surferskin 30 Posted June 7, 2010 i still tend to disagree Nadal is 14-7 but again, 10-2 on clay. which again means a losing record to Federer off of clay. here is where my lack of vast tennis knolwedge may be kicking in. Is it common to have 2/3 of their matches on clay? meaning are a majority of tennis events held on clay or something? I didn't think this was the case. So could it be true that Nadal has been lucky to catch Roger on clay 2 out of every 3 times they face each other which would skew their head to head stats in his favor due to his clay court dominance? And perhaps the reason so many matches are on clay is because Nadal doesn't perform as well on other surfaces and has failed to advance far enough to face Roger, meanwhile Roger is good enough on clay to at least advance and face Nadal? Lets say you knew you were the better player on all the other surfaces but that your opponent was just dominant on a clay court. Wouldn't you be a little upset that a majority of your head to head matches ended up being on clay and making your opponent appear to be so much better than you head to head? Xactly. Nadal faces Federer on clay so much because Nadal owns the clay but he'd have an equal number of matches against Roger of different surfaces if he didn't get eliminated so often on grass and the hard court. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GettnHuge 1 Posted June 7, 2010 Xactly. Nadal faces Federer on clay so much because Nadal owns the clay but he'd have an equal number of matches against Roger of different surfaces if he didn't get eliminated so often on grass and the hard court. sounds like peyton manning fans crying about having to play in NE all those years. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
surferskin 30 Posted June 7, 2010 sounds like peyton manning fans crying about having to play in NE all those years. Doesn't sound anything like that. ETA: Also, I don't remember Colts fans crying about NE having home field advantage. Me thinks you don't know what the fock you're talking about. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edjr 5,552 Posted June 7, 2010 Nadal > Federer has been since the 2008 season. No one stays on top forever Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Team Revell 0 Posted June 7, 2010 Nadal has 7 majors at age 24. Federer had 6. The question is whether Nadal's style- which relies so much on speed and athleticism- will hold up over time as his body gets older. I am very skeptical that it will. Federer may win one or two more to end up with 17 or 18 majors. I don't think Nadal will have the shelf life to approach that number. But we'll see. Maybe he'll reinvent himself when he can no longer cover the ground he does now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 540 Posted June 7, 2010 Nadal has 7 majors at age 24. Federer had 6. The question is whether Nadal's style- which relies so much on speed and athleticism- will hold up over time as his body gets older. I am very skeptical that it will. Federer may win one or two more to end up with 17 or 18 majors. I don't think Nadal will have the shelf life to approach that number. But we'll see. Maybe he'll reinvent himself when he can no longer cover the ground he does now. Kind of amazing to think we may be witnessing the best two tennis players to ever play the game. Makes you wonder what their numbers would have been if they weren't in each other's way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Team Revell 0 Posted June 7, 2010 Kind of amazing to think we may be witnessing the best two tennis players to ever play the game. Makes you wonder what their numbers would have been if they weren't in each other's way. True. I'm a big Sampras fan so I'm a little biased. Sampras had Agassi and a few other notable foils but no one on this level. So much has to do with surface. If they all were playing in their prime I don't think either Pete or Federer could touch Nadal on clay, but he'd never be able to beat them on the hardcourt or grass. And forget about anyone beating Sampras at Wimbledon. It would never happen. They are all such different players. Sampras the big serve, Federer the shot maker, Nadal the volleyer. All great. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GettnHuge 1 Posted June 7, 2010 True. I'm a big Sampras fan so I'm a little biased. Sampras had Agassi and a few other notable foils but no one on this level. So much has to do with surface. If they all were playing in their prime I don't think either Pete or Federer could touch Nadal on clay, but he'd never be able to beat them on the hardcourt or grass. And forget about anyone beating Sampras at Wimbledon. It would never happen. They are all such different players. Sampras the big serve, Federer the shot maker, Nadal the volleyer. All great. on hardcourt Nadal is up 3-1 on grass Federer is up 2-1 as far as primes go and Nadal's dominance over Federer....back when Fed was dominating everyone back in 04, 05, 06... he was losing to Nadal. Nadal beat Fed 6 of the first 7 times they played and 5 times in a row in those years. After Federer winning one here or there, Nadal has won 6 of the last 7 they've played and another 5 times in a row from 08 to 10 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 540 Posted June 7, 2010 on hardcourt Nadal is up 3-1on grass Federer is up 2-1 as far as primes go and Nadal's dominance over Federer....back when Fed was dominating everyone back in 04, 05, 06... he was losing to Nadal. Nadal beat Fed 6 of the first 7 times they played and 5 times in a row in those years. After Federer winning one here or there, Nadal has won 6 of the last 7 they've played and another 5 times in a row from 08 to 10 Major count? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GettnHuge 1 Posted June 7, 2010 Major count? that would be a career question. ask again when their careers are over. The thread is Nadal >>>>>>>>>> Federer, not Nadal career >>>>>>>>>>>>> Federer career. Although if you wanted to go Nadal by age 24 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Federer by age 24, then we could talk Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
surferskin 30 Posted June 7, 2010 on hardcourt Nadal is up 3-1on grass Federer is up 2-1 as far as primes go and Nadal's dominance over Federer....back when Fed was dominating everyone back in 04, 05, 06... he was losing to Nadal. Nadal beat Fed 6 of the first 7 times they played and 5 times in a row in those years. After Federer winning one here or there, Nadal has won 6 of the last 7 they've played and another 5 times in a row from 08 to 10 Again, your numbers aren't adding up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,082 Posted June 7, 2010 Right now (today): Nadal > Federer When both careers are over: Federer >> Nadal Right now (today): Mickleson > Tiger When both careers are over: Tiger >> Mickleson Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 540 Posted June 7, 2010 Right now (today): Nadal > FedererWhen both careers are over: Federer >> Nadal Right now (today): Mickleson > Tiger When both careers are over: Tiger >> Mickleson I agree with all of this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Team Revell 0 Posted June 7, 2010 Eh. That's Nadal's first Slam since the 2009 Australian Open. Federer won 3 of the 4 Slams since then. Now Nadal wins one and all the sudden he is >>>> than Roger right now? Wimbledon and the US Open will be the true test. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KSB2424 3,082 Posted June 7, 2010 Eh. That's Nadal's first Slam since the 2009 Australian Open. Federer won 3 of the 4 Slams since then. Now Nadal wins one and all the sudden he is >>>> than Roger right now? Wimbledon and the US Open will be the true test. Look, I don't really care. But........ http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 540 Posted June 7, 2010 Eh. That's Nadal's first Slam since the 2009 Australian Open. Federer won 3 of the 4 Slams since then. Now Nadal wins one and all the sudden he is >>>> than Roger right now? Wimbledon and the US Open will be the true test. You're probably right. After watching Nadal mow through the entire field this weekend, it's easy to come to the conclusion that he's the best. But we have to keep in mind that he was on HIS surface. It's not like anyone thought he wasn't going to win the French. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GettnHuge 1 Posted June 8, 2010 Again, your numbers aren't adding up. Link? you have to do better than that. perhaps you are like other goofs here who put imaginary statements into my posts What did I say? back in 04-06 when Fed was dominating, he lost 6 of 7 to Nadal May 29 2006 French Open GS (FRA) Clay, F (2)Nadal(2,5.22) d (1)Federer(1,4.80) 1-6 6-1 6-4 7-6(4) May 8 2006 Rome TMS (ITA) Clay, F (2)Nadal(2,5.76) d (1)Federer(1,4.57) 6-7(0) 7-6(5) 6-4 2-6 7-6(5) Apr 17 2006 Monte Carlo TMS (MON) Clay, F (2)Nadal(2,5.30) d(1)Federer(1,5.17) 6-2 6-7(2) 6-3 7-6(5) Feb 27 2006 Dubai ATP (UAE) Hard Court, F (2)Nadal(2,4.47) d (1)Federer(1,4.13) 2-6 6-4 6-4 May 23 2005 French Open GS (FRA) Clay, SF (4)Nadal(5,4.47) d (1)Federer(1,4.34) 6-3 4-6 6-4 6-3 Mar 21 2005 Miami TMS (USA) Hard Court, F (1)Federer(1,4.65) d (29)Nadal(31,4.13) 2-6 6-7(4) 7-6(5) 6-3 6-1 Mar 22 2004 Miami TMS (USA) Hard Court, R32 (32)Nadal(34,2.60) d (1)Federer(1,4.54) 6-3 6-3 Lets see, how many of those are there? 1,2,3,4,5,6,7...7. Their first 7 matches. How many did Nadal win in a row? 1,2,3,4,5...5 in a row. How many total did Nadal win? 1,2,3,4,5,6....6. The number 6. Nadal won 6 of their first 7? 5 in a row? Yea, them numbers just aren't adding up. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
surferskin 30 Posted June 8, 2010 Link? you have to do better than that. perhaps you are like other goofs here who put imaginary statements into my posts What did I say? back in 04-06 when Fed was dominating, he lost 6 of 7 to Nadal May 29 2006 French Open GS (FRA) Clay, F (2)Nadal(2,5.22) d (1)Federer(1,4.80) 1-6 6-1 6-4 7-6(4) May 8 2006 Rome TMS (ITA) Clay, F (2)Nadal(2,5.76) d (1)Federer(1,4.57) 6-7(0) 7-6(5) 6-4 2-6 7-6(5) Apr 17 2006 Monte Carlo TMS (MON) Clay, F (2)Nadal(2,5.30) d(1)Federer(1,5.17) 6-2 6-7(2) 6-3 7-6(5) Feb 27 2006 Dubai ATP (UAE) Hard Court, F (2)Nadal(2,4.47) d (1)Federer(1,4.13) 2-6 6-4 6-4 May 23 2005 French Open GS (FRA) Clay, SF (4)Nadal(5,4.47) d (1)Federer(1,4.34) 6-3 4-6 6-4 6-3 Mar 21 2005 Miami TMS (USA) Hard Court, F (1)Federer(1,4.65) d (29)Nadal(31,4.13) 2-6 6-7(4) 7-6(5) 6-3 6-1 Mar 22 2004 Miami TMS (USA) Hard Court, R32 (32)Nadal(34,2.60) d (1)Federer(1,4.54) 6-3 6-3 Lets see, how many of those are there? 1,2,3,4,5,6,7...7. Their first 7 matches. How many did Nadal win in a row? 1,2,3,4,5...5 in a row. How many total did Nadal win? 1,2,3,4,5,6....6. The number 6. Nadal won 6 of their first 7? 5 in a row? Yea, them numbers just aren't adding up. You said in your first post that Nadal's career record was 14-7 vs Roger. 10-2 on clay 3-1 on hardcourt 1-2 on grass = 14-5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GettnHuge 1 Posted June 8, 2010 You said in your first post that Nadal's career record was 14-7 vs Roger. 10-2 on clay 3-1 on hardcourt 1-2 on grass = 14-5 Maybe you're new, but there are other surfaces than clay, hardcourt and grass. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
surferskin 30 Posted June 8, 2010 Maybe you're new, but there are other surfaces than clay, hardcourt and grass. There are? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jocstrap 8 Posted January 26, 2011 The injured Nadal lost his quarterfinal 6-4, 6-2, 6-3 Wednesday to fellow Spaniard David Ferrer at the Australian Open. Nadal, who appeared to have tears in his eyes during a changeover while trailing 3-0 in the third set, took a medical timeout for an apparent leg injury after three games and was clearly out of sorts, failing to chase down balls that he would ordinarily return easily. http://msn.foxsports.com/tennis/story/rafael-Nadal-loses-in-australian-open-quarterfinals-to-david-ferrer-012611 It's a physical sport, and his style of game is tracking down balls. Your body can only do this so long. On a positive note - Federer is still kickin . If Federer wins this Austalian Open, you know what other topic is going to get a bump Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 540 Posted January 26, 2011 Nadal is very good when he's at 100%, but the dude is made of crystal. You can't be an injury prone pusssie and expect to be compared to the best male tennis player of all-time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GettnHuge 1 Posted January 26, 2011 Nadal is very good when he's at 100%, but the dude is made of crystal. You can't be an injury prone pusssie and expect to be compared to the best male tennis player of all-time. I don't remember comparing him to Rod Laver Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 540 Posted January 26, 2011 I don't remember comparing him to Rod Laver OOPS! Most Grand Slam singles titles: men Roger Federer 16 Pete Sampras 14 Roy Emerson 12 Rod Laver 11 Bjorn Borg 11 fail Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GettnHuge 1 Posted January 26, 2011 OOPS! Most Grand Slam singles titles: men Roger Federer 16 Pete Sampras 14 Roy Emerson 12 Rod Laver 11 Bjorn Borg 11 fail apparently not knowing what the open era was/is...fail Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jocstrap 8 Posted January 26, 2011 I don't remember comparing him to Rod Laver you know better than that GH Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edjr 5,552 Posted January 26, 2011 Nadal is very good when he's at 100%, but the dude is made of crystal. You can't be an injury prone pusssie and expect to be compared to the best male tennis player of all-time. It's very sad. Had he been able to stay healthy he most likely would have won the aussie and been the 1st player in the open era to hold all 4 titles at once. Be nice if Feds can hold on jokey and win it now. Nadal has almost months to get ready for the french, he should be good to go by then. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mookz 1,287 Posted January 26, 2011 There are? I think I remember them playing on cottage cheese once or twice. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cruzer 1,992 Posted January 27, 2011 Kind of amazing to think we may be witnessing the best two tennis players to ever play the game. Makes you wonder what their numbers would have been if they weren't in each other's way. Phil Mickelson shares your thoughts..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cruzer 1,992 Posted June 6, 2011 Not a tennis buff - but did catch some of this final. Wow, what a match, some damn impressive tennis. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
edjr 5,552 Posted June 6, 2011 Federer shocked many and beat the best player in the world currently, he of the 42 match win streak in Novak Djokovic in the Semi finals. Only to lose to the best clay court tennis player ever in the finals. Maybe next year we can see Nadal vs Djokovic at the French. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 540 Posted June 6, 2011 Federer shocked many and beat the best player in the world currently, he of the 42 match win streak in Novak Djokovic in the Semi finals. Only to lose to the best clay court tennis player ever in the finals. Maybe next year we can see Nadal vs Djokovic at the French. Exactly right. Despite losing in the final, Federer did even more to cement himself as the best male tennis player ever. No one in the world expected him to beat the best clay court player of all-time in the final. Hell, no one expected him to beat Djokovic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jocstrap 8 Posted June 6, 2011 Federer 16 Grand Slams Nadal 10 Federer still making it to the finals on his least favorite surface at this age is incredible. Let's see where Nadal is when he's 29 years old... Nadal is better than Federer at this point in their careers though BTW FEDERER>WOODS Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Moz 69 Posted June 7, 2011 Put Federer in the golden age of tennis with Connors , McCenroe , and Borg and he is just another great player. Only star he has ever had to face is Nadal and he gets his ass kicked by him Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jocstrap 8 Posted June 7, 2011 Put Federer in the golden age of tennis with Connors , McCenroe , and Borg and he is just another great player. Only star he has ever had to face is Nadal and he gets his ass kicked by him Federer has the best all around game that's ever played tennis Put him in that generation and he would've had 25 grad slam titles Federer has a huge serve, dominating groundstrokes, and incredible volleys. Non of the above names had all three of those characteristics. That's the reason why Federer has 16 grand slam titles on all 4 surfaces. He's the greatest ever, but Nadal might be approaching those statistics in the next few years. McCenroe is in awe of Nadal's defensive play. The guy is a freakin' phenom at this point in his career. Connors - had no serve, and never, I mean never came to the net to volley - have you seen his overhead? McCenroe - wouldn't have had a chance in groundstroke ralleys vs Federer Borg - would've been pushed all over the court with his defensive style. Federer would've clobbered his game... Federere is so well rounded it's scary. Now just imagine if Nadal ever developed a crazy great net game??? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jocstrap 8 Posted January 26, 2012 we are about to find out again tonight. While Federer is looking as strong as ever, Nadal's body is starting to break down at 5 years younger. Go Federer! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cruzer 1,992 Posted January 26, 2012 Nadal thumps Rog, again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites