How can anyone argue that Federer is better than Nadal? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

How can anyone argue that Federer is better than Nadal?

mdhallu
09-14-2010, 05:43 AM
I dont understand how people can argue that Federer is better than Nadal when Nadal has consistently beaten him. I know head to head matches are not necessdarily the best predictors of who is the better, especially when there have only been a few matches played (ie. Andy Roddick 2-1 over Sampras and Krajicek 6-4 over Sampras which was relatively close) but Nadal and Federer have played 21 times!!! and Nadal has beat him 14-7. When comparing two players in terms of who is better, it seems that numerous head-to-head matches would signify who is better...the better player wins many more times.

So how can people argue that Federer is a better player, when Nadal has beaten him so many times? I mean even in the Sampras-Agassi rivalry sampras only beat Agassi 20-14 and everyone knows that Sampras was an overall better player but Nadal has won twice as much as Federer when they play each other!!!

LaFuria
09-14-2010, 05:51 AM
Fraduerina is just an arrogant snob, he has nothing on the TRUE SPARTAN WARRIOR, the GOAT, Rafa "God" Nadal.

VAMOS!

cutesteve22
09-14-2010, 05:54 AM
16>9

Pirata.
09-14-2010, 05:55 AM
Davydenko > Nadal, Simon > Federer

End of discussion.

SheepleBuster
09-14-2010, 05:55 AM
I dont understand how people can argue that Federer is better than Nadal when Nadal has consistently beaten him. I know head to head matches are not necessdarily the best predictors of who is the better, especially when there have only been a few matches player (ie. Andy Roddick 2-1over Sampras and Krajicek 6-4 over Sampras which was relatively close) but Nadal and Federer have played 21 times!!! and Nadal has beat him 14-7. When comparing two players in terms of who is better, it seems that numerous head-to-head matches would signify who is better...the better player wins many more times.

So how can people argue that Federer is a better player, when Nadal has beaten him so many times? I mean even in the Sampras-Agassi rivalry sampras only beat Agassi 20-14 and everyone knows that Sampras was an overall better player but Nadal has won twice as much as Federer when they play each other!!!

It's all about match ups. Roger is like 0-3 against Simons. Is Gilles better than Roger? Sampras was like 1-2 against Gaudinzi. Or Murray is like 7-5 against Roger. Is he better? How about Novak vs. let's say Roddick

The Magician
09-14-2010, 05:56 AM
good thread OP! How can people say Frauderer is better than Gilles Simon, he's never even beaten him!! I think the GOAT order goes Nadal > Simon > Federer, with other players somewhere in between. Anyone from the past doesn't count because tennis was not a sport until all the surfaces were exactly the same, to ensure the rise of the great one Nadal!

The Magician
09-14-2010, 05:58 AM
It's all about match ups. Roger is like 0-3 against Simons. Is Gilles better than Roger? Sampras was like 1-2 against Gaudinzi. Or Murray is like 7-5 against Roger. Is he better? How about Novak vs. let's say Roddick

Great minds think alike :yeah: All great minds are attracted to Rafa, because we are jealous of his serenity and mental toughness brought about by a lack of thought :worship:

allpro
09-14-2010, 06:00 AM
wilander was right.......fed's testes "shrink to a very small size" when he sees rafa.

alpha >> beta

MalwareDie
09-14-2010, 06:00 AM
16>>>>>>>9

federernadalfan
09-14-2010, 06:01 AM
16>9

sums up the point. even nadal considers himself less than roger. no point arguing

mdhallu
09-14-2010, 06:02 AM
If you read my original post I specifically stated that HEAD-TO-HEAD record is not a good measure if there have only been a few matches.... 21 head to head matches is enough to determine who is a better player. Nadal has beaten Federer many times over many matches...

SheepleBuster
09-14-2010, 06:03 AM
good thread OP! How can people say Frauderer is better than Gilles Simon, he's never even beaten him!! I think the GOAT order goes Nadal > Simon > Federer, with other players somewhere in between. Anyone from the past doesn't count because tennis was not a sport until all the surfaces were exactly the same, to ensure the rise of the great one Nadal!

I disagree. The argument the guy made was so absurd, even a 2 year old could see it :) Sorry. I refuse to take credit for something anyone but a Rafatard could figure out

Macbrother
09-14-2010, 06:04 AM
So how can people argue that Federer is a better player, when Nadal has beaten him so many times? I mean even in the Sampras-Agassi rivalry sampras only beat Agassi 20-14 and everyone knows that Sampras was an overall better player but Nadal has won twice as much as Federer when they play each other!!!

Everyone knows Sampras was better because of his vastly superior achievements. When Nadal comes close to achieving what Federer has, then you may have an argument, until then, yours, and threads like yours will be pure rafatard circle-jerking.

NadalesDios
09-14-2010, 06:06 AM
Actually no one can.
2010 Nadal 3 slams 3 masters series
2010 Federer 1 slam 1 masters series

jenanun
09-14-2010, 06:11 AM
nadal is better than federer




when there are only 2 people in the world play tennis....

swisht4u
09-14-2010, 06:12 AM
Nadal is the best now. :worship:

Wait till next tournament, I think Fed has some more to say about it. :)

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
09-14-2010, 06:15 AM
if sampras played agassi 21 times on clay

the head to head would like something like

20-1 to agassi

the H2H isn't the best indicator because of surface differences

also

indoors

nadal hasn't ever beaten fed, and also was beaten 6-0 6-1 by nalbandian

federer is goat by his all court prowess

he beat GOAT sampras on fast grass
won 5 times on slow grass
won 4 ao's on slow hard
5 on fast hard US open
and multiple clay MS + RG

and year end championship

nadal hasn't come close to all curface dominance

he's unbeatable on grass and clay

on hard courts hes a threat

indoors nadal is lucky to be top 10

aloniv
09-14-2010, 06:22 AM
I dont understand how people can argue that Federer is better than Nadal when Nadal has consistently beaten him. I know head to head matches are not necessdarily the best predictors of who is the better, especially when there have only been a few matches player (ie. Andy Roddick 2-1over Sampras and Krajicek 6-4 over Sampras which was relatively close) but Nadal and Federer have played 21 times!!! and Nadal has beat him 14-7. When comparing two players in terms of who is better, it seems that numerous head-to-head matches would signify who is better...the better player wins many more times.

So how can people argue that Federer is a better player, when Nadal has beaten him so many times? I mean even in the Sampras-Agassi rivalry sampras only beat Agassi 20-14 and everyone knows that Sampras was an overall better player but Nadal has won twice as much as Federer when they play each other!!!

Nadal leads there head to head since, at least until 2008, Federer reached the finals on all the surfaces, whereas Nadal only reached the finals of his best surfaces, and thus won more matches. So the head to head doesn't tell you the complete picture in this case.

Toaderling
09-14-2010, 06:23 AM
:spit:

If you've ever seen them play a match, you'd know Roger is better.

theseth1119
09-14-2010, 06:38 AM
Would all of you agree though that Rogie is the second best player in 2010?

Rafa (25-1 in GSs, 59-7 record, 6 titles, Monte Carlo, Rome, Madrid, FO, W, and USO), he's the best in 2010.
Rogie (20-3 in GSs, 44-11 record, 2 titles, AO and Cincinnati), he's the second best in 2010.
Chokovic (19-4 in GSs, 44-13 record, 1 title, Dubai), he's the third best in 2010.

GuiroNl
09-14-2010, 07:30 AM
Actually no one can.
2010 Nadal 3 slams 3 masters series
2010 Federer 1 slam 1 masters series

Yes, 3 >> 1

Also
2010 Nadal 1 ranking
2010 Federer 3 ranking

So Fed is doing better in this department.
:confused:

peribsen
09-14-2010, 08:00 AM
Nadal leads there head to head since, at least until 2008, Federer reached the finals on all the surfaces, whereas Nadal only reached the finals of his best surfaces, and thus won more matches. So the head to head doesn't tell you the complete picture in this case.

That argument is only partly true, Fed has failed to show up in 11 of the 16 big finals Rafa has played outside clay. I mean, where was Fed in the final of Beijing Olympics, or the two times each Rafa won IW and Canada, or in this year's Wimbledon, or, well, today?

It would seem some people presume Roger would have won all or most of those finals if he had played them, but the evidence suggests otherwise, especially after 2007.

Fed has faced Rafa 21 times:

- On clay, Nadal leads 10-2
- grass, Fed 2-1
- indoor: Fed 2-0
- outdoor hard: Rafa 3-1 (Fed won Miami 05, Rafa's first ever big final -a gripping 5-setter-; Rafa won Miami 2004 R32 -when he was only 17-, Dubai 06, AO 09)

It's striking they have only met 4 times on outdoor hard. That was due to the fact that Rafa is more beatable for other players on that surface, but when they have met, Roger didn't really pose too much of a threat for him.

So what their H2H would have looked like if they had faced off more frequently is anybody's guess.

peribsen
09-14-2010, 08:12 AM
Now answering the question of the OP:

- because he has far more slams, tournaments of all sorts (except Olympics, hehe)?
- because he has been nr1 for far more many weeks?
- because he won 3 slams 3 years on a row?
- because of the undeniable master-class quality of his game during his peak years?
- because the fact that Rafa is TODAY the best player doesn't mean he is automatically better than other players from other eras (Borg, Laver, Sampras, Lendl are only some of the names that come to mind), and Fed is nearing the end of his own era?

Why are people so obsessed with comparing Rafa and Fed is something that really beats me.

In the end of his career, Rafa may -or may not- have reached Fed's level. Whatever happens, he will already have made a name for himself among the top 10 greatest players of all times, including pre-open era.

Surely that should be enough for his fans to rejoice in? Why the hurry in settling his place in history when he still has a few years in front of him?

Is this about supporting Rafa, or is it about lynching Fed?

Arkulari
09-14-2010, 08:13 AM
Now answering the question of the OP:

- because he has far more slams, tournaments of all sorts (except Olympics, hehe)?
- because he has been nr1 for far more many weeks?
- because he won 3 slams 3 years on a row?
- because of the undeniable master-class quality of his game during his peak years?
- because the fact that Rafa is TODAY the best player doesn't mean he is automatically better than other players from other eras (Borg, Laver, Sampras, Lendl are only some of the names that come to mind), and Fed is nearing the end of his own era?

Why are people so obsessed with comparing Rafa and Fed is something that really beats me.

In the end of his career, Rafa may -or may not- have reached Fed's level. Whatever happens, he will already have made a name for himself among the top 10 greatest players of all times, including pre-open era.

Surely that should be enough for his fans to rejoice in? Why the hurry in settling his place in history when he still has a few years in front of him?

Is this about supporting Rafa, or is it about lynching Fed?

:worship: :worship: :worship:

If I wasn't married, I'd totally propose to you :hug:

peribsen
09-14-2010, 08:18 AM
If I wasn't married, I'd totally propose to you :hug:

Oh sucks, we met too late!!:couple:

oz_boz
09-14-2010, 08:58 AM
Because

1) Fed's achievements are way bigger so far, not even close
2) Nadal has been more prone to lose early and against worse players in the big tournies during the last 5-6 years

As easy as that. Anyway, since the Rafa generation seems just as weak as Fed's, Nadal could very well equal a few of Fed's numbers ;)

Allez
09-14-2010, 09:21 AM
The argument that Federer is better is looking more absurd everyday. Not only does he routine Federer when they meet, but he is creating history right under the nose of someone prematurely crowned a GOAT. Even Federer did not manage to do that. Sampras had won his last slam before Rogi could get going. I do agree, in the context of legends playing at the same time (Nadal's be pro ever since Rogi started his great run), the H2H between the two has to be factored into the equation. People who bring the likes of Simon or even Krajicek that into the argument are just fishing for excuses. If you're supposed to be the best you find a way to win against the very best. That is more important than trying to improve your h2h against nobodies like Simon.

borracho
09-14-2010, 09:29 AM
Nadal is the best at this moment ---> 3 slams this year
Federer is the GOAT ---> 16>9

If Nadal wins 8 more slams he will be the GOAT.

What's so fucking difficult about that?

Fed Express
09-14-2010, 09:46 AM
So what about their H2H...

Nadal has lost so many times to much inferiour players then Federer has. You would never see federer lose to so many 'low quality' players in his prime.

Nadal has never had a year like 2004 - 2005 - 2006 of Federer.

So that H2H doesn't matter as long as Nadal keeps losing to other low quality players.


Besides, the H2H is the way it is because Federer kept making finals on Nadal's best surface and Nadal NOT making finals on Federer's best surface.

B787
09-14-2010, 10:10 AM
16>9
Sign

peribsen
09-14-2010, 10:12 AM
Besides, the H2H is the way it is because Federer kept making finals on Nadal's best surface and Nadal NOT making finals on Federer's best surface.

Read my post above.

At least Nadal leads the H2H on clay, while Fed also laggs behind on outdoor hard (1-3).:o

Castafiore
09-14-2010, 10:18 AM
What Nadal is doing is amazing :worship: but 16 slams is impressive. Until yesterday, Nadal had half that amount of slams titles.

Or to use Nadal's own words


From his press conference after the US Open semi-final:
Q. Respectfully, in our sport, people love to talk about who is the greatest player of all time. In that conversation, do you think it should be based strictly on number of Grand Slams won, or do you feel there are other elements in it such as head to head?

RAFAEL NADAL: Head to head is not an element for me. Is a part of the statistics, but is not the decisive element. Even a Grand Slam is important element, but is not all on the tennis, because for me some things, more important things and more difficult things to do than win a Grand Slam. In my opinion, Roger won 16 Grand Slams already. But what he did, 23 or 24 semifinals in a row, that's something amazing. Is impossible to repeat, in my opinion. For me, what I did on clay the last six years in the previous tournaments, winning Monte Carlo six, Barcelona five, Rome five, and Hamburg one and Madrid another one. These previous places before Roland Garros is much more difficult to win than Roland Garros, because it's three sets, it's tournaments back to back, and you play against the best players since the first round. So in Roland Garros, Grand Slam, you normally can have a few rounds without playing above the top players, and that's can help you. And for the best players have the matches at five sets help us a little bit more, to have more time.

From his presser after the final:
Q. What do you think you have to accomplish to convince yourself that you're ahead of Roger, maybe the greatest ever?

RAFAEL NADAL: Remain a lot of titles, so that's no doubt about that, no? I think I am more than happy that with my titles, for sure I think is talk about if I am better or worse than Roger is stupid, because the titles say he's much better than me, so that's the true at that moment. I think will be the true all my life. But, sure, for me, always, always Roger was an example, especially because he improved his tennis I think during all his career, and that's a good thing that you can copy, no? So I try to copy this, and I know Roger and me are different, much different styles. Being better than Roger I don't think so is the right moment to talk about that, because I am I don't think that.

iriraz
09-14-2010, 10:19 AM
You can`t say one is better then the other.Federer has his records which are unlikely to be beaten by anyone soon and Nadal also has records which are tough to match

latso
09-14-2010, 10:28 AM
He've just seen the best player ever betwen 2004 and 2007, so we know.

nastoff
09-14-2010, 10:32 AM
16>9

24 < 29

make the same comparison in 5 years.

Well, the argument is that they played most of those matches on clay where Nadal can beat him playing with one arm...the other argument is that Federer was utterly dominant for about 5 years on hardcourts and grass but the counter argument is that his main rivals were Hewitt, Safin and Roddick...Nadal's rivals are Federer, Murray, Djokovic...it's debatable who is the stronger in terms of ability but mentally-wise the current field is much stronger...Hewitt, Safin and Roddick...we saw how they did in their careers after a couple of years.

Oh and not forgetting Baghdatis who in 2006 was gonna "push" Federer in the years to come...but didn't...compare Baghdatis to Soderling in terms of mental strength, nowadays.
Federer was an exceptional talent who took advantage of an aging crop of tennis generations and a weaker field to dominate...Nadal has to work twice as hard for the same results these days.

Stroba
09-14-2010, 11:25 AM
Once again this debate is premature. Or did they both just announce their retirement?
Only fact at the moment is that Rogers total achievements still outweights Rafas by a clear margin. But some people have been predicting a Rafa burn-out/career ending injury for the last 4-5 years, but here he is winning the last 3 slams. At this rate he MIGHT surpass Roger. But we can´t know for sure, can we? So why can´t people just wait a few more years and we will know?

H2H definitely favours Nadal, and might become even more lopsided, but IMO this can only be considered if their total achievements will end up being really close. Or do we need to bring up Nalbandian into the discussion? Hopefully not! :rolleyes:

And yes none of them will be GOAT but one of them might end up being the best of their time.

BigJohn
09-14-2010, 11:33 AM
Is this about supporting Rafa, or is it about lynching Fed?

... in other words, fan or tard?

BigJohn
09-14-2010, 11:35 AM
Nadal is the best at this moment ---> 3 slams this year
Federer is the GOAT ---> 16>9

If Nadal wins 8 more slams he will be the GOAT.

What's so fucking difficult about that?

QFT

born_on_clay
09-14-2010, 11:36 AM
better listen to Rafa's post final interview guys

BigJohn
09-14-2010, 11:38 AM
What Nadal is doing is amazing :worship: but 16 slams is impressive. Until yesterday, Nadal had half that amount of slams titles.

Or to use Nadal's own words


Nadal's quote...

Nadal >>>>>>> Nadaltards

.-Federers_Mate-.
09-14-2010, 11:41 AM
Nadal is better on claycourts thats it. All Nadal has over Fed is the olympics. Screw davis cup, Feds team is crap.

Fed will win AO

Castafiore
09-14-2010, 11:54 AM
Nadal >>>>>>> Nadaltards
:shrug: Bit pointless, no?

While you're at it.
Nadal>>>>>>>>>>>>Fedtards.

kronus12
09-14-2010, 12:41 PM
for me at this point of their careers fed is still the best until someone past his slam achievement, Nadal has 9 slams right but fed has 16slams and if you're not a delusional nadaltard he will win more before he retires. Nadal has a chance to match or even beat fed before both careers are over. Nadal being ask if he's better then Roger.

" Remain a lot of titles, so that's no doubt about that, no? I think I am more than happy that with my titles, for sure I think is talk about if I am better or worse than Roger is stupid, because the titles say he's much better than me, so that's the true at that moment. I think will be the true all my life."

the words from the great man a very humble champion but a very realistic champion, some of his fans should learn that attribute, also you Fedtards too.

dombrfc
09-14-2010, 12:52 PM
Of course in terms of careers, Federer is way way ahead of Nadal.

At this moment in time, Nadal is the best tennis player in the world.

NJ88
09-14-2010, 01:09 PM
Incase people haven't noticed, Federer is getting older and is no longer in his prime. Nadal is. Of course Nadal should be winning more currently. However Federer won his fair share of matches when he was a little younger. Nadals best at the moment, but Federer in his prime is better than Nadal in his prime methinks.

maskedmuffin
09-14-2010, 03:15 PM
One has 16 gs and 23 straight semi finals playing with the hardest technology on tour in comparison to his peers..by FAR

the other uses the easiest, most spin friendly "tweener" racquet that kids grow up playing with due to their talent deficiencies to gain him the upper hand.


Switch the two's racquets and one has GS, the other has rotator cuff problems and is out of the game. Even a turd like RFK realizes which game is more backwards compatible to the other eras.


End of story.

paseo
09-14-2010, 03:36 PM
Nadal >>>>>>> Nadaltards

:shrug: Bit pointless, no?

While you're at it.
Nadal>>>>>>>>>>>>Fedtards.

Nadaltards = Fedtards :D

robinpirate
09-14-2010, 03:57 PM
for me it doesn't matter how many titles nadal and federer end up with. i'm starting to believe nadal will surpass roger's records very soon.
however, no matter how much he wins, nadal will never be the greatest imo. it's not only about the records, it's about how you make it happen too. nadal's tennis is based in his huge athleticism and being this incredible solid brick wall, unbreakable almost inhuman. federer's class and talent is beyond comparison. he makes everything look easy and effortless, and I doubt we'll see anything like him again
I have to say, I'm really astonished about nadal's achievements. I never thought he could be so dominant and win so much in every surface. but his tennis is destructive and painful in a way. I mean, you wouldn't try to copy or teach that sort of tennis unless you're a physical freak like him or monfils. everything about him is labored and I don't see any genius stamp about him at all. this is all my opinion, of course. no intent to offend anybody

r2473
09-14-2010, 04:26 PM
How can anyone argue that Federer is better than Nadal?

It's pretty simple really.

If both careers ended today and neither played another match, who would you consider had the greater career?

Sure, Nadal has TONS of potential and MAY end up with the better career. But as of today, it ain't so.

If your question is, who is the better player head-to-head, you have to go with Nadal. Sure, the 7-14 is a bit skewed because the majority of the matches have been played on Nadal's dominant surface. Doesn't matter. In actual matches played against each other, Nadal has proven himself the better player.

I'm not sure this really means as much as people claim it does, but that is something we all get to have an opinion on.....and one man's opinion is just as good as another man's.....pretty much shit all around.

Crazy Girl
09-14-2010, 05:02 PM
At naked eye.

Crazy Girl
09-14-2010, 05:07 PM
for me it doesn't matter how many titles nadal and federer end up with. i'm starting to believe nadal will surpass roger's records very soon.
however, no matter how much he wins, nadal will never be the greatest imo. it's not only about the records, it's about how you make it happen too. nadal's tennis is based in his huge athleticism and being this incredible solid brick wall, unbreakable almost inhuman. federer's class and talent is beyond comparison. he makes everything look easy and effortless,:worship::worship::worship: and I doubt we'll see anything like him again:worship::worship::worship:
I have to say, I'm really astonished about nadal's achievements. I never thought he could be so dominant and win so much in every surface. but his tennis is destructive and painful in a way. I mean, you wouldn't try to copy or teach that sort of tennis unless you're a physical freak like him or monfils. everything about him is labored and I don't see any genius stamp about him at all. this is all my opinion, of course. no intent to offend anybody:wavey:

JolánGagó
09-14-2010, 05:13 PM
Only if you're looking with el ojo del culo.

maskedmuffin
09-14-2010, 05:16 PM
federer w/ babolat > nadul w/ blx

game set match

Sophocles
09-14-2010, 05:31 PM
How many more of these idiotic threads must we endure?

Ivo#1Fan
09-14-2010, 06:14 PM
All those who post 16 > 9 so Fed is better are making a stupid argument that backfires. Fed has many more years and played many more GS so that comparison is meaningless. If all you want to do is compare grand slam victories, now at Nadal's current age, he leads Fed 9 > 6 compared to Fed at same age. Nadal has always been way ahead of Fed when you look at achievement at the same point in their career. Nadal has actually passed Fed in a lot of categories, e.g. masters series titles. Nadal has also always owned Fed on court. Fed is the more beautiful player to watch no question. He's got a hell of a forehand and a very complete all around game and he's has achieved a lot of amazing things in his career. However anyone who thinks Federer is a better player than Nadal is simply delusional. Sure, stick the the 16 > 9. That's about all you've got to hang onto.

Arkulari
09-14-2010, 06:22 PM
All those who post 16 > 9 so Fed is better are making a stupid argument that backfires. Fed has many more years and played many more GS so that comparison is meaningless. If all you want to do is compare grand slam victories, now at Nadal's current age, he leads Fed 9 > 6 compared to Fed at same age. Nadal has always been way ahead of Fed when you look at achievement at the same point in their career. Nadal has actually passed Fed in a lot of categories, e.g. masters series titles. Nadal has also always owned Fed on court. Fed is the more beautiful player to watch no question. He's got a hell of a forehand and a very complete all around game and he's has achieved a lot of amazing things in his career. However anyone who thinks Federer is a better player than Nadal is simply delusional. Sure, stick the the 16 > 9. That's about all you've got to hang onto.

you seem to forget one thing, they didn't start winning Slams at the same age, so for example you cannot compare a 20 year old Rafa to a 20 year old Roger, heck, the comparison wouldn't even stand out at the same age right now (Rafa's 24 is more or less like Roger at 25/26 at their absolute peak)

r2473
09-14-2010, 06:24 PM
owever anyone who thinks Federer is a better player than Nadal is simply delusional.

What does that mean exactly.......

Better overall career?

Better potential career?

Better head-to-head?

If neither one is able to play another match (say they both get hit by a bus), there is no doubt that Fed has achieved the more remarkable career.

Nadal has lots of potential. He could surpass Fed. We'll only know that when he actually does it. At this point (I would argue) that it ain't happened yet.

If you want to ask, who was the best player in history at the age of 24, that would be a fight between Nadal and Borg......and Nadal would probably have the edge.

If you are simply asking who is the better player today, then of course the answer is Nadal. He is at (or near) his peak. Federer has clearly declined from his peak.

If the question is, "who is better...peak Federer or peak Nadal", that is a tough one. In fact, we don't even know if we have seen peak Nadal. He has only started to be a SERIOUS contender on hardcourts.

careergrandslam
09-14-2010, 06:27 PM
federer is not better than nadal.

nadal was schooling peak federer in 2004, 2005 and 2006.

r2473
09-14-2010, 06:34 PM
federer is not better than nadal.

nadal was schooling peak federer in 2004, 2005 and 2006.

He was winning head to head on clay (and he did beat Fed in Dubai on hard).

Otherwise I'm going to have to say the Federer was having the better results at that time.

If the question is "who has the better head to head record", I don't think there is much to argue about. This is a black and white fact. I'm not sure what it means, but it is a cold fact.

I guess if the question is "in 2004-2006 who was better head to head on clay", I don't think you will get much of an argument.

Sapeod
09-14-2010, 06:59 PM
16 >>>>>> 9
That's how

chammer44
09-14-2010, 07:11 PM
Much as I hate Federer, I doubt we've seen the last of him holding slam trophies aloft.

raahaat7
09-14-2010, 07:11 PM
Federer's 16 gs tilt the scales in his favous. But Nadal seems set to win another 3 or 4 gs. In case that happens, Nadal with his better h to h becomes the obvious choice.

Ivo#1Fan
09-14-2010, 07:33 PM
you seem to forget one thing, they didn't start winning Slams at the same age, so for example you cannot compare a 20 year old Rafa to a 20 year old Roger, heck, the comparison wouldn't even stand out at the same age right now (Rafa's 24 is more or less like Roger at 25/26 at their absolute peak)

That's exactly my point! Rafa has been a step ahead of Roger at every age. Just wait until Rafa hits 25/26 and compare that to Fed at 25/26. Already Rafa 24 > Fed 25/26 and Rafa is only improving. Every year he's still getting noticeably better.

Roger was a fine transitional champion during a period when Roddick was considered a serious contender. GOAT :) LOL

Ivo#1Fan
09-14-2010, 07:40 PM
What does that mean exactly.......

Better overall career?

Better potential career?

Better head-to-head?

If neither one is able to play another match (say they both get hit by a bus), there is no doubt that Fed has achieved the more remarkable career.

Nadal has lots of potential. He could surpass Fed. We'll only know that when he actually does it. At this point (I would argue) that it ain't happened yet.

If you want to ask, who was the best player in history at the age of 24, that would be a fight between Nadal and Borg......and Nadal would probably have the edge.

If you are simply asking who is the better player today, then of course the answer is Nadal. He is at (or near) his peak. Federer has clearly declined from his peak.

If the question is, "who is better...peak Federer or peak Nadal", that is a tough one. In fact, we don't even know if we have seen peak Nadal. He has only started to be a SERIOUS contender on hardcourts.

I agree with everything except that Nadal is justing starting to be a SERIOUS contender on hardcourts, don't forget he won a hard court grand slam almost 2 years ago and even a couple of years before that he beat peak level Federer in at least one hard court final. While Nadal's definitely made major improvement on hard, he's been a SERIOUS contender for quite a while.

bluefork
09-14-2010, 07:45 PM
If Nadal was unable to win another GS title in his career, could you really say he was better than Federer when Federer has seven more major titles than Nadal? It's entirely possible that Nadal will surpass Federer's slam record (and other records). But until that happens, you can't say he's better than Federer, even if he has the edge head-to-head.

The bottom line is that we won't be able to fully compare the two players' greatness until their both done.

Sophocles
09-14-2010, 08:51 PM
Nadal blossomed as a player at a younger age. Does it occur to the tards in this thread that this makes it entirely possible he will decline at a younger age too?

Sapeod
09-14-2010, 08:56 PM
Since Nadal's 2005 RG victory:

12 >>>>>>>> 9

Sophocles
09-14-2010, 09:00 PM
Since Nadal's 2005 RG victory:

12 >>>>>>>> 9

Particularly impressive when you consider Federer has been in decline for half that time.

laurie-1
09-14-2010, 09:39 PM
I dont understand how people can argue that Federer is better than Nadal when Nadal has consistently beaten him. I know head to head matches are not necessdarily the best predictors of who is the better, especially when there have only been a few matches played (ie. Andy Roddick 2-1 over Sampras and Krajicek 6-4 over Sampras which was relatively close) but Nadal and Federer have played 21 times!!! and Nadal has beat him 14-7. When comparing two players in terms of who is better, it seems that numerous head-to-head matches would signify who is better...the better player wins many more times.

So how can people argue that Federer is a better player, when Nadal has beaten him so many times? I mean even in the Sampras-Agassi rivalry sampras only beat Agassi 20-14 and everyone knows that Sampras was an overall better player but Nadal has won twice as much as Federer when they play each other!!!

Well Nadal yet again said that Federer is much better than him and will be for the rest of his life.

So you better have a word with Rafael Nadal about this before you ask for anyone else's opinion.

Ivo#1Fan
09-14-2010, 09:42 PM
Nadal blossomed as a player at a younger age. Does it occur to the tards in this thread that this makes it entirely possible he will decline at a younger age too?

Could be, but as I recall Agassi blossomed quite young and wilted quite late.

kronus12
09-14-2010, 11:43 PM
I think when Del Potro comes back he will have a lot to say who will win the future slams on his racket that's how much I rate him.

star
09-15-2010, 12:44 AM
Actually, Rafa would argue that Federer is better than he.

This is really stupid to have the argument. I don't really care who is better. I only care about who I like better. I enjoy Rafa more than I enjoy Federer. Others are going to prefer Federer -- even if Rafa were to win 20 GS titles, they would still like Federer better than Rafa and that's all that would matter to them. That's ok. I feel the same way.

I'm just happy about the now. And right now, Rafa has won RG, Wimby, and USO back to back and no one has done that since Laver and even he didn't do it on three surfaces. It's a great achievement. Do I think that makes him "better" than Federer or Laver? Not in terms of overall career achievements, no. But for this one thing? He's done something they haven't, and it's wonderful and should be celebrated.

But, I don't think it's something that should be used to argue that he's "better" than another great player whose record he hasn't equaled. It's just something different and unusual and -- well, wonderful. :)

peribsen
09-15-2010, 12:57 AM
Actually, Rafa would argue that Federer is better than he.

This is really stupid to have the argument. I don't really care who is better. I only care about who I like better. I enjoy Rafa more than I enjoy Federer. Others are going to prefer Federer -- even if Rafa were to win 20 GS titles, they would still like Federer better than Rafa and that's all that would matter to them. That's ok. I feel the same way.

I'm just happy about the now. And right now, Rafa has won RG, Wimby, and USO back to back and no one has done that since Laver and even he didn't do it on three surfaces. It's a great achievement. Do I think that makes him "better" than Federer or Laver? Not in terms of overall career achievements, no. But for this one thing? He's done something they haven't, and it's wonderful and should be celebrated.

But, I don't think it's something that should be used to argue that he's "better" than another great player whose record he hasn't equaled. It's just something different and unusual and -- well, wonderful. :)

Refreshing common sense!!

Mjau!
09-15-2010, 12:59 AM
Federer isn't better than Nadal - anymore.

However, his career achievements put him well above the spaniard, despite the latter having the winning H2H on one surface.

BigJohn
09-15-2010, 03:32 AM
Nadaltards = Fedtards :D

As a fan, I can only agree.:)

Filo V.
09-15-2010, 03:37 AM
I dont understand how people can argue that Federer is better than Nadal when Nadal has consistently beaten him. I know head to head matches are not necessdarily the best predictors of who is the better, especially when there have only been a few matches played (ie. Andy Roddick 2-1 over Sampras and Krajicek 6-4 over Sampras which was relatively close) but Nadal and Federer have played 21 times!!! and Nadal has beat him 14-7. When comparing two players in terms of who is better, it seems that numerous head-to-head matches would signify who is better...the better player wins many more times.

So how can people argue that Federer is a better player, when Nadal has beaten him so many times? I mean even in the Sampras-Agassi rivalry sampras only beat Agassi 20-14 and everyone knows that Sampras was an overall better player but Nadal has won twice as much as Federer when they play each other!!!

A large portion of those matches have been on clay. On surfaces other than clay, their H2H is actually around even. Head to heads are deceptive. What the H2H shows us is that Rafa is the best player on clay in this era. But Roger dominated the tour in ways Rafa has not done, and that's the difference. Also, Roger has 16 slams.

Arkulari
09-15-2010, 05:16 AM
That's exactly my point! Rafa has been a step ahead of Roger at every age. Just wait until Rafa hits 25/26 and compare that to Fed at 25/26. Already Rafa 24 > Fed 25/26 and Rafa is only improving. Every year he's still getting noticeably better.

Roger was a fine transitional champion during a period when Roddick was considered a serious contender. GOAT :) LOL

:spit: :spit: :spit:

let's see, Roger had two consecutive years of winning 3 Slams in a year, TMC, 4 MS/year, 11/12 titles a year, winning over 90 matches and losing less than 7 per year, etc

@26 (August 2007) Roger had 8 Slams (9 if you count the subsequent USO), Rafa had 7 @24 (June 2010)

going by numbers, they are pretty even in their peak, but Roger was more dominant

ogre
09-15-2010, 07:09 AM
To understand why more people regard Federer as the greatest of all time than regard Nadal as the greatest, consider it is not just how good a player is at their peak, but also how long the peak lasts.

It is vague...there are so many measures and factors. But there are clearly stats that where Federer is ahead of Nadal. The world is full of difference and different people have different opinions. If Nadal wins the Aust. Open next year, a few more will be convinced. If he wins the grand slam next year perhaps most will be convinced. But all this is guessing on the future results. On results actually achieved so far- just accept more people are going to select Federer than Nadal as the greatest ever. And wait and hope to be vindicated.