Why does Nadal own Fed, Djokovic and Murray?

[TheRealTruth]

Nadal, Rafael 5-1 Murray, Andy

Nadal, Rafael 10-4 Djokovic, Novak

http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/default.asp?playernum1=N409&playernum2=D643

Nadal, Rafael 12-6 Federer, Roger

http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Nadal,+Rafael&player2=federer

Why is Nadal so much better than the guys ranked directly below him?

Nadal owns Federer in finals is a forgone conclusion.

Nadal owns Djokovic completely, beat him on all surfaces this year on clay, grass, and hard.

Nadal in fact owns nearly everyone in the top 10 has this ever happend before?

 

[MonsieurCrocodile]

Nadal, Rafael 5-1 Murray, Andy

Nadal, Rafael 10-4 Djokovic, Novak

http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/default.asp?playernum1=N409&playernum2=D643

Nadal, Rafael 12-6 Federer, Roger

http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Nadal,+Rafael&player2=federer

Why is Nadal so much better than the guys ranked directly below him?

Nadal owns Federer in finals is a forgone conclusion.

Nadal owns Djokovic completely, beat him on all surfaces this year on clay, grass, and hard.

Nadal in fact owns nearly everyone in the top 10 has this ever happend before?

 

[akv89]

Nadal's head to head with Federer has been discussed to end.

Nadal is younger and his game developed early, which means Federer had fewer chances at beating him while he was still developing.
Most of their meetings were on clay where Nadal has the clear advantaqe.
And Nadal's game matches up well against Federer's game.

With Djokovic and Murray, Nadal is simply a better player and also developed far earlier than either one.

 

[joeri888]

Nadal's head to head with Federer has been discussed to end.

Nadal is younger and his game developed early, which means Federer had fewer chances at beating him while he was still developing.
Most of their meetings were on clay where Nadal has the clear advantaqe.
And Nadal's game matches up well against Federer's game.

With Djokovic and Murray, Nadal is simply a better player and also developed far earlier than either one.

Of their 18 meetings there were at least 10 on clay. Nadal is 4-0 this year, in which he was clearly the better player because Fed's gone down a bit and never really got to Nadal on clay. I'd bet my money on Federer to win against Nadal on a hardcourt everytime still. Problem is they won't meet three times a year on a hardcourt

 

[cknobman]

Nadals h2h against Fed is good only because Nadal usually isnt good enough to make it to HC finals consistently and being #1 and #2 thats the only chance they have of meeting one another(other than the MC).

 

[rubberduckies]

Nadals h2h against Fed is good only because Nadal usually isnt good enough to make it to HC finals consistently and being #1 and #2 thats the only chance they have of meeting one another(other than the MC).

Nadal had bested or matched Fed in every single HC tournament this year with the exception of the USO.

Fed has said many times in the past how important it was to beat Nadal while he was still young and developing. His victory in Miami 2005 was against a green Nadal, and is the only reason he has a winning record on HC.

Nadal has a dominant record against Fed because of his superior talent and abilities.
Nadal has a dominant record against Novak because he played Joker many times before his 2007 breakthrough and many times on clay and grass.
Nadal has a dominant record against Andy because he played him many times before his 2008 Cincy/USO breakthrough.

 

[wangs78]

It's a combination of things.

Why Nadal has a winning record against Fed:
1) Nadal's a great player (#1 in the world)
2) Nadal's left-handed, topspin heavy forehand matches up very well against Roger's one-handed backhand (this is a big factor)
3) Nadal and Roger have consistently made it to the finals of claycourt tournaments and play each other, where Nadal has the advantage because on clay Nadal's topspin is even greater and the pace is slower given Nadal's "chase the ball down like a rabbit" strategy an advantage
4) Nadal has not consistently made it to hardcourt finals to meet Roger and hardcourt gives Roger the advantage.

 

[kelz]

Nadal has a dominant record against Novak because he played Joker many times before his 2007 breakthrough and many times on clay and grass.

http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/default.asp?playernum1=N409&playernum2=D643

This year alone, where Djokovic won his maiden grand slam title, Nadal has a 4-1 H2H record against him. Wins over him include all surfaces.

 

[PCXL-Fan]

His domination on clay court, is the reason he's handly ahead in the head to head matchup.

There's your answer TheRealTruth.

 

[Oui c'est moi.]

So now we don't just have to hear the truth but the real truth too

 

[cknobman]

Nadal has a dominant record against Fed because of his superior talent and abilities.
.

Your funny

No doubt Nadal is talented but superior to Fed? LOL not yet. Lets hold off these kind of statements until his achievements rival that of Fed.

 

[luckyboy1300]

So now we don't just have to hear the truth but the real truth too

true, true:-| now we have to deal with not only 1 (which is hard enough already) but 2 BSs everyday

 

[LanceStern]

Nadal had bested or matched Fed in every single HC tournament this year with the exception of the USO.

Fed has said many times in the past how important it was to beat Nadal while he was still young and developing. His victory in Miami 2005 was against a green Nadal, and is the only reason he has a winning record on HC.

Nadal has a dominant record against Fed because of his superior talent and abilities.
Nadal has a dominant record against Novak because he played Joker many times before his 2007 breakthrough and many times on clay and grass.
Nadal has a dominant record against Andy because he played him many times before his 2008 Cincy/USO breakthrough.

But he demoslihed Nadal at the year end masters on hard court. And beat him again at Shanghai on hardcourt when Nadal wasn't green.

 

[BallzofSkill]

Michael Phelps OWNS Hulk Hogan in the 100m freestyle.

 

[Cup8489]

Nadal had bested or matched Fed in every single HC tournament this year with the exception of the USO. Fed has said many times in the past how important it was to beat Nadal while he was still young and developing. His victory in Miami 2005 was against a green Nadal, and is the only reason he has a winning record on HC.

Nadal has a dominant record against Fed because of his superior talent and abilities.
Nadal has a dominant record against Novak because he played Joker many times before his 2007 breakthrough and many times on clay and grass.
Nadal has a dominant record against Andy because he played him many times before his 2008 Cincy/USO breakthrough.

this statement is decieving. you're implying that nadal has beaten federer on hardcourts even once this year, which isnt the case. fed doesnt lose to nadal in hardcourt matches, he loses to other players, so how far he gets in a tournament is irrelevant to how he'd actually do against nadal.

i dont like this statement either, because you seem to be implying that nadal has more talent than fed. if nadal was only as fit and trained as well as fed, he would NOT be number 1 this year. conversely, if fed was in as good of shape as nadal is, he would most definitely be the number one. so you can't really compare their talents. but quite honestly, federer was born with the gift, while nadal had to work his ass off for it.

the end result is what it is, but you cant really say nadal is more talented, because he's not, really.

 

[edmondsm]

My sentiments exactly.

 

[iamke55]

How can Federer be born with the gift? Last time I checked, Nadal won his first slam at a much younger age, so Federer had to work much longer to get to the top 5.

 

[Parabolica]

It's a combination of things.

Why Nadal has a winning record against Fed:
1) Nadal's a great player (#1 in the world)
2) Nadal's left-handed, topspin heavy forehand matches up very well against Roger's one-handed backhand (this is a big factor)
3) Nadal and Roger have consistently made it to the finals of claycourt tournaments and play each other, where Nadal has the advantage because on clay Nadal's topspin is even greater and the pace is slower given Nadal's "chase the ball down like a rabbit" strategy an advantage
4) Nadal has not consistently made it to hardcourt finals to meet Roger and hardcourt gives Roger the advantage.

Agreed with all what was said. Plus, the one other surface(Wimbledon) where they played is fairly slow now and certainly much slower than a hard-court.

 

[veroniquem]

Nadal, Rafael 5-1 Murray, Andy

Nadal, Rafael 10-4 Djokovic, Novak

http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/default.asp?playernum1=N409&playernum2=D643

Nadal, Rafael 12-6 Federer, Roger

http://www.atptennis.com/3/en/players/headtohead/?player1=Nadal,+Rafael&player2=federer

Why is Nadal so much better than the guys ranked directly below him?

Nadal owns Federer in finals is a forgone conclusion.

Nadal owns Djokovic completely, beat him on all surfaces this year on clay, grass, and hard.

Nadal in fact owns nearly everyone in the top 10 has this ever happend before?

Because Nadal is the best player in the world, that's why. Compared to him, Fed, Djoko and Murray are all amateurs

 

[Parabolica]

If he's so good, why does he feel the need to bite his trophies all the time? hungry? :???:

 

[veroniquem]

this statement is decieving. you're implying that nadal has beaten federer on hardcourts even once this year, which isnt the case. fed doesnt lose to nadal in hardcourt matches, he loses to other players, so how far he gets in a tournament is irrelevant to how he'd actually do against nadal.

i dont like this statement either, because you seem to be implying that nadal has more talent than fed. if nadal was only as fit and trained as well as fed, he would NOT be number 1 this year. conversely, if fed was in as good of shape as nadal is, he would most definitely be the number one. so you can't really compare their talents. but quite honestly, federer was born with the gift, while nadal had to work his ass off for it.

the end result is what it is, but you cant really say nadal is more talented, because he's not, really.

First of all how could Nadal have beaten Fed on HC this year when the guy only made the final of one tournament? Nadal made 3 HC finals and Federer was never on the other side of the net.
Secondly, sorry to be bursting your bubble here but Federer wasn't "born with the gift" and didn't start winning through a wave of his magic wand. His first years on the tour were actually significantly less brilliant than Nadal's. Fed also needed to work his ass off to get himself to where he is today.
And finally ( this is going to rock your world, I know) Nadal is not pure hard work either. He also has that thing called "talent".

 

[babbette]

clip posted in wrong thread

 

[tennis-hero]

The only thing clay is good for is pushers

pushers philosophy in tennis is keep the ball in and in the end, the other guy will make a mistake.... on faster surfaces you can't do this since you'll end up playing someone who can just blow you off the court- or just Ace you until your own serve breaks down

clay slows everything down and it isn't so much playing tennis as grunting and hitting untill someone tires and either misses or doesn't have the stamina to get to the ball

this philosophy of "pushing" is what the ATP deems as the future of tennis

all finesse, skill, and actual talent is to be replaced by baseline clubbing by Neanderthals with the mental skill of a blonde searching for W's in an M&M factory

the homogenizing of all surfaces to make the clubbing neanderthals feel better has already happened at a slowed down Wimby, a constantly changing AO, so really only the US open plays anything like it did 10 years ago

the dirt at France was always the weakest slam of the 4, until the new breed of Neanderthal found out it suited their simple minds

 

[caulcano]

The only thing clay is good for is pushers

pushers philosophy in tennis is keep the ball in and in the end, the other guy will make a mistake.... on faster surfaces you can't do this since you'll end up playing someone who can just blow you off the court- or just Ace you until your own serve breaks down

clay slows everything down and it isn't so much playing tennis as grunting and hitting untill someone tires and either misses or doesn't have the stamina to get to the ball

this philosophy of "pushing" is what the ATP deems as the future of tennis

all finesse, skill, and actual talent is to be replaced by baseline clubbing by Neanderthals with the mental skill of a blonde searching for W's in an M&M factory

the homogenizing of all surfaces to make the clubbing neanderthals feel better has already happened at a slowed down Wimby, a constantly changing AO, so really only the US open plays anything like it did 10 years ago

the dirt at France was always the weakest slam of the 4, until the new breed of Neanderthal found out it suited their simple minds

I actually laughed at that.

 

[TheTruth]

So now we don't just have to hear the truth but the real truth too

Can't get too much truth. It's good for the soul!

 

[veroniquem]

The only thing clay is good for is pushers

pushers philosophy in tennis is keep the ball in and in the end, the other guy will make a mistake.... on faster surfaces you can't do this since you'll end up playing someone who can just blow you off the court- or just Ace you until your own serve breaks down

clay slows everything down and it isn't so much playing tennis as grunting and hitting untill someone tires and either misses or doesn't have the stamina to get to the ball

this philosophy of "pushing" is what the ATP deems as the future of tennis

all finesse, skill, and actual talent is to be replaced by baseline clubbing by Neanderthals with the mental skill of a blonde searching for W's in an M&M factory

the homogenizing of all surfaces to make the clubbing neanderthals feel better has already happened at a slowed down Wimby, a constantly changing AO, so really only the US open plays anything like it did 10 years ago

the dirt at France was always the weakest slam of the 4, until the new breed of Neanderthal found out it suited their simple minds

It 's funny that you direct that rant at somebody like Nadal who is an excellent tactician and actually shows great mental skills! Long live Neanderthal tennis if that's what you want to call it!

 

[PCXL-Fan]

Can't get too much truth. It's good for the soul!

Now we need to get someone to join the forum under the name The 'Manufactured Spun Truth'.

 

[TheTruth]

First of all how could Nadal have beaten Fed on HC this year when the guy only made the final of one tournament? Nadal made 3 HC finals and Federer was never on the other side of the net.
Secondly, sorry to be bursting your bubble here but Federer wasn't "born with the gift" and didn't start winning through a wave of his magic wand. His first years on the tour were actually significantly less brilliant than Nadal's. Fed also needed to work his ass off to get himself to where he is today.
And finally ( this is going to rock your world, I know) Nadal is not pure hard work either. He also has that thing called "talent".

All true! Very nicely put!

 

[veroniquem]

Can't get too much truth. It's good for the soul!

Well said my friend, the more truth the better!!

 

[TheTruth]

Now we need to get someone to join the forum under the name The 'Manufactured Spun Truth'.

There's already a lot of posters like that on this board, they just don't use that long moniker. This Truth backs most of her arguments with articles and stats, there's nothing manufactured here!

P.S.-And no fantasies!

 

[ThugNasty]

First of all how could Nadal have beaten Fed on HC this year when the guy only made the final of one tournament? Nadal made 3 HC finals and Federer was never on the other side of the net.
Secondly, sorry to be bursting your bubble here but Federer wasn't "born with the gift" and didn't start winning through a wave of his magic wand. His first years on the tour were actually significantly less brilliant than Nadal's. Fed also needed to work his ass off to get himself to where he is today.
And finally ( this is going to rock your world, I know) Nadal is not pure hard work either. He also has that thing called "talent".

Yeah but federer had mental issues that held him back but when all is said and done he is much more talented than nadal. He is possibly the most talented person yet to play the game (you dont hear this all the time for nothing, his tennis smarts and skills are amazing). I dont agree with tennis hero in that nadal is a pusher, nadal is really talented but seriously he is more of physical beast. Nadals H2H record against federer is the most deceiving thing ever. they have played 10 times on clay courts! Nadal would get devoured by federer if he met fed in the 2004-2007 form on faster surfaces. Alot pf people think it says more about federer than nadal but in reality it actually says much more about nadal and his inability to dominate the whole tour like federer and not just 1 surface.

 

[Cup8489]

First of all how could Nadal have beaten Fed on HC this year when the guy only made the final of one tournament? Nadal made 3 HC finals and Federer was never on the other side of the net.
Secondly, sorry to be bursting your bubble here but Federer wasn't "born with the gift" and didn't start winning through a wave of his magic wand. His first years on the tour were actually significantly less brilliant than Nadal's. Fed also needed to work his ass off to get himself to where he is today.
And finally ( this is going to rock your world, I know) Nadal is not pure hard work either. He also has that thing called "talent".

did i ever say that nadal lost to federer in the final on hardcourts? no, i just said that you can't say that nadal WOULD win, because that's too iffy. you dont know for sure, and yeah, federer's had a lousy year on hardcourts. and i like how you can always be a complete ass about your responses. and you're right, fed didnt make but one HC final. but he DIDNT lose to nadal, which was the point i was trying to make. federer lost to non-nadal players in those tournaments, and so he didnt play nadal. i never said that federer was better on hardcourts this year than nadal either

and i also didnt say nadal was pure hard work, did i. i said he's had to work harder since reaching the top. i know fed had a lousy start to his career, and nadal really came out quick. but nadal has to work much harder to stay at the level he's at. federer relies more on his TALENT to win matches. nadal relies on his talent, fitness, speed, and endurance. so i'm not sure why you had to be so rude to me, despite the fact that i never actually sought to discredit nadal's wins this year, nor belittle the fact that he's one of the most talented players out there. i was simply saying federer relies on his talent more than nadal does.

you don't need to get so defensive, i was just pointing out what another poster said was wrong. what i said wasnt, actually wrong.

 

[PCXL-Fan]

P.S.-And no fantasies!

Nooooo. Darn it

 

[edmondsm]

First of all how could Nadal have beaten Fed on HC this year when the guy only made the final of one tournament? Nadal made 3 HC finals and Federer was never on the other side of the net.

That is only true of this year. Go back to 2005 and compare (the number of times where Federer has gotten to a clay final and met Nadal) vs. (the number of times Nadal has gotten to a hardcourt final and met Federer).

Out of 18 meetings they have met on clay more then half the time, so the h2h is not accurate in the slightest. I imagine I will have to reiterate this point many more times. Outside of clay, the advantage is 5-3 Federer.

 

[Zaragoza]

Nadals h2h against Fed is good only because Nadal usually isnt good enough to make it to HC finals consistently and being #1 and #2 thats the only chance they have of meeting one another(other than the MC).

Once again their record on hardcourts is 3-2 so there is not a solid argument to say that Federer would win 90% of their matches on hardcourts like Nadal does against Federer on clay. That´s wishful thinking. And going further, their record on outdoor hardcourts is 2-1 for Nadal and most of the hardcourt tournaments are played outdoors so I´m sure Federer would not win 90% of their matches on outdoor hardcourts. Nadal is a bad matchup for Federer.

 

[rocket]

First of all how could Nadal have beaten Fed on HC this year when the guy only made the final of one tournament? Nadal made 3 HC finals and Federer was never on the other side of the net.

Fed was in the final of the biggest HC tournament of the year. Where was Nadal? That's right, he spent all his energy winning the little HC tourneys.

Secondly, sorry to be bursting your bubble here but Federer wasn't "born with the gift" and didn't start winning through a wave of his magic wand. His first years on the tour were actually significantly less brilliant than Nadal's.

Federer is regarded as the most naturally gifted player ever by pros, ex-pros & amateurs. Welcome to the tennis world if you've just joined.

Fed was relatively a late-bloomer, but when he got there, his dominance was quasi-total.

Fed also needed to work his ass off to get himself to where he is today.

Did he bust his knees in his 1st year as world's #1?

And finally ( this is going to rock your world, I know) Nadal is not pure hard work either. He also has that thing called "talent".

No doubt. Still, Nadal had to work "his ass off" (borrowing your words) a lot more than Fed to get to where he is now. Just look at this year, the guy's out of steam & his body's already falling apart.

 

[tennisVS]

His domination on clay court, is the reason he's handly ahead in the head to head matchup.

There's your answer TheRealTruth.

I Just want to say that I love the picture of Serena on your avatar, wonderful isn't she. I'm very sorry for messing up your thread guys i just had to tell about Serenas picutre.

 

[SaunderS]

Because they can't handle his spin and pace. is he officially fastest on tour?

 

[roysid]

It's a combination of things.

Why Nadal has a winning record against Fed:
1) Nadal's a great player (#1 in the world)
2) Nadal's left-handed, topspin heavy forehand matches up very well against Roger's one-handed backhand (this is a big factor)
3) Nadal and Roger have consistently made it to the finals of claycourt tournaments and play each other, where Nadal has the advantage because on clay Nadal's topspin is even greater and the pace is slower given Nadal's "chase the ball down like a rabbit" strategy an advantage
4) Nadal has not consistently made it to hardcourt finals to meet Roger and hardcourt gives Roger the advantage.

It's true. Fed feels awkward against Nadal. That's why he had to play at his very best to beat nadal on hardcourts(Miami, Sanghai).

But from 2008 onwards, I think Nadal will match Fed on hardcourts too.
Because Fed is hardly looking invincible on hardcourts whereas Nadal has improved and delivered some goods (Toronto, Olympics)

 

[Telepatic]

Well..hes left handed and physically a beast with good trained spin..whats so suprising in those h2h facts?:neutral:

 

[raccoon1414]

rafa has a great head to head record against fed, djoko and murray, as evidence shows.

rafa dominates murray because murray has been very inconsistent early on in his career, everyone knew that murray had the potential to be among the top players, but he wasnt mature enough, however on hard courts murray has played some good matches against rafa. its only been the last 3 months or so that murray has really believed in his talent to beat rafa, and he finally did so in us open semis.

rafa dominates djoko because djoko is just physically and mentally weaker than rafa, djoko can only beat rafa on hard courts, if they play on clay or grass, u can bet that rafa will win every single time.

rafa and fed- that rivalry is the most talked about thing in mens tennis, but take out the number of times that they have played on clay, and federer leads the head-to-head 5-3. rafa is just too strong on clay for fed, so i cant see fed ever winning the french open as long as rafa is playing.

rafas topspin forehand to feds topspin backhand- 19 times out of 20, it is no contest, thats the key to rafa always beating fed, mainly on clay, but also on grass and hard court.

if rafa reached more hard court finals, maybe the head to head between him and fed would probably be more equal.

 

[GOD_BLESS_RAFA]

The only thing clay is good for is pushers

pushers philosophy in tennis is keep the ball in and in the end, the other guy will make a mistake.... on faster surfaces you can't do this since you'll end up playing someone who can just blow you off the court- or just Ace you until your own serve breaks down

clay slows everything down and it isn't so much playing tennis as grunting and hitting untill someone tires and either misses or doesn't have the stamina to get to the ball

this philosophy of "pushing" is what the ATP deems as the future of tennis

all finesse, skill, and actual talent is to be replaced by baseline clubbing by Neanderthals with the mental skill of a blonde searching for W's in an M&M factory

the homogenizing of all surfaces to make the clubbing neanderthals feel better has already happened at a slowed down Wimby, a constantly changing AO, so really only the US open plays anything like it did 10 years ago

the dirt at France was always the weakest slam of the 4, until the new breed of Neanderthal found out it suited their simple minds

You have cravings for fast tennis? That's it!

Yes Veroniquem I join you "Long live to Neanderthal tennis!"

 

[thalivest]

Federer: Federer is a good matchup for Nadal, and Nadal is a bad matchup for Federer. Tennis is alot about matchups, not just abilities, and when the two best players in the world for the last 4 years and one is a much worse matchup for the other it isnt surprising one is ahead. That and the fact over half of their matches are on clay which of course further favors Nadal.

Nadal vs Djokovic: Djokovic is only a bit better then Nadal on hard courts, and Nadal is much better on clay and grass.

Nadal vs Murray: Murray is only a bit better then Nadal on hard courts, and Nadal is much better on clay and grass.

 

[Zaragoza]

Why does Nadal owns Nalbandian and Blake?
Sh......, I'd made a mistake

That´s not as relevant as the Nadal-Federer head to head because neither of them are Slam winners or no.1-no.2 in the world. Every player has a losing record against some players but Nadal has a winning record against every player in the top 7 which is impressive.

 

[thalivest]

Why does Nadal owns Nalbandian and Blake?
Sh......, I'd made a mistake

The only way Blake will keep his winning head to head with Nadal is if they never play again. Blake's days of beating Nadal on any surface are over, as are his days in the top 10 very soon. Very happy he didnt make the Masters Cup and even missed the alternate spot by a mere 1 point (ouch) as he is a generic has been who plays a boring one dimensional bashers game, and is so pathetically overhyped here in the U.S.

For the record, while many say Nadal's record vs Federer is deceiving due to all the clay court meetings, which is somewhat true, this is even more true of Blake vs Nadal and Nadal vs Nalbandian. If Blake and Nadal played 5 times on grass and 5 times on clay, just as they have 5 times on hard court, the head to head would be 12-3 Nadal. If Nalbandian and Nadal played 2 times on clay, 2 times on grass, 2 times on outdoor hard court, just as they have 2 times on indoor hard court, the head to head would probably be 6-2 Nadal or atleast 5-3 Nadal.

 

[TheRealTruth]

No doubt. Still, Nadal had to work "his ass off" (borrowing your words) a lot more than Fed to get to where he is now. Just look at this year, the guy's out of steam & his body's already falling apart.

Wishful thinking. Rafa will bounce back strong in 2009. He will win the Australian Open.

 

[rocket]

Wishful thinking. Rafa will bounce back strong in 2009. He will win the Australian Open.

Wishful thinking . . . He will win the Australian Open

This to me is "The Real Truth".

 

[cknobman]

Wishful thinking. Rafa will bounce back strong in 2009. He will win the Australian Open.

LOL, talk about your wishful thinking.

Puff puff give man....puff puff give

 

[Cenc]

at us open he really owned murray

 

[thetennistimes]

Mainly because he just doesnt make mistakes!