Level on hard courts. Federer won more on grass. Nadal dominated clay court match ups, 14 out of 25 have been on clay.

Yeah, 4-4 is enough on hard courts. Give me 10 more games on grass, and then we can decide.

There is only 1 grass court tournament which both play, so this won't happen.

There definitley needs to be a Master Series tournament on grass.

Djokovic and Murray are skipping Queens this year, wouldn't surprise me if Nadal pulled out too.

Edit: Seems Murray is in the main draw so forget that. Nadal is still there as well. Hope he plays.

True, grass tennis courts aren't even common nowadays. Even more of a reason to give Nadal an edge because he is winning on the popular surface, and the more important surface.

i am not interested in flipping coins on djokovic's performance at wimbledon this year. i have not even made any comment regarding the quality of his play!

all i have said is that the statement "He won't win Wimbledon, ever." can be seen to be completely ludicrous hyperbole after mere seconds of research. the fact that you won't even entertain the notion of betting against him is testament to that.

it's really no big deal, and i make similar dumb posts all the time. but let's call a spade a spade here.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Your $25 to my $80?

Yeti-I have already explained why it isn't ludicrous hyperbole. Would you consider the statement "Andy Murray won't ever win a GS" to be ludicrous hyperbole? I certainly wouldn't and I imagine the odds are roughly on par. Its an opinion, one that I certainly can understand. I don't think Djokovic wins a career GS, I would be willing to bet against him ever winning Wimbledon depending on odds.

I am a Federer fan and would rather see him win than Nadal. but Nadal is fastly closing the gap. if they meet again at Wimbledon and Roger looses. I am not sure If Fed is the best since that is Feds best court.

people underrating just how amazing it is how dominant nadal has been these last few years

mens tennis is at heights it didnt come close to when roger was dominating early on

roddick is much much better than he was in '03/'04/'05 and hes not a top 10 player anymore, back then he was rogers "best" competition and ended '03 as the #1 ranked player

lol, do you even read my posts?


ra_z_boy,

i just think definitively stating that an event will never occur is pretty dumb if the probability of it occurring is xy%. drop me a PM and we'll talk odds.

First page stats have an arbitrary cutoff. They don't include 2006, Fed's best season and arguably the GOAT single season of tennis.

False.

Although the standard is higher now for sure.

Roger's dominant run was from 2004-2007, not the early part of the decade. Roddick started at #2 but quickly dropped off. Nadal was easily the 2nd best player during this run.

Overall though, the competition has been tougher during the majority of Nadal's career. Nadal also started dominating against this tougher competition a lot quicker, while Fed took a few seasons to come into his own.

Yeti,

Explain to me what exactly you want to bet on.

It is my opinion that Novak Djokovic won't win a Wimbledon Title in his career. Novak is 24 now, how many Wimbledon's will he play before he retires? 7/8? How is that a hyperbole? He has Nadal and Federer to get past in the upcoming years, both are better on this surface, FACT. There should be more talent coming through the ranks in the coming years to challenge the guys at the top now.

It's one tournament they play a year, its not like im saying he won't win another Grand Slam title in his career. Now that would be dumb. Saying he won't win a Wimbledon Title during his career is not a crazy statement. You must be reading way too much into what he has done over the past 8+ months. This is not hard court, this is not indoor, this is not clay, it's grass.

the reason they haven't played much on hard courts/grass is Nadal wasn't good enough to consistently make finals until very recently on those surfaces

I mean if you are going to penalize Federer for only being the 3-5th best clay court player of all time, you need to penalize Nadal for being pretty weak on grass/hardcourt pre-#1 ranking

kevin,

that is perfectly fine and i have no issue with that statement. surely you can see how that is vastly different to what you first wrote?

My first statement was

"He won't win Wimbledon, ever."

How is that different to what you quoted above? If I am being totally dense here I apologise.

Cross posting a few relevant posts from RG thread.

ok fine, take away clay and nadal is 6-6 (2-2 gs finals) vs fed right? so...they're equal on all non clay surfaces and rogers already had the opportunity of playing rafa during his peak when rafa wasnt

id say thats pretty impressive for rafa

they aren't equal, because they only played 12times despite that being the majority of the season, and it's Nadal that is driving that number down, by failing to make finals

if Nadal is the only guy that beats Federer on Clay, but 20randoms can take Nadal out on other surfaces that's a huge negative for Nadal in the comparison

from 2005 through 2009 he only made 4 of the 13 non-RG finals(2-2 split with Federer) and missed 2 to injury, Federer made 13/15

it's possible for Nadal to surpass Federer, he just has a long ways to go

so again, you pick some 4 year period when roger is at his best and rafa is far from his peak/at his peak (late 08/aussie open)/got hurt?

a long way to go is insane, he has 6 less grand slams and has done so in a much tougher time period. he is 17-8 lifetime vs him and 6-2 lifetime in grand-slam finals. he has played 2 finals on non-clay courts when they were both at their best and won both of them (wimbledon 08, aussie 09)

hes won 4 of the last 5 grand slams and roger didnt make the finals in any of them before this years french. the excuses are insane, if roger is "only 6-6 on non-clay surfaces vs rafa bc rafa wasnt good enough to make it deep in those tournaments" what does that say about him? he should take adv of the times he does play him if hes so superior

roger has had the more decorated career, but the pro-fed guys take it too far. nadal isnt that far off from having a better career, and theres definitely something to be said about who is the better player/had the better peak. again 08 wimbledon and 09 aussie open were both amazing matches with both playing at an insanely high level and rafa won both

what about bjorn borg and rod laver?

if rafa didn't own fed on clay and hold his own vs. him on everything else, i don't think we'd be having this dicussion. rafa on non-clay vs. top 10 or top 20 guys is nowhere near as good as quite a few guys in the past (adjusted for equipment/training/etc. over time)

sigh
YOU pick rafa at his best on grass/hard court in the h2h comparison vs federer

whenever rafa and federer met on grass/hard rafa was in top form because he otherwise wouldnt have made it so far

Don't understand how people can make this statement so confidently. He got to the semi-finals last year and is playing much better now than he was then. If Nadal's game can work on grass why can't Djoko's? I think Djoko's problems with grass are all in his head but he's much mentally stronger now. He's a serious contender this year imo.