*Official* Tennis Thread

[Jono]

He makes that many unforced errors because his shots keep coming back FFS. Even on the fastest Rolland Garros court Fed can hope to play Rafa on for years Nadal was stretching and defending and making Federer had to play that extra shot.

On top of that Federer attacked more than he usually does (which was smart) as he knew he had to try and keep the points short. But he wasn't able to a lot of the time as unless you're a robot, you're going to miss shots when you have to play huge forehands down the line or deep in the court 5-6 times in a rally.

All easy to look at how Federer played, but Rafa wasn't even at his best until 50 minutes into the match. As much as people like to think that only what happens on Federer's side of the court will dictate the way the match is played (including Federer himself, based on his post-match comment) Nadal's game matters as well.

 

[Jono]

I see vcs just covered my point.

 

[vcs]

He makes that many unforced errors because his shots keep coming back FFS. Even on the fastest Rolland Garros court Fed can hope to play Rafa on for years Nadal was stretching and defending and making Federer had to play that extra shot.

On top of that Federer attacked more than he usually does (which was smart) as he knew he had to try and keep the points short. But he wasn't able to a lot of the time as unless you're a robot, you're going to miss shots when you have to play huge forehands down the line or deep in the court 5-6 times in a rally.

All easy to look at how Federer played, but Rafa wasn't even at his best until 50 minutes into the match. As much as people like to think that only what happens on Federer's side of the court will dictate the way the match is played (including Federer himself, based on his post-match comment) Nadal's game matters as well.

This. The biggest illustration of your last point is the way Nadal stepped it up a gear or two in the final set after the early scare. Didn't give Federer another sniff after that.

 

[vcs]

The other interesting point is how in their meetings, Nadal invariably manages to win the close games and the points that really matter, particularly on clay. In the first set, when Federer's drop shot drifted about a micrometer wide on setpoint, I knew his chance was gone and the set was done. Federer was trailing two sets to one, having won more points than Nadal in the match overall at that stage. Nadal's game just gives him better margins to operate in the tight moments.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

Federer's first serve abandoned him after he'd served so well to start the match. I don't think It would've made a difference if Federer had won the first set but apparently Nadal is 170-something and 1 when winning the first set in Grand Slam matches.

 

[centurymaker]

IMO the match didn't live up to expectations... wasn't really a high-quality match. Both players looked out of form... Couldn't believe that nadal won the 1st set despite playing like ****
If nadal doesn't regain his old form, he might not get 16+ slams. Btw Can't see Fed winning anymore grandslams.. makes far too many errors nowadays.

In the last 3 years Nadal has been > Fed Head to head on any court.
Wimbledon 2008 final.....Australian open 2009 final.....

Still haven't decided who I'm supporting in this grand slam race.
Nadal seems like a slightly better person so I might just go with him.

 

[Blaze 18]

Roger Federer chases revenge on the Wimbledon grass | Herald Sun

 

[nick-o]

he clearly is...outside of nadal and borg, i would argue that there has been no one better than him (or as good) on clay...

Sorry to respond to an old post, but I think there were quite a few people suggesting the Fed was up there close to top three of all time on clay -- but I don't think it computes.

This list was on the BBC today

OPEN ERA CLAY-COURT TITLES

45 - Guillermo Vilas
40 - Thomas Muster
32* - Rafael Nadal
30 - Bjorn Borg, Manuel Orantes
28 - Ivan Lendl, Ilie Nastase
21 - Jose-Luis Clerc
20 - Mats Wilander
16 - Andres Gomez, Carlos Moya
* still active

I just don't see how Federer can be thought of as top-three on clay.

 

[Spark]

How many times has he faced Rafa in finals though?

 

[sachin200]

Sorry to respond to an old post, but I think there were quite a few people suggesting the Fed was up there close to top three of all time on clay -- but I don't think it computes.

This list was on the BBC today



I just don't see how Federer can be thought of as top-three on clay.

Well That is not a great stat because federer plays very less claycourt events (Unlike Nadal who until 2005 played every claycourt event in the world even involving U13 children )and most of them are won by Rafa anyway..
But the fact that he has reached 5 RG finals and only Nadal and Borg has more does have a weightage considering it is a GS.

 

[vcs]

He's unlucky to face Rafa many times but one RG title is one RG title. He's definitely behind Lendl, Wilander and Kuerten at the very least. Not sure about Vilas and Muster who weren't that great at RG (especially Muster who underperformed there). I would put him ahead of those two, and even ahead of Courier and Bruguera, who have two each. So he's not top 3 on clay yet, but if he had another RG title to his name, he would be pushing. Probably won't happen now though.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

How many times has he faced Rafa in finals though?

12. 2 wins, 10 losses.

Plus 7 clay titles without playing Rafa in the final.

OPEN ERA CLAY-COURT TITLES

45 - Guillermo Vilas
40 - Thomas Muster
32* - Rafael Nadal
30 - Bjorn Borg, Manuel Orantes
28 - Ivan Lendl, Ilie Nastase
21 - Jose-Luis Clerc
20 - Mats Wilander
16 - Andres Gomez, Carlos Moya
* still active

That's a really misleading list though. Take Vilas' 1977 for example, won 11 clay titles after Roland Garros. Completely impossible if you want to be a credible player today.

But yeah, he can't be considered more than top 8 on clay. If Nadal wasn't there it's not at all certain he wouldn't have beaten the best player from that half of the draw.

 

[Jono]

We're not arguing about achievements. We're arguing who is the better player. Federer's clay court achievements have obviously been hampered by the presence of Rafa and him concentrating on Grand Slams. Its obvious to all that he doesn't give his full 100% commitment to Masters 1000 anymore. Probably hasn't since 2009.

If you watch Federer and compare him to Moya, Courier and Muster... Its obvious Federer is the better player on clay.

Is he the top 3 in terms of accolades and achiements? No. But that's a different point.

 

[Jono]

On the point of Nadal vs Federer overall, Federer right now has the greater legacy. If both players ended their careers now, Federer will be remembered as greater, even with Rafa's head to head record.

But the key point being missed here is the rise of Novak. If Rafa continues and Novak rises like it looks like he will, that (along with JMDP and maybe Murray) will be the future battles. If Rafa wins that battle or even draws even, he will have taken on Fed and then the new generation and come out on top. That will be a big factor in defining his legacy.

I remember burgey saying that he hates Novak but if his new dominance prevents Rafa from passing Federer's legacy he's all for it. Well it may in fact do the opposite. If in one career Rafa trumps Roger head-to-head and also Novak, well he'll probably go down as the better player.

Watch this space. Because right now Novak has Rafa's number.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

On the point of Nadal vs Federer overall, Federer right now has the greater legacy. If both players ended their careers now, Federer will be remembered as greater, even with Rafa's head to head record.
.

Voice of reason.

(even though you cherry-picked the weakest players in the argument for top-3 on clay in the post above... )

It's too early to tell, but it's certainly going to provide some talking points. And if Rafa ends, say, 3-4 Slams behind because he is eclipsed by Novak, I think the GOAT arguments are never going to subside...you're going to get a 50-50 split and all kinds of flame war

 

[sachin200]

Jono,

For Rafa to be considered a better player than Roger he doesn't have to necessarily beat Roger in GS count but certainly has to win more non-French GS (preferably more HC slams) because thats where he is least comfortable and he faces most competition

 

[Jono]

That's obvious because for him to beat Novak over the next few years he would obviously have to win those tournaments.

But let's not pretend winning the French is easy ffs. Also winning the French and Wimbledon in the same year is inbelievably difficult, and he's done this twice.

 

[vcs]

TBH, I don't think Federer is done either, in terms of winning Majors. I like the way he keeps getting to finals/semifinals and gives himself opportunities. Even though beating Djokovic and losing to Nadal in a final adds nothing much to his legacy (which shows how much he has accomplished), if nothing else, it should boost his confidence. Physically he looks only half a step slower than he was in his prime. Even though he can't produce those ridiculous runs of untouchable form anymore like the glory days of '05-'07, he can still crank it up from time to time. Provided he times it right, he will have opportunities to add to his tally.

 

[Jono]

Yeah its all well and good to have this debate cos its fun and interesting but it will continue to be aimless until 2015 or so.

 

[Anil]

They have met, what, 15 times out of 25 on clay? Let Nadal get close to 16 Slams and then we'll talk.. sure he's on track but he hasn't done it yet.

you are just discounting all results on clay as if they don't matter....it is a legit tennis-playing surface and the results matter...when nadal used to be not much more than a clay court specialist in the early years of his career, that argument would have some weight but not now...and i am not saying he is the GOAT, i am saying the 8-17 stat works significantly in his favor even now and given federer is well past his prime and nadal is still in his, the stat is going to get even more lop-sided going forward...and yes i agree that 6 additional slams is a big deal but nadal isn't done yet (and hopefully neither is federer)...hey i don't like it any more than you do but i can't ignore the growing reality either...