Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually this is the best point yet. It would be better to compare Nadal vs Federer when they are both in their prime. Obviously Nadal is better NOW. Heck, the Djoker and Andy Murray is better than Federer, NOW. Let Fed and Nadal go head to head in 2005, see who gets more wins.
I don't think you can say that any of those guys are better than Federer. Fed was just ranked No. 1 last year and is currently ranked No. 2. How can a guy who's ranked lower than him be considered a better player?
People assume that Fed is done because he doesn't win 3 Slams per year and doesn't have a 2,000 point lead over the next closest player in the ATP rankings. So if he only wins Wimbledon, we say, "Man, he's really fallen off." That's pretty ridiculous, right? He won Dubai last year without dropping a set (where he dismantled Murray). Then he won Indian Wells. Then Madrid. Then Wimbledon. You guys call that falling off?
Lol Nadal is better than Sampras, without a doubt.
No.
Nadal would get obliterated by Sampras on grass and fast hard courts. Nadal would dominate on clay obviously. And slower hard courts would be more of a toss up. But that still means that conditions would favor Sampras under the majority of circumstances.
Rafa wouldn't be able to stand back against the wall during his return games the way he does against other big servers. There's really been no other player in history with the same mix of placement, disguise, spin and pace on serve as Sampras. And that goes for first and second serves. Only Pancho Gonzales is in the same league as Pete as a pure server. Rafa's never had to face an attacking player that could also hold his own from the baseline.
I don't even see Pete tolerating any long, drawn out baseline exchanges with Rafa. Pete gives people quick and clean deaths. If he couldn't break Rafa, he'd be content to just go to the tiebreak and serve it out.
That doesn't necessarily make Nadal the better player. There are like 127 guys that they potentially have to play in any Grand Slam tournament, not just each other. So you have to look at their overall performance against a variety of players who present different challenges to different players. Federer, for example, has a 21-2 head-to-head record against Davydenko whereas Nadal actually has a losing record against him (5-6). Federer completely owned James Blake, mounting a decisive 12-2 head-to-head record against him, but Rafa has struggled mightily against Blake (4-3). Honestly, you could argue that all of Rafa's wins against Blake shouldn't even count because they came later in Blake's career when he was clearly past his prime.
And a big reason why Nadal's head-to-head against Federer is so imbalanced is that they've met so many times on clay. If Federer had failed to reach the SFs and Final of the French Open between 2005-2008, you would subtract 5 wins from the Nadal column. That makes it 14-10 Nadal. Then put Nadal in every U.S. Open Final between 2004-2008 (when he was losing to the likes of Mikhail Youzhny) and you can then move 5 wins over to the Fed column. That's 15-14 Federer.
(In a British accent) Advantaged BajanYankee.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
Tha
So the head-to-head record is a bit misleading. Roger is effectively being penalized for being the second best player in the world on clay for five or six years but Rafa doesn't get penalized for being the 12th, 9th or 4th best player on fast hard court for those same years.
Match point, Congratulations BajanYankee
Lol, I can't confirm those stats posted by Bajan, in the ballpark they seem right though. I think he's got a good case, unless someone can refute them. I agree Federer is better.
That doesn't necessarily make Nadal the better player. There are like 127 guys that they potentially have to play in any Grand Slam tournament, not just each other. So you have to look at their overall performance against a variety of players who present different challenges to different players. Federer, for example, has a 21-2 head-to-head record against Davydenko whereas Nadal actually has a losing record against him (5-6). Federer completely owned James Blake, mounting a decisive 12-2 head-to-head record against him, but Rafa has struggled mightily against Blake (4-3). Honestly, you could argue that all of Rafa's wins against Blake shouldn't even count because they came later in Blake's career when he was clearly past his prime.
And a big reason why Nadal's head-to-head against Federer is so imbalanced is that they've met so many times on clay. If Federer had failed to reach the SFs and Final of the French Open between 2005-2008, you would subtract 5 wins from the Nadal column. That makes it 14-10 Nadal. Then put Nadal in every U.S. Open Final between 2004-2008 (when he was losing to the likes of Mikhail Youzhny) and you can then move 5 wins over to the Fed column. That's 15-14 Federer.
So the head-to-head record is a bit misleading. Roger is effectively being penalized for being the second best player in the world on clay for five or six years but Rafa doesn't get penalized for being the 12th, 9th or 4th best player on fast hard court for those same years.
Head to head is meaningless. Some guys "hold over" others for unknown reasons. Happens in all sports and indeed in all competitions. Total career results is all that matters. By this measure, Rafa is inferior to Federer and it isn't even really that close.
We have to go all the way back to 2004 to find an instance where Roger Federer failed to make it to the Quarterfinal of a Grand Slam. Even then, he won the other three majors that year.
We only have to go back to 2012 to find an instance where Rafael Nadal failed to make the Quarters of a Slam. He lost in the 2nd Round at Wimbledon last year. Missed the U.S. Open last year. Missed Australia this year. Missed Wimbledon in 2009. Lost in the 4th Round of the French in 2009. Lost in the 4th Round of the U.S. Open in 2007. Missed Australia in 2006. Lost 3rd Round of the USO in '05. Lost 2nd Round of Wimbledon in '05.
Maybe Sampras would beat Nadal a few times but if they were the same age at the same time Nadal would beat him 70% of the time. Federer and Nadal are the best two players ever.
[b]Maybe Sampras would beat Nadal a few times but if they were the same age at the same time Nadal would beat him 70% of the time. Federer and Nadal are the best two players ever.
You might be right, but it's really tough to say. Sampras was tough on grass and hard courts.
Maybe Sampras would beat Nadal a few times but if they were the same age at the same time Nadal would beat him 70% of the time. Federer and Nadal are the best two players ever.
This is idle speculation and a worthless, random, and unprovable statement. Right now we have lifetime records to work with, which are based in reality. And based on reality, Federer and Sampras are far better than Nadal. Period.
At the end of the day, its all a matter of opinion. We cant say who is the best. People think differently.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
