is rafa already a better hardcourt player than roger's a claycourt player? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

is rafa already a better hardcourt player than roger's a claycourt player?

anticaria
09-16-2010, 10:53 PM
roger's claycourt record:

12 claycourt masters finals..

5 claycourt masters titles at only 2 venues:

'02 hamburg
'04 hamburg
'05 hamburg
'07 hamburg
'09 madrid open

4 r garros finals

'06-'09

1 r garros title:

'09, where he faced someone who had never previously even reached a slam final: soderling



rafa's hardcourt record:

9 hardcourt masters finals

5 hardcourt masters titles at 4 venues:

'05 montreal
'05 madrid
'07 iw
'08 toronto
'09 iw

2 hardcourt slam finals = 2 hardcourt slam titles:

'09 aussie open
'10 us open

in each of which rafa faced former slam champions: roger and novak, respectively

both guys are tied at 5 masters titles on each respective surface, but only rafa has won more than one slam title on his least favorite surface..

however, considering that roger's 0:4 against rafa at r garros and 2:10 on clay as well as 0:1 against rafa at hardcourt majors and merely 3:3 on hard courts, rafa would seem to have the overall edge as the better hardcourter vis a vis roger as a claycourter..

what say you?

Manila ESQ
09-16-2010, 10:59 PM
well, it's a tough call. probably the same.

but rafa on grass > roger in clay or rafa in hard.

rafa - 4 wimbledon finals with 2 titles, plus 1 Queen's title.

moon language
09-16-2010, 11:02 PM
No. Nadal is the only one who could stop Federer on clay for quite a while. Nadal has been vulnerable to multiple people on hardcourts. That may change moving forward though.

Billups85
09-16-2010, 11:04 PM
Now, i don't think so. If Rafa wasn't there, Federer would have 4 RG, and a more Hamburg, Monte Carlo, Roma or Madrid. If Roger wasn't there, Rafa would have 2 more Wimbledon but no more HC Grand Slams.

r2473
09-16-2010, 11:04 PM
If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands (clap clap)
If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands (clap clap)
If you're happy and you know it, then your face will surely show it
If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands. (clap clap)

If you're happy and you know it, stomp your feet (stomp stomp)
If you're happy and you know it, stomp your feet (stomp stomp)
If you're happy and you know it, then your face will surely show it
If you're happy and you know it, stomp your feet. (stomp stomp)

If you're happy and you know it, shout "Hurray!" (hoo-ray!)
If you're happy and you know it, shout "Hurray!" (hoo-ray!)
If you're happy and you know it, then your face will surely show it
If you're happy and you know it, shout "Hurray!" (hoo-ray!)

If you're happy and you know it, do all three (clap-clap, stomp-stomp, hoo-ray!)
If you're happy and you know it, do all three (clap-clap, stomp-stomp, hoo-ray!)
If you're happy and you know it, then your face will surely show it
If you're happy and you know it, do all three. (clap-clap, stomp-stomp, hoo-ray!)

Jaz
09-16-2010, 11:52 PM
No.

Roger would have won RG many many times if Rafa was no there. Nadal hasn't made the finals of the hard-court grandslams too often.

Second point: THERE ARE MORE HARDCOURT TOURNEYS THAN CLAY.So the statistics are already biased in favour of hardcourt. So yeah, of course Nadal will win more Clay-Hard court tournaments.

Roger is an immensely good clay-courter, given how poor he was on the surface early in his career. Give the guy some credit, he is, even today, probably the 2nd best clay-courters in the field.

Pirata.
09-16-2010, 11:59 PM
Not even close.

finishingmove
09-17-2010, 12:08 AM
federer overachieved on clay.

The Magician
09-17-2010, 12:33 AM
Don't you have a shift key on your keyboard?

Sophocles
09-17-2010, 12:36 AM
Hard to say as there are more hard-court tournaments. Plus of course given the OP, this is an obvious trolling thread. I'm sure we shall expose him soon as a duplicate account.

Mjau!
09-17-2010, 02:40 AM
Roger was the 2nd best clay courter in the world in 2005-08 and the best in -09, while Rafa was possibly the best HC'er in 2009 (and that's being very generous) and so far the second best this year.

finishingmove
09-17-2010, 02:49 AM
Roger was the 2nd best clay courter in the world in 2005-08 and the best in -09, while Rafa was possibly the best HC'er in 2009 (and that's being very generous) and so far the second best this year.

???

Mjau!
09-17-2010, 03:20 AM
???

What? He won RG and a TMS, defeated Nadal and collected more clay points than anyone. It's pretty darn clear actually.

.-Federers_Mate-.
09-17-2010, 03:49 AM
different ages

CCBH
09-17-2010, 03:53 AM
What? He won RG and a TMS, defeated Nadal and collected more clay points than anyone. It's pretty darn clear actually.

Hello?? You do realize the claycourt season does not begin and end with Madrid and RG. Nadal and Djokovic were far and away the best till RG, and paid for it with early exits, making Roger's life easier.

Rafa was NOT the best hardcourter in 2009. Yes, he won the AO and Indian Wells, but had a horrible post-summer season. But then it is hard to say who really dominated. del Potro only hit full steam after the summer.

Roddickominator
09-17-2010, 04:04 AM
It's hard to say. There is less quality competition on clay than on hardcourts....so the fact that Rafa loses more often on hardcourts than Roger does on clay may be irrelevant.

Mjau!
09-17-2010, 04:29 AM
Hello?? You do realize the claycourt season does not begin and end with Madrid and RG. Nadal and Djokovic were far and away the best till RG, and paid for it with early exits, making Roger's life easier.

Rafa was NOT the best hardcourter in 2009. Yes, he won the AO and Indian Wells, but had a horrible post-summer season. But then it is hard to say who really dominated. del Potro only hit full steam after the summer.

The clay season does not begin and end with Madrid and RG but it certainly doesn't begin and end with MC and Rome either which is the only way you could put Nadal and Djokovic above Roger on clay in 2009. His record is clearly superior and the perceived reason for that is irrelevant.

Nadal arguably had the best results on hard in 2009 as weird as it sounds. It's difficult to say "X was better" anyway. :shrug:

Arakasi
09-17-2010, 07:56 AM
Unless Nadal improves on hardcourts in the next few years:

Federer on claycourt >> Nadal on hardcourt

Vivalavida18
09-17-2010, 08:19 AM
In tennis, results only matter. Nadal has won 2 HC grandslams and Federer has 1 claycourt slam. What impresses me most is the AO 2009 he won against all odds and beating Federer in the final. That is tiebreaker for me. I feel that Federers RG and Nadals USO are equally impressive but the AO 2009 is just far more impressive than either.

anticaria
09-17-2010, 05:52 PM
No. Nadal is the only one who could stop Federer on clay for quite a while. Nadal has been vulnerable to multiple people on hardcourts. That may change moving forward though.


i believe you inadvertently just proved my point..

if rafa is the only one who could stop roger on clay, then the level of competition on clay is naturally not as deep as it is on hc and there's a good reason for that: there are infinitely more hc specialists than there are claycourt specialists.. hence rafa has had to contend with an even deeper field of specialists on hc than the comparatively minute field of claycourt specilalists roger's had to contend with..

add to that the fact that 4 of roger's 5 clay masters titles did not require him to play rafa (hamburg masters).. and there's good reason for that too: before '07, rafa did not play the hamburg masters except once back in '03 when he was still a 16-year-old non-entity even clay.. ummmm no wonder roger has always had a soft spot for hamburg, i.e., for a while it was the only place he could at least be assured of not having to play rafa.. :wavey:

incidentally, i won't even dwell on the fact that roger's only r garros title did not require him to play the only man who could've stopped him, thanks to rafa's untimely bout with tendinitis in '09..

now take a look at the elite list of hc specialists rafa's had to go through to win his 5 hc masters titles and 2 hc majors:

'05 montreal: beat agassi in the final
'05 madrid: beat ljubicic in the final
'07 iw: beat roddick in the semis and the djoker in the final (both in straight sets)
'08 toronto: beat murray in the semis in straight sets
'09 iw: beat nalbandian (4th round), delpo (quarters), roddick (semis), murray (final) <--rafa beat delpo, roddick and murray in straight sets (score in the final: 6-1, 6-2)

'09 aussie open: beat gonzález (a former aussie open finalist in '07) in the 4th round and in straight sets and then roger in the final
'10 us open: beat the djoker

has roger ever managed to beat an equivalent string of claycourt specialists on clay in the prime of their youthful fearlessness at the masters or slam level?

btw.. the reason rafa's struggled on hc until now is because there have been a heck of a lot more specialists who could make him struggle on hc.. but at the majors, none of those guys has ever beaten a rested/healthy/confident rafa.. much less now that the spaniard has finally reached a degree of all-surface mastery which puts him head and shoulders above the rest..

just take a look at this:

rafa led roger 5:0 on clay before roger could score his first claycourt win over the spaniard in '07.. rafa also led roger 1:0 to start their hc rivalry and he then led the swiss 2:1 on hc as recently as '06 before roger could win another one against him on that surface..

and yet:

roger now trails rafa 2:10 on clay and apparently the best he can do is break even at 3:3 on hc against rafa.. what does that tell you?

i don't know about you but that tells me that the best hc player of his generation can't even dominate rafa on hc.. in fact, roger couldn't even win their only hc meeting at the majors ('09 aussie open), so he now also trails rafa 0:1 in that regard..

with that in mind, i don't know how anyone could say 'it's too soon to tell'.. because, while roger ought to be leading rafa at least 5:1 on hc (including 1:0 @ the hc majors), the reality is that roger's never been able to overpower rafa on hc in anywhere near the same degree that rafa's been able to overpower him on clay (especially at r garros, where the swiss still trails rafa 0:4)..

again, the 'reality' seems to suggest that rafa's already better on hc than roger's ever been on clay..

btw.. i'm not denying that roger's perhaps still the second-best claycourter out there.. all i'm saying is that rafa's no longer just another 2nd-best hardcout player among several.. he's pretty darn near the best and he's certainly the best all-surface player of his generation..

anticaria
09-17-2010, 05:55 PM
There is less quality competition on clay than on hardcourts....so the fact that Rafa loses more often on hardcourts than Roger does on clay may be irrelevant.

indeed.. very well stated!

anticaria
09-17-2010, 06:13 PM
In tennis, results only matter. Nadal has won 2 HC grandslams and Federer has 1 claycourt slam. What impresses me most is the AO 2009 he won against all odds and beating Federer in the final. That is tiebreaker for me. I feel that Federers RG and Nadals USO are equally impressive but the AO 2009 is just far more impressive than either.


absolutely.. the '09 aussie open final remains the only meeting between rafa and roger at a hc major, so naturally it carries monumental significance..

and just think.. this was only rafa's first-ever hc final at the majors but it was the swiss hc veteran's 9th..

not to mention the fact that it was one of only two slam losses which have ever visibly brought fed to tears, the other one being the '08 wimbledon final.. that speaks volumes!

anticaria
09-17-2010, 06:26 PM
Now, i don't think so. If Rafa wasn't there, Federer would have 4 RG, and a more Hamburg, Monte Carlo, Roma or Madrid. If Roger wasn't there, Rafa would have 2 more Wimbledon but no more HC Grand Slams.


keep in mind that roger has a 5-year chronological and professional head start over rafa.. so naturally no one would expect rafa to have always been better on hc than roger's been on clay.. we're talking now, in the present, in light of rafa's current all-surface mastery and in view of his full hc resume up to this point..

again, is rafa now already a better and more accomplished hc player than roger's ever been on clay courts?

i believe that question can already be answered quite definitively in rafa's favor..

Jaz
09-17-2010, 07:52 PM
keep in mind that roger has a 5-year chronological and professional head start over rafa.. so naturally no one would expect rafa to have always been better on hc than roger's been on clay.. we're talking now, in the present, in light of rafa's current all-surface mastery and in view of his full hc resume up to this point..

again, is rafa now already a better and more accomplished hc player than roger's ever been on clay courts?

i believe that question can already be answered quite definitively in rafa's favor..

This is wrong, and the question hasn't been answered. "Is rafa already a better hardcourt player than roger's a claycourt player? "

There are more hardcourt tournaments, and despite this fact Rafa has not been able to get into a grand-slam winning position that often.

Federer, on the other hand, has been in multiple grand-slam winning positions for the only Clay-Court grand-slam. The point is, Federer has been MORE consistent on clay, and the only one who can stopped him was Nadal. On the other hand, Nadal has been stopped by multiple people on hardcourts on both of the hardcourt grandslams.

There is no logical answer to this, in my mind at this stage of his career it's hard to tell. If Nadal wins another 2 or 3 hard court grandslams, you could maybe suggest he is a better hardcourt player, than federer on the clay. However, this entire question could be turned on it's head if Federer wins or gets tot he final of FO again. He could be considered one of the best clay-courters in the open era simply by being in the final again and again.

brent-o
09-17-2010, 08:21 PM
I would say no. I remember one year (2009 maybe? I dunno, they all run together) when Federer was sucking it up during the Miami-Indian Wells hardcourt season, and he actually started finding his game and finding a redemptive streak on the clay. I don't think Nadal's game has ever been HELPED by hard courts. That might be a silly example, but I think it's a testament to Federer's comfort on clay versus Nadal's struggle to master hard courts.

selyoink
09-17-2010, 08:37 PM
These Nadull fans need to get banned for these asinine threads.

joplin
09-17-2010, 10:25 PM
These Nadull fans need to get banned for these asinine threads.
what about Nadal haters like yourself?
anyhow, when both at their peak, they are unbeatable on both surfaces. Right now Rafa in just better at both surfaces

anticaria
09-17-2010, 11:26 PM
This is wrong, and the question hasn't been answered. "Is rafa already a better hardcourt player than roger's a claycourt player? "

There are more hardcourt tournaments, and despite this fact Rafa has not been able to get into a grand-slam winning position that often.

Federer, on the other hand, has been in multiple grand-slam winning positions for the only Clay-Court grand-slam. The point is, Federer has been MORE consistent on clay, and the only one who can stopped him was Nadal. On the other hand, Nadal has been stopped by multiple people on hardcourts on both of the hardcourt grandslams.

There is no logical answer to this, in my mind at this stage of his career it's hard to tell. If Nadal wins another 2 or 3 hard court grandslams, you could maybe suggest he is a better hardcourt player, than federer on the clay. However, this entire question could be turned on it's head if Federer wins or gets tot he final of FO again. He could be considered one of the best clay-courters in the open era simply by being in the final again and again.


1. making consistent finals at a slam event where only the best claycourt player of his generation can stop him and on which he still trails said player by the tune of 0:4, is hardly comparable to rafa beating the best hardcourt player of his generation at least once in a hardcourt slam final ('09 aussie open)..

2. winning one r garros final without having to play the only guy who could stop him and, instead, by simply beating a guy who had never even been in a slam final before and whom roger led 9:0 prior to said final, is hardly comparable to rafa beating the best hardcourt player of his generation and a guy he leads 14:7 lifetime and with whom he's tied 3:3 on hard courts..

3. a single r garros final victory over someone like soderling is hardly comparable to aussie open and us open final victories over former hardcourt slam champions such as federer and djokovic..

anticaria
09-17-2010, 11:33 PM
These Nadull fans need to get banned for these asinine threads.


actually, who ought to be banned are clueless, whiny, and 'asinine' trolls such as yourself who knowingly enter threads you have ZERO interest in despite the title of said thread warning you of said thread's content, only to whine and moan and contribute zip to the ongoing tennis discussion.. think about it.. :wavey:

again.. are you here to talk tennis or are you here to whine? it seems you spend 99% of your time doing the latter..

Ben.
09-17-2010, 11:48 PM
actually, who ought to be banned are clueless, whiny, and 'asinine' trolls such as yourself who knowingly enter threads you have ZERO interest in despite the title of said thread warning you of said thread's content, only to whine and moan and contribute zip to the ongoing tennis discussion.. think about it.. :wavey:

again.. are you here to talk tennis or are you here to whine? it seems you spend 99% of your time doing the latter..

Well said. As annoying as the gushing over a player you are not a fan of can be, it is nothing compared to the constant negativity, complaining and smugness of serial offenders like Selyoink et al.

moon language
09-18-2010, 12:11 AM
i believe you inadvertently just proved my point..

if rafa is the only one who could stop roger on clay, then the level of competition on clay is naturally not as deep as it is on hc and there's a good reason for that: there are infinitely more hc specialists than there are claycourt specialists.. hence rafa has had to contend with an even deeper field of specialists on hc than the comparatively minute field of claycourt specilalists roger's had to contend with..

add to that the fact that 4 of roger's 5 clay masters titles did not require him to play rafa (hamburg masters).. and there's good reason for that too: before '07, rafa did not play the hamburg masters except once back in '03 when he was still a 16-year-old non-entity even clay.. ummmm no wonder roger has always had a soft spot for hamburg, i.e., for a while it was the only place he could at least be assured of not having to play rafa.. :wavey:

incidentally, i won't even dwell on the fact that roger's only r garros title did not require him to play the only man who could've stopped him, thanks to rafa's untimely bout with tendinitis in '09..

now take a look at the elite list of hc specialists rafa's had to go through to win his 5 hc masters titles and 2 hc majors:

'05 montreal: beat agassi in the final
'05 madrid: beat ljubicic in the final
'07 iw: beat roddick in the semis and the djoker in the final (both in straight sets)
'08 toronto: beat murray in the semis in straight sets
'09 iw: beat nalbandian (4th round), delpo (quarters), roddick (semis), murray (final) <--rafa beat delpo, roddick and murray in straight sets (score in the final: 6-1, 6-2)

'09 aussie open: beat gonzález (a former aussie open finalist in '07) in the 4th round and in straight sets and then roger in the final
'10 us open: beat the djoker

has roger ever managed to beat an equivalent string of claycourt specialists on clay in the prime of their youthful fearlessness at the masters or slam level?

btw.. the reason rafa's struggled on hc until now is because there have been a heck of a lot more specialists who could make him struggle on hc.. but at the majors, none of those guys has ever beaten a rested/healthy/confident rafa.. much less now that the spaniard has finally reached a degree of all-surface mastery which puts him head and shoulders above the rest..

just take a look at this:

rafa led roger 5:0 on clay before roger could score his first claycourt win over the spaniard in '07.. rafa also led roger 1:0 to start their hc rivalry and he then led the swiss 2:1 on hc as recently as '06 before roger could win another one against him on that surface..

and yet:

roger now trails rafa 2:10 on clay and apparently the best he can do is break even at 3:3 on hc against rafa.. what does that tell you?

i don't know about you but that tells me that the best hc player of his generation can't even dominate rafa on hc.. in fact, roger couldn't even win their only hc meeting at the majors ('09 aussie open), so he now also trails rafa 0:1 in that regard..

with that in mind, i don't know how anyone could say 'it's too soon to tell'.. because, while roger ought to be leading rafa at least 5:1 on hc (including 1:0 @ the hc majors), the reality is that roger's never been able to overpower rafa on hc in anywhere near the same degree that rafa's been able to overpower him on clay (especially at r garros, where the swiss still trails rafa 0:4)..

again, the 'reality' seems to suggest that rafa's already better on hc than roger's ever been on clay..

btw.. i'm not denying that roger's perhaps still the second-best claycourter out there.. all i'm saying is that rafa's no longer just another 2nd-best hardcout player among several.. he's pretty darn near the best and he's certainly the best all-surface player of his generation..

No that means that Nadal's game has more holes on hardcourt than Federer's does on clay. What of Federer's peak when he was similarly dominant on hardcourt as Nadal is on clay? Do you come to the same kind of conclusion that the competition on hardcourt was weak at the time because of this? Or was Federer just that good?

anticaria
09-18-2010, 01:00 AM
No that means that Nadal's game has more holes on hardcourt than Federer's does on clay. What of Federer's peak when he was similarly dominant on hardcourt as Nadal is on clay? Do you come to the same kind of conclusion that the competition on hardcourt was weak at the time because of this? Or was Federer just that good?


well, considering that rafa beat roger in his first-ever hc slam final and that roger has yet to beat rafa at r garros despite 4 attempts, i'm guessing those 'holes' must be mostly in roger's claycourt game, not in rafa's hc game.. :wavey:

as i said, it's easier for roger to waltz his way into claycourt finals, as long as he does not run across rafa, given the fact that there are far fewer claycourt specialists out there..

btw.. i never said roger was not too good on hc.. of course he is.. just like rafa's just too good on clay..

moon language
09-18-2010, 01:22 AM
well, considering that rafa beat roger in his first-ever hc slam final and that roger has yet to beat rafa at r garros despite 4 attempts, i'm guessing those 'holes' must be mostly in roger's claycourt game, not in rafa's hc game.. :wavey:

as i said, it's easier for roger to waltz his way into claycourt finals, as long as he does not run across rafa, given the fact that there are far fewer claycourt specialists out there..

btw.. i never said roger was not too good on hc.. of course he is.. just like rafa's just too good on clay..

Obviously the holes in Federer's game are perfectly exploited by Nadal's strengths. The matchup problem between them is an old story. The holes in Nadal's game are much more generalized and capable of being exploited by a larger number of players on hardcourts.

As for there supposedly being fewer "claycourt specialists" that sounds like something you made up to support your claim. The idea of surface specialists in general is something from the past when the speed differences were more pronounced. These days it's either a player was exposed to clay when growing up and therefore is capable of moving properly on it, or not. The players that hurt Nadal on hardcourts are also for the most part quite good on clay.

For what it's worth I'm a Nadal fan, but I think you are getting way too carried away with this because he just won the US Open.

luie
09-18-2010, 01:31 AM
Uncle Toni is a better HC player than the brainless moonballer.

Sophocles
09-18-2010, 04:57 AM
Federer has beaten every top player on clay. Nadal has beaten every top player on hard courts. Federer has won 1 slam on clay. There is 1 slam a year on clay. Nadal has won 2 slams on hard courts. There are 2 slams on hard courts every year. Federer has won 5 Masters on clay. There are 3 Masters a year on clay. Nadal has won 5 Masters on hard courts. There are 5/6 Masters a year on hard courts. Therefore Federer is slightly ahead. Nadal's great record on clay against Fed & even record on hard courts are totally irrelevant to this, as anybody but the braindead troll who is the OP understands.

New Balls Please
09-18-2010, 09:10 AM
4 Finals at RG > 2 Finals at AO + USO combined. Rafa has had twice as many chances to go deep in Slams.

Topspindoctor
09-18-2010, 10:00 AM
4 Finals at RG > 2 Finals at AO + USO combined. Rafa has had twice as many chances to go deep in Slams.

:spit:

anticaria
09-18-2010, 06:06 PM
Obviously the holes in Federer's game are perfectly exploited by Nadal's strengths. The matchup problem between them is an old story. The holes in Nadal's game are much more generalized and capable of being exploited by a larger number of players on hardcourts.

As for there supposedly being fewer "claycourt specialists" that sounds like something you made up to support your claim. The idea of surface specialists in general is something from the past when the speed differences were more pronounced. These days it's either a player was exposed to clay when growing up and therefore is capable of moving properly on it, or not. The players that hurt Nadal on hardcourts are also for the most part quite good on clay.

For what it's worth I'm a Nadal fan, but I think you are getting way too carried away with this because he just won the US Open.


the fact that the tour favors power hardcourt tennis and, by extension, power hardcourt specialists, guarantees that there will be more of them to challenge rafa on that surface.. it's not rocket science nor is it something i just pulled out of thin air.. consequently, hardcourt tennis automatically becomes an infinitely more competitive surface for folks, such as rafa, who are not 'natural hardcourters,' i.e., folks whose games are infinitely better suited to clay than any other surface..

btw.. as far as 'the players that hurt rafa on hardcourts being for the most part quite good on clay,' that doesn't prove anything at all for one would expect those players who have beaten rafa on any surface more than once to be fairly decent all-surface opponents as well.. bottomline: folks like delpo and the djoker are far and away hardcourt specialists.. just look at their results, especially at the slams.. again, i never said that players who challenge rafa regularly on hardcourts were not competent on other surfaces..

as i said, regardless of a player's place of birth, the mere fact that the tour favors hardcourt tennis, especially at the slam level, guarantees that most big/flat hitters will take to hardcourts like a fish to water given the number of hardcourt events out there.. it's a matter of survival, especially when rafa has a virtual lock on almost everything played on clay..

anticaria
09-18-2010, 06:59 PM
Federer has beaten every top player on clay. Nadal has beaten every top player on hard courts. Federer has won 1 slam on clay. There is 1 slam a year on clay. Nadal has won 2 slams on hard courts. There are 2 slams on hard courts every year. Federer has won 5 Masters on clay. There are 3 Masters a year on clay. Nadal has won 5 Masters on hard courts. There are 5/6 Masters a year on hard courts. Therefore Federer is slightly ahead. Nadal's great record on clay against Fed & even record on hard courts are totally irrelevant to this, as anybody but the braindead troll who is the OP understands.


in order for the 'more hc masters and slam events a year' or vice versa-type argument to hold water, one would have to totally ignore the fact that roger's had a 6-year professional head start on rafa at the majors and that this has afforded him a huge advantage of opportunity to win r garros as well as a whole slew of claycourt masters titles to boot.. or the fact that there are infinitely fewer claycourt specialists to impede roger than there are hc specialists to impede rafa..

yet the swiss is still 1:11 in paris while rafa's worst deficit just 1:8 at his least favorable venue, the us open.. in fact, when you factor in the number of times it took both guys to win their first title @ each of the majors, rafa's ahead with a +3 differential..

add to that the fact that rafa's 2:2 in hc finals at the majors and has beaten not only the best hc player of his generation (hello rogie) in one of the greatest-ever aussie open finals, but also the world's current number 2 in the world, who's also as tough a hardcourt customer as they come, at the us open.. while roger's merely 1:4 in r garros finals and required the remmoval of rafa from the draw before he had a shot at winning against a guy who had never even made a slam final before in his entire career (hello sodo) and whom the swiss led by 9:0 at the time..

bottomline: roger's had a huge head start on rafa, both chronologically and professionally, and still the best he can do at the clay masters is tie the number of hc masters titles by a guy 5 years his junior..

finally, i can understand how some might want to quickly dismiss rafa's claycourt h2h against roger as moot but no can do, cause there's nothing moot about it.. i.e., one would expect roger to have won infinitely more often against rafa on all surfaces, including clay, but especially on hc.. and yet the fact that roger can't even dominate rafa on hc and apparently is barely good enough to tie the spaniard at 3:3 on his favorite surface is also quite significant.. i.e., one would expect roger to be up at least 5:1 lifetime on hc and 1:0 at the hc slams.. yet.. alas, that has not been the case..

consequently, i don't see how anyone can say that 'it may be too early to tell' or 'it's hard to say' or that 'federer is slightly ahead'..

the facts don't support such disningenuous 'vagueness'.. in fact, the facts are quite clear imo.. but hey, it makes for some very interesting tennis debate either way.. and that's what we're here for: to stimulate interesting tennis talk/discussion..

anticaria
09-18-2010, 07:03 PM
4 Finals at RG > 2 Finals at AO + USO combined. Rafa has had twice as many chances to go deep in Slams.


unfortunately, results carry a little more weight than mere finals..

and roger's lonely r garros win over a no-slam wonder like soderling will never carry the same degree of significance as rafa's 2 hc slam wins over former hc slam champions such as roger himself and the djoker..

acionescu
09-18-2010, 07:33 PM
Not really

Even if I think Roger as a clay courter is way overrated, he is just a distant 2nd best of this period, Rafa is still not as good on HC

Kiedis
09-18-2010, 07:46 PM
Rafa is more dominant on clay than Roger is on hardcourt.

Sophocles
09-18-2010, 08:31 PM
in order for the 'more hc masters and slam events a year' or vice versa-type argument to hold water, one would have to totally ignore the fact that roger's had a 6-year professional head start on rafa at the majors and that this has afforded him a huge advantage of opportunity to win r garros as well as a whole slew of claycourt masters titles to boot.. or the fact that there are infinitely fewer claycourt specialists to impede roger than there are hc specialists to impede rafa..

yet the swiss is still 1:11 in paris while rafa's worst deficit just 1:8 at his least favorable venue, the us open.. in fact, when you factor in the number of times it took both guys to win their first title @ each of the majors, rafa's ahead with a +3 differential..

add to that the fact that rafa's 2:2 in hc finals at the majors and has beaten not only the best hc player of his generation (hello rogie) in one of the greatest-ever aussie open finals, but also the world's current number 2 in the world, who's also as tough a hardcourt customer as they come, at the us open.. while roger's merely 1:4 in r garros finals and required the remmoval of rafa from the draw before he had a shot at winning against a guy who had never even made a slam final before in his entire career (hello sodo) and whom the swiss led by 9:0 at the time..

bottomline: roger's had a huge head start on rafa, both chronologically and professionally, and still the best he can do at the clay masters is tie the number of hc masters titles by a guy 5 years his junior..

finally, i can understand how some might want to quickly dismiss rafa's claycourt h2h against roger as moot but no can do, cause there's nothing moot about it.. i.e., one would expect roger to have won infinitely more often against rafa on all surfaces, including clay, but especially on hc.. and yet the fact that roger can't even dominate rafa on hc and apparently is barely good enough to tie the spaniard at 3:3 on his favorite surface is also quite significant.. i.e., one would expect roger to be up at least 5:1 lifetime on hc and 1:0 at the hc slams.. yet.. alas, that has not been the case..

consequently, i don't see how anyone can say that 'it may be too early to tell' or 'it's hard to say' or that 'federer is slightly ahead'..

the facts don't support such disningenuous 'vagueness'.. in fact, the facts are quite clear imo.. but hey, it makes for some very interesting tennis debate either way.. and that's what we're here for: to stimulate interesting tennis talk/discussion..

That's what some of us are here for. You are here to be a troll.

The thread title says "already". That implies it is about NOW. The players' ages are irrelevant. Nadal's being younger merely indicates he has a chance to do more & surpass Fed in the future. That is irrelevant to their status now. As of now, Federer's results on clay, when you factor in the preponderance of hard-court events, are even with Nadal's on hard courts. The fact only Nadal - one of the 3 greatest clay-courters of all time - could consisently beat Federer at his peak on clay is hardly a mark against Federer, whereas the fact that any Tom, Dick or Harry on a good day could beat Rafa on hard courts IS a mark against him. The competition these days IS stiffer on hard courts, but the number of events mean there are more opportunities to win. As for years on the tour, Federer came into his own as a player in 2003, Nadal in 2005. It's not that big a difference. Nadal is just unusual in that he had hardly any "apprenticeship" period. Federer's junior years are about as important as any years Nadal plays past 30.

As for H2H issues, Federer's great record against Soderling is hardly a mark against Federer. I would not expect a player to have a winning H2H against his much younger successor as No. 1; that is patently ridiculous. Peak Fed was 3-2 against Nadal on hard courts, but how good you are on hard courts is a question of how well you do against the field as a whole. The fact that peak Fed owns pretty much everybody but Nadal on clay whereas there are several players who own Nadal on hard courts rather crushes your argument.

anticaria
09-18-2010, 11:42 PM
That's what some of us are here for. You are here to be a troll.

The thread title says "already". That implies it is about NOW. The players' ages are irrelevant. Nadal's being younger merely indicates he has a chance to do more & surpass Fed in the future. That is irrelevant to their status now. As of now, Federer's results on clay, when you factor in the preponderance of hard-court events, are even with Nadal's on hard courts. The fact only Nadal - one of the 3 greatest clay-courters of all time - could consisently beat Federer at his peak on clay is hardly a mark against Federer, whereas the fact that any Tom, Dick or Harry on a good day could beat Rafa on hard courts IS a mark against him. The competition these days IS stiffer on hard courts, but the number of events mean there are more opportunities to win. As for years on the tour, Federer came into his own as a player in 2003, Nadal in 2005. It's not that big a difference. Nadal is just unusual in that he had hardly any "apprenticeship" period. Federer's junior years are about as important as any years Nadal plays past 30.

As for H2H issues, Federer's great record against Soderling is hardly a mark against Federer. I would not expect a player to have a winning H2H against his much younger successor as No. 1; that is patently ridiculous. Peak Fed was 3-2 against Nadal on hard courts, but how good you are on hard courts is a question of how well you do against the field as a whole. The fact that peak Fed owns pretty much everybody but Nadal on clay whereas there are several players who own Nadal on hard courts rather crushes your argument.


1. as per the thread title: stating that rafa's already become better on hard courts than roger's ever been on clay does suggest that, as of now, the spaniard's already more accomplished on hc than roger's on clay and encompasses their respective records and achievements (roger on clay/rafa on hc) up until now..

2. dismissing roger's chronological and professional head start over rafa (especially at the majors) as somehow 'irrelevant' to this debate is wishfully disingenuous at best.. for roger's head start is, in fact, quite significant as it shows that, in spite of the obvious advantage, the best the swiss has ever been able to do at the clay masters is tie the number of hc masters titles by a guy 5 years his junior who not only has had to contend with a far greater number of hc specialists in a sport that favors hc tennis, but who has also achieved the bulk of his hc resume at a time when his hc game was still not even fully mature.. matter of fact, rafa can only this year be said to have reached his all-surface maturity.. again, minimizing the enormous chronological and pro advantage roger's had over rafa is futile..

3. roger's claycourt results are not even with rafa's hc results.. i believe rafa has won one more hc slam than roger's got claycourt slams.. again roger's 1:11 at r garros while rafa's 1:8 at the uso and 1:5 at the aussie open.. which means rafa mastered both hc majors at a faster pace than it took roger to master r garros even with roger's head start advantage.. yet another feather in rafa's hc cap vis a vis roger's claycourt cap..

4. how is it 'a mark against rafa' to have struggled on his worst surface -a surface with a far greater number of specialists and hence stiffer competition- before his hc game had fully matured to what it is today?

5. there's a 6-year head start from the year roger first started playing the majors ('99) until the year rafa won his first major ('05).. and yet roger only won his first major in '03, only 2 years before rafa won his 1st..

6. i never said that roger's h2h record against soderling was a mark against roger.. such a suggestion would be absurd.. what i actually said was that playing a guy whom you essentially 'own' to the tune of 9:0 and beating him in only his first-ever slam final PALES when compared to beating both roger, the greatest hc player of his generation and perhaps ever, in the '09 aussie open final and the djoker, the current no. 2 and also a former hc slam champion, in the '10 uso final..

7. roger's never beaten rafa at r garros despite 4 attempts and that represents a huge hole in roger's claycourt resume.. while rafa has already beaten roger, the best hc player of his generation, in a hc slam final on only his first-ver trip to a hc slam final..

8. i never said i 'expected a player to have a winning h2h against his much younger successor as no. 1'.. for that would not even be a truthful reflection of the rafa vs. roger rivalry.. i.e., the overwhelming bulk of rafa's wins over roger came while the swiss was ranked no. 1, not rafa.. what i did say is that i would've expected the greatest hc player of his generation and perhaps ever to have a solid winning h2h (5:1 for starters) against anyone else out there, even his chief rival, instead of an unconvincing 3:3 hc lifetime h2h and a damaging 0:1 deficit at hc majors against a guy whose hc game, in '09, had not yet reached its full maturity..

9. i'm afraid nothing has been 'crushed' in this debate for the fact that 'peak fed owns pretty much everybody but rafa on clay' doesn't prove jack since there are infinitely 'fewer' claycourt specialists to impede roger's path on that's surface other than rafa as compared to the slew of hc specialists whom rafa's had to contend with at a time when his hc game was still growing and maturing..

10. perhaps you ought to devote a little more time to 'logic' and a little less time to insults..

anticaria
09-18-2010, 11:59 PM
Not really

Even if I think Roger as a clay courter is way overrated, he is just a distant 2nd best of this period, Rafa is still not as good on HC


well, if roger is somehow 'way overrated' as a claycourter, then rafa's 2 hc majors against the likes of roger and the djoker and his hc masters-level wins over the likes of ljubicic, denko, roddick, the djoker, murray, nalbandian and delpo certainly make him better and more accomplished on that surface than roger's ever been on clay..

Singularity
09-19-2010, 12:29 AM
I think Federer only played his best claycourt tennis in 2005/2006/2007, and really 2006 was his stand-out year. On the other hand, in 2006 he was dominating everyone else besides Rafa on the surface.

So it depends how you measure greatness - by looking at 'peak performance', or by examining consistency over the course of a career. Personally, I think Federer's peak form on clay in 2006 was greater than Nadal's peak form on harcourts - as demonstrated by performance against the rest of the tour.

selyoink
09-19-2010, 12:34 AM
4 Finals at RG > 2 Finals at AO + USO combined. Rafa has had twice as many chances to go deep in Slams.

This thread should've been locked following this post. It ends the debate. The Nadulltards can only conjure up their typical bullshit in response to this argument.

LeftHanded
09-19-2010, 01:49 AM
Nadal destroys Roger on clay. Roger cant destroy Rafa on hard nowadays. I really think Roger cant beat Rafa on any court you think about. In 2006 it was obvious that Roger was the best on hard, and Nadal the best on clay. But now Nadal just got better and Federer lost a step. So, the difference between them on clay is bigger, and their difference on hard turned in rafa's favour.

cutesteve22
09-19-2010, 02:17 AM
These Nadull fans need to get banned for these asinine threads.this

oranges
09-19-2010, 02:31 AM
Another great thread, oh joy :crazy:

moon language
09-19-2010, 02:37 AM
the fact that the tour favors power hardcourt tennis and, by extension, power hardcourt specialists, guarantees that there will be more of them to challenge rafa on that surface.. it's not rocket science nor is it something i just pulled out of thin air..

Yes it is something you pulled out of thin air. There is no set criteria for "power hardcourt specialists", and it's irrelevant because the majority of players who trouble Nadal on hardcourt are also quite good on clay.

Topspindoctor
09-19-2010, 02:42 AM
Yes it is something you pulled out of thin air. There is no set criteria for "power hardcourt specialists", and it's irrelevant because the majority of players who trouble Nadal on hardcourt are also quite good on clay.

Only Nole and Soderling can potentially trouble Nadal on hard and clay - that's "majority"? Okay.

Ozone
09-19-2010, 02:45 AM
Lot harder to be a good clay-courter than to be a hard-courter, no?

SheepleBuster
09-19-2010, 03:01 AM
Hello?? You do realize the claycourt season does not begin and end with Madrid and RG. Nadal and Djokovic were far and away the best till RG, and paid for it with early exits, making Roger's life easier.

Rafa was NOT the best hardcourter in 2009. Yes, he won the AO and Indian Wells, but had a horrible post-summer season. But then it is hard to say who really dominated. del Potro only hit full steam after the summer.

Rafa is not the best hard court player in 2010. I still don't see him beating Murray or Del Potro. Also, I don't think Nadal is the best on Grass or even on Clay. You see, even I, who am not a pro tennis player, could have probably win those slams beating istomins, and mugs of this world.

Topspindoctor
09-19-2010, 03:14 AM
Rafa is not the best hard court player in 2010. I still don't see him beating Murray or Del Potro. Also, I don't think Nadal is the best on Grass or even on Clay. You see, even I, who am not a pro tennis player, could have probably win those slams beating istomins, and mugs of this world.

You would get double bageled by any top 1000 WTA player, much less beat any male pro, wake up :wavey:

SheepleBuster
09-19-2010, 03:33 AM
You would get double bageled by any top 1000 WTA player, much less beat any male pro, wake up :wavey:

The point is, Rafa got so lucky, that even I may have had a chance. Yes. I am aware of the fact that a pro can beat me 100 out of 100 times. However, Rafa barely played any real pros. I mean a scared mug plays like a junior. Trust me

selyoink
09-19-2010, 03:45 AM
Lot harder to be a good clay-courter than to be a hard-courter, no?

No

out_here_grindin
09-19-2010, 04:36 AM
http://stellarspectral.com/memes/trlht.jpg

Haelfix
09-19-2010, 06:58 AM
Obviously not. Federer has one of the sickest clay court winning percentages on tour (in fact of all time), and considerably higher than Rafa's percentage on hard. Maybe one day, but definitely not now, or even in the near future (assuming Rafa goes on a tear)

Shirogane
09-19-2010, 01:07 PM
Obviously not. Federer has one of the sickest clay court winning percentages on tour (in fact of all time), and considerably higher than Rafa's percentage on hard. Maybe one day, but definitely not now, or even in the near future (assuming Rafa goes on a tear)
This.

timafi
09-19-2010, 01:09 PM
Nadal looses more on a hardcourt than Federer does on a claycourt so fuck no:rolleyes:

Hell Nadal lost to Ljubicic and Roddick for fuck's sakes :tape:

born_on_clay
09-19-2010, 01:11 PM
Rafa on hard > Federer on clay

Topspindoctor
09-19-2010, 01:57 PM
Nadal looses more on a hardcourt than Federer does on a claycourt so fuck no:rolleyes:

Hell Nadal lost to Ljubicic and Roddick for fuck's sakes :tape:

And Federer lost to countless clowns in 2008. It's called a slump. Every top player has it and has to work to get back to the top. :wavey:

anticaria
09-19-2010, 02:25 PM
I think Federer only played his best claycourt tennis in 2005/2006/2007, and really 2006 was his stand-out year. On the other hand, in 2006 he was dominating everyone else besides Rafa on the surface.

So it depends how you measure greatness - by looking at 'peak performance', or by examining consistency over the course of a career. Personally, I think Federer's peak form on clay in 2006 was greater than Nadal's peak form on harcourts - as demonstrated by performance against the rest of the tour.


how about by looking at their respective records/results (especially at the majors) and by comparing the caliber of opponent(s) they each beat on the surface in question:


1. roger has yet to beat rafa (the greatest claycourt player of his generation) at roland garros in 4 attempts, and even during roger's peak years, he has never been able to even push rafa to a 5th set in paris.. never mind the fact that the guy roger actually beat in the r garros final last year (soderling) was the same guy roger 'owned' to the disturbing tune of 9:0 (including 2:0 on clay) and a guy who had never even made a slam final prior to that..

2. rafa's now beaten both roger (the greatest hardcourt player of his generation and perhaps ever) and the djoker (the current no. 2 and the only current player to have beaten roger twice at the hardcourt majors) in 2 high-profile hardcourt slam finals: 2009 aussie open and 2010 us open finals, respectively..

3. it took roger a staggering 11 attempts to finally snag a r garros trophy, and then without even having to go through rafa (*)..

4. it only took rafa 8 attempts to win the us open and only 5 to win the australian open, which means the spaniard mastered each of the hardcourt majors at a faster pace than it took roger to master just one: r garros..

5. rafa beat the greatest hardcourt player of his generation and perhaps ever in not only the spaniard's first outing in a hardcourt slam final, but also his first meeting with roger at a hardcourt slam..

6. roger trails rafa 2:10 on clay and 0:6 in best-of-five claycourt matches..

7. rafa's tied with roger @ 3:3 on hardcourts, 1:1 in best-of-five hardcourt matches and in fact he leads roger 1:0 at hardcourt majors..

8. rafa's won hardcourt masters titles at 4 different venues: montreal, madrid, indian wells (2), and toronto..

9. roger's only won claycourt masters titles at 2 venues: hamburg and madrid open.. though keep in mind that rafa did not play hamburg in '04, '05 and '06.. so one wonders: would roger have 5 claycourt masters titles to his name had he had to face rafa in hamburg in '04 and '05? ummmmm :wavey:

10. so again, how can roger be said to be better and more accomplsihed on clay courts than rafa's already become on hard courts?

anticaria
09-19-2010, 02:39 PM
This thread should've been locked following this post. It ends the debate. The Nadulltards can only conjure up their typical bullshit in response to this argument.


yeah cause 4 finals at roland garros and a win over a no-slam-wonder such as soderling somehow equal 2 hardcourt slam titles over 2 former hardcourt slam champions: roger, the greatest hardcourt player of his generation and perhaps ever as well as over the current no. 2 in the world.. :haha:

anticaria
09-19-2010, 08:04 PM
Obviously not. Federer has one of the sickest clay court winning percentages on tour (in fact of all time), and considerably higher than Rafa's percentage on hard. Maybe one day, but definitely not now, or even in the near future (assuming Rafa goes on a tear)


going stritctly by win:loss ratios:


roger's 1:10 at roland garros..

rafa's 1:4 at the aussie open and 1:7 at the us open..

roger's 1:3 in r garros finals..

rafa's 1:0 in aussie open finals and 1:0 in us open finals, for a combined 2:0 in hardcourt slam finals..

roger's 5:7 in claycourt masters finals = .416 winning %

rafa's 5:4 in hardcourt masters finals = .555 winning %

just food for thought.. :wavey:

Shirogane
09-19-2010, 08:56 PM
Matches won vs matches lost could be done too but we get it, that would already be too much for you to handle.

Singularity
09-19-2010, 09:06 PM
how about by looking at their respective records/results (especially at the majors) and by comparing the caliber of opponent(s) they each beat on the surface in question:


1. roger has yet to beat rafa (the greatest claycourt player of his generation) at roland garros in 4 attempts, and even during roger's peak years, he has never been able to even push rafa to a 5th set in paris.. never mind the fact that the guy roger actually beat in the r garros final last year (soderling) was the same guy roger 'owned' to the disturbing tune of 9:0 (including 2:0 on clay) and a guy who had never even made a slam final prior to that..

2. rafa's now beaten both roger (the greatest hardcourt player of his generation and perhaps ever) and the djoker (the current no. 2 and the only current player to have beaten roger twice at the hardcourt majors) in 2 high-profile hardcourt slam finals: 2009 aussie open and 2010 us open finals, respectively..

3. it took roger a staggering 11 attempts to finally snag a r garros trophy, and then without even having to go through rafa (*)..

4. it only took rafa 8 attempts to win the us open and only 5 to win the australian open, which means the spaniard mastered each of the hardcourt majors at a faster pace than it took roger to master just one: r garros..

5. rafa beat the greatest hardcourt player of his generation and perhaps ever in not only the spaniard's first outing in a hardcourt slam final, but also his first meeting with roger at a hardcourt slam..

6. roger trails rafa 2:10 on clay and 0:6 in best-of-five claycourt matches..

7. rafa's tied with roger @ 3:3 on hardcourts, 1:1 in best-of-five hardcourt matches and in fact he leads roger 1:0 at hardcourt majors..

8. rafa's won hardcourt masters titles at 4 different venues: montreal, madrid, indian wells (2), and toronto..

9. roger's only won claycourt masters titles at 2 venues: hamburg and madrid open.. though keep in mind that rafa did not play hamburg in '04, '05 and '06.. so one wonders: would roger have 5 claycourt masters titles to his name had he had to face rafa in hamburg in '04 and '05? ummmmm :wavey:

10. so again, how can roger be said to be better and more accomplsihed on clay courts than rafa's already become on hard courts?
You're just repeating the same list of points, without responding to anything I said. Measuring a players' performance on a surface over the course of a career, is *one* method of measuring his 'ability'. However different players peak at different times, and so some players, like Nadal, naturally have a longer time in which to amass achievements. That doesn't mean that those players are any better at their peak, however.

Federer in particular took a long time to get his clay game together, on top of being a late bloomer in general. That explains why he didn't win more clay tournaments, and that sense he was 'worse' than Nadal may turn out to be (if Nadal continues to win hardcourt tournaments). On the other hand it doesn't mean that his level of play in 2006 was worse than Nadal's level of play in 2008 or 2010.

Your points about the H2H are also not terribly relevant, because what counts is how a player matches up to the rest of the tour, not just a single player. Federer matches up very badly against Nadal, but much better against the rest of the tour. The converse is true for Nadal. This means that even if Nadal can beat Federer or hardcourts more easily than Federer can beat Nadal on clay, this doesn't show that Nadal's level is higher. Besides which, you might even want to argue that Nadal is better on clay than Federer is on hardcourts.

alfonsojose
09-19-2010, 09:24 PM
roger's claycourt record:

12 claycourt masters finals..

5 claycourt masters titles at only 2 venues:

'02 hamburg
'04 hamburg
'05 hamburg
'07 hamburg
'09 madrid open

4 r garros finals

'06-'09

1 r garros title:

'09, where he faced someone who had never previously even reached a slam final: soderling



rafa's hardcourt record:

9 hardcourt masters finals

5 hardcourt masters titles at 4 venues:

'05 montreal
'05 madrid
'07 iw
'08 toronto
'09 iw

2 hardcourt slam finals = 2 hardcourt slam titles:

'09 aussie open
'10 us open

in each of which rafa faced former slam champions: roger and novak, respectively

both guys are tied at 5 masters titles on each respective surface, but only rafa has won more than one slam title on his least favorite surface..

however, considering that roger's 0:4 against rafa at r garros and 2:10 on clay as well as 0:1 against rafa at hardcourt majors and merely 3:3 on hard courts, rafa would seem to have the overall edge as the better hardcourter vis a vis roger as a claycourter..

what say you?

Nadal's record at AO and USO is clearly below Roger's record in Paris.

SetSampras
09-19-2010, 09:30 PM
I do.. Nadal has managed both hardcourt slams.. Now I do acknowledge Fed's slam appearances at the French.. But the fact is.. his draws through 99 percent of those years were JOKES!!!. There are way more guys who can play on hardcourt well these days then there are guys who can accel on clay bottom line. The hardcourt scene in the 00s have been awesome.. The clay court scene, not so much

Vivalavida18
09-19-2010, 09:32 PM
I do.. Nadal has managed both hardcourt slams.. Now I do acknowledge Fed's slam appearances at the French.. But the fact is.. his draws through 99 percent of those years were JOKES!!!. There are way more guys who can play on hardcourt well these days then there are guys who can accel on clay bottom line. The hardcourt scene in the 00s have been awesome.. The clay court scene, not so much

As far as draws are concerned, Nadal's draw at this years Open wasnt really something to write home about.

SetSampras
09-19-2010, 09:36 PM
As far as draws are concerned, Nadal's draw at this years Open wasnt really something to write home about.

Tougher then probably 99 percent of every draw has had at Roland Garros though. This era has brought some very good hardcourt player.. Yet on clay its brought one very good player on clay and Fed and the clay GOAT with Nadal, but from there its been very thin. Everyone should agree with that

Billups85
09-19-2010, 09:42 PM
Nadal looses more on a hardcourt than Federer does on a claycourt so fuck no:rolleyes:

Hell Nadal lost to Ljubicic and Roddick for fuck's sakes :tape:

Gulbis and Montañes :wavey:

peribsen
09-19-2010, 09:49 PM
6. In winning a slam, you play more than the guys in the final. Soderling proved he could beat peak Nadal on clay. Nadal's draws at the A.O. & U.S.O. were an embarrassing joke, & Grandaderer in one final & a tired choking Djokovic in another don't make up for that.

Sophocles, you really need to take a deep breath and get over it. You are usually a pretty sane poster, but for some reason ot other this debate is getting the best of you.

- So Soderling proved he can beat a peak Nadal on clay? Oh really? Do you think he would have beaten Nadal on any of his first RG finals, including the three when he defeated Federer? Yeah... we all saw what you mean in this year's final...

- Grandaderer Fed who fell to Nadal in AO-09 was about to win RG, WB and AO-10. So either Fed was clearly in a decline and a grandfather won 3 slams, or Fed was good enough in 2009 for you not to diminish the relevance of Rafa's win. You can't have it both ways.

- You insist on Djokovic's tiredness in USO final, yet he did get the two days of rest you were so adamantly saying he should get when the final was meant to be played on Sunday. Just how much time do you think a top sportsman needs to recover from a 5-setter? Just how many players have won slams in which they were taken to 5 sets on several rounds? According to you, the moment you play 5 sets any future loss shouldn't really count because it can be explained away by your beong tired? By the way, are you among those who say Nadal's tiredness explains his fall to Murray in USO-08? Or is tiredness only an acceptable argument when it goes the way you want it to go?

- Please tell me you can tell the difference between a draw, that is known before the ball starts rolling, and the men you get to play against. Most people do mistake both things, but surely you shouldn't.

- You have been following tennis long enough to know that for a slam winner to have met 2 top 5 or even top 10 in his road to the title is something that doesn't happen that very frequently (Fed only had to beat 2 top-5 in 3 of his 16 wins). Nadal's last three rounds in USO were wins over nr 8, nr 14 and nr 3. If you go to the ATP database, you'll find plenty of slams that don't look any more difficult, on paper at least.

- But if having to face a really worthy opponent only in the final is for you the litmus test of not deserving the win, please say so, and then use that same argument against any player in any slam, not only when you see it fit. For example, Federer reached the final in Wimbledon 2008 without facing anyone ranked above nr 25. Are you saying that if he had beaten Nadal his win shouldn't have really counted because of his easy road to the final? Because if you think so, maybe you have a point regarding USO-10. But if you don't, then you are moving the goalposts to fit yout whims.

rafaholic
09-19-2010, 10:03 PM
of course he's better, no doubt about that...by the way, fed's masters titles in Hamburg came because Rafa didn't play there in first years...

Persimmon
09-19-2010, 10:22 PM
Oh, yeah.

2>1

Shirogane
09-19-2010, 10:27 PM
- Grandaderer Fed who fell to Nadal in AO-09 was about to win RG, WB and AO-10. So either Fed was clearly in a decline and a grandfather won 3 slams, or Fed was good enough in 2009 for you not to diminish the relevance of Rafa's win. You can't have it both ways.
He did play very good finals in Paris and Melbourne but it was pretty clear, watching that Wimbledon final, that he already wasn't the player he was in his prime. You're right though, a win is a win.

Tougher then probably 99 percent of every draw has had at Roland Garros though. This era has brought some very good hardcourt player.. Yet on clay its brought one very good player on clay and Fed and the clay GOAT with Nadal, but from there its been very thin. Everyone should agree with that

Funny, I find you quite eager to call him Clay GOAT, when he only had to face one very good player against whom he matches up well...

SetSampras
09-19-2010, 11:39 PM
He did play very good finals in Paris and Melbourne but it was pretty clear, watching that Wimbledon final, that he already wasn't the player he was in his prime. You're right though, a win is a win.



Funny, I find you quite eager to call him Clay GOAT, when he only had to face one very good player against whom he matches up well...


Hes clay GOAT or co- clay GOAT considering there is only probably 1-2 people in HISTORY that could even take Nadal on clay which is either Borg or Kuerten. Theres a handful of guys in history who could take Fed easily on clay.

l_mac
09-20-2010, 12:25 AM
Theres a handful of guys in history who could take Fed easily on clay.

More like a sackful.

Unless the hand belong to Goliath.

Shirogane
09-20-2010, 12:50 AM
lol

I like his post though, if only for mentioning Guga.

Arakasi
09-20-2010, 01:24 AM
More like a sackful.

Unless the hand belong to Goliath.

Who are the sackful of guys who could take Federer easily on clay? :confused:

selyoink
09-20-2010, 02:53 AM
Oh, yeah.

2>1

I suppose you have never considered the fact that there are 2 hardcourt slams per year to just 1 on clay?

Jimnik
09-20-2010, 03:09 AM
Not yet.

anticaria
09-20-2010, 03:20 AM
You're just repeating the same list of points, without responding to anything I said. Measuring a players' performance on a surface over the course of a career, is *one* method of measuring his 'ability'. However different players peak at different times, and so some players, like Nadal, naturally have a longer time in which to amass achievements. That doesn't mean that those players are any better at their peak, however.

Federer in particular took a long time to get his clay game together, on top of being a late bloomer in general. That explains why he didn't win more clay tournaments, and that sense he was 'worse' than Nadal may turn out to be (if Nadal continues to win hardcourt tournaments). On the other hand it doesn't mean that his level of play in 2006 was worse than Nadal's level of play in 2008 or 2010.

Your points about the H2H are also not terribly relevant, because what counts is how a player matches up to the rest of the tour, not just a single player. Federer matches up very badly against Nadal, but much better against the rest of the tour. The converse is true for Nadal. This means that even if Nadal can beat Federer or hardcourts more easily than Federer can beat Nadal on clay, this doesn't show that Nadal's level is higher. Besides which, you might even want to argue that Nadal is better on clay than Federer is on hardcourts.


rafa's career so far has evolved entirely while roger was at his peak and in fact the spaniard beat roger the very first time they met (on a hard court, no less) and in straight sets.. it's no accident that he's the longest-ranked no. 2 in the open era.. also keep in mind that given that rafa's game has just now started to reach its peak of all-surface maturity and dominance, roger's late blooming on clay is canceled out by rafa's late blooming on hard courts.. i.e., the 'peak' argument is a moot reference here cause despite roger's 6-year pro head start on rafa, even, at his peak, the swiss could do no better than 5:7 at the claycourt masters and certainly no better than merely lead a guy like rafa, whose hardcourt game was still not even fully mature, by a razor-thin 3:2 h2h margin back in '07.. btw, the reason the rafa vs. roger rivalry is so relevant is because each guy represents the exact antithesis of the other.. one is the best on clay, the other one the best on hard courts.. hence measuring them against each other is quite relevant to determining their respective prowess as per clay/hc.. i.e., each represents the current gold standard his rival is being measured against on each respective surface.. and don't forget that the bulk of rafa's 14:7 h2h against roger came about while roger was peaking but while rafa had yet to peak on hard courts.. which means that, by now, roger ought to have already been able to pay rafa back for that preposterously lopsided 2:10 h2h deficit on clay by at least dominating rafa 5:1 or even 4:2 on hard courts.. but, alas, as we have seen, the best roger could do was 3:2 (back in '07) and 3:3 atm.. also, despite operating with a not-yet-mature hardcourt game, rafa still has a better winning % at the hardcourt masters than roger does at the claycourt masters.. in fact, the list of people whom rafa has beaten on hard courts at the masters and slam level includes every single hard court titan of his generation (most importantly, roger himself), an amazing feat when one realizes that there are infinitely more hardcourt specialists/threats who could've potentially stoppped rafa on hc than there are claycourt specialists that could've ever stopped roger on clay.. roger merely shone in hamburg against a field that did not include rafa (except once against an exhasuted rafa in '07) and then once again at the madrid open against an exhausted and tendinitis-impaired rafa in '09.. can you imagine if rafa had played hamburg in '04 and '05? i can.. roger might just have 3-4 claycourt masters to his name now instead of 5, depending on rafa's degree of physical exhaustion at the end of his yearly claycourt marathon on any given occasion.. though as we saw in the '08 hamburg final, my $ would've been on rafa each and every time.. again, roger soars on clay exponentially when he does not have to play rafa for there are simply not enough claycourt specialists who can beat him.. as it stands, roger's only been able to beat rafa in hamburg and at the madrid open, but never at r garros and that is the major strike against roger vis a vis this debate.. and not just his complete inability to beat rafa but also his glaring failure to even push rafa to 5 sets in paris despite 4 meetings.. in the end, the actual results speak quite loudly in rafa's favor: better winning % at the hardcourt masters vs. roger at the claycourt masters, 1:0 in hc slam finals and a faster pace of mastery at both the aussie open (1 title in 5 attempts) and the us open (1 title in 8 attempts) for a combined 100% hc slam final success rate of 2:0 vs. roger's 1:10 at r garros, and 2 hc slam victories against roger and the djokerer vs. a lonely r garros crown in 11 attempts and then only against a non-entity like soderling in the '09 final..

anticaria
09-20-2010, 03:31 AM
I suppose you have never considered the fact that there are 2 hardcourt slams per year to just 1 on clay?

so what?? roger's had a 5-year chronological head start and a 6-year pro head start on rafa at roland garros and yet, the best the swiss can do is win 1 r garros title in 11 attempts.. in fact, by the time rafa played his first r garros, roger had already been playing that event for 6 years.. which means roger's played r garros a total of 12 times (twice as many times as rafa) and still only won it once, after rafa had been conveniently removed from the draw for roger's ease and convenience of course.. :wavey:

anticaria
09-20-2010, 03:36 AM
Lot harder to be a good clay-courter than to be a hard-courter, no?

that argument is moot when it comes to once-in-a-lifetime talents such as roger or rafa who are the best all-surface players of their generation.. and when you factor in the fact that there are infinitely more hardcourt specialists than there are claycourt specialists, it becomes obvious that roger's had the infinitely easier time on clay against anyone not named rafa than rafa's had on hard courts against anyone not named roger.. thus making rafa's 5 hc masters titles and 2 hc slam titles all the more impressive still..

selyoink
09-20-2010, 03:39 AM
so what?? roger's had a 5-year chronological head start and a 6-year pro head start on rafa at roland garros and yet, the best the swiss can do is win 1 r garros title in 11 attempts.. in fact, by the time rafa played his first r garros, roger had already been playing that event for 6 years.. which means roger's played r garros a total of 12 times (twice as many times as rafa) and still only won it once, after rafa had been conveniently removed from the draw for roger's ease and convenience of course.. :wavey:

The debate isn't who the better claycourter is, that much is obvious even to non-Nadulltards. It is impossible to debate with imbeciles like yourself when you have no concept of the actual topic.

anticaria
09-20-2010, 03:54 AM
The debate isn't who the better claycourter is, that much is obvious even to non-Nadulltards. It is impossible to debate with imbeciles like yourself when you have no concept of the actual topic.

my comment was not about 'who the better claycourter is,' you clueless troll..

again.. focus, troll, focus.. i was simply responding to your totally bogus suggestion that just because there's one more hc major on the slam calendar, rafa should automatically have more hc slam titles than roger's got r garros titles.. again, totally bogus premise which is totally canceled out by the fact that roger's played twice as many r garros events as rafa and by the obvious fact that rafa's hc game did not even start to peak until this year or that he's had to contend with chronic tendinitis as a result of his grueling/grinding style of play while roger's managed to remain largely injury free.. :wavey:

allpro
09-20-2010, 04:09 AM
rafa's career so far has evolved entirely while roger was at his peak and in fact the spaniard beat roger the very first time they met (on a hard court, no less) and in straight sets.. it's no accident that he's the longest-ranked no. 2 in the open era.. also keep in mind that given that rafa's game has just now started to reach its peak of all-surface maturity and dominance, roger's late blooming on clay is canceled out by rafa's late blooming on hard courts.. i.e., the 'peak' argument is a moot reference here cause despite roger's 6-year pro head start on rafa, even, at his peak, the swiss could do no better than 5:7 at the claycourt masters and certainly no better than merely lead a guy like rafa, whose hardcourt game was still not even fully mature, by a razor-thin 3:2 h2h margin back in '07.. btw, the reason the rafa vs. roger rivalry is so relevant is because each guy represents the exact antithesis of the other.. one is the best on clay, the other one the best on hard courts.. hence measuring them against each other is quite relevant to determining their respective prowess as per clay/hc.. i.e., each represents the current gold standard his rival is being measured against on each respective surface.. and don't forget that the bulk of rafa's 14:7 h2h against roger came about while roger was peaking but while rafa had yet to peak on hard courts.. which means that, by now, roger ought to have already been able to pay rafa back for that preposterously lopsided 2:10 h2h deficit on clay by at least dominating rafa 5:1 or even 4:2 on hard courts.. but, alas, as we have seen, the best roger could do was 3:2 (back in '07) and 3:3 atm.. also, despite operating with a not-yet-mature hardcourt game, rafa still has a better winning % at the hardcourt masters than roger does at the claycourt masters.. in fact, the list of people whom rafa has beaten on hard courts at the masters and slam level includes every single hard court titan of his generation (most importantly, roger himself), an amazing feat when one realizes that there are infinitely more hardcourt specialists/threats who could've potentially stoppped rafa on hc than there are claycourt specialists that could've ever stopped roger on clay.. roger merely shone in hamburg against a field that did not include rafa (except once against an exhasuted rafa in '07) and then once again at the madrid open against an exhausted and tendinitis-impaired rafa in '09.. can you imagine if rafa had played hamburg in '04 and '05? i can.. roger might just have 3-4 claycourt masters to his name now instead of 5, depending on rafa's degree of physical exhaustion at the end of his yearly claycourt marathon on any given occasion.. though as we saw in the '08 hamburg final, my $ would've been on rafa each and every time.. again, roger soars on clay exponentially when he does not have to play rafa for there are simply not enough claycourt specialists who can beat him.. as it stands, roger's only been able to beat rafa in hamburg and at the madrid open, but never at r garros and that is the major strike against roger vis a vis this debate.. and not just his complete inability to beat rafa but also his glaring failure to even push rafa to 5 sets in paris despite 4 meetings.. in the end, the actual results speak quite loudly in rafa's favor: better winning % at the hardcourt masters vs. roger at the claycourt masters, 1:0 in hc slam finals and a faster pace of mastery at both the aussie open (1 title in 5 attempts) and the us open (1 title in 8 attempts) for a combined 100% hc slam final success rate of 2:0 vs. roger's 1:10 at r garros, and 2 hc slam victories against roger and the djokerer vs. a lonely r garros crown in 11 attempts and then only against a non-entity like soderling in the '09 final..

good analysis. in addition fed suffered three 1st rd losses in his first five attempts at rg while nadal has never been eliminated in the 1st rd of a hc major.

.....and paragraphs are you friend ;)

allpro
09-20-2010, 04:11 AM
The debate isn't who the better claycourter is, that much is obvious even to non-Nadulltards. It is impossible to debate with imbeciles like yourself when you have no concept of the actual topic.

of course nadal is vastly superior on clay - even pansy fedtarts realize this. the thrust of anticarias post was to compare/contrast their relative achievements on each surface which is vital to this discussion.

use your logic.

anticaria
09-20-2010, 02:51 PM
good analysis. in addition fed suffered three 1st rd losses in his first five attempts at rg while nadal has never been eliminated in the 1st rd of a hc major.



that's right.. 5th-seeded roger's 1st-round loss to unseeded luis horna (a guy playing in only his first slam singles main draw) in straight sets back in '03 was particularly shocking (this was roger's 5th r garros outing).. 8th-seeded roger's 1st-round loss to unseeded hicham arazi in '02, also in straight sets, was only slightly less shocking..

btw.. at some point, the overused 'late bloomer' theory used to excuse away so many of roger's pre-nadal losses at r garros must be put to rest cause it really has worn thin..

in fact, once you factor in the infinitely greater number of hardcourt specialists/threats (i.e., stiffer competition) rafa's had to contend with on hard courts vis a vis roger's largely lesser opposition on clay by most guys not named rafa, as well as the number of times rafa's tendinitis and other injuries have compromised/hindered his performance on hard courts, especially at the hardcourt majors, or the fact that, from the moment he first made the finals at a major in '05, the spaniard's hardcourt game has had to evolve and contend with a roger federer who was already at his peak while rafa's hardcourt game was nowhere near his, one realizes the deck's clearly been stacked against rafa on hard courts, naturally making his achievements on that surface all the more remarkable and all achieved at the age of 24.. and the scary thing is that his hardcourt game is just now reaching its peak..

selyoink
09-21-2010, 12:12 AM
of course nadal is vastly superior on clay - even pansy fedtarts realize this. the thrust of anticarias post was to compare/contrast their relative achievements on each surface which is vital to this discussion.

use your logic.

At no point in the anticaria post that I quoted did he/she mention Nadull's hardcourt results only clay court results of the two players.

I have used logic, unfortunately it was lost on you Nadulltards per usual.

Filo V.
09-21-2010, 02:30 AM
Personally, I think Roger was the better clay court player, as he was the one constantly playing Rafa in the finals of events, and being competitive, beating him in Hamburg 2007 and also having a major opportunity in Rome 2006. Rafa wasn't getting deep as consistently in hard court events.

With that said, I think things have now reversed, and Rafa is the better hard court player in comparison to Roger's clay court results.

allpro
09-21-2010, 03:42 AM
At no point in the anticaria post that I quoted did he/she mention Nadull's hardcourt results only clay court results of the two players.

I have used logic, unfortunately it was lost on you Nadulltards per usual.

more bitter, self-contradictory nonsense. anticaria responded directly to your question.

federer: 12 clay slams entered, 1 win
nadal: 14 hc slams entered, 2 wins + olympics

timafi
09-21-2010, 12:27 PM
Federer has made the finals in Paris what?:scratch:4 times and Nadal makes 1 in NY and 1 in Australia and he's better? I want some of what you fanboys are smoking.This is some good shit:help::lol:

Jaz
09-21-2010, 01:43 PM
From a personal perspective...

It still looks as if Nadal is playing on Clay on Hardcourt, whereas, you really can't tell that Roger is a hardcourt player on the clay.

From a style perspective, Federer on Clay looks far far more comfortable than Nadal on Hardcourt.

Also anticaria is just regurgitating the same old crap for the last 7 pages.

anticaria
09-21-2010, 02:36 PM
From a personal perspective...

It still looks as if Nadal is playing on Clay on Hardcourt, whereas, you really can't tell that Roger is a hardcourt player on the clay.

From a style perspective, Federer on Clay looks far far more comfortable than Nadal on Hardcourt.

Also anticaria is just regurgitating the same old crap for the last 7 pages.


factual stats and figures are not 'crap'.. 'crap' would be the disingenuous nonsense some continue to spew in desperation in a futile attempt to disregard the facts and change the subject, such as what you're doing here.. :wavey:

btw.. has anyone ever had a more effortlessly comfortable and downright beautiful all-surface style than gaby sabatini? i doubt it.. yet i also doubt anyone would seriously suggest that gaby was a better hardcourt player than graf.. :wavey:

that's why actual stats and results will always be infinitely more reliable indicators than mere 'style'..

anticaria
09-21-2010, 03:19 PM
Federer has made the finals in Paris what?:scratch:4 times and Nadal makes 1 in NY and 1 in Australia and he's better? I want some of what you fanboys are smoking.This is some good shit:help::lol:

let's see, shall we?:

roger's made 4 finals at r garros and won it only once in a staggering 11 attempts and yet he has never beaten rafa or even pushed the spaniard to 5 sets in paris..

roger's 1:3 in r garros finals = 25% record..

roger's 5:7 in claycourt masters finals = 41.6 %..


meanwhile..


rafa's mastered each of the hardcourt majors (aussie and us opens) in fewer attempts (5 and 8, respectively) than it took roger to master r garros (11).. and, most importantly, rafa has beaten roger in one of the greatest-ever hardcourt finals..

rafa's 2:0 in hardcourt slam finals = a perfect 100 %..

rafa's 5:4 in hardcourt masters finals = 55.5%..


it seems you'd need some mighty powerful weed to try and disregard those facts.. :wavey:

anticaria
09-21-2010, 04:58 PM
At no point in the anticaria post that I quoted did he/she mention Nadull's hardcourt results only clay court results of the two players.

I have used logic, unfortunately it was lost on you Nadulltards per usual.


oh please.. give the disingenuous backpedaling a rest already, selyoink.. i have posted extensively on both roger and rafa's clay/hardcourt records prior to your post.. in my response to you, i simply focused on roger's history at roland garros because all i was addressing was your bogus claim that rafa has more hardcourt majors under his belt than roger does r garros titles just because there's one more hardcourt major on the atp calendar.. as if!

hence my countering with the fact that roger's actually had twice as many opportunities at roland garros than has the spaniard.. but per usual, this was all lost on you.. :wavey:

as it stands, roger's head start over rafa at r garros over infinitely lesser competition cancels out rafa's 'alleged' advantage to win hardcourt majors [U]just because there's one more of them since infinitely greater numbers of hardcourt specialists/stiffer competition, as well as rafa's own injuries, have essentially guaranteed that his hardcourt efforts have been met with a lot more resistance than have roger's claycourt efforts in paris against anyone not named rafa..

consequently, if roger can't even beat the best on clay in paris despite 4-consecutive attempts (meaning he still has considerable hurdles to overcome in paris), while rafa has already conquered roger (the best on hard courts) as well as the 3rd best (djoker) on his first and 2nd outings in hardcourt slam finals, that alone raises serious doubts regarding whether roger could even be considered to be on the same level on clay as rafa already is on hard courts.. never mind the fact that rafa's winning % at the hardcourt masters level is considerably better than roger's at the claycourt masters..

in hindsight, roger's loss to rafa in the '05 r garros semis, his first-ever loss to rafa on clay, was a pivotal loss which ultimately spelled roger's undoing and set a dangerous losing trend for the swiss.. had roger managed to beat rafa in that match, he'd likely have 2 r garros titles under his belt by now and this debate would be a lot more even.. :wavey:

Persimmon
09-21-2010, 05:08 PM
Nadal beat Fed to win his AO.

Fed didn't beat Nadal to win his FO.

If Nadal wins another AO and Fed does not win another FO, then there will be no discussion since 3>1.

anticaria
09-21-2010, 05:09 PM
Personally, I think Roger was the better clay court player, as he was the one constantly playing Rafa in the finals of events, and being competitive, beating him in Hamburg 2007 and also having a major opportunity in Rome 2006. Rafa wasn't getting deep as consistently in hard court events.

With that said, I think things have now reversed, and Rafa is the better hard court player in comparison to Roger's clay court results.


i agree.. the tables have certainly been turned.. what is most remarkable to me is the fact that rafa put together the bulk of his impressive hardcourt resume against a field infinitely fuller of specialists and at a time when his own hardcourt game was far from fully mature..

anticaria
09-21-2010, 05:18 PM
Nadal beat Fed to win his AO.

Fed didn't beat Nadal to win his FO.

If Nadal wins another AO and Fed does not win another FO, then there will be no discussion since 3>1.


exactly.. if rafa wins the 'rafa slam' by scoring his 2nd aussie open crown (and 3rd hardcourt major overall) a little over 4 months from now, this debate will be officially decided in rafa's favor..

Matt01
09-21-2010, 08:47 PM
Nadal beat Fed to win his AO.

Fed didn't beat Nadal to win his FO.

If Nadal wins another AO and Fed does not win another FO, then there will be no discussion since 3>1.


You should stay away from making predictions and instead should stick to posts like these. Right now it's close but if Rafa wins AO next year then it will be clear.

Manequin75
09-21-2010, 08:58 PM
I say Fed is a better clay-courter than rafa is a hard- courter atleast to-date. Fed has been a contender at RG since 2005 - he played the finals four of the last 5 years. Fed really is embodiment of consistency no matter what surface. He is ALWAYS there. I really cant say the same about Rafa at AO and USO. Prior to this year Rafa never even made the finals at USO. If Rafa can string together a couple of good years in hard court slams (besides the solitary USO and AO wins) he might move ahead. BUt as of now he is busy tinkering his game and trying to be effective on hard courts. Fed needed no adjustment. He is more natural on clay than Rafa on hard for sure.

Very difficult for anyone to come out ahead when compared to Fed. This guy has been too freaking consistent no matter what surface for so long. It is ridiculous. If Rafa wasn't born Fed would have made a complete mockery of tennis records.

Filo V.
09-22-2010, 01:53 AM
i agree.. the tables have certainly been turned.. what is most remarkable to me is the fact that rafa put together the bulk of his impressive hardcourt resume against a field infinitely fuller of specialists and at a time when his own hardcourt game was far from fully mature..Well, to be honest, the field on hard courts, in terms of players legitimately on the level to consistently defeat Rafa, is short. It's not as if Rafa is playing in a time of day where he has several players who can beat him, on any surface, even when he was still developing his HC game, he was getting good results, and it was still a terror to defeat him. On clay, it's much different, because it's the one surface that evens the playing field, yet Roger was by far the #2 on clay, and Rafa wasn't the 2nd best on hard court.

But since 2008, if you take out the time Rafa has missed due to injury, or injury plagued matches, he's shown, when healthy, he's the best player in the world, and that's on all surfaces. Yet, Roger has also declined a bit, and is more and more beatable on clay, and also seemingly isn't taking the clay season as seriously now, with a RG title in hand.

So, yes, now Rafa is definitely the better hard court player than Roger clay court player. But overall, in their primes, if you compare, it's very even.

shanks
09-22-2010, 03:28 AM
let's see, shall we?:

roger's made 4 finals at r garros and won it only once in a staggering 11 attempts and yet he has never beaten rafa or even pushed the spaniard to 5 sets in paris..

roger's 1:3 in r garros finals = 25% record..

roger's 5:7 in claycourt masters finals = 41.6 %..


meanwhile..


rafa's mastered each of the hardcourt majors (aussie and us opens) in fewer attempts (5 and 8, respectively) than it took roger to master r garros (11).. and, most importantly, rafa has beaten roger in one of the greatest-ever hardcourt finals..

rafa's 2:0 in hardcourt slam finals = a perfect 100 %..

rafa's 5:4 in hardcourt masters finals = 55.5%..


it seems you'd need some mighty powerful weed to try and disregard those facts.. :wavey:

U dumbass! Why u keep bringing up who Federer has beaten in finals and who Rafa has beaten in finals? Thats irrelevant u nincompoop! Federer has made 4 RG finals in last 5 years! Rafa has only made 1 AO final & 1 USO final on hardcourt majors. How can that even compare to 4 finals in last 5 years? He does not need to beat Rafa to prove anything to u for Gods sake! Ur imagination is scary and you need to get admitted to mental asylum right away!

anticaria
09-23-2010, 12:54 AM
U dumbass! Why u keep bringing up who Federer has beaten in finals and who Rafa has beaten in finals? Thats irrelevant u nincompoop! Federer has made 4 RG finals in last 5 years! Rafa has only made 1 AO final & 1 USO final on hardcourt majors. How can that even compare to 4 finals in last 5 years? He does not need to beat Rafa to prove anything to u for Gods sake! Ur imagination is scary and you need to get admitted to mental asylum right away!

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz psssst.. you're the one cluelessly equating 4 r garros finals with 2 actual hardcourt slam titles, 'u dumbass'.. :haha:

anticaria
09-23-2010, 01:27 AM
I say Fed is a better clay-courter than rafa is a hard- courter atleast to-date. Fed has been a contender at RG since 2005 - he played the finals four of the last 5 years. Fed really is embodiment of consistency no matter what surface. He is ALWAYS there. I really cant say the same about Rafa at AO and USO. Prior to this year Rafa never even made the finals at USO. If Rafa can string together a couple of good years in hard court slams (besides the solitary USO and AO wins) he might move ahead. BUt as of now he is busy tinkering his game and trying to be effective on hard courts. Fed needed no adjustment. He is more natural on clay than Rafa on hard for sure.

Very difficult for anyone to come out ahead when compared to Fed. This guy has been too freaking consistent no matter what surface for so long. It is ridiculous. If Rafa wasn't born Fed would have made a complete mockery of tennis records.


the great fed should be expected to be 'freaking consistent' on clay considering the relative dearth of claycourt specialists means his competition on that surface has been far beneath his talent, or the fact that he's had twice as much time to peak on that surface as rafa, a guy 5 years fed's junior, whose game is just now starting to peak on hard courts..

by comparison, since he first won his first major back in '05, rafa's had to contend not just with the fact that roger was already at his peak on hard courts, but with the reality that there are far greater numbers of hardcourt specialists to block his progress on that surface.. rendering rafa's hardcourt record at the age of 24 downright remarkable: a much better winning percentage at hardcurt masters events than roger has at claycourt masters events and 2 hardcourt slam titles over 2 of the toughtest hardcourt opponents of their generation: roger and the djoker..

anticaria
09-23-2010, 01:46 AM
Well, to be honest, the field on hard courts, in terms of players legitimately on the level to consistently defeat Rafa, is short. It's not as if Rafa is playing in a time of day where he has several players who can beat him, on any surface, even when he was still developing his HC game, he was getting good results, and it was still a terror to defeat him. On clay, it's much different, because it's the one surface that evens the playing field, yet Roger was by far the #2 on clay, and Rafa wasn't the 2nd best on hard court.

But since 2008, if you take out the time Rafa has missed due to injury, or injury plagued matches, he's shown, when healthy, he's the best player in the world, and that's on all surfaces. Yet, Roger has also declined a bit, and is more and more beatable on clay, and also seemingly isn't taking the clay season as seriously now, with a RG title in hand.

So, yes, now Rafa is definitely the better hard court player than Roger clay court player. But overall, in their primes, if you compare, it's very even.

what amazes me the most about rafa's hardcourt record so far, vis a vis roger's claycourt record, is the fact that the spaniard's own hardcourt game is just now starting to peak while roger's claycourt record so far has already seen him in peak form..

which means rafa's hardcourt record was put together at a time when his game was still vulnerable to the likes of james blake while roger, already at his claycourt peak, expectedly had no match on the red stuff other than rafa..

i.e., the not-yet-at-his-hardcourt-peak rafa's record on that surface already surpasses roger's 'claycourt peak' results at the masters and slam levels..