Which one is greater? Nadal at the AO or Federer at RG?

Which one is better?

  • Nadal at AO

    Votes: 26 34.2%

  • Federer at RG

    Votes: 50 65.8%
  • Total voters
    76
NoleFam

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
Both have 1 title and 4 finals. Nadal also has a SF and 5 QFs. Federer has 2 SFs and 3 QFs. Nadal has a 61-13 record and Federer is 65-16. Federer was never able to beat Nadal at RG and Nadal has not yet been able to beat Djokovic at AO. Who is the better player at the respective tournament and why?
 
i guess since nadal has never been bageled by djokovic at the AO...his maybe?


granted rafa/roger already have match up issues regardless of surface, its just 10x worse on clay because it plays perfectly into rafa's strength and roger's weakness idk. its always hard for me to rate truly how roger did at the french.
 
Sputnik Bulgorov said:
I think Federer might edge him here. For a period of time, Nadal was the only guy who could beat Federer at RG. You get the sense that he really was the 2nd best player at RG from 2005-2011. Nadal had a bunch of random losses and lost finals to Wawrinka and Federer, players whom he was expected to beat.
Click to expand...
to be fair, wawrinka had beaten djokovic in the semis, who was defending champion and well stan is one of those players who when he is on, he is on and well fed is fed..

i completely forgot that he did lose to verdasco in round 1 and berdych if im not mistaken that 1 year and i think that was in the first week.
 
icedevil0289 said:
i guess since nadal has never been bageled by djokovic at the AO...his maybe?


granted rafa/roger already have match up issues regardless of surface, its just 10x worse on clay because it plays perfectly into rafa's strength and roger's weakness idk. its always hard for me to rate truly how roger did at the french.
Click to expand...

I don't know if the bagel means much though. They both had a forgettable final from their end.
 
Hmm, I might give Nadal the slight edge but it is very close. It's amazing to think he now has 61 match wins at the AO after playing there 14 times, the exact same amount of match wins Djokovic had racked up after also competing 14 times and yet before this year Novak had won 6 titles compared to just 1 for Nadal! o_O
 
icedevil0289 said:
i guess since nadal has never been bageled by djokovic at the AO...his maybe?


granted rafa/roger already have match up issues regardless of surface, its just 10x worse on clay because it plays perfectly into rafa's strength and roger's weakness idk. its always hard for me to rate truly how roger did at the french.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you on most things but all things considered I think Fed is actually an amazing claycourter, I would go so far as to say claycourt expert, Nad just had him in so many RG finals, but looking at his record overall on clay, it's pretty damn good. Which is why I was a little surprised why he skipped the clay season after winning the Sunshine double in 2017.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
Hmm, I might give Nadal the slight edge but it is very close. It's amazing to think he now has 61 match wins at the AO after playing there 14 times, the exact same amount of match wins Djokovic had racked up after also competing 14 times and yet before this year Novak had won 6 titles compared to just 1 for Nadal! o_O
Click to expand...
7 titles
 
Rabe87 said:
I disagree with you on most things but all things considered I think Fed is actually an amazing claycourter, I would go so far as to say claycourt expert, Nad just had him in so many RG finals, but looking at his record overall on clay, it's pretty damn good. Which is why I was a little surprised why he skipped the clay season after winning the Sunshine double in 2017.
Click to expand...
fed is not a clay court expert, imo he is not a natural clay court player the way nadal is. he is comfortable on the court no doubt because he is an excellent mover and if im not mistaken used to play on them as a child, but he had to adjust a lot to be competitive on that surface and it is not natural to him. the only reason people say this is to elevate rafa's lack of competition on the surface

you certainly have a way with hyperboles though
 
Zebrev said:
Roger ended Djokovic 2011 run at the French. Rafa has never stopped Djokovic at the AO.

Roger wins.
Click to expand...

Does that mean Joe wins the earth because he's stopped all of them at every Slam (apart from the 4th Slam in Flushing Meadows re Nadal but nobody even counts that one anymore)
 
Djokovic2011 said:
Hmm, I might give Nadal the slight edge but it is very close. It's amazing to think he now has 61 match wins at the AO after playing there 14 times, the exact same amount of match wins Djokovic had racked up after also competing 14 times and yet before this year Novak had won 6 titles compared to just 1 for Nadal! o_O
Click to expand...

I didn't realize that and it is crazy when you think about it. I guess it's because Djokovic has a perfect record in the SF and finals but had early losses the two prior years.
 
Last edited:
I think there's no answer, really. Both are 1-4 in finals. That's all that's important, but if I was going to say one thing it would be that Federer seemed like he was legitimately 2nd best on clay for many years and would've won, say, 1-2 more RG (a conservative estimate in some sense) without Nadal to stop him or with a weaker 2015 like Nadal to play on clay.

In Nadal's case, he came closer to winning a second AO a couple times, but I'm not sure that really plays in his favour.
 
icedevil0289 said:
fed is not a clay court expert, imo he is not a natural clay court player the way nadal is. he is comfortable on the court no doubt because he is an excellent mover and if im not mistaken used to play on them as a child, but he had to adjust a lot to be competitive on that surface and it is not natural to him. the only reason people say this is to elevate rafa's lack of competition on the surface

you certainly have a way with hyperboles though
Click to expand...
He did grow up on clay and you can kind of see it with his movement and his stroke production which generates quite a lot of spin on both of his groundies, even his kick serve is something very few players have really mastered themselves, for me I always say Fed is one of the most underrated claycourt players ever.
 
Rabe87 said:
He did grow up on clay and you can kind of see it with his movement and his stroke production which generates quite a lot of spin on both of his groundies, even his kick serve is something very few players have really mastered themselves, for me I always say Fed is one of the most underrated claycourt players ever.
Click to expand...

underrated in some ways, overrated in others. he is not a true clay court specialist by any means.
 
Sputnik Bulgorov said:
Nadal was the only guy who could beat Federer at RG. You get the sense that he really was the 2nd best player at RG from 2005-2011.
Click to expand...

It's not just "getting the sense" that Fed was the second greatest clay court of that time period. He made 5 FO finals, so that is eloquent proof. It wouldn't have mattered who was on the other side of the net, Nadal wasn't losing a FO final when he was young, phenomenally fast with epic defense.
 
05-09 that Nadal wishes he had consistency at AO. Then 2011 and in 12 & 15 he was #3.

Nadal had a powerpuff draw in 2019 and weaker than first appearance in 2014 (Fed is not a threat, Dimitrov is a pusher).

At the end of the day you got:
1 of 5 Finals for Fed
1 of 5 Finals for Rafa
2 outside losses to eventual champ
0 such losses for Nadal
 
I might give Rafa the edge. He beat Fed at the AO three times in the past while Fed never even took Rafa the distance at RG. Nadal also came significantly closer to winning more than one at the AO then Fed did at RG. Nadal’s ability outside clay and Fed’s ability on clay are both very underrated imo.

Bottom line, it’s unfortunate that both players will likely finish their careers with just one title at those respective events.
 
Last edited:
icedevil0289 said:
to be fair, wawrinka had beaten djokovic in the semis, who was defending champion and well stan is one of those players who when he is on, he is on and well fed is fed..

i completely forgot that he did lose to verdasco in round 1 and berdych if im not mistaken that 1 year and i think that was in the first week.
Click to expand...

Rafa had incredible streaks vs both these guys before losing in the finals. He had never even lost a set to Wawrinka before the 2014 finals loss. He hadn't lost a GS match to Federer in 10 years before the 2017 finals loss. These are worse losses than Fed losing to the clay god.

You could say I guess that Rafa had better longevity at the AO. Rafa just made another final at 32 while Roger made his last FO SF at 30 and was done after that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSH
Honestly he is a specialist on every surface, but claycourt Fed is really the only Fed I can bring myself to watch, partly because the Claycourt fashions are always better and have nice autumnal tones, but also because he has great point construction on clay when he can't get as many freebies off his serve. By contrast I also think Joe is a claycourt specialist because of his movement and the fact he rates RG as his top Slam as he also grew up on the surface. When he loses at other Slams he's disappointed but not despondent, when he loses at RG he's always extremely disappointed and it's almost like Wimbledon is the consolation prize.
 
I think it's fascinating that for a surface that used to be seen as "the surface that doesn't really count" back in the 90's, we've got the Big 3 and Zverev & Thiem having all originated from claycourts in their junior days.
 
Sputnik Bulgorov said:
Rafa had incredible streaks vs both these guys before losing in the finals. He had never even lost a set to Wawrinka before the 2014 finals loss. He hadn't lost a GS match to Federer in 10 years before the 2017 finals loss. These are worse losses than Fed losing to the clay god.

You could say I guess that Rafa had better longevity at the AO. Rafa just made another final at 32 while Roger made his last FO SF at 30 and was done after that.
Click to expand...

lol i mean i could think of a few worse losses than losing to one of the greatest of all time at the AO who was a 17 time champion.
 
I'm sad Soderling never won RG, beating Nad only to lose to Fed, then the following year beating Fed only to lose to Nad in another final. He's really the one claycourt specialist who should've won a Slam there.
 
Sputnik Bulgorov said:
Rafa had incredible streaks vs both these guys before losing in the finals. He had never even lost a set to Wawrinka before the 2014 finals loss. He hadn't lost a GS match to Federer in 10 years before the 2017 finals loss. These are worse losses than Fed losing to the clay god.

You could say I guess that Rafa had better longevity at the AO. Rafa just made another final at 32 while Roger made his last FO SF at 30 and was done after that.
Click to expand...

will certainly be interesting to see if fed decides to stay with his decision to play clay, because he could easily change it depending on how he does during the IW/miami, how far he gets at rg
 
Rabe87 said:
Fed didn't have to beat Nad and Nad beat Fed at AO so it's pretty obvious. The better question would be, which one is better, Joe's RG or Rogers?
Click to expand...

Djokovic's because he at least has beaten the Clay Goat at RG even if it was the year before. Federer has never beaten him at RG.
 
Fed at clay is so long forgotten. It is like talking about Wilander and Lendl..

As regards topic, not too much to differentiate. Nadal has come more closer to lifting titles at AO 17 and AO 12. So have to give it to him if we have to pick one.
 
icedevil0289 said:
will certainly be interesting to see if fed decides to stay with his decision to play clay, because he could easily change it depending on how he does during the IW/miami, how far he gets at rg
Click to expand...
2017 Clay season would've been very interesting had he've played. The goal from the team (Craig O'Shannessy backed this up) was to win Wimbledon, AO was only a bonus and skipping Clay would give Fed months to practice on grass. But damn, the way he was playing in IW/Miami was devine, he could've won RG that year imo.
 
NatF said:
Well non really aside from Nadal himself, still don't think Fed's peak level is as high though (goes for Djokovic too).
Click to expand...
That can be agreeable but I thought it's a bit "unfair" for Fed and others not having the possibility to get any great wins besides beating RAFA in RG.
One could say Fed have had greater losses than RAFA in terms of respective tournament champions.
 
Im(moral) Winner said:
That can be agreeable but I thought it's a bit "unfair" for Fed and others not having the possibility to get any great wins besides beating RAFA in RG.
One could say Fed have had greater losses than RAFA in terms of respective tournament champions.
Click to expand...

Yeah that might well be true. Federer does have a couple of great wins e.g. Del Potro 2009 and Djokovic 2011 - I just think the Fiasco/Fed combo in 2009 tops it.
 
NatF said:
Yeah that might well be true. Federer does have a couple of great wins e.g. Del Potro 2009 and Djokovic 2011 - I just think the Fiasco/Fed combo in 2009 tops it.
Click to expand...
Those two matches get often mentioned but there weren't same kind of opportunities for Fed in the years prior besides beating RAFA.
 
Did Federer ever make it to FO final without playing anyone ranked higher than 15? Seems like Nadal’s greateness lies mostly in making slam finals without playing top 10 players.
 
Without taking away from Nadal's HC/AO greatness, the players he lost to are not Nadal-on-clay, and he lost to multitude players not just one.
 
clout said:
I might give Rafa the edge. He beat Fed at the AO three times in the past while Fed never even took Rafa the distance at RG. Nadal also came significantly closer to winning more than one at the AO then Fed did at RG. Nadal’s ability outside clay and Fed’s ability on clay are both very underrated imo.

Bottom line, it’s unfortunate that both players will likely finish their careers with just one title at those respective events.
Click to expand...
Beating Fed twice at the AO is irrelevant since he didn't win either title back then.
 
mike danny said:
Beating Fed twice at the AO is irrelevant since he didn't win either title back then.
Click to expand...
It’s tough to judge these types of questions cuz their play of these tournaments were actually really similar. I gave Nadal the edge by a hair since I think Nadal came closer to winning more than one AO while Fed’s only realistic chance at winning RG was in 09. That’s just my opinion tho
 
It's close but probably Nadal because he managed to beat Fed in 2009. I would say that's a higher level than Federer's highest level at RG. On the flipside, you can argue that Fed was only stopped by Nadal (RG GOAT) in the finals he lost, whereas Nadal has lost to Novak, Fed and Wawrinka.
 
Federer went 5 years in a row where the only guy who beat him at Roland Garros was Nadal. All his final losses are to that guy. There's nobodies record at a lesser slam that is equal to that one. Rafa in Australia, Novak in Paris, Even Sir Andy in Australia, multiple guys beat them all.

What does work in Rafa's favour is his longevity. 10 years from first final to latest final is no joke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Tenisfan3
If Djokovic > Nadal despite fewer slams,can we make a case for Roger>Djokovic at AO?
2
Replies
85
Views
4K
Blocker
B
M
Comparing Fed, Nadal, and Djokovic -Undefeated Record by Round at One Grand Slam
Replies
2
Views
507
DSH
DSH
skypadq
nadal at RG is really this guy is insane ?
2
Replies
55
Views
4K
Deleted member 791948
D
T
  • Poll Poll
Is Djokovic at RG greater than Nadal at Wimbledon?
2
Replies
51
Views
2K
GhostofPetros
GhostofPetros
J
  • Poll Poll
Djokovic vs Soderling - Who is better RG player?
Replies
32
Views
4K
Wilander Fan
W
Back
Top