Who is better? Roger Federer or Nadal?

Question

To me it's clearly Nadal. I mean he beat Roger at virtually every big tournament in 2008 in the finals. First at the French, which was like a joke for Nadal. Then he beat him at Wimbledon on grass in a close final. And then he also beat him at the Australian Open in the final in 2009. After that he fell victim to injury, so Federer started winning Grand Slams again and all these people start going out and saying how great he is. If he's so great, then why does he always lose to Nadal? Doesn't that make Nadal better?

Answer 1

for me there is no question about the fact that federer is much better.... after all he is the best that existed in the comtemporary times.. nadal just came into the picture sometime back and it almost gone ..... a player is judged by his consistency .... and when he was beat by nadal in the year 2008 many times it was because he was suffering from mono and nadal was at his peak .... but still made it to the finals of two slams and even managed to win one ... nadal's game revolves around running about the court and playing defence so obviously he will get more frequently injured... federer is more fit .. he plays on and still hasent suffered a major injury .. that makes him the better player by any means ... nadal shouldnt even be compared roger.. roger is a class apart... (according to me ).. and if nadal fell victim to injury it means there is something which he is doing wrong .. cause roger has stayed out of big injuries..

Answer 2

If we are doing a straight up head to head competition then there is no doubt, Nadal is better than Federer which I can rightfully say considering Rafa is leading there head to head 13-7 and Rafa was even beating Federer when Fed was in his prime and Rafa was still developing. If we are talking about comparison of their career then Roger obviously wins that since he has 13 GS and a lot more weeks at #1 and Rafa has like 6 and less than a year at #1, but then again Rafa is only 22 and Roger is 27.

Answer 3

The very simplistic answer is that Roger is better overall on more surfaces and has done it more consistently over a longer period of time, now this is depending on whether you take into consideration the last 12 months where Fed has won 3 of the last 4 majors. Howerver, Nadal has beaten Federer more often than not, but this is mostly because Nadal is the only player that can exploit Fed's weakness. With the kicking lefty slice serve coupled with the big top-spin forehand, Nadal can get to Fed's maybe only kryptonite, the high-backhand return. Roger doesn't have a problem with his game overall (see 2008) when he loses to Nadal, he just has a problem with Rafa. That's why he was so frustrated with Rafa beat him at FO 08, Wimb 08, and AO 09 (w/ tears). Roger can be error prone on the backhand and when he hits too many of those weak slice returns...Roger just gets frustrated, tries to press, and doesn't win. I will say however, that on Roger's best day against Nadal's best day on any surface except clay, Roger would win because he plays superior offensive tennis.

Answer 4

Sorry to burst your bubble a little there. The problem with your reasoning is that you are looking only at a head to head comparison to make your decision. Unfortunately for your logic, there's more to determining what constitutes a great player than the head to head numbers.



There are a handful of people that have winning records over Federer and I'm sure plenty of people that have winning records over Nadal. The measure of greatness in tennis is consistent results over a career. Federer has made some rediculous amount of semi finals along with appearing in 18 of the last 19 grand slam finals or something like that. He has won 16 grand slams over an extremely short period of time in tennis terms and has done all that while staying healthy! So why is he better than Nadal?



1. He has an incredibly long streak of making the semi finals or better at the grand slams.

2. He has won more grand slams than any other male player

3. He knows how to win AND stay healthy. Nadal had his moment in the limelight but he is sacrificing a long career by insisting on working so incredibly hard to win his matches. There's more offensive ways to play and safer ways to move.



It takes more than head to head scores to make someone a better player my friend. While Nadal is rehabbing his knees because he has destroyed them, Federer is continuing to win as if Nadal was never there.

Answer 5

Head to head record does not determine who is better. Nadal has a game style that does not match up well for Federer. And most of those matches are on clay courts where Nadal is one of the greatest ever (and for the record, if there was no Nadal, I think Federer might be considered the best clay courter ever). So, maybe Federer loses to Nadal on occasion, but Federer doesn't often lose to anyone else, especially in the majors, which seems to be all Federer focuses on now. Federer has been able to make it to 23 consecutive grand slam semifinals, Nadal has never gotten more than 5 in a row. So it might be true that head to head Nadal will beat Federer, but Federer has been able to be at the end of the tournament every time. For a couple of years, 2004-2007, if you were not named Rafael Nadal, you almost had no chance against Federer. Federer dominated the game for 4 years like no one ever had or ever will again. He had a 313-24 record for those 4 years. That is a 92.87 winning percentage for a 4 year period, that is absolutely unheard of. And his grand slam record for that period was 99-5, that is a 95.19 winning percentage. It is simply that Nadal is great and can beat Federer, but he might lose early in a tournament no one expects him too, Federer (at least for a while) would not lose a match that he shouldn't.

Answer 6

The history books measure who's the greater player by who's got the more trophies and accolades. I mean just because someone has a good record against someone else doesn't mean they are better than them at tennis in general. Clay is Rafa's turf so it's natural for him to beat Federer, and to beat him so many times. I don't really remember, but wasn't it something like 5 out of the 7 times they played (and Nadal beat him) was on clay? Yes, he beat Federer elsewhere too, but I really do think it was because Federer mentally slipped (as do many players in finals. After all, he is human.) Comparing all the people who have beaten Federer to all the people who have beaten Nadal, shows that when Federer loses he often loses to the same people, whereas Nadal's game can be beaten by a variety of players at times, so Federer's game is more consistent. When he is at his peak Federer can beat anyone anywhere anytime, which is how he keeps winning, whereas Nadal isn't as consistent. In that game against Murray in the AO he couldn't really match what Murray was throwing at him. You could blame it on the knee, but Murray, who was really peaking, played really well even in the first set and probably wouldn't have had trouble beating Nadal even if he was in fine form. So IMHO I do think Federer is the better player, simply beccause he has a better game and has the trophies to prove it.

Answer 7

I personally hate federer and love nadal but i have to admit that federer is better .

Answer 8

Nadal is a better player!... for you... but for me, definitely federer! Nadal may have a 13-7 advantage against federer but federer's career is far from over! Federer can still rebound, but sadly Nadal wasn't always there to make it to the finals. Now that Nadal is ranked no.4 he doesn't need to be in the finals to face Federer, they'll be facing each other in the quarters, then we'll see if Federer can amend his losses.



*Davydenko, Hewitt, Blake, Nalbandian, to name just a few, has a winning record against Nadal. So would they be considered a better player than Nadal?

Answer 9

Federer as beaten Sampras in 2001 when his career was almost over. But Gilles Simon is 2-0 vs Federer. Therefore Gilles Simon is a greater player than Pete Sampras.



Hope this help you figure out Nadal fan logic isn't much of a logic.

Answer 10

in 2008 and begining of 2009, federer was suffered from mono virus. Nadal was able to barely beat federer by epic match because federer was sick. have you ever seen nadal beaten healthy federer before 2008 in those tournaments? nope, healthy federer always beat healthy nadal all the times. who won the last match they met at madrid open when they are both healthy? federer. so No one can beat federer in his prime time.

Answer 11

do you know what happens if you embed a formula 1 engine in a normal car? it works fine for some time.



can you see the parallel to Roger and Rafa? Rafa did and Roger didn't!

the question remains, is it worth it to stand for some time in the spotlight?

Answer 12

Just Call Me Silver, yes that was what you are silver, 2nd place now move over, because you have got to be out of your damn mind if you really think Andy Murray can take on a healthy, 100% Nadal.

Answer 13

if head to head is the only basis who is better player,then nadal easily reach all grandslam and win it.because federer does...

nadal has the mental edge over federer,but not the better player.

Answer 14

u idiot how stupid r u thank god not all rafa fans r as stupid as u. ROGER FEDERER IS THE GREATEST TENNIS PLAYER IN HISTORY do you no who said that RAFA and im a massive rafa fan no your **** u fool if tennis was based on head to head ud find that mark philipousus is better than pete sampras get a life dopey

Answer 15

federer

Answer 16

clearly, its nadal..fed has been winning most of his grandslams beating one dimensional morons like roddick, ferrero, hewitt, bagdatis, etc..if he is better than nadal, then should have won 5 times in Roland Garros and never gave Nadal a chance to whip his *** in Grandslams..



To sum it all, Federer wins Grandslams more than he deserves..

Answer 17

Nedal

Answer 18

You said it! NADAL IS!!!