- Banned
- #76
You also can't claim a 5-4 as proof of one player dominating another.
3 of them from memory were in Federer's down years. 3 of 4. I can't remember the other one.
There's nothing inconsistent here, just pointing out facts.
GOAT: Rafa vs Roger
- Thread starter Total Power
- Start date
- Tagged users None
You also can't claim a 5-4 as proof of one player dominating another.
3 of them from memory were in Federer's down years. 3 of 4. I can't remember the other one.
There's nothing inconsistent here, just pointing out facts.
- Aug 11, 2008
- 3,594
- 1,430
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
He got beaten relatively easily as well. That's something that hadn't happened against Djokovic before the mono and hasn't happened since. Seriously, just look at how sluggish he was against Tipsarevic in a match he was ridiculously close to losing earlier in the tournament. If you say it didn't affect him considerably, you're kidding yourself.
BTW, he wasn't coming back from the illness at the Australian Open. He flat out had it at that stage. He said before and during the tournament that he didn't feel right, but he didn't know the actual diagnosis until a little while after.
- Thread starter
- #78
yes yes we have heard it all, had rafa been able to keep himself fit last year, he would have had 11 grandslams
now move along please instead of giving excuses.If he wasnt fit he shouldnt have played , period
Haven't you heard mate, Federer's had mononucleosis for the past 3 Slams, no wonder Rafa's been winning!!yes yes we have heard it all, had rafa been able to keep himself fit last year, he would have had 11 grandslams
- Banned
- #80
I think regardless of whether Rafa wins more slams than fed, fed will always go down as the greatest. As he is the closest player to have a "perfect game".
Greatest player should be who was the most dominant on ALL surfaces.
Federer appears to have such a great all round game but he was lucky to win 1 French Slam. Shot ability isn't the only part of tennis either. Federer has always been weak mentally. He only stopped having tantrums when he dominated against the likes of Nalbandian and co.
No one remembers him before that. He built up such an aura of invincibility that people would just choke under the pressure when having the chance to beat him. That is why the matches against true tennis champions are so important. I think Bjorg knew this so he retired whilst he still had the edge over McEnroeFederer had the edge over Nadal in a couple of Wimbeldon finals when he was an inexperienced Spanish clay court specialist which didnt mean much to me. The supposedly best grass player of all time had to beat him in 5 sets both times. This is unlike in their French Open finals matches where Nadal was always in control. There was 1 of them I remember where Federer looked to have a chance but Nadal finished in 4 sets.
Then they had the epic Wimbledon match that Nadal dug deep and won in 5 after he choked and couldnt close it out in straight.
The Nadal beat him in five at the Australian Open after a ridiculously long and epic match against Verdasco to the point where Federer was the one who was completely emotionally drained.
Nadal definitely has the edge over Federer head to head, several clay court matches have made it a bit too one sided but nonetheless he has been more dominant. Makes it hard for Federer especially with what Nadal is now doing.
Nadal was already able to beat Federer on grass in a Wimbledon final as a young clay courter and now that he has clinched his first US Open dominantly he is well on his way to easily being a better all court player if he can win at least 1 more Aussie and US open. If he can do this, with his head to head record I think on paper he will be the better player (not just in my head
) Laver is still the greatest of all time for me. I just dont understand how so few think so. Grand Slam in 1962 then when the open era starts and there are grand slams in tennis again he wins another Grand Slam in 1969. Dominant on all surfaces and if there wasnt the professional era he would've been miles ahead of anyone in Grand Slam titles.
Best overall player: Laver
Grass: Sampras
Hardcourt: Federer
Clay: Nadal
formula16
Senior List
- Apr 21, 2009
- 253
- 11
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Greatest player should be who was the most dominant on ALL surfaces.
Federer appears to have such a great all round game but he was lucky to win 1 French Slam. Shot ability isn't the only part of tennis either. Federer has always been weak mentally. He only stopped having tantrums when he dominated against the likes of Nalbandian and co.
Federer had the edge over Nadal in a couple of Wimbeldon finals when he was an inexperienced Spanish clay court specialist which didnt mean much to me. The supposedly best grass player of all time had to beat him in 5 sets both times. This is unlike in their French Open finals matches where Nadal was always in control. There was 1 of them I remember where Federer looked to have a chance but Nadal finished in 4 sets.
Then they had the epic Wimbledon match that Nadal dug deep and won in 5 after he choked and couldnt close it out in straight.
The Nadal beat him in five at the Australian Open after a ridiculously long and epic match against Verdasco to the point where Federer was the one who was completely emotionally drained.
Nadal definitely has the edge over Federer head to head, several clay court matches have made it a bit too one sided but nonetheless he has been more dominant. Makes it hard for Federer especially with what Nadal is now doing.
Nadal was already able to beat Federer on grass in a Wimbledon final as a young clay courter and now that he has clinched his first US Open dominantly he is well on his way to easily being a better all court player if he can win at least 1 more Aussie and US open. If he can do this, with his head to head record I think on paper he will be the better player (not just in my head
Laver is still the greatest of all time for me. I just dont understand how so few think so. Grand Slam in 1962 then when the open era starts and there are grand slams in tennis again he wins another Grand Slam in 1969. Dominant on all surfaces and if there wasnt the professional era he would've been miles ahead of anyone in Grand Slam titles.
Best overall player: Laver
Grass: Sampras
Hardcourt: Federer
Clay: Nadal
Actually, federer had a great all court game, suitable for any surface. He was actually the 2nd best clay courter of his era, second to nadal, arguable the greatest clay courter of all time. This is evidenced by the fact he has reached the French open final on 3 (correct me if im wrong) occasions, all to be beaten by nadal.
As for having a weak mentality, no one can win 16 grand slams with a weak mentality. His mental game may have slipped now, but it was never "weak"
matt_897
Premium Platinum
I wouldn't call Federer lucky to wina French Open, the guy made 4 RG finals, that's a pretty good effort in itself. As has been said, he is obivously the 2nd best claycourter in this era, it's just that the no.1 is streets ahead.
I think this arguement is pointless until we see how Rafa goes for the next years. If he manages to stay healthy he will get clsoe to Fed's record, there's no doubt about that. I still don't think federer is done either, i think he has a slam or two left, next year's Australian Open, would be the most likelist.
I think this arguement is pointless until we see how Rafa goes for the next years. If he manages to stay healthy he will get clsoe to Fed's record, there's no doubt about that. I still don't think federer is done either, i think he has a slam or two left, next year's Australian Open, would be the most likelist.
Greatest player should be who was the most dominant on ALL surfaces.
Federer appears to have such a great all round game but he was lucky to win 1 French Slam. Shot ability isn't the only part of tennis either. Federer has always been weak mentally. He only stopped having tantrums when he dominated against the likes of Nalbandian and co.
Federer had the edge over Nadal in a couple of Wimbeldon finals when he was an inexperienced Spanish clay court specialist which didnt mean much to me. The supposedly best grass player of all time had to beat him in 5 sets both times. This is unlike in their French Open finals matches where Nadal was always in control. There was 1 of them I remember where Federer looked to have a chance but Nadal finished in 4 sets.
Then they had the epic Wimbledon match that Nadal dug deep and won in 5 after he choked and couldnt close it out in straight.
The Nadal beat him in five at the Australian Open after a ridiculously long and epic match against Verdasco to the point where Federer was the one who was completely emotionally drained.
Nadal definitely has the edge over Federer head to head, several clay court matches have made it a bit too one sided but nonetheless he has been more dominant. Makes it hard for Federer especially with what Nadal is now doing.
Nadal was already able to beat Federer on grass in a Wimbledon final as a young clay courter and now that he has clinched his first US Open dominantly he is well on his way to easily being a better all court player if he can win at least 1 more Aussie and US open. If he can do this, with his head to head record I think on paper he will be the better player (not just in my head
Laver is still the greatest of all time for me. I just dont understand how so few think so. Grand Slam in 1962 then when the open era starts and there are grand slams in tennis again he wins another Grand Slam in 1969. Dominant on all surfaces and if there wasnt the professional era he would've been miles ahead of anyone in Grand Slam titles.
Best overall player: Laver
Grass: Sampras
Hardcourt: Federer
Clay: Nadal
Samwise as we learned in London today the H2H record is really of little use in comparing Federer and Nadal. The winning apparently convincing 14 to 8 record in NOT the result of one player being "more dominant" but rather the fact that clay matches dominate. Had there been say 7 matches on each of the three main surfaces the history of results indicates there would be little or nothing in the H2h record with Fed's marginal superiority on grass and hards matched by Rafa's superiority on clay.
By all means argue for nadal whose record is wonderful. However realise that the H2H record is badly and unfairly skewed by the point I have made. I think this is simply underlined in London today and by the all round stats.
- Banned
- #85
Federer leads 5-3 on neutral surfaces. He's now 29 years old and still able to beat Nadal who is at his peak.
Nadal leads on clay.
Not sure why people are saying Nadal can be GOAT over Federer.
Nadal leads on clay.
Not sure why people are saying Nadal can be GOAT over Federer.
- Thread starter
- #86
"neutral" surfaces? which is....? so clay is not a neutral surface, yet grass/indoors is??? funny, cause indoors is rafas worst surface and he has said that in the media many times.Amazing, according to you people clay shouldnt even exist. Whatever favours Roger is "neutral" Nice to know.
- Banned
- #87
Nadal is possibly the greatest clay courter of all time. It's his pet surface and he will continue to win a GS every year as long as he plays the French Open.
It's also by far the surface the two players have met most on.
Therefore the overall head to head record should be ignored when we're talking about who is the better player as it mostly constitutes games on clay. If you want to prove who the best clay courter is, then the overall record would be of more use.
The head to head record remains in favour of Federer on all other surfaces, and is a better indicator of who the overall better player is as it is across three surfaces instead of just one. It is also on surfaces that both players have won titles on.
Sticking to a head to head record comprised mostly of clay contests is just burying your head in the sand.
- Thread starter
- #88
ok so you are saying that Rafa is a beast on clay and its impossible to beat him on clay, hence we shouldnt count clay? Roger was a beast on grass and won 5 wimbledons in a row and probably the greatest grasscourter of all times.To Rafas credit, he developed his game to beat Roger on grass.So hey, we can count grass right, despite Roger being the greatest grasscourter of all times? Also he is a beast on indoor surfaces, 5 WTF cups proves it and probably the best indoor player of all times too.Yet you can count those, yet not clay? who is burying his head in the sand here?
How can you call "indoor" neutral to Rafa vs Roger.Care to explain? Neutral means when either of Roger and Rafa have an equal chance of winning. Would you favour Rafa over Roger in low bouncing surfaces?? i dont know so.How many indoor titles did Rafa win compared to Roger? Rafa has serious problems on low bouncing indoor surfaces and his problems are well documented, he admitted in the media as well
The only neutral surface i would call, are hardcourts.
- Banned
- #89
Ummm, because the neutral head to head record comprises different surfaces and conditions.
8 matches. 5-3 Federer.
According to the records, Nadal wins on clay and Federer on everything else. Don't see how then the record supports the theory that Rafael Nadal is the GOAT.
Is this an admission that clay isn't neutral?
- Thread starter
- #90
Yet you are willing to discount clay completely where federer is severely disadvantage and willing to count indoors where nadal is severely disadvantaged.Do you see the point now?
I never said Roger can beat rafa on clay..just like Rafa cant beat Roger on indoors.If you count indoors, then you are counting a surface which suits roger way more than Rafa.If you want true neutral results, count their hard court records.
- Banned
- #91
Yet you are willing to discount clay completely where federer is severely disadvantage and willing to count indoors where nadal is severely disadvantaged.Do you see the point now?
Roger doesn't like it when it's hot either . . . no seriously, what else are we going to bring up?
There is simply no statistic that has Rafa ahead on anything but clay. I can't make it any simpler.
People get fooled by the overall record not realising that most of it is on clay courts.
- Thread starter
- #92
why would we discount clay or indoors anyway? and why is it fooling? its like saying a batsman cant play on bouncy pitches, yet on flat tracks he is a tendulkar? so we should only count his records on subcontinent flat tracks and discount all fast wickets?
Clay-grass-hard-indoors make up the whole tennis season.Its ridiculous to discount it.Clay counts as much as grass does.Clay season drags on for 3 months, its not a short season, its a major part of the tennis season.To suggest their head to head is misleading is burying your head in sand. Roger is not good enough to clay, just like Rafa is not good enough on indoors, but they both count
- Banned
- #93
Because Nadal is dominant on clay and behind on everything else. Therefore the head to head record (14 - 8) is misleading.
If you gave them a point for each surface they are better on, then it would be 2-1 to Federer. Or 3-1 if you want to count indoors.
I forgot, Rafa is number 1 and he won three grand slams this year. Rafa won many events and Roger was in the field. Rafa is good on most surfaces!!! All in all Rafa had a much better season
Neutral surfaces haha.
The bottom line is that not only is Nadal dominant on clay he is now the main man on grass too and ooh he won the last GS on hard courts as well.
But somehow some clowns still try to convince themselves that the great Roger Federer is his superior.
We had the perfect storm of events for Federer to win here.
Indoor tournament played on a low bouncing hard court, best of 3 sets and Nadal playing the final the day after an exceptionally tough match against Murray in front of his home crowd.
You'd expect Federer to win but let's see how he shapes up against Nadal in the Grand Slams next year, my feeling is once again at least 3 for Rafa and probably none for modest Roger.
If he's clever he'll get himself utterly ready and in tip top shape for the Australian where he might just sneak through again and catch everyone else cold because once the season is up and running he's not going to win at the French or Wimbledon where Nadal is king and by the time we get to the US Nadal should have complete mental dominance like this year.
One last point we're comparing head to head records but decide to take out clay courts but we don't mind leaving in results from a guy when is 17/18/19 playing another bloke at the peak of his powers.Selective or what hey.
This debate will run and run until the day that Nadal overtakes Federer's number of GS titles, hopefully when that day arrives the talking can stop and we will all accept Nadal's superiority.
The bottom line is that not only is Nadal dominant on clay he is now the main man on grass too and ooh he won the last GS on hard courts as well.
But somehow some clowns still try to convince themselves that the great Roger Federer is his superior.
We had the perfect storm of events for Federer to win here.
Indoor tournament played on a low bouncing hard court, best of 3 sets and Nadal playing the final the day after an exceptionally tough match against Murray in front of his home crowd.
You'd expect Federer to win but let's see how he shapes up against Nadal in the Grand Slams next year, my feeling is once again at least 3 for Rafa and probably none for modest Roger.
If he's clever he'll get himself utterly ready and in tip top shape for the Australian where he might just sneak through again and catch everyone else cold because once the season is up and running he's not going to win at the French or Wimbledon where Nadal is king and by the time we get to the US Nadal should have complete mental dominance like this year.
One last point we're comparing head to head records but decide to take out clay courts but we don't mind leaving in results from a guy when is 17/18/19 playing another bloke at the peak of his powers.Selective or what hey.
This debate will run and run until the day that Nadal overtakes Federer's number of GS titles, hopefully when that day arrives the talking can stop and we will all accept Nadal's superiority.
- Jul 11, 2007
- 10,821
- 82
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Why is a 'neutral' surface more important than grass or clay?
Regardless, grand slams are what matters, although the end of year masters does deserve an honourable mention.
- Thread starter
- #97
um rafa leads their hardcourt head to heads actually.Also rafa will smash federer if they meet on grass again.So its 2-2 if you count indoors.
- Thread starter
- #98
he is just looking for a way to make the h2h look better for roger.Not to mention the absolute ass whooping Roger suffered in grand slams in the hands of rafa, when he couldnt even do the same on grass courts against rafa.He leads 5-2 in slams and thats the most vital stats of them all
Clay is the most important surface. It is the major surface in the largest number of countries (Europe, South America). It is only natural there are more tournaments on clay than any other surface.
If they stopped playing the French open, clay would still be the world's No 1 surface. if they stopped playing Wimbledon, there wouldn't be a grass court in the world in 5 years.
If they stopped playing the French open, clay would still be the world's No 1 surface. if they stopped playing Wimbledon, there wouldn't be a grass court in the world in 5 years.
- Aug 11, 2008
- 3,594
- 1,430
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
Hard: Federer 4-3
Grass: Federer 2-1
Indoor: Federer 3-0
Clay: Nadal 10-2
It's funny to think that the reason the overall H2H is so lopsided is due to the quality of Federer. Making the final of clay tournaments consistently cost him. If he was rubbish on clay, he'd be leading the H2H. Think about it. If, on top of this, Nadal was slightly better on hard courts before Federer started declining, he'd be the one on the end of a lopsided H2H.
Nadal couldn't consistently make the finals of hard court tournaments like Federer did on clay. This is why using the H2H as if it's the most important statistic is a ****ing joke.
