3 ms·

Highly disagree with your analysis of why most people prefer Federer to him. Most people prefer Federer because Fed was successful first, then Nadal. So, people

Highly disagree with your analysis of why most people prefer Federer to him. Most people prefer Federer because Fed was successful first, then Nadal. So, people were used to seeing Federer dominate and then Nadal came in. Nadal is far from a clay court specialist. 2x Wimbledon champ, 5x finalist. 3 US open titles, 1 Aussie open title and 4x finalist. Your metaphor of car manufacturers really doesn’t do Nadal justice. It’s more like incumbents always have the advantage, and the challenger always has a harder fight.

greatpatton 7y ago
Yes but if you remove the French open victories from Nadal total (down to 6) total both Djokovic (down to 14) and Federer (down to 19) have more than twice (or even 3x times) the number of grand slam Victories. (Same for M1000)
- sachdevap 7y ago
  Selectively removing clay court titles is not good statistics. Djokovic has 10 hard court victories, and Federer has 11. You don't call Djokovic a hard court specialist. 6 non-clay grand slam titles - Only 20 people across history, other than Nadal, have more than 6 grand slams on any surface. If you add 2 for RG averaging 2 a grand slam, only 7 people other than him in history have 8 GS titles. I think that is enough proof that he is much more than a clay court specialist.
- likeabbas 7y ago
  You can't take out the clay, it's a proper surface in tennis. Nadal is the only one of the big 3 to have 2 of each slam surface type. We can point out useless stats all day but there's nothing you can say that can take away the fact that Nadal is in the running to be the GOAT and he has a chance to pass Federer's slam count
AmericanChopper 7y ago
> Nadal is far from a clay court specialist. If you take clay stats out of Nadal’s career, he’d go from being an all time great, to simply a very good player. His unrivalled dominance on clay is the defining element of his career. Federer on the other hand has a much more well rounded career. He had more titles, more grand slams, and was dominant on both grass and hard courts. His clay stats are underwhelming, but it’s hard to tell if that’s because he’s not great on clay, or whether he was just unfortunate enough to be active at the same time as the greatest clay court player in history.
- Moodles 7y ago
  > [Federer's] clay stats are underwhelming, but it’s hard to tell if that’s because he’s not great on clay, or whether he was just unfortunate enough to be active at the same time as the greatest clay court player in history. Clay is undoubtedly Federer's worst surface regardless of Nadal, but he has lost to Nadal in the French Open all 5 times they've met, and they've met in the final most of those times, so probably without Nadal he would have even more grand slams.
toyg 7y ago
> Most people prefer Federer because Fed was successful first With that reasoning, we would still be worshiping Pete Sampras. No, Federer's ball skills are just something else. Which is why his spiritual home is Wimbledon, where skill tends to win over doggedness, and why I suspect he will keep playing longer than Nadal - who is already struggling with serious physical injuries at a much lower age, because his game has to abuse the body more. That does not mean Nadal is not superb at what he does (his stats on returns are incredible), but it's something that's a bit harder to appreciate. > Your metaphor of car manufacturers really doesn’t do Nadal justice. Toyota makes excellent and reliable cars, their production and distribution skills changed the history of manufacturing, and they periodically innovate in big and small ways. Anyone who knows anything about making cars, knows they are excellent at what they do and maybe the best manufacturer ever by a number of stats. They just don't warm the heart in the same way as more creative makers.
- likeabbas 7y ago
  >With that reasoning, we would still be worshiping Pete Sampras. If he was still playing. Until he retired, Sampras was far and above the crowd favorite in every match after he reached 8 slams. >hat does not mean Nadal is not superb at what he does (his stats on returns are incredible), but it's something that's a bit harder to appreciate. Federer's skills are far and above, but I completely disagree that it's harder to appreciate Nada's play style. I find it hard to appreciate something that comes so easy to someone like Federer, compared to Nadal who works harder than anyone else in the sport to win every single point; he's always fighting till his last breath, chasing down every ball that he can. I appreciate his determination and attitude far and above Federer's pure talent.
addicted 7y ago
In my experience whether people like Federer or Nadal has little to do with who was successful first, and much more to do with playing styles, but equally, the marketing images that have been built for them. Federer is presented as this sublime talent, to whom tennis is effortless and natural. Someone who is calm and collected, and is the suave beatiful exponent of the sport. Nadal is presented as the fighting underdog who is extremely passionate and managed to overcome his natural talent and skill limitations with grit, determination, and hard work. Which is kind of ironic, because once you set aside their playing styles, they both are almost exactly the opposite of their images. Federer was a highly volatile young player who greatly underperformed when he first turned pro, to the point he wanted to quit the sport, and took a long time to win his first GS. Nadal, on the other hand, burst into the scene almost immediately with a GS win, stuff came extremely naturally. Federer also puts far more hours into training and the gym, and has modeled his entire life aroundtennis, while Nadal, until recently didn’t come close. In fact, Nadal is famously quoted as saying that he didn’t go to the gym at all (I personally believe this was exaggerated, but it does have a grain of truth, in that his off court efforts, at least initially in his career, wasn’t close to the other guys).
- likeabbas 7y ago
  >Nadal is famously quoted as saying that he didn’t go to the gym at all You're taking it way out of context. That quote was referring to his arm muscularity, not how much he trains. Everyone in the sport know that Nadal and Thiem are the hardest working tennis players outside of the court. They put in way more time than any other players. Federer is the definition of "tennis comes easy". His movement, anticipation, and technique are just far above everyone elses. It's why he can return Isner's 145mph serves while standing right on the baseline. Nadal is the definition of determination. He works hard for every single point, and never gives up. He will chase after every single ball, and play every point like it's his last. He's the John Wick of tennis. I don't know what tennis you're watching because you are seriously delusional
Moodles 7y ago
I love watching them both. They're both humble, great champions and ambassadors for the sport. I would think the reason most people prefer Federer (if there's even concrete evidence to back this up -- has anyone really done a survey of this question?) is that Federer plays the most aesthetically pleasing tennis. It's obviously subjective, but I suspect most people who like tennis like Federer's elegant style of one-handed backhand (which most plays don't do nowadays), his movement, his serve is devastating because of it's accuracy, his fakes and drop shots. It's just elegant to watch. Nadal of course plays elegant and great shots too, but just less so in my opinion. Nadal has got a lot of wins by steamrolling his opponents with power and athleticism, particularly on clay. I'd rather watch Federer destroy an opponent than Nadal, basically

greatpatton 7y ago

Yes but if you remove the French open victories from Nadal total (down to 6) total both Djokovic (down to 14) and Federer (down to 19) have more than twice (or even 3x times) the number of grand slam Victories. (Same for M1000)

sachdevap 7y ago
Selectively removing clay court titles is not good statistics. Djokovic has 10 hard court victories, and Federer has 11. You don't call Djokovic a hard court specialist. 6 non-clay grand slam titles - Only 20 people across history, other than Nadal, have more than 6 grand slams on any surface. If you add 2 for RG averaging 2 a grand slam, only 7 people other than him in history have 8 GS titles. I think that is enough proof that he is much more than a clay court specialist.
likeabbas 7y ago
You can't take out the clay, it's a proper surface in tennis. Nadal is the only one of the big 3 to have 2 of each slam surface type. We can point out useless stats all day but there's nothing you can say that can take away the fact that Nadal is in the running to be the GOAT and he has a chance to pass Federer's slam count

AmericanChopper 7y ago

> Nadal is far from a clay court specialist. If you take clay stats out of Nadal’s career, he’d go from being an all time great, to simply a very good player. His unrivalled dominance on clay is the defining element of his career. Federer on the other hand has a much more well rounded career. He had more titles, more grand slams, and was dominant on both grass and hard courts. His clay stats are underwhelming, but it’s hard to tell if that’s because he’s not great on clay, or whether he was just unfortunate enough to be active at the same time as the greatest clay court player in history.

Moodles 7y ago
> [Federer's] clay stats are underwhelming, but it’s hard to tell if that’s because he’s not great on clay, or whether he was just unfortunate enough to be active at the same time as the greatest clay court player in history. Clay is undoubtedly Federer's worst surface regardless of Nadal, but he has lost to Nadal in the French Open all 5 times they've met, and they've met in the final most of those times, so probably without Nadal he would have even more grand slams.

toyg 7y ago

> Most people prefer Federer because Fed was successful first With that reasoning, we would still be worshiping Pete Sampras. No, Federer's ball skills are just something else. Which is why his spiritual home is Wimbledon, where skill tends to win over doggedness, and why I suspect he will keep playing longer than Nadal - who is already struggling with serious physical injuries at a much lower age, because his game has to abuse the body more. That does not mean Nadal is not superb at what he does (his stats on returns are incredible), but it's something that's a bit harder to appreciate. > Your metaphor of car manufacturers really doesn’t do Nadal justice. Toyota makes excellent and reliable cars, their production and distribution skills changed the history of manufacturing, and they periodically innovate in big and small ways. Anyone who knows anything about making cars, knows they are excellent at what they do and maybe the best manufacturer ever by a number of stats. They just don't warm the heart in the same way as more creative makers.

likeabbas 7y ago
>With that reasoning, we would still be worshiping Pete Sampras. If he was still playing. Until he retired, Sampras was far and above the crowd favorite in every match after he reached 8 slams. >hat does not mean Nadal is not superb at what he does (his stats on returns are incredible), but it's something that's a bit harder to appreciate. Federer's skills are far and above, but I completely disagree that it's harder to appreciate Nada's play style. I find it hard to appreciate something that comes so easy to someone like Federer, compared to Nadal who works harder than anyone else in the sport to win every single point; he's always fighting till his last breath, chasing down every ball that he can. I appreciate his determination and attitude far and above Federer's pure talent.

addicted 7y ago

In my experience whether people like Federer or Nadal has little to do with who was successful first, and much more to do with playing styles, but equally, the marketing images that have been built for them. Federer is presented as this sublime talent, to whom tennis is effortless and natural. Someone who is calm and collected, and is the suave beatiful exponent of the sport. Nadal is presented as the fighting underdog who is extremely passionate and managed to overcome his natural talent and skill limitations with grit, determination, and hard work. Which is kind of ironic, because once you set aside their playing styles, they both are almost exactly the opposite of their images. Federer was a highly volatile young player who greatly underperformed when he first turned pro, to the point he wanted to quit the sport, and took a long time to win his first GS. Nadal, on the other hand, burst into the scene almost immediately with a GS win, stuff came extremely naturally. Federer also puts far more hours into training and the gym, and has modeled his entire life aroundtennis, while Nadal, until recently didn’t come close. In fact, Nadal is famously quoted as saying that he didn’t go to the gym at all (I personally believe this was exaggerated, but it does have a grain of truth, in that his off court efforts, at least initially in his career, wasn’t close to the other guys).

likeabbas 7y ago
>Nadal is famously quoted as saying that he didn’t go to the gym at all You're taking it way out of context. That quote was referring to his arm muscularity, not how much he trains. Everyone in the sport know that Nadal and Thiem are the hardest working tennis players outside of the court. They put in way more time than any other players. Federer is the definition of "tennis comes easy". His movement, anticipation, and technique are just far above everyone elses. It's why he can return Isner's 145mph serves while standing right on the baseline. Nadal is the definition of determination. He works hard for every single point, and never gives up. He will chase after every single ball, and play every point like it's his last. He's the John Wick of tennis. I don't know what tennis you're watching because you are seriously delusional

Moodles 7y ago

I love watching them both. They're both humble, great champions and ambassadors for the sport. I would think the reason most people prefer Federer (if there's even concrete evidence to back this up -- has anyone really done a survey of this question?) is that Federer plays the most aesthetically pleasing tennis. It's obviously subjective, but I suspect most people who like tennis like Federer's elegant style of one-handed backhand (which most plays don't do nowadays), his movement, his serve is devastating because of it's accuracy, his fakes and drop shots. It's just elegant to watch. Nadal of course plays elegant and great shots too, but just less so in my opinion. Nadal has got a lot of wins by steamrolling his opponents with power and athleticism, particularly on clay. I'd rather watch Federer destroy an opponent than Nadal, basically