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

[atttomole]

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.

If you were to list the shots that most players can play, you would think that they have the same variety. The only way you can compare them is by watching them. You said that Rafa can volley, hits a good backhand, serves decent, plays an excellent forehand and can play drop shots. Basically the same shots that Roger plays. If you were to look at that list without watching the players, you would think that they have the same variety. I did not move the ball at all, but I was trying to make the point that merely saying that Rafa can play every shot that Roger plays does not mean that they have the same variety.

 

[Moxie]

If you were to list the shots that most players can play, you would think that they have the same variety. The only way you can compare them is by watching them. You said that Rafa can volley, hits a good backhand, serves decent, plays an excellent forehand and can play drop shots. Basically the same shots that Roger plays. If you were to look at that list without watching the players, you would think that they have the same variety. I did not move the ball at all, but I was trying to make the point that merely saying that Rafa can play every shot that Roger plays does not mean that they have the same variety.

And I was making the point that Rafa is not as far off on his variety has people who go with the cliches and don't watch the tennis would actually have. If I don't argue it with you, then folks like Darth get away with trying to say that Rafa is just fast and fit and scrabbles around well on a clay court. That is so far from the truth as to be laughable. People are afraid to admit how close Rafa is in his talents to Roger. They aren't all the same. I've said Roger is better at many things. And Rafa is better at others, and close in some, or equal. This isn't rocket science. How do we think Rafa has won so much in the era of Roger, and at Roger's expense? Federer and his record are plenty good enough that his fans don't have to take down Rafa to make it so. They are clearly the two best players of this era, and by many accounts, ever.

 

[Federberg]

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.

how can you in good conscience try to get away with this when you get at DF for these types of observations?

 

[Federberg]

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.

Moxie... Good grief. You know tennis better than this. How on earth can you say Novak plays higher risk tennis than Federer. This doesn't make any sense at all!

 

[Federberg]

And I was making the point that Rafa is not as far off on his variety has people who go with the cliches and don't watch the tennis would actually have. If I don't argue it with you, then folks like Darth get away with trying to say that Rafa is just fast and fit and scrabbles around well on a clay court. That is so far from the truth as to be laughable. People are afraid to admit how close Rafa is in his talents to Roger. They aren't all the same. I've said Roger is better at many things. And Rafa is better at others, and close in some, or equal. This isn't rocket science. How do we think Rafa has won so much in the era of Roger, and at Roger's expense? Federer and his record are plenty good enough that his fans don't have to take down Rafa to make it so. They are clearly the two best players of this era, and by many accounts, ever.

I think there is a lot of talking at cross-purposes here. I would agree that Rafa is a capable as Roger in making a wide variety of shots. Some are better than Roger's. That's not the point though, and I think you know this Moxie. The point is that Rafa is not willing to employ that type of play consistently. It's a fallacy, for example, to say that Rafa is as good a volleyer as Federer. Is he as capable of volleying? Largely yes. But if you're not using it consistently to win points I'm sorry you don't get credit for what you can do. You get it for what you do do. It's sort of like saying that Wawrinka or Gasquet have better backhands than Federer's, at least until the last year. It's an easy thing to say because they were definitely more aggressive and willing to use their backhands as weapons than Roger was. But the interesting thing is whenever you watched Roger play against both of those guys on hard courts, he would generally win those backhand exchanges. I personally (up until the beginning of 2017) would have given the nod to Wawrinka and Gasquet, because they surely were racking up more points on their backhands than Roger, despite the fact that in reality he could match them. It's not about what you can do, it's about what you do

 

[Andy22]

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.

So that if Nadal has not def a title outside of clay he still has a better record on hard courts, grass then 90% of all players on tour. Also nadal has a better masters record then Federer, Nadal won 9 masters on hard courts, 21 on clay nadal won at least 9 times on all surfaces played at masters. 30 titles, Federer won masters titles mostly on just one surface.21/27 Making nadal a more complete player. Also Nadal won more masters titles,

 

[Federberg]

So that if Nadal has not def a title outside of clay he still has a better record on hard courts, grass then 90% of all players on tour. Also nadal has a better masters record then Federer, Nadal won 9 masters on hard courts, 21 on clay nadal won at least 9 times on all surfaces played at masters. 30 titles, Federer won masters titles on just one surface. 26/27. Making nadal a more complete player. Also Nadal won more masters titles,

your data is incorrect. Federer has won 6 clay masters series titles, and he's defended a title on clay... German Open 04, 05

 

[Andy22]

your data is incorrect. Federer has won 6 clay masters series titles, and he's defended a title on clay... German Open 04, 05

OK but 9 masters titles on hard courts is still better then 6. Also nadal still was more masters titles. More 500 ATP titles

 

[Federberg]

OK but 9 masters titles on hard courts is still better then 6. Also nadal still was more masters titles. More 500 ATP titles

Nadal and Federer have both won 19 ATP 500 titles. Please check your facts.

It's odd that you want to do that sort of comparison... by definition it doesn't end well for Rafa

Federer leads Nadal, 20 to 16 in slams
Federer leads Nadal 6 to 0 in year end championships
Nadal leads Federer 30 to 27 in ATP Masters 1000
They match with 19 titles in ATP 500s
Federer leads Nadal 24 to 9 in ATP 250s
Federer leads Nadal 96 to 75 in titles

I don't get why you would want to use facts to argue your points?

 

[Andy22]

Nadal and Federer have both won 19 ATP 500 titles. Please check your facts.

It's odd that you want to do that sort of comparison... by definition it doesn't end well for Rafa

Federer leads Nadal, 20 to 16 in slams
Federer leads Nadal 6 to 0 in year end championships
Nadal leads Federer 30 to 27 in ATP Masters 1000
They match with 19 titles in ATP 500s
Federer leads Nadal 24 to 9 in ATP 250s
Federer leads Nadal 96 to 75 in titles

I don't get why you would want to use facts to argue your points?

Well just forgot about 6 masters titles on clay because Federer sucked on clay since 2013 plus nadal has won more masters titles fact. Tied with Federer 500 ATP titles fact. The more titles does not mean much because Federer had 5 extra seasons then nadal. Leading by 15 more 250 titles that a joke level of players field. Nadal has a gold metal Olympics single titles federer 0. Nadal won 3 TS 10 times Monte Carlo, BC, Roland garros fact. Nadal also won GS on all surfaces in the some season 2010, Federer ever done this. So are a lot of stats that nadal tops Federer. I can name a another 10 or so things where nadal tops Federer. H2h., more slams since 2008,nadal 3 times this Dec 2010-2018 end year world number one to Federer 0

 

[Federberg]

^I get it. You're a fan of Rafa. You can try to give the facts the right polish to make Rafa look better. Perhaps this sort of thing should be left until their careers are over? As you say, Roger is older, so it stands to reason that he would have accomplished more. So let's wait and see. A comparison at the moment simply doesn't work for Rafa no matter what you say. For every stat you bring up that shows Rafa in a good light, Fed fans could bring up a multiple showing Federer in a better light. That's easier to do because Federer has accomplished more and has been around longer. So as I said, table this for when their careers are done

 

[Andy22]

^I get it. You're a fan of Rafa. You can try to give the facts the right polish to make Rafa look better. Perhaps this sort of thing should be left until their careers are over? As you say, Roger is older, so it stands to reason that he would have accomplished more. So let's wait and see. A comparison at the moment simply doesn't work for Rafa no matter what you say. For every stat you bring up that shows Rafa in a good light, Fed fans could bring up a multiple showing Federer in a better light. That's easier to do because Federer has accomplished more and has been around longer. So as I said, table this for when their careers are done

OK fair enough, we revist this then they careers are a over

 

[DarthFed]

OK but 9 masters titles on hard courts is still better then 6. Also nadal still was more masters titles. More 500 ATP titles

Actually no, 9 titles in 6 MS events isn't really better than 6 in 3. And for as much as Rafa and his team will complain about surfaces he is playinf 3 on his best surface and 6 on his second best. Novak plays 6 on his best and 3 on his worst or 2nd best (debatable if he's truly better on grass). And Roger plays 6 on his second best and 3 on his worst. What do you think the MS titles would look like if they played 3 on grass instead of clay? Roger would have probably 25 more titles than Nadal and quite a bit more than Nole as well.

 

[DarthFed]

and it is actually 8 titles on HC for Nadal too.

 

[The_Grand_Slam]

Actually no, 9 titles in 6 MS events isn't really better than 6 in 3. And for as much as Rafa and his team will complain about surfaces he is playinf 3 on his best surface and 6 on his second best. Novak plays 6 on his best and 3 on his worst or 2nd best (debatable if he's truly better on grass). And Roger plays 6 on his second best and 3 on his worst. What do you think the MS titles would look like if they played 3 on grass instead of clay? Roger would have probably 25 more titles than Nadal and quite a bit more than Nole as well.

Roger would be more dominant in 1 week grass tourneys as the grass will not wear out a lot till final match

 

[britbox]

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.

Not your finest post...

 

[Andy22]

Actually no, 9 titles in 6 MS events isn't really better than 6 in 3. And for as much as Rafa and his team will complain about surfaces he is playinf 3 on his best surface and 6 on his second best. Novak plays 6 on his best and 3 on his worst or 2nd best (debatable if he's truly better on grass). And Roger plays 6 on his second best and 3 on his worst. What do you think the MS titles would look like if they played 3 on grass instead of clay? Roger would have probably 25 more titles than Nadal and quite a bit more than Nole as well.

OK fair enough but point was That Nadal won more masters titles 8 HC on his non-Fav surface then Federer 6 on clay but I don't think matters just putting out there

 

[Moxie]

I think there is a lot of talking at cross-purposes here. I would agree that Rafa is a capable as Roger in making a wide variety of shots. Some are better than Roger's. That's not the point though, and I think you know this Moxie. The point is that Rafa is not willing to employ that type of play consistently. It's a fallacy, for example, to say that Rafa is as good a volleyer as Federer. Is he as capable of volleying? Largely yes. But if you're not using it consistently to win points I'm sorry you don't get credit for what you can do. You get it for what you do do. It's sort of like saying that Wawrinka or Gasquet have better backhands than Federer's, at least until the last year. It's an easy thing to say because they were definitely more aggressive and willing to use their backhands as weapons than Roger was. But the interesting thing is whenever you watched Roger play against both of those guys on hard courts, he would generally win those backhand exchanges. I personally (up until the beginning of 2017) would have given the nod to Wawrinka and Gasquet, because they surely were racking up more points on their backhands than Roger, despite the fact that in reality he could match them. It's not about what you can do, it's about what you do

It's different to say that a player doesn't have as much variety as to say that he doesn't employ it as often. And I still think you over-state how much Nadal doesn't employ a variety of shots.

 

[Federberg]

It's different to say that a player doesn't have as much variety as to say that he doesn't employ it as often. And I still think you over-state how much Nadal doesn't employ a variety of shots.

Even if that was the case, and I actually disagree with that, you knew the context in which that statement was made Moxie. You do love to play these games

 

[Moxie]

Moxie... Good grief. You know tennis better than this. How on earth can you say Novak plays higher risk tennis than Federer. This doesn't make any sense at all!

Federer has more top spin than Djokovic, generally, and sometimes more than Nadal on his BH. I consider this to be lower-risk. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. If you have a different definition, I'll be happy to hear it, and try to leave off the condescension. I actually do think that Novak has more of a tendency to flatten out and go for broke than Roger. I consider that to be high-risk.