Federer vs Tiger

[glenn__davis]

Yeah, in the time since this thread was started, Federer broke the record for majors, while Tiger is still short. On the other hand, Nadal has clearly dominated Federer, on all surfaces, for most of Nadal's career. So how can you be the greatest of all time, when you're not the greatest of your own time?

I think it is very difficult to compare Nadal to Federer from a head-to-head standpoint, because most their match-ups have been more "centered" to Nadal's prime than Federer's. Federer was at the end stages of his prime while Nadal was really building into his. I would have loved to have seen those two be the same age and come up at the same time. The final at Wimbledon where Nadal won for the first time (I think 2008) is the greatest sporting event I've ever seen.

I think we'll just have to wait and see how Nadal's career finishes compared to Federer's.

[mweb]

I think it is very difficult to compare Nadal to Federer from a head-to-head standpoint, because most their match-ups have been more "centered" to Nadal's prime than Federer's. Federer was at the end stages of his prime while Nadal was really building into his. I would have loved to have seen those two be the same age and come up at the same time. The final at Wimbledon where Nadal won for the first time (I think 2008) is the greatest sporting event I've ever seen.

I think we'll just have to wait and see how Nadal's career finishes compared to Federer's.

Yeah, it really is unfair to Federer. When Fed was in his prime, Nadal generally didn't make it far enough to play Fed on grass or hard courts, yet Fed was good enough to make it to Nadal on the clay courts where Nadal was amazing even before his prime. Now in Fed's post prime phase, he's still been good enough to often get to Nadal in tourney's on all surfaces, thus hurting his head to head record even more.

[Sports Guy]

I think it is very difficult to compare Nadal to Federer from a head-to-head standpoint, because most their match-ups have been more "centered" to Nadal's prime than Federer's. Federer was at the end stages of his prime while Nadal was really building into his. I would have loved to have seen those two be the same age and come up at the same time. The final at Wimbledon where Nadal won for the first time (I think 2008) is the greatest sporting event I've ever seen.

I think we'll just have to wait and see how Nadal's career finishes compared to Federer's.

Yep...I never understood this at all.

Everyone talks about how well Nadal has done vs Federer but when doe they ever mention age/prime differences?

Mweb also makes a good point that, unlike a lot of tennis players, Federer has been able to stay one of top 3 players in the world, even in his "old age". But that "old age" hurts him against the current best player in the world.

[glenn__davis]

Yeah, it really is unfair to Federer. When Fed was in his prime, Nadal generally didn't make it far enough to play Fed on grass or hard courts, yet Fed was good enough to make it to Nadal on the clay courts where Nadal was amazing even before his prime. Now in Fed's post prime phase, he's still been good enough to often get to Nadal in tourney's on all surfaces, thus hurting his head to head record even more.

Yeah, great point about Nadal not being good enough to get to Federer early on.

I really like both players. Both seem, from a distance at least, like very likeable guys and not too full of themselves, even though they have the right to be, at least on the court. It's really a shame we haven't had a top American player, because I think a lot of Americans have missed some great tennis lately with these 2, along with Djokovic and Murray.

[Nigel Tufnel]

It's hard to say, even when you look only at Federer's prime. His prime was probably 2004-2007, when he won 11 of his 16 majors (3 in 04,06,07 and 2 in 05). During that time, Nadal still had an 8-6 record against him, including 3-2 in majors. But, if you take clay out of the equation, then Federer had a 5-2 advantage, including 2-0 in majors. It's a shame - 2008 was probably the year when their primes would have overlapped, but that's the year that Federer had mono.

[mweb]

It's hard to say, even when you look only at Federer's prime. His prime was probably 2004-2007, when he won 11 of his 16 majors (3 in 04,06,07 and 2 in 05). During that time, Nadal still had an 8-6 record against him, including 3-2 in majors. But, if you take clay out of the equation, then Federer had a 5-2 advantage, including 2-0 in majors. It's a shame - 2008 was probably the year when their primes would have overlapped, but that's the year that Federer had mono.

That's the key stat and it would have been a higher total of matches if Nadal was good enough on non-clay courts to play Fed more often. There's a lot more grass and hard court tourney's than clay, yet they played each other as much on clay as the other surfaces combined. It's kind of silly imo to punish Federer for being good enough to make the finals on clay while reward Nadal for usually losing prior to matching up with Fed on grass and hard courts during that stretch.

[Pedro Cerrano]

To me this is like comparing Woods to a master putter head to head when they play 1/4 of the time on mini-golf courses.

Nadal has a specific talent -- he's very very very good on clay; maybe the best clay player in history. But that can't count TOO much against Federer b/c it's so nuanced.

[Nigel Tufnel]

To me this is like comparing Woods to a master putter head to head when they play 1/4 of the time on mini-golf courses.

Nadal has a specific talent -- he's very very very good on clay; maybe the best clay player in history. But that can't count TOO much against Federer b/c it's so nuanced.

But starting in 2008, Nadal is 9-2 vs. Federer (6-1 on clay, 2-1 on hard court, 1-0 on grass). In that time, Nadal is 4-0 in majors, with wins on all surfaces.

[Pedro Cerrano]

But starting in 2008, Nadal is 9-2 vs. Federer (6-1 on clay, 2-1 on hard court, 1-0 on grass). In that time, Nadal is 4-0 in majors, with wins on all surfaces.

Yea because Federer was past his prime.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Yea because Federer was past his prime.

Right, but then why do you give credit to 2004-2007, when Nadal hadn't reached his prime yet? It's really a shame - 2008 was the year, and Federer had mono. And then Nadal was injured in 2009.

[mweb]

Right, but then why do you give credit to 2004-2007, when Nadal hadn't reached his prime yet? It's really a shame - 2008 was the year, and Federer had mono. And then Nadal was injured in 2009.

For me it's not about giving credit to Roger for those years, it's about dispelling the notion that Roger wasn't the greatest of his own time as you said earlier. He clearly was the greatest of his own time. He dominated in a manner that is on par with anyone in history. Tennis primes don't last long though. As far as his record against Nadal, I think I and others have shown why using that to bash Fed doesn't make much sense.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Yeah, from 2004-2007, Federer won 11 of the 16 majors, lost in the semis twice, and lost in the finals twice. That's pretty solid. I definitely don't mean to bash Federer, just pointing out that he's always had trouble beating Nadal (although in his prime that was almost entirely limited to clay).

[ccbird]

Fed's peak where from '04-07 or whatever was insane. He reached the Finals in 10 straight Majors winning 8 of them with the only loses being to Nadal in the Finals in '06 and '07. That's probably the most dominant 3 year run we'll ever see of any athlete in any sport. Of course he also reached the semis of every GS for 23 straight events. While Nadal won't ever have the dominant 3 year run Fed had he has a chance to top him overall as the GOAT. Not necessarily because of the head to head record but he's won more Masters Title's and he's won a gold medal at the Olympics. If he gets to 15 Majors he's side by side with Roger IMO.



As far as the original question of Tiger vs Fed. I think it's pretty even at this point. You can argue that the Tiger Slam, in the deeper fields of golf, while not as long was relatively close to as dominant as Fed's run from '04-07. When it comes to the actual numbers of majors it's pretty darn close too. Obviosuly, in golf you have a longer window as you can still win tournaments into your 40's while in tennis you hardly ever see somone win one in their 30's. However, golf without a doubt has deeper fields of condenters.