D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
You're comparing Wozniaki to Federer? Are you trying to lose all credibility with that statement? Well congratulations, I think you've succeeded.
Why Nadal is better than Fed.
- Thread starter smoledman
- Start date
You're comparing Wozniaki to Federer? Are you trying to lose all credibility with that statement? Well congratulations, I think you've succeeded.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
I don't want to rain on your parade here, but this is not true. Yes, he has an overal 8 -2 H2H, but it is 6 - 2 in finals. Nadal is better in the H2H no doubt it, but try to get the numbers right.
The Dark Knight
Legend
I don't want to rain on your parade here, but this is not true. Yes, he has an overal 8 -2 H2H, but it is 6 - 2 in finals. Nadal is better in the H2H no doubt it, but try to get the numbers right.
I actually had it a first as 6-2 and someone told me it was 8-2 so I changed it .
I wish you guys would make up your minds !
I'll go back to 6-2.
Then are slams all that matter? I challenge that.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
In 6 and a half years. not 2 and a half.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
Well there is also titles won, wtfs won, weeks ranked at number one (consecutive and non) year ending number ones , prowess on various surfaces
In 10 or 20 year time it is only the slam titles that will be taken into account by the majority of people. Ok some tennis nerds will still be debating various stats to support their argument but nadal needs to win 18 slams before most people will consider him the greatest.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Funny that as a supposed big Fed fan you react to that notion which while not outright true of course can atleast be argued for but you ignore a rampant Nadal fanatic likening your supposedly favourite player to Wozniacki.
I guess it's outrageous for Fed fans to consider him to be a better player than Nadal but it's OK for Nadal fans such as the Dork Knight to utter all kind of ridiculous nonsense.
Obviously the guy who won one slam in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2009 is better than the guy who won two or even three slams all those years. Federer is an emperor with no clothes, and now that all three of Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic are in their primes, we can see who is the best.
The Dark Knight
Legend
Good statement .....and fed the most fortunate player in the world has been given a HUGE stroke of luck again.....
Wimbledon is indoors!
Federer may just be the greatest indoor player of all time ....so even if he has lost a step ( not sure )....he gained a huge step with Wimbledon going indoors.
smoledman
G.O.A.T.
Shouldn't the younger Murray have had an edge against the old broken-backed *******? I mean think about it, *******'s back was killing him just days before the final...
The Dark Knight
Legend
Murray did have the edge but not mentally as he had never won a slam.........but also murray would have won amd was leading.....then the match went indoors....and Fed at any Age is hands down the greatest indoor player of all time . Murray did make his breakthrough ahortly thereafter and beat Federer at Wimbledon in the Olympics .
Roger I think is the most fortunate player of all time actually .....he came on strong during a weak transitional period after Sampras retired and now in his older years wimbledon goes indoors . Talk about luck !
Murray would not have won and was not leading when the roof was closed. I believe Federer was up 2-1 in the third set at that point in time, and he clearly had the momentum after taking the second set and holding easily in his first two service games in the third. If the delay to close the roof was bad for anyone, it was Federer. He didn't let it get to him, though, and beat Murray in four.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
Trolllololololol
TheDodgeKnight at it again, ducking reality in favor of new (unfounded) spin every timeout
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
Wait...so now murray is mentally weak? But I thought he represented the tough strong era that rafa has to contend with???
Also murray wasn't leading the match was tied in sets and I believe fed was up a break when the roof closed.
Also, murray is a good indoor player. He pretty much owns shanghai and destroyed nadal in tokyo 2 years sgo.
With that last sentence you wrote you just slipped back into a weak era of trolling
Steffi-forever
Hall of Fame
Rotterdam?
NatF
Bionic Poster
The Dark Knight
Legend
Murray WAS mentally weak until he made his breakthrough and beat Federer at the Wimbledon Olympics
Lendl had the same exact problem until he finally won his first slam to beat Mcenroe at the FO. That's why he was the perfect coach for Murray.
Federer didn't really start to see the light until he beat Sampras....that was the turning point .
Nadal didn't think he could win on anything other than clay until he beat Federer at Wimbledon .
Djokovic in his first US open final should have beaten Federer and came close bit he didn't really breakthrough until he won his first slam at the AO.
The list just goes on and on throughout tennis history .
All these players all had a close match to almost win a slam and broke through right after....
Nadal almost beat fed at Wimbledon 2007....that's when he started to believe .
He returned to win wimby
Joker almost beat Federer at the US open and that when he started to believe . And return to win a slam
Mcenroe almost beat Borg at wimby and thats when he started to believe to return the next year to finally beat Borg.
Murray almost beat Fed at wimby to return to the Olympics and beat Fed and then win his first slam.
Federer beat Sampras to return afterwards to win his first slam.
This is the way it works almost all of the time . It's a development process......Nadal never thought he could win on grass or hard court....
It was a progression just like every other player . Bit you guys refuse to acknowledge that and expect him to just come out and win Wimbledon at the rope old age of 17.
mightyrick
Legend
Yeah, and that's when Borg decided that he didn't want to get beat anymore and ran away from tennis. Borg was an awesome talent, but I'm sorry... to run away from the game when people start beating you a little bit is ridiculous. I cannot stand that kind of a personality. I mean he could have really pushed to try to get a HC major (or two).
I have to hand it to Federer. He doesn't run from a challenge. He continues to play with Djokovic and Nadal regardless. When Murray beat him, he continued to play even still. Big respect to Federer for that.
RF20Lennon
Legend
Delete comment.
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
Its amazing how you used so many words to not answer the question, when exacrly did this tough era for nadal begin when murray only became mentally strong after beating fed at wimby, meanwhile rafa has owned murray at slams, lmao
The Dark Knight
Legend
So you don't think players develop over time ?
Then I guess Rafter going 3-0 against Federer on all surfaces is just normal
Right ?
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
Yep. losing in straights in the equivalent to almost beating. Admittedly, it was a close match (as was Djoker and Fed at AO 2011), but when you lose three sets straight, you didn't almost win the match.
Yep - the entire forum expected and demanded Nadal to win Wimbledon in 2003. That's exactly what we've been saying..........
The Dark Knight
Legend
6-1, 6-3, 6-0
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
Ok but again, when did this strong era for rafa begin exactly? You don't seem to be able to answer the question, and it seems like murray went from mental midget to titan in the span of three weeks.., roflmao
so again, im trying to figure out when this strong era of competitoon begab for nadal . You know, this strong era that fed somehow doesn't compete against also, lmao.
The Dark Knight
Legend
Nadal and Fed were the only competition around. They started to really compete on all surfaces in 2007 exactly as I said. They have met more times In slam
Finals than anyone in history because they were the only competition around.
That was the year that Nadal realized he could beat Federer anywhere and not just on clay.
Again just like every other player....yes Murray made his breakthrough In this three weeks .....a bulb just clicked and he finally believed he could win a
Slam.
I wish you wouldn't call him a "mental midget ".....actually it's quite normal if you look at history.
Ivan Lendl who was hired as Murray's coach went through the exact same thing . He couldn't win a slam just like Murray .
Then he beat Mcenroe at the FO and only after that win could he start racking up slams.
Same for Federer who made his self
Admitted mental break through when he beat Sampras.
Same for mcenroe in losing to Borg he came back to beat him right afterwards.
It keeps happening over and over again.
Same for Joker who only started racking up slams after he lost to Federer in that us open final .
Murray was not a mental midget rather he was normal.
Very few champions could just come on the scene and win everything out of no where without having that close loss first .
Now Peter Sampras was an exception .
He just burst on the scene at the US open beating Lendl, Mcenroe, and Agassi back to back. I have never seen anything like that .......that was absolutely amazing and I doubt it will ever be repeated again.
It would be like if today some 18 year old from no where just beat Federer Joker and Nadal
All in a row.
Last edited:
Mustard
Bionic Poster
This myth about Borg really is persistent. Borg's retirement had nothing to do with McEnroe. Borg announced his retirement from full-time tennis competition in January 1983, at which time McEnroe held none of the majors nor the WCT Dallas or MSG Masters titles. Borg wasn't on the tour in 1982, apart from Monte Carlo, because of a dispute with the ITF over how many Grand Prix tournaments he would have to play.
mightyrick
Legend
It isn't a myth. In 1981, McEnroe beat Borg in two consecutive major finals (US Open and Wimbledon). These losses exerted massive pressure from within his own camp as well as publicly. The circus press had a big field day on this.
Borg was already burned out. I mean he'd been playing so many years. But getting beat by McEnroe twice... that was the last straw. The ensuing pressure basically caused him to buckle and quit.
Borg was always as an enigmatic kind of person. He lived larger than life. He was the big heart-throb, sex symbol guy. He was extremely into always looking good. Wearing the coolest clothes. Hanging with the hottest chicks and celebrities. He was adored by the press, magazines, everyone.
Such a guy can't become a loser, and that's just how it is.
bt johnson
Rookie
Dude your mentally weak. I would triple bagel you and Agassi is number 1 chump
beast of mallorca
G.O.A.T.
And you don't even know the difference between your and you're ? Dude you're mental..........or is it, Dude your mental ? :twisted::twisted:
"Dude, you're mental." Don't forget the vocative comma.
beast of mallorca
G.O.A.T.
No need for it.
The Dark Knight
Legend
Like a 5 year old little girl you have nothing to say so you throw a temper tantrum.
It's music to my ears because it means I have won .
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
Ok, but you still didn't answer the question.
When did this strong era of compeetition for Nadal, that is better than the weak era( which nadal competed against as well) of federer begin exactly? And I wonder why you pick 2007, rather than 2006 because I recall rafa made a WB final in 06? I guess because if you pick 06 rafa is 2 years from beating fed in an off clay slam instead of ine, lmao.
Could you please stay on topic and answer the question without adding a bunch of irrelevant nonsense.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
The momentum had changed before. Your arguing is so unreliable that it is a waste of time.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Yes, misrepresenting seems to be the norm with TDK.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
There is another poster here, who uses the same phrase pretty often.
You should be careful.
I'm confused. I would peg Roger as very unfortunate because there are no fully indoor slams!
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Yes, and Federer lost to Nadal who has 11 slams, and at the time in 2006 after RG had won his 2nd one. Much the same as when Djokovic started his streak against Nadal he only had 2 slams. So obviously to this point Federer has lost to the better play. Jesus you really know how much this thread is useless when we're debating who LOST to who.
You really don't make any sense at all for someone who supposedly "loves Federer in a borderline homosexual way."
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
Excellent post.
You have to look at the quality of the competition as well. You may have great numbers, but when half of the field was depleted and only mugs were left, why wouldn't you have a ton of majors?
Federer's resume is not impressive to me for this very reason. Roddick and his personal pigeons for most of the titles.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
It is like saying, that, because Nadal leads convincingly the H2H with Murray or Daveed, they are weak opponents (i.e. being his pigeons) his wins in Majors etc should be disregarded or labeled as weak era.
:lol:
Last edited:
The Dark Knight
Legend
2 out of four slams have a roof .....but I agree with you .
But that's the way tennis is......it goes in cycles.....you can't complain.
All this talk how it's unfair and how the courts are slower is silly . The conditions of grounds changes constantly and that's the nature of the beast .
The AO has changed 4 times ....from grass to rebound ace to hard court and a roof.
The USO has changed 4 times from grass to clay to fast hard to slow hard.
Wimbledon has changed 3 times ...fast grass , slow grass and now a roof.
The FO has changed twice....from real clay to crushed brick.
And then there are the balls that are constantly changing , and the equipment .
The Dark Knight
Legend
Ok, but you still didn't answer the question.
When did this strong era of compeetition for Nadal, that is better than the weak era( which nadal competed against as well) of federer begin exactly? And I wonder why you pick 2007, rather than 2006 because I recall rafa made a WB final in 06? I guess because if you pick 06 rafa is 2 years from beating fed in an off clay slam instead of ine, lmao.
Could you please stay on topic and answer the question without adding a bunch of irrelevant nonsense.
I don't even understand what the hell the question is ?
But it's something about the development of Nadal ?
Back in 2007 Borg predicted the future and described the development of Nadal better than anyone I have ever seen.
Watch:
http://youtu.be/lcDEI3oEkhc
D
Deleted member 3771
Guest
He is better because his record is about equal or far better than Fed's at every important event except the wtf.
Slams: about equal at the same age
ms1000: Nadal by far.
Davis Cup: Nadal by far
Olympic singles: Nadal by far
Wtf: Fed by far
h2h: Nadal by far
It is clear to see why Nadal is better when you see Fed cruise through the draw in Rome without losing a set and only being broken twice all tournament and then be made to look like an amateur by Rafa.
Slams: about equal at the same age
ms1000: Nadal by far.
Davis Cup: Nadal by far
Olympic singles: Nadal by far
Wtf: Fed by far
h2h: Nadal by far
It is clear to see why Nadal is better when you see Fed cruise through the draw in Rome without losing a set and only being broken twice all tournament and then be made to look like an amateur by Rafa.
The Dark Knight
Legend
THE FIGHTER
Hall of Fame
If you're using h2h record, then Davy is better than Nadal.
What's his trophy cabinet like compared to Nadal's?
but i'm sure the all important head to head makes up for that.
He's not. Federer's not as competitive in nature and thus loses. The best player doesn't always win.
Nadal's weakest surface
Comparing Federer on clay vs Nadal on Hard/Grass is not the right way to do it. (It is in fact arguable that Outdoor Hard particularly the slow hard courts of the AO, Indian Wells and Miami are Nadal's second best surface - certainly they suit Nadal's game far more than they do Federer).
Clay is indeed Federer's weakest surface/conditions, but Hard/Grass isn't for Nadal. Indoor is where Nadal struggles. Check his results at the Season end finals.
So Federer has 1 Major + 6 Masters 1000 titles on Clay vs Nadal has 0 WTF's + 1 Masters 1000 title indoor . That is what to compare.
Comparing Federer on clay vs Nadal on Hard/Grass is not the right way to do it. (It is in fact arguable that Outdoor Hard particularly the slow hard courts of the AO, Indian Wells and Miami are Nadal's second best surface - certainly they suit Nadal's game far more than they do Federer).
Clay is indeed Federer's weakest surface/conditions, but Hard/Grass isn't for Nadal. Indoor is where Nadal struggles. Check his results at the Season end finals.
So Federer has 1 Major + 6 Masters 1000 titles on Clay vs Nadal has 0 WTF's + 1 Masters 1000 title indoor . That is what to compare.
Similar threads
