Diprosalic
Banned
that makes no sense.
bad matchups are a thing and they played too little on any non-clay surface during federer's prime.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Australian Open 2017 OT
- Thread starter Diamond
- Start date
- Status
that makes no sense.
bad matchups are a thing and they played too little on any non-clay surface during federer's prime.
Diprosalic
Banned
that shows the difference and consistency pretty well:
in Grand Slams:
Federer:
Wins: 18
RU: 10
SF: 13
QF: 8
Nadal:
Wins: 14
RU: 7
SF: 3
QF: 6
if we assign 5 points for a win, 3 for RU, 2 for SF, 1 for QF you get:
Federer: 154 points
Nadal: 103 points
or if we do it by how many ranking points you get:
Federer: (18*2000) + (10*1200) + (13*720) + (8*360) = 60'240
Nadal: (14*2000) + (7*1200) + (3*720) + (6*360) = 40'720
yes nadal has some time to make up the difference but even then i think federer will end up with the more consistent and more evenly distributed results. 9 of Rafas 14 are from the same slam (9,2,2,1), while federer has 7,5,5,1.
in Grand Slams:
Federer:
Wins: 18
RU: 10
SF: 13
QF: 8
Nadal:
Wins: 14
RU: 7
SF: 3
QF: 6
if we assign 5 points for a win, 3 for RU, 2 for SF, 1 for QF you get:
Federer: 154 points
Nadal: 103 points
or if we do it by how many ranking points you get:
Federer: (18*2000) + (10*1200) + (13*720) + (8*360) = 60'240
Nadal: (14*2000) + (7*1200) + (3*720) + (6*360) = 40'720
yes nadal has some time to make up the difference but even then i think federer will end up with the more consistent and more evenly distributed results. 9 of Rafas 14 are from the same slam (9,2,2,1), while federer has 7,5,5,1.
TrumanBurbank
Member
You can't mention one without the other. Both the best.
In case you missed it, the Men's Doubles Final was super hype too: https://youtu.be/1BK_Fa7JTWg
PedroPanache
Member
Federer was clearly the second best clay courter in the world during Nadal's peak, so, consequently faced him a ton of times in finals. At the same time, Fed was also the world's best hard court player, whilst Nadal had uneven results. For the reason, they didn't face each other much in hard court finals. If they had, I think results would skew towards Federer, though it would be less one-sided than their clay court match-ups.
The H2H makes for interesting aside to the main debate of who is the GOAT. Even if Nadal had won yesterday, I still believe Federer has achieved much more beyond the slam titles than Rafa. The H2H is a mark against Roger in the debate, but so too is Rafa's lack of ATP World Tour Final victories. He's never won it and that's a big mark against him.
Tennis was the big winner yesterday. The fear, going into the match, was that the match-up would once again give us a disappointing one-sided final. However, for many different reasons, a lot of that was neutralised and, really, the match was always in Fed's hands. He might have got it done in four sets, but he just melted down and gave Nadal a second wind. It's all the more impressive, because Fed was a break down in the fifth against the guy that has beaten him time and time again. Many expected him to fold, he didn't. So congrats to Roger for overcoming his mental demons and beating his nemesis. The mark of the GOAT.
I'm confident that Rafa should have a good clay court season and compete for the French this. Gutted for my guy, but I never expected him to be anywhere near a hard court final, much less a slam final, given his recent form and injuries. I'm a big Murray supporter, but he plays second fiddle to Nadal, despite me being a Brit. He rekindled my love of the game, so I'll always be a Rafa fan first. Still, I'm hoping for a good clay court season for Murray as well, and maybe, just maybe we can have a Murray/Nadal slam final to complete the set.
They've become the Ali/Frazier of the tennis world. Their narratives are intertwined and cannot be separated. To do so, would lessen the achievements of both in many ways. Their rivalry transcends the sport.
What's really crazy is if you consider what Federer's stats would be if it weren't for nadal cockblocking him in so many grand slams, particularly at Roland Garros. Nadal is responsible for 1 semi final loss and 4 finals losses, and I would say in all of those years, Federer was considered the (distant) #2 or #3 clay player in the world to Nadal.
Federer v Nadal: A miracle of modern sport | Australian Open 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQzDH1MOuGE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQzDH1MOuGE
Psycho_Mantis
Banned
You got to take into account how Nadal for much of his time faced fiercer competition.
Either way, I think they are the only two to be considered in a GOAT debate.
See this is what it comes down to imo, the caliber of players Fed was beating to win his slams earlier in his career were pretty poor imo. If Nadal and Novak win a couple more slams each for me they would be ahead of Fed if he finishes at 18.
By that logic you could say that most of Djokovic's wins at slams came against two guys way past their prime (Federer and Nadal) and somebody who against him is generally a mental midget (Murray). In fact you could draw direct comparisons between Federer dominating Agassi and Djokovic dominating Federer and yet the very same Federer whose prime career achievements Djokovic fans put down is put on a pedestal in order to prove that Djokovic's era of dominance was in fact a strong era.
I myself don't subscribe to that logic and neither do I subscribe to the idea that just because you are supremely dominant, your opposition is automatically weak. Neither Federer or Djokovic faced 'weak' opposition.
Magic Mushroom
Member
I don't think this will happen. Nadal is prone to injury and I can't see him winning any slams besides the French. I mean, it's possible but not very likely.
John Dunbar
correct about everything
all that matters is that after clayray proved himself to be a false prophet jesusfed came back to save tennis once more.
The next generation has to step it up. Jesusfed can't keep saving tennis forever.
Elaugaufein
Member
I dunno, in some ways it may be better for Tennis to have less predictable Slam finals for a while. The draw power of stars is a big plus, but it's kindy of a dicey thing to bet on.
Confrontation
Member
The level of consistency is what impresses me the most and should put Fed above anyone else in the GOAT. 10 And 8 straight GS finals, 23 straight semis and 36 quarters. Nadal? 5 Straight semis and 11 straight quarters. Those are insane numbers that Federer put up.
Difference is pretty immense really. Amount of times Federer was a finalist roughly accounts for all the times Nadal was a QF or better.
Yes, their rivarly was pretty one sided because of factors (like Fed managing to get to most finals against Nadal in his favorite clay surface while Nadal was eliminated earlier when facing hard courts and so Fed didn't have the same chances to defeat him in his prime) but after all is said and done there's no doubt Federer's much better slam records will make him n.1 .
Yesterday was just icing on the GOAT cake. And there's still a winnable Wimbledon for him at least.
The last 2 times that Nadal made the finals at the AO, he ended up ruining his season due to injuries because of those deep runs. I hope it's not the same this time. Although, he somehow won the FO in both years.
Federer's last slam results
Wimbledon 15: final
US Open 15: final
AO 16: Semifinal
Wimbledon 16: Semifinal
AO 17: Winner
Diprosalic
Banned
Prime Federer just made everyone look weak, he was unstoppable. There's quite a few players that would have multiple slams if not for Federer. It's not like the competition from the youth is that great now anyway and Federer still made semis and finals consistently against this so called better competition.
everybody had strong competition, winning a slam is never easy.
We still have Stan in case of an emergency.
Diprosalic
Banned
he was ready to wipe the floor with nadal but federer was like "i got this".
Shadowhelper
Banned
I mean, clearly, the ATP or is ITF that runs Slams, themselves kinda influence who wins, but I guess as a player you just have to adapt. But they want the conditions to be such that the matches between Nadal and Fed are long and competitive and not too dominant by any rival.
They kept slowing Wimbledon down to give Nadal the opportunity. They wanted Fed to win this year as that would be an amazing story, and after watching the final it's impossible to deny how this is the fastest Australian open in a very long time. Speeding the courts up and lower the bounce, out of the top dawgs helps Federer by FAR the most.
I don't think Novak played badly or differently at all, just under the sun in these conditions? He has always, even in 2011, been vulnerable to that. He's never played on such a fast Aussie court probably ever. The conditions and at night used to essentially suit his game perfectly.
Fed can't hit those many winner off his backhand against Nadal on bouncy slow courts. The games are already long and competitive enough, they need more fast courts.
They kept slowing Wimbledon down to give Nadal the opportunity. They wanted Fed to win this year as that would be an amazing story, and after watching the final it's impossible to deny how this is the fastest Australian open in a very long time. Speeding the courts up and lower the bounce, out of the top dawgs helps Federer by FAR the most.
I don't think Novak played badly or differently at all, just under the sun in these conditions? He has always, even in 2011, been vulnerable to that. He's never played on such a fast Aussie court probably ever. The conditions and at night used to essentially suit his game perfectly.
Fed can't hit those many winner off his backhand against Nadal on bouncy slow courts. The games are already long and competitive enough, they need more fast courts.
Pyroclastic
Banned
There's not one other person in tennis you enjoy watching? I know tennis is an individual sport but it seems sad to miss out on such a great sport because of one loss.
Diprosalic
Banned
Don't forget the 6 WTF finals he won too with another 4 finals.
Yeah, it's not even close really. If Nadal wasn't such a clay court specialist, there wouldn't be any argument at all.
I think it's best when there are 4 or 5 players who are capable of winning slams instead of one or two dominants. We've enjoyed that type of competition for several years. For Federer to be considered the best of the best in a era of highly competative men's tennis has to make him the greatest. Incredible career.
Freewheelin'
Member
This is lovely
Lone_Prodigy
Member
Yeah Federer definitely deserves credit for his consistency, longevity, and ability to succeed in different eras and against different players and challenges.
NeloAnjelo
Member
I don't like the slowing up of courts at all. Keep grass and hard courts fast. It makes the games exciting. Many can't even compete on fast courts.
Anyways great match. Glad Fed one. Maybe one more Wimbledon? How amazing would it be for him to retire on 20 slams?
I think Nadals play style is what is catching with him. Power and strength beats up the body a lot more than finesse and precision. I like Nadal a lot too. An excellent competitor and great athlete. He will always be one of the greats!
Anyways great match. Glad Fed one. Maybe one more Wimbledon? How amazing would it be for him to retire on 20 slams?
I think Nadals play style is what is catching with him. Power and strength beats up the body a lot more than finesse and precision. I like Nadal a lot too. An excellent competitor and great athlete. He will always be one of the greats!
perfectchaos007
Member
Courts were slowed down over the years to neutralize power guys like Roddick, DelPo, Karlovic, etc. so they wouldn't run away with all the titles in a boring servebot manner. Longer rallies = more exciting tennis for the most part so the courts were adjusted accordingly. If the speed up courts again, I imagine guys like Reilly Opelka will be winning slams in a few years.
If it were not for rafael nadal at RG,roger federer would have won 11 straight majors from 2005-2007
Well there's not even a consensus that Nadal is even better than Novak. Novak has 5 WTFs to Nadal's 0, more Masters (30 vs. 28) and more weeks at No. 1 (223 vs. 141).
A win on Sunday would have put pushed him further in front (15 slams and a double career grand slam)....but he lost.
perfectchaos007
Member
Don't forget Pete Sampras. He has just as many slams as Nadal too. Right now I think 3 guys have arguments for Second GOAT
On Sampras....ehh...
I give Nadal the edge because of the Career Grand Slam. Sampras doesn't even have an RG final. And in his one and only semi, he got murdered.
There's certainly an argument to be had, but IMO, that gives Nadal the edge.
RedAssedApe
Banned
particularly funny because people have been saying he's done for years yet he continues to defy time and make it to the second week.
Reckless Abandon
Member
What a great match, and particularly a great final set. As someone who grew into the game watching Fed it was great to see him get another one in (what is likely) the twilight of his career. It reinvigorated my love of the sport after what was a forgettable 2016 for me personally (I had a lot going on family health wise and didn't get to watch much tennis).
Pumped for the rest of the year. Nadal will probably take RG if he stays at this level, and then Fed will be in a good spot for Wimby. But you can't count out Djokovic or Murray just because they went out early here. And Stan is still capable of making waves.
Pumped for the rest of the year. Nadal will probably take RG if he stays at this level, and then Fed will be in a good spot for Wimby. But you can't count out Djokovic or Murray just because they went out early here. And Stan is still capable of making waves.
I don't even think Nadal can ever be considered GOAT when only 2 years you can him the best player in tennis. His only one dominate year was 2010 where he was easily the best tennis player in the world. Djoker already have more years than that and he's still in his prime.
He's by far the best clay player in history but he only started winning on other surfaces after Federer started to decline and before Djoker started to take over. Heck the only reason he has a good record against Federer is because Federer was good enough to make the finals at the French (his worst surface but easily still #2 in the world) consistently while Nadal wasn't for hard and grass.
He's by far the best clay player in history but he only started winning on other surfaces after Federer started to decline and before Djoker started to take over. Heck the only reason he has a good record against Federer is because Federer was good enough to make the finals at the French (his worst surface but easily still #2 in the world) consistently while Nadal wasn't for hard and grass.
20 of nadal's 28 master titles are on clay. No one else has more than 8 on clay. For 3 years (2005-2007) he didn't lose a clay match. This was also peak federer. Theguy who broke his clay streak? Federer
It took arguably the greatest single surface tennis player in history, and on federer's weakest surface at that, to keep federer from complete ATP dominance. No Nadal? Federer is most likely a quintuple career grand slam winner. I'm not exaggerating. 2006, 7. 8,and 11,federer lost the French in the finals to Nadal. 2005 in the Semis.
It took arguably the greatest single surface tennis player in history, and on federer's weakest surface at that, to keep federer from complete ATP dominance. No Nadal? Federer is most likely a quintuple career grand slam winner. I'm not exaggerating. 2006, 7. 8,and 11,federer lost the French in the finals to Nadal. 2005 in the Semis.
Lone_Prodigy
Member
I think it's disingenuous to say "if not for Nadal, Federer would've dominated for years". It doesn't guarantee that everything remains the same.
I prefer to look at everything Federer has accomplished even with a rival such as Nadal.
I prefer to look at everything Federer has accomplished even with a rival such as Nadal.
I agree. Federer might have dominated 2005-2008 even more, but he would have probably gotten bored and retired lol
Touche
RedAssedApe
Banned
the men's side would probably have looked like the women's (when serena is out)
I thought this was an interesting read. Using a new stat Backhand Proficiency (BHP) Jeff Sackman proved that Fed's backhand was the reason he won the AO.
http://www.tennisabstract.com/blog/2017/01/30/the-federer-backhand-that-finally-beat-nadal/
http://www.tennisabstract.com/blog/2017/01/30/the-federer-backhand-that-finally-beat-nadal/
Very interesting, and confirms what a lot of us saw during Federer's run and particularly the final. Outside of what the stats say, you could clearly see that Roger went for his shots on the backhand, opted for more topspin vs slice, and attacked Nadal's forehand very well, which gave him easier backhands to play. The cherry on the cake were the reportedly fast conditions which favored this type of play.
IISANDERII
Member
I thought Federer should have sliced more. Dimitrov was slicing a ton and it tempered Nadal's attack very well. Then again, I don't think Fed can scramble like Dimitrov.
Doing so would've applied less pressure on Nadal though. In the past he always used to do it but all that did was allow Nadal to continue to be the aggressor.
- Status