Mens Tennis Forums banner

How will it look?

Endless Federer-Nadal debates

246K views 4K replies 607 participants last post by  Zverevdadiii 
#1 ·
Roger Federer reached all four slam finals in 2007, Nadal reached 3 finals and a quarter final.

Roger won the prestigious Tennis Masters Cup. We will have to wait to see if Nadal can win the WTF.

Federer won 8 titles in 2007, including 3 grand slams.

Nadal won 3 grand slams in 2010, including the prestigious RG Wimbledon double. He also won 3 slams in a row.

Both players had interesting slam draws. Federer had to beat world number two Rafael Nadal in Wimbledon final, and a very on fire Djokovic in the US Open. Nadal had to beat Bird Itch in Wimbledon final and a very tired Djokovitch in Us Open final.

2007 was probably Federers least impressive 3 slam season, 2010 was Nadals best season so far one would have to think.

So who had a better season?

Discuss.
The floor is yours. Have at it.
 
See less See more
#3,931 ·
Re: Nadal and Federer both have 57 titles (ATP500 or higher)

Everytime I open a thread like this it makes me genuinely sad that some people spend a huge amount of their time on carrying out surveys on meaningless stats.
Actually true because people will bring out their agendas and then kill the interesting tidbit which the OP wanted to share...

... Anyway if you want to know which one is a better player between two - there is nothing better than H2H (no need for trivia title counts) and we all know how that story went .
 
#3,932 ·
Re: Nadal and Federer both have 57 titles (ATP500 or higher)

 
#3,938 ·
Re: Nadal and Federer both have 57 titles (ATP500 or higher)

I dont like threads that have ...

"If you take ... out of this players resume..."
 
#3,941 ·
Here is a stat: 60% of all Nadal's career titles come from Roland Garros, Monte Carlo, Rome, Madrid & Barcelona.
 
#3,942 ·
There is no debate. Look at the number of slams and the weeks at number 1. The 12 year old Dull fans who think he is pretty and never saw Roger in his prime are just embarrassing themselves, especially as they disregard Sampras who was vastly superior to the Dull one. Who gets owned at Wimbledon 3 years in a row by players ranked lower than 100, one of whom is injured?
 
#3,945 ·
Serious question to Fed fans?

When did you guys realize he was never going to beat Nadal in a big match? A date or match would helpful.

I ve seen fans of his root against him so he doesn't have to play Nadal in the next match. I know I could never cheer against my favourite player.

almost 1200 matches at the age of 33 and he is having unprecedented (a little strange but we wont question that) resurgence, yet it seems his fans still don't believe. The man beat mono and still running around like a jack rabbit but still you guys don't believe. Why?

I am seriously concerned for the sport that the Fan base of the pseudo GOAT have no belief in him.
 
#3,948 ·
Re: Serious question to Fed fans?

Miami 2004

And yes, I'm a Federer fan, but I am an extreme version of samanosuke.
 
#3,952 ·
Re: Serious question to Fed fans?

It's a decent question, but you didn't phrase it nicely. It's really not that difficult to start a thread without sounding overly biased already.
Now OT, I think I already gave up on the thought that Federer would ever catch up with Nadal after the 2007 RG final, although the closest he got was at the end of the 2007 season (6-8). Looking back, it was each year's RG meeting that was the hardest to cope with. After 2005 RG I was like: who the hell is this guy? After 2006 RG and clay season in general: this F*ing Nadal! After 2007 RG: F* this, it's not gonna happen. And all of 2008 just confirmed what I had been fearing all along.
 
#3,955 ·
Re: Serious question to Fed fans?

2012 Australian Open SF for me.

It confirmed no matter how well Fed was playing, no matter how poor Nadal was playing, Fed will always lose on the big stage.

Hope had been weighning seriously since 2009, but 2010 and 2011 WTF gave a little hope. But 2012 AO slammed the door shut.
 
#3,956 ·
Re: Serious question to Fed fans?

So 06/07 Wimbledon aren't big matches :confused:
 
#3,962 ·
To not drift off topic:

Well when Nadal was rank 1 he at least dominated all, unlike Fed who was dominated by Rafa even when being rank 1.
On top of that Nadal has actually done very well against Federer & Djokovic on grass & hard...

But thumbs up for the "unlucky Fed" humor injection
That only shows the extreme match-up disadvantage Roger suffered against Nadull.


Yes, we know that Nadal is no good off clay, despite having 5 slams + OG... that alone is enough to rank him as one of the tennis greats.

But I understand your problem is with "distribution" - aka he is too good on clay. Doesn't work that way; Federer wouldn't be better off if he had 10 less slams on hard/grass and thus more even distribution.

Also has to be noted that I find Nadal's slam distribution more even than Federer's: grass & hard are the two surfaces closest to each other - which means that Federer has 16 slam titles on fast surfaces and 1 on slow. Nadal has 5 and 9.

Fed: 16-1
Nad: 5-9

The latter is clearly more even distribution. But I'm not going to argue that Federer can't be GOAT because of slam distribution, he did make RG finals often enough to prove his all-court skills.
The problem with Nadull’s grass “prowess” is that we as a tennis community are letting the ponzi scheme blind us with us being too results oriented. When we look at Roger’s game and Nadull’s game on paper, Nadull has no grass game at all. Too defense-oriented and moonballs bounce lower on grass. Even though he won two Wimbledons, he did it against Roger who played woefully bad until it was too late (and match-up), and Berdych who honestly looked defeated from the get go.

He was able to reach those other finals because of the Roger effect. After Nadull beat Roger, players feared Nadull and it was that fear which allowed him to beat players he wouldn’t have ordinarily been able to beat. It was because of Roger that Nadull has 14 slams. He was incredibly lucky. Without Roger to kick start Wafa’s career, Wafa would only win on clay because of the reduced confidence if Roger was not there. He was extraordinarily lucky to have an extreme match-up advantage in Roger - one of the most dominant players ever. That’s why Roger is batting below average in his slam haul and why he’s so unlucky.

When I talk about clay-skewed titles, I’m referring to 25% of the slams played on clay and a few months of the year (~30%). 9/14 comes on clay, and about 70% of his overall titles (from what I recall). 36% of his slams come from 70% of the season. That’s why clay-skew is bad, because of the small fraction of events that are on clay - not because I’m creating a rubric in which Nadull has to fail.
 
#3,964 ·
To not drift off topic:



That only shows the extreme match-up disadvantage Roger suffered against Nadull.




The problem with Nadull’s grass “prowess” is that we as a tennis community are letting the ponzi scheme blind us with us being too results oriented. When we look at Roger’s game and Nadull’s game on paper, Nadull has no grass game at all. Too defense-oriented and moonballs bounce lower on grass. Even though he won two Wimbledons, he did it against Roger who played woefully bad until it was too late (and match-up), and Berdych who honestly looked defeated from the get go.

He was able to reach those other finals because of the Roger effect. After Nadull beat Roger, players feared Nadull and it was that fear which allowed him to beat players he wouldn’t have ordinarily been able to beat. It was because of Roger that Nadull has 14 slams. He was incredibly lucky. Without Roger to kick start Wafa’s career, Wafa would only win on clay because of the reduced confidence if Roger was not there. He was extraordinarily lucky to have an extreme match-up advantage in Roger - one of the most dominant players ever. That’s why Roger is batting below average in his slam haul and why he’s so unlucky.

When I talk about clay-skewed titles, I’m referring to 25% of the slams played on clay and a few months of the year (~30%). 9/14 comes on clay, and about 70% of his overall titles (from what I recall). 36% of his slams come from 70% of the season. That’s why clay-skew is bad, because of the small fraction of events that are on clay - not because I’m creating a rubric in which Nadull has to fail.
Well you are ignoring that most of his slam finals are off-clay, and that puts him second all time tied with Sampras and Lendl, both who reached 11 GS finals outside their dominant slam.

Federer is 5 years older lets compare them when they both retire and its all said and done...
 
#3,983 ·
Is Slade Sunseeker
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top