Who has taken more from the other, Roger or Rafa? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Who has taken more from the other, Roger or Rafa?

abraxas21
02-11-2010, 05:28 PM
Ask the hipothetical question: How would Roger's career be at this point if Rafa didn't exist in the tennis world? He'd probably have between 4 and 6 GS more (has lost 5 GS finals to Nadal & one RG semi) plus potentially two CYGS in 2006 and 2007 (lost in both years the RG final to Nadal but won all the other GS). On top of that, he'd probably have 3 or 4 more MS (has lost 1 MS final in Rome and 3 in Monaco, both MS he's never won) plus maybe one ATP 500 (Dubai 2006 final, lost in 3 sets).
Another thing to be considered is that he would have probably ended 2008 as number 1 in the world so right now he'd arguably have 6 consecutive years as year-end number 1 and this year would be looking for another more to break Sampras' record.

Now let's do the same for Rafa. How well would he have fared without Roger on his way? He'd probably have 2 more Wimby titles plus 2 or 3 more MS (lost Miami 2005, Hamburg 2007 and Madrid 2009, all finals) and maybe 1 or 2 TMC (lost in semis in 2006 and 2007). To top all this, he would have arguably ended 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2009 ranked as the number 1 player in the world making a total of 5 straight years as year-end number 1 and this year he'd be looking to tie Sampras' record.


That said, this is purely hipothetical of course. It can always be argued that the fierce rivalry between this 2 has made both of them better competitors and players and that maybe neither Fed or Rafa would have been as good or ambitious in their careers had they not had to push themselves so much to beat the other. I think there might be some truth in this, especially for Rafa given that I've always thought (and this is just my opinion of course) that having a player so good ahead of him has made him push himself more and more to be better.

In any case, it's still kind of frightening to consider how much Fed has taken away from Rafa and viceversa. It's really quite impressive.
Imagine Fed with 6 consecutive years as number 1, between 20 and 22 GS, about 20 MS and one or two CYGS. That's what you would be tempted to call the undisputed GOAT, no?

Johnny Groove
02-11-2010, 05:32 PM
Good post, I especially agree with this part:

I think there might be some truth in this, especially for Rafa given that I've always thought (and this is just my opinion of course) that having a player so good ahead of him has made him push himself more and more to be better.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
02-11-2010, 06:01 PM
Nadal has basically been screwed over this generation

if Federer didn't exist, nadal would be on 10 slams

probably would have remained mroe healthy because he didnt kill himself trying to get to feds level

probably would have won about 10 RGs in the end

sadly (happily)

nadal will forever be known as just a foot note in the history book

A BOOK WRITTEN BY ROGER (MOTHERFUCKING) FEDERER

OOOH YEAH

nanoman
02-11-2010, 07:27 PM
Nadal obviously. If it wasn't for Fed he might've won less. Fed destroyed half the field and then bend over for him in the finals.

Dini
02-11-2010, 07:35 PM
Nadal has made Fed's backhand better. It seems. :lol:

Rafa's taken away the opportunity of CYGS for Roger a couple of times. Roger's stopped Nadal from being a multiple Wimbledon champ. All in all, I think they've contributed to each other's success by being pushed to perform.

-Valhalla-
02-11-2010, 08:36 PM
Who cares about what they've "taken" from each other. It's what they've given to each other, us fans, and the sport, that will be their enduring legacy.

StevoTG
02-11-2010, 09:13 PM
Who cares about what they've "taken" from each other. It's what they've given to each other, us fans, and the sport, that will be their enduring legacy.

:)

Persimmon
02-12-2010, 12:03 AM
In tennis slams rule over other tournaments. H2H 6-2 for Nadal at the slams. So obviously Nadal.

abraxas21
02-12-2010, 12:36 AM
In tennis slams rule over other tournaments. H2H 6-2 for Nadal at the slams. So obviously Nadal.

it's not just tournaments; it's also about number of years ending as number 1 plus some other things.

Sophocles
02-12-2010, 01:30 AM
Nadal could have been a lesser Connors. Fed could have been the close-to-indisputable GOAT. So Nadal. Fed had so much more to lose.

Macbrother
02-12-2010, 01:36 AM
Nadal could have been a lesser Connors. Fed could have been the close-to-indisputable GOAT. So Nadal. Fed had so much more to lose.

I think a Borg comparison is a little more apt, calling him a lesser Connors (when he still yet may achieve more than Connors ever did) is short-suiting him a little. But I agree, Federer, in this hypothetical scenario, has lost more. I mean 2 grand slams, come on. Nadal has stopped Federer from absolutely unprecedented heights.

Zirconek
02-12-2010, 01:46 AM
It would be interesting to check who took more from the other, at this point, about prize money - especially at finals. They are both "very millionaires" anyway. :p

n8
02-12-2010, 02:00 AM
I think a Borg comparison is a little more apt, calling him a lesser Connors (when he still yet may achieve more than Connors ever did) is short-suiting him a little. But I agree, Federer, in this hypothetical scenario, has lost more. I mean 2 grand slams, come on. Nadal has stopped Federer from absolutely unprecedented heights.

If it weren't for Federer, Nadal probably would have been number one at age 19! But Nadal has taken a lot more away from Federer. I'm very grateful for Nadal because Federer has been so dominant as it is. Federer probably would have won 11 straight Grand Slams if it weren't for Nadal (2005 Roland Garros to 2007 US Open inclusive) and that would have driven a lot of people crazy!

SerenaFederer
02-12-2010, 02:15 AM
i think rafa took more from fed than fed did rafa...fed COULD have been undisputed GOAT by a large margin but oh well ;)

only thing fed took from rafa was a few wimbledon titles and a few more MS...

so i'd say the one who beats you in the final takes more from you than the one who loses before he reaches the other :)

Ibracadabra
02-12-2010, 03:28 AM
I believe roger has taken rafas soul and knees.

Arkulari
02-12-2010, 04:15 AM
i think rafa took more from fed than fed did rafa...fed COULD have been undisputed GOAT by a large margin but oh well ;)

only thing fed took from rafa was a few wimbledon titles and a few more MS...

so i'd say the one who beats you in the final takes more from you than the one who loses before he reaches the other :)

+1

Sunset of Age
02-12-2010, 07:15 AM
Who cares about what they've "taken" from each other. It's what they've given to each other, us fans, and the sport, that will be their enduring legacy.

:yeah: :worship:

lessthanjake
02-12-2010, 08:19 AM
When I think about it, I realize that Roger has taken more from Rafa than vice versa.

Obviously, in terms of how many Grand Slams they have taken from each other, Roger would gain more if Rafa didn't exist than vice versa.

However, there is a point at which diminishing marginal returns comes in. Federer is STILL deemed the GOAT and is still the dominant player of his generation, even with Rafa. So how much did he really lose? All he lost was being EVEN MORE the GOAT than he already is. But if Federer weren't around, Nadal would be the dominant player of his generation, with many years at #1. He doesnt have that now.

So in essence, Federer has lost out on being a GOAT on steroids instead of just a normal GOAT. Nadal has been mostly a perennial #2 in the world, instead of the undisputed dominant player of his era. When thought of that way, Nadal has lost more.

n8
02-12-2010, 08:48 AM
When I think about it, I realize that Roger has taken more from Rafa than vice versa.

Obviously, in terms of how many Grand Slams they have taken from each other, Roger would gain more if Rafa didn't exist than vice versa.

However, there is a point at which diminishing marginal returns comes in. Federer is STILL deemed the GOAT and is still the dominant player of his generation, even with Rafa. So how much did he really lose? All he lost was being EVEN MORE the GOAT than he already is. But if Federer weren't around, Nadal would be the dominant player of his generation, with many years at #1. He doesnt have that now.

So in essence, Federer has lost out on being a GOAT on steroids instead of just a normal GOAT. Nadal has been mostly a perennial #2 in the world, instead of the undisputed dominant player of his era. When thought of that way, Nadal has lost more.

Excellent post. I like the diminishing marginal returns argument and it is so true in this case. If this question was asked at the beginning of last year (particularly before Federer won Roland Garros) it would've been different. However now that Federer has Roland Garros, he's GOAT anyway.

Tripster
02-12-2010, 11:24 AM
This rivalry helped them both alot to stay in everybodys mind.
Of course Roger would have won so much more, but winning after a big lose or against a big rival is always much sweeter than crushing through the field without any problems.

Commander Data
02-12-2010, 11:38 AM
Rafa from Federer. Without Rafa, Roger would have multiple RG, CYGS, 7 Wimbledon in a row and about 20 Slams by now. Making him the undisputed GOAT. Rafa showed that Federer is just human after all and has its weaknesses as well.

Seen that way, Federer might be lucky to share his career with Rafa after all. It was more entertaining for the fans and brought more emotions out of him.

Nadal might also end up winning something. who knows what would have been without Federer? Nadal would still have no US Open and he might still have lost against Söderling last year. he probably would have one more Wimbledon by now. Now, people will say in the future that Nadal was on par with the GOAT in his prime. That will form it's own legancy.

siloe26
02-12-2010, 11:56 AM
In terms of GS, Nadal took more from Federer, who could have won 2 Calender GS.
For the rest, Rafa was robbed. He should have been the dominant player of his generation and a big number one.

Sophocles
02-12-2010, 11:58 AM
I think a Borg comparison is a little more apt, calling him a lesser Connors (when he still yet may achieve more than Connors ever did) is short-suiting him a little. But I agree, Federer, in this hypothetical scenario, has lost more. I mean 2 grand slams, come on. Nadal has stopped Federer from absolutely unprecedented heights.

Okay, but I was thinking about his career so far. Without Federer he'd have had 3 Wimbledons, 1 A.O., 4 R.G.s & 5 straight years at Number One. That's basically Connors without the longevity.

EDIT: Although you're right, he would have equalled Borg's incredible 3-year R.G./Wimbledon double.

Sophocles
02-12-2010, 12:02 PM
When I think about it, I realize that Roger has taken more from Rafa than vice versa.

Obviously, in terms of how many Grand Slams they have taken from each other, Roger would gain more if Rafa didn't exist than vice versa.

However, there is a point at which diminishing marginal returns comes in. Federer is STILL deemed the GOAT and is still the dominant player of his generation, even with Rafa. So how much did he really lose? All he lost was being EVEN MORE the GOAT than he already is. But if Federer weren't around, Nadal would be the dominant player of his generation, with many years at #1. He doesnt have that now.

So in essence, Federer has lost out on being a GOAT on steroids instead of just a normal GOAT. Nadal has been mostly a perennial #2 in the world, instead of the undisputed dominant player of his era. When thought of that way, Nadal has lost more.

A well-reasoned posting, but your premiss is doubtful. Federer is NOT obviously the GOAT. He's just one of the best candidates. You can make a good case for several others. Federer's case would be all but unanswerable if Nadal hadn't taken those slams from him.

I also think it's a mistake to value achievements merely as contributions to GOAThood. Winning 2 calendar year slams in a row would have been an incredible achievement in its own right, regardless of its effect on the relative status of the person doing it.

Besides, tennis is not the only sport. Federer's achievements without Nadal would strengthen his case for being considered the greatest SPORTSMAN of all time.

Corey Feldman
02-12-2010, 12:29 PM
amount doesnt matter (but its still 16 >>> 6 anyway)

the main thing is they both got what they always wanted

Nadal Wimbledon title
Fed French title

abraxas21
02-12-2010, 01:32 PM
the main thing is they both got what they always wanted

Nadal Wimbledon title
Fed French title

That was fixed.

lessthanjake
02-12-2010, 04:12 PM
A well-reasoned posting, but your premiss is doubtful. Federer is NOT obviously the GOAT. He's just one of the best candidates. You can make a good case for several others. Federer's case would be all but unanswerable if Nadal hadn't taken those slams from him.

I also think it's a mistake to value achievements merely as contributions to GOAThood. Winning 2 calendar year slams in a row would have been an incredible achievement in its own right, regardless of its effect on the relative status of the person doing it.

Besides, tennis is not the only sport. Federer's achievements without Nadal would strengthen his case for being considered the greatest SPORTSMAN of all time.

Everything you say is true. However, being deemed possibly the greatest sportsman of all time or being the undisputed GOAT instead of just who most people see as the GOAT is like icing on the cake. It's not really necessary for his legacy, which would be gigantic either way.

On the other hand, Nadal's legacy would be VERY different without Federer. Nadal will always be seen as the second fiddle of this generation who nevertheless could beat the best player frequently. Without Federer, Nadal would be the undisputed dominant player of his generation, and would likely have 5 straight years at #1 in the world.

I just think the difference Federer would feel between being thought of by most as GOAT and being undisputed-GOAT is smaller than the difference Nadal would feel between being 2nd in his generation and being the dominant player of his generation.

Persimmon
02-12-2010, 04:22 PM
Everything you say is true. However, being deemed possibly the greatest sportsman of all time or being the undisputed GOAT instead of just who most people see as the GOAT is like icing on the cake. It's not really necessary for his legacy, which would be gigantic either way.

On the other hand, Nadal's legacy would be VERY different without Federer. Nadal will always be seen as the second fiddle of this generation who nevertheless could beat the best player frequently. Without Federer, Nadal would be the undisputed dominant player of his generation, and would likely have 5 straight years at #1 in the world.

I just think the difference Federer would feel between being thought of by most as GOAT and being undisputed-GOAT is smaller than the difference Nadal would feel between being 2nd in his generation and being the dominant player of his generation.

Don't think Nadal would have dominated HCs. Not even close. Not when he lost to Blake, Ferrer, Youzhny, Gonzo, Tsonga at the HC slams. And since the tour is mostly HCs.. well. I don't think he would have dominated outside of clay/grass.. And if you can't dominate HCs like Fed did, you just don't dominate the tour.

Sophocles
02-12-2010, 04:23 PM
I just think the difference Federer would feel between being thought of by most as GOAT and being undisputed-GOAT is smaller than the difference Nadal would feel between being 2nd in his generation and being the dominant player of his generation.

This I concede. But I do think you underestimate the importance of the Grand Slam. If Federer had done it, I'm pretty sure it would be at the top of any encyclopaedia article about him. I know 2 other guys have done it and nobody else has won 16 slams, but it's easy to project 18+ slams for Laver, Rosewall, & Gonzales.

HKz
02-12-2010, 04:26 PM
This I concede. But I do think you underestimate the importance of the Grand Slam. If Federer had done it, I'm pretty sure it would be at the top of any encyclopaedia article about him. I know 2 other guys have done it and nobody else has won 16 slams, but it's easy to project 18+ slams for Laver, Rosewall, & Gonzales.

But that is as easy as to say 10000 slams for Nadal if he wasn't injured all the time. So we have to go with what is written in the history books, not what they could have accomplished

Sophocles
02-12-2010, 04:31 PM
But that is as easy as to say 10000 slams for Nadal if he wasn't injured all the time. So we have to go with what is written in the history books, not what they could have accomplished

Yes but there's a difference between being injured & being barred from tournaments. When those guys were banned from slams, slams simply were not what they are now: a showcase for the best players in the world playing their best tennis. It is only because they ARE now that, that we give so much weight to performance in the slams. When assessing professionals before the Open Era, we need to take account of their performance on the pro tour, otherwise an all-time great such as Gonzales becomes a footnote. Projecting slam wins is just converting that assessment into today's currency. If you see what I mean.

lessthanjake
02-12-2010, 04:39 PM
Don't think Nadal would have dominated HCs. Not even close. Not when he lost to Blake, Ferrer, Youzhny, Gonzo, Tsonga at the HC slams. And since the tour is mostly HCs.. well. I don't think he would have dominated outside of clay/grass.. And if you can't dominate HCs like Fed did, you just don't dominate the tour.

He would still have likely won Wimbledon in 2006 and 2007. If he did that, he would have had 3 years in a row winning 2 slams. That's pretty dominant. He would have still absolutely dominated the clay court season (in fact, without the two losses to Federer in clay Masters Series', his dominance would have been even more absurd). He would not have had that clay court winning streak broken by Federer in Hamburg. Who knows how high that streak would have gone. He would likely have 8 slams in 5 years, and have been number 1 for 5 years straight. Again, thats pretty dominant.

He would have faced questions about whether he was truly the dominant player because he would have failed to win hard court slams, but the 2009 AO would have quelled that issue and set him apart as the truly dominant player in his generation.

This I concede. But I do think you underestimate the importance of the Grand Slam. If Federer had done it, I'm pretty sure it would be at the top of any encyclopaedia article about him. I know 2 other guys have done it and nobody else has won 16 slams, but it's easy to project 18+ slams for Laver, Rosewall, & Gonzales.

Certainly, I agree with that. However, I see the Grand Slam as just one part of a person's resume, and I suppose I do not value it as highly as other people do. I think that with the Grand Slam, Federer would be the undisputed GOAT, but I also think that there already isnt that much dispute about whether he is the GOAT.

Sophocles
02-12-2010, 05:01 PM
Certainly, I agree with that. However, I see the Grand Slam as just one part of a person's resume, and I suppose I do not value it as highly as other people do. I think that with the Grand Slam, Federer would be the undisputed GOAT, but I also think that there already isnt that much dispute about whether he is the GOAT.

It is an item on the resume, but it's also for many people the single greatest achievement in the sport. Presumably you are impressed when a player enjoys a great year, a la McEnroe in 1984. A Grand Slam year is the greatest kind of year you can have.

I also think there's more dispute about Federer's GOAThood than you allow. It's not just the trolls on this forum. There are plenty of aficionados of the sport who believe other candidates are better qualified, or there is no such thing as a GOAT or even if there is, there's no way of knowing, or Federer's competition has been too weak. The mainstream media may give a different impression, but the mainstream media is hugely biased in favour of the now.

Persimmon
02-12-2010, 05:27 PM
He would still have likely won Wimbledon in 2006 and 2007. If he did that, he would have had 3 years in a row winning 2 slams. That's pretty dominant. He would have still absolutely dominated the clay court season (in fact, without the two losses to Federer in clay Masters Series', his dominance would have been even more absurd). He would not have had that clay court winning streak broken by Federer in Hamburg. Who knows how high that streak would have gone. He would likely have 8 slams in 5 years, and have been number 1 for 5 years straight. Again, thats pretty dominant.

He would have faced questions about whether he was truly the dominant player because he would have failed to win hard court slams, but the 2009 AO would have quelled that issue and set him apart as the truly dominant player in his generation.


Disagree. The only reason Nadal won a HC slam is because he played Fed in the final:o Had Nadal played someone like Djokovic/Murray/Del Potro, he would have lost. And then no AO for Nadal. Actually we don't really know how many slams Nadal would have won without Federer. We know Rafa is a really bad matchup for Federer. But had Rafa played someone like Nalbandian in the RG 2006 final who knows, maybe Nalbandian would have won. The Argentine is a bad matchup for Nadal.

sammy01
02-12-2010, 05:33 PM
they don't take things from each other, they earn them over each other. no one player has a right to anything.

duong
03-11-2010, 07:34 PM
In my opinion, Nadal has taken far more from Fed than the opposite : Fed could have won the Calendar year grand slam in 2006 and 2007 :eek: I'm certain he would have won one of these at least, I even think both ones personally.

In 2005, he might not only have won RG but also beaten McEnroe's record for ratio victories/defeats :shrug:

Also his image has clearly been faded by Nadal in many ways which have often been discussed on this forum. See who does Setsampras always call for help to underrate Fed's achievements ? Nadal :lol:

Without Fed, well what would Nadal have ? he would have been number 1 longer, would have won two more Wimbledons. But he would have been criticized for being a quite boring number 1 :shrug:

Nadal's image is clearly related to being a challenger : that's the position where people liked him. And also when he became number 1, he didn't esp like how people talked about him and wasn't so happy about that :shrug:

Persimmon
03-12-2010, 01:34 AM
Without Federer, Nadal would be an 8 slam winner like Perry, Rosewall, Connors, Lendl and Agassi. Really not a huge difference between 6 and 8 TBH.

But without Nadal, Federer would be getting closer and closer to Margaret Court's 24 slams and would have as many slams as Graf :eek:

Pretty obvious who took more away from who.

HarryMan
03-12-2010, 05:22 AM
Yeah, Nadal is the first rival for the top player of any era. You people act like Sampras, Borg, Laver, etc. never had any rivals.

Federer is only good as his resume shows at the moment (which is extremely impressive and better than most players from any generation) and the same goes for Nadal.

abraxas21
03-12-2010, 05:25 AM
Without Federer, Nadal would be an 8 slam winner like Perry, Rosewall, Connors, Lendl and Agassi. Really not a huge difference between 6 and 8 TBH.

But without Nadal, Federer would be getting closer and closer to Margaret Court's 24 slams and would have as many slams as Graf :eek:

Pretty obvious who took more away from who.

well, there are other things beside GS... For one thing other tournaments and for another: the domination you impose on the tour. Without Federer, Nadal would have been the most dominant player of his era.

Still, I think Rafa has taken more from Roger than the other way around.

HarryMan
03-12-2010, 05:34 AM
Without Federer, Nadal would be an 8 slam winner like Perry, Rosewall, Connors, Lendl and Agassi. Really not a huge difference between 6 and 8 TBH.

But without Nadal, Federer would be getting closer and closer to Margaret Court's 24 slams and would have as many slams as Graf :eek:

Pretty obvious who took more away from who.

No, not really. Because if we do that for Federer, we need to eliminate Seles for Graf as well, and Graf would still be ahead. :eek:

Sri
03-12-2010, 05:49 AM
Federer took Rafa's knees? Maybe. How can you prove that?

tea
03-12-2010, 06:43 AM
Without Federer, Nadal would be an 8 slam winner like Perry, Rosewall, Connors, Lendl and Agassi. Really not a huge difference between 6 and 8 TBH.

But without Nadal, Federer would be getting closer and closer to Margaret Court's 24 slams and would have as many slams as Graf :eek:

Pretty obvious who took more away from who.
This.

---
It would be so unfair if, say, in 20-30 years we will get 70% as talented player as Federer, but who will achieve a bit more than Roger just because he won't have to deal with inhuman capabilities of player like Nadal.:hysteric:

duong
03-12-2010, 08:36 AM
But without Nadal, Federer would be getting closer and closer to Margaret Court's 24 slams and would have as many slams as Graf :eek:

The calendar year grand slam (Laver's achievement), also McEnroe's 1984 record, are far more important than those ladies' records :devil:

Laver like Federer was a model, a complete player, Graf had many lacks in her game and cannot be seen as any model :lol: (in my opinion, Navratilova is still superior to Graf ;) )

As for Nadal "being dominant", he just wouldn't have liked it imo :shrug:

About other tournaments than grand slams, Federer would also have won Monte-Carlo and Roma : only Paris-Bercy would be missing :lol:

duong
03-12-2010, 08:47 AM
Federer is STILL deemed the GOAT and is still the dominant player of his generation, even with Rafa. So how much did he really lose? All he lost was being EVEN MORE the GOAT than he already is. But if Federer weren't around, Nadal would be the dominant player of his generation, with many years at #1. He doesnt have that now.

So in essence, Federer has lost out on being a GOAT on steroids instead of just a normal GOAT.

no it will always be argued with Laver, not to mention Tilden ...

duong
03-12-2010, 08:51 AM
amount doesnt matter (but its still 16 >>> 6 anyway)

the main thing is they both got what they always wanted

Nadal Wimbledon title
Fed French title

that's true :yeah: :worship:

DualMedia
03-12-2010, 01:10 PM
if federer did not have rafa , federer would have dominated like steffi graf. He would probaly have 20+ GS

duong
03-12-2010, 01:35 PM
if federer did not have rafa , federer would have dominated like steffi graf. He would probaly have 20+ GS

Steffi Graf was dominated by Seles before her agression, at least as much if not more than how Nadal dominated Federer in 2008 :shrug:

But came an agression for Seles, and the knees for Nadal :devil:

fabolous
03-12-2010, 01:57 PM
Steffi Graf was dominated by Seles before her agression, at least as much if not more than how Nadal dominated Federer in 2008 :shrug:

But came an agression for Seles, and the knees for Nadal :devil:
graf was never dominated by seles, she always had a winning record over her. graf's overall level dropped a bit in 1990/1991, she also lost to other players and that's why seles could win against her. so the gap between graf and seles is much bigger than federer and nadal.

but let's not talk too much about WTA here ;)

Persimmon
03-12-2010, 07:07 PM
if federer did not have rafa , federer would have dominated like steffi graf. He would probaly have 20+ GS

Federer would have 22 slams by now and counting.


graf was never dominated by seles, she always had a winning record over her. graf's overall level dropped a bit in 1990/1991, she also lost to other players and that's why seles could win against her. so the gap between graf and seles is much bigger than federer and nadal.

Exactly.

Before the stabbing the H2H was 6-4 for Graf and 3-3 at the slams. So Seles never dominated the H2H or at the slams before the stabbing.

Quakes
03-12-2010, 10:02 PM
Rafael has learned a lot more from Roger than vice versa.

I think it is pretty clear that Roger's continued success at Wimbledon prompted Rafael (and Uncle Toni) to develop a more aggressive style of play. That has certainly worked out spectacularly in Wimbledon 2008.

Instead, what has Roger learned from Rafael? Pretty much nothing. He was much too arrogant to learn from anyone. Then finally he relented and polished up his forehand dropshot - something Rafael has mastered long ago - and won Roland Garros. But that's about it.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I think before Nadal came along, Federer is the one who can hit the most amount of topspin (in terms of rpm on the forehand).

Ivanatis
03-12-2010, 10:14 PM
As soon as Roger takes Xisca, it's over.

SetSampras
03-12-2010, 11:39 PM
Without Fed around, Nadal would have 7 or 8 slams. Without Nadal around Fed would have damn near 23 slams right now so do the math:)

elessar
03-12-2010, 11:45 PM
Without Fed around, Nadal would have 7 or 8 slams. Without Nadal around Fed would have damn near 23 slams right now so do the math:)
I'm curious about your math too :awww: How do you come up with 23 slams?

SetSampras
03-12-2010, 11:47 PM
I'm curious about your math too :awww: How do you come up with 23 slams?

Take Nadal out of the equation, Fed gets 6 more slams.. So... well 22 slams I guess. But again.. I said "damn near 23 slams" Though maybe he would have gotten an extra one somewhere had Nadal not been around so his confidence would have been sky high. Kind of like how it was when Nadal went out with injuries last season.

elessar
03-12-2010, 11:51 PM
Take Nadal out of the equation, Fed gets 6 more slams.. So... well 22 slams I guess. But again.. I said "damn near 23 slams" Though maybe he would have gotten an extra one somewhere had Nadal not been around so his confidence would have been sky high. Kind of like how it was when Nadal went out with injuries last season.
yes, you are right Nadal must have surely been at the back of his mind when he caught his mono in 08 and when he choked away the final to Del Potro.

Sunset of Age
03-13-2010, 12:00 AM
Take Nadal out of the equation, Fed gets 6 more slams.. So... well 22 slams I guess. But again.. I said "damn near 23 slams" Though maybe he would have gotten an extra one somewhere had Nadal not been around so his confidence would have been sky high. Kind of like how it was when Nadal went out with injuries last season.

Yeah, because obviously, Feds & Nads have been the ONLY players around since 2004 or so... come on here, get a grip! Don't you think that players like Roddick, Hewitt, Murray (yes, him too!), Djokovic, DelPotro et al. wouldn't have a say in this matter as well?

You're a lost case.

SetSampras
03-13-2010, 12:17 AM
Yeah, because obviously, Feds & Nads have been the ONLY players around since 2004 or so... come on here, get a grip! Don't you think that players like Roddick, Hewitt, Murray (yes, him too!), Djokovic, DelPotro et al. wouldn't have a say in this matter as well?

You're a lost case.

Fed and Nadal have been the only 2 players who have managed to win more than 1 slam these past how many years now?. . Who the else was going to beat Federer at the French or wimbledon during that time period? Roddick? Hewitt? Hewitt passed his prime by 2006. Roddick owns a nice 2-19 h2h vs Roger so its proof he cant get it done And.. No Murray wouldnt have a say anything. He was thumped by Fed in the only grandslam finals he made. Is Murray going to win on clay? Or even grass? He cant even get by Roddick on grass. Roddick showed he cant beat Federer at wimbeldon.. Was going he going to beat Fed at the french? Djokovic cant even make it through his own draw at slams much less get to Fed. Djokovic would have been the only chance to take one french open away from fed in 2008.. Thats it.


Del Potro is just starting his career.. its not as though he has been on top for a long time. Not to mention he has been injury plagued.. As I said... Take Nadal out of the equation.. Fed at this point would be zeroing in on that 25 slam mark.



I think that says how much of a lost cause you are... To think Murray, Djokovic, Roddick, or Hewitt would have a say? Despite how many opportunities They sure as shit havent had a say yet.. What makes you think they would without Nadal around. Fed bullied Hewitt and Roddick.. They werent going to beat Fed at any slam. Djokovic has to make a slam final first in order to make me think him. He hasnt made in 2 years and has systematically gone out at the slams to players much worse than Roger so what makes anyone think Djokovic would have a say in stopping Fed from getting slams these last 2 years?. Murray has been bullied by Fed the two times they met

Face it... Nadal saved tennis from Fed turning it into a Mockery and having probably 3 calendar slams anyways to his resume. Its simple logic.. Who was going to beat Fed at the French outside of Nadal all those years? Who was going to beat Fed at wimbledon 08, AO 09 etc? No one except Nadal. Nadal is the only player who could managed to have the mental edge over Roger. Without him around, its routine slam wins for Roger for the better part of 5 years

elessar
03-13-2010, 12:20 AM
Yeah, because obviously, Feds & Nads have been the ONLY players around since 2004 or so... come on here, get a grip! Don't you think that players like Roddick, Hewitt, Murray (yes, him too!), Djokovic, DelPotro et al. wouldn't have a say in this matter as well?

You're a lost case.
I think Roddick, Hewitt and Murray have had very little to say indeed in the matter of Roger winning slams since 2004.
SetSampras questionable math and mental health aside, no one can argue that only Rafa has been able to consistantly thwart Roger at slams.

Sunset of Age
03-13-2010, 12:25 AM
I think Roddick, Hewitt and Murray have had very little to say indeed in the matter of Roger winning slams since 2004.
SetSampras questionable math and mental health aside, no one can argue that only Rafa has been able to consistantly thwart Roger at slams.

QED. :)

Not doubting that at all, but doesn't that even more rather speaks for Roger's brilliance (and Rafa's, too)? :D

SetSampras
03-13-2010, 12:27 AM
QED. :)

Not doubting that at all, but doesn't that even more rather speaks for Roger's brilliance (and Rafa's, too)? :D

Or the rest's inability to win slams and their LACK of brilliance? Who knows.. Sometimes theres a very fine line. Roger is still winning slams farily easy now despite obviously not dedicating himself to the game as much as he used to, his slow decline and really only showing up JUST for slams these days. This should give the rest of the younger guys confidence to take some

elessar
03-13-2010, 12:29 AM
QED. :)

Not doubting that at all, but doesn't that even more rather speaks for Roger's brilliance (and Rafa's, too)? :D
Of course it does.

elessar
03-13-2010, 12:31 AM
Or the rest's inability to win slams and their LACK of brilliance? Who knows..
I believe someone does!

luie
03-13-2010, 12:51 AM
federer has taken more from samprass than anyone else

oz_boz
03-13-2010, 08:18 AM
Let's say Rog would have won the tournaments he was ousted by Rafa and vice versa (not too far fetched in most cases). Then Rafa has taken 13 titles from Fed, of which 6 are slams, so that makes Nadal the obvious answer.

But then there is the factor of them forcing each other to become better, nullifying the above argument.

oz_boz
03-13-2010, 08:25 AM
graf was never dominated by seles, she always had a winning record over her. graf's overall level dropped a bit in 1990/1991, she also lost to other players and that's why seles could win against her. so the gap between graf and seles is much bigger than federer and nadal.

but let's not talk too much about WTA here ;)

Someone dominating someone else is obviously a matter of definition; you can say Fed dominates tennis (hence also Rafa), or that Rafa dominates Fed, referring to titles and h2h respectively. Seles dominated tennis as clearly as (if not clearer than) Rafa 2008, from the moment she overtook Graf as #1 to the stabbing.

But as you said, we should talk about ATP here :)

EDIT: Seles won 3 slams in both 1991 and 1992 (Graf taking Wim both years) so no room for argument here. Graf's level dropped or not, she would likely not have regained her ranking anytime soon if Monica was never stabbed.

jcempire
03-13-2010, 02:12 PM
<<Who has taken more from the other, Roger or Rafa?>> We got this topic for over 3 years/........

Please stop it. It comes over again and again.

duong
03-13-2010, 07:55 PM
Before the stabbing the H2H was 6-4 for Graf and 3-3 at the slams. So Seles never dominated the H2H or at the slams before the stabbing.

that's bullshit : Graf had beaten very young Seles, it's true, but what was the meaning of these matches ?

When the stabbing happened, Seles was much younger than Nadal in 2008 and she was already dominating the Tour and Steffi Graf.

It's not only about figures :rolleyes: , you have to have lived that period to really understand. Seles had had a normal progression, had started dominating the Tour, and she was supposed to keep on, it was far more obvious than Nadal in 2008, about whom there were already some doubts about whether he would keep on :shrug:

Anyway, I've always thought that there are many similarities between Graf/Seles on the one hand, Federer/Nadal on the other hand, including character, attitude on court and rivalry, a player playing with two hands against one with a quite poor backhand ...