Why tennis superstar Roger Federer is NOT the GOAT

RF20Lennon

Legend
1. If Federer had no competition off clay then I have no idea what kind of competition Nadal had on clay.


1384990993521902_animate.gif


Request Permission to sig sir!
 

msc886

Professional
I mean I could come up with more than 2 if I wanted, but these are the strongest 2- and for me the relevant ones.
In terms of what is for him, well statistically he is the strongest, no doubt about that.

The debate is: are my two criticisms correct (were the players around his age he beat 2003-2007 in the latter stages of hard court and grass weaker than the 'Nadalovicurray' younger triad; and does Federer struggle against his main rival)?
And if I am correct in my two criticisms, are they a significant blow to Federer's call to GOAThood? Are there any other greats who have struggled against their main rival as Roger has? Federer won 12/17 of his slams between 2003 and 2007, and this was when his vast majority of time at number one was in this period too.

1. For starters for every point against Fed's legacy, there's at least 3 for his legacy.

2. "Weak era" is an OPINION so it doesn't mean very much. Statistically being the strongest is FACT so it means much more.

3. Are there other greats who had rivalries with someone as good as Nadal? Are there other greats who had to contend with main rivals 5+ years younger than they are?
 
Last edited:
M

monfed

Guest
Are people really suggesting that Agassi is tougher competition than Nadal?

Roger would take Agassi over Nadal every single time. Hell, he would pay Pete a million bucks to switch their rivals and Pete would refuse. :lol:
 

Manus Domini

Hall of Fame
Are people really suggesting that Agassi is tougher than playing Nadal on slow high bouncing surfaces?

Roger would take Agassi over Nadal every single time. Hell, he would pay Pete a million bucks to switch their rivals and Pete would refuse. :lol:

I'm not sure Nadal during Pete's time would trouble him more than Agassi, if at all. Pete would dominate Rafa at Wimbledon, and US and Aussie Opens. And he didn't give a $*** about RG.

Agassi, on the other hand, would be able to cause trouble for any one any era with his play style.
 
D

Deleted member 77403

Guest
IKR! to all the new posters, its understandable you may think your arguments are original but more than likely its already been posted. Please do some research :)

Obviously certain posters can benefit from this gold piece of advise. I guess if you suffer from insomnia, then threads like these gems might do the trick.
 

Amritia

Hall of Fame
As I said, I put Federer in the top 10 of all time on clay, despite it being his weakest surface.

Did Federer have any rivals his age on any court who were as difficult to beat as himself on clay?
 

Amritia

Hall of Fame
The idea that Baghdatis on hard court is as hard as Federer on clay is ridiculous, despite 200 illogical people using it as their signature.
 

Manus Domini

Hall of Fame
As I said, I put Federer in the top 10 of all time on clay, despite it being his weakest surface.

Did Federer have any rivals his age on any court who were as difficult to beat as himself on clay?

You mean, anyone in particular that never took him to a fifth set?
 

Manus Domini

Hall of Fame
Because Federer on clay is better than Baghdatis on hard.

Can anyone argue differently? Can anyone logical argue differently?

That begs the question.

Let me rephrase, since I think you're confused. Why is Federer better on clay than Baghdatis is on hard?
 

drm025

Hall of Fame
If Federer had no competition off clay then I have no idea what kind of competition Nadal had on clay.

I'm glad everyone loves this.... Don't see why it's such a statement, though.

Firstly, the weak era argument is mainly for 2004-2007. So saying that Federer didn't have great competition then has nothing to do with Nadal's competition after that point when he won most of his French Opens and clay masters.

Next, it is widely accepted that Federer had competition on clay from 2005-2007 in Nadal, so naturally Nadal had competition in Federer, the most dominant player of the time. Just because people claim that it was a weaker era doesn't mean Federer isn't one of the top all-time greats, because he easily is. No one here has said otherwise. He went through Federer in every one of his first 4 titles at RG. Federer has made 5 RG finals, how many all-time greats have even done that? Heck, how many clay specialists have done that? So yeah, I'd call that competition.

Edit: Only 5 players in the open era have made 5 RG finals: Nadal, Borg, Lendl, Wilander, and Federer.

Then of course we have Djokovic, and I think you've all seen the fight he has put up on clay. He's won every clay masters event. Again, how can this not be competition?

He's also played each of them 5 times at the French. Sorry, but that doesn't just happen with any 2 players. If 2 players are meeting at the same major 5 times than they have to both be legit competition at that major. Federer hasn't even played Roddick or Hewitt 5 times at any single major, for comparison.

Nadal has had to go through Federer, Djokovic, or both to get 7 of his 8 RG titles and 12 of his 18 clay masters, too. Again, 11 meetings with Djokovic on clay outside of RG and 10 meetings with Federer on clay outside of RG. Given the length of the clay season, that can't just happen with any 2 players.

So, yeah, that's my case for Nadal having competition on clay, and dominating it, hence, being the clay GOAT.

Give me your case for Federer having competition from 2004-2007 aside from Nadal on clay from 2005 on.
 
Last edited:
He will never be GOAT because of all the extra help he has gotten from the best in sophisticated pharmaceutical treatments from Swiss companies.
 

sliceroni

Hall of Fame
WOW! What an original thread!

Haha. I know right. Too many different intangibles to compare. Sampras era, balls were lighter, court conditions were much faster allowing net play to be effective. Federer era- conditions still relatively quick but heavier balls and racquet technology made it difficult for net rushers, s&v. All court play and baselines dominate. Nadal-Djokovic era, court conditions slower, baselines play dominates even on grass.
My young days up until high school tennis, I remember playing on about 4-5 different courts regularly and 2 of them were the rebound ace type. Conditions on those 2 were much slower, balls bounced higher. I would come to net on decent approaches only to see my brother crush a passing shot more frequenly. It seems like all courts play like that now. Except for one court I discovered last summer. A buddy of mine had a bbq and he lives next to a park with one of the old school basketball court/tennis court combination (sounds ghetto but its actually a nice neighborhood lol) Anyhow, courts were definitely not kept up but playable. We started to hit and I honestly couldn't believe how fast the conditions on these crappy cement courts were. Brought back memories of the late 90's on how courts used to be! Needless to say we played on these crappy courts a few times before summer ended, I forgot how much fun it was to serve and volley and chip n charge.
 

Raz11

Professional
The idea that Baghdatis on hard court is as hard as Federer on clay is ridiculous, despite 200 illogical people using it as their signature.

Very Logical to compare Baghdatis who was Federer's weakest opponent on HC final to Nadal's hardest opponent on clay. Baghdatis who beat 3 top 10 players to get to the final which don't happen very often and was up a set and a break in the final. The same year Baghdatis would beat former and future Wimbledon winners at Wimbledon before losing to Nadal in the semis. Not to mention that AO was a common place for big upsets and surprise finalist. Coincidentally that it was shortly after plexicushion was introduced that there was a decline in surprise finalist.

Compare that to Nadal's weakest opponent on clay final who was Mariano Puetra who was doping and only beat 1 top 10 player on his way to the final. His career were to end later that year as well.
 

msc886

Professional
I'm glad everyone loves this.... Don't see why it's such a statement, though.

Firstly, the weak era argument is mainly for 2004-2007. So saying that Federer didn't have great competition then has nothing to do with Nadal's competition after that point when he won most of his French Opens and clay masters.

Next, it is widely accepted that Federer had competition on clay from 2005-2007 in Nadal, so naturally Nadal had competition in Federer, the most dominant player of the time. Just because people claim that it was a weaker era doesn't mean Federer isn't one of the top all-time greats, because he easily is. No one here has said otherwise. He went through Federer in every one of his first 4 titles at RG. Federer has made 5 RG finals, how many all-time greats have even done that? Heck, how many clay specialists have done that? So yeah, I'd call that competition.

Edit: Only 5 players in the open era have made 5 RG finals: Nadal, Borg, Lendl, Wilander, and Federer.

Then of course we have Djokovic, and I think you've all seen the fight he has put up on clay. He's won every clay masters event. Again, how can this not be competition?

He's also played each of them 5 times at the French. Sorry, but that doesn't just happen with any 2 players. If 2 players are meeting at the same major 5 times than they have to both be legit competition at that major. Federer hasn't even played Roddick or Hewitt 5 times at any single major, for comparison.

Nadal has had to go through Federer, Djokovic, or both to get 7 of his 8 RG titles and 12 of his 18 clay masters, too. Again, 11 meetings with Djokovic on clay outside of RG and 10 meetings with Federer on clay outside of RG. Given the length of the clay season, that can't just happen with any 2 players.

So, yeah, that's my case for Nadal having competition on clay, and dominating it, hence, being the clay GOAT.

Give me your case for Federer having competition from 2004-2007 aside from Nadal on clay from 2005 on.

There are more players who are good at hardcourt than there are those who are good on on clay therefore hardcourt competition is tougher. It's that simple.
 
I'm glad everyone loves this.... Don't see why it's such a statement, though.

Firstly, the weak era argument is mainly for 2004-2007. So saying that Federer didn't have great competition then has nothing to do with Nadal's competition after that point when he won most of his French Opens and clay masters.

Next, it is widely accepted that Federer had competition on clay from 2005-2007 in Nadal, so naturally Nadal had competition in Federer, the most dominant player of the time. Just because people claim that it was a weaker era doesn't mean Federer isn't one of the top all-time greats, because he easily is. No one here has said otherwise. He went through Federer in every one of his first 4 titles at RG. Federer has made 5 RG finals, how many all-time greats have even done that? Heck, how many clay specialists have done that? So yeah, I'd call that competition.

Edit: Only 5 players in the open era have made 5 RG finals: Nadal, Borg, Lendl, Wilander, and Federer.

Then of course we have Djokovic, and I think you've all seen the fight he has put up on clay. He's won every clay masters event. Again, how can this not be competition?

He's also played each of them 5 times at the French. Sorry, but that doesn't just happen with any 2 players. If 2 players are meeting at the same major 5 times than they have to both be legit competition at that major. Federer hasn't even played Roddick or Hewitt 5 times at any single major, for comparison.

Nadal has had to go through Federer, Djokovic, or both to get 7 of his 8 RG titles and 12 of his 18 clay masters, too. Again, 11 meetings with Djokovic on clay outside of RG and 10 meetings with Federer on clay outside of RG. Given the length of the clay season, that can't just happen with any 2 players.

So, yeah, that's my case for Nadal having competition on clay, and dominating it, hence, being the clay GOAT.

Give me your case for Federer having competition from 2004-2007 aside from Nadal on clay from 2005 on.
Not much to add really. Philippousis, Baghdatis, Gonzalez, and old man Agassi approve of this post. Federer would easily be clay GOAT or close to it in the absence of Nadal.

1384990993521902_animate.gif
 

drm025

Hall of Fame
There are more players who are good at hardcourt than there are those who are good on on clay therefore hardcourt competition is tougher. It's that simple.

Thanks for being so dismissive and not really responding to my post, but either way, I'm talking about top competition here. What top competition did Federer have to consistently overcome from 2004-2007 outside of Nadal on clay?
 

Raz11

Professional
I'm glad everyone loves this.... Don't see why it's such a statement, though.

Firstly, the weak era argument is mainly for 2004-2007. So saying that Federer didn't have great competition then has nothing to do with Nadal's competition after that point when he won most of his French Opens and clay masters.

Next, it is widely accepted that Federer had competition on clay from 2005-2007 in Nadal, so naturally Nadal had competition in Federer, the most dominant player of the time. Just because people claim that it was a weaker era doesn't mean Federer isn't one of the top all-time greats, because he easily is. No one here has said otherwise. He went through Federer in every one of his first 4 titles at RG. Federer has made 5 RG finals, how many all-time greats have even done that? Heck, how many clay specialists have done that? So yeah, I'd call that competition.

Edit: Only 5 players in the open era have made 5 RG finals: Nadal, Borg, Lendl, Wilander, and Federer.

Then of course we have Djokovic, and I think you've all seen the fight he has put up on clay. He's won every clay masters event. Again, how can this not be competition?

He's also played each of them 5 times at the French. Sorry, but that doesn't just happen with any 2 players. If 2 players are meeting at the same major 5 times than they have to both be legit competition at that major. Federer hasn't even played Roddick or Hewitt 5 times at any single major, for comparison.

Nadal has had to go through Federer, Djokovic, or both to get 7 of his 8 RG titles and 12 of his 18 clay masters, too. Again, 11 meetings with Djokovic on clay outside of RG and 10 meetings with Federer on clay outside of RG. Given the length of the clay season, that can't just happen with any 2 players.

So, yeah, that's my case for Nadal having competition on clay, and dominating it, hence, being the clay GOAT.

Give me your case for Federer having competition from 2004-2007 aside from Nadal on clay from 2005 on.

Outside of Federer, who was Nadal's competition on clay? Djokovic only became a legitimate threat in 2011. He was losing to Melzer and Kohlscrieber before that. If Nadal and Federer were meeting each other so often then the competition on clay must have been weak.

Competition doesn't mean one player. The depth of the competition on clay is inferior compared to the depth of the competition on hard. This is because there are 2 HC slams and more than 50% of the tour is played on HC. The majority of the top players performed their best on HC.
 
Hey, FOD. Since I respect you as a poster, what do you think of my last post (#119)?

Thank you, sir. You are a credit to this forum. I just commented on your excellent post. You made some brilliant points. Not much to add really. Weak clay era my butt. Federer is one of the best clay players ever despite his poor accomplishments, which are due to the fact that he had to play in the era of the undisputed clay GOAT.
 
If only Federer had lost to all those guys more. That would have proven his competition was tough.

Oh well. Federer showed how weak his competition was by not losing to them.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
That's the kind of 'fanatical'reasoning that goes on around here from FOD and the like.


If only Federer had lost to all those guys more. That would have proven his competition was tough.

Oh well. Federer showed how weak his competition was by not losing to them.
 

msc886

Professional
Thanks for being so dismissive and not really responding to my post, but either way, I'm talking about top competition here. What top competition did Federer have to consistently overcome from 2004-2007 outside of Nadal on clay?

Why does it have to be restricted to top competition? Last time I checked tennis isn't restricted to top players.

Besides my point includes the top players as well. After all, Djokovic and most of he top 10 are better on hardcourt than they are on clay.
 
Last edited:

drm025

Hall of Fame
Outside of Federer, who was Nadal's competition on clay? Djokovic only became a legitimate threat in 2011. He was losing to Melzer and Kohlscrieber before that. If Nadal and Federer were meeting each other so often then the competition on clay must have been weak.

Competition doesn't mean one player. The depth of the competition on clay is inferior compared to the depth of the competition on hard. This is because there are 2 HC slams and more than 50% of the tour is played on HC. The majority of the top players performed their best on HC.

It depends on if you think having to overcome a higher number of good opponents is harder than having to overcome a lower number of great opponents. I would say fewer number of great opponents is harder. How many great opponents has it taken to limit Djokovic and Federer to only 1 RG title combined? Just 1, Nadal.

How many great opponents did it take to deny Roddick the Wimbledon title when he made 3 finals? Just 1, Federer.

Nadal has met Federer and Djokovic so often because they are all that great and consistent. Just so happens that one of the three is slightly better than the rest.
 

RF20Lennon

Legend
I'm glad everyone loves this.... Don't see why it's such a statement, though.

Firstly, the weak era argument is mainly for 2004-2007. So saying that Federer didn't have great competition then has nothing to do with Nadal's competition after that point when he won most of his French Opens and clay masters.

Next, it is widely accepted that Federer had competition on clay from 2005-2007 in Nadal, so naturally Nadal had competition in Federer, the most dominant player of the time. Just because people claim that it was a weaker era doesn't mean Federer isn't one of the top all-time greats, because he easily is. No one here has said otherwise. He went through Federer in every one of his first 4 titles at RG. Federer has made 5 RG finals, how many all-time greats have even done that? Heck, how many clay specialists have done that? So yeah, I'd call that competition.

Edit: Only 5 players in the open era have made 5 RG finals: Nadal, Borg, Lendl, Wilander, and Federer.

Then of course we have Djokovic, and I think you've all seen the fight he has put up on clay. He's won every clay masters event. Again, how can this not be competition?

He's also played each of them 5 times at the French. Sorry, but that doesn't just happen with any 2 players. If 2 players are meeting at the same major 5 times than they have to both be legit competition at that major. Federer hasn't even played Roddick or Hewitt 5 times at any single major, for comparison.

Nadal has had to go through Federer, Djokovic, or both to get 7 of his 8 RG titles and 12 of his 18 clay masters, too. Again, 11 meetings with Djokovic on clay outside of RG and 10 meetings with Federer on clay outside of RG. Given the length of the clay season, that can't just happen with any 2 players.

So, yeah, that's my case for Nadal having competition on clay, and dominating it, hence, being the clay GOAT.

Give me your case for Federer having competition from 2004-2007 aside from Nadal on clay from 2005 on.

Roddick- Wimbledon 2003, Wimbledon 2004, Wimbledon 2005, USO 2006, AO 2007, USO 2007, AO 2009, Wimby 2009.

Roddick may not have been Sampras but he was a decent player. He even had a winning record against Djokovic. Federer just made him look bad just like he made everyone look bad.

Now I agree that today's game has more competition and is stronger! But going by that Laver didn't have much competition at all. So does that mean he doesn't count? In the end (IMO) the only thing that remains are records and numbers. Nobody will remember who played whom in a 100 years. That being said I can't help but have a niggling feeling at the back of my head at the fact if a 30+ Federer can still beat Djokovic and Murray wouldn't they just have been the next Hewitt and Roddick had Fed been in his prime? If Roddick didn't have prime Fed he would have won 6-8 slams like Novak. Hewitt has the same number of slams as Murray.
 

drm025

Hall of Fame
If only Federer had lost to all those guys more. That would have proven his competition was tough.

Oh well. Federer showed how weak his competition was by not losing to them.

Not necessarily. They could have proven themselves by actually winning big titles, being consistent, bringing their best day in and day out. The problem is they couldn't or their best just wasn't that good. And Federer was not the sole reason. Or they would have only ever lost to him.

Each of the big 4 today has their own resumes and has shown supreme consistency that was not matched by the top players from Fed's generation. Whether that consistency is due to surface homogenization or whatever, doesn't matter to me.
 

Raz11

Professional
It depends on if you think having to overcome a higher number of good opponents is harder than having to overcome a lower number of great opponents. I would say fewer number of great opponents is harder. How many great opponents has it taken to limit Djokovic and Federer to only 1 RG title combined? Just 1, Nadal.

How many great opponents did it take to deny Roddick the Wimbledon title when he made 3 finals? Just 1, Federer.

Nadal has met Federer and Djokovic so often because they are all that great and consistent. Just so happens that one of the three is slightly better than the rest.

Or that everyone else is relatively worst on clay since they play their best tennis on hard. Federer and Djokovic best performances are outside of clay which goes to show how weak the clay competition is if they are the best the clay competition can offer.

What evidence do you have to suggest that Federer and Djokovic's level on clay is higher than the level given by the hard court competition other than they win a lot?
 
Not necessarily. They could have proven themselves by actually winning big titles, being consistent, bringing their best day in and day out. The problem is they couldn't or their best just wasn't that good. And Federer was not the sole reason. Or they would have only ever lost to him.

Each of the big 4 today has their own resumes and has shown supreme consistency that was not matched by the top players from Fed's generation. Whether that consistency is due to surface homogenization or whatever, doesn't matter to me.

Except the OP was talking about how those guys didn't beat Federer, and using that as an argument against the strength of his competition.

What's more, those guys often beat up on each other. You see, there was this thing called "depth" in the men's game when Federer was winning.
 

drm025

Hall of Fame
Roddick- Wimbledon 2003, Wimbledon 2004, Wimbledon 2005, USO 2006, AO 2007, USO 2007, AO 2009, Wimby 2009.

Roddick may not have been Sampras but he was a decent player. He even had a winning record against Djokovic. Federer just made him look bad just like he made everyone look bad.

Now I agree that today's game has more competition and is stronger! But going by that Laver didn't have much competition at all. So does that mean he doesn't count? In the end (IMO) the only thing that remains are records and numbers. Nobody will remember who played whom in a 100 years. That being said I can't help but have a niggling feeling at the back of my head at the fact if a 30+ Federer can still beat Djokovic and Murray wouldn't they just have been the next Hewitt and Roddick had Fed been in his prime? If Roddick didn't have prime Fed he would have won 6-8 slams like Novak. Hewitt has the same number of slams as Murray.

You have to look at what Roddick was able to do outside of the tournaments where he didn't play Federer. It was minimal. He was not able to really create his own resume of big titles. Yes, he was good competition, I agree. But Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray have just been better. Djokovic and Murray have their fair share of losses to Federer, too. But they still were able to establish themselves.
 

msc886

Professional
It depends on if you think having to overcome a higher number of good opponents is harder than having to overcome a lower number of great opponents. I would say fewer number of great opponents is harder. How many great opponents has it taken to limit Djokovic and Federer to only 1 RG title combined? Just 1, Nadal.

How many great opponents did it take to deny Roddick the Wimbledon title when he made 3 finals? Just 1, Federer.

Nadal has met Federer and Djokovic so often because they are all that great and consistent. Just so happens that one of the three is slightly better than the rest.

Even if we're going by your opinion, Federer and Djokovic and most top players are better on hardcourt than they are on clay so hardcourt comeptition is tougher.
 

drm025

Hall of Fame
Even if we're going by your opinion, Federer and Djokovic and most top players are better on hardcourt than they are on clay so hardcourt comeptition is tougher.

But has that shown to be a major problem for Nadal on hard courts? He's made himself a pretty solid resume there, too. So even if they were better on clay, would it make a difference to Rafa?

Or does that show that it's not that competitive since Nadal can win on hard courts too?
 

msc886

Professional
But has that shown to be a major problem for Nadal on hard courts? He's made himself a pretty solid resume there, too. So even if they were better on clay, would it make a difference to Rafa?

Or does that show that it's not that competitive since Nadal can win on hard courts too?

Relative to his success on clay it has.

Nadal is also good at hardcourt so he's bound to win titles there.

What you said so far doesn't change the fact that hardcourt is more competitive than clay.
 
Last edited:

drm025

Hall of Fame
Except the OP was talking about how those guys didn't beat Federer, and using that as an argument against the strength of his competition.

What's more, those guys often beat up on each other. You see, there was this thing called "depth" in the men's game when Federer was winning.

We have different definitions of "depth" then. I don't care if there are a bunch of good players who can play great one tournament and win a masters title. It's about having a consistently high level and being a WINNER. And really, no one from Fed's generation showed that. Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray (albeit more recently) have proven that they are WINNERS. For me, that is a big step up from being a great player and that is what makes for great competition.
 

90's Clay

Banned
Wow.. I didn't know Young pre-prime Murray has more wins over Federer than any of Fed's contemporaries COMBINED

... Thats truly a joke.. And PROOF of the pathetic field that 2004-2007 really was
 

msc886

Professional
It depends on if you think having to overcome a higher number of good opponents is harder than having to overcome a lower number of great opponents. I would say fewer number of great opponents is harder. How many great opponents has it taken to limit Djokovic and Federer to only 1 RG title combined? Just 1, Nadal.

How many great opponents did it take to deny Roddick the Wimbledon title when he made 3 finals? Just 1, Federer.

Nadal has met Federer and Djokovic so often because they are all that great and consistent. Just so happens that one of the three is slightly better than the rest.

I would also like to point out that higher number of good opponents matter too because early struggles are more likely to happen. A good example was Djokovic vs Wawrinka 2013 AO and USO. Fed vs Tipsy 08 AO, Andreev 08 USO or Simon 11 AO.
 
Last edited:

drm025

Hall of Fame
Relative to his success on clay it has.

you're also making the assumption that Nadal is not good at hardcourt which is not true.

I wasn't sure if you felt Nadal was good on hardcourts or not, that was more the reason for my second question.

Relative to his success on clay, yes, but I would argue that his biggest problem on hard courts has really just been Djokovic. I don't know who else has CONSISTENTLY given him problems since he improved off of clay. I would also say injuries have played a big part in limiting his hard court success. The clay seems to agree more with his knees.

Majors since 2008:

AO 2008 - Tsonga practically redlined to beat Nadal in the semis
USO 2008 - Loss to murray in semis (probably the one good example of increased depth on hard courts since he hasnt been able to do much on clay)
AO 2009 - Won
USO 2009 - Redline performance from Del Potro in semis (who also beat Federer)
AO 2010 - Retired against Murray in quarters
USO 2010 - Won
AO 2011 - Lost to Ferrer in quarters (evident hamstring injury)
USO 2011 - Djokovic 2011, enough said.
AO 2012 - Again, peak Djokovic, and Nadal still took it to 7-5 in the 5th
USO 2012 - missed
AO 2013 - missed
USO 2013 - Won
AO 2014 - In final against wawrinka
 
Last edited:

msc886

Professional
I wasn't sure if you felt Nadal was good on hardcourts or not, that was more the reason for my second question.

Relative to his success on clay, yes, but I would argue that his biggest problem on hard courts has really just been Djokovic. I don't know who else has CONSISTENTLY given him problems since he improved off of clay. I would also say injuries have played a big part in limiting his hard court success. The clay seems to agree more with his knees.

Majors since 2008:

AO 2008 - Tsonga practically redlined to beat Nadal in the semis
USO 2008 - Loss to murray in semis (probably the one good example of increased depth on hard courts)
AO 2009 - Won
USO 2009 - Redline performance from Del Potro in semis (who also beat Federer)
AO 2010 - Retired against Murray in quarters
USO 2010 - Won
AO 2011 - Lost to Ferrer in quarters (evident hamstring injury)
USO 2011 - Djokovic 2011, enough said.
AO 2012 - Again, peak Djokovic, and Nadal still took it to 7-5 in the 5th
USO 2012 - missed
AO 2013 - missed
USO 2013 - Won
AO 2014 - In final against wawrinka

That supports my point. When there are more players who are good on hardcourt the "redline" performances are more likely to happen. Therefore if you have an off-day or injured, you are more likely to be upset.

And therefore hardcourt competition is tougher.
 
Last edited:

90's Clay

Banned
Anyways.. A bit off topic.

But maybe Fed should have kept his pre 2004/2005 attack game when looking back in hindsight. Sure, he may not have been as consistent as he was with the strict safe baseline style but at the same time, he probably wouldn't have such a major hole in his resume either in the h2h with Nadal.

Honestly, I would rather sacrifice a few big tournaments at the expense of stopping my main rival on the big stage a few times, ESPECIALLY if that rival is in position to possibly overtake my slam record.

If Fed would have kept a more attacking style from the start, may Nadal wouldn't be sitting on a pending 14 slams..
 
Top