Tennis Planet

Official Freaking Site Of Tennis Freaking Fans Worldwide.

‘Whose career Slam was greater’ arguments.

Posted by tennisplanet on October 3, 2010

-Nadal is the first one – in history – to get there so early. Can anyone break that record?

-Federer won the last leg after being on ‘suicide watch’ the entire freaking time. That’s performing under pressure.

-The two beat the following ranked players at the ‘last’ leg, quarters and beyond:

Nadal: Fernando (8), Youzhny (14), Djokovic (3) = Average 8.33.

Federer: Monfils (10), Delpo (5), Soderling (25) = Average 13.33.

-It took so many attempts to win the last leg:

Nadal: 8.

Federer: 11.

-Nadal had to conquer three surfaces not known to be his favorite. Federer had just one.

-Federer’s win carries a near-unanimous stigma of Nadal’s absence further highlighted by Nadal’s complete rampage on clay this year. Nadal was an overwhelming favorite to win the title even if he had to face Federer by the time the semis rolled around. Some even consider Federer lucky to have lost to Djokovic in the semis to avoid lot of crap – H2H the least one of them.

You got more? No, you don’t!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Advertisements

14 Responses to “‘Whose career Slam was greater’ arguments.”

  1. wuiches said

    Federer had Mirka!!! come on, how many slams Fed won dragging such a burden???

    also he won several slams without a coach!!! it means no coachin’!!!

  2. banti said

    Why are you so obsessed on which is greater? Both great bro, lets carry on:)Difference is Rafa has a chance to win all the majors twice which would carry weight in the long run. Obv. hoping that doesn’t happen:)

    I forget who’s won them all twice. Laver?

    • Manal Ismail said

      That would make Rafa the 2nd contender, always the trying harder one. But yea, both are GOAT having fulfilled many of the GOAT (required) achievements

  3. Sol said

    “-It took so many attempts to win the last leg

    -Nadal had to conquer three surfaces not known to be his favorite. Federer had just one.”

    Those two arguments aren’t particularly in favor of Nadal and against Fed. If anything, they prove that Fed had better results on his least favourite surface than Nadal had on his and that Fed has one surface which isn’t his best, as opposed to Nadal having only one surface where he’s pretty much unbeatable.

    “-Federer’s win carries a near-unanimous stigma of Nadal’s absence further highlighted by Nadal’s complete rampage on clay this year”

    We all know this argument can go both ways. Nadal didn’t beat the defending champ nor the 5-time champ to get the title. He beat the guy who beat Fed, just like Fed beat the guy who beat Nadal at the FO.

    Basically, if you’re a Nadal fan, his career Slam will be greater to you. If you’re a Fed fan, his win at the FO will be the highlight of your fandom.

    • Ash said

      Interesting interpretation. In my view the only results that count are ‘wins’ and at this stage Nadal has 2 majors on grass, 1 on slower hardcourt and the latest US – all supposedly his least fav surfaces. Therefore he trumps the Fed on this one for over achieving. Added to which Nadal took Fed out on grass after an epic (I’m still so mad Fed lost that one) whereas Fed just moved further away from ever beating Nadal on clay at the FO. Nadal deserves real credit for adapting his game so well to all surfaces and he truly now has an ‘all-court’ game.

      • Sol said

        Yes, but that means giving more credit to a player who adapted his game to all surfaces as opposed to one who was already an all-court player. So, yes, credit to Nadal for adapting, but it doesn’t make it a “greater” achievement than Fed’s.

      • Sol said

        Also,

        “Added to which Nadal took Fed out on grass after an epic (I’m still so mad Fed lost that one) whereas Fed just moved further away from ever beating Nadal on clay at the FO”

        This is based on Fed’s performance against Nadal at 2008 FO? Because, although many like to forget it, this was mono year. In his year where he was sick, he still made it to the FO finals, his worst surface. He lost miserably in straights and a baggel but he was there in the finals.

    • Manal Ismail said

      This will always be discussed this whole Fedal thingy. Its a joy to see that we are living in the era where these great players are at their best showmanship and level of performance.

  4. Anonymous said

    See you at the WTF. Let’s see how far Uncle Toni’s coaching can take Rafa. Any update on Contador?

  5. claire said

    Regarding their average – I believe Soderling was playing better than a 25 ranked player at the time! I think that’s a bad comparison of who beat tougher players!

    There are so many stats that can be used to prove who’s the “GOAT”. Like Nadal (and I think Federer?) says lets wait until their careers are over!

    Then there’s the Soderling beat Nadal at FO because Nadal was injured and Federer won the FO because Nadal wasn’t there. Years from now, I think people will only look at the GS’s won and not who they played from the 1/4’s on!

    I’ve said before, if we want to use that silly argument, we have to research who all the GS winner’s played on their way to winning their GS and then decide it they truly deserved the GS!

    If I was either Nadal or Federer I would be ecstatic with what I’ve achieved and would care less if I was declared the GOAT. I think just to be considered one of the best would be enough of an honor.

  6. mircea said

    Just re-watched AO 2009. Dumb playing from Federer. He literally plays into Nadal’s strengths. He could have used a coach if only for strategy and a second pair of eyes. If you’re having trouble deciding who is the more talented, you need serious help. If you’re having trouble deciding who is possibly the greatest player with a coach vs. the greatest player without a coach your days of fretting are over. It would be scary to imagine what Federer could have done had he been a little more flexible and open to suggestions. His stubbornness was his downfall. He gave away 2 Major Finals on hard-court: AO 2009 ans US Open 2009. He also gave away several FO’s. Anyone with his talent and a coach to boot would be looking at 19 or 20 Majors. No doubt about it. Destiny.

    • Raj said

      I feel the same. He should have won both of those hard court finals. FO is another matter. He will regret squandering away those two slam finals because of poor tactics.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: