[The Kaz]

I was bored today so I made a deep analysis page comparing Roger and Rafa in the biggest tourneys on the tour (TMS, GS, TMC) and the results are interesting in that they are so close in nearly every aspect.

Enjoy!

 

[Toko]

Count the slams, answer should be obvious.

 

[Action Jackson]

I was bored today so I made a deep analysis page comparing Roger and Rafa in the biggest tourneys on the tour (TMS, GS, TMC) and the results are interesting in that they are so close in nearly every aspect.

Enjoy!

Use the search function, it's been done before.

 

[The Kaz]

Roger has been out there double the time Rafa has...bear that in mind

 

[Action Jackson]

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=98086

 

[Slasher]

Count the slams, answer should be obvious.

Nadal has three more slams and nine more MS titles than Federer had age 21. The obvious answer is indeed Nadal.

 

[Toko]

Nadal has three more slams and nine more MS titles than Federer had age 21. The obvious answer is indeed Nadal.

I'm sorry, where in the thread does it say we are comparing nadal to a 21 tear old fed?

Oh thats right - it doesn't.


As of NOW:
Fed:more slams, more titles. fed wins.

 

[Slasher]

I'm sorry, where in the thread does it say we are comparing nadal to a 21 tear old fed?

Oh thats right - it doesn't.


As of NOW:
Fed:more slams, more titles. fed wins.

Basically you're saying Federer is five years older than Nadal.

That's really interesting.

 

[Okonsky]

Who knows? How to compare? By birth year, by titles...how?

 

[TheSwissMaster]

Nadal has three more slams and nine more MS titles than Federer had age 21. The obvious answer is indeed Nadal.

WHAT STUPIDITY is this, by this way it actually means rafa by the time he reaches rogers age, will have 17/18 slams,

will he,

absolutely not.

and this then also means rafa is way way better than roger which is again far from the truth

the thing is some players mature early and so reach thier peak form early which is the case with nadal whereas some players reach their peak quite later as in rogers case

so its absolutely nonsence to compare players titles keeping their ages in mind

and so their is no gurantee that rafa will keep on winning as he is winning now. he might be over his peak form by the age of 24/25 just like hewitt

 

[stebs]

Use the search function, it's been done before.

No it hasn't. I've not seen any analysis like this. I think it was interesting.

Did you even look at it before criticising and pointing him in the direction of another thread that doesn't actually do the same job at all? You don't have to be critical of everything you know.

 

[Beforehand]

No it hasn't. I've not seen any analysis like this. I think it was interesting.

Did you even look at it before criticising and pointing him in the direction of another thread that doesn't actually do the same job at all? You don't have to be critical of everything you know.

He's not the king of MTF for nothing.

 

[jasmin]

This is weird. Who has way more slams which are the biggest tournaments. I don't see how the answer isn't obvious.

No age or anyway was mentioned and who knows when Nadal's early peak will decline. Really outside of clay Nadal has already started to decline.

Also I think most would give up those titles for the amount of slams Roger has. That's all they will talk about really in the end. Sampras knows...all they bring up for the most part is his slam record.

 

[CmonAussie]

...
Yeah as GW said there is another thread on this topic [begun by me & updated just yesterday]...
Anyway i think people place too much importance on these TMS events, especially now that the top players receive so many byes & you only have to win 5 X best-of-3-set matches~~ they`ve practically become jumped up MM tourneys for the Top-8 players.
...
The biggest tourneys are obviously the Slams!
Next biggest is the TMC.
Followed by TMS [super-9].

So lets compare:

FED
slams = 12
TMC = 4
>>
RAFA
slams = 3
TMC = 0
>>
~~
Therefore big tourney wins for FED [16] >>>>>>> RAFA [3].

 

[Action Jackson]

No it hasn't. I've not seen any analysis like this. I think it was interesting.

Did you even look at it before criticising and pointing him in the direction of another thread that doesn't actually do the same job at all? You don't have to be critical of everything you know.

Is the primary objective the same? Yes, trying to find who is better at the bigger events out of Fed and Nadal. There maybe differences in how it gets done, but the objective is still the same.

As for being critical of everything, you'd bitch if I wasn't being critical.

 

[stebs]

Is the primary objective the same? Yes, trying to find who is better at the bigger events out of Fed and Nadal. There maybe differences in how it gets done, but the objective is still the same.

So you honestly think that just because Cmon has a thread comparing respective final winning percentages there shouldn't be a thread to look at the overall performances of players at a variety of events presented in a clear and easy to read fashion? This is a good thread, you criticised it for no real reason. That's all I was saying.

As for being critical of everything, you'd bitch if I wasn't being critical.

No I wouldn't. :lol: Where did you get that from?

 

[hra87]

Is the primary objective the same? Yes, trying to find who is better at the bigger events out of Fed and Nadal. There maybe differences in how it gets done, but the objective is still the same.

Imagine if scientists addressing the same issue from 2 different perspectives weren't allowed to publish seperate articles, but rather could only publish them in the forms of commentaries on the previous ones...

Changes in "how it gets done" is novel work and worth reflection.


To OP: I think you should just look at peaks, and therefore: Roger>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rafa.

But he's better because he's a better player, not because of mental strength (if that's what you care about). Looking at mental strength is MUCH MUCH harder to do scientifically, near impossible IMO. Far too complicated, far too many variables.

Edit: BTW, if you are interested in mental strength, there is a decent amount of literature for other sports (especially baseball). Worth a look at.

 

[FedFan_2007]

Rafa will have 10-12 slams in 5 years. Probably win 2 TMCs, another 10 TMS titles.

 

[Action Jackson]

Imagine if scientists addressing the same issue from 2 different perspectives weren't allowed to publish seperate articles, but rather could only publish them in the forms of commentaries on the previous ones...

Changes in "how it gets done" is novel work and worth reflection.


To OP: I think you should just look at peaks, and therefore: Roger>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rafa.

But he's better because he's a better player, not because of mental strength (if that's what you care about). Looking at mental strength is MUCH MUCH harder to do scientifically, near impossible IMO. Far too complicated, far too many variables.

Edit: BTW, if you are interested in mental strength, there is a decent amount of literature for other sports (especially baseball). Worth a look at.

They can actually build from the particular commentaries and bounce ideas of each other, that is if they are trying to prove the same thing.

You can't measure mental strength, as you said too many variables, simple case Nadal on clay and Nadal on fast hardcourts. It's the same guy, but one is a comfort zone and the other isn't.

Nadal has never played a GS final at Wimbledon and lacked balls, granted he was not likely to win on grass unlike Federer did when he played the 2006 RG final. If that example is used Nadal fared better in the unfavourable environment than Federer has.

Then look at where Federer has won his events, he has done it in more places and variable surfaces, in other words, it just depends on what has greater weight to the individual judging.

There is only so much Fed and Nadal speak that I can put up with.

 

[hra87]

There is only so much Fed and Nadal speak that I can put up with.

Not a problem, we have Djokovic now :devil:.