Why Federer has lost Four GS Titles to Nadal?

DoubleDeuce

DoubleDeuce

Hall of Fame
Federer is the reason I am watching tennis right now. I had heard his name here and there but it was not till late last year that I saw him play the game and I was hooked. I found his older videos and watched many. Then I got to know the rest; Nadal, Djocovic, Murray, Ferrer, Roddick....But to me there was no comparison. It was like the movie one flew over the cuckoo's nest, only McMurphy seemed to be sane, all the others lacked something. Djocovic appeared immature, pointing to his legs and brains to show how smart he is. Murray with his ill advised facial hair and his flexing bicepcs after the game.... And then there is Nadal. I like the kid actually, he's the stubborn street smart type of guy who has to have it all. He will squeeze the last particle in his body to get to the ball, roaring over each shot as if daring the opponent to respond. Failure for the macho man is a disgrace for the family. But even in the current number one I don't see the genius I see in Federer. Creativeness, style and grace in Federer's game is unmatched.

So anyways, I would like to know your opinions on why you think is the major reason he has lost four historic grand slam titles to Nadal? He would now be at 17 grand slam titles and broken all the records. Was it his sickness? Would he still beat Nadal had Murray lost to Nadal for the final? Is is simply because the kid runs too fast for each ball and refuses to go away?

Please note that this is pointed to those who share my opinion about Federer and not for Nadal fans who simply think he is superior. Thanks.

 
It's a combination of a couple of a few things.

1) Nadal is, IN FACT, a great player. He will go down in history as a great one if he can keep up what he's been doing for 3 years now.

2) Nadal is a lefty and has heavy forehand spin. This gives him a HUGE advantage against righty players who have a one-handed backhand.

3) He has Fed's number. I still think Fed should have won Wimby this year, but his confidence was shattered after the FO this year. In terms of confidence, Nadal has lots more than Fed in their head to head matchups.
 
wangs78 said:
It's a combination of a couple of a few things.

1) Nadal is, IN FACT, a great player. He will go down in history as a great one if he can keep up what he's been doing for 3 years now.

2) Nadal is a lefty and has heavy forehand spin. This gives him a HUGE advantage against righty players who have a one-handed backhand.

3) He has Fed's number. I still think Fed should have won Wimby this year, but his confidence was shattered after the FO this year. In terms of confidence, Nadal has lots more than Fed in their head to head matchups.
Click to expand...

I agree with 1 and 2, but not 3. Federer is 2-1 vs. Nadal on grass, and 4-2 or something like that on HC (maybe 4-3, I'm not sure, but he has a winning H2H vs. Nadal on HC). Nadal of course is the better player on clay, it suits his game.

Regarding this year's Wimbledon, Federer wasn't right all year until the US Open, where he became better and better heading into the QF, SF, and F...his footwork was often quite poor. He lost to players who he would regularly beat easily, who would normally have to put forth an extreme effort just to take 1 set off of him. Roddick, Blake, and Fish haven't improved their games substantially.

While Nadal certainly improved on grass, he still isn't as good as arguably the best-ever on grass (the others of course being Sampras and Borg); an in-form Federer would have beaten Nadal at Wimbledon this year.

Not that that takes anything away from Nadal. You keep giving yourself chances, and eventually the other guy will have an off-day, or not be quite in form. It would be the same way if Federer keeps on getting to more FO Finals and eventually catches Nadal slightly out of form, tired, or even faces someone else. It wouldn't take anything away from him winning it. But it also certainly wouldn't mean we say "he's a better clay-courter than Nadal at his best".
 
I think its because Nadal is the perfect anti-Federer. He is a lefty who hits with tremendous topspin which means high bouncing balls to Fed's backhand, exploiting probably the weakest aspect of his game. In addition Nadal is so good at running down shots that it just adds even more pressure. Plus Nadal's early success against Federer has probably given him much more confidence than other players have had against Federer, which gives Nadal that mental advantage going into each match.

I'm pretty sure if Fed had a two-handed backhand, he would've owned Nadal, at least prior to right now where I think Nadal has finally caught up. Although I don't necessarily think it would help him against other players by having the 2-hander.
 
Federer has lost FIVE Slam Titles to Nadal. You have to include 2005 FO too.... Fed would have easily beaten Puerta in the final.....

2005 FO

2006 FO

2007 FO

2008 FO

2008 WIMBLEDON



We could also say that Fed lost a slam to Safin and a slam to Nole. Fed would have easily beaten Hewitt in the 2005 AO final and would have easily beaten Tsonga in the 2008 AO final.


So Fed could have 20 slams right now...
 
Last edited:
He hasn't.

He has lost four major championship finals.

I wish we could all agree to stop calling each of the four majors "grand slams."

As everyone should know, the Grand Slam is constituted by winning all four majors in a single calendar year, as Budge, Laver, Connolly, Smith Court, Graf have done.

It's okay if you want to call a major a "slam" but not a grand slam. It confuses lots of people.

Federer has won 13 majors, but zero grand slams. Laver won 11 majors and two Grand Slams. There is a difference.
 
Last edited:
Nadal was the first other than Nalbandian to recognize that Federer wasnt a god, and Nadal has never shown himself to be intimidated by such a strong presence. i mean, he says over and over that federer is the best of all time, but even in that presence, right from the beginning, he never let himself second guess his own ability.

just about everyone else, up until last year, thought that they would try to play their best against federer, but didnt expect to win. i can't blame them, but they were afraid. neither nadal nor the much less consistent nalbandian have ever been afraid to take federer on, and it shows when they do

quite honestly, i'm glad to be able to experience the Saga as it unfolds, rather than look back on it later. Federer has raw talent, awesome finesse, and floats on the court. he has Federer moments, and they come often

Nadal has unbelievable raw power, undying desire to win, extreme powerful movement, and can run almost anyone off the court.

it's a really nice matchup that the most determined and most talented players face each other so often. it's too bad it always seems to be on clay or wimbledon, but hopefully we'll see them more at hardcourts.
 
Because Nadal is the better player, as the rankings show.
Click to expand...

Another one from the fun-house of Nadal fans. 13 grand slams to 5. 4 straight years #1, with 3 3-slam years, a 2-slam year, and a 1-slam year...to 3 years with 1 slam and 1 year with 2 slams.

Nadal was the better player this year. He certainly isn't the better player in general, the greater player, or the more talented player. But this year, yea, he was the best. That doesn't call for ridiculous blanket statements like the idiocy quoted above.
 
sureshs said:
Nadal is #1, Federer is #2. Also, Nadal has a clear winning record over Federer.
Click to expand...

Nadal wouldn't have a winning record over Federer if he was good enough on HC to reach more USO and AO finals.

Head-to-head records are almost irrelevant, contrary to the popular delusions of some Nadal fans. What is relevant is one's strength versus the field, ranking, and # of slams won.

Obviously, Nadal was the better player this year. That hardly translates to "he is a better player". But Federer has 4 years of better achievements than Nadal's best year. Federer is clearly the better player overall.

Tell ya what, if Nadal is ever in a position to break Sampras record (although likely by then, it'll be Federer's record) for # of slams won, then we can start saying maybe he's the better player. Until then, any such assertions are laughable.
 
sureshs said:
Did I mention he is ranked #1?

Numero uno.

Means everyone else is ranked below.

Means he is ranked above everyone else.

Means Federer is ranked below Nadal.
Click to expand...

You can repeat that ad naseum, it doesn't change reality. Nadal was the better player this year. Good for him, great accomplishment. Overall, over their careers, he has not been the better player, and there is no conceivable rational argument to suggest he has been. Federer's was #1 over him for a long time, and quite a ways ahead too.

Yea, and for a year, Mats Wilander was ranked above Lendl, but Lendl is still the better player in totality. "Agassi ended 1999 as the World No. 1, ending Sampras's record of six consecutive year-ending top rankings (1993–1998). This was the only time Agassi ended the year at number one." Agassi was the better player in 1999, over Sampras. But he certainly wasn't the "better player" (without qualification or explanation or refining it to that year), and it would have been just as absurd to suggest that then as it is now.

The Federer haters need to get a grip on reality. Nadal was the best player this year; that hardly makes him a better player than Federer in the way these people are deceptively and dishonestly stating things. Talk about a lack of integrity.
 
If Fed won all the matches he ever played so far, and he certainly deserved that, he would have at least 32 slam titles and 8 Calendar GSs. :rolleyes:
 
sureshs, you're so delusional. Federer is in contention for the title "Greatest Player of All Time" due to his accomplishments. Nadal doesn't even come close. I think you know that Federer is the better player in the broader view of things, you are just being stupid to start arguments.
 
hoodjem said:
He hasn't.

He has lost four major championship finals.

I wish we could all agree to stop calling each of the four majors "grand slams."

As everyone should know, the Grand Slam is constituted by winning all four majors in a single calendar year, as Budge, Laver, Connolly, Smith Court, Graf have done.

It's okay if you want to call a major a "slam" but not a grand slam. It confuses lots of people.

Federer has won 13 majors, but zero grand slams. Laver won 11 majors and two Grand Slams. There is a difference.
Click to expand...

Federer himself used the words "grand slams" when referring to how he had come so close in the majors this year. At some point you just have to admit that it is very easy to figure out from the context whether people are referring to a major title or all 4 in a year...and it is pedantry to insist otherwise--when the players themselves aren't even using the language as you insist.
 
shawn1122 said:
sureshs, you're so delusional. Federer is in contention for the title "Greatest Player of All Time" due to his accomplishments. Nadal doesn't even come close. I think you know that Federer is the better player in the broader view of things, you are just being stupid to start arguments.
Click to expand...

Maybe in the broad scheme of things, but tennis is about winning or losing. If you lose to someone, and that too repeatedly and convincingly, you are the inferior player. That is the beauty of sports. It does not allow "averaging" or "impressions" like in other professions.
 
It's because most of their GS finals have been on clay, and Nadal is clearly the superior player on clay. Do you actually believe that every one of Federer's final losses to Nadal were caused because of his sickness? I didn't know the sickness applied as a retroactive excuse now too.
 
wangs78 said:
It's a combination of a couple of a few things.

1) Nadal is, IN FACT, a great player. He will go down in history as a great one if he can keep up what he's been doing for 3 years now.

2) Nadal is a lefty and has heavy forehand spin. This gives him a HUGE advantage against righty players who have a one-handed backhand.

3) He has Fed's number. I still think Fed should have won Wimby this year, but his confidence was shattered after the FO this year. In terms of confidence, Nadal has lots more than Fed in their head to head matchups.
Click to expand...

2 is nonsense. He has an advantage against Fed's backhand. Having a 1-hander does not automatically make it inferior. Have you ever seen guga/gaudio backhand?
 
hoodjem said:
He hasn't.

He has lost four major championship finals.

I wish we could all agree to stop calling each of the four majors "grand slams."

As everyone should know, the Grand Slam is constituted by winning all four majors in a single calendar year, as Budge, Laver, Connolly, Smith Court, Graf have done.

It's okay if you want to call a major a "slam" but not a grand slam. It confuses lots of people.

Federer has won 13 majors, but zero grand slams. Laver won 11 majors and two Grand Slams. There is a difference.
Click to expand...

Thanks "Bud".

http://www.tennisgrandstand.com/archives/1676
 
callitout said:
Federer himself used the words "grand slams" when referring to how he had come so close in the majors this year. At some point you just have to admit that it is very easy to figure out from the context whether people are referring to a major title or all 4 in a year...and it is pedantry to insist otherwise--when the players themselves aren't even using the language as you insist.
Click to expand...

An athlete not knowing proper terminology - shocker.
 
this is typical stupidity

Nadal isn't as good as fed, except on clay where he is A LOT better

yeah he has a better h2h, but ONLY on clay

you dont hear Fed fans say he'd beat nadal on clay (even though he's bagled him)

fed fans acknowledge how well Nadal plays on clay.

on every other surface Roger has a superior H2h, not only that, but Nadal doesn't even get to face Roger on the hard courts.... (fed has a superior record on hard and grass...... even 'slow' grass)

Roger is on his own level.... if Rog wasn't around Nadal might have maybe 2 more wimbys (but honestly a peak Roddick could beat him on grass)

if nadal wasn't around Roger would have completed a double calender GS in 06 and 07.... equaling laver

and thats funny because in 07 Rog wasn't even playing as well as 04-06

even a 80% federer is better then a 100% nadal

dont compare them...
 
sureshs said:
Maybe in the broad scheme of things, but tennis is about winning or losing. If you lose to someone, and that too repeatedly and convincingly, you are the inferior player. That is the beauty of sports. It does not allow "averaging" or "impressions" like in other professions.
Click to expand...

do you claim now that blake is better than nadal?
 
winning 4 slams against the all time best before reaching his prime, is quite an accomplishment for Rafa. He is turning 23 next year and beginning to find his true form. I believe Rafa's peak will be during the next 5 years. This year was a good year. I look forward to next year.
 
sureshs said:
Have you ever seen guga/gaudio beat Nadal?
Click to expand...


I did actually. Gaudio murdered Nadal in Buenos Aires after getting bageled the first set. He bagels him back and them gives him a breadstick in the 3rd as a gesture of kindness.


The last match they played Gaudio won the first set 7-5, but proceeded to mentally collapse on himself like he normally does, losing 6-1 6-1 the 2nd and 3rd. Overall Gaudio has a 3-3 record against Nadal, all on clay. So yea, he's probably the best bet of beating Nadal on clay by the numbers.
 
3 because of the French. There's just no way anyone could beat Nadal. Especially after the 2008 performance, when Nadal completely destroeyd Federer.

The Wimbledon was a very close match, and could have gone either way.
 
sureshs said:
Maybe in the broad scheme of things, but tennis is about winning or losing. If you lose to someone, and that too repeatedly and convincingly, you are the inferior player. That is the beauty of sports. It does not allow "averaging" or "impressions" like in other professions.
Click to expand...

You are an idiot. Words can't describe what a complete moron you are. Head to head does not, never has, never will, determine who is the better player, because in tennis (and in most sports), there are these things called match-ups. I'm sure there were American Football teams with winning records vs. the NY Giants in 2007...that doesn't mean ****. Those teams were not better than the NYG. The Giants won the superbowl, and were the best team in the NFL that year.

Likewise, in tennis, it is about winning slams and holding the #1 ranking. Federer has 3 3-slam years, 1 2-slam year, and 2 1-slam years, as well as 4.5 straight years of being ranked #1. That by far outstrips Nadal's accomplishments. Federer is simply the better player, end of discussion. There is no two ways about this.

For sure, Nadal was the better player this year. There is absolutely no argument there, it is unquestionable (2 slams and #1 ranking vs. 1 slams and #2). That does not in any way translate into "he is the better player," without qualification, which is talking about the player in general. In general, Federer is better than Nadal and anyone else without question, save a few elites throughout history (Budge, Gonzales, Vines, Hoad, Laver, McEnroe, Borg, Lendl, Sampras), and Nadal doesn't rank in that category, although he is one of the all-time greats of course.
 
luckyboy1300 said:
do you claim now that blake is better than nadal?
Click to expand...

That's an excellent way to call out the useless ****** you were responding to. He, along with a few other idiots, wants to say that the player with the better head-to-head is "the better player". This is internally inconsistent, as A can have a winning record against B, who in turn has a winning record against C, who has a winning record against A. But simple logic is something some of these Nad-****s don't get. I guess according to them, 1-slam wonder Krajicek was a "better player" than Sampras.

What morons.
 
dh003i said:
You are an idiot. Words can't describe what a complete moron you are. Head to head does not, never has, never will, determine who is the better player, because in tennis (and in most sports), there are these things called match-ups. I'm sure there were American Football teams with winning records vs. the NY Giants in 2007...that doesn't mean ****. Those teams were not better than the NYG. The Giants won the superbowl, and were the best team in the NFL that year.

Likewise, in tennis, it is about winning slams and holding the #1 ranking. Federer has 3 3-slam years, 1 2-slam year, and 2 1-slam years, as well as 4.5 straight years of being ranked #1. That by far outstrips Nadal's accomplishments. Federer is simply the better player, end of discussion. There is no two ways about this.

For sure, Nadal was the better player this year. There is absolutely no argument there, it is unquestionable (2 slams and #1 ranking vs. 1 slams and #2). That does not in any way translate into "he is the better player," without qualification, which is talking about the player in general. In general, Federer is better than Nadal and anyone else without question, save a few elites throughout history (Budge, Gonzales, Vines, Hoad, Laver, McEnroe, Borg, Lendl, Sampras), and Nadal doesn't rank in that category, although he is one of the all-time greats of course.
Click to expand...


Not true at all. The NY Giants were not the best team in football that year. The New England Patriots were. The Giants are just a bad match-up for the Patriots. Any other NFC team that manages to get to the SB that year would have gotten murdered outside of the Giants (who barely got by the Patriots anyways). The Patriots also had to play really bad for the Giants to win also.
 
Cyan said:
Federer has lost FIVE Slam Titles to Nadal. You have to include 2005 FO too.... Fed would have easily beaten Puerta in the final.....

2005 FO

2006 FO

2007 FO

2008 FO

2008 WIMBLEDON



We could also say that Fed lost a slam to Safin and a slam to Nole. Fed would have easily beaten Hewitt in the 2005 AO final and would have easily beaten Tsonga in the 2008 AO final.


So Fed could have 20 slams right now...
Click to expand...

Bullcrap, plus I think Federer would have got beaten by Puerta.
 
One word, choking. Federer chokes horribly whenever he plays Nadal. See Rome 2006 for a classic case of the chokes, gets 2 match points at 5-6 in the fifth, has a short forehand on BOTH occassions (bearing in mind he's been hitting his forehand great up till now, and continues to hit it great afterwards), and sprays them both. Total, major, and catastrophic choke.

Interestingly he never used to choke against Nadal, RG 2005, he played very well just served badly, that match should've had a fifth set in my opinion. Miami 2005, he was 2-0 and a break down at 4-1 in the third and came back to win in 5. No idea why he's suddenly started developing such an awful case of choking against Nadal these days.

More examples would be Monte-Carlo, Hamburg and Wimbledon this year all major, major chokes.
 
Since you just started watching tennis in late 07, you must've missed the genius of Sampras! You can always watch his brilliant running forehands and slam dunks on you_tube. :)

Nadal just outplays Fed when they play the big finals. It should have been 5 slam losses to Nadal. Nadal was cruising to a win the Wimbledon 07 final after dominating the 4th set before he sustained a knee tendon injury.



DoubleDeuce said:
Federer is the reason I am watching tennis right now. I had heard his name here and there but it was not till late last year that I saw him play the game and I was hooked. I found his older videos and watched many. Then I got to know the rest; Nadal, Djocovic, Murray, Ferrer, Roddick....But to me there was no comparison. It was like the movie one flew over the cuckoo's nest, only McMurphy seemed to be sane, all the others lacked something. Djocovic appeared immature, pointing to his legs and brains to show how smart he is. Murray with his ill advised facial hair and his flexing bicepcs after the game.... And then there is Nadal. I like the kid actually, he's the stubborn street smart type of guy who has to have it all. He will squeeze the last particle in his body to get to the ball, roaring over each shot as if daring the opponent to respond. Failure for the macho man is a disgrace for the family. But even in the current number one I don't see the genius I see in Federer. Creativeness, style and grace in Federer's game is unmatched.

So anyways, I would like to know your opinions on why you think is the major reason he has lost four historic grand slam titles to Nadal? He would now be at 17 grand slam titles and broken all the records. Was it his sickness? Would he still beat Nadal had Murray lost to Nadal for the final? Is is simply because the kid runs too fast for each ball and refuses to go away?

Please note that this is pointed to those who share my opinion about Federer and not for Nadal fans who simply think he is superior. Thanks.
Click to expand...
 
sureshs said:
Maybe in the broad scheme of things, but tennis is about winning or losing. If you lose to someone, and that too repeatedly and convincingly, you are the inferior player. That is the beauty of sports. It does not allow "averaging" or "impressions" like in other professions.
Click to expand...
Federer has a head to head advantage against Nadal on both grass and hard courts. If you are going to make judgements based purely on head to head records (which isn't a very good way imo), you would have to conclude that on average in the time since Nadal has turned pro, Federer has been the better player on most surfaces and therefore deserves to be described as better overall. Nadal clearly deserves to be described as the better clay court player, but you can't describe him as a better player overall just because of their h2h on clay (which due to the majority of their matches being on clay, you are effectively doing by comparing their overall h2h).
 
It is really too early to compare their careers but this is what I can tell so far:

Rafa is 22 years 3 months and a few days. To date he has 5 slams (4 French and 1 Wimbledon), 1 Olympic Gold in singles and 31 titles. Rafa reached the ranking of #1 two months after he turned 22. When Roger was 22 years 3 months, he had 1 slam (Wimbledon) and 6 titles, no Olympic gold. Roger reached the #1 ranking when he was 22 years 6 months.

Roger is now 27 and has 13 slams (3 Australian, 5 Wimbledon and 5 US), 56 titles and 1 Olympic Gold in doubles (the only doubles title I counted for either player). We have no idea what Rafa will have when he is 27.

We should all be able to enjoy the Roger/Rafa rivalry for the next few years and at the end of their careers we will see.
 
Nadal is a better player on clay. period. And on wimbledon it's close and Nadal pulled it off this year, no surprises.

Case closed.
 
Clay lover said:
Nadal is a better player on clay. period. And on wimbledon it's close and Nadal pulled it off this year, no surprises.

Case closed.
Click to expand...

currently yes, nadal and rog seems to be pretty close on grass. but it's been an off year for rog compared to his last so how much of it is rog and how much is nadal we won't know until next year.

overall though, nadal would need to stand on a pedestal to kiss federer's ass at wimbledon. 5 straight titles to 1. No contest.
 
harr said:
Federer has a head to head advantage against Nadal on both grass and hard courts. If you are going to make judgements based purely on head to head records (which isn't a very good way imo), you would have to conclude that on average in the time since Nadal has turned pro, Federer has been the better player on most surfaces and therefore deserves to be described as better overall. Nadal clearly deserves to be described as the better clay court player, but you can't describe him as a better player overall just because of their h2h on clay (which due to the majority of their matches being on clay, you are effectively doing by comparing their overall h2h).
Click to expand...

Ok we can do the math. They are 3-2 on hardcourts and 2-1 on grass. It´s 9-1 on clay. Following these stats, if they played 10 times on each surface:

Clay: Federer 1-Nadal 9
Hardcourts: Federer 6-Nadal 4
Grass: Federer 6-Nadal 3 (10 matches wouldn´t be proportional so I put 9).

Overall it would be Nadal 16-Federer 13 so if you analize the potential head-to-head Nadal has overall a better record and I am including some matches on hardcourts and grass played when Nadal wasn´t in his prime. I think the head-to-head will be more favourable to Nadal in the upcoming years.
 
BallzofSkill said:
currently yes, nadal and rog seems to be pretty close on grass. but it's been an off year for rog compared to his last so how much of it is rog and how much is nadal we won't know until next year.

overall though, nadal would need to stand on a pedestal to kiss federer's ass at wimbledon. 5 straight titles to 1. No contest.
Click to expand...

Federer wasn´t off at Wimbledon. He didn´t lose a set before the final and many people on this board said he looked great and would win Wimbledon.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
How many Masters titles for the top four?
Replies
0
Views
790
tudwell
T
M
Comparing Federer and Nadal and Tournament Titles
Replies
6
Views
2K
ultradr
U
TheMaestro1990
Federer's 6/7 GS titles W05-AO07 vs NCYS
Replies
9
Views
1K
Navdeep Srivastava
N
Mike Sams
Federer has taken 3 of Djokovic's titles, Nadal has taken 1
2
Replies
64
Views
6K
tennis_pro
tennis_pro
T
"i'm going for four" Roger Federer
Replies
7
Views
1K
random1
R
Back
Top