Nadal: 10.

David Jimerson

David Jimerson

Administrator
Staff member
That puts him in pretty rarefied air, but he never seems to get the accolades the guy he just beat got at this point in his own trek to 16.
 
David Jimerson said:
That puts him in pretty rarefied air, but he never seems to get the accolades the guy he just beat got at this point in his own trek to 16.
Click to expand...

It's somewhat like Borg vs. Connors. Except that Federer is better than Connors was. Maybe its more like Borg vs. McEnroe, except that people actually like Federer. IDK, but I see your point.
 
Nadal VS Federer are probably the only tennis matches I have the patience to watch to the end. I do like tennis, but since that Wimbledon final were Nadal beat Federer in the most Epic tennis match I've ever seen in my life, I just feel disappointed watching other matches :)

The Roland Garros final was good, but it clearly shows Federer is on the down curve of his career. Nadal is probably one or 2 years away of going down too. I hope to see one, last Epic Nadal V Federer match final at Wimbledon this year!
 
Interesting. The #5 country winning Grand Slams (men) is Switzerland. With 16.

The #4 country is Spain, with 17.
 
David Jimerson said:
That puts him in pretty rarefied air, but he never seems to get the accolades the guy he just beat got at this point in his own trek to 16.
Click to expand...

Well, many reasons for that, that have been listed before, but I think the biggest one is that Nadal has been, and largely remains, highly dependent on clay and is largely perceived as a clay-courter. He has built most of his entire trophy case on one surface, and that surface is a small minority of tennis overall.

Meaning: Clay accounts for one out of the four grand slam events. But of Nadal's 10, six have been on clay. Quite disproportionate, and lends to the idea that he's a one-surface player, more like a modern Guillermo Vilas than a modern Pete Sampras. I mean, Sampras won the season-ending Barclays championships 5 times. Federer won it five times. Lendl won it five times. Nastase won it four times, McEnroe and Becker won it three times each. Even Borg, the penultimate clay-courter, won it twice. Nadal never has.

Nadal has the record for most Masters 1000 tournaments, at 19. But of those 19, 14 were on clay. Way disproportionate.

Over his career, Nadal has won 46 total titles. Now, in general, 32% of the tournaments in professional tennis are on clay, but of Nadal's titles, 32 have been on clay. That's 70% of his titles coming on the one surface. Wildly disproportionate.

Federer has 16 major championships, with a pretty even dispersement - six Wimbledons, five US Opens, four Australians, and while only one French - he made it to the finals at the French four other times. So a pretty well-rounded record.
Nadal, on the other hand, has 10 major championships, with little variety: six French, one Aus, one US, and two Wimbledons. He made it to the finals of two other Wimbledons, but has never even made it to the finals of any other Australian or US.

Much talk was made of the "Rafa Slam" - holding all four titles at once, and what a big historic thing that would be. But when you ask why Nadal doesn't get the same accolades, remember that Roger had three solid bites at that apple. He had three very good shots to complete the "Roger Slam", in 2006, 2007, and 2009. He won three of the four in 2006 and 2007, and made the finals of the fourth both years. And in 2009 he won two and made the finals of the other two. Nadal's only had one shot at it, and he didn't even make the finals during his attempt.

So while Nadal is certainly one of the top two players on the tour right now (and would be the definite top player, depending on if Djokovic comes back or turns into Chokovic) and Nadal has surpassed Roger as of them playing head-to-head today, I don't think overall his career compares. Yet. He does have time on his side.

But in summary -- the reason Nadal doesn't get the same accolades is because, in comparison -- when Federer was at this point in his career, he was dominating absolutely everybody, at every tournament, everywhere. Nadal doesn't come close to that. He hasn't been a dominant force in the Australian or US; he's only ever even made it to the finals of those tournaments once. He's not dominant on hard courts at all, of his 46 titles only 11 are on hard courts. Half of all tennis is hard courts, but less than 25% of his titles are on hard.

He's just dominant over Federer right now, so I think that clouds the issue.
 
Last edited:
Well, I don't really argue with any of that. But the guy put himself into the top 4 slam winners of the open era, and you'd think he was just some "pretty good" player who's just won a couple of tournaments. I mean, really -- he's way under the radar. If you were to ask a casual fan to name the top four, he might not even occur to them. (Nuts like you and me would, though.)

However, he also doesn't make much of it himself, I guess.
 
I love our annual, er, every few months rants on tennis.

Regarding Connors:

He is one of the greatest too ever play the game and my personal favorite; he won the US OPEN on every surface. Although never winning the French, he did skip it from 74 to 78 whilst he won 5 majors (going to 11 Finals).

As far as Rafa Fed goes ? Rafa owns the GOAT. Doesn't matter what surface; he beat him on Clay, Grass, Hard, Ace Rebound ... and in finals. Dude has won 2 Wimby's, an Aussie and the Open .... Does he dominate on Clay ? Hell yes ! But too pull off what he has on the other surfaces is simply amazing.

Federer is a stud, but let's give credit where credit is due. Rafa OWNS him. Period. Scoreboard.
 
Rafa owns Federer, this much is true.

But ... Federer owns every other player on the tour, and moreso than Rafa owns Fed.

Federer has gotten to the finals of 23 majors; Rafa has gotten to the finals 12 times. Federer has won 16 of those 23, and of the 7 he lost, six of them were to Nadal. Do y'all hear what I'm saying? Fed has made it to the finals twice as much as Nadal, and nobody has ever beaten him there except Nadal. *and once to DelPo.

Nadal can't even GET to the finals of the other majors. Consider his record at the Australian -- he's played almost every year since 2004. Lost in the 3rd round, the 4th round, lost in the quarters, the semis, won in 2009, lost in the quarters in 2010, lost in the quarters in 2011. Who beat him all those years? I don't even remember. In the same timespan, Federer never finished lower than semifinal, and won it all four times.

Or the US - Nadal's been playing it since 2003. He got beat in the 2nd round twice, then made it to the 3rd round and lost, then he made it to the quarters and lost, then he made it to the 4th round, then he at least made it to the semis twice, and last year he won it. Not exactly a record that compares with Federer's record during the same time period. In 2003 Fed made it to the 4th round, when Nadal was already gone in the 2nd. Then, Federer won it the next five years in a row, while Nadal was busy losing in the 2nd, 3rd, quarters, 4th, and semis. Then, Fed made it to the finals where he lost to Del Potro, who had already beat Nadal in the semis. The only place where Nadal exceeded him was 2010, when Nadal won and Fed lost in the semis.

I mean, seriously -- there's just no comparison. Roger has an Achilles' heel, named Nadal, that's true. But Roger beats everyone else on the circuit, whereas it sure seems like there's a whole lot of guys who can send Rafa packing, and who have done so over the years.

So - Federer's faded substantially, yes; he would be very lucky to win any other Major titles (although, if he plays at Wimbledon like he played at the French this year, I would already hand him that title.) And Nadal has been a major thorn in his side (just like Djokovic has been a thorn in Nadal's side recently - he beat the world's #1 four times in a row, for four titles -- including twice on clay).

But I would still assert that taken as an overall body of work, Federer's career towers over Nadal's.
 
Last edited:
Good post BG

No, Great Post.

-

Fed turned pro in 1998 while Rafa turned Pro in 2001 ...

Is Rafa going to go to 13 Finals in the next 3 years ............. ? Of course not.

-

Fed has 6 years on Rafa ....

Rafa is 25 years old ... Fed is 30

Rafa has a ton to accomplish as he enters his prime. Winning 6 more Majors isn't that much of a stretch as I can see it; French Open's or not.
 
Hey, I'm all for mixing it up. The most boring tennis possible is when you know ahead of time who's going to win *everything*.
 
If you want unpredictability, the women's game is where it's at. Clijsters is talked about as the most unbeatable player on the tour -- and she gets bounced in the first round of her last tournament. Venus & Serena make their heralded comebacks, and ... bzzzt. Wozniacki is the dominant #1 in the rankings, and wins more tournaments than anyone, but can't beat the top ten that consistently. Li Na comes out of nowhere at the ancient age of 30 to start winning tournaments. It's the wild west out there on the XX side, I tell ya.

Really, really looking forward to seeing how the Djoker responds after losing that last match. Seems to me the raw talent is there (he seriously manhandled Nadal and Federer all throughout this year) so it seems like if there's anything stopping him from going on another dominant run, it'd be strictly between the ears... and Murray did win his grass court tuneup, so ... can he make a real run?
 
All the women are blonde Russians with similar names. How can you keep track? :)

Seriously, I paid far more attention the women's game for a good chunk of the last decade for exactly that reason. That's in sharp contrast to the '90s when Steffi won everything and the men's side had a lot more variety.

We're finally starting to see the emergence of some real rivalries on the men's side again, so that's good for the game.
 
Poor Nic Mahut. Isner beat him in straights today. Bet he loves the sign at Court 18 which says "JOHN ISNER BEAT NICOLAS MAHUT." That's just kinda rude. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top