Federer vs. Nadal, one Man’s Perspective
I am going to start this post with the following statement: Rafael Nadal is one of the best, if not the best, clay court players of all time. Here’s a second statement, very similar with a few key differences, let’s see if you can spot them: Roger Federer is one of the best, if not the best, player of all time. Change a name, take out a couple of words, and all of a sudden we have to vastly different statements. The problem is, it’s almost as if people do not wish to acknowledge that these statements are more than opinions, they are indeed, facts.
Let’s pretend for a minute that I believe Nadal simply has Federer’s number, can Federer still be considered the greatest of all time? Yes, of course he can. The man has won 10 Grand Slam titles, multiple times at the US, Australian and Wimbledon, and has lost in the finals the last two years at Roland Garros. The year before, he lost in the Semis. Those Roland Garros results are far superior to what Sampras accomplished, who made it to the quarters twice, and semis once. And while guys like Sergi Brugera and Alex Corretja were tremendous clay courters, I don’t think anyone is comparing them to Rafael Nadal. This brings me back to the statement at made at the beginning of this paragraph, that Nadal simply has Federer’s number. This is simply not true either.
Now, I do concede that Nadal has Federer’s number on clay, I’m not really a stats guy, but I think Federer is 1-6 against him on the dirt. But, on other surfaces Federer is 3-2 against Nadal. So a pertinent question would be, what if these two met at the Finals of each Grand Slam over the next couple years? I would bet on Nadal to win against Federer every time at the French, but at the other three, Federer every single time. Of course, Federer is only 1-0 against Nadal at Grand Slams other than the French (last years Wimbledon Final), so I don’t have much evidence to back me. But that statistic is telling, not because Federer won, but because Nadal has not raised his game enough at slams besides the French to give Federer the chance to beat him.
It really is strange. People used to knock Sampras since he simply couldn’t compete with the top clay courters, and it was justified. But lately, Federer seems to be getting dumped on even more because he keeps losing to the same guy, widely considered to be the best clay courter of his generation. Sampras lost to the following players at Roland Garros the last three years he won Wimbledon (’98-’00): Ramon Delgado (Ranking – 97th, Round – 2nd), Andrei Medvedev (100th, 2nd), and Mark Philippoussis (25th, 1st). Federer’s last three are all against Nadal, in the semi’s, finals and finals.
I’ve rambled (at least I admit it) for too long and as a result the point I was trying to make has eluded even myself, so I’ll sum up. Since I don’t like superlatives or comparing across large generation gaps (eg- Laver and Federer), I’ll leave it at this: Roger Federer, despite losing to Rafa in the FINALS of just about every major clay court event, can still be regarded as one of the best players of all time, even if he never wins at Roland Garros.
June 14th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Federer does not have to win the French Open first of all to be considered a better player than Sampras…People are against Federer saying he cant win the French and seem to forget that this isnt your average clay court player in Rafael Nadal, he is arguable the greatest clay courter Of All Time and Federer is clearly the #2 clay courter in the world, Sampras could never come close to saying that. As for Federer’s lack luster record against Nadal, its not Federer’s fault he is good enough to meet up with Nadal at clay court finals and Nadal is not good enough to do the same at all the other majors and big time events (excluding Wimbledon last year) where Federer would win every time.
To add one piece to this and its something that always used to bother me with the whole Sampras vs Laver GOAT debate and now is including Federer is that people seem to forget that Laver played at a time when 3 out of the 4 Grand Slams were on grass (i think, please correct me if im wrong here)…Can you imagine if that were the case that Sampras and Federer did the same?!?! Also now clay has become much more specialized than it was in years past i feel, which is why i dont like the fact that sampras never won the French as a deterent for some, McEnroe for example got to the Finals of the French serving and volleying, that would never happen in today’s current game (i think it was a lot easier for a non clay courter to compete in other era’s)…but maybe i am way off with all of this, any thoughts????