tennisbuck
Hall of Fame
Lots of problems with this arguement but one is that there is less clay tournaments for Federer to have a chance to win.
Why Nadal is better than Fed.
- Thread starter smoledman
- Start date
Lots of problems with this arguement but one is that there is less clay tournaments for Federer to have a chance to win.
swedenparty
Rookie
Simply put:
Make a contest out of 4 Matches Fed vs Nadal:
1 Clay
2 Hard
3 Grass
4 Indoor Hard
To decide who is the GOAT. I think even in shape Fed is now it won't be a problem.
That's for all the delusional fans of the KING OF CLAY.
Make a contest out of 4 Matches Fed vs Nadal:
1 Clay
2 Hard
3 Grass
4 Indoor Hard
To decide who is the GOAT. I think even in shape Fed is now it won't be a problem.
That's for all the delusional fans of the KING OF CLAY.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
How? Davydenko has won no majors.
THE FIGHTER
Hall of Fame
are majors the culmination of greatness or something? so even if someone, has a decisive h2h lead, let's say 2-1, over another player, that h2h doesnt mean much if he doesn't have the slams to to be relevant? interesting.
E
Ecoplex
Guest
Well then, that opens the door to 1-2, as in consecutive records held for weeks at number one (Federer) and two (Nadal) during the same relative time period. Ouch.
THE FIGHTER
Hall of Fame
reread what i wrote with a satirical sensibility. it was sarcasm.
The Dark Knight
Legend
It's not a 20-10 head to head .
That's treating all matches equally which they are not.
It's 8-2 in the slams.....one of which is the greatest match of all time.
Federer has not beaten Nadal in the slams since 2008.....only early on in his career could he beat Nadal and only on grass.
On the biggest stages against his greatest rival Federer simply failed.
A slam is worth a 100 Dubais and the greatest match of all time is worth 5000 Dubais .
So the head to head is more like 10,000 to 100.
That's treating all matches equally which they are not.
It's 8-2 in the slams.....one of which is the greatest match of all time.
Federer has not beaten Nadal in the slams since 2008.....only early on in his career could he beat Nadal and only on grass.
On the biggest stages against his greatest rival Federer simply failed.
A slam is worth a 100 Dubais and the greatest match of all time is worth 5000 Dubais .
So the head to head is more like 10,000 to 100.
Strobe Lights
Semi-Pro
For anyone that says Nadal is better than Federer (I assume this is meaning in terms of greatness and not just as a matchup) due to the head-to-head, do you also have Davydenko above Nadal on hard courts due to his incredibly favourable 6-1 head-to-head on the surface?
I would find that absurd given that Nadal has 2 Majors (from 4 finals) in comparison with Davydenko's 0 Major finals (and only 2 SF) on hard. This is before you even add in that Nadal has the Olympics on hard, more Masters, more titles and more finals overall on the surface.
Likewise, I find it absurd at this stage to put Nadal over Federer when Nadal's 2nd best Major (Wimbledon - 2 titles from 5 finals) is only slightly better than Federer's 4th best Major (Roland Garros - 1 title from 5 finals). This is before you add in Federer's vastly superior record at the YEC and more weeks at #1. Nadal has the Masters record, which is part of the reason why he is the best ever player on an individual surface.
There is no doubt that the matchup with Nadal has hurt Federer's legacy. In that he has not won numerous titles that he could have added to his collection. That is what matters at the end of the day.
Nadal could eventually eclipse Federer's accomplishments, however I do find that unlikely.
I would find that absurd given that Nadal has 2 Majors (from 4 finals) in comparison with Davydenko's 0 Major finals (and only 2 SF) on hard. This is before you even add in that Nadal has the Olympics on hard, more Masters, more titles and more finals overall on the surface.
Likewise, I find it absurd at this stage to put Nadal over Federer when Nadal's 2nd best Major (Wimbledon - 2 titles from 5 finals) is only slightly better than Federer's 4th best Major (Roland Garros - 1 title from 5 finals). This is before you add in Federer's vastly superior record at the YEC and more weeks at #1. Nadal has the Masters record, which is part of the reason why he is the best ever player on an individual surface.
There is no doubt that the matchup with Nadal has hurt Federer's legacy. In that he has not won numerous titles that he could have added to his collection. That is what matters at the end of the day.
Nadal could eventually eclipse Federer's accomplishments, however I do find that unlikely.
Why does this surprise you? Emotions were always stronger than logic with some people.
Similar threads
