If the final was against Nadal, it would have been another story. The same old sob story for the great Federer. Nostalgia apart, Federer is only second best to Nadal on any surface currently. NADAL RULES ! however Djokovic might soon change the equation.
Federer is an all time great, a gifted player who makes tennis look so easy. The same is not true of Nandal or Djokovic both of whom (especially the former) make tennis look so difficult. So, apart from the statistics (which obviously favour the Swiss), it is the manner in which they play their game that determine (in the eyes of the Tennis fans) the superiority of Roger. Having said that however I do feel that both Nadal and Djoker are terrific players who are constantly improving. If both of them continue to play the way they are playing for another 4-6 years, they can still lay claim to the Greatest Player of All Time. As of now, it's Roger and I somehow feel that's the way it's going to remain.
Nadal is just lucky to win against Fed. Nobody considers Nadal as even a contender for GOAT where as all the contenders for GOAT will unanimously agree that Fedrer is GOAT. What you and I think doesnt matter.
If you are still not happy with my argument no body can help you as you are nuts.
Roger has had a good outing since the Aus Open. Nadal seems to be preserving his energy since the last one month he was no where to be seen. Djokovic has a lot of stake at the masters and hope to see him defending the titles.
since the swiss indoors in 2011. and to do this at the age of 30 is a remarkable feat. novak and nadal should be achieving this at their young age not federer. there is reason why federer is the greatest of all time and it shows with his unbelievable achievments. as long as federer is fit, he will keep playing tennis and will give competition to the likes of novak, nadal and andy.
only nadal fans are sitcking to this excuse just to pick on federer. Federer is the greatest of all time. there is no doubt about it. just because nadal fans say it otherwise won't change anything. If head to head really did matter then nadal should have atleast won one match vs nole in their last seven meetings. nadal has a winning head to head against him so logically he should win atleast one but he has lost seven straight times that's even a worst statistic then what federer has againt nadal. federer has never lost seven straight to nadal. and the head to head count vs nadal is misleading when it comes to federer. federer is already 30 ys old and still winning tournaments while there is five years age difference between him and nadal. you can't expect federer to win every match against nadal at his age yet federer still does it like last year 6-0 beating he gave to nadal at the world tour finals. this age difference tends to be ignored by nadal fans since nadals fans don't want to deal with the facts. another fact regarding the head to head is the amount of times they have played against each on clay which is clearly nadal's fav surface. when federer was at his peak, he came against nadal in so many tournaments on clay. if nadal had come the same no. of times at the other surfaces when federer was at his peak, that head to head count would be clearly in favor of federer. so nadal fans stop being ignorant of facts and admit the fact that the federer is greatest of all time
Re: HEAD TO HEAD COUNT DOES NOT MATTER
by HUSSAIN MITHANI on Mar 06, 2012 01:06 AM
currently roger has a better head to head vs novak (14-10). if roger decides to play till age of 35 and lets say that he gets beaten by novak 10 straight times making the head to head 20-14 in favor of Novak and Novak wins 10 grand slam titles, does that mean Novak is better than federer who has 16 grand slams. ofcourse not. head to head does not matter. it only matters to nadal fans cuz nadal fans do not think logically.
Re: Re: HEAD TO HEAD COUNT DOES NOT MATTER
by aishwarya patil on Mar 06, 2012 09:23 AM
Good Morning, Maulana Sahib. Nice to see you taking interest in Tennis. For the time being, let us forget about the best of all time and best of present time. Let us settle who is a better player between us. Anticipating that you feel you are the better player, I say I am better. Now how shall we settle the issue? There can be many ways in which this question can be attempted, but will you agree that the best way to settle the issue once for all is to agree to have a match? A still better way is to have a series of matches. Let us say we play each other 27 times, and I lead the tally 18-9. Even after this, if you keep insisting that you are a better player, what can I say about it? I can either keep quiet, or fight out of court. If a person has such numerical superiority over another person of his era, how can the second player be better than the first? And if a player is second best to another contemporary player, how can he lay any claims to being the best of his time or of all time? You don't agree? I knew you wouldn't.
Re: Re: Re: HEAD TO HEAD COUNT DOES NOT MATTER
by HUSSAIN MITHANI on Mar 07, 2012 01:02 AM
first of all my name is not maulana sahib. second of all, you fail to even read my post. as I have clearly stated why there is head-to head difference between nadal and federer but you fail to see logic. I think you need to go back to the basics of tennis and understand what tennis is all about. even after 10 people telling you the reality of the head to head you fail to understand and too stubborn to admit logic. I will leave you with your stubborness and you can continue on ranting about head to head count, its not helping you or your arguments in any ways.
Re: HEAD TO HEAD COUNT DOES NOT MATTER
by aishwarya patil on Mar 06, 2012 09:09 AM
Since the argument of Federer fans is not based on objectivity, they can go on arguing. Who can deny that Federer has won 16 Grand Slams, but Nadal has won 19 Masters 1000 titles, and in double quick time. How can we ignore this? Nadal has won 10 majors in lesser attempts than Federer and in a younger age. There is no reason to believe that he is not going to add more majors to his bag. Like in Cricket, batting average is not the sole indicator of a batsman's greatness, and a batsman with a lower average can be a better batsman, but this argument holds when we are comparing batsmen with comparable averages. Somebody averaging 47 may be better than someone averaging 52, but when somebody averages 99.94, he has got to be better than anyone averaging in the fifties. The argument ends here. Similarly, if Nadal had lead Federer head to head 5-2, and lagged behind in the titles won by say 5-16, one might have been inclined to accept Federer as a better player, but that is not the case. Nadal leads Federer 18-9, and no argument about the type of surface holds. His tally of majors won is also comaprable. How can anyone ignore 18-9? There is one method by which we can actually compute who is better: it is called the Analytical Hierarchy Method. Has any of the Federer fans heard about it? Does anyone challenge me to find out mathematically who is better? Let us try it.
Re: Re: HEAD TO HEAD COUNT DOES NOT MATTER
by ramabhadranS on Mar 06, 2012 01:08 PM
In future, when Nadal plays there is no need for him to pick his b.... There is a person readily available in India to do the job.!!!!
Re: Re: HEAD TO HEAD COUNT DOES NOT MATTER
by ramabhadranS on Mar 06, 2012 01:09 PM
In future, when Nadal plays there is no need for him to pick his b.... There is a person readily available in India to do the job.!!!!
Re: Re: HEAD TO HEAD COUNT DOES NOT MATTER
by HUSSAIN MITHANI on Mar 07, 2012 01:12 AM
nadal has so many masters titles thanks to his clay titles just like thanks to his clay titles he has a better head-to head than federer and thanks to his clay titles he has 10 grandslams. the fact is that nadal has failed to even defend a grandslam other than the clay at the french open. most of nadal's titles have been on clay that is why he has been achieve everything at such young age. but you can't stay young forever. all your arguments are pointless. nadal's greatness limits itself to clay only. he is not a complete player. if nadal is so great why can't he even win a single match against novak for seven straight times. does your logic of head to head suggest that nadal even win one match against novak in seven meetings after the head to head for nadal against novak was 16-7 before the seven meetings and now its 16-14. another proof that head to head count doesn't matter. even andy and federer have beaten novak in recent times. again you can continue to rant about head-to-head but as I have already proved it with logical reason why the head-to-head is what it is. there are reasons for it which you can ignore all you want but the facts are there.
Re: Re: HEAD TO HEAD COUNT DOES NOT MATTER
by A K on Mar 08, 2012 11:51 AM
If u want to compare nadal and Fedex. Compare their Opponents and their Victories.
Re: Re: Re: HEAD TO HEAD COUNT DOES NOT MATTER
by sportsenthusiast on Mar 09, 2012 10:05 AM
Federer is an all time great, a gifted player who makes tennis look so easy. The same is not true of Nandal or Djokovic both of whom (especially the former) make tennis look so difficult. So, apart from the statistics (which obviously favour the Swiss), it is the manner in which they play their game that determine (in the eyes of the Tennis fans) the superiority of Roger. Having said that however I do feel that both Nadal and Djoker are terrific players who are constantly improving. If both of them continue to play the way they are playing for another 4-6 years, they can still lay claim to the Greatest Player of All Time. As of now, it's Roger and I somehow feel that's the way it's going to remain.
Watching federer play at the age of 30, one cant deny he is the greatest of all-time. Its time for federer to show who is the master at the masters tournament as well.
Re: Re: Dubai title
by aishwarya patil on Mar 05, 2012 03:36 PM
Please name another contender for 'The Greatest of All Time' title, who lost 15 times to a player while being able to win 8 times himself. Unless Federer is able to improve his record against Nadal, he doesn't even qualify for being called 'The Greatest of His Era'.
Re: Re: Re: Dubai title
by vasantiben parmar on Mar 05, 2012 03:53 PM
suck nadal's aishwarya...wat u know about tennis..Fede is GOAT...record agaibst 1 player doesn't change career stats....nadal will lick u nice with steroids.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dubai title
by aishwarya patil on Mar 05, 2012 04:17 PM
Great post! What language! It speaks volumes of your background. Keep it up. One way to know what I know about Tennis is to ask some questions on Tennis, and let me answer. I am sure you wouldn't do it, because it is too logical, and Federer's fans don't like logic. For your own satisfaction, you can compare the following statistics about Federer and Nadal: 1. Winning Percentage: Matches won/ Matches played. 2. Winning Percentage: Titles won/ Tournaments played. 3. Performance in the Olympics.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dubai title
by Anand Vijayan on Mar 07, 2012 06:14 PM
Nadal fans like you Aishwarya hate logic even more. You mix emotion (pant pulling and the likes) with logic ..'emotional logic' Federer has won an Olympic gold and it Doesn't realy matter if it is in doubles. Are you all of sudden suggesting that doubles is a walk in the park? I doubt Leander/ Mahesh would agree with you. The fact that Roger has won a doubles gold while not being a regular doubles player and beating the Bryan brothers enroute speaks volume for his ability. Nadal will not last beyond 28.
Re: Re: Re: Dubai title
by ramabhadranS on Mar 05, 2012 04:11 PM
Aishwarya, I am sorry for you. Just because Sachin got out to the same bowler or failed to score in few innings, does that mean that he is an ordinary player? Just because Ronaldo, Messi or Pele did not score in every match, are they not great players? Nadal is a physical player. Have you ever watched his face when he serves? He looks an animal. Why dis Nadal lose to Nole so many times in 2011?? What is the head to head count for Nadal vs Nole??
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dubai title
by aishwarya patil on Mar 05, 2012 04:25 PM
I am sorry I do not know much about Sachin. Nobody said he was an ordinary player, and nobody said that about Federer either. I only said that unless Federer improves his record against Nadal, there will always be doubts about his being the best of his era; I do not believe in the 'Greatest of all time' tag: comparing players of different eras objectively is not possible. And a person who is NOT (unanimously) the greatest player of his era, is not necessarily an ordinary player. Federer is good; in fact he is very good, but Nadal is definitely better; what more proof is required after such an overwhelmingly one-sided Head to Head record? Head to Head record between Nadal and Nole is available on-line? Why do you want me to answer it? It is in favor of Nadal. In future, if Djokovic is able to impose the same kind of superiority over Nadal as Nadal has imposed over Federer, any level headed person will call Djokovic a better player than Nadal. What's wrong in this? Problem is: you guys use emotion against logic!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dubai title
by Debdut Gupta on Mar 05, 2012 04:42 PM
I beg to differ with U. Nadal Is a very good player no doubt but FEDERER is simple world class both in his techniques and quality play. When a player has a record winning 16 grand slams he has to be the greatest player tennis has ever seen. Koi doubt maat rakhna folks!!!
Re: Re: Re: Dubai title
by Anand Vijayan on Mar 05, 2012 04:30 PM
By that token Aishwarya, Nadal is defintley not the GOAT as he has lost to Djoko so many times. Laver is not the GOAT as three of the surfaces in his day were on grass. Sampras not the GOAT as he never even got to a French Open final let alone win it. GOAT then is a myth. All are equally rubbish.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dubai title
by aishwarya patil on Mar 05, 2012 04:59 PM
Yes. Nadal is definitely not GOAT; he is merely just another contender for the post. Federer and Laver are other contenders, and so are Sampras, Lendl, Borg, McEnroe.....
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dubai title
by Anand Vijayan on Mar 05, 2012 05:15 PM
If winning the most GS does not classify you as the GOAT not quite sure what does. One could see a scenario where a new comer beats the top three regularly in early rounds of slams giving him a better head to head record only to come a cropper in the latter stages of a tournament and then retiring having won no GS but ony the satisfaction of having a better head to head record vs the all time greats. How would such a person be viewed?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dubai title
by sportsenthusiast on Mar 09, 2012 10:06 AM
Federer is an all time great, a gifted player who makes tennis look so easy. The same is not true of Nandal or Djokovic both of whom (especially the former) make tennis look so difficult. So, apart from the statistics (which obviously favour the Swiss), it is the manner in which they play their game that determine (in the eyes of the Tennis fans) the superiority of Roger. Having said that however I do feel that both Nadal and Djoker are terrific players who are constantly improving. If both of them continue to play the way they are playing for another 4-6 years, they can still lay claim to the Greatest Player of All Time. As of now, it's Roger and I somehow feel that's the way it's going to remain.
