Nadal leads 12:6
Hard: Federer leads 3:2
Clay: Nadal leads 9:1
Grass: Federer leads 2:1
Indoor: Federer leads 2:0
No matter what you think of Nadal. You have to give him this:
Ever since Nadal burst on to the tennis scene, 99.9 percent of the world population has been out to bring him down. There may be some truth to few allegations, but there is a whole mountain of pieces on the other end that just is too much to ignore.
No matter how you feel about him, here are certain facts that even the most chronic Nadal-hater has to agree with, willingly or unwillingly. Here is the count:
1. If you were to ask the world, what is the ONE quality of Nadal that sticks out the most, it has to be his ‘never-say-die’ attitude. That is an attribute which has been revered, worshipped and envied since the beginning of time. David vs Goliath, anyone???
It has such magic, that it overshadows all other areas and can carry a person over the hump, without having many other skills and properties. It is this intangible quality that can and in many cases, have wrested victory from the jaws of certain defeat.
The beauty is, that it is not only an invaluable asset, for the player to achieve success, it is what has endeared the player to the fans, since the time of Adam and Eve. History books are replete with numerous events in practically every sphere of human life, where the person with the most resiliency and heart, eventually conquers a more skilled and powerful adversary time and time again.
Amazingly, even in defeat the party in possession of this unique property, wins a huge adoring following.
This invaluable trait has done more for Nadal’s game and popularity (or is it unpopularity) than all of his ‘tennis skills’ combined, that he has worked on, so hard and so long, on the tennis court.
2. By being fearless of Federer’s mighty game, he has created a legitimate rivalry unlike Roddick and Hewitt. Rivalry that has energised the tennis world by sending a hot buzz across the board.
The cash registers haven’t stop ringing since Nadal erupted on the scene. The sponsors and the event organizers couldn’t be happier. You cannot argue against it, no matter which side of the isle, you are in.
3. Nadal has shown exceptional maturity, off the court, for a teenager. He has never uttered anything derogatory against Federer, despite being on the receiving end of some uncalled for jabs from Federer like ‘Nadal is a one-dimensional player’ etc. He has never been arrogant, despite having a winning record against Federer, unlike Djokovic, who is yet to win a match against the World’s No. 1, but has already said enough.
He has remained humble and respectful of other players, even when provoked. Ljubicic made some, not so polite comments, last year to which Nadal said “I have a good relationship with Ljubicic and I don’t want to ruin it over this”.
There are other teenagers on the tour who have yet to show that maturity and demeanour off the court.
4. As if all that is not enough, the facts delineate a clear picture of a force in tennis. He has won more titles before turning 20 than everyone except Borg and is tied with him for most titles as a teenager. No one else has done that in open era. Not even Rod Laver, Pete Sampras, Roy Emerson and Roger Federer. You’ve got to tip your hat for that, no matter where you stand.
His dominance on clay is unmatched. His clay court winning streak is now at a ridiculous 72 and counting. You know the number for the last streak on clay? A mere 53 back in 1977. He has licked it by almost 20 matches!!!
His performance last year at Wimbledon was startling. No one in the history of the game has won the Roland Garros and Wimbledon in the same year, except Borg. And Nadal came very close to achieving, what is referred to as the ‘most difficult double’ in the tennis world and is considered impossible by current players. Nadal almost pulled it off.
You cannot be in possession of everything mentioned above, without a very mature and indepth understanding of the game and the skill set to execute it to perfection. He deserves all the credit in the world for having reached here at such an early age. Where were you at 18, 19 and 20?
Nadal is ahead by 135 points. Nadal: 936, Federer: 801.
Federer is entered to play in one remaining Grand Slam worth 200 points for the winner, and six Masters Series worth 100 points each for winner, in four months.
Federer is hoping for others to take Nadal out early, to gain on the point total. But even if Nadal manages to reach the final without winning the title, it could still keep him within striking distance. Specially if Federer is not able to win most of his events.
Remember Federer is going after the ’six straight years at No. 1′ stat of Sampras.
Everyone has a view on tennis' two titans,
If Swiss court genius Roger Federer were a coconut at the top of a palm tree, that would have to make Spaniard superstar Rafael Nada the ambitious monkey trying to pull him down. Coconuts and monkeys aside though, Federer has been the undisputed champion at the top of the tennis tree for four years now but as of 25th July 2008, Nadal will have been making worthy challenges for the World No. 1 title for three of those years. In the process of duking it out for the ultimate honour, both players have also established new records for the number of weeks spent consecutively in their top two World Ranking positions.
Which all makes Federer a jolly lucky man, really. There's nothing more unfortunate for a champion than to have no rival of equivalent talent to prove themself against.
Arriving at the No. 1 makes any player memorable; remaining No. 1 despite an exhaustive rivalry makes that player a legend. This Federer most certainly is - and within his lifetime too. We said he was lucky. But he could be forgiven for not feeling that right now, as he most professionally attempts to deflect waves of critics declaring his time might be over, in the fallout to his recent French Open loss to Nadal. One imagines that Nadal, in a comparable situation, might have employed a little more shouting in his own defence. But that's part of the joy, intrigue and drama of this remarkable contest: the extreme contrasts in character and style of these two compelling players.
Nadal we shall associate with the element of fire. He is young, passionate, a souped up Spanish successor to the emotional on-court antics of superseded Australian star Lleyton Hewitt. In sports champions, the mental fortitude required to drive that winning edge sometimes spins off into a kind of miscontrued egotism; Nadal, indeed, has often been found guilty as charged. Facing the Wimbledon match of his life at only 22 years old, he narrowly defeated Pat Cash in a exhibition match at 15. At 19 he first broke Andrei Agassi's record of the number of consecutive matches won by a teenager, racking up 24, and then defeated Agassi himself at the Canadian Masters. In that same year, 2005, Nadal laid out the groundwork for his ongoing contest against Federer, winning 79 matches to Federer's 81. He also became only the third teenager to reach the World No. 2 ranking. His play is strong, fast, aggressive and best suited to the deep red clay courts.
In contrast, watching 26-year-old Roger Federer play was poetically described to me this morning as 'watching poetry in motion'. Federer is a grass court specialist and a more gentle character. Descriptions of his playing style also often seem to include adjectives like 'fluid' and 'smooth' and author David Wallace Foster went as fare as to describe his infamous and feared forehand as a 'great liquid whip'. Do not be seduced by the lyrical descriptions though: the man is a magnificent menace in a match even though he's just so nice about it you can't resent him for a moment.
This makes it such a pity that he's suffered a critical backlash since his French Open defeat earlier this month at the hands of Nadal. For one thing, the contest was held on clay, which has always been Nadal's domain, where Wimbledon is battled out on grass. For another, Federer is still recovering his form after suffering the dreaded wasting illness, glandular fever. And even if the crown does slip later this week at the All England Club, does it spell the end for the Federer age? It is a tribute to the ability of Nadal that some think it does; it's a tribute to Federer that he's looking the possibility in the eye and still talking candidly about next year. One thing is for sure: he isn't going to bow down without a hell of a fight.
NADAL FACTS
He didn't become the first player since Bjorn Borg in 1980 to win the French Open without dropping a set, but Rafael Nadal did just about everything else on Sunday.
The 22-year-old Spaniard won his 4TH straight French Open crown, and for the 3RD consecutive year, he beat top-seeded Roger Federer in 3 sets.
What else did Rafa accomplish in the final? Here's a look at the most notable statistics from his three-peat performance at Roland Garros.
0 -- Losses in 34 career clay-court matches that Nadal has played which were a best-of-five format.
1 -- Clay-court match lost this season (26-1)
.
2 -- Number of players since 1925 who haS won the French Open at least three years in a row. Nadal joins Bjorn Borg, who won the French four consecutive years from 1978 to 1981.
3 -- Losses by Roger Federer in his Past nine Grand Slam events. They have all come at Roland Garros and each time Federer lost to Nadal in four sets -- 2005 semifinals and 2006-07-08 finals.
4 -- Total sets lost by Nadal at the French Open in the past two years.
5 -- Titles in 2007, most on the ATP Tour.
6 -- Years it has been since the No. 1 seed won the French Open. (In 2001, top-seeded Gustavo Kuerten beat Alex Corretja.)
7 -- Number of men who have won three or more French Open titles: Bjorn Borg (6), Henri Cochet (4), Nadal, Gustavo Kuerten, Mats Wilander, Ivan Lendl and Rene Lacoste (3 each).
8 -- Career wins against Federer. Nadal is 8-4 against the world's No. 1 player, including 6-1 on clay.
9 -- Nadal and Federer have combined to win the past nine Grand Slam titles. The last player not named Nadal or Federer to win a major was Marat Safin, who won the 2005 Australian Open.
10 -- Break points faced -- and saved -- by Nadal in the first set of the final.
Hmmmmm … let me hear this straight, did some one say GOAT …… I know the answer to this one … just ask me …. lol …. and loud vocal calls of …… oh no!!!, please ….. not Gerard again? Sorry …. I’mmmmm back.
I know I will be shot if I say who and why, so let’s just say, it is a great topic and there seems to be at least and pleasing to me that there is a consensus on two fronts ….
1. That there seems to be widespread agreement that the Goat is one of only either 4 players: Laver, Borg, Federer or perhaps Nadal - who if he can continue his dominance over Federer and continue winning on clay and also break through for a few threepeats in the AO or US Open over the next 3 to 4 years, which means there is a lot of tennis yet to come from the great Spanish player for him to etch his name as a GOAT contender for the immediate, so that brings us back to 3; Laver, Borg & Federer …. &
2. At least wisdom and common sense prevails in this thread and others like it on this great topic, that no one is mentioning Sampras as a contender to be considered in this exalted GOAT company and for so many reasons. He was most definitely a great player; as was Rosewell, Hoad, Llendl, Agassi, McEnroe, Connors, Becker, Edberg and Willander to name but a few of our former greats, and I would say he was possibly the second best of these behind Lew Hoad, but GOAT, never.
I think CMS has got it pretty right, in another 3 or 4 years we will have a more definitive answer, and this discussion and picture will take final shape ….
1. Will Federer resurrect his dominance of the previous 4 years (2004-2007) or has 2008 foreshadowed what the next few years will become for him?
2. Can he find a way to beat Nadal regularly and dominate him?
3. Can he win the French Open? ….
…. all three of these parts will have to be in place for Federer to take over and rightfully be considered the GOAT and thus take over from Laver and Borg. It is a simple conjecture that can not be avoided for Federer nor his fans, if he is not the undisputed best player in his own era as Borg and Laver were in theirs, then no argument can be mounted to suggest he could be the best of all time. The argument that he has come across the greatest clay court player of all time in Nadal which in itself is premature and still only conjecture at this stage, as Nadal still has not surpassed Borg, and even more salient is that we cannot water down the word greatest. As a superlative the word greatest means that there is no greater, well at the moment he has a record that is quite substantially flawed against Nadal, he trails in h2h by 13 - 7, I think! Time may correct that balance and if this can be achieved, then I really think Federer will once and for all be universally anointed and exalted as the GOAT with no question marks, but until these questions are answered it is too early and speculative only and he sits behind Borg and Laver.
Question: Were the respondents in this thread alive to watch both Laver and Borg dominate and reign in their respective eras, if so, as I was fortunate to be, then you can only but concur that Federer’s dominance is no greater than what these two former greats maintained throughout their respective careers (in Borg’s case from his prodigious beginning to the early end an 8 - 9 year period) and both Laver and Borg’s records and statistics bear testimony to this as well.
So let’s see what the next 3 years brings for Federer and Nadal, the h2h for them both and the titles they pick up will give all of us a clear, unambiguous non-biased answer to this wonderful topic.
