What was more impressive? Federer 8 Wimbledons or Nadal 10 French Opens?

Which is more impressive?

  • Federer 8 Wimbledon Titles

    Votes: 27 25.2%
  • Nadal 10 French Open Titles

    Votes: 80 74.8%

  • Total voters
    107

REKX

Rookie
I'm a fan of both and I think we are lucky to have seen these two guys play. I think for both, the recent grand slams are just bonuses, they made history many years ago and done what they had to do to be regarded as the two greatest a while ago in my opinion.

However listening to the media and everything it seems like Federer's 8th Wimbledon is being praised more than Nadal's 10th. Why is that? Is it simply because the world favors Federer? Wimbledon being the biggest tournament?

I think Nadal's 10th French Open is more impressive. That record may never get beaten. Clay is the most physically grueling surface, almost every point has to be fought for, there are no free points and for Nadal to have won the thing 10 times, in an era where we have the greatest set of baseliners of all time - I think is amazing.

Federer's 8th is obviously amazing, and puts him beyond anyone on grass ever but for me Nadals 10th is more so.

What do you think?
 
N

nikdom

Guest
Equally impressive to be honest

But clearly Nadal has been more dominant at the FO

I concur.

But I'll also add that it's not easy to dominate on grass by the very nature of the surface - a lot more potential for upsets, big servers eeking out tiebreakers and thus sets.

Nadal this year losing to Muller is a perfect example. Coming in strong from a win at RG, brimming with confidence and playing pretty good grass court tennis, he got ousted nonetheless by someone whose game lends itself to grass.
 

Al Czervik

Hall of Fame
I'll give it to Nadal because that surface is so physically demanding. That said, the case I will make for Roger is this. Nadal has this unbeatable combination on clay where you can't hit winners on him because of his defense and the surface is too slow, yet he can spin the ball up over most players' heads with a ton of margin for error. So, it's not really all that amazing that he wins. It's high percentage tennis. By comparison, grass court matches can turn so much on points here and there. I am surprised that Roger hasn't suffered more losses from a hot player like the Tsonga and Berd years. Some days, a guy catches fire and you can't match him. And yet, Roger has persevered through the randomness of grass court tennis and posted eight titles. It's ridiculous.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
I concur.

But I'll also add that it's not easy to dominate on grass by the very nature of the surface - a lot more potential for upsets, big servers eeking out tiebreakers and thus sets.

Nadal this year losing to Muller is a perfect example. Coming in strong from a win at RG, brimming with confidence and playing pretty good grass court tennis, he got ousted nonetheless by someone whose game lends itself to grass.
Sampras won 7 out of 8 Wimbledons at the height of his prime. It took a red hot and unplayable Krajicek to beat him in 1996 to break up 8 out of 8. So it has already been before.
 
N

nikdom

Guest
I'll give it to Nadal because that surface is so physically demanding. That said, the case I will make for Roger is this. Nadal has this unbeatable combination on clay where you can't hit winners on him because of his defense and the surface is too slow, yet he can spin the ball up over most players' heads with a ton of margin for error. So, it's not really all that amazing that he wins. It's high percentage tennis. By comparison, grass court matches can turn so much on points here and there. I am surprised that Roger hasn't suffered more losses from a hot player like the Tsonga and Berd years. Some days, a guy catches fire and you can't match him. And yet, Roger has persevered through the randomness of grass court tennis and posted eight titles. It's ridiculous.
My point exactly. Plus, Roger never had the Sampras killer serve. He's had to win it with variety, guile, persistence and patience.
 
N

nikdom

Guest
Sampras won 7 out of 8 Wimbledons at the height of his prime. It took a red hot and unplayable Krajicek to beat him in 1996 to break up 8 out of 8. So it has already been before.
You can say pre-2000 Wimbledon is a different era and surface almost. I'm not making excuses here for Roger; Sampras had that serve and game that could take out anyone on grass. But the primary difference is that string technology has made it a different ball game altogether since the 90s.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
You can say pre-2000 Wimbledon is a different era and surface almost. I'm not making excuses here for Roger; Sampras had that serve and game that could take out anyone on grass. But the primary difference is that string technology has made it a different ball game altogether since the 90s.
It is a different era and even harder to dominate back then because of the speed of grass and the low bounce. The string technology is evident in this generation and the string technology was not as advanced back then which makes Sampras' accomplishment so impressive.
 

Talker

Hall of Fame
Fed being so good of the player he is wasn't able to get more than one RG.

This is the GOAT, only one RG.

This makes the 10 RG even more impressive, Nadal did all of this while Fed was playing, Djokovic was playing.

And then we all know the win percentage there.

Then look how close the second and third place people are.... Way back.

The other slams are a one slam difference, for Nadal there's a 4 slam difference.
That is huge.

The more you look the more it amazes.

Not over yet...
 
N

nikdom

Guest
It is a different era and even harder to dominate back then because of the speed of grass and the low bounce. The string technology is evident in this generation and the string technology was not as advanced back then which makes Sampras' accomplishment so impressive.

Of course, Sampras' achievements are impressive. Nothing changes that.

What is different is that it's harder to come in when someone can swing freely from the baseline and make the ball dip like everyone does now. Sampras never had to face anyone like a Nadal or a Djokovic or even a Murray.
 
V

VexlanderPrime

Guest
La decima ... but who cares, they're both impressive all time achievements. Top 5 may never be broken type records
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Of course, Sampras' achievements are impressive. Nothing changes that.

What is different is that it's harder to come in when someone can swing freely from the baseline and make the ball dip like everyone does now. Sampras never had to face anyone like a Nadal or a Djokovic or even a Murray.
It's harder to come in because the grass is not as fast as that era. Sampras had Agassi who was a supreme baseliner of his day yet he only got one Wimbledon in his career. Nadal, Djokovic and Murray should all be grateful they never had to face Sampras on grass. Not the other way around.
 

wangs78

Hall of Fame
Nadal's RG W-L clearly more impressive than Fed's at Wimby. But you have to allow that the way the clay season is set up, particularly how long it is, really gives the top clay players the opportunity to play themselves into form such that by the time of RG, whoever is the best clay court player (i.e., Rafa)is going to win the tournament. Grass season is much shorter, and sometimes players even skip Queens and Halle to rest after the grueling clay season, so the top players' form on grass will be a little more uneven. On top of this, what others have already said about how grass is more unpredictable because it's fast and big hitters basically have a puncher's chance to win whereas on clay the risk-reward ratio is much lower.

So if you asked me if I would prefer having Fed's achievements at Wimbledon versus Rafa's at RG, I'd take Fed's.
 
N

nikdom

Guest
It's harder to come in because the grass is not as fast as that era. Sampras had Agassi who was a supreme baseliner of his day yet he only got one Wimbledon in his career. Nadal, Djokovic and Murray should all be grateful they never had to face Sampras on grass. Not the other way around.
I disagree. Sampras wouldn't be as dominant on the surface post 2000.
 

Tennisanity

Legend
Slight edge to Nadal for now. Given that Wimbledon is the most prestigious slam with much more history behind it, what Fed has done is incredibly impressive. If he wins two more, that achievement would surpass Nadal's FOs.
 
8 at Wimbledon and not sure its close

Never seen the French made a big deal out of until Nadal stans came around. Its barely a slam at this point but good for him?
 
I'm a fan of both and I think we are lucky to have seen these two guys play. I think for both, the recent grand slams are just bonuses, they made history many years ago and done what they had to do to be regarded as the two greatest a while ago in my opinion.

However listening to the media and everything it seems like Federer's 8th Wimbledon is being praised more than Nadal's 10th. Why is that? Is it simply because the world favors Federer? Wimbledon being the biggest tournament?

I think Nadal's 10th French Open is more impressive. That record may never get beaten. Clay is the most physically grueling surface, almost every point has to be fought for, there are no free points and for Nadal to have won the thing 10 times, in an era where we have the greatest set of baseliners of all time - I think is amazing.

Federer's 8th is obviously amazing, and puts him beyond anyone on grass ever but for me Nadals 10th is more so.

What do you think?
You should probably blame it on RG itself. All they had to offer Nadal was a separate La Decima trophy. Whereas Wimbledon paraded their favourite son all around the place for adoring fans to see and created those 'sentimental' moments with Fed showing off the trophy to ex-mentor Edberg.

RG has never got hype right, USO overdoes it, Wimbledon does it just right. Masters of the hyped understatement. Tournament is still called "The Championships" as if the other three slams are mickey mouse tournaments. The unstated arrogance. In terms of tennis achievement, Nadal at RG is way ahead of Fed at Wimby. Has never lost a final there, won it 10 times, never been taken to five sets at the final either.
 

every7

Hall of Fame
Nadal has 10 titles and a 79-2 record (97.5%). Only 2 losses!

Federer has 8 titles and 91-11 records (89%). That's 11 losses.

The 2 cannot be compared. What Rafa did at RG is unreal.
Nadal's 10 RG.

Maybe the best record in tennis. Just wow...
10/10 > 8/11
La decima ... they're both impressive all time achievements. Top 5 may never be broken type records
Agree
 

Mr.Lob

Legend
Edge to Nadal. The higher prestige of Wimbledon closes the gap by 1 slam.

So I'd rather have 8 Wimbledons over 9 F.O
 

Kalin

Legend
has anyone realized that:

2012 madrid: everyone complaining about surface, fed wins it
2017 wimbledon: everyone cryes about the surface now and fed goes to win it.

is he the ultimate grown man in not caring about state of surface?
Helps to have the most gracious footwork in tennis... or maybe in all sports, for that matter :)

As for the record - Rafa's is more impressive but Fed's is harder to achieve, IMO. As someone said; with Rafa's style on clay it's impossible but for a handful of people to beat him in best of 5. At Wimbledon, all it takes is a guy's serve catching fire for 3 sets. Remember when Edberg lost to Stich without being broken once? Stich just got it done in the tie-breaks.
 

Antonio Puente

Hall of Fame
Not close.

10>8

10 out of 12 > 8 out of 19.

Nadal defeated another RG winner in 7 of the 10 finals.

Fed defeated another Wimbledon winner in 3 of the 8.

Nadal defeated a tier 1 great in 6 of the 10 finals.

Fed defeated a tier 1 great in 2 of the 8.
 

Talker

Hall of Fame
I'm a Fed fan all the way.

Borg had 6, Nadal is 4 ahead of Borg. He crushed it. No comparison, why even try?

Nadal has dominated this surface like no one else has ever dominated a surface, no amount of twist will change that.

Fed got owned here and the H2H.

Can't have it all, take what you got and be happy Fed fans.
 

droliver

Professional
It is a different era and even harder to dominate back then because of the speed of grass and the low bounce. The string technology is evident in this generation and the string technology was not as advanced back then which makes Sampras' accomplishment so impressive.
You've got it backwards I think. The older grass disproportionately and radically favored the server. A big server had the match on their racquet most of the time. The surface now is pretty neutral and we've seen both offensive and defensive style do well. There are many more players now who compete for spots in the quarters, semis, and finals, and there lots of players who threaten the top guys n the early rounds.
 

duaneeo

Hall of Fame
But I'll also add that it's not easy to dominate on grass by the very nature of the surface - a lot more potential for upsets, big servers eeking out tiebreakers and thus sets.
Federer was more dominant for the first 7 years of winning Wimbledon (2003 - 2009, 6W/1RU), than Nadal at Roland Garros (2005 - 2011, 6W/1R16). Over the next 6 years (2010 - 2015 for Federer, 2011 - 2017 for Nadal), Roger won 1 Wimbledon and Nadal won 4 Roland Garros. Perhaps Nadal dominated more in the later years not because of the nature of the surface, but because he reached his clay prime 3 years earlier than Federer reached his grass prime.
 

dh003i

Legend
Nadal's 10 is special and insane in that it's 4 more than the previous record. It is also insane that he's been able to play his style of play so long and can win RG at 31 in the modern era. That said, I think clay really makes upsets of superior players less likely than on grass.

By the "wow insane" factor, I'd say Nadal's 10 over the previous 6 record stands out more than Federer's 8 over the previous 7.

However, both records are insane.
 

Sereger

Hall of Fame
10 RG titles is the record for all Majors.
8 W titles is the particularly special record for Fed (1st time he stands alone in the all time title winning list at a Major)
 
Top