Why Federer is better than Nadal

[Mustard]

^^^

TMF, did you really have to post those stats again for the 10,000th time?

 

[Gonzo_style]

^^^

TMF, did you really have to post those stats again for the 10,000th time?

Someone might think that these are TMF's achievements...

 

[Steve0904]

^^^

TMF, did you really have to post those stats again for the 10,000th time?

Groundhog day. Just waiting for the 10,001st time.

 

[PeteD]

You got to do better than that besides bringing up h2h and irrelevant DC(team sport).



Most GS titles
1. Roger Federer 17*
2. Pete Sampras 14
3. Björn Borg 11
= Rafael Nadal 11*
5. Jimmy Connors 8
= Ivan Lendl 8
= Andre Agassi 8
8. John McEnroe 7
= Mats Wilander 7
10. Stefan Edberg 6
= Boris Becker 6

GS finals
1. Roger Federer 24*
2. Ivan Lendl 19
3. Pete Sampras 18
4. Björn Borg 16
= Rafael Nadal 16*
6. Jimmy Connors 15
= Andre Agassi 15
8. John McEnroe 11
= Mats Wilander 11
= Stefan Edberg 11

Consecutive GS finals
1. Roger Federer 10
2. Roger Federer 8
3. Rafael Nadal 5
4. Andre Agassi 4
= Rod Laver 4
= Novak Djokovic 4
7. Jimmy Connors 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Björn Borg 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Ivan Lendl 3
= Mats Wilander 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Jim Courier 3
= Pete Sampras 3
= Rafael Nadal 3


GS semi-finals
1. Roger Federer 32*
2. Jimmy Connors 31
3. Ivan Lendl 28
4. Andre Agassi 26
5. Pete Sampras 23
6. John McEnroe 19
= Stefan Edberg 19
8. Boris Becker 18
9. Björn Borg 17
= Rafael Nadal 16*

Consecutive GS semi-finals
1. Roger Federer 23
2. Ivan Lendl 10
3. Novak Djokovic 9*
4. Ivan Lendl 6
= Nadal 6
6. Novak Djokovic 5
= Boris Becker 5
8. Roger Federer 4*
= Rod Laver 4
= Tony Roche 4
= John McEnroe 4
= Andre Agassi 4
= Jim Courer 4
= Nadal 4
= Andy Murray 4

GS quarter-finals
1. Jimmy Connors 41
2. Roger Federer 38*
3. Agassi 36
4. Ivan Lendl 34
5. Pete Sampras 29
6. John McEnroe 26
= Stefan Edberg 26
8. Boris Becker 23
= Rafael Nadal 23*
9. Novak Djokovic 22*
10. Björn Borg 21

Consecutive GS quarter-finals
1. Roger Federer 34*
2. Ivan Lendl 14
= Novak Djokovic 14*
4. Rafael Nadal 11
5. Pete Sampras 10
6. Ivan Lendl 7
= Mats Wilander 7
= Andy Murray 7
9. Andre Agassi 6
= Rafael Nadal 6

All Four Slams Per Year
Rod Laver 1969

Three Slams Per Year
Jimmy Connors 1974
Mats Wilander 1988
Roger Federer 2004
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Rafael Nadal 2010
Novak Djokovic 2011


All Four Finals Per Year
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2009
Rod Laver 1969

All Four Semi-finals Per Year
Rod Laver 1969
Ivan Lendl 1987
Roger Federer 2005
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2008
Roger Federer 2009
Rafael Nadal 2008
Novak Djokovic 2011
Andy Murray 2011

Most consecutive matches won at one Grand Slam event:
1. Björn Borg (Wimbledon), 41
2. Roger Federer (Wimbledon), 40
= Roger Federer (US Open), 40
4. Pete Sampras (Wimbledon), 31
= Rafael Nadal (French Open), 31

Most consecutive Slams played:
1. Wayne Ferreira 56
2. Stefan Edberg 54
3. Roger Federer 52*
4. Fabrice Santoro 46
5. Dominik Hrbatý 44
6. Feliciano Lopez 43*
7. Tommy Robredo 41
8. David Ferrer 40*
9. Mark Woodforde 37
=. Jonas Björkman 37

Most Grand Slam match wins
2. Roger Federer 248*
2. Jimmy Connors 233
3. Andre Agassi 224
4. Ivan Lendl 222
5. Pete Sampras 204

Other Stuff:

Year-End Championships
1. Roger Federer 6*
2. Ivan Lendl 5
= Pete Sampras 5
4. Ilie Nastase 3
= John McEnroe 3
= Boris Becker 3

Most Weeks at #1
1. Roger Federer 297+*
2. Pete Sampras 286
3. Ivan Lendl 270
4. Jimmy Connors 268
5. John McEnroe 170
6. Björn Borg 109
7. Rafael Nadal 102*
8. Andre Agassi 101
9. Lleyton Hewitt 80
10. Stefan Edberg 72

Consecutive Weeks at #1
1. Roger Federer (1) 237
2. Jimmy Connors (1) 160
3. Ivan Lendl (1) 157
4. Pete Sampras (1) 102
5. Jimmy Connors (2) 84
6. Pete Sampras (2) 82
7. Ivan Lendl (2) 80
8. Lleyton Hewitt (1) 75
9. John McEnroe (1) 58
10. Rafael Nadal (1) 56

Year End #1
1. Sampras 6
2. Federer 5*
3. Borg 4
4. Connors 3
= Lendl 3
= McEnroe 3


Highest Season Winning Percentage
1. John McEnroe (1984) .965 82–3
2. Jimmy Connors (1974) .959 93–4
3. Roger Federer (2005) .953 81–4
4. Roger Federer (2006) .948 92–5
5. Björn Borg (1979) .933 84–6
6. Ivan Lendl (1986) .925 74–6
7. Roger Federer (2004) .925 74–6
8. Ivan Lendl (1985) .923 84–7
9. Ivan Lendl (1982) .922 106–9
10. Björn Borg (1980) .921 70–6
= Novak Djokovic (2011) 0.921 70-6

Most ATP Titles
1. Jimmy Connors 109
2. Ivan Lendl 94
3. John McEnroe 77
4. Roger Federer 75*
5. Björn Borg 64
= Pete Sampras 64
7. Guillermo Vilas 62
8. Andre Agassi 60
9. Sampras 6
= Rafael Nadal 50*
10. Boris Becker 49

Consecutive Match Win Streak
1. Björn Borg 49 1978
2. Björn Borg 48 1979–80
3. Guillermo Vilas 46 1977
4. Ivan Lendl 44 1981–82
5. Novak Djokovic 43 2010–11
6. John McEnroe 42 1984
7. Roger Federer 41 2006–07
8. Thomas Muster 35 1995
= Roger Federer 35 2005
10.Jimmy Connors 33 1974

Very interesting stats. Thank you TMF.

 

[Candide]

The stats from TMF close the book on the argument except for people who like to find God in the Gaps like Intelligent Designers. "What about the gaps in the fossil record?" "What about the head to head record?"

 

[Mustard]

I would expect a stats man like you to put arguments for both players

Other posters do that for me

Not only that but players like Hewitt, despite being "shorties" were way better than most of the tall brigade you just mentioned. Del Potro is the only guy who can claim to be better than Hewitt and even then it's a pretty weak claim, didn't old man Hewitt destroy Delpo at Wimbledon one year? PLus Delpo hasn't done much other than the US Open.

Steady on. There's no way del Potro is better than Hewitt. Hewitt has won 2 majors, 2 WTFs, 2 masters series, 2 Davis Cups, finished 2 years as world number 1 including 80 weeks in total as world number 1. Del Potro is nowhere near this.

You also look at shorty Ferrer who without any weapons can rank higher than the tallies, be a nightmare for several of them and even give the top 4 a reasonably hard time. Except Federer that is.

Ferrer is experienced, a hard worker and a fighter. He's not as good as the top guys, which is why he loses to them, but he makes opponents beat him as he never gives them an easy time. Ferrer has played his best tennis ever in 2012, and I think experience has been the big factor in getting himself consistently deep in tournaments. I think beating del Potro in last year's Davis Cup final gave Ferrer a lot of confidence, due to just how big the match was and the fact that Ferrer won it.

The younger guys, talker or otherwise, are going to have to have a certain cockiness or arrogance to beat someone like Ferrer on a consistent basis.

 

[Towser83]

Other posters do that for me



Steady on. There's no way del Potro is better than Hewitt. Hewitt has won 2 majors, 2 WTFs, 2 masters series, 2 Davis Cups, finished 2 years as world number 1 including 80 weeks in total as world number 1. Del Potro is nowhere near this.



Ferrer is experienced, a hard worker and a fighter. He's not as good as the top guys, which is why he loses to them, but he makes opponents beat him as he never gives them an easy time. Ferrer has played his best tennis ever in 2012, and I think experience has been the big factor in getting himself consistently deep in tournaments. I think beating del Potro in last year's Davis Cup final gave Ferrer a lot of confidence, due to just how big the match was and the fact that Ferrer won it.

The younger guys, talker or otherwise, are going to have to have a certain cockiness or arrogance to beat someone like Ferrer on a consistent basis.

steady on yourself man I said the only guy who has a CLAIM to being better is Delpo and I said it's a weak one. He does have a claim because he'sdealing with Fed, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray but I would still say Hewitt was a better player.

 

[Mustard]

steady on yourself man I said the only guy who has a CLAIM to being better is Delpo and I said it's a weak one. He does have a claim because he'sdealing with Fed, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray but I would still say Hewitt was a better player.

The injury problems cut short Hewitt's prime, which is a real shame. He hasn't played consistently at his best for over 7 years now, and he has needed several surgeries. But even now, he shows flashes of how good he was in the past, like taking a set off Djokovic at the Australian Open.

Even though del Potro has done extremely well to get back up to where he is in the world rankings, he hasn't really regained the edge he had in 2009, and if he never gets that edge back, his prime will have been even shorter than Hewitt's.

 

[Towser83]

The injury problems cut short Hewitt's prime, which is a real shame. He hasn't played consistently at his best for over 7 years now, and he has needed several surgeries. But even now, he shows flashes of how good he was in the past, like taking a set off Djokovic at the Australian Open.

Even though del Potro has done extremely well to get back up to where he is in the world rankings, he hasn't really regained the edge he had in 2009, and if he never gets that edge back, his prime will have been even shorter than Hewitt's.

Yeah I agree. I am one of the people who feels Hewitt doesn't get enough credit.

 

[Mick3391]

Clay: Nadal > Federer
Grass: Federer > Nadal
Hardcourt: Federer > Nadal
Indoor: Federer > Nadal

Case closed.

That's all I'm saying. If Fed decided like others to not compete on clay, he'd have a winning record against Nadal, pretty simple.

Clay is an extreme surface, like they say about Sampras "He couldn't beat anyone on clay", which is an exaggeration but a solid point.

A boxer will lose, everytime in a tiny ring against a slugger, Fed is a boxer, and he'll lose, especially to perhaps the greatest clay specialist in history.

I LOVE Nadal, I'm one of these guys who think anyone in the top 250 is incredible, have invested tons of work, to consistantly rise to the top is amazing, I'm just making the comparison that records that so many use can be altered, again if Fed never entered a clay tourney, the record would be different.

It's like Arnold, a superior body builder challenging Franco Columbo to a bench press contest, Columbo wins everytime, but he's not better.

Just one way to look at it, both are great. Ali always had a HORRIBLE time with Norton, who was his inferior in every way, it was STYLES that made the difference.

I do think we Fed fans are biased, as watching Fed play is so incredible, just amazing shots, graceful movement, shots that make his opponents drop their jaws, etc.

 

[NadalAgassi]

The injury problems cut short Hewitt's prime, which is a real shame. He hasn't played consistently at his best for over 7 years now, and he has needed several surgeries. But even now, he shows flashes of how good he was in the past, like taking a set off Djokovic at the Australian Open.

Even though del Potro has done extremely well to get back up to where he is in the world rankings, he hasn't really regained the edge he had in 2009, and if he never gets that edge back, his prime will have been even shorter than Hewitt's.

Hewitt was a grinder without the size and physical strength of Nadal. His prime was about as long as it was ever going to be IMO (4-5 years).

 

[15_ounce]

Why Federer is better than Nadal

Because Federer's teeth are much whiter and cleaner than Nadal's. Federer brushes his teeth three times a day. Nadal brushes his teeth three times a week.. that's why his teeth are a bit yellow.