Tennis Clothing Source

Juan Martin Del Potro y Guillermo Vilas han sido los dos unicos argentinos en ganar el US OPEN

five sets swearing for beating “a boy” looks a bit over, isn't it?

Until now, Rafa has beaten Roger in 5 GS's finals, and in the 3 different surfaces, including the grass on Wimbledon, and the hard court on Australian Open; however, Roger had only defeated Rafa in a GS on one surface: grass. So, I don't understand how a player whose reign is just the clay can beat Roger on all surfaces, whereas Roger, the “perfect player”, only can defeats him (sorry, “could” defeats him, until 2 years ago) on grass.

For two years now, Roger have only won Rafa in the last final of the ATP Tour Master Series 1000 of Madrid, in which, indeed, Rafa was already injured. The last 5 confrontations before, have been won by Rafa, and they where on different surfaces. Roger has won as well 3 of the last 8 GS's, a big achieved, but it's also true that time before he won 3 per year. Have I mentioned, in addition, that in 2 of those 3 GS's Rafa, who was the actual champion, was injured or simply he didn't played?

Let's see some numbers:
Confrontations (matches won):
- 13 Rafa -7 Roger (almost the double)

Comparison. I found the next numbers in the article: “Could Rafael Nadal be the best men's tennis player of all-time?” from the Associated Content web. Here, we can see their won-lost matches, in the years when they turned 19, 20, 21 and 22 years old:

Roger
19 -> 36-29
20 -> 49-21
21 -> 58-23
22 -> 78-17

Rafa
19 -> 79-10
20 -> 59-12
21 -> 70-15
22 -> 82-11

Rafael Nadal's record in the last 4 years has been 290 – 48 or a .858 winning percentage. In those same years, Roger Federer's record was 221 – 90 or a .711 winning percentage.

Titles achieved at the age of 22:

Roger
- 3 GS (Wimbledon '03, Australian '04 and Wimbledon '04; because in the US Open of 2004, he was 23) + 0 finals
- 2 ATP Masters Series (Monaco '02; Indian Wells '03, because in Hamburg and Toronto, in 2004, he was 23) + 2 finals (Miami '02 and Rome '03)
- 4 ATP International Series Gold
- 8 ATP International Series
- 1 ATP Masters Cup / ATP World Tour Finals ('03)

Total = 18

Rafa
- 6 GS (4 Roland Garros '05, '06, '07, '08; 1 Wimbledon '08; 1 Australian Open '09) + 2 finals (2 Wimbledon '06, '07)
- 15 ATP Masters Series / World Tour Masters 1000 (I'm not going to write them, in order of don't do it still more thick) -> just before Federer (16) and Agassi (17) in the historical ranking + 4 finals
- 9 ATP International Series Gold / World Tour Masters 500
- 5 ATP International Series / World Tour Masters 250

Total = 35 -> including 3 GS's and 12 Master Series over Federer

Plus:
- 1 Golden Medal (individual) in Beijing 2008
- 2 Davis Cup ('04 and '08)

As I said at first, and despite it looks like an underestimation to Federer, I really think that he is one of the best in history, possibly together with Pete Sampras, Bjön Borg and Rod Laver (and a bit over Jimmy Connors and Ivan Lendl), but I'm also sure, that if Federer had been born 10, 20 or 30 years before, and he had played in the 70's, 80's or 90's, actually I doubt that he could have his 15 GS's record. Yes, I know, that's only a supposition, and it's possible that I'm wrong, but just thinking about Borg, McEnroe, Vilas, Lendl, Sampras, Agassi, Wilander, Edberg or Becker, and then thinking about Rios, Moyà, Rafter, Safin, or Ferrero, and trying to compare them, it's ridiculous; and sorry for the fans of those last players. I'm also believe that, surely not so exaggerating, but also different, had the history been if he had been born 5-7 years after, in the generation of Nadal, Djokovic, Del Potro, Murray… a generation that looks pretty good, though I could be wrong, because we still need time to prove that they won't be another “Hewitt's”.

Djokovic (22 years)
- 1 GS + 1 final
- 4 ATP Master Series / ATP Tour Masters 1000
- 4 ATP International Series Gold / ATP Tour Masters 500
- 5 ATP International Series / ATP Tour Masters 250
- 1 ATP Masters Cup / ATP World Tour Finals ('08)

Total = 15

Plus:
- 1 Bonze Medal (individual) in Beijing 2008

Del Potro (21 years)
- 1 GS
- 3 ATP International Series Gold / ATP Tour Masters 500
- 3 ATP International Series / ATP Tour Masters 250

Plus:
To be the second man that has beaten Roger Federer in a GS final (before him, only Rafa, for 5 times, had do it).

And now that I've mentioned that, it's quite odd also that since Nadal came up, no one player have could defeat Roger even in only one GS final, when, looking back, we could see that even all the greatest ones, such as Rod Laver, Bjön Borg, John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors, Ivan Lendl, Pete Sampras or Andre Agassi, have lost finals against many different opponents, sometimes against some of themselves, the ones who played at same era, and sometimes against another ones, such as John Newcombe, Ken Rosewall, Mats Wilander, Guillermo Vilas, Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg, Jim Courier, etc.

It's difficult to compare tennis players from different ages, because many times, the reason why one is considered better than another, is mainly based on the personal opinion; you know, what's more stand out? the one who has achieved a great amount of ATP titles, or the one who has more GS's? more weeks as number one, or better percentage won/lost matches? besides, there are also the opponents that they have had in their ages, which is also very influential in my opinion; so it's hardly to say that Rod Laver is better, or worst, than, for example, Jimmy Connors; or the same thing between Bjön Borg and Pete Sampras, but, as you did in another article, there are some people who yes we can compare, such as Bjön Borg – John McEnroe, Boris Becker – Stefan Edberg, Pete Sampras – Andre Agassi, etc, and between those pairs, yes we can say who was the best, at least in their own confrontations, so, we can't compare on equal conditions Federer with Rod Laver, Bjön Borg or Pete Sampras, but yes we can compare him with Rafael Nadal. In that way, it's a bit paradoxical, that the man who is considered the best one of all times, has been beaten by Rafa Nadal in almost the double of matches they have played (13-7), including 5 GS's won per Nadal, furthermore on the three surfaces, an important detail; per only 2 GS's won per Federer, in only one surface: grass; in addition that the last one was more than 2 years ago, and when Nadal was still coming up, so, on one hand, we have that Federer is actually the best tennis player ever, but on the other hand, he is “numerically” worst than Nadal. How could be possible that the so considered best tennis player of all times, and who is still young and healthy, could be beaten repeatedly by another one that, until this moment, can't be even in the historical top ten?

It's also possible that, henceforth, Federer beats Nadal more times, but, that's only suppositions, as we can't see the future, so we must be based on the numbers until now.

Finally, as I said before, I really believe that Federer is one of the best in history, but I also think that during some years, he have had the way more plain than another ones, because, in spite of his great qualities, that he unquestionably have, he had also a bit of luck to be born at the right time.

Au, a10.

PS: I won't wish that anybody, a fan of Federer or not, could feel angry or disappointed. I'm just trying to compare him, and showing hidden details that maybe could be influential. Thanks.]]>