If he ties him, he can probably claim the GOAT title however I still think there is more to it than number of slams and H2H.
Nadal has spent a total of 132 weeks at #1. Federer spent 302 weeks at #1, 237 of them consecutively. No one else comes close to that level of sustained excellence.
He's never won the year-end championships. Federer won it 6 times and never dropped a single match in 5 of them.
He's never won more than 2 titles at any other slam. Federer won 7 Wimbledon titles, 5 US Open titles and 4 Australian Open titles. Won the French in 2009 (reached the finals 5 times).
He's won 27 Masters events but only 8 were on hardcourts. Federer won 15 on hardcourts.
|
Closed Thread
Results 31 to 60 of 10061
Thread: *** Official Tennis Thread ****
-
06-09-2014, 09:14 AM #31
-
06-09-2014, 09:19 AM #32
It sounds like a lot of people think Nadal is going to cruise past Federer now when only 2 weeks ago the guy was struggling to win on his favorite surface against pigeons like Ferrer and Almagro?
Djokovic has been the most consistent player since 2011 and he hasn't added to his slam tally in 18 months. Federer won 3 out of 4 slams from 2009-2010 (had chances to go 4/4) and was stuck on 16 for 2.5 years and 17 now for almost 2 years.
Nadal could easily be stranded on 14 for another year and then sharply decline. Not wishing that on him but it needs to be put in perspective. Djokovic isn't going away.
Nadal has struggled at Wimbledon the past two years and hasn't won in Australia since 2009. If he doesn't win the US Open this year then most likely #15 will come at Roland Garros. Can he win 3 more slams at age 29-30 with a physically taxing game? Time will tell.
-
-
06-09-2014, 09:28 AM #33
I agree, I may be a fanboy but it's going to be very difficult for Nadal to surpass or even tie Fed in slams.
I also agree about Fed's unparalleled dominance at his prime, however I think it it to Nadal's credit that he has sustained greatness in the greatest decade of men's tennis in the open era.
No one can argue that the competition is simply better now than it was 10 years ago, and Nadal leads h2h against ALL of the heavy hitters, with the most lopsided obviously being against Federer.
Again, I'm a federer fan, but it's quite the difference when comparing his top competition back in 2006 other than Nadal (Roddick?) to the top contenders now. In today's game, Roddick would be no better than DelPo or even Isner.Country Must Be Country-Wide CREW
____________________________________________________________________
****Baltimore Ravens****
****Baltimore Orioles****
MFC
-
06-09-2014, 11:39 AM #34
Idk, when Federer was winning everything, there was no-one on his level (mostly due to a change of generations). The best at the time were old ass Agassi and Hewitt/Rodick.. I mean, they were good, but they weren't on Djokovic or even Murray level. Since Nadal came onto the scene he has outplayed Fed and has been more successful.
-
06-09-2014, 11:40 AM #35
It's pretty insane that Nadal has been winning the same tournament for a decade now and he's still only 28. Big fan of him and Federer, and hope we get to see a couple more finals between them, because Djokovic and Murray do nothing for me.
-
06-09-2014, 12:33 PM #36
-
-
06-09-2014, 02:34 PM #37
nishikori cant sustain a string of matches these days , hes has a huge amount of talent but cant stay on the court , he even says this himself.
out of those 4 its clearly Stan no question , a grand slam champion already , those others cant really be put in the same league as him. ( even though I like Raonic lately and how his clay game has really come to life and hes starting the become more than just a servebot.) his net play and rallies have gotten a lot better. At this current time I'd have him as the best young taleant, but Dimitrov has a ton of talent as well
-
06-09-2014, 02:42 PM #38
-
06-09-2014, 03:22 PM #39
looks like Nadal is playing @ Halle
last year he didn't play a warm-up tourny on grass b4 wimbledon d/t fatigue from the clay court season/French Open. And he lost brutally in the 1st rd.
Assuming this year he wants to get in some practice b4 wimbledon, plus his clay court/French Open season hasn't been as brutal as last year.
I think the French-Wimbledon double is the most impressive feat in tennis, and possibly all sport. To win two Grand Slams with only a 2 week break in btween (and really just 1 week off bc of the warm up tourny).
Nadal has done it twice, 2008 and 2010. Federer did it once in 2009. Bjorn Borg (who arguably is the Goat) did it 3 times consecutively. No one else has done that, ever.
It would be a hell of an accomplishment if Nadal could tie Bjorg this year. Won't be easy tho. I see Djoker as the favorite, pushing hard to make up for the French. Murray is defending champ, but has looked rather average this year. Wawrinka is a wild card who could surprise. Raonic should be successful on grass, but so far hasn't.***SRT PR Crew (Strong Rep to Post Ratio Crew)***
***Foul Bachelor Frog Crew***
***Piners gonna pine Crew***
***Miscers with a "7" in their name Crew***
Creator of Original Pineapplebrah Thread: Where the Pineapple was coined:
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=139655023
Piners gonna pine
-
06-09-2014, 03:26 PM #40
- Join Date: Dec 2010
- Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Posts: 33,494
- Rep Power: 88652
I'd be curious to know what Nadal's record is against these "heavy hitters" if you take out his French Open matches. He's a master of that surface. The undisputed best without a doubt. But is IS just one surface. He's been far from a GOAT on the rest.
As for Fed's competition since 2006... let's have a look shall we?
2006: Wimbledon (over Nadal)
2006: US Open (over Roddick)
2007: AO (over Gonzalez)
2007: Wimbledon (over Nadal)
2007: US Open (over Djoker)
2008: US Open (over Murray)
2009: French Open (over Soderling)
2009: Wimbledon (over Roddick)
2010: AO (over Murray)
2012: Wimbledon (over Murray)
His last 10 titles right there. I can accept that Soderling and Gonzalez weren't world class players but all the rest were. Yes, even Roddick... who probably would have won 3 or 4 slams if Roger didn't own him.
Now let's look at Nadal's titles...
2005: French (over Puerta)
2006: French (over Fed)
2007: French (over Fed)
2008: French (over Fed)
2008: Wimbledon (over Fed)
2009: AO (over Fed)
2010: French (over Soderling)
2010: Wimbledon (over Berdych)
2011: French (over Fed)
2012: French (over Djoker)
2013: French (over Ferrer)
2013: US Open (over Djoker)
2014: French (over Djoker)
Am I supposed to be impressed with Grand Slam wins over Puerta, Soderling, Berdych and Ferrer? 4 guys who have only been to Grand Slam finals a combined total of 5 times?
Nadal is a clay court specialist above all else. Respect to him, he's still a damn good player overall but his dominance isn't at the level that Fed's was in his prime (and even a while after). Dominik's previous posts hit it right on the head.
If Nadal really wants to prove his case he needs to win 3 or 4 Slams on surfaces OTHER than clay IMO.
-
-
06-09-2014, 04:14 PM #41
Most of this stuff is easy to look up but I remember a lot of it since I've been following them both closely for the past decade.
I enjoyed their rivalry until it became one-sided outside clay although I don't read too much into their H2H after 2008 because Nadal was in his prime while Federer was at the end of his. Federer hasn't beaten him in a slam since 2007. Had the 5 set Wimbledon 2008 and AO 2009 finals fallen his way I think he would have had more success against him. Those losses were pivotal.
While it's difficult to compare eras given that Borg played with a wooden racket, Nadal's domination at the French is one of the most impressive feats in tennis. I don't think anyone would argue he's the clay GOAT. However with no more than 2 titles at any other Grand Slam event, I still have some reservations about him being crowned GOAT, period. I'd say the same about Federer if 2/3 of his slams came on grass. That could change in the next couple of years of course, especially if he has another season like 2013.
While I think Federer is the best, I have no trouble admitting Sampras in his prime would have the edge at Wimbledon, especially in the 90s on those lightning fast courts before they started catering to baseliners.
It's a shame they never met at the US Open which was Federer's best slam after Wimbledon. No way Nadal beats Federer there from 2004-2009 before they slowed those courts down as well.
-
06-09-2014, 09:28 PM #42
Nadal-Federer h2h is very lop-sided in Nadal's favor but people need to realize that while Fed was in his prime Nadal was only winning clay court titles. Nadal wasn't making it past the QF on hard courts.
Fed is 2-13 against him on clay but 4-1 on indoor hard courts (the fastest courts) and 2-1 against him on grass. Completely agree about Fed beating Nadal if they had met in the US in Fed's prime.
-
06-10-2014, 01:44 AM #43
So Federer's prime ended in 2007? He is still top 4 7 years later so I don't believe that. Federer was beating him on every surface except clay, but you could see Nadal getting better and catching up every GS finals they played against each other. Imo the 2008 Wimbledon finals was both of them in their prime finally, and that's why it was such an amazing match.
-
06-10-2014, 06:01 AM #44
We gonna act like Dimitrov isn't the best young hope in tennis? Easily the most talented young player, if anyone follows atp on ******** or just goes on the ATP site whenever there is a tournament recently the hotshot of the day is always either feds of Dimitrov. Das it mane
-
-
06-10-2014, 07:06 AM #45
- Join Date: Aug 2013
- Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Age: 32
- Posts: 1,265
- Rep Power: 5769
Yes.
Easily the most talented young playerif anyone follows atp on ******** or just goes on the ATP site whenever there is a tournament recently the hotshot of the day is always either feds of Dimitrov. Das it mane
-
06-10-2014, 08:07 AM #46
It didn't suddenly end but he started to decline, along with surfaces being slowed down further.
These days there are too many mental scars from those tough 5 set losses I mentioned in 2008 and 2009. He's still capable of playing great tennis against him (Indian Wells 2012) but he doesn't seem to have the confidence to do it in a slam over 5 sets. It also didn't help his confidence that during his worst season in a long time (2013) Nadal had one of his best seasons ever.
Lastly, hardcourt conditions favor Nadal these days since the ball bounces a lot higher. With the amount of topspin Nadal generates and the mind-numbingly boring yet effective tactic of repeatedly bombing his one-handed backhand, it's tough for him to win. Put him on a fast indoor court and it's a different story. Nadal can't stand 15ft behind the baseline and whip winners. The drop shot is also more effective.
When the conditions suit Federer, Nadal doesn't have much say in the outcome.
-
06-10-2014, 08:20 AM #47
- Join Date: Jul 2009
- Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Posts: 11,458
- Rep Power: 72191
If you're going to act like Nadal's wins over Soderling etc. don't mean much then lets take into consideration that Federer's wins over Murray and Djokovic in 07/08 aren't that impressive either. Both of those players were still developing and were nowhere near the level they are at now. Djokovic was one of the most inconsistent guys at that time, constantly abandoning matches or crumbling apart during them. And that final was Murray's first, he was still very green, obvious from the way Federer crushed him. Roddick? A good player but any of the top guys now would beat him imo.
Nadal has had to come up and battle a prime Federer and after that he's had to do deal with Murray and Djokovic at the top of their games. Federer never had 2/3 guys so good and dominant during his reign before Nadal showed up. IMO, Nadal has won his slams during a much tougher period.
After seeing Nadal come back from injury and beat Djokovic at the US Open final and then getting to the Australian Open final I was pretty sure he was going to win it and I was thinking he was on the GOAT status. But he lost that final, whether it was because of injury we'll never know, and I think like Dominik said he needs to win a few more on other surfaces to be the GOAT. Unfortunately I don't see him doing it which is why I thought that Australian Open was so important for him to win.Last edited by Tuga88; 06-10-2014 at 08:26 AM.
There is but one path....we kill them all.
-
06-10-2014, 08:51 AM #48
- Join Date: Jul 2009
- Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Posts: 11,458
- Rep Power: 72191
For all you Dimitrov fans out there, he's about to start playing James Ward.
There is but one path....we kill them all.
-
-
06-10-2014, 09:25 AM #49
Roddick came along at the wrong time. Had he turned pro 5 years or so earlier I think he would have won 4-5 slams, maybe more.
He reached 4 GS finals during Federer's peak and lost all of them. Lost 3 Wimbledon finals to Federer and 2003 semis, 2006 US Open final, and AO 2007 & 2009 semis.
On faster surfaces with that massive serve I believe Djokovic and Nadal would have struggled against him.
-
06-10-2014, 05:52 PM #50
So pumped for Wimbledon. Hoping Fettuccine can win one more
-
06-10-2014, 07:36 PM #51
I used to hate nadal because federer was my first tennis idol so understand that I'm a still a huge fed fan even though nadal is my favorite now
I just have a hard time believing that Fed would have won 17 in this era. It's not that he can't beat any of these guys... Hell he STILL gives Djokovic fits at 32 years old. It's the constant pressure of playing guys of their caliber; the margin for error becomes so small. You can't have a slightly off day or suddenly there goes one slam title. And so on.
Is federer far and away a better player than Djoko, Murray, Stan, Berdych, etc? Of course, there's no doubt. But as we all know, funny things happen in tennis on any given day and you just have to be so incredibly brilliant against these guys compared to against Roddick, Hewitt, an aging Agassi/Sampras, etc.
Nadal winning Wimby in 2008 is such a huge moment IMO. Because he beat federer on his best surface at the biggest stage... Something federer was never able to do to nadal on clay. So if you compare their respective areas of dominance, Nadal's is even more impressive IMO. If you think about it, federer was actually incredibly close to never achieving the career grand slamCountry Must Be Country-Wide CREW
____________________________________________________________________
****Baltimore Ravens****
****Baltimore Orioles****
MFC
-
06-10-2014, 08:04 PM #52
That loss in 2008 was pivotal. To be fair it's easier for most of these players to chase a target than lead and by mid-2008 Federer had been the best player for 5 seasons so maybe he'd become complacent and wasn't training as hard as them. Nadal had his chance and took it.
I think Federer had a decent chance to beat him in 2011 at the French. Serving at 5-3 he should have won the 1st set. Nadal took a questionable time-out to have a trainer check on his foot and Federer never won another game. Next set went to a tiebreak. Federer won the 3rd. History now of course, he lost in 4, but that could have been a straight sets win. That would be 2 French Opens from 5 finals — the same result for Nadal at Wimbledon.
For me their rivalry peaked in 2007. Nadal was coming into his prime while Federer was at the end of his. I miss matches like this with contrasting styles. Now it's one-way traffic and Nadal-Djokovic matches don't have the same level of shotmaking not to mention they play the same way. It's a different type of rivalry.
Lastly, my take on GOAT is that it should be broken down by surface/slam rather than just total slams and H2H.
Who was the best player at the Australian Open? Federer. 4-1.
Who was the best player at the French Open? Nadal. 9-1.
Who was the best player at Wimbledon? Federer. 7-2.
Who was the best player at the US Open? Federer. 5-2.
Finally, who was the best player at the end of year ATP championships? Federer. 6-0.
That's 4 out of 5 for Federer.
-
-
06-10-2014, 08:20 PM #53
The year end record is huge, and why I think Nadal still has to do some pretty special stuff at the tail end of his career to pass Roger.
Totally agree with you about the contrasting styles. It was so effin awesome to watch them play when Fed wasn't run down mentally and physically. It's why I came to love Nadal, actually. I typically root for the guy defending his legacy, not the hotshot up and comer. So Nadal definitely rubbed me the wrong way initially with his sleeveless shirts and pirate shorts.
But then as I watched more of him I began to appreciate the different style he brought to the game. And I realized my personality is very similar to his... Very intense.
At this point, I'm really rooting for both of them. If Roger could somehow push and win one last Wimby and essentially shut down Nadal's chance of ever being GOAT, I would be so happy, just because of Fed. On the flip side, if Fed is done at 17, I'm rooting for Nadal to reach that or somehow surpass it.
I think we can collectively hate Djokovic and MurrayCountry Must Be Country-Wide CREW
____________________________________________________________________
****Baltimore Ravens****
****Baltimore Orioles****
MFC
-
06-10-2014, 08:37 PM #54
-
06-10-2014, 08:44 PM #55
Fed would need to start working out like Wawrinka then. Always thought that was Roger's biggest flaw, his stubbornness. Dunno why he wouldn't take his weight training more seriously when the top guys now are all CLEARLY in great shape and he's always just been skinny. I wish he would have taken that next step to stay ahead of Father Time for a little longer
Country Must Be Country-Wide CREW
____________________________________________________________________
****Baltimore Ravens****
****Baltimore Orioles****
MFC
-
06-10-2014, 08:56 PM #56
- Join Date: Dec 2010
- Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Posts: 33,494
- Rep Power: 88652
/argument?
This I'll agree with though. I don't know why he's always refused to take a step or two back when returning against big servers. That's burned him so many times.
And an improved backhand would help a lot... tougher to change that now though after so many years.
-
-
06-10-2014, 09:00 PM #57Country Must Be Country-Wide CREW
____________________________________________________________________
****Baltimore Ravens****
****Baltimore Orioles****
MFC
-
06-10-2014, 09:29 PM #58
I remember him saying in an interview that he only works on his strengths in practice because he'll eventually improve his weaknesses by opponents hitting thousands of balls to his backhand. And he also mentioned something about working on weaknesses will only make you a balanced player, but continually improving your strengths will make you a dangerous player.
Found this quote from an interview, but can't find the vid. "I have always believed in my strengths -- whether in tennis or in my personality -- and I strive to improve them. Many people always feel like they have to work on their weaknesses. I don't know about the business world, but in tennis, working on your weaknesses may make you a complete player overall, but it will eliminate your dangerous edge. And I think you can occasionally relate to that in some businesses as well. That's why I like to work on my strengths."
-
06-10-2014, 10:57 PM #59
-
06-11-2014, 12:48 AM #60
I guess the difficult thing for Federer to accept was that his game worked against everyone else. Maybe he assumed Nadal would struggle to maintain such a high level for more than 2-3 years and that he'd go back to dominating again. That obviously didn't happen.
Anyway, it might sound ridiculous given their lopsided H2H record but outside of clay conditions still need to be ideal for Nadal to beat Federer. At Indian Wells 2012 which he lost in straight sets:
NADAL: He hit the balls, every one inside the court, and the weather conditions makes more difficult the topspin for me.
But, you know, here is a place that the ball have high bounces with the normal conditions, hot; but today was colder, the ball stays lower, and that's makes the match a little bit more comfortable for him, I believe.
As we know courts with high bounce + hot weather help him. Even Sampras in his prime would have struggled on today's hardcourts against Nadal and Djokovic. That doesn't make them better players than Sampras. It makes them better players on slow surfaces. On fast courts he would have owned them.
Federer obviously has a lot more confidence against Nadal indoors because the conditions don't help him. So it makes you wonder what their H2H might look like if they didn't play half of their matches on clay and faced each other more often on faster courts. I'd say it'd be pretty even.
Bookmarks