Then by extension, DelPotro is surely better than Nadal.
Last edited:
What would the Nadal/Federer h2h be if 11 were indoors/2 on clay?
- Thread starter JennyS
- Start date
Then by extension, DelPotro is surely better than Nadal.
Who cares how early Rafa did anything if his career ends 5 years before Feds?
Federer has only beaten Nadal in 1 slam (only twice and 1 of those times was during Nadal's teenage years). Nadal has beaten Federer in 3 different slams (including on Fed's favorite surfaces: hard court and grass). How does that not indicate a clear domination of Nadal over Fed?
Rafa was 20 when Fed handily beat him at W2006. Not teenage.
crazylevity
Hall of Fame
Nadal won a US Open? When??!!:shock:
grafselesfan
Banned
Nadal slam titles on hard court: 1
Federer slam titles on clay: 1
Anymore questions?
grafselesfan
Banned
Awww but you forget one crucial thing. Federer had chances to beat a pre-prime Nadal at the French Open in 2005 and 2006 and yet failed to do so. Also failed to beat him at Monte Carlo or Rome in 2006, even wasting two match points vs pre-prime Nadal in Rome. So while Nadal has atleast beaten post- prime Federer (if you insist on that) on Federer' surfaces, Federer has failed to do the same thing to a pre-prime Nadal on Nadal's surface.
crazylevity
Hall of Fame
^^ If you think the AO and USO surfaces are one and the same, then explain the disparity between Sampras' and Agassi's performances at those two slams, especially their head to head.
grafselesfan
Banned
Easy. The two times Andre played Pete in Australia he wasnt at his best. In 1995 he was suffering through the fresh news that his beloved coach and very close friend Tim Gullikson had been diagnosed with brain tumors and would be probably be dead in about a year, and would also probably never be coaching Pete again. It was an absolutely incredibly brave and courageous effort to even make the final, the guy who is one of the coolest and toughest competitors in the history of the game was breaking down in tears during some of his matches there.
In 2000 Sampras substained a torn hip flexor which would force him to skip 5 or 6 weeks of tennis and miss the Davis Cup tie he was planning on playing. Despite this major injury he was a mere 2 points from victory so imagine had he been healthy.
The two years Sampras won the Australian Open he won convincingly. Considering the two years I mentioned, and his surprising decision to skip the 1999 edition he clearly underachieved at the Australian Open, and had some bad luck at the event.
By contrast at the U.S Open Agassi had some bad luck on occasion it could be argued. In 1995 as others have noted he was somewhat fatigued from a long 2nd semifinal with Becker, and little time to recuperate physically and even mentally for the final. While I am not sure he would have beaten Pete that day regardless, it certainly was an unlucky and somewhat unfair situation for Agassi, and another example of the ridiculous U.S Open scheduling were they put TV priority over fairness to the players. In 2002 Agassi had a similar situation when he played a tough 2nd semifinal with Hewitt, although this one didnt go into night and wasnt as physical so I doubt it as much a factor as 95.
Sampras did have the bad luck of missing the 99 U.S Open with an injury here too, and even injuring himself in his semifinal loss to Rafter in 98, a match he probably wins otherwise as he was up 2 sets to 1 and owns Rafter. However overall I think the difference in Sampras's records at the Australian Open and U.S Opens vs Agassi and in general are just due to some unfortunate circumstances he faced in Australia. Plus keep in mind his 1990 and 2002 U.S Open wins were astonishing feats at the time, somewhat unforseen. That these happened at the U.S Open, rather than the Australian Open is mostly coincidence, as they were that unlikely at the given point in time to begin with that you cant with any accuracy examine why it happened on one hard court and not another.
dropshot winner
Hall of Fame
Federer is clearly better on his worst surface than Nadal is on his worst (fast hardcourt, indoor), it's not debatable.
Federer has reached all clay Masters 1000 finals, Nadal still hasn't reached a single final of either Cincinatti, US Open or Masters Cup.
Federer has reached all clay Masters 1000 finals, Nadal still hasn't reached a single final of either Cincinatti, US Open or Masters Cup.
feetofclay
Semi-Pro
I am well aware of all this. If, as you say,h2h is only one aspect of comparison, and I agree. Why are Federer fans, some more than others so obsessed with it?
TheFifthSet
Legend
Not really. Those two years Sampras was taken to 5 sets thrice. He also got breadsticked by Stephane Simian, won a tough 4-setter vs. Gustaffson (sp?), and lost a set to Voinea, a player who I believe was barely in the top 70. And Agassi did not compete the two years Sampras won. Any otherwise bad luck Sampras had is IMO offset by that.
P_Agony
Banned
Nadal was not pre-prime in 2006, at least not on clay. In fact, one might argue he was better on clay than he is today.
Nadal is the king of clay, no question about it. He's far better than anyone on this surface. Federer never got a chance to meet him on his favorite surfaces. On grass they play only one tourney together per year, and on fast hard courts, Nadal never reached a Cincy final, never reached a USO final to face Roger. And in the two TMC matches they played, Nadal was beaten in straight sets. Nadal was not good enough to reach those finals and is only
doing so this year by reaching the AO final and barely beating a post-prime Federer. That wasn't AO 07 Federer in this match, I'm sure even the biggest *******s are aware of it.
Next year Nadal may finally reach some more finals, like USO and Cincy, but Federer will be 3 years past his prime by then. Truth is, Federer was good enough to reach finals on all surfaces in his prime (and even not in his prime) and he did it multiple years (2006, 2007, 2008, 2009), and Nadal, despite being at his peak in 2008-early 2009, couldn't reach finals on all surfaces in one year. Nadal was never enough to reach the USO final, AO final, and more HC events. What about the TMC? How come Nadal never reached a final there?
You can say "weak field" as long as you want, but even if it was, Nadal faced the same one Federer did, and failed.
Blinkism
Legend
The Nadal-Federer H2H should be more a source of pride for Nadal fans than a source of shame for Federer fans.
I'm just happy that Nadal achieved as much as he did DESPITE playing alongside the GOAT. Reaching #1 in the world and winning 4 French Opens, 1 Wimbledon, 1 Australian Open, An Olympic Gold Medal, and 15 Master's Series titles all while playing in Federer's prime?
That's impressive, to say the least. To achieve that much, mostly at the expense of the greatest player ever, makes Nadal's achievements that much more meaningful. That's why I rate him amongst the top players of all time (even if he retired today, god forbid).
I'm just happy that Nadal achieved as much as he did DESPITE playing alongside the GOAT. Reaching #1 in the world and winning 4 French Opens, 1 Wimbledon, 1 Australian Open, An Olympic Gold Medal, and 15 Master's Series titles all while playing in Federer's prime?
That's impressive, to say the least. To achieve that much, mostly at the expense of the greatest player ever, makes Nadal's achievements that much more meaningful. That's why I rate him amongst the top players of all time (even if he retired today, god forbid).
jamesblakefan#1
G.O.A.T.
If only more so-called Nadal fans had this way of thinking. Unfortunately many who claim to be Nadal fans seem to be more set on using the h2h to bash and demean Federer and his achievements. Seems silly to use a h2h, which is determined by many variables, to demean someone who's won 15 freaking slams and done so much it's too long to list. The Nadal h2h is but a tiny chink in Fed's armor, and some Nadal fans like to make it as if the 15 slams and everything else is meaningless due to the h2h.
And as you said, it also trivializes Nadal when people do this. Makes the h2h seem as though it is bigger and more important than Nadal's other accomplishments, when this clearly should not be the case.
jamesblakefan#1
G.O.A.T.
Why do you make so many excuse for Sampras, and bury Federer for sneezing the wrong way? I'm just gonna call a spade a spade, and say that's not right. Sampras can have 15 different injuries happen and use them as excuses, and Fed has a legit back injury and mono last year, and he's faking it? Freaking double standards at their worst.
Sampras got bageled in the 5th set of that AO SF encounter with Agassi, so it was pretty obvious that the torn hip flexor was bothering him.
jamesblakefan#1
G.O.A.T.
But aren't injuries a natural part of sport? I addressed this earlier of the year with the Nadal situation, but aren't sports as much about 'survival of the fittest' as skill? Sampras was never known for his fitness, therefore was more suceptable to injury.
In either case, one of the endearing qualities about Federer's success is the ability he's shown to remain relatively healthy where so many others constantly have injury problems. The fact that Sampras couldn't remain healthy at points of his career shouldn't be used to discredit Federer.
Certain injuries are from freak accidents and are totally uncontrollable. You really can't control when a hip flexor tears.
Federer is more lucky about injuries than successful at preventing them. You can only prevent up to an extent. I'm sure someone like Agassi, Sampras, etc. did all they could do to prevent injuries, but at some point they just happen.
JeMar
Legend
Sampras was pretty unlucky in some years, but Agassi's injuries were more about how inflexible his body was, as well as all the body work he did. People saw Agassi's injuries coming years before he started to struggle so much. It's kind of similar to what's happening to Nadal.
True, however some injuries simply cannot be prevented. Federer has been lucky to not have gotten such an injury. For example, Joachim Johansson can't help that his shoulder is made of rice paper, but it is.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Fed's biggest decline? The year when he made 3 slam finals out of 4? Lol. In that case 2005 was Fed's biggest decline as well... And who else has beaten Fed at RG and W including this year? There is absolutely no way to prove it of course but Rafa would have been a big problem for Fed at USO as well. The fact he never made the final benefited Fed immensely and I'm sure Fed knows it.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Del Potro still has a losing record to Rafa. I agree he will be a threat in the future.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Yeah just 20. Still very young. I don't want to remind you what Fed was doing at W at that age and Fed didn't beat him that handily since he lost a set to him DESPITE Rafa's youth and inexperience on grass.
Beating handily is what happened in the final of RG 2008, and sorry but Fed wasn't the 1 doing the beating...
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Nadal won the same # of slams on hard court as Federer has on clay. (That's what I meant)
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Who says it will? Fed has been winning slams (and been a top player) for 7 consecutive seasons, Rafa for 5. The length of their career will end up being very similar, you'll see.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Yeah well, that's not a claim that I made either. Although if you consider wins, I am not convinced it is that obvious. Nadal won 1 slam: AO + 3 master series on hard: IW (twice), Canada (twice), Madrid or 1st indoor master (once) + Dubai + Olympic gold. (He also made finals in Paris indoor and Miami (twice))
On clay Federer has only won 1 master (the third clay master: Hamburg/Madrid)- granted a bunch of times (I think 5) and 1 slam: RG (on top of 1 Rome final and a few Monte-Carlo finals). The difference is not that huge IMO.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Right now there are only 2 seasons difference at the top between Fed and Rafa. We don't know how much longer Fed is gonna maintain that level and I can't see how Rafa wouldn't last at least 2 more seasons. But who knows? We'll see.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
A tiny chink? 13 defeats vs 7 wins? Lol
I wonder how many greats had that "tiny" chink in their armor vs any of their rivals. Surely not Sampras? In any case, I'll have to remember that for the future if Rafa starts losing consistently to another player, I 'll have to remember to remind you that 10+ defeats to the same guy, many of which in slams is an insignificant detail...
jamesblakefan#1
G.O.A.T.
It is, it does not change the fact that Roger's a 15 time slam champ and has accomplished virtually everything you can as a tennis player. Just like Nadal's h2h with Blake (which he may or may not even up, stay tuned) doesn't detract from his 6 slams, 15 MS titles, and other accomplishments. Bottom line, any player would love to have Fed's success, even if it meant a 7-13 record vs your rival. 15 slams is something never done before by any player.
BTW, never making a FO final is a bigger chink. All the experts know that, hence the elevation of Fed above Sampras in virtually all discussions of the greats of all time.
World Beater
Hall of Fame
you need to do more research about federer's injuries.
he has been injured in 2004, 2005. he was even wearing a strap at the AO 2006 and was clearly not playing his best tennis.
haas was unlucky. safin to a certain extent. But you cannot say federer was lucky. Durability and body mechanics matter in sport. You cannot say how much of it is luck and how much is preparation and genetics.
If federer doesn't get injured as much, it is to his credit. lucky or not.
World Beater
Hall of Fame
haha..optimism at its best.
only 2 seasons???!!
nadal still has yet to win 3 slams in one year. There is the grand canyon separating federer and nadal when it comes to legacies, at least right now.
nadal may close the gap but he has to post better results than even 2008 several more times, and break a whole host of records he wasnt even close to before.
federerfanatic
Banned
I dont see how Federer wouldnt be a top player for atleast another couple seasons. He probably wont ever dominate like 2004-2007 again, but that doesnt mean he is suddenly going to drop out of winning slams and being at or near the top altogether. Who is going to push him out of the top 2 or 3, or out of winning slams. Nadal has injury questions which seem to only be increasingly. Djokovic seems to have plateaued for the moment. Del Potro is on the rise. Murray is becoming a grand slam chump. Roddick who is only 1 year younger than Roger will always be well below Federer in the game at any given point in time in the future. Cilic has a long ways to go, as does Monfils, as does even Tsonga. Verdasco, Gonzalez, Davydenko, Soderling, Nalbandian, are middle aged to veteran players who are mostly era fillers more than anything.
Yes but...
Yes 13-7 is the reality. But because of the imbalance of the surfaces played on we can say that 13-7 says absolutely nothing about who is the better player.
Yes 13-7 is the reality. But because of the imbalance of the surfaces played on we can say that 13-7 says absolutely nothing about who is the better player.
Baikalic
Semi-Pro
assuming the thread topic is "who is the better player" which seems to be the direction of every single thread in this section, the h2h is one fraction of the equation. However, I believe Tacou is responding to the initial topic in that hypotheticals are discussed too much, a sentiment I echo. I am surprised such a thread has taken off as much as it has; the answer to the hypothetical asked by the OP is quite obvious.
Similar threads
