Nadal owning Federer in the 2008 Roland Garros final.....

[Andy22]

Gee a whole 15 reasons, huh? Don't bother unless you want to see the 252 reasons why Roger's the GOAT. And unlike Nadal 98% of Roger's records aren't on one surface.

10 reasons why Rafael nadal is goat 1. H2h 23-15 vs. Federer . 2. GS record 9-4 vs. Federer . 3. Winning all surfaces in the some season the only player to ever do this FO10,WC10,USO 10. 4.GS record 9-4 vs. Djokovic. 5. Roland garros, Wimbledon Double twice. 6. Two gold metals. 7. 2008 Wimbledon . 8. 10 FO titles . 9.oldest end year world number one. 10.golden career slam

 

[atttomole]

Well I take being the king of clay the hardest surface,Federer wins on all he easy ones and great on the other two

The difficulty of a surface depends on how the player plays tennis. I wouldn't say that clay is the hardest surface, unless you are talking about the physical effort required to play on it. Nadal is a scrapper, so he can play well on clay, but he does not have a very good serve, which means that he struggles on faster surfaces. Federer, on the other hand, is a versatile player who is comfortable on slow surfaces like clay, as well as on the fastest surfaces. Federer has so much more variety than Nadal.

 

[Andy22]

The difficulty of a surface depends on how the player plays tennis. I wouldn't say that clay is the hardest surface, unless you are talking about the physical effort required to play on it. Nadal is a scrapper, so he can play well on clay, but he does not have a very good serve, which means that he struggles on faster surfaces. Federer, on the other hand, is a versatile player who is comfortable on slow surfaces like clay, as well as on the fastest surfaces. Federer has so much more variety than Nadal.

Well not really if that's true then nadal would not won 3 USO titles AO title, 2 Wimbledon can get more variety then that. Plus 8 masters on hard courts yea nadal the complete player the stats say that as well. More variety dream on. More titles yes, I'm very with that goat nadal done on all surfaces.

 

[Moxie]

The difficulty of a surface depends on how the player plays tennis. I wouldn't say that clay is the hardest surface, unless you are talking about the physical effort required to play on it. Nadal is a scrapper, so he can play well on clay, but he does not have a very good serve, which means that he struggles on faster surfaces. Federer, on the other hand, is a versatile player who is comfortable on slow surfaces like clay, as well as on the fastest surfaces. Federer has so much more variety than Nadal.

Clay is considered to be the most physically demanding surface, because of the generally longer points and maybe the sliding. I think you're relying on certain cliches about Nadal's game in your assessment. His serve has improved a lot over the years, and while it's not the hardest, he wins a lot on variety and so it's very effective. Don't kid yourself that his game doesn't have a fair amount of variety to it, too. He hasn't won 16 Majors because he's a "scrapper."

 

[DarthFed]

Well not really if that's true then nadal would not won 3 USO titles AO title, 2 Wimbledon can get more variety then that. Plus 8 masters on hard courts yea nadal the complete player the stats say that as well. More variety dream on. More titles yes, I'm very with that goat nadal done on all surfaces.

Roger has the most titles at Wimbledon and YEC and is tied for most at AO, USO, and IW. So most or tied for most at 5 of the most 6 important tournaments. I'd say Nadal's variety on surfaces isn't even comparable, we are talking someone who has yet to defend a title off of dirt. Clay is the most physically demanding surface, doesn't mean it's the hardest to win on. If you move faster, are stronger, and have more endurance than your opponent (note I just listed Rafa's greatest attributes) then you're going to be damn good on clay.

 

[Moxie]

Roger has the most titles at Wimbledon and YEC and is tied for most at AO, USO, and IW. So most or tied for most at 5 of the most 6 important tournaments. I'd say Nadal's variety on surfaces isn't even comparable, we are talking someone who has yet to defend a title off of dirt. Clay is the most physically demanding surface, doesn't mean it's the hardest to win on. If you move faster, are stronger, and have more endurance than your opponent (note I just listed Rafa's greatest attributes) then you're going to be damn good on clay.

I know you guys love to say that Nadal hasn't defended a title off of clay. Sometimes that has been due to injury absence. In any case, there are non-clay events he has one multiple times, including Majors and MS1000s. I don't think it's a huge deal if they're not in consecutive years, to your point of his supposed lack of variety. I don't see he has all of Roger's variety, but it's kinda dumb to treat him as if he's one- or two-dimensional player, or dismiss his clay prowess as down to being fast, strong and having a lot of endurance. He is a superb clay player. Now, since you like to talk about under-achieving at Majors, I say that Nadal has, at the AO and Wimbledon, even at the USO. He should have 1 more at each, and 2 in Oz. There are a couple of HC Masters, too.

 

[atttomole]

Clay is considered to be the most physically demanding surface, because of the generally longer points and maybe the sliding. I think you're relying on certain cliches about Nadal's game in your assessment. His serve has improved a lot over the years, and while it's not the hardest, he wins a lot on variety and so it's very effective. Don't kid yourself that his game doesn't have a fair amount of variety to it, too. He hasn't won 16 Majors because he's a "scrapper."

True. Clay is the most physically exigent surface, while faster surfaces like grass and some hard courts require better serve placement. A player with a not so good serve is always vulnerable on fast surfaces, which makes it a difficult surface for them. I know that Nadal has improved as a player and I do not subscribe to the old cliches about his game. He has a good all-court game. His serve has improved, but I still think it is not an irresistible weapon. In my previous post, I did not say that Nadal has no variety, but Federer has way more variety than him.

 

[atttomole]

Well not really if that's true then nadal would not won 3 USO titles AO title, 2 Wimbledon can get more variety then that. Plus 8 masters on hard courts yea nadal the complete player the stats say that as well. More variety dream on. More titles yes, I'm very with that goat nadal done on all surfaces.

This has been discussed a lot before. The slowing down of play on some surfaces has helped Nadal.

 

[Moxie]

True. Clay is the most physically exigent surface, while faster surfaces like grass and some hard courts require better serve placement. A player with a not so good serve is always vulnerable on fast surfaces, which makes it a difficult surface for them. I know that Nadal has improved as a player and I do not subscribe to the old cliches about his game. He has a good all-court game. His serve has improved, but I still think it is not an irresistible weapon. In my previous post, I did not say that Nadal has no variety, but Federer has way more variety than him.

I agree that Nadal's serve is not an irresistible weapon, but he has good placement, the lefty spin is a help, and he backs it up well. He has chosen not to make it more first-strike, he insists, because it messes with his rhythm. And I guess the difference between having more variety or way more is a matter of opinion. Federer is more inclined to the net, and Nadal prefers it to finish shots, but both have fine hands. I'm wondering what shots Roger has that you don't think Rafa has.

 

[atttomole]

I agree that Nadal's serve is not an irresistible weapon, but he has good placement, the lefty spin is a help, and he backs it up well. He has chosen not to make it more first-strike, he insists, because it messes with his rhythm. And I guess the difference between having more variety or way more is a matter of opinion. Federer is more inclined to the net, and Nadal prefers it to finish shots, but both have fine hands. I'm wondering what shots Roger has that you don't think Rafa has.

First and foremost Federer has a better serve, which helps the rest of his game. He serves more aces than Nadal. To that you can add excellent volleying, great net play, sublime drop-shots, and of course the lethal forehand. Federer uses all these shots to finish points, and he plays these shots better than Nadal. I also think Feeder's downtheline backhand is better than Nadal's and he can finish points with that too.

I am not so sure if Nadal has chosen not to make his tennis more first strike, but rather he is unable to. I think he would really love to play shorter points if he could. With a better serve, Nadal would finish points quicker, and we saw a bit of that at the US Open in 2010. I don't know why he has not been able to reproduce that serve.

I did not understand the bolded part.

 

[DarthFed]

I know you guys love to say that Nadal hasn't defended a title off of clay. Sometimes that has been due to injury absence. In any case, there are non-clay events he has one multiple times, including Majors and MS1000s. I don't think it's a huge deal if they're not in consecutive years, to your point of his supposed lack of variety. I don't see he has all of Roger's variety, but it's kinda dumb to treat him as if he's one- or two-dimensional player, or dismiss his clay prowess as down to being fast, strong and having a lot of endurance. He is a superb clay player. Now, since you like to talk about under-achieving at Majors, I say that Nadal has, at the AO and Wimbledon, even at the USO. He should have 1 more at each, and 2 in Oz. There are a couple of HC Masters, too.

Haha even you must have been laughing when you typed that Rafa should have 10 majors off clay. He hasn't underachieved at all, especially at Wimbledon and USO. Him winning 2 at Wimbledon is a joke, and of course was a dark spot on Roger for the match itself and the ramifications. But we all know he'd be jack shit on grass if it wasn't slowed down drastically.

And you're starting to sound like Nadalgoat in that you want to hand Rafa titles when he was out hurt. Doesn't work like that and one of them, 2014 USO seemed very unlikely anyways. He'd have had a decent shot at 2009 Wimbledon, aside from that he's had the chance to defend the titles and didn't. And that doesn't even go into MS events and crappy 500's he couldn't win twice in a row

 

[Moxie]

First and foremost Federer has a better serve, which helps the rest of his game. He serves more aces than Nadal. To that you can add excellent volleying, great net play, sublime drop-shots, and of course the lethal forehand. Federer uses all these shots to finish points, and he plays these shots better than Nadal. I also think Feeder's downtheline backhand is better than Nadal's and he can finish points with that too.

I am not so sure if Nadal has chosen not to make his tennis more first strike, but rather he is unable to. I think he would really love to play shorter points if he could. With a better serve, Nadal would finish points quicker, and we saw a bit of that at the US Open in 2010. I don't know why he has not been able to reproduce that serve.

I did not understand the bolded part.

Please note above that the bold was not my choice, as it wasn't in my post. I don't know what that happened.

I agree that Roger's serve is better and helps him more. Roger is an excellent volleyer, but Nadal is very fine. I've noted Nadal's finishing at the net, and Nadal has great drop shots, which he also uses to finish points. Arguably Nadal's are better from farther from the net. Don't start with the forehand, as they both have world-class ones. Nadal's BH has improved and has long been stronger than Federer's. I agree on Roger's DTL BH...as better, but not a shot that Rafa doesn't have. I would also argue that Rafa's running forehand is a better shot, and he's a better passer than Roger. Both are great and reliable at the smash, and I think they're equal on the lob, which they don't use as much as someone like Murray, for example, who has a great one. Oh, and Roger has the more successful tweener. LOL. But if you take my point, it's not like Roger has so many shots that Rafa doesn't have. He may be better at some, but Rafa is better at others. It seems a fallacy to say that Roger has way more variety than Rafa.

 

[Moxie]

Haha even you must have been laughing when you typed that Rafa should have 10 majors off clay. He hasn't underachieved at all, especially at Wimbledon and USO. Him winning 2 at Wimbledon is a joke, and of course was a dark spot on Roger for the match itself and the ramifications. But we all know he'd be jack shit on grass if it wasn't slowed down drastically.

And you're starting to sound like Nadalgoat in that you want to hand Rafa titles when he was out hurt. Doesn't work like that and one of them, 2014 USO seemed very unlikely anyways. He'd have had a decent shot at 2009 Wimbledon, aside from that he's had the chance to defend the titles and didn't. And that doesn't even go into MS events and crappy 500's he couldn't win twice in a row

I won't apologize for what I said. You and other Fed fans go on and on about how Roger should have achieved more at the USO, Wimbledon. You're talking about USOpens that Roger didn't even make the finals in. I'm only mentioning Majors where Rafa made the final. And I'm not talking about the 2014 USO, only saying that he didn't defend it due to injury. 2011 Wimbledon and USO: Nadal was the better grass player in that final v. Djokovic, but Novak was in his head. Same at the USO that year...Djokovic was gamy in his shoulder and still Rafa couldn't come up with the goods. If you get to complain about your guy losing to a player you don't think he should have, due to head issues, then I can, too. Of the AOs, Rafa's back going in 2014 was just a shame. And having the break lead over both Djokovic (2012) and Federer (2017,) it's not unfair to say that he should have won one of those. If you continue to claim your right to say that Roger should have done better at various Majors, then you have to accept my right to say the same about these ones for Nadal. I'm not inventing any SFs he didn't win, or claiming where he didn't go further due to injury. I'm talking about finals he was in. You seem to make claims for Roger based on your idea that he's simply so fabulous, even where he didn't make the final.

 

[DarthFed]

He was not a better grass court player than Nole after the latter came into his own. He should've lost that and of course on paper it is no contest vs Roger on grass. And that's my point, he has managed to win 6 off clay when he is up against the two best hard court players of all time, the best grass court player ever and another player with a far better game for grass (and anything off clay). All things considered Rafa has done way more than most fans would've expected off clay. In both those AO finals he lost to Nole and Roger he was being badly outplayed, down 2 sets to 1 in both, and did well to take those to 5. Against Stan he was getting owned and then got hurt. Maybe he comes back but very possibly he doesn't.

And seriously going to argue that your boy has more variety than Roger? Even some of the rabid Djoker fans didn't argue that for their guy.

 

[atttomole]

Please note above that the bold was not my choice, as it wasn't in my post. I don't know what that happened.

I agree that Roger's serve is better and helps him more. Roger is an excellent volleyer, but Nadal is very fine. I've noted Nadal's finishing at the net, and Nadal has great drop shots, which he also uses to finish points. Arguably Nadal's are better from farther from the net. Don't start with the forehand, as they both have world-class ones. Nadal's BH has improved and has long been stronger than Federer's. I agree on Roger's DTL BH...as better, but not a shot that Rafa doesn't have. I would also argue that Rafa's running forehand is a better shot, and he's a better passer than Roger. Both are great and reliable at the smash, and I think they're equal on the lob, which they don't use as much as someone like Murray, for example, who has a great one. Oh, and Roger has the more successful tweener. LOL. But if you take my point, it's not like Roger has so many shots that Rafa doesn't have. He may be better at some, but Rafa is better at others. It seems a fallacy to say that Roger has way more variety than Rafa.

Generally speaking, many of the top players have most of the shots. However, that does not mean that they have the same level of variety. Roger plays high risk tennis that few other players-if any-can play. He can play the ball close to the lines many times, even in a single point, and still win the point because he can do it consistently. If someone else tries that, they would make a tonne of unforced errors. Roger's game has fewer margins of error. Nadal on the other hand is very good at keeping the ball on the court, while waiting for an error from the opponent. I know that Nadal does hit winners too, but he plays a less risky game than Roger. Roger tries to win points by playing all kinds of shots from his repertoire in a single point, while Nadal is more content to keep the ball on the court than trying to win the point from his own shot. Variety is not just about the list of shots you can play, but how often you can play them. Even the likes of Tsonga, Berdych, Ferrer etc can play drop shots too, but they do not do it often.

 

[Moxie]

He was not a better grass court player than Nole after the latter came into his own. He should've lost that and of course on paper it is no contest vs Roger on grass. And that's my point, he has managed to win 6 off clay when he is up against the two best hard court players of all time, the best grass court player ever and another player with a far better game for grass (and anything off clay). All things considered Rafa has done way more than most fans would've expected off clay. In both those AO finals he lost to Nole and Roger he was being badly outplayed, down 2 sets to 1 in both, and did well to take those to 5. Against Stan he was getting owned and then got hurt. Maybe he comes back but very possibly he doesn't.

And seriously going to argue that your boy has more variety than Roger? Even some of the rabid Djoker fans didn't argue that for their guy.

If you would read more carefully, I never said that Rafa has more variety than Roger. I'm only arguing that Roger doesn't have WAY more, as @atttomole said, and can't really argue for.

As far as the 2011 Wimbledon, Djokovic had never won a title on grass. And Nadal had beaten him on grass, in the final at Queen's in '08. Nadal was in his 5th final at Wimbledon, while Novak was in his first. I believe that most would say that Novak has become a better grass court player, but his advantage in that 2011 final was that he'd just beaten Rafa in 4 finals in a row. There is no reasonable argument that says that Novak was the better grass player, at that moment.

I don't think you can say that Rafa was "badly" out-played by Novak or Roger in those AO finals. He was behind, but being up a break in the 5th isn't being badly beaten. And it's more than a punter's chance. As to the final v. Stan, you can say whatever you want, but Nadal was hurt so early on, I don't like Stan's chances v. a healthy Nadal, especially in his first Slam final. As Kieran liked to point out, Roger was down a set and a break v. Bagdahtis. Should we have turned off the TV after that?

 

[Moxie]

Generally speaking, many of the top players have most of the shots. However, that does not mean that they have the same level of variety. Roger plays high risk tennis that few other players-if any-can play. He can play the ball close to the lines many times, even in a single point, and still win the point because he can do it consistently. If someone else tries that, they would make a tonne of unforced errors. Roger's game has fewer margins of error. Nadal on the other hand is very good at keeping the ball on the court, while waiting for an error from the opponent. I know that Nadal does hit winners too, but he plays a less risky game than Roger. Roger tries to win points by playing all kinds of shots from his repertoire in a single point, while Nadal is more content to keep the ball on the court than trying to win the point from his own shot. Variety is not just about the list of shots you can play, but how often you can play them. Even the likes of Tsonga, Berdych, Ferrer etc can play drop shots too, but they do not do it often.

I'd actually argue that Djokovic plays higher-risk tennis than Roger. You seem to have moved the ball on the notion of variety. Now, it's about how often they play with variety, is it? Well, then that just starts to be how you like your tennis, point-to-point, but not who has more variety in their game, as an arsenal. And before Darth gets on me again, I'm not saying that Roger doesn't have more, only that it's not as much as conventional wisdom/cliche forum conversation tries to tell us.

 

[DarthFed]

If you would read more carefully, I never said that Rafa has more variety than Roger. I'm only arguing that Roger doesn't have WAY more, as @atttomole said, and can't really argue for.

As far as the 2011 Wimbledon, Djokovic had never won a title on grass. And Nadal had beaten him on grass, in the final at Queen's in '08. Nadal was in his 5th final at Wimbledon, while Novak was in his first. I believe that most would say that Novak has become a better grass court player, but his advantage in that 2011 final was that he'd just beaten Rafa in 4 finals in a row. There is no reasonable argument that says that Novak was the better grass player, at that moment.

I don't think you can say that Rafa was "badly" out-played by Novak or Roger in those AO finals. He was behind, but being up a break in the 5th isn't being badly beaten. And it's more than a punter's chance. As to the final v. Stan, you can say whatever you want, but Nadal was hurt so early on, I don't like Stan's chances v. a healthy Nadal, especially in his first Slam final. As Kieran liked to point out, Roger was down a set and a break v. Bagdahtis. Should we have turned off the TV after that?

And Attomole is correct, Roger does have a lot more variety than Rafa. Variety doesn't mean someone's better because I'd also say Murray has/had more variety than Djokovic and Nadal too. But generally I thought it's kind of accepted that Roger has the most variety by far. He can effectively attack in more ways than anyone and has more clubs in the bag.

Djokovic pre 2011 wasn't better on HC than Nadal. He clearly became a different player and it wasn't mental in that final, he just got clobbered. Tough to talk about it being all mental when it was not a competitive final.

We know the dynamic between Rafa and Roger and that played a role in the last AO final. One good set followed by a big letdown and it played out that way until the 5th. I don't think Rafa's play in the 2nd or 4th were any better than they were all match. Roger was largely fighting his own demons. 2012 AO was similar in a way to 2009, it was a weak loss for Fed and Nadal because their opponents in those finals were running on fumes for large parts of those matches after brutal semis. That helped Nadal sneak back into the match vs Djoker and Roger probably should've been pounded in 3 or 4 the way he served in 2009.

As for Stan, I hope you aren't comparing 2006 Roger at AO to 2014 Nadal. And also it is clear that Stan is not Baghs either. Stan had just beaten a much stronger HC player than Nadal a couple rounds before. I think Rafa would've had to earn that one if he was going to come back and win. Saying over 50% chance...I will say that's generous but it's fine that you have faith in your boy

 

[DarthFed]

I'd actually argue that Djokovic plays higher-risk tennis than Roger. You seem to have moved the ball on the notion of variety. Now, it's about how often they play with variety, is it? Well, then that just starts to be how you like your tennis, point-to-point, but not who has more variety in their game, as an arsenal. And before Darth gets on me again, I'm not saying that Roger doesn't have more, only that it's not as much as conventional wisdom/cliche forum conversation tries to tell us.

How exactly does Djokovic play higher risk tennis than Roger?? Are you referring to some of those crazy slap shot returns? If so let's be real, it's not like he does that often.

 

[Moxie]

How exactly does Djokovic play higher risk tennis than Roger?? Are you referring to some of those crazy slap shot returns? If so let's be real, it's not like he does that often.

He hits flatter and goes for the lines. I'm not disparaging Roger. I don't think he has to play so high-risk. His shots are generally great enough that he doesn't have to go for broke.