PDA

View Full Version : Nadal > Federer on all surfaces



Mavs<Spurs
07-04-2006, 10:32 PM
So says Ted Robinson of NBC who broadcasts with John McEnroe and Mary Carillo Wimbledon.

He says that if it were just a 2 man competition, Nadal has shown that he is better than Federer on all surfaces not just clay because Nadal has a 6-1 record against Federer and because not all of these were on clay and because Nadal has won 4 tournaments that were not on clay so far in his career.


Whether either Federer or Nadal is playing or not, he makes a point of making his viewpoint on this subject extremely well known on every match he broadcasts. Inevitably, he will find a way to bring this into the conversation among the broadcasters. If either of them is playing, he will make this point the main theme of everything he says. This is the prelude to the worship service.

Then, the worship of Nadal begins in earnest by Carillo and Robinson.
Afterwards, no matter how well Roger is playing, it is downplayed.

Then, the benediction is given.

This clown needs to get a grip.

He needs to research Nadal's record at Wimbledon (esp prior to this year), US Open, Australian Open.
He needs to find out how many Grand Slams other than the French Open Nadal has won.
He needs to determine how many finals in these other 3 Grand Slams Nadal has been in (to compare with Federer who got to the semis of the French last year and to the finals of the French this year).
He needs to realize that 3 > 1 (Federer holds the 3 current Grand Slams other than the French and Nadal only currently holds the French - Roger is better on 3 surfaces).
He needs to realize that Fed has won 7 Grand Slams and Nadal has won 2.
He needs to compare the records of Roger and Nadal at Wimbledon. Roger has not lost a match at wimbledon in about 4 years.
He needs to remember that Nadal had to go to 5 sets against a guy who is barely in the top 300.
He needs to contrast the match record of Roger in the 3 grand slams that are not the French with Nadal's records in those tournaments. He could also compare the records in all 4 grand slams of all of them over the last 3 + years.
He needs to realize that had Nadal played well enough to get further in these other 3 grand slams to actually play Federer, Roger would have steamrolled him. But Nadal in these tournaments, unlike Roger in the French, has not actually played well enough to advance far enough to even face Federer in these majors.

He also needs to admit that:

Fed on clay has one or two major weaknesses (high topspin backhands give him problems and he goes for too much on clay)

But Nadal on any surface other than clay has at least 5 weaknesses:

(1) serve, esp 2 serve- very easily attacked
(2) return of serve - he returns it from way behind the baseline, ceding too much court and floating it back (nonaggressive return)
(3) court positioning (he plays way too far behind the baseline in general and cannot half volley from the backcourt as well as Roger to take time away from the opponent)
(4) too much spin on his shots which causes them to stay high and become sitters
(5) he is mediocre at the net at best

It is clear that if Federer were not playing, Nadal would have a hard time making the top 5 since he would not win any other major. Ancic, Lubijic, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Roddick, Blake and so many others are much better in general (ie over a longer period of time, consider their long term records in the majors vs Nadal's) on these surfaces. Nadal is not even in the top 5 on these other surfaces at this point. One day, this might not be true. However, right now it is. And the reason is obvious: their games are more suited for all other surfaces (all other surfaces other than clay) than Nadal's.

So far, Nadal has beaten a 36 year old Agassi playing at 50 % of what he used to be. He hasn't beaten anybody good yet. In fact, until he plays either Hewitt or Baghdatis, he will have easy matches (or they should be).

The fact is that 13 of the 17 tournaments (and both of the Grand Slams) that Nadal has won have been on clay. That is 2/3 of his tournament championships. Most of the tennis season is not spent on clay nor are most of the points awarded for clay. Since Federer grabs all the points on the majors of the other 3 surfaces and Nadal gets a major on clay, nothing is left for the other players who have 3 surfaces where they are superior to Nadal.
2/3 of his championships coming on 1/4 of the surfaces is not a record that supports Robinson's contention.

I like Nadal's game and he is a great player and he might conceivably pass the other players (besides Federer) on these other surfaces in the next year or two. He has a great attitude and works extremely hard. However, it is irritating to hear Robinson claim that Nadal is greater than Federer on surfaces other than clay. It is said in defiance of the facts and of reason. Nadal has not yet earned the right to even be seeded #2 at Wimbledon according to one of his biggest proponents, Mary Carillo when she admitted Nadal was overseeded. Beating a couple of nobody's and the 36 year old, 20 year vet, Agassi with severe health issues (so severe that he is retiring and barely played any tennis over the last year (much less the last couple of years)) is not evidence that even remotely supports these assertions. Some tactical adjustments have been made and successful against these lesser players. However, we have yet to see how successfully he will be able to carry out these adjustments against Hewitt, Baghdatis, Roddick, Blake, Nalbandian, Ancic and Lubijic and especially Federer here at Wimbledon and until Nadal does something much better than most people expect, the comments vastly overstate the reality of Nadal's game on surfaces besides clay.

Quadzilla99
07-04-2006, 11:34 PM
God I hope they meet up here in Wimbledon because Federer would abuse Nadal on grass.

kingsfan
07-05-2006, 12:37 AM
On grass Roger is definitely the best but Nadal has been playing much better this past week. His serve has improved drastically and that's going to help him on this surface. He's never going to be a great volleyer but he's been working on it and I'm sure he will continue to do so. On clay, obviously Rafa is the best and on hard courts it is fairly even right now. Given the fact that Rafa is a few years younger and still improving quickly, I wouldn't be surprised if he's #1 fairly soon, barring injuries. His work ethic and dedication is commendable. At 20, how many Slams had Rog won? I'm not knocking him, he's an incredible player, but Rafa is catching up to him quickly.
I love the rivalry between them, their match in Rome was incredible and I expect many more to come.
As far as seeding goes, there are several factors involved and usually at Wimbleodn they take past performance into consideration. This year they're not doing that. Roddick should be #2 but the way he's been playing, he really didn't deserve it, same with Hewitt. Nadal probably was overseeded but to win you have to beat the best no matter where you're ranked. A lot of people want to Rog and Rafa on the final, including me. I do think Rog will win but it's not going to be as easy as some people think.

Mavs<Spurs
07-05-2006, 01:37 AM
On grass Roger is definitely the best but Nadal has been playing much better this past week. His serve has improved drastically and that's going to help him on this surface. He's never going to be a great volleyer but he's been working on it and I'm sure he will continue to do so. On clay, obviously Rafa is the best and on hard courts it is fairly even right now. Given the fact that Rafa is a few years younger and still improving quickly, I wouldn't be surprised if he's #1 fairly soon, barring injuries. His work ethic and dedication is commendable. At 20, how many Slams had Rog won? I'm not knocking him, he's an incredible player, but Rafa is catching up to him quickly.
I love the rivalry between them, their match in Rome was incredible and I expect many more to come.
As far as seeding goes, there are several factors involved and usually at Wimbleodn they take past performance into consideration. This year they're not doing that. Roddick should be #2 but the way he's been playing, he really didn't deserve it, same with Hewitt. Nadal probably was overseeded but to win you have to beat the best no matter where you're ranked. A lot of people want to Rog and Rafa on the final, including me. I do think Rog will win but it's not going to be as easy as some people think.

Pete won 1 championship at 19 and nothing for a long time (3 years). So, how many championships you win before you are 20 does not count for too much. Pete, after all, had 14 championships.
Moreover, Pete (like Roger) was never a 1 surface player.
Winning the French open when you are young is very different than winning Wimbledon and/or other Grand Slams.


Right now, on hard court, I would have to favor Roger. Nadal, after all, has never won a Grand Slam on a hard court. Roger has won US Open 2 times. On Rebound hard court, Roger has won 2 times and got to semis and was barely beaten by Safin (Australian Open). Nadal has not won there.

Nadal has won exactly 4 tournaments (no majors) on non clay surfaces.

Therefore, at this point, Roger must be considered a much better hard court player. It is less close than you might think.

The reason why winning Wimbledon or US Open or Australian Open at a young age might mean more is that these surfaces are more similar to each other than to clay. In other words, it is easier to see the transferability of the skills that enabled one to win on one of those surfaces (say Wimbledon) to another faster court (say Australian Open).

How many of the really dominant players (e.g. long time number 1 players) won the French Open a couple of times before they were 20? Not many. So, perhaps this is not quite as good an indicator of future success at the other majors as you might think.

Again, the fact that even in minor tournaments Nadal has only won 4 nonclay tournaments is significant.
If Nadal were a great fast court player, that number would surely be greater. And if he were a great fast court player, his results in the other grand slams would surely show it. Why has he performed so badly every single time that he has played at these other Grand Slams?
The Grand Slams are clearly the measuring stick for how great a player is on a certain surface since this is where the greatest prize money is, where the best players play, where the most points are won and what everybody is trying to win. Roger has won the last 3 nonclay court Grand Slam tournaments.

Had Nadal won 2 Wimbledon tournaments before he was 20 or a Wimbledon and a US Open (or something similar), I might read more into it.

At the Grand Slam Majors other than Clay, Rafael has not even been good enough to get to face Roger, much less beat him. Until he at least gets to the Finals to face Roger, one must presume Roger is much better on the fast court surfaces. 7-0 on fast court Grand Slams is a serious edge.

And, predictive value of winning 2 French Opens (and no fast court tournaments) before age 20 seems to be quite low. Hence, no conclusions from that fact should be drawn.


On faster courts, I will concede to you several points:

First, Roddick has had a bad year.
Second, Blake had a melt down against the beast, Miryni.
Third, Hewitt had not been playing well recently.
Fourth, Roddick has serious weaknesses (return of serve, backhand, movement).
Fifth, Hewitt does not have great weapons from the backcourt.

However,
on faster courts against Nadal (with Nadal's present tendencies), Roddick would (as bad as he has been playing) still be favored by most tennis analysts (you must know this). Roddick's big serve against Nadal's floating return (or getting aced) would be huge.
Defense is favored on clay. This is why Nadal beat Roddick (in 5 long grueling sets - are both at the same level?) on clay (in Spain!). So, Nadal is slightly better than Roddick on clay.
Offense is favored on faster courts. Roddick's big forehand and serve make him a pretty good player on faster courts.

Nadal is still very much a defensive player, especially of a clay court variety.

Hewitt has been playing better (he beat Nadal at Queen's) and has actually won 2 nonclay court majors, including Wimbledon. Hewitt's return of serve is better, he has more experience on grass, Nadal relies too much on heavy topspin looping shots. Therefore, few people, if any would expect Nadal to beat Hewitt should they meet.

As I said before, at least Roger has gotten to the semifinals and finals of the French Open. Nadal has not done this on nonclay court Grand Slams. So, it seems safe to say that Roger is better on clay than Nadal is on other surface Grand Slams.

Clearly, Roger is the second best clay court player in the world.
One cannot say (accurately) that Nadal is the second best fast court player (on any fast court surface).



Is Nadal tailoring his game more for faster court surfaces? Yes. He has done it for a grand total of 4 matches so far and against mediocre opponents.
You can't realistically expect that he has completely transformed all of those weaknesses (of his on faster courts) into strengths so that he is now second best on any fast court. If you do, you are likely to be disappointed. Let's wait until he beats really good players on faster courts in the nonclay Grand Slam majors (esp consistently) and advances deep into the tournament before we rush to judgment about how successfully and thoroughly and well he has modified his play to do well on faster courts in Grand Slam tournaments.

The kind of transformation that you are talking about takes years if you want consistent results. And it is very difficult to see Nadal winning a fast court Grand Slam (barring something very unexpected) until Roger is injured or retires or some freak unlikely upset.

Until then, based upon the evidence we have at this time, we must conclude that Nadal is significantly better than Roger on clay at the French Open
and Roger is vastly, vastly superior to Nadal on faster courts at Grand Slams.

flipcritic
07-05-2006, 01:39 AM
Nadal > Federer. Riiiiiight.

Mavs<Spurs
07-05-2006, 01:43 AM
Nadal > Federer. Riiiiiight.

In the same sense as Nazr > Ben Wallace.

:lol :lol :lol

sometimes, I crack myself up!!!

:lol :lol :lol

And it was particularly appropriate given your name and I second your name.
Flipcritic.

Mavs<Spurs
07-05-2006, 01:51 AM
Remember, too, Flipcritic, that math skills in this country have declined.

So, some may also believe that 2 > 7.

:lol

:elephant :elephant :elephant


Roger wins his eighth tournament.

Will Ancic take a set off Roger? Ancic is really good on fast courts (imo much better than Nadal on fast courts at this time). But Roger is playing awesome!!!

I predict Ancic takes 1 set off of Roger. Roger than advances to final without losing another set.

Hewitt vs Baghdatis? Very interesting. After his run at the Australian and his tennis iq, I slightly favor Bagdatis, but anyone could win this.

Nadal against no name. Wins straight sets.

Nadal vs Hewitt or Baghdatis, I favor either Hewitt or Baghdatis .

Against Marcos, court positioning will be decisive.
Agaisnt Hewitt, Hewitt is just better on grass.

Probably tough 4 or 5 set match, but Nadal probably loses.

And Hewitt or Baghdatis vs Roger,

that's the Fed express steamroll. Against Lleyton, Roger wins in straights. Against Marcos, he wins in 4.

Should Nadal get to the Finals, Roger wins in no more than 4 sets.

And Roger has his 8th Grand Slam.

zech
07-08-2006, 07:08 AM
seems like most people in here don't like to see their favorite player(roger federer)getting his match,im telling you,nadal will be the best player on all surfaces sooner than most of you think,it wont even take an injury or anything of that nature to federer for nadal to replace him as the top player,(starting sunday at wimbledon)if you thought he was just a claycourt specialist you are damn wrong,this guy is so good he can challenge federer on any surface and eventually beat him.i love all these players they're both fantastic players but i think nadal is more phisically and mentally stronger than federer though i think federer is more talented,i also think most of british and american players are overated just think roddick,what does he have a big serve?how can a player be ranked 2nd and lose to the guy just one rank ahead of him at a grandslam final like last year's wimbledon the way roddick lost?Yes nadal is not as good as feder but i give you my words,on sunday it might take federer five sets to beat nadal because that kid is amazing and pretty damn good

flipcritic
07-08-2006, 08:27 AM
Don't get me wrong. Nadal is a fantastic player (I love his gung ho attitude), but saying that he is a better player than Federer is ludicrous when you look at what Federer has achieved. But Federer naysayers do have a point when they tout Nadal's record against Federer. That of course is all they have to go on. It's like saying Agassi was better than Sampras because he won the French when Pistol Pete never did.

We'll find how they stack up against each other soon enough anyway. :) Whoever wins, I will have no complaints. They're both great for the game.

GrandeDavid
07-08-2006, 11:08 AM
Rafa is the shit. Tomorrow's Wimbledon final should be epic.

kingsfan
07-08-2006, 12:51 PM
^ I really hope so. I was soo hyped about the French final and was very disappointedhttp://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smidepressed.gif There's going to be a few of us glued to the tv at 9am.http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/wakeup.gif

SoCalSpursFan
07-08-2006, 05:34 PM
Nadal can prove himself tomorrow.

He owns Fed on clay obviously, but grass is another story....

to say Nadal is better on all surfaces right now....well...you must be smokin grass

Horry For 3!
07-09-2006, 11:56 PM
:lmao I knew Federer would beat Nadal today, there was no way that Nadal would of won. Nadal on clay :tu Federer everything else :tu