It means nothing to his legacy. He has won what he has won. H2H means something only about individual match-ups.
RAFA said this best. He related this to football (soccer) and said, if for example, Manchester United loses to Chelsea every time during the regular season when they play, but goes through the league and wins the championship, Manchester United is still the best team. And he said, tennis is the same, the best players are those who win the biggest titles, most consistent at the top of the game, and that H2H is only important for individual matches.
I'll try to find the quote, but from what I recall, that is pretty close to what he said.
H2H is generally overrated by media and fans. Players are playing to win titles against the field, not individual matches. It is an insult to boil it down to 4 or 5 players.
Edit: Here is the actual statement from Nadal:
Rafael Nadal may lead Roger Federer 20-10 in their FedEx ATP Head2Head series, but insists that the numbers in the record books support his belief that the Swiss is the greatest player in history. He used a football analogy to illustrate his point: “Chelsea beat Manchester United in both matches during the season, but Manchester United won the Premier League. The better team is Manchester United.
“I am happy about what I achieved,” he continued. “I am happy about what I am winning. But Roger has better numbers than me, and that's the reality. Nobody has more Grand Slams than him. He's the guy with most weeks in the history of No. 1. So these kind of records say that he's the best in history. Numbers are for that.”
It means nothing to his legacy. He has won what he has won. H2H means something only about individual match-ups.
RAFA said this best. He related this to football (soccer) and said, if for example, Manchester United loses to Chelsea every time during the regular season when they play, but goes through the league and wins the championship, Manchester United is still the best team. And he said, tennis is the same, the best players are those who win the biggest titles, most consistent at the top of the game, and that H2H is only important for individual matches.
I'll try to find the quote, but from what I recall, that is pretty close to what he said.
H2H is generally overrated by media and fans. Players are playing to win titles against the field, not individual matches. It is an insult to boil it down to 4 or 5 players.
When Michael Jordan came back for one season with the Wizards it did nothing.
When Mario Lemieux came back it dropped his 3 points per game average to 2.5 points per game but that's about it.
What would Federer's legacy do to him for staying on tour way past his prime? Probably the same as it did to Lemieux, drop some meaningless stats a bit but Lemieux is still super Mario.
So what does it do? The past has shown us that it does very little. GOATS are still the goats and Roger living legend Federer is still the GOAT Roger Federer.
When Michael Jordan came back for one season with the Wizards it did nothing.
When Mario Lemieux came back it dropped his 3 points per game average to 2.5 points per game but that's about it.
What would Federer's legacy do to him for staying on tour way past his prime? Probably the same as it did to Lemieux, drop some meaningless stats a bit but Lemieux is still super Mario.
So what does it do? The past has shown us that it does very little. GOATS are still the goats and Roger living legend Federe is still the GOAT Roger Federer.
You can't win slams and being justified for age. You can't go both ways.
If Sampras came to the tour and won 0 matches, nobody would take these matches into account, but if he came back and played GS final, everybody would took his matches and results more seriously.
If Jordan went to the final with Wizards and lost, there wouldn't be an argument anymore about 100% success in finals, which is proudly used by media, and everybody would be more serious about his stats, h2h with Kobe, etc...
If you still play at the high level, all your results count, even if you are in 40s.
It means nothing for his legacy, because any reasonable unbiased observer knows that:
*MURRAY*
-Will never win 4 more times against Fed while Fed wins 0
-h2h might get worse if anything, since Fed has Murray's number
*NADAL*
-Federer has a leading h2h vs Nadal on grass.
-Federer has a leading h2h vs Nadal on fast hard courts.
-Almost half of their matches were on clay, Federer's worst surface, Nadal being the GOAT of clay.
-Nadal is 6 years younger and played many matches against Fed when he was 30+ past his peak.
-h2h is 10-10 on all surfaces but clay, which actually proves Federer is better on every surface but clay, since Nadal is 6 years younger and was in his peak years when he played many matches against a 30+ year old Federer.
-h2h on clay is 13-2, wow what a shocker, GOAT clay court player of all time has such an insane winning h2h against someone who's worst surface is clay, wow he owns him badly *sarcasm off*
*DJOKOVIC*
-had a losing h2h against Federer for most of his career, only after Federer started getting old 30+ did he start to catch up to him and eventually surpass him by just 1 win at Fed's 34 years of age lol, and even then, an old 33-34 aged Federer managed to snatch a few wins, which is pretty ridicilous considering Djokovic was in his peak years being 27, thats actually unheard of, and speaks volume on how good Federer is.
Meanwhile all the trolls and biased fanboys will cherry pick stats that suit them to try to prove other people wrong and try to feel better about themselves and convince themselves of something that isn't even true, so have fun with that OP, but ur not convincing any smart unbiased observer, as hard as you might try, because we know facts and don't just cherry pick and view everything in a way that might suit just your favorite player.
It means nothing for his legacy, because any reasonable unbiased observer knows that:
*MURRAY*
-Will never win 4 more times against Fed while Fed wins 0
-h2h might get worse if anything, since Fed has Murray's number
*NADAL*
-Federer has a leading h2h vs Nadal on grass.
-Federer has a leading h2h vs Nadal on fast hard courts.
-Almost half of their matches were on clay, Federer's worst surface, Nadal being the GOAT of clay.
-Nadal is 6 years younger and played many matches against Fed when he was 30+ past his peak.
-h2h is 10-10 on all surfaces but clay, which actually proves Federer is better on every surface but clay, since Nadal is 6 years younger and was in his peak years when he played many matches against a 30+ year old Federer.
-h2h on clay is 13-2, wow what a shocker, GOAT clay court player of all time has such an insane winning h2h against someone who's worst surface is clay, wow he owns him badly *sarcasm off*
*DJOKOVIC*
-had a losing h2h against Federer for most of his career, only after Federer started getting old 30+ did he start to catch up to him and eventually surpass him by just 1 win at Fed's 34 years of age lol, and even then, an old 33-34 aged Federer managed to snatch a few wins, which is pretty ridicilous considering Djokovic was in his peak years being 27, thats actually unheard of, and speaks volume on how good Federer is.
Meanwhile all the trolls and biased fanboys will cherry pick stats that suit them to try to prove other people wrong and try to feel better about themselves and convince themselves of something that isn't even true, so have fun with that OP, but ur not convincing any smart unbiased observer, as hard as you might try, because we know facts and don't just cherry pick and view everything in a way that might suit just your favorite player.
Don't think it would damage it all that much to be honest. With his outstanding numbers (unless Novak or Nadal can get closer) and the worldwide massive appeal his playing style/game enjoys most people will still regard him as the greatest (or at worst one of the greatest) either way.
Wouldn't say Murray is at his peak either if we're talking about best surfaces (grass and HC, that was probably 2012-2013), he played his best CC tennis last year though.
It won't really matter. If Djokovic and Murray only overtake him in his mid to late 30s it doesn't tell you much. You might as well say he has a dominant record over Sampras and Agassi as a measure of his greatness.
Well, I can't control what OP thinks. If it makes you happier and less grumpy about what's going on in tennis right now, just think whatever you like.
What do you get from the forum if we all agreed with you? More recognition for Djokovic? From the notorious MTF?
Let your man earn his place in history.
He had a positive H2H against Djokovic until last year when he turned 35. Djokovic at 27-28 dominated a 33-34 year old Federer in slam finals, but that matter about as little as Federer dominating 33-34 year old agassi in slams.
23 out of the 45 matches (a majority) have been played after Federer turned 30.
Federer has dominated Murray through all these years, even figured him out as he got older. He leads in slams 5-1 in the H2H (only loss in a 5-setter after a 5-setter in his horrible 2013 year), if Murray gets some wins when Federer is 36+ years old it will matter little.
Only the Nadal H2H should be a major thorn in the shoe for Federer, somehow alleviated by the great victory in Melbourne 10 days ago. Only good point to make on the Nadal matchup is that the H2H atleast is 10-10 outside clay (3-4 in slams and 3-2 in slam finals), which is pretty even.
He had a positive H2H against Djokovic until last year when he turned 35. Djokovic at 27-28 dominated a 33-34 year old Federer in slam finals, but that matter about as little as Federer dominating 33-34 year old agassi in slams.
23 out of the 45 matches (a majority) have been played after Federer turned 30.
I don’t think Federer will lose much sleep over h2h records. After all he managed to score 10+ wins against thirty different opponents over the course of his career, and overturned many negative h2hs from his early playing days (Hewitt, Nalbandian, Henman, Agassi).
:haha: The only reason that Djokovic is (just barely) ahead is that they played so many matches well after Federer's prime. This is not even a discussion. Djokovic still has huge problems with the old man, even at Novak's peak he can't control him like he can Nadal. Even OP knows this, although as is custom among the Noletards he won't admit this fact.
In either case, it doesn't fucking matter if Federer ends up with a losing H2H vs these players anyway. They belong to a younger generation than him.
Why would anyone want the 'Nole Slam'? It's the Federer Slam that is the most coveted achievement of all. Heck, I'd take two Serena Slams over one Nole Slam. At least she won the Olympics.
Do you remember that time when Federer came back after a long hiatus and said that he was glad to be coming back on tour; and thought that maybe he had it in him to maybe eventually turn around the h2h stats against Nadal?
No? He didn't say that? But he was probably thinking it right? I doubt it.
All? You mean the main rivals in his late career. You could try to be objective and also include the main rivals from his early career, who he dominated, and probably would have dominated more if they hadn't retired relatively early like Roddick.
I'm sure OP will make a thread to commemorate such a scenario, if it happens.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Mens Tennis Forums
18.5M posts
87.7K members
Since 2002
A forum community dedicated to male tennis players and enthusiasts. Talk about everything from the ATP, NSMTA, to college Tennis and even everything about equipment. It's all here!