Federer the Best Ever? I Think Not - He's not Even the Best Player of This Era

[festeringZit]

Correct me if I'm wrong. But, how can Federer be the best ever as some say
if he's not even the best player of this era? In a non-team sport Nadal
holds a huge 14-7 lead in head to head matches. 7 of these have been
in Grand Slam Finals, of which Nadal has won 5.

Head-to-head tallies

The following is a breakdown of their head-to-head results:<sup id="cite_ref-atp-headtohead_8-1" class="reference">[9]</sup>

Nadal serves to Federer during the 2006 Wimbledon final

• All Matches: Nadal 14-7
• All Finals: Nadal 12–5
• Grand Slams: Nadal 6–2
• Grand Slam Finals: Nadal 5–2
• Best of 5 sets: Nadal 8-3
• Masters Cup: Federer 2–0
• Masters Series: Nadal 7–3
• Masters Series Finals: Nadal 6–3

[edit] Results on each court surface

• Clay courts: Nadal 10–2 (Best of 5: Nadal 6-0)
• Hard courts: 3–3
• Grass courts: Federer 2–1

 

[festeringZit]

My opinion is that especially in a non-team sport, to be considered the best ever, you'd have to at least be better than the players you played with in your era in head--to-head matches.
Especially when there are so many storied matches between these two players.

 

[Illini]

Federer much better, not even close. At least until now. Nadal is still young.

 

[SayHeyKid]

I don't think you can gauge the best ever solely due to head-head records. After all, Andy Murray also has a winning record over Federer. If Nadal stays healthy throughout his career (which is a huge if), he will most likely be remembered as the best player ever, he definitely has the potential.

That said, in this era Federer has accomplished much more than Nadal, and it isn't even close. Yes, Nadal has the a 14-7 record against Federer. Yet, 12 of those matches have been on red clay, and Nadal is the best ever on clay, hands down (only exception MAYBE could be Bjorn Borg). I don't think any big tennis fans can dispute Nadal is 2x as good on clay as Federer is on grass. However, Federer still has accomplished much more. Not only his 16 grand slams, but his record of 23 consecutive semi-finals in slams in my opinion is the most impressive record in any sport in the modern era.

Nadal definitely has potential to be the best ever when it's all said and done, but he still has much more to accomplish in his career.

 

[HacheMan]

Who do you consider best ever Fester?

 

[nuckers]

Definitely the best ever. You don't break the records he did by accident, consistent excellence over an extended period. Rafas been great for a short period and maybe one day he works himself into the conversation but it's still too early and Rafas injury count continues to build. His style is particularly hard on the body and whether he can maintain this form for the long haul remains to be seen. It's like back when Seles was dominating the game on the womans side and she was talked about as possibly the best over cause she was handing Graf losses but it didn't last. Rafa plays a style that drives Fed crazy and it's not a favorable match up for him but you gotta compare overall numbers wins losses titles and not just head to head. Otherwise you could see Rafa having a losing record vs someone like Djokovic (dont know just naming any other player) and then what Djokos the best ever? Also 10-2 on clay courts, you spread those matches over a more neutral ground and not one that favors Rafa and the results would be a little more even.

 

[festeringZit]

Federer much better, not even close. At least until now. Nadal is still young.

Huh?

Even though Rafal has kicked his ass 14 out of 21 times, it's not even close? WTF?

 

[festeringZit]

Who do you consider best ever Fester?

I don't like to compare players from different eras. Laver was the best of his era, Sampras was the best of his era.

I'd say that Federer was the best of his era, but I hesitate because Nadal has clearly been the better player in head-to-head matches. So, I guess I'd give Federer the title of overall best player
of his era with an asterisk.

Sey Hey Kid, Murray has a better record against Federer, but they haven't played each other more than 5 or 6 times.

 

[Illini]

Huh?

Even though Rafal has kicked his ass 14 out of 21 times, it's not even close? WTF?

Not close. Nadal is unbeatable on clay and would win 10 out of 10 matches. Federer dominates on any other surface head to head. Fed is a machine. Nadal not nearly as consistent.

 

[rayray]

and more people have beaten nadal than have beaten fed...fed is no doubt the best tennis player ever and his record against the world proves it...everyone is entitled to their opinion though...no matter how much logic and statistics proves it wrong... nadals body wont hold up long enough for him to accomplish all the things fed has

 

[festeringZit]

and more people have beaten nadal than have beaten fed...fed is no doubt the best tennis player ever and his record against the world proves it...everyone is entitled to their opinion though...no matter how much logic and statistics proves it wrong... nadals body wont hold up long enough for him to accomplish all the things fed has

How can you call someone the best ever in a non-team head-to-head sport when he's clearly NOT better than Nadal in head-to-head matches? It's not even close?

Seems ridiculous to me.

 

[billhill999]

Nadal is the best player on clay, that much you can not argue.

 

[festeringZit]

How can you call someone the best ever in a non-team head-to-head sport when he's clearly NOT better than Nadal in head-to-head matches? It's not even close?

Seems ridiculous to me.

Oh, and by the way, I'm no stranger to tennis. I played satellite tournaments for years, and have won my city men's league more than once (city of 100,000 people).

 

[festeringZit]

Nadal is the best player on clay, that much you can not argue.

The *only* surface that Roger has en edge over Nadal is grass where he holds a 2-1 edge (in head-to-head play).

 

[billhill999]

Nadal is the greatest ever on a clay court, yeah, Roger is a little better on grass, but that's about it.

 

[Illini]

The *only* surface that Roger has en edge over Nadal is grass where he holds a 2-1 edge (in head-to-head play).

I think you have to look at the entire body of work. The Cards were the best team in baseball in 2004, but lost 70% of the time they played the Cubs. Means nothing. Nadal has a long way to go to be in the same class with Fed and all of his accomplishments.

 

[red007]

federer is the best ever. nadal is better on clay. fed's streak of reaching so many consecutive Semis at Grand Slams is the greatest record in the history of all sports imo.

 

[festeringZit]

I think you have to look at the entire body of work. The Cards were the best team in baseball in 2004, but lost 70% of the time they played the Cubs. Means nothing. Nadal has a long way to go to be in the same class with Fed and all of his accomplishments.

The baseball situation you cite is over one season, this situation is over their whole career. It'll be interesting to see where the totals end up over the next 5+ years.

 

[festeringZit]

federer is the best ever. nadal is better on clay. fed's streak of reaching so many consecutive Semis at Grand Slams is the greatest record in the history of all sports imo.

I can't find mention of that record on *any* "greatest sports records" lists on the internet.

 

[SayHeyKid]

How can you call someone the best ever in a non-team head-to-head sport when he's clearly NOT better than Nadal in head-to-head matches? It's not even close?

Seems ridiculous to me.

If Nadal and Federer were both 100% healthy and 100% at their best and played 12 matches; 4 on Hard court, 4 on grass, and 4 on clay, i'd personally bet my dollars on Nadal. Hell, I have bet Nadal during their last 5-6 meetings. Nadal's style of play is torture for Federer, and I agree he matches up great vs Federer. That said, I don't see how that makes him an overall better tennis player than Federer. When Marat Safin was playing in his prime and was #1 in the world the one player he couldn't seem to beat was Fabrice Santoro of all people. There are other numerous examples in tennis. As I pointed out earlier, Andy Murray holds a 7-6 record overall against Federer, but I think we can all agree he is no where near Federer's level.

Literally the only chink in Federer's armor is the fact he struggles against Nadal. Nadal is an amazing player and will end up with a winning record head to head, but in terms of overall accomplishments, Nadal is no where near Federer's level right now.