re: Nadal is no doubt the best ever.

quote:

---

i hate it when people use the fact that rafa is the best on clay against him. they are all well he is only winning the series against federer because of clay or some bull shite.

---

It's not necessarily "using it against him". It's simply a fact about their head to head record. Their peaks didn't entirely overlap, so for a period of time Federer was good enough to make the finals on clay yet Rafa wasn't good enough to make the finals on hard courts. It is what it is. Rafa may still have a winning head to head record if they had played an even amount of matches on all surfaces, but it wouldn't be as lopsided as it currently is.

eta: And in fairness to Nadal, now Roger is the one who isn't good enough to consistently make the finals to even out the H2H surface record

quote:

---

The record speaks for itself... he has DOMINATED the man with the most career Grand Slams in that man's prime in an era of stupendous depth of talent.

---

RF was beyond his prime when Nadal started beating him.

quote:

---

Nadal wasn't a shot in the dark. He was arguably the best teenage tennis player ever and a prodigy that everyone knew about. There's no one like that right now.

---

Way too literal, my friend. What I'm saying is that it doesn't take too long for the next best thing to come along. It isn't inconceivable that a current tour player, floating outside the top 100 in his first or second year, doesn't come into his own. There are a whole lot of variables that could very much deprive Rafa of anymore GS titles or limit them dramatically that nobody sees just yet.

quote:

---

One of the most obnoxious homer statements I've read in a while.

---

But true. Fed's game is as much designed for grass as Rafa's is for clay. Period. That translates into Fed being odds on favorite. Oh, and the fact that when he wins his next one, I'll have to start using the other hand to count them all.

quote:

---

No bc Laver would have more if he'd been allowed to play during his prime, Borg would have more had he played longer, and Sampras has almost as many and against better competitino. Not saying you can't make an argument for Fed but you can make just as good of one for either of them.

---

Yeah, what if, what if, what if. Apples and oranges. I'm talking about GS completed, as the format requires today. No doubt that Borg, Laver, Sampras and a few others on a very short list have a strong case. But, again, and pay attention this time, those hypthetical GS that they could have had or the bunch that Sampras had are all behind Fed in reality.

quote:

---

Right because he didn't just have one of the dominant US Open tournaments on his worse surface.

---

I can't even make sense of this. Because Rafa walked through a tournament on his worst surface, for the first time, he's immortal now? Maybe that's why Fed has been immortal. Go have a look at how many finals in Paris, before ultimately winning the title, Fed appeared in on his worst surface. That's crazy good. Moreover, we all know that on clay, there's rarely a thin field because clay is the great equalizer. Paris can be won be any number of players who have the clay style - Berastegui, Kuerten, Courier, Chang, etc... A player can win in France when he can't win anywhere else. FACT.

My point is that unless and until Rafa shows prolonged dominance on courts other than clay (and, although impressive, a run since 2008 'til now just ain't even close), he is simply a footnote to Fed.

quote:

---

That's exactly correct. They dismiss clay for no good reason. It IS a professional surface

---

broseph, you are missing the point

1. rafa dominates clay and is better on clay than fed. nobody discounts this

2. rafa was not nearly good enough to face fed on hard courts/grass during this era. this hurts rafa's argument

in amazing hypothetical world, they could play an even number of matches on all surfaces, to have a total record. this does not exist, b/c rafa wasn't good enough to face fed at the end of hard/grass tournies, so the sample is skewed. why? fed was good enough to meet rafa late in clay tourneys with regularity.

From your link

quote:

---

Results on each court surface
Clay courts: Nadal 10–2 (best of five: Nadal 6–0)
Hard courts: 3–3
Grass courts: Federer 2–1

---

looks like he dominated on 1 surface

quote:

---

He went 3 and 3 vs Federor on the hard courts and those matches were when Nadaal was like 17 and 18 against a Federor in his prime of Primes. I think my point is made.

---

3 and 3 is not "more often than not" and is also a small sample size. The point is when Fed was truly in his prime (04-07) they didn't met nearly as often anywhere but which is Nadal's best surface, in part because Nadal did not get as far.

ETA: Nadal's hard court wins over Fed, 2004, 2006, 2009 (Aus Open)

quote:

---

3 and 3 is not "more often than not" and is also a small sample size. The point is when Fed was truly in his prime (04-07) they didn't met nearly as often anywhere but which is Nadal's best surface, in part because Nadal did not get as far.

ETA: Nadal's hard court wins over Fed, 2004, 2006, 2009 (Aus Open)

---

Federer also routinely loses to people he's far better than in minor events, even on hard courts. There's actually a term for his non-major lackadaisical play on tennis forums, "ATP Fed". Andy Murray routinely beats him and has a winning H2H thanks to those events, but has gotten his arse kicked every time they've met in a slam.

quote:

---

but to say he was beating Fed on all surfaces in Feds prime is disengenous.

---

He was beating Fed on all surfaces even in your analysis almost 50% of the time. Close enough anyway. When you add Clay to that it takes him over Fed.