Tennis

How come Federer has 6 Australian Opens and Nadal has only 1? How come Federer has 6 World Tour Finals titles, and Nadal 0?

Nadal hasn't defended a single title off clay in his career to date.

Nadal blows Federer away on clay, probably beats him more than he loses on slow hards. Loses clearly on fast hards, grass, and indoors. Tennis is simply a sport of surfaces.

Nadal consistently dominated Djokovic and Federer only on clay.

Hards:
1. Federer = Djokovic (11 slams to 10)
(considerable gap)
3. Nadal (5 slams)

Grass:
1. Federer (8 slams)
(considerable gap)
2. Djokovic (5 slams)
(considerable gap)
3. Nadal (2 slams)

Clay:
1. Nadal (12 slams)
(huge gap)
2. Federer (1 slam)
(minor gap)
3. Djokovic (1 slam)


Seriously, you have to be blind to not see that Nadal is superior to Federer and Djokovic only on clay.

serghei said:

How come Federer has 6 Australian Opens and Nadal has only 1? How come Federer has 6 World Tour Finals titles, and Nadal 0?

Click to expand...

Australian Open is like the least prestigious of the Grand Slams. Almost 80% of all of Federer's Grand Slams were won before Nadal and Djokovic reached their primes. You cannot ignore that.

Nadal missed a few Australian Opens due to injury and despite that managed to reach 5 finals. 4 in the last 8 years alone. So not exactly a scrub in that tournament.

BTW, my initial claim, once again, was about pre-injury Nadal being the greatest force that I have seen of the top 3, and that version of Nadal was winning and dominating on all surfaces. Dominating both Federer and Djokovic head to head as well.

BTW, if Nadal wins the Australian Open in a few months, he will be the only one of the top 3, to have won all 4 Grand Slams at least 2 times.

Let us not forget that Federer has won just 1 French Open. Djokovic as well. Oh, and that Federer is freaking 5 years older and played mostly against scrubs in his early career, unlike Nadal who was facing a prime Federer when he first appeared on the scene later to face a prime Djokovic (who is only 1 year younger). FFS, Wawrinka and Murray are arguably better than any of the early main rivals of Federer when he was collecting Grand Slams for fun, but let us ignore that.

Or that the supposed GOAT (Federer) only has 4 Grand Slam wins in the last 10 years. That is a pathetic statistic from the supposed GOAT.

And Wimbledon is unanimously considered the most prestigious event in tennis. And Federer > Nadal by 8 to 2. And 3-1 h2h. It's all relative.

I'd actually include Djokovic in the mix. I don't see a reason why objectively Federer, and Nadal would be better than Djokovic for example. He's dominated both repeatedly.

Fact is all of these 3 are legends, and they reached a status where context decides who is favorite, greater, and better.

more accurate to say you can't argue against fanaticism since you mentioned only numbers and stats that suit your narrative when the other 2 have so many achievements that Nadal can only dream, for example it's quite strange (better to say convenient) that you missed to say that so called GOAT never won the 5th most important tournament in tennis, (only majors more important): the ATP finals, when the other 2 won it like 11 times combined. It's strange that you missed weeks at world number 1 when both Federer and Nole destroy Nadal, or seasons completed as world number 1 (both have more).

Talking about highest level, the best season of Nadal in his whole career is not even close, I repeat not even close to multiples best of Federer and Djokovic, not one but multiples and it's not an opinion but fact.

Nole never faced prime Nadal is another funny invention, if wasn't for Nole Nadal would have won like 6-7 more majors, since 2011 when Nole started his prime he literally owns Nadal in h2h, to be fair same with Federer but Federer past his prime long time ago, Nadal has pretty much the same age. Injury? Dude is the most gifted athlete of all time in tennis, his injuries are due to his playing style, not bad luck, not a case, you can't complain about that if you play that way, if you push your body to that limit, it's a genetic miracle that he still able to play and win at his age, likes of Murray or Del Potro are players that have career really fucked by injuries, not the Nadal "stop and go".

P.S. If Nadal started same as Federer he would have played in a different era, with different materials and way faster surfaces, maybe the atrocity of him winning 4 times the US Open and 2 times Wimbledon wouldn't happened this counts for Nole as well for the record.

serghei said:

And Wimbledon is unanimously considered the most prestigious event in tennis. And Federer > Nadal by 8 to 2. And 3-1 h2h. It's all relative.

I'd actually include Djokovic in the mix. I don't see a reason why objectively Federer, and Nadal would be better than Djokovic for example. He's dominated both repeatedly.

Fact is all of these 3 are legends, and they reached a status where context decides who is favorite, greater, and better.

Click to expand...

With the majority of those 8 wins coming in the pre-Nadal/pre-Djokovic era. As I wrote earlier, Nadal would have a similar record if playing against the scrubs that Federer played against in those early Wimbledon finals. Djokovic for that matter as well. In fact I would take the likes of Wawrinka and Murray to win the majority of those finals as well against those Federer opponents back in the day.

French Open is right there with Wimbledon and nobody has ever (men or women, singles nor doubles) ever dominated a Grand Slam in the fashion that Nadal has. 12-1. Difference of 11 to Nadal's 6.

Also have in mind that Nadal was not competing (early in his career) against scrubs (compared to Federer's opponents as already argued) and that Federer is 5 years older.

Anyway care to explain how come the supposed GOAT (Federer) has only managed to win 4 Grand Slams in the last 10 years (28-38)? Nadal has won 5 Grand Slams in his 30's (last 3 years) alone. Could it have something to do with a certain Nadal and Djokovic appearing and them not being scrubs similar to Federer's early rivals such as Roddick, Hewitt, Baghdatis, Safin, Philippoussis etc.? The same lot that would not even be dominating against Murray or Wawrinka for that matter. Or how come the supposed GOAT (Federer) has a much worse head to head record against not only Nadal but Djokovic as well?

I rate Djokovic higher than Federer as well.

Djokovic never "dominated" Nadal. The head to head difference is 26-24 in favor of Djokovic. With Djokovic dominating in recent years. Until very recently, Nadal had the upper hand against Djokovic.

Anyway, I agree, all 3 are legitimate GOAT contenders, however I will always stick to what I claimed initially, namely that a pre-injury Nadal is the GOAT.

BTW this video made last year (summer of 2018) makes a lot of great points. The arguments have only grown stronger given Nadal's wins since that time.


LOL. Weeks as number 1 as an argument now. Using that logic Caroline Wozniakci (1 Grand Slam only) is among the female GOATS. Nadal has nothing to envy (at all) Djokovic nor Federer other than ATP Finals (which are not what they once were and not Grand Slams either - the only thing that he lacks basically). Nadal has 2 Olympic Gold Medals. Federer and Djokovic, zero. Nadal has a record number of ATP Tour Masters 100 wins (35). Highest winning percentage in the Open Era of any player. But yeah, Nadal is envious.

since 2011 Djokovic is 21-10 against Nadal, of these 10 wins 8 are on clay, hope this helps.

Leo_Messi said:

With the majority of those 8 wins coming in the pre-Nadal/pre-Djokovic era. As I wrote earlier, Nadal would have a similar record if playing against the scrubs that Federer played against in those early Wimbledon finals. Djokovic for that matter as well. In fact I would take the likes of Wawrinka and Murray to win the majority of those finals as well against those Federer opponents back in the day.

French Open is right there with Wimbledon and nobody has ever (men or women, singles nor doubles) ever dominated a Grand Slam in the fashion that Nadal has. 12-1. Difference of 11 to Nadal's 6.

Also have in mind that Nadal was not competing (early in his career) against scrubs (compared to Federer's opponents as already argued) and that Federer is 5 years older.

Anyway care to explain how come the supposed GOAT (Federer) has only managed to win 4 Grand Slams in the last 10 years (28-38)? Nadal has won 5 Grand Slams in his 30's (last 3 years) alone. Could it have something to do with a certain Nadal and Djokovic appearing and them not being scrubs similar to Federer's early rivals such as Roddick, Hewitt, Baghdatis, Safin, Philippoussis etc.? The same lot that would not even be dominating against Murray or Wawrinka for that matter. Or how come the supposed GOAT (Federer) has a much worse head to head record against not only Nadal but Djokovic as well?

I rate Djokovic higher than Federer as well.

Djokovic never "dominated" Nadal. The head to head difference is 26-24 in favor of Djokovic. With Djokovic dominating in recent years. Until very recently, Nadal had the upper hand against Djokovic.

Anyway, I agree, all 3 are legitimate GOAT contenders, however I will always stick to what I claimed initially, namely that a pre-injury Nadal is the GOAT.

Click to expand...

Seriously?

You want me to explain why way past prime Federer had troubles winning titles during the primes of Nadal and Djokovic? Nadal and Djokovic had their primes during 2010-2015 give or take. Which is, not surprisingly, the period with the least slams in Federer's career.

Nadal wins more these days because the next gen is a fucking joke, with guys like Kyrgios being complete idiots, Zverev being inconsistent, Thiem being nothing off clay, Tstsipas being on and off. The level Nadal faces at 32-33 is way weaker than Federer's competition at the same age. Federer at 32 for example was facing 2013 Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray. Huge players at the time. Murray for example beat Djokovic at Wimbledon that year in straights. In fucking straights.

Funny that you mention that statistic when Nadal was at his prime pre-2011. Exactly the same Nadal that was dominating both Federer and Djokovic pre-2011 on most surfaces.

Nadal won 10 of his 19 Grand Slams between 2005-2010.

Oh, let us also forget that Nadal was the youngest Career Gland Slam winner (by a significant distance) of all 3 as well. All in his prime as well. Pre-2011 in other words. Pre-fucking his knees up to such an extend that most experts ruled him out of the game.

But yeah, let us forget all that.

Or that the same Nadal has bounced back and won more Grand Slam's in his 30's than anyone else to date. With hopefully more Grand Slams to come (very possible).

serghei said:

Seriously?

You want me to explain why way past prime Federer had troubles winning titles during the primes of Nadal and Djokovic? Nadal and Djokovic had their primes during 2010-2015 give or take. Which is, not surprisingly, the period with the least slams in Federer's career.

Nadal wins more these days because the next gen is a fucking joke, with guys like Kyrgios being complete idiots, Zverev being inconsistent, Thiem being nothing off clay, Tstsipas being on and off. The level Nadal faces at 32-33 is way weaker than Federer's competition at the same age. Federer at 32 for example was facing 2013 Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray. Huge players at the time. Murray for example beat Djokovic at Wimbledon that year in straights. In fucking straights.

Click to expand...

Federer was facing bigger scrubs early in his career when he won most of his Grand Slams, than what Nadal has been facing in the last 3 years. Not comparable IMO. In the last 3 years Federer has had his resurgence of form as well. Djokovic has never been better as well in the last 5 years as well.

Nadal was in his prime pre-2011, not anywhere close to 2010-2015. That is a silly excuse for Federer and his failures in the past 10 years.

Leo_Messi said:

Funny that you mention that statistic when Nadal was at his prime pre-2011. Exactly the same Nadal that was dominating both Federer and Djokovic pre-2011 on most surfaces.

Nadal won 10 of his 19 Grand Slams between 2005-2010.

Oh, let us also forget that Nadal was the youngest Career Gland Slam winner (by a significant distance) of all 3 as well. All in his prime as well. Pre-2011 in other words. Pre-fucking his knees up to such an extend that most experts ruled him out of the game.

But yeah, let us forget all that.

Or that the same Nadal has bounced back and won more Grand Slam's in his 30's than anyone else to date. With hopefully more Grand Slams to come (very possible).

Click to expand...

Nobody disputes Nadal precociousness at winning big titles. Until 2010 though, he only won 2 titles off clay. One AO, and one Wimbledon. So his prime is basically 2010 imo, which would have continued in 2011 if Djokovic wouldn't have had his big breakthrough that year.

Level of the playing field right now is terrible. That's context for you, why Nadal is winning so much at an older age. You got grandpa Federer having a 2 slam year at 36 ffs in 2017. The current generation is terrible. Federer nearly winning Wimbledon at 38.

seems like you stack in ignorance, first of all Federer won gold medal in double as well so he has one, not zero, weeks at world number 1 of course are important, it's a sign of a domination along the whole season, what a stupid comparison is woz? woz won just one slam, these 3 are in the same league so of course we should see everything, not only things that are convenient for you He has 35 master 1000 but ATP finals zero, the most important tournament after majors is missing in you arguments, really strange

Oh, imagine comparing winning percentage of a player who is 33yold with another who he's 5 years older

serghei said:

Nobody disputes Nadal precociousness at winning big titles. Until 2010 though, he only won 2 titles off clay. One AO, and one Wimbledon. So his prime is basically 2010 imo, which would have continued in 2011 if Djokovic wouldn't have had his big breakthrough that year.

Level of the playing field right now is terrible. That's context for you, why Nadal is winning so much at an older age. You got grandpa Federer having a 2 slam year at 36 ffs in 2017. The current generation is terrible. Federer nearly winning Wimbledon at 38.

Click to expand...

Can we all agree (at least) that Djokovic in the last 3-5 years is WAY better than anything that Federer used to face early on in his career when he was winning Grand Slams left and right? Please. Everything else is insanity.

Federer, in the last 3 years, has looked better than in the past 10 years. I will take a Federer from 2017, over any of Roddick, Hewitt, Baghdatis, Safin, Philippoussis.

As I wrote earlier, most will even rate Murray and Wawrinka over that lot. The 2 guys that all 3 had to face.

EDIT: Oh, I missed his doubles gold. As if that is equal to Nadal's singles and doubles golds in 2 different Olympic games.

Yes, and highest winning percentage in the open era to date, best head to head (by far), just 1 Grand Slam less despite being 5 freaking years younger, more ATP Tour Masters 1000 wins than anyone else, Nadal never facing scrubs at any point in his career, etc. is of no importance but number of weeks as number 1 (forgetting that Nadal has had more injuries than anyone else and more serious ones) is very, very important in comparison. As if the current number 1 (Nadal) has not spent ages on top of that list.

Leo_Messi said:

Federer was facing bigger scrubs early in his career when he won most of his Grand Slams, than what Nadal has been facing in the last 3 years. Not comparable IMO. In the last 3 years Federer has had his resurgence of form as well. Djokovic has never been better as well in the last 5 years as well.

Nadal was in his prime pre-2011, not anywhere close to 2010-2015. That is a silly excuse for Federer and his failures in the past 10 years.

Click to expand...

Prime Federer beats anyone in those years. If you actually watched him you'd know that because the man was unplayable very often in 2005-2007.

Nadal in 2011-2012 played 5 consecutive slam finals. If that is not his prime, nothing is. Just because he met godmode Djokovic in those finals doesn't mean he wasn't in his prime. In 2013 he won 2 majors and got back to no1. Won his 2nd USO.

His prime didn't last 1-2 years as you claim. That is rubbish.

serghei said:

Prime Federer beats anyone in those years. If you actually watched him you'd know that because the man was unplayable very often in 2005-2007.

Click to expand...

Not really. A 19-22 year old Nadal was superior to Federer in head to head games during that era and was defeating the same Federer on all surfaces. Nadal won 5 (!) Grand Slam finals against the same Federer in that period (2005-2009) across Australian Open, French Open and Wimbledon.

I never claimed that Nadal's prime lasted 1-2 years, lol. I wrote 2005-2010/2011 for a reason. Pre-injury Nadal. 10 Grand Slams in that period don't lie. Youngest career Grand Slam of the top 3. Better head to head against not only the 5 year older Federer but the 1 year younger Djokovic.

Leo_Messi said:

Not really. A 19-22 year old Nadal was superior to Federer in head to head games during that era and was defeating the same Federer on all surfaces. Nadal won 5 (!) Grand Slam finals against the same Federer in that period (2005-2009) across Australian Open, French Open and Wimbledon.

Click to expand...

No he wasn't. He beat Federer in some minor tournaments on hards. On the bigger tournaments he was beaten by the guys Federer dispatched easily, like Gonzales, Youzhny etc.

It's funny that you say Federer was beating weak players pre-2008, but those bad players handled Nadal easily at the main hard court events.

He wasn't even good enough to get to Federer at the AO and USO until 2009.

serghei said:

No he wasn't. He beat Federer in some minor tournaments on hards. On the bigger tournaments he was beaten by the guys Federer dispatched easily, like Gonzales, Youzhny etc.

Click to expand...

Have you ever bothered to take a look at the head to head games in that period (all tournaments) and head to head Grand Slam finals? A young pre-injury Nadal was dominating the supposed GOAT that was supposedly in his prime (your own words). The 1 year younger Djokovic as well.

Hence pretty much strengthening my opinion of a pre-injury Nadal (pre-2011) being the GOAT of the top 3 and facing the toughest opponents out there.

This video that I posted a while ago, raises similar points.


Anyway no point discussing this, as we won't ever agree. Hopefully Nadal will have 5 more years left in him (at least) and hopefully either he or Djokovic will close the GOAT discussion once and for all. One thing is for certain, as I see it, I don't see Federer having the most Grand Slams when all 3 call it a day.