822 replies to this topic

[bnickle]

He has a winning record against Fed primarily because Roger was good enough to get to him on clay, but Nadal wasn't good enough to get to Fed on other surfaces during the majority of Federer's prime.

And only 7 non French titles would be a negative for the Nadal argument. He's not just a clay court specialist now, but he was for the first 4 or so French titles.

thi.

 

 

Nadal leads Fed 21-10

 

13-2 on clay. So  they are split they are 8-8 on other surfaces. 

 

 

I don't know why you have the perception that Rafa has picked on Rodger on hard courts when Rodger was out of his prime. First, Rodger was in his prime up until at least '10.

 

But anyway a history leason,

 

Rafa and Nadal met 1 time on harcourt in '04 when Fed was starting his dominance and Rafa was 18yrs old. Rafa won.

 

In '05 Rodger was clearly the man. They split 1-1 on hardcourts.

 

In '06 and '07 they only met on hardcourts twice. Rodger won them both.

 

In '08 they met on hardcourts once and Rafa won.

 

In'09 they met on hardcourts twice and split 1-1

 

 

So conservatively lets say Feds prime was over after '09. They are split even 4-4. Since '10 began Nadal is only up 3-2 on hardcourts.

 

 

 

As far as grass goes. Fed leads 2-1. All at Wimbledon. All in the Finals. He dominated the first meeting in '06. The ones.in '07 and '08 were epics with each splitting titles.

[mweb08]

Is it or is it not true that Nadal usually was not good enough to get to Fed on non clay surfaces for most of Federer's prime? <br /><br />If true, I think we have to assume that Fed would have won more often in a larger sample size. Imagine if they faced off on grass more before the year Nadal won Wimbledon. Not Fed's fault that Nadal couldn't reach that point in any grass tournaments.<br />

[bnickle]

No, as I pointed out above they were pretty even on non clay courts through Fed's prime.

 

 

It's widely considered that Nadal is a matchup problem for Fed. Always has been with his left handed heavy top spin to Fed's one handed backhand. I can't sit here and get into great detail. I don't know tennis that well, but I've heard the above said plenty of times. The consensus is Rafa has always been a huge problem for Fed because of his style and strategy.

[mweb08]

They weren't even as non clay court players for the first half or so of Fed's prime. That's why they played so infrequently. Fed would very likely have a better record against Nadal if they played more in those early years. I'm not sure how you can refuse to acknowledge that point and the answer to my question was clearly yes. <br />

[bnickle]

They weren't even as non clay court players for the first half or so of Fed's prime. That's why they played so infrequently. Fed would very likely have a better record against Nadal if they played more in those early years. I'm not sure how you can refuse to acknowledge that point and the answer to my question was clearly yes. <br />

No, you can't make that assumption, especially if you believe, as many do, that Nadal would've always given Fed problems because of his style.

 

 

Besides, you can't blame a 19 or 20 yr old kid for not making deeper runs. basically only in '04 and '05. If you want me to tell you Federer was the better overall player from '04-'07 you'll get no argument. That doesn't mean Fed would have dominated the matchup if they had met more. Again, Nadal's style has always been an issue. You judge them on how many times they've actually played.

 

 

 

I can't believe you of all people went into hypotheticals. I mean from this point forward you would expect Nadal to dominate even more and increase his overall record over Fed.However, it looks like Fed,  now completely done, won't get as deep and likely won't meet the better Rafa. If your going to try and count hypothetical wins from '04-'06 when Rafa wasn't in his prime I'm going to count the hypothetical wins from '12 on when Fed isn't in his.

 

 

They are 5 years apart in age. Their "primes" were only going to overlap for a certain amount of time.

[mweb08]

From 2004 to 2008, they played 10 of their 17 matches on clay even though less than a third of tournaments are on clay. So while Fed was dominating on non clay surfaces, Nadal was only good enough to get to Fed in tourney's 7 times in 5 years. If they played a proportionate amount to how often they played on clay, that number would be in the 20's.

[mweb08]

Why can't you believe I would get into hypotheticals? I don't have any issue getting into them.

 

Anyway, I think it's a fair assumption since Fed was way better on other surfaces then. If Nadal ties or passes Fed, that will make for a great debate, but I would prefer someone who was better rounded throughout their career than someone who won lets say 11 of his 18 titles on clay.

[bnickle]

I knew this would happen. Again, if you want me to tell you Fed was the better player from '04-'08 you'll get no argument. That doesn't mean Federer would have dominated had they met more times on hardcourts or grass. Surely, you understand sports enough now to understand matchup problems and how some very good teams/players struggle with lesser teams/players because of a matchup issues from style or strategy.

 

 

 

 

 BTW a few other things...... The grass court season is very short so you are basically only talking about hardcourts when you are saying Nadal wasn't good enough to get to Fed.  Someone can come in and correct me if I'm wrong but the clay court season is just naturally long. Every bit as long as the hardcourt season. That's one reason also why there were more clay matches.

 

 

 

Also, Nadal has been very good on all surfaces since '08. He reached the semifinals of the Aus and US in '08 and won his first of 3 hardcourt titles in '09. From '08 through '12 Fed and Nadal only met on grass or hardcourt 7 times. Let's overlap when both were in their primes from ''08-'10. They only met on non clay 3 times. It just doesn't happen as often as you think it should happen even when they are both great.  Between not playing the same tournies or the occasional upset in non majors it's not that common.

[bnickle]

Why can't you believe I would get into hypotheticals? I don't have any issue getting into them.

 

Anyway, I think it's a fair assumption since Fed was way better on other surfaces then. If Nadal ties or passes Fed, that will make for a great debate, but I would prefer someone who was better rounded throughout their career than someone who won lets say 11 of his 18 titles on clay.

What is absurd is that if you were on the other side of the argument you would just use the pure stats. how many times they actually met up. Even discounting clay they are almost dead even. 7-6 slight edge to Rafa and 4-4 before you could argue Fed was out of his prime. Instead you want to use hypotheticals.

 

 

 

I'll say this Fed better have played all those hardcourt matches in his prime indoors because outdoors on hardcourts Nadal has again always dominated. Fed is 4-0 indoors. Rafa 7-2 outdoors where more tournies are played. Nadal has always been Fed's superor except on really fast conditions.

[mweb08]

What is absurd is that if you were on the other side of the argument you would just use the pure stats. how many times they actually met up. Even discounting clay they are almost dead even. 7-6 slight edge to Rafa and 4-4 before you could argue Fed was out of his prime. Instead you want to use hypotheticals.

 

 

 

I'll say this Fed better have played all those hardcourt matches in his prime indoors because outdoors on hardcourts Nadal has again always dominated. Fed is 4-0 indoors. Rafa 7-2 outdoors where more tournies are played. Nadal has always been Fed's superor except on really fast conditions.

 

Absolutely not. I'm not that simplistic.

[Don Quixote]

Not sure about this exchange, but if Nadal diversifies his Grand Slam titles more and pulls his overall titles and match wins up around Federer's, the argument could at least be made for Nadal being The Best Ever. He's the reason Federer doesn't have 23 Grand Slam titles with five Career Grand Slams as we speak, and that couldn't be done without his superiority on clay. He's basically bitched Federer head-to-head; yes, it's clay-driven, but he's been pretty equal on the other surfaces (their outdoor/indoor hard court split plays to their styles). The only way Federer has dominated Nadal head-to-head is in the year-end tournament inside.

 

After splitting their first four Slam finals, Nadal won three in a row against Federer on three different surfaces while Federer was still in his prime (though perhaps not quite the exquisitely terrifying form he had from '04-'06/7), then extended that streak to four in the '11 French. He has the most ATP World Tour 500 and Masters 1000 titles. He has the singles Olympic gold Federer doesn't. He has a higher overall, Grand Slam and Masters 1000 match winning percentage (some is attributable to Federer's decline, sure).

 

Over 40% of Federer's Slam titles are from Wimbledon, and half of Sampras' were, and they have each been called The Best Ever, so even if Nadal has over half at Roland Garros - say he has a career breakdown of 10 French, three Wimbledon, three U.S. Open, and two Australian titles (just assuming 18-17 if Federer doesn't win any more Slams) - he will still make a case with many. I like how Nadal has retooled some things to stay relevant, and heightened his game across surfaces so he can be in discussions like these.

 

However, in an overall sense, Federer's style has allowed him to be consistently a notch greater than Nadal, even though Nadal's dominance on clay is more pronounced than is Federer's on hard courts and grass, and Nadal has the head-to-head advantage. Federer has had several ridiculous winning streaks, plus that 4-1/2 year run at No. 1 when he cemented himself as the guy no one wanted to see, part of nearly six years at the top. Right now, I consider Federer The Best Ever, but Nadal is in my mind the best clay-courter ever, and has the potential to be The Best Ever, given more diversification and No. 1 form as the second half of his career continues.

 

I know a lot of this is re-hash, but it took awhile and I was busy doing other stuff, too.

[bnickle]

Not sure about this exchange, but if Nadal diversifies his Grand Slam titles more and pulls his overall titles and match wins up around Federer's, the argument could at least be made for Nadal being The Best Ever. He's the reason Federer doesn't have 23 Grand Slam titles with five Career Grand Slams as we speak, and that couldn't be done without his superiority on clay. He's basically bitched Federer head-to-head; yes, it's clay-driven, but he's been pretty equal on the other surfaces (their outdoor/indoor hard court split plays to their styles). The only way Federer has dominated Nadal head-to-head is in the year-end tournament inside.

 

After splitting their first four Slam finals, Nadal won three in a row against Federer on three different surfaces while Federer was still in his prime (though perhaps not quite the exquisitely terrifying form he had from '04-'06/7), then extended that streak to four in the '11 French. He has the most ATP World Tour 500 and Masters 1000 titles. He has the singles Olympic gold Federer doesn't. He has a higher overall, Grand Slam and Masters 1000 match winning percentage (some is attributable to Federer's decline, sure).

 

Over 40% of Federer's Slam titles are from Wimbledon, and half of Sampras' were, and they have each been called The Best Ever, so even if Nadal has over half at Roland Garros - say he has a career breakdown of 10 French, three Wimbledon, three U.S. Open, and two Australian titles (just assuming 18-17 if Federer doesn't win any more Slams) - he will still make a case with many. I like how Nadal has retooled some things to stay relevant, and heightened his game across surfaces so he can be in discussions like these.

 

However, in an overall sense, Federer's style has allowed him to be consistently a notch greater than Nadal, even though Nadal's dominance on clay is more pronounced than is Federer's on hard courts and grass, and Nadal has the head-to-head advantage. Federer has had several ridiculous winning streaks, plus that 4-1/2 year run at No. 1 when he cemented himself as the guy no one wanted to see, part of nearly six years at the top. Right now, I consider Federer The Best Ever, but Nadal is in my mind the best clay-courter ever, and has the potential to be The Best Ever, given more diversification and No. 1 form as the second half of his career continues.

 

I know a lot of this is re-hash, but it took awhile and I was busy doing other stuff, too.

I agree. There is no doubt that Fed's consistency and peak was amazing. The most dominant prime I've ever seen in any sport personally, at least in the important events(Majors). 10 straight GS finals. 23 straight semifinals. Terrific stuff.

 

 

Let me just say that I'll reevaluate when and if Rafa ever gets to Fed. Certainly, as you point out, Rafa has a chance to be considered GOAT. We'll see how the next 3 years go for him. You have to think, that's the realistic window. And that's probably throwing out Wimbledon which has become his weakest surface.

 

 

 

I would say Rafa has little chance, hell I did say that after the French because I really didn't think he could win a major on another surface, but his hardcourt run this year and change of philosophy and strategy on hardcourts was astounding. We'll see if he can keep it up. That will be the key IMO. Can he win another 2 or 3 Majors on hardcourts. Djokovic and Murray aren't going away anytime soon so it won't be easy.

 

 

Like you said, the interesting thing, and why I respect Rafa, is how hard he works. I think he's a tennis genius. Great strategist and then a ton of heart as well. Clearly, Fed is the purist player ever. That will never be in dispute. Just the best shotmaker I've ever seen. So smooth and easy.

[Don Quixote]

I haven't been keeping up with the scene too well. Watching some Day 1 action right now. Thoughts on the tournament?

[DuffMan]

I haven't been keeping up with the scene too well. Watching some Day 1 action right now. Thoughts on the tournament?

 

Venus out again on Day 1, I'm surprised she hasn't hung em up yet.

[McNulty]

One of the crazier days I've seen. The last match with the Aussie gutting it out after his body quit on him was a sight.

[mweb08]

Fed beat Murray to setup a semi-final match with Nadal.

[bnickle]

Huge Fed-Nadal match.  They'll be favored in the final against either opponent.

 

So here is why its so important. If Fed wins and then wins the final he'll essentially lock out Nadal from catching him. Nadal is not getting to 18 Majors. On the other hand, if Nadal wins and wins the final he equals Sampras with 14 Majors. He will also become only the 2nd man to win all four Major tournaments at least twice. Laver also did it. Not to mention yet another win in a Major over Fed, extending his fairy big lead in head to head matches.

 

 

Assuming either man wins the final, which isn't a given because Wawranka and Berdych are both playing well, this is a huge match in ultimately determining the GOAT.

 

 

 

Also, if Fed is finally going to get Nadal again in a big match it should be now. I actually think Fed is the favorite.

Nadal is not particularly sharp right now and the blister on his hand is a part of that. Also, Fed seems to be playing very good tennis. I think this is his best chance to get him in a really long time.

[DuffMan]

Nadal in straight sets!

[bnickle]

Too good. Just owned Fed, who had looked really good coming into this match.


It's amazing how good of a hard court player Nadal has made himself in the last year. Learning to step inside the baseline and take the ball sooner.

Fed at this point is still the GOAT and probably will remain the purest and skilled player of all time regardless of what happenes from here forward.

That said, Rafa is the superior strategist and the more mentally tough competitor.

[mweb08]

Nadal loses!