bones Posted October 2, 2013 Author Share Posted October 2, 2013 Comparison of players whom Federer and Nadal defeated repeated respectively to win their grand slam titles. There is clear difference in quality of players whom Nadal and Federer defeated to win their GS. Another notice worthy fact is that Federer defeated some of big players when they were yet to reach at the top like Andy Murray or Djokovic. It's not Federer's fault that his opponents were good to average. You have to beat what's in front of you and he's done that. Just like Nadal has no control over the endless easy draws he gets in events, Fed has no control over who his opponents were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raghav_12 Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Actually Nadal beat Federer and Novak two more times' date=' 2005 French Open and 2013 French open, both in the semi. So 11 out of his 13 grand slam wins have come after beating either Federer or Novak and his 5 losses are also against them. Great achievement.[/quote'] That is phenomenal stats. Winning 11 grand slams by defeating all time greats like federer and djokovic is something that will put him clear of rest of the field. More impressive is the fact that he defeated these when these opponents had completely evolved as player but away from being over the hill. Federer too have few big names but most of these big names were either over the hill like agassi or at the foot of the hill like Nasal in 2007 or djokovic in 2008. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalks Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Agassi. First to win all four majors on four different surfaces. :--D Seriously, if he could have applied himself as thoroughly as his great rival Sampras did, and not dabbled in ice, he could have been anything. He did win in the end, though - he cleaned up his act, and got Steffi. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sooda Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 ^Different being the operative word. Now the surfaces are homgenised to an extent that players with effectively the same skill sets in Rafa/Novak/Murray can are sharing them between themselves. Back in 90's clay court tennis was almost a different sport to grass court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 ^Different being the operative word. Now the surfaces are homgenised to an extent that players with effectively the same skill sets in Rafa/Novak/Murray can are sharing them between themselves. Back in 90's clay court tennis was almost a different sport to grass court. Add Federer to that list as well. People talk as if only Nadal or Novak has taken advantage of the surface homogenization and Federer played in a different era. That is simply not true. Both Wimbledon and US open were slowed down(Wimbledon 2001 and US open 2003) before Federer won his first GS. He also took equal advantage of it. Federer won most if not all of his GS titles by predominantly playing from the baseline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Agassi. First to win all four majors on four different surfaces. :--D Seriously, if he could have applied himself as thoroughly as his great rival Sampras did, and not dabbled in ice, he could have been anything. He did win in the end, though - he cleaned up his act, and got Steffi. :D Agassi was insanely talented. His shot making from the baseline was on par with today's standard. He was many years ahead of his time that way. He would have won more slams had he got his **** together in the mid '90s. This match gives you an idea of how good Sampras and Agassi were from the back of the court. Sampras' ground strokes are highly underrated. Also the court speed here was not very different from the current hardcourts. Bvis7gAArVk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maniac Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 fed is like srt,too robotically perfect.....Sampras I would say pointing but Agassi was like the Lara of tennis....reluctant genius when he got it right,breathtaking to watch. Want to say nadal= dhoni in terms of brutish play but obviously nadal has achieved a lot more solely as a player Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ineey Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Nadal is the best. I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Its intersting to note that Nadal has beaten two world #1s in grand slam finals while Federer has defeated six ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cricraja Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Sampras should not even be on that list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Sampras should not even be on that list. I dont c why not. Hes probably the greatest non claycourter after federer and maybe mcenroe. The guy with the best serve in history of the game, top 5 volleying creds and the best running forehand, along with being a former record number of gs and weeks at number 1 certainly deserves to b there. i'd have sampras at #3 or #4 alltime, after federer, laver and borg, in that order. Nadal on the other hand, imo is behind them and mcenroe, possibly tied or ahead of agassi. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cricraja Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Laver: 21 Majors, two calendar slams (probably the most difficult thing to achieve in the sport). 200 titles. 277 Weeks as the number 1. Major argument against is, what was his competition like.It was like him. Weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cricraja Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 I say who cares about all these useless ratings. I like Lendl. So I consider him as the greatest of all-time. I do not care what others say or think. As they say, to each his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cricraja Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 And with all due respect, Sampras and Federer to me are girly men, who whine and cry about everything. Show Sampras some clay and he will pee in his pants and you utter 'N A D A L' in front of Federer and he will run-away without looking back. Proper way to define them.:giggle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 And with all due respect, Sampras and Federer to me are girly men, who whine and cry about everything. Show Sampras some clay and he will pee in his pants and you utter 'N A D A L' in front of Federer and he will run-away without looking back. Proper way to define them.:giggle: Sampras a girly man, are you out of your mind? He had balls of steel, never cried after losing a match and widely considered as one of the manliest tennis players ever. He was as clutch as they come, would go for second serve aces on break points regularly. Sampras was just not good on clay, he never cried about it. On Federer I kind of agree. I mean who would wear this hideous "dress" to a tennis match. :haha: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 And with all due respect, Sampras and Federer to me are girly men, who whine and cry about everything. Show Sampras some clay and he will pee in his pants and you utter 'N A D A L' in front of Federer and he will run-away without looking back. Proper way to define them.:giggle: It takes more courage to show emotions after the event than to be wooden. Sampras may cry against the greatest clay courter on clay. Nadal on the other hand, is nowhere close to being a top ten hard/grass courter. That he beats federer is no surprise for a Leftie should beat a single handed backhand rightie...duh! Tennis hugely favors lefties. Its a myth that federer feasted on weaker competition than nadal. Federer's peak came against a stronger top 15 than now but weaker top 5 than nadals. So it evens out. In mens tennis, in the last 45 years, only 26 ppl have ever attained #1 rank. Federer's beaten 8 of them im grand slams. Nadal's beaten 4. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sachin=GOD Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Fedex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roshanrocks Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 How many sets did Federer concede when he won his games, how many when he lost, How many aces did Nadal hit in clay pitches, Nadal is only a CTB (clay track bully) :hitler: WHat was the quality of the opposition tennis player when they won grand slams... Tennis doesnt have enough stats to make debates interesting :fight: like cricket :sniffle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaurav92 Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Federer followed by Samprass and Nadal :hatsoff: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raghav_12 Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 It takes more courage to show emotions after the event than to be wooden. Sampras may cry against the greatest clay courter on clay. Nadal on the other hand, is nowhere close to being a top ten hard/grass courter. That he beats federer is no surprise for a Leftie should beat a single handed backhand rightie...duh! Tennis hugely favors lefties. Its a myth that federer feasted on weaker competition than nadal. Federer's peak came against a stronger top 15 than now but weaker top 5 than nadals. So it evens out. In mens tennis, in the last 45 years, only 26 ppl have ever attained #1 rank. Federer's beaten 8 of them im grand slams. Nadal's beaten 4. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2 Forget about these numbers 8 or 4. Following post shows whom Nadal has beaten to win his grand slams and whom Federer has beaten. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=2598530&postcount=9 Puts things very much in perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now