Which one is greater? Nadal at the AO or Federer at RG?
- Thread starter NoleFam
- Start date
abmk
Bionic Poster
I wouldn't call 2012 irrelevant since Fed atleast played some good tennis.
Fed played crappy in the AO 2014 semi, so wouldn't really weigh that much.
--
Similarly Fed's win over djoko in RG 11 is pretty relevant even if he didn't win the title that year.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
abmk
Bionic Poster
Honest of you to accept this, I though you'd grow indignant as often happens
I post indignantly only when I am responding to a crappy post or someone piles BS accusations on me (get the idea?
)
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Nadal, because he came close to winning a second AO than Federer was to winning a second RG.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Gotta be The Nadal at this point. Fraudr has the consistency but Nadoll's runs are more impressive individually. Kinda like dis:
Fedr has 06, 07, 09, 11 as cool top level showings where he played well and gave the nadal a close match as far as he could (other than 09, which involved GOATing against the Saviourling)
05, had a mug draw to SF and I wasn't very impressed with the UEbreakchokefest against Nadal who wasn't as balanced a player yet (obviously his strengths like movement, passes, topspin grinding were ATG level already).
08, looked decent then sucked balls in the final.
10, decent stuff but unclutch and loses to a well-playing Söd in QF.
12, easy draw to QF, should've lost to Delpo but a minor injury threw JMDP off only for Djokovic to expose Fed's level for real (and that was far from a top Djokovic given that he saved MPs against Tsonga in the previous round).
Nadal has 09, 12, 14 minus the injury, 17 as cool top level runs. 09 was an epic win through one of the toughest SF/F combos ever; 12, downed peak Berdych (underrated match), good Federer and gave prime Djokovic a great fight; 14, clutched his way past a good Dimitrov, swatted away Federer (as much as Fed wasn't feeling it, it was a feat to beat him in 3 straight sets) and came undone by his back in the final (which I suppose would've been 50/50 otherwise even after the first set); 17, beat a peaking Dimitrov and only 5th set Godmoderer forced the title away from him.
Equalling 19 to Fed's RG 08 (no matter if Fed's draw was at least somewhat decent, both sucked in the final big time against an archrival so both are forever recorded as ****ty final runs), it then follows that Nadal's 5 final runs are altogether more impressive than Federer's.
Now Federer's 05 RG is more impressive than any of Nadal's other AO runs, but I don't think that outweighs Nadal's epicker final runs, evens out at most. The rest of Nadal's relevant runs - 05, 08, 10, 18 - outweighes Federer's 10 and 12, so Nadal emerges the greater by a little. I would put 08, 10 and 18 all on par to Federer's 12 - as I said, Federer was getting trolled by Potro before the Argie turned into a mug. TsonGOAT and MuryGOAT didn't turn into mugs hence the str8 sets, and I'm rather certain Nadal would've beaten Chokelic in 5 if not for the injury. 05 is strangely enough better than 10, yes Nadal was young so that gets forgotten, but he did give Hewitt a very serious match, and Hewitt made the final and only lost to Peakfin.
Fedr has 06, 07, 09, 11 as cool top level showings where he played well and gave the nadal a close match as far as he could (other than 09, which involved GOATing against the Saviourling)
05, had a mug draw to SF and I wasn't very impressed with the UEbreakchokefest against Nadal who wasn't as balanced a player yet (obviously his strengths like movement, passes, topspin grinding were ATG level already).
08, looked decent then sucked balls in the final.
10, decent stuff but unclutch and loses to a well-playing Söd in QF.
12, easy draw to QF, should've lost to Delpo but a minor injury threw JMDP off only for Djokovic to expose Fed's level for real (and that was far from a top Djokovic given that he saved MPs against Tsonga in the previous round).
Nadal has 09, 12, 14 minus the injury, 17 as cool top level runs. 09 was an epic win through one of the toughest SF/F combos ever; 12, downed peak Berdych (underrated match), good Federer and gave prime Djokovic a great fight; 14, clutched his way past a good Dimitrov, swatted away Federer (as much as Fed wasn't feeling it, it was a feat to beat him in 3 straight sets) and came undone by his back in the final (which I suppose would've been 50/50 otherwise even after the first set); 17, beat a peaking Dimitrov and only 5th set Godmoderer forced the title away from him.
Equalling 19 to Fed's RG 08 (no matter if Fed's draw was at least somewhat decent, both sucked in the final big time against an archrival so both are forever recorded as ****ty final runs), it then follows that Nadal's 5 final runs are altogether more impressive than Federer's.
Now Federer's 05 RG is more impressive than any of Nadal's other AO runs, but I don't think that outweighs Nadal's epicker final runs, evens out at most. The rest of Nadal's relevant runs - 05, 08, 10, 18 - outweighes Federer's 10 and 12, so Nadal emerges the greater by a little. I would put 08, 10 and 18 all on par to Federer's 12 - as I said, Federer was getting trolled by Potro before the Argie turned into a mug. TsonGOAT and MuryGOAT didn't turn into mugs hence the str8 sets, and I'm rather certain Nadal would've beaten Chokelic in 5 if not for the injury. 05 is strangely enough better than 10, yes Nadal was young so that gets forgotten, but he did give Hewitt a very serious match, and Hewitt made the final and only lost to Peakfin.
abmk
Bionic Poster
You are rather under-rating Fed's RG 05. conditions were slower at that year's RG IIRC leading to more breaks b/w Fedal. Gonzo wasn't a pushover at that RG. Moya was a good win as well, even if he didn't play well.
@ the bold part : you can be certain, but that's not what the ebbs and flows of the match (and the Schwartz match in the previous round) indicate. could've gone either way.
Fed's top runs at RG :
(in no order)
2007
2006
2011
2009
2005
6th best is 2010
7th best is 2008
-------
Nadal's top runs at AO
( in no order)
2009
2012
2014
2017
2019
I'm not sure I'd put 05 as better than 10. not that much of a difference b/w 05, 08, 10 and 18.
Nadal's 09 run is better/more epic than any of fed's at RG. Fed's RG 11 run is up there with nadal's AO 12 run.
But fed's 2010 is also clearly better than any of Nadal's 05/08/10/18 . Heck, I'd probably put it above AO 19 and AO 14 (if we consider the actual performance in the final)
Fed was just a step slower than his prime and Soderling was GOATing.
Also Nadal was down a set AND a break to stan in AO 14 before the injury, not just a set down.
icedevil0289
G.O.A.T.
I post indignantly only when I am responding to a crappy post or someone piles BS accusations on me (get the idea?
lmao sometimes im like damn buddy give up, but i always admire that you mostly argue using stats or atleast try to
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Blaming the conditions now? Come on. That was Federer in the midst of his peak, should've done way better than that UE show.
Oh my, played two good sets losing both. Next we'll start talking Mathieu as some amazing opponent for Nadal in RG 06 because he happened to struggle. Stay within reason.
So form > name except when it's not? How convenient.
The previous match has nothing to do with it except for wearing Nadal down so he was more liable to getting injured.
Cilic always chokes close matches against Big 4 (the only wins he has are dominant - Mury USO 09, Fed USO 14, the nadal Beijing 09 etc), so on the basis of that long-standing pattern I'm pretty sure he would choke again. He was actually still choking in the fifth, but Nadal's movement was shot by then so he couldn't take advantage.
Ah, the classic excuse 'mah fave lost because opponent goated, no?'. Very Nadalian, too.
I say 19 year-old Nadal giving eventual finalist Hewitt a five-set match is more impressive than Federer choking to in-form Söderling. Now you can of course dismiss Nadal's effort because Hewitt played like **** or whatever, so how many players were going to 6-3 6-1 a dipping Hewitt, hmm? Looks like whatever Nadal does, it's never good enough unless he bests an exceptional SF/F combo.
Do players become injured literally the moment they take an MTO?
abmk
Bionic Poster
I was stating the reason for the # of breaks in that match. and that also explains the # of UEs to an extent. Federer shou;ld've done better. No doubt about that.
yes, PHM was a good opponent for Nadal in RG 06. I didn't use the word amazing for Gonzo either.
I'm saying it was a good win because Federer played well to beat Moya (albeit a Moya who didn't play well).
Just as Djokovic's win over Ferrer in AO 13 is a good win because of the level he showed (more than that actually) -- even though Ferrer played like sh*t
Queens 2018 ?
Paris 16 and Cincy 16 weren't dominant even though both were straight setters.
How was Cilic choking in the 5th set ?
The previous match also showed Nadal wasn't playing that well.
Now you make such utter BS statements and then when call you out on it, you say I am indignant ?
19 yo old nadal giving Hewitt a 5-set match is more impressive than fed losing to sod in RG 2010 only if you take into consideration that Nadal was 19 yo old.
Per se, it wasn't.
Soderling had to pull off a great save on SP to save the 3rd set.
He looked fine in that game in which Stan broke him. Have a look at that return game from Stan. Stunning return game.[/QUOTE]
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
These aren't remotely comparable. Federer had pretty standard stats of 67% SPW and 1.46 DR, nothing unusual for a fairly one-sided straight-set win. Djokovic lost merely 7 service points in 3 sets and had a DR of 3.98 - a legendary performance.
The queens match hadn't happened yet then. Paris 16 I give. Cincy wasn't that close, Cilic was in trouble early on and saved himself well, but from 2-2 he was untouchable on serve other than choking at *5-2 1st set. Lost only 3 service points in the second set, so it wasn't close despite the 7-5 scoreline.
How was Cilic choking in the 5th set ?
First game (also the only game, should be obvious). What were those returns? Nadal wasn't serving full steam though he still used the placement/angles well. You see your opponent is injured, just focus on hitting it deep to make him move.
True, yet he still was two sets to one up vs Cilic before getting injured.
Now you make such utter BS statements and then when call you out on it, you say I am indignant ?
There's a difference between playing well and "goating".
Because Söderling "goated", I guess?
What about all the other points?
Great game, sure. So the question is: What should have done to look injured, then? Not like he suddenly looked gravely injured in the 0-2 game, even though he was by then unless you think he got injured the moment the MTO was called.
Stats wise they are equal. I would definitely say Nadal at the AO since the field on hard courts in the current game is far deeper than the field on clay. It is much easier to reach 5 RG finals in the current weak clay era than 5 AO finals in the very strong hard court field we have. Add to that Federer couldnt realistic have won another French Open, and Nadal very realistically could have won any of 2012, 2017, maybe 2014 (if he werent injured). I am very surprised at the poll results.
D
Deleted member 763024
Guest
It’s close. I’d say even.
Both slightly different achievements as others in this thread have already pointed out.
Both slightly different achievements as others in this thread have already pointed out.
Nadalgaenger
G.O.A.T.
“Great” is not an adjective I’d use for either at these events.
That said, slight edge to Fed, as he made more finals and always lost to the most dominant clay player ever.
That said, slight edge to Fed, as he made more finals and always lost to the most dominant clay player ever.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
They both made 5 finals.
D
Deleted member 762343
Guest
I give the edge to Rafa, simply because he won 2009 AO against Federer who was still a beast at that time while Federer won his only RG title against Soderling. Not comparable.
abmk
Bionic Poster
look at the essence of the point.
Fine, take another example. f.i. Djokovic's win over Murray in RG 16 final. A DR of ~1.3.
Cincy 16 final wasn't that close, but wasn't dominant either. that's my point.
you mean 2nd game of the 2nd set (nadal's 1st return game). yeah, he was moving gingerly in that game. not in the game in which he was broken - the 1st game of the 2nd set. which is why I said Nadal was a set and break down before the injury.
Nadal was a break down in the 4th before he got injured in the Cilic match.
yes, there is absolutely a difference. Soderling was GOATing.
you mean like points that helped him win vs a well playing fed in 4 sets ?
Backspin1183
Talk Tennis Guru
A case can be made for Fed at RG. It's equal imo.
AnOctorokForDinner
Talk Tennis Guru
Yeah, good win level-wise after the first set, not really memorable though as the match itself. I respect the semi win over Thiem more, because Djokovic actually dominated throughout (and it's not like Murray was playing much better after the first set).
I think he started feeling it during the break game - specifically after the long rally at 15-15, which he won, but then could be seen clutching his hip (which per se isn't significant) and randomly tried s&v on the next point which he failed badly (which is telling as that was Nadal's first s&v in the match - why? - and the clumsy half-volley was not even close).
Stop trying to make a good match into a great one, no?
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
THis a 100 times.
Rabe87
Professional
We're talking about a man who's lost *twice* at RG, Soderling and Joe should get a RG medal for that achievement. Beating Nad at RG in any round is automatically a career highlight for anyone, and no amount of TTF grovelling and moaning over form and injuries can really undermine that. When you walk out onto a tennis court you're ready to play, only fangirls make excuses for their favs when they lose.
Cortana
Legend
/thread
icedevil0289
G.O.A.T.
its funny though how rafa won his sole AO in the year fed won his sole FO.
its an amazing achievement but just goes to show that beating rafa doesn't automatically =winning it. fortunately novak was able to win it the next year of course but many people think beating one player is the pinnacle despite the fact that might not have won it.
its an amazing achievement but just goes to show that beating rafa doesn't automatically =winning it. fortunately novak was able to win it the next year of course but many people think beating one player is the pinnacle despite the fact that might not have won it.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Federer didn't get slaughtered by Gonzalez while in his prime so there's that.
abmk
Bionic Poster
yeah, performance in the Thiem match was better. Anyways my point stands.
this is the video I have.
don't see clutching Nadal clutching his hip in this. But then a little part is cut.
As far as SnV is concerned, serve was out wide and he had Cilic out of position. (or so he thought) - so he came in behind that. Nadal ain't a Mac/Sampras that you would necessarily expect him to make those volleys.
watch the point at 3-1,15-0 Cilic. Nadal gets down and hits a BH CC winner. Doesn't look like someone who is in pain.
Go and check the match thread.
You won't find a single reasonable poster pointing out anything was wrong with Nadal till he actually took the MTO
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/aus-open-2018-qf-1-nadal-vs-6-cilic.608527/
you were also commenting live. Don't see you mentioning anything either.
stop trying to revise a GOATing performance from Soderling into merely a good one. jeez !!!
just watch it (if you already have, watch it again !)
the match per se was not great (federer could've played better, though he did play well), but it was very good.
Here's some stats in the meanwhile :
RSod in 2010 RG QF . AM = 22.45%
FEd in 2010 RG QF. AM = 21.22%
This was under heavy/damp conditions. So actually more chances for UEs. (though heavy conditions suited Soderling more than Fed)
Stan in 2015 RG F, AM = 20.07%
Djokovic in 2015 RG F, AM = 12.2%
Djokovic being better defender in the 15 match than fed in 10 match is more than eclipsed by the fact that Fed was playing better by some distance.
But hey, Stan was GOATing in RG 2015 final, but Soderling was merely playing good.
Now,before you bring in some more revisionist stuff.
Check the match thread out :
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...rters-federer-sui-1-v-soderling-swe-5.330578/
Every single reasonable poster posted that Soderling was nothing less than absolutely brilliant (in essence)
Sod actually played better in this QF vs Fed in RG 2010 than vs Nadal in 2009 RG. Obviously the Nadal win was more impressive considering it was vs Nadal at RG.
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ling-vs-nadal-2009-or-vs-federer-2010.331236/
70+% of the people in this poll went with the 2010 one.
not that its conclusive proof of anything, I'm just showing what people thought at that time
Last edited:
Pheasant
G.O.A.T.
Without looking it up, I had Nadal by a big margin. But I dug further into this.
Nadal: 7-9 vs top 10. Nadal peaked higher, IMHO. But his consistency hurts him. Nadal lost a lot of matches that he shouldn’t have. He lost to González in 2007, Murray 2010, Ferrer 2011, Stan 2014, Berdych 2015, Cilic 2018.
Fed was 8-11 vs top 10. However, Fed was insanely consistent. From 2005-2011, Fed lost to Nadal 5 times, and Soderling once. That is one bad loss in 7 years. That is remarkable. It took an insanely high level to knock Fed out. I would equate Fed’s loss to Soderling to Nadal’s loss to Wawrinka.
I have Fed taking this. Fed was nearly unbeatable for 7 years when excluding the greatest player on a single surface in history by 5 levels. Nothing in tennis history compares to playing Nadal on clay. And this is why Nadal has won 3 slams on clay without dropping a set. Peak Nadal wasn’t human on this surface.
Nadal: 7-9 vs top 10. Nadal peaked higher, IMHO. But his consistency hurts him. Nadal lost a lot of matches that he shouldn’t have. He lost to González in 2007, Murray 2010, Ferrer 2011, Stan 2014, Berdych 2015, Cilic 2018.
Fed was 8-11 vs top 10. However, Fed was insanely consistent. From 2005-2011, Fed lost to Nadal 5 times, and Soderling once. That is one bad loss in 7 years. That is remarkable. It took an insanely high level to knock Fed out. I would equate Fed’s loss to Soderling to Nadal’s loss to Wawrinka.
I have Fed taking this. Fed was nearly unbeatable for 7 years when excluding the greatest player on a single surface in history by 5 levels. Nothing in tennis history compares to playing Nadal on clay. And this is why Nadal has won 3 slams on clay without dropping a set. Peak Nadal wasn’t human on this surface.
DSH
Bionic Poster
djokovic ao...........................................................................djokovic rg.
DSH
Bionic Poster
nadal reached his 5 final after 10 years.
federer reached his 5 final after 5 years.
is not close anymore.
Similar threads
