What does Nadal need to do to overtake Federer as the GOAT?

[Jassy]

Well after his mauling of Federer, now is as good a time as any to ask this question.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

He needs to work on his bleat.

 

[the big bambino]

Well overlooking the assumption that no one from any other era is worthy, Nadal will overtake Fed as the best of this era when he wins more slams. He has also been fortunate to duel with Fed on his favourite surface more often to effect the hth result.

 

[Ruckus]

Fed's head to head with nadal is definitely a mark against his record, but I can't help but think a lot of it is just a mental block Fed has against him. So many times he just plays poorly off his own racquet against Nadal. There's probably aspects of Nadal's game being a poor match up for him, but not to the extent of 20 wins, 10 losses or whatever it is. For me to consider Nadal the best ever he probably has to win a couple more than 17 majors (with them being non-RG ones). I just don't rate RG wins as highly as the other slams because I think the competition is more intense overall in the hard-court tournaments. Maybe it's just an illusion brought about by their contrasting styles of play, but I also have the impression than Nadal is much more 'beatable' than Fed when confronted with really aggressive, high quality tennis. I've seen him steamrolled a few times against players on hot streaks, but can't say I recall Fed being dominated like that as much, but it could well just be my memory being biased.

 

[Jassy]

Nadal vs Fed :

Clay : 13-2 Nadal
Grass : 2-1 Federer
Hard : 9-6 Nadal

Even if we completely exclude the matches on clay, Nadal leads 10-8. In Grand Slams, it's 2-1 Federer at Wimbledon (Grass), 3-0 Nadal at AO (Hard) 5-0 Nadal at RG; clearly it's more than just the playing surface because Nadal's has a superior record even on hard courts.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

What is the record since Federer got a bit old though and wasn't winning slam after slam? I would presume Nadal has a great record against him in the last few years.

 

[the big bambino]

^That's the other point and I was about to say. Nadal really has had a lot of luck against Fed getting him an inordinate number of times on clay and being younger able to exploit Fed's comparative decline. Just don't rate the Nad/Fed head to head as a deciding factor.

 

[Jono]

Lol a lot of luck. Jesus, won't even respond to that.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Ah yes, the Nadal's so good on clay that his victories don't really count argument. It's BS

More relevant would be the point that maybe Nadal's peak coincided with federer's decline starting. Or was it because of Nadal that Federer started looking vulnerable. I'll never know. Personally think that it's just the fact that Federer has been around for longer that he's considered the greatest. Let nadal play a few more years... Couple more slam wins is all it needs, imo. That head to head is too skewed to ignore, even on non-clay surfaces. It's a one on one game after all, so the head to head record should count as a big plus for nadal

 

[Spikey]

Great information. Very useful to me. Actually I was searching the same since many days. Thanks.

amazing

 

[ajdude]

Great information. Very useful to me. Actually I was searching the same since many days. Thanks.

can you please tell me more about HADOOP?

 

[Burgey]

Needs to lose the sneer. Will never be loved by the fans until he does.

Or until he hits his serve harder than Serena.

 

[Burgey]

Nadal is a bit of a flat track bully IMO. Look what happened last night when things got tough. You could almost hear him thinking "Don't worry, I'll beat you at home on clay". Dire.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Yeah because you don't need to be physically fit to win on clay.

Anyway Federer is only ahead on Slam counts because of the joke major on grass and because he was playing guys like Philippousis, Roddick and Hewitt in his early Slam finals. He's been outmatched.

 

[Burgey]

Clay is a joke. You get these Iberian numpties who aren't worth a squirt of piss on any other surface making finals and actually being competitive. Fmd, even Kuerten won multiple French Opens and that ****wit Gaudio competed there.

It's the poor cousin of majors. The whole world knows it. A concession to the old, slow world that is mainland Europe.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Meanwhile, grass tennis only remains as a nod to the British Empire, a game where you can win by putting a serve in play and then falling asleep in return games. Oh, and they had to spend seventy squillions on a roof that doesn't work just to keep it going.

 

[Jassy]

Yeah because you don't need to be physically fit to win on clay.

Anyway Federer is only ahead on Slam counts because of the joke major on grass and because he was playing guys like Philippousis, Roddick and Hewitt in his early Slam finals. He's been outmatched.

Hasn't Nadal been around since the early 00s? It is hardly Federer's fault that Nadal kept getting knocked out before the finals then. Or we could even count slams since Nadal won his first and it'll be dead even I am sure.

And if we are playing the games of ifs and buts, I'd wager that Nadal would never have got to 13 slams if the courts had not been slowed down. Even now, Federer has a much more even distribution of slams. 7541 is much better than 8221. To put that in perspective Federer has as many US Opens as Nadal does US,Wimby and Aus Open combined....two can play the game.

The HTH is definitely a point in Nadal's favour though. It may have been a little better for Federer if they had played more on grass. They have played 15 on clay and 3 on grass. I think Nadal is in Fed's head and he raises his game to absurd levels against Fed. Would disagree that it is a clincher though. I don't see why it is any more or less of a clincher than fed's consistency which is unmatched and something Nadal will never come close to.

 

[Burgey]

Meanwhile, grass tennis only remains as a nod to the British Empire, a game where you can win by putting a serve in play and then falling asleep in return games. Oh, and they had to spend seventy squillions on a roof that doesn't work just to keep it going.

Rubbish. Grass is the original surface. If you can't play on grass you can't play tennis. It's why Wimbledon is the tourney most prized. I know it's hard to accept when you may never have seen grass and knowing they can't play it on seven feet of snow mate, but it's true.

 

[Burgey]

Clay is the subcontinental Bunsen burner of surfaces. Second rate, slow and less manly. The players see it this way too. It's why Nadal has dominated at Roland Garros.

 

[Cabinet96]

History means nothing. Clay is a more important surface because more tournaments are held on the surface and therefore players spend more time trying to become good players on the surface. On the one hand you talk about how crap players can win the French, but in recent years we've seen far more early round upsets at Wimbledon than we on clay, where the best players always dominate.