simple really. What age was Fed when he first reached world #1? 22.5 years old. Nadal's age when he first reached #1: 22 yrs and 2 months old.

Now why didn't Rafa stay at #1? Well his injury plagued 09 was the result of that, had he stayed fit and healthy he would've won 09 RG and WIM because tbh Fed's form in those tournaments wasn't great.

Anyways, comes back in 2010 and recaptures it, holds on till WIM 11. But Novak starts playing out of his mind and dominates the entire field in 2011.

Rafa was one BH away from AO12, won RG12 convincingly and had a slip up in WIM12. I just think that Rafa will be #1 again soon and will hold onto it for longer than a year. In fact, put your house on him winning the USO, he'll beat Novak, Murray and/or Fed no prob and he won't be losing early either.

weeks at #2: 141 (all whilst under the age of 22 apart from a couple months) + 73 = 214
weeks at #1: 90

Since capturing #1,

weeks at #1: 90
weeks at #2: 73

So despite his 09 injury prblems, Rafa has managed to stay #1 longer than not (even if you include weeks at #3 and #4).

Do you really think Rafa will regain #1 within 17 weeks (and being generous here, since you didn't include weeks at #3 and #4).

I think the next couple of years are crucial for Rafa, and think it is VERY likely, that now he may have leapt over the Djoker 2011 hurdle, will get back to #1 for an extended period of time (50+ weeks). Not saying it will be easy, but I think it is definitely within the realm of reasonability.

 

[Bartelby]

If this happened ... this didn't happen ... are useless arguments. You can only go by the entries in the winners circle.

 

[tenniselbow1]

Nadal has beaten Federer 8 times in majors, won 11 majors himself and has winning head-to-heads against all his main rivals, and you ask why he's in the GOAT discussion? Not to mention his dominant clay record and being a career Grand Slam winner.

He never managed to play Fed at the AO prior to 08 when the courts were infinitely faster.. Fed who's won on both recent surfaces of the AO for 4 total titles (to Rafa's one) loses only in big matches to your boy on the two slowest hard courts on the tour. At the remaining (6/8) premier hardcourt tourneys of the tour he would likely use him as his whipping boy as his IW win recently validated. Fed is 8-6 and Novak is 13-6 against him outside of clay. The reason the one surface wonder has won only 3 premier annual tour events after Wimbledon in his 9 year career has more to do with the speed of the courts played in that time more so than anything being indoor or not. He has yet to defend anything (250, 500 <) outside of clay. It's worth looking at what happened in these three non clay tourneys post W as well, you'll find the draw opened up nicely each time including the US10. Until he wins at least one more slam on a surface outside of clay, he's not in the GOAT debate. He needs to win 2-3 outside the dirt to be a top 3 contender in my opinion.

 

[The_Order]

I remember you stating you didn't think Nadal lost RG due to injury whilst accusing Federer fans of bringing up mono as an excuse. Gee, what a lying troll. You can't remain consistent at all.
Anyway, Nadal had no one but himself to blame for that injury. Nobody asked him to overplay.

I also said healthy. He didn't have a healthy mind set because his parents were getting divorced. He is really close to his family so something like that provided the distraction for him to not be fully focussed...

 

[The_Order]

He never managed to play Fed at the AO prior to 08 when the courts were infinitely faster.. Fed who's won on both recent surfaces of the AO for 4 total titles (to Rafa's one) loses only in big matches to your boy on the two slowest hard courts on the tour. At the remaining (6/8) premier hardcourt tourneys of the tour he would likely use him as his whipping boy as his IW win recently validated. Fed is 8-6 and Novak is 13-6 against him outside of clay. The reason the one surface wonder has won only 3 premier annual tour events after Wimbledon in his 9 year career has more to do with the speed of the courts played in that time more so than anything being indoor or not. He has yet to defend anything (250, 500 <) outside of clay. It's worth looking at what happened in these three non clay tourneys post W as well, you'll find the draw opened up nicely each time including the US10. Until he wins at least one more slam on a surface outside of clay, he's not in the GOAT debate. He needs to win 2-3 outside the dirt to be a top 3 contender in my opinion.

He's just turned 26 ffs. Let's look at Fred's slam count at this age:

5 at WIM
4 at US Open
3 at AUS Open

So that's 12, he doesn't get #13 till after he turns 27 BUT he didn't have the career slam at this age, and Nadal did it at age 24 vs Fed age 27.

So how is Nadal a one surface wonder at age 26 after winning each major, but Federer took 3 more years to accomplish this???

 

[Netspirit]

So how is Nadal a one surface wonder at age 26 after winning each major, but Federer took 3 more years to accomplish this???

Because Nadal is an early bloomer. I don't see 31-year old Nadal winning Wimbledons.

 

[BigServer1]

As much of a troll thread as this has turned into, there are two things that I think are pretty damning for Nadal.

1) Never defended a title off clay.
2) 22 months (and counting) since he's won a title off clay.

I like Rafa, and I think he's a great player. I love the fact that people keep trying to say his career is over and that he's done, and he keeps coming back, he always fights and scrapes and claws for every point, game, set and match. However, it's really odd that he hasn't been able to win anywhere off clay for nearly two years.

 

[Leto]

Because Nadal is an early bloomer. I don't see 31-year old Nadal winning Wimbledons.

But he could still be a serious contender at RG.

 

[Clarky21]

As much of a troll thread as this has turned into, there are two things that I think are pretty damning for Nadal.

1) Never defended a title off clay.
2) 22 months (and counting) since he's won a title off clay.

I like Rafa, and I think he's a great player. I love the fact that people keep trying to say his career is over and that he's done, and he keeps coming back, he always fights and scrapes and claws for every point, game, set and match. However, it's really odd that he hasn't been able to win anywhere off clay for nearly two years.

That's because it's true.


Yeah,I guess he expended so much energy scraping and clawing that he lost his a** in the second round at Wimby to some mug ranked a 100 in the world. Cvac or Fed never would have lost to someone ranked so low like that,and certainly not in the second round of a slam.


It's not odd. He's a dirtballer,and isn't that great on other surfaces. Just look at the titles he has won over his career. Almost everything is on clay. It takes Nadal at 100% to do anything outside of the dirt,and since that kind of form is few and far between from him,he rarely wins anything that's not on clay.

 

[ChanceEncounter]

The first three don't really matter as they didn't played a lot of match, just as H2H with Rosol is not significant. It remains only one bad H2H against Davydenko, which also shows how strong Nadal is with is main opponent. Above all, H2H don't matter. Nadal has a far better carreer thant any of thoose guy. The NSK and TDK arguments are not valid, so don't use them.

This logic makes no sense. You're saying it's better to lose early to nobodies than it is to get to the finals and lose to one or two top players?

It goes back to the whole argument that Federer would somehow be a better player had he lost a round before facing Nadal [on clay] because his H2H would look better. It truly makes no sense.

 

[dafinch]

1. Career Grand Slam
2. Arguably the best of all time on clay
3. 8-2 head-to-head against Federer in majors
4. 18-10 head-to-head against Federer, 19-14 head-to-head against Djokovic and 13-5 head-to-head against Murray



It's more to do with the indoor conditions.



And Nadal has turned that around by beating Djokovic 3 times in a row.



Nadal has a career Grand Slam. If he wants something that badly, he will get it. See the 2010 US Open for proof.



Federer also has a losing record to Dominik Hrbaty.



Nadal has beaten Federer in the 2006 Dubai final, 2008 Wimbledon final and the 2009 Australian Open final, so that statement is false. Besides, clay is as legitimate a surface as any other. Nadal is 2-0 against Federer at the Australian Open, 5-0 against Federer at the French Open, and 1-2 against Federer at Wimbledon.

Nice if you to crow about the 3 straight wins by BP and omit the small detail that they were all on clay. I think 7 straight on all surfaces trumps three straight on the winner's best surface and the loser's worst, don't you?

 

[Flash O'Groove]

This logic makes no sense. You're saying it's better to lose early to nobodies than it is to get to the finals and lose to one or two top players?

It goes back to the whole argument that Federer would somehow be a better player had he lost a round before facing Nadal [on clay] because his H2H would look better. It truly makes no sense.

No actually I tried to say that H2H don't matter and should be kept out of the debate. Using the bad H2H of Nadal against some player only in the debate only validate the idea that the H2H means something. It's sometime difficult to be clear in a foreing language.

 

[tenniselbow1]

He's just turned 26 ffs. Let's look at Fred's slam count at this age:

5 at WIM
4 at US Open
3 at AUS Open

So that's 12, he doesn't get #13 till after he turns 27 BUT he didn't have the career slam at this age, and Nadal did it at age 24 vs Fed age 27.

So how is Nadal a one surface wonder at age 26 after winning each major, but Federer took 3 more years to accomplish this???

Alright i'll use my valuable time to explain the answer for you..

Fed along with these (very well balanced) titles at 26, lost 3 times to Rafa at the FO (twice in a GS final). Fed has also won 3 clay court MS and made it to 4 other clay court MS in that time again losing to Rafa each time. Losing to Rafa who without a doubt, is either the greatest or the second greatest to ever play the game on clay weighs in his favor not against him.. It took the best ever on a particular surface to prevent him from possibly winning 3 calendar slams.

Fed success on his weakest surface was hindered by one man for the most part. Rafa's success on the hard courts as well as grass, has been hindered by a handful.

Lets look at this an easier way, Check the winning percentage for the two per slam and their overall career numbers, this sheds more light into where these two stand in the big picture. At 31 Fed (well past his prime) he remains statistically on top by a good margin.

 

[single_handed_champion]

Lets look at this an easier way, Check the winning percentage for the two per slam and their overall career numbers, this sheds more light into where these two stand in the big picture. At 31 Fed (well past his prime) he remains statistically on top by a good margin.

Think again. Federer's success rate at Slams = 17/53 = 32%
Nadal's success rate at Slams = 11/33 = 33%.

 

[BigServer1]

Think again. Federer's success rate at Slams = 17/53 = 32%
Nadal's success rate at Slams = 11/33 = 33%.

He said per slam, meaning look at each of the 4 Slams individually. Federer is comfortably on top at Wimby, the US Open and Australia. Rafa is more than comfortably on top at the FO.

 

[mellowyellow]

4. 18-10 head-to-head against Federer, 19-14 head-to-head against Djokovic and 13-5 head-to-head against Murray

Throw this stat out as fixed draws have always given Nadal the easy pass into the finals. Though nobody wants to admit playing multiple slam winner in peak physical ability is much tougher than playing non slam contender in a semi or admit that playing a Ferrer or a Woz/Radwanska can be physically and mentally exhausting because of all the balls that need to be played on both service games. This is true throughout tennis history too, not just Nadal specific...

 

[mellowyellow]

Think again. Federer's success rate at Slams = 17/53 = 32%
Nadal's success rate at Slams = 11/33 = 33%.

how do you account for slams Nadal has not played because of "injury" but was ranked to play? in fact it is well known Nadal could have played some of those but opted to not play....

 

[nhat8121]

it's about how he beat fed at his own game and took over fed's number 1 spot...when u think he was just a clay specialist. who cares about how many years fed was at number when nadal was still developing, ******** thread this one.

 

[timnz]

Wtf

Nobody care about WTF, except Federer.

and all the rest of the players. Just read the press around the last couple of WTF's - all the players are pretty clear of the events importance.

Been the number 5 event for the last 30-40 years - so the only people who don't care about it are some people on these boards.

 

[West Coast Ace]

and all the rest of the players. Just read the press around the last couple of WTF's - all the players are pretty clear of the events importance.

Been the number 5 event for the last 30-40 years - so the only people who don't care about it are some people on these boards.

+1. I went to all 4 yrs in Shanghai. There was definite intensity in the matches. The Murray - Fed match in '08 (46 76 75 Murray win to keep Fed out of the SF) was as intense as any major.

Another Nadal fan denial argument; their man can't hang = tourney doesn't matter. Weak.

 

[The Pure One]

it's about how he beat fed at his own game and took over fed's number 1 spot...when u think he was just a clay specialist.

What are you smoking? Read the title and content of the thread…now look at it again. I know the truth hurts sometimes. It’s about what is more detrimental to Nadal’s career. That’s it. Among other things, he has a losing record in finals in all surfaces except for clay. Not a good statistic for any GOAT conversation. But some people like to throw statistics out of the window and claim that the H2H puts Nadal in the GOAT conversation. Look for your peers around here that even dare to think he’s the GOAT

Beating Fed and not being consistent (hadn’t defended any title outside of clay) with the rest of the field, except on clay = being the number 2 in the world most of the time, watching Fed or Dj at the no. 1 spot.

who cares about how many years fed was at number [one] when nadal was still developing, ******** thread this one.

Yep! You are right. Being number one in the world in not important at all. Is just one of the most unimportant statistics in any sport… to you and only you.

BTW, are you implying that Fed hold the number one spot because Nadal was still developing? Well, apparently Nadal stopped his development or is still developing…he’s now the number 3!