Federer: H2H record vs. Nadal not important [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Federer: H2H record vs. Nadal not important

Pages : [1] 2

SetSampras
01-28-2012, 08:55 PM
"I respect it. I think he's doing great against me," 16-time Grand Slam champion Federer said after his 6-7 (5), 6-2, 7-6 (5), 6-4 defeat in the Australian Open semifinals. "It is what it is. At the end I care about my titles, if I'm happy or not as a person. Head-to-heads for me, I mean, are not the most important. If I beat Andre [Agassi] 10 times in a row or Lleyton [Hewitt] many times in a row, at the end of the day I don't care. I remember the matches on that given day, that I played well against them or not, and I don't remember the head-to-head that much. All I know is that we've played many times, and either comes my way or his way. Rallies have gone a little bit more his way obviously."

http://tennis.com/articles/templates/ticker.aspx?articleid=16095&zoneid=6

EliSter
01-28-2012, 08:57 PM
True tea

Roddickominator
01-28-2012, 08:58 PM
Roger is clearly worried about his legacy, seeing how he is trying to downplay the H2H. If he is sincerely okay with it, then good. But I have a feeling that a competitor on his level is really burning inside because of it. It will definitely matter a lot more to fans of the game than he is saying it matters to him.

MrChopin
01-28-2012, 09:02 PM
Roger is clearly worried about his legacy, seeing how he is trying to downplay the H2H. If he is sincerely okay with it, then good. But I have a feeling that a competitor on his level is really burning inside because of it. It will definitely matter a lot more to fans of the game than he is saying it matters to him.

How does Roddick feel about his H2H with Fed?

Li Ching Yuen
01-28-2012, 09:13 PM
It matters quite a bit, since Nadal isn't some guy that you just meet in the third round of a grand slam every now and then. He knows it, his fans know it, and the tennis world has taken it as a fact too.

Nothing wrong with it, it just proves that you can't distinguish a certain player as best of all time since none has been throughly dominant against their main rivals.

Only guy that has an undisputable resume is perhaps Nadal on clay. Beyond that, there are a lot of asterisks from this generation.

In the end perhaps the most important will be that Federer, Nadal and Djokovic will go into the history books among the Top 5-6 players of all time. (IMO).

Looner
01-28-2012, 09:27 PM
Roger Federer: telling it like it is since 1981.

Kiedis
01-28-2012, 09:35 PM
If Nadal wins 4 or 5 slams more, specially in an era with more opposition than Federer's one, then his h2h will be very relevant. This is the main reason why FedFads are so terrified when they see the possibility of Nadal taking Slams in a good pace in the next years. Sometimes I feel sorry for them. Fear is a hell of feeling to have.

Looner
01-28-2012, 09:51 PM
More opposition than Federer? Anyone who claims that should have their brain examined. The investigation will probably find there isn't one to be checked.

Kiedis
01-28-2012, 10:01 PM
Fedtardism is when you believe that Roddick, a handicapped Hewitt, an Argentinian burguer eater, a Russian playboy and a teenager Nadal are a great oppossition :o

Clay Death
01-28-2012, 10:08 PM
head to head records certainly matter in slams.

fed would probably be sitting on 24 slams or more if the clay warrior had not come along.

similarly nadal would have 5 more slams had fed and nole not come along.

and no telling how many more slams nole would have already had had fed and nadal not existed.

so head to head matters greatly in slams.

A_Skywalker
01-28-2012, 10:09 PM
More opposition than Federer? Anyone who claims that should have their brain examined. The investigation will probably find there isn't one to be checked.

So you say winning titles against the likes of Roddick and Hewitt is harder than winning against Djokovic, Murray, Berdych, Soderling, Tsonga....?

MatchFederer
01-28-2012, 10:11 PM
So you say winning titles against the likes of Roddick and Hewitt is harder than winning against Djokovic, Murray, Berdych, Soderling, Tsonga....?

Roddick and Hewitt over Berdych, Soderling and Tsonga, worse than Nole and equal with Murray.

abraxas21
01-28-2012, 10:15 PM
question:

does anyone here thinks federer would trade just 1 of his GS titles for a positive h2h against nadal?

yeah, didn't think so

SaFed2005
01-28-2012, 10:17 PM
How does Roddick feel about his H2H with Fed?


I am sure Roddick would not care even a tiny bit about his H2H if he could win some more slams instead.

If Roddick had an option of lets say lose the next 10 matches to Federer or win 1 Grand slam vs. Win the next 10 matches vs Fed but 0 GS. Which do you think he would take... or any other player for that matter.

abraxas21
01-28-2012, 10:17 PM
If Nadal wins 4 or 5 slams more, specially in an era with more opposition than Federer's one, then his h2h will be very relevant. This is the main reason why FedFads are so terrified when they see the possibility of Nadal taking Slams in a good pace in the next years. Sometimes I feel sorry for them. Fear is a hell of feeling to have.

cant speak for them but i for one want nadal to stop winning GS because he's a disgrace to tennis. his persona and his style style are disgusting. every match he wins sinks tennis to new depths.

the sooner he retires, the better it is for the sport

Clay Death
01-28-2012, 10:20 PM
why dont you start following bass fishing abraxquach since you are so miserable?

it is much simpler to follow:

1. bif catches a fish
2. bubba catches a fish
3. joe sixpack catches a fish
4. they then weigh the 3 fish

get the picture? so easy and so little stress.

A_Skywalker
01-28-2012, 10:27 PM
why dont you start following bass fishing abraxquach since you are so miserable?

it is much simpler to follow:

1. bif catches a fish
2. bubba catches a fish
3. joe sixpack catches a fish
4. they then weigh the 3 fish

get the picture? so easy and so little stress.

Haha, you owned him hard.
This guy is so full of hate, a fishing contest really would help him for his nerves.

Kiedis
01-28-2012, 10:28 PM
cant speak for them but i for one want nadal to stop winning GS because he's a disgrace to tennis. his persona and his style style are disgusting. every match he wins sinks tennis to new depths.

the sooner he retires, the better it is for the sport

fEv4qf_39m0

Clay Death
01-28-2012, 10:28 PM
good one. i was thinking along the lines of underwater chess.

and also red neck mud wrestling.

Clay Death
01-28-2012, 10:29 PM
Haha, you owned him hard.
This guy is so full of hate, a fishing contest really would help him for his nerves.



http://i812.photobucket.com/albums/zz47/claydeath/smoking-030.gif

Friday16
01-28-2012, 10:37 PM
Roddick and Hewitt over Berdych, Soderling and Tsonga, worse than Nole and equal with Murray.

This.

Some people have a memory like a fish. Also in 2000s there were much better players at top 10 than today's top 10. Top 4 can easily reach SF, if they don't choke. Ferrer is #5 and he never a danger in slams. Tsonga and Berdych are ok but the rest of top 10 are hilarious. (Almagro, Tipsarevic, Fish :facepalm:)

At the and of their career, slam titles will be important; not H2H's. Federer doesn't have more than 16 slams because of his matchup against Nadal. He pays it in that way.

duong
01-28-2012, 11:07 PM
"I respect it. I think he's doing great against me," 16-time Grand Slam champion Federer said after his 6-7 (5), 6-2, 7-6 (5), 6-4 defeat in the Australian Open semifinals. "It is what it is. At the end I care about my titles, if I'm happy or not as a person. Head-to-heads for me, I mean, are not the most important. If I beat Andre [Agassi] 10 times in a row or Lleyton [Hewitt] many times in a row, at the end of the day I don't care. I remember the matches on that given day, that I played well against them or not, and I don't remember the head-to-head that much. All I know is that we've played many times, and either comes my way or his way. Rallies have gone a little bit more his way obviously."

http://tennis.com/articles/templates/ticker.aspx?articleid=16095&zoneid=6

yes, Fed is clearly not obsessed about Goat concerns like you ;)

If he was, he would have stopped his carreer for long, but he prefers reaching semifinals and losing to Nadals and Djokovics.

Why ? Because he loves tennis, he loves these matches.

But that's something impossible for you to understand.

PS : as your thread about "this is why Fed has never been and will never be the Goat" has been deleted, I will say it again :

Fedfans : if you really believe that Fed is "the Goat", look at Setsampras to understand how you will become when it will be clear for everybody that another player is clearly better than him (which might happen soon ;) ) :

you will be full of hatred, have no pleasure when you watch tennis.

Think of it :wavey:

JurajCrane
01-28-2012, 11:08 PM
Yeah some people think Djokovic, Murray and Nadal is the best competition ever in universe. :)

samanosuke
01-28-2012, 11:10 PM
question:

does anyone here thinks federer would trade just 1 of his GS titles for a positive h2h against nadal?

yeah, didn't think so

:worship: :yeah:

this thread can be closed with this post . it says it all

Gagsquet
01-28-2012, 11:13 PM
Quote me and say me straight in the eyes this H2H jeopardizes the fact Rogie is the GOAT. You can't, cur.

duong
01-28-2012, 11:13 PM
If Nadal wins 4 or 5 slams more, specially in an era with more opposition than Federer's one, then his h2h will be very relevant. This is the main reason why FedFads are so terrified when they see the possibility of Nadal taking Slams in a good pace in the next years. Sometimes I feel sorry for them. Fear is a hell of feeling to have.

you're describing exactly what happened to SetSampras, and yes it will happen to a number of Fedfans.

But Federer himself is a happier guy : he has understood all of those things and accepted them.

He has always said that he was not a kind of a "Goat" but he was very happy to be called among them. I remember he said that exactly to John McEnroe on court right after his win in Roland-Garros 2009, when McEnroe (not anybody, a glory of the game) told him "how is it like to be the best of all time ?" he answered "no I'm not, I'm just happy to be called among all these glories of the game"

SaFed2005
01-28-2012, 11:17 PM
question:

does anyone here thinks federer would trade just 1 of his GS titles for a positive h2h against nadal?

yeah, didn't think so

EXACTLY

Friday16
01-28-2012, 11:18 PM
you're describing exactly what happened to SetSampras, and yes it will happen to a number of Fedfans.

But Federer himself is a happier guy : he has understood all of those things and accepted them.

He has always said that he was not a kind of a "Goat" but he was very happy to be called among them. I remember he said that exactly to John McEnroe on court right after his win in Roland-Garros 2009, when McEnroe (not anybody, a glory of the game) told him "how is it like to be the best of all time ?" he answered "no I'm not, I'm just happy to be called among all these glories of the game"

He also said; "I still don't feel like I'm better than Pete Sampras, or Lendl for that matter. I still believe they are the all-time greats to play the game. I'm just happy to be compared to them."

What an arrogant guy he is, isn't he?

manadrainer
01-28-2012, 11:18 PM
question:

does anyone here thinks federer would trade just 1 of his GS titles for a positive h2h against nadal?

yeah, didn't think so

This...

Friday16
01-28-2012, 11:20 PM
question:

does anyone here thinks federer would trade just 1 of his GS titles for a positive h2h against nadal?

yeah, didn't think so

:worship:

Fedex
01-28-2012, 11:22 PM
question:

does anyone here thinks federer would trade just 1 of his GS titles for a positive h2h against nadal?

yeah, didn't think so

A positive head to head record against Nadal would equal several more slam titles.

duong
01-28-2012, 11:22 PM
He also said; "I still don't feel like I'm better than Pete Sampras, or Lendl for that matter. I still believe they are the all-time greats to play the game. I'm just happy to be compared to them."

What an arrogant guy he is, isn't he?

And he was beaten by a retired Sampras in an exhibition ;)

he said he loved these exhibitions.

And fortunately Pete Sampras himself is a much more down-to-earth guy than SetSampras and is always very nice to Roger, as is the opposite.

duong
01-28-2012, 11:28 PM
A positive head to head record against Nadal would equal several more slam titles.

I don't know about Federer himself, but personally I would also have made that choice :lol:

I mean if Djokovic or Nadal wins more slams than Fed, it's not much of a concern to me (I should say it's not at all of a concern if it's Djokovic, but I would hate it more if it's Nadal, not because he would be considered as better than Fed, well I already quite think that there are good reasons to think that he's better than Fed, but because Nadal having the slam-record and hence being considered by many as the universal symbol of tennis would be very hard for my consideration to tennis, that's why I always defend Laver over Federer as "the Goat" because not only he has a great resume but also he's a nice universal symbol of this game, which Nadal would not be in my eyes, and if Nadal is better than Fed then let it be but being the symbol of the game I don't want it),

but frankly speaking the Nadal-Fed matches have been a constant pain to me and I would have preferred these to be different and Fed having several slams less.

arm
01-28-2012, 11:32 PM
question:

does anyone here thinks federer would trade just 1 of his GS titles for a positive h2h against nadal?

yeah, didn't think so

:scratch: let me see, I think so, because a positive h2h against Nadal would mean plenty more GS in the bag. Maybe, just maybe.

leng jai
01-28-2012, 11:36 PM
:scratch: let me see, I think so, because a positive h2h against Nadal would mean pleany more GS in the bag. Maybe, just maybe.

Clearly hes talking about FG double bagelling Nadull 10 times in a row at Basel.

arm
01-28-2012, 11:39 PM
Clearly hes talking about FG double bagelling Nadull 10 times in a row at Basel.

:shrug: I thought the answer to that question was an obvious YES, but then everyone was praising his post and I was very :confused:

MatchFederer
01-28-2012, 11:39 PM
Hey where did my thread go?

And yeah, trading a Slam for a winning h2h over Nadal seems to make logical sense.

leng jai
01-28-2012, 11:40 PM
:shrug: I thought the answer to that question was an obvious YES, but then everyone was praising his post and I was very :confused:

It seems GM is too confusing for you dear.

arm
01-28-2012, 11:42 PM
It seems GM is too confusing for you dear.

Time for me to go to bed, I guess. :sobbing:

abraxas21
01-28-2012, 11:42 PM
A positive head to head record against Nadal would equal several more slam titles.

:scratch: let me see, I think so, because a positive h2h against Nadal would mean plenty more GS in the bag. Maybe, just maybe.

fed-nad havent just played all of their 27 matches in GS, you know. if federer had performed better in ATP events vs nadal, he'd have a positive h2h.

but the question was obviously hypothetical... no need to seek for detailed explanations. not even the hypothetical scenario explained above was truly necessary.

Gagsquet
01-28-2012, 11:44 PM
Arm is too smart for GM.

leng jai
01-28-2012, 11:44 PM
fed-nad havent just played all of their 27 matches in GS, you know. if federer had performed better in ATP events vs nadal, he'd have a positive h2h.

but the question was obviously hypothetical... no need to seek for detailed explanations

Its a stupid hypothetical mate. If Fedgimp had a positive head to head against Nadull overall but was 8-2 down at slams everyone would be saying why is his GS record against him so shit.

Kiedis
01-28-2012, 11:46 PM
fed-nad havent just played all of their 27 matches in GS, you know. if federer had performed better in ATP events vs nadal, he'd have a positive h2h.


This is true, but Nadal is 2-8 in GS, so...

arm
01-28-2012, 11:46 PM
Arm is too smart for GM.

No smileys. I can't tell if you mean it or you're just being ironic. :scratch: too sleepy :shrug:

Gagsquet
01-28-2012, 11:47 PM
I was serious, you destroyed Abraxas logic. :smoke:

Higher Power
01-28-2012, 11:48 PM
In my opinion the only reason Roger will NEVER be GOAT is his H2H with Nadal. What is he? 19-8? Joke! He's not even the greatest of his era let alone of all time.

leng jai
01-28-2012, 11:48 PM
No smileys. I can't tell if you mean it or you're just being ironic. :scratch: too sleepy :shrug:

:hearts: Nole :hearts:

abraxas21
01-28-2012, 11:55 PM
Its a stupid hypothetical mate. If Fedgimp had a positive head to head against Nadull overall but was 8-2 down at slams everyone would be saying why is his GS record against him so shit.

you dont get it because you're focusing strictly on the specifics of the particular case instead of looking at the bigger picture. question could be put as: would any player prefer to have a negative h2h against another player or 1 (more) GS in his resume?

but if you insist on taking a look at the specifics like nadulltards like to do, just consider that federer and nadal have not just played in GS finals. continuing with my example, federer could have a somewhat respectable 4-6 h2h against nadal in GS events and still have 16 GS today.

Mr. Oracle
01-28-2012, 11:56 PM
The danger of postponing retirement too long is that the sour grapes attitude is eventually, and unequivocally put on display for all to see. This is the real danger to his legacy.

arm
01-28-2012, 11:58 PM
I was serious, you destroyed Abraxas logic. :smoke:

:lol: from you, I never know. :kiss:

:hearts: Nole :hearts:

Save some of that for tomorrow, ok? :D

leng jai
01-29-2012, 12:02 AM
you dont get it because you're focusing strictly on the specifics of the particular case instead of looking at the bigger picture. question could be put as: would any player prefer to have a negative h2h against another player or 1 (more) GS in his resume?

but if you insist on taking a look at the specifics like nadulltards like to do, just consider that federer and nadal have not just played in GS finals. continuing with my example, federer could have a somewhat respectable 4-6 h2h against nadal in GS events and still have 16 GS today.

How can you not look at it specifically when you're talking about such a unique situation? The hypothetical is silly because having a positive H2H against Nadull but losing big time in slams would barely benefit Federer's legacy at all. Essentially he would be swapping one GS for nothing.

abraxas21
01-29-2012, 12:05 AM
How can you not look at it specifically when you're talking about such a unique situation? The hypothetical is silly because having a positive H2H against Nadull but losing big time in slams would barely benefit Federer's legacy at all. Essentially he would be swapping one GS for nothing.

would 4-6 be 'losing big time'? :scratch:

you're still caugth in the specifics, mate.

MatchFederer
01-29-2012, 12:10 AM
When I was pulling up abraxas I was only being antagonising. Of course, I know exactly what you mean.

I'm not entirely sure Fed wouldn't give up 1 major for a winning h2h though... He'd still be the record holder.

leng jai
01-29-2012, 12:11 AM
Hes losing 8-2 in slams.

How can you apply a generic situation to the legacy of two GOAT contenders?

abraxas21
01-29-2012, 12:14 AM
Hes losing 8-2 in slams.

How can you apply a generic situation to the legacy of two GOAT contenders?

you did not understand me.

given that nadal-federer havent played solely in GS finals, federer could have a 4-6 GS record v. nadal and still have 16 GS today (that is, to be totally clear, assuming federer had beaten nadal in RG 2005 SF and in AO 2012 SF).

shiaben
01-29-2012, 12:16 AM
The situation is quite interesting.

Djokovic won't be able to break the GOAT record because his body isn't built for it. So he will compete for the sake of competing.

On the other hand Nadal isn't too far away from the GOAT record. He's within reach and is well aware of it.

Now here's the interesting thing.

Federer will participate until he's probably 35 and his back puts out.

He'll intentionally participate to try his best to add to the 16 count. If he were to reach 20, he'd feel pretty safe about Nadal not being able to break his record.

So for each slam Federer is able to win from now on, it will serve to slow down Nadal. At the same time Djokovic is another obstacle that can prevent Federer from getting more slams, and Nadal from reaching his goal.

Now the thing is, Nadal's chances are not that bad. Nadal can defeat Federer anytime at the slams, so this is almost like a guarantee (assuming they're on the same side of the bracket), that Federer won't be able to add to the 16 account. Federer would have to cross his finger for an upset, then defeat Djokovic at a final.

Now if Nadal can figure out how to defeat Djokovic, Federer's GOAT status is on the line.

Interesting to see what happens.

duong
01-29-2012, 12:17 AM
How can you not look at it specifically when you're talking about such a unique situation? The hypothetical is silly because having a positive H2H against Nadull but losing big time in slams would barely benefit Federer's legacy at all.

Personally, it's not about legacy or Goat matters, for my personal comfort I would have preferred Fed to win less slams (esp during his best period lose to Safins or Roddicks or Hewitts or else) but to win more against Nadal or at least have less of a disadvantage, be less "violented" by Nadal.

Just because this H2H is too painful to me, not for brain matters like "legacy" or "Goat".

leng jai
01-29-2012, 12:18 AM
This is getting pointless. You are getting more specific than me. If he won those SFs against Nadull he would have won the slams as well probably.

So where do his other wins come from to make up for the rest of the discrepancy in H2H?

I think the answer to your very specific hypothetical would be no. He'd still have a poor record vs him in slam finals, which is the epitome of the sport.

Macbrother
01-29-2012, 12:20 AM
He's right.

duong
01-29-2012, 12:22 AM
Now if Nadal can figure out how to defeat Djokovic, Federer's GOAT status is on the line.


For many many people, esp serious people who know the history of tennis, Laver has a much more proper resume to be that "Goat".

And personally, I love Fed but I don't want him to be considered the "Goat" because there are too many reasons to think that Nadal is better than him, and in my eyes, I would hate Nadal being considered as a "Goat", as this notion also means a symbol of tennis in its universality.

Laver is a symbol like that, Fed might have been, he's not : all right he has still been there for us to enjoy that's OK ! And I also think that's what he concentrates on : not on these matters but on enjoying tennis, it's quite obvious when you hear him that's his main concern and that's why he keeps on and on and is never devastated after losing anymore now.

Djokovic would be nice enough to me, even though I don't think he's as universal (in time periods I mean) as Laver of Fed,

but Nadal no I would hate him being the universal symbol of the sport which has been played by Lavers and Nastases and McEnroes !

MatchFederer
01-29-2012, 12:25 AM
This is getting pointless. You are getting more specific than me. If he won those SFs against Nadull he would have won the slams as well probably.

So where do his other wins come from to make up for the rest of the discrepancy in H2H?

I think the answer to your very specific hypothetical would be no. He'd still have a poor record vs him in slam finals, which is the epitome of the sport.

The point is, imagine in some parallel universe things pan out differently etc and somehow Fed has 15 Slams at this point but a positive h2h with Rafa. Would he prefer that different eventuality.

leng jai
01-29-2012, 12:27 AM
Alright. If he had 15 slams and a positive H2H with Nadull (even in slams) then I would think he would give that scenario serious consideration.

arm
01-29-2012, 12:29 AM
Alright. If he had 15 slams and a positive H2H with Nadull (even in slams) then I would think he would give then scenario serious consideration.

This 2334x. Of course he would. we are not talking about a 10-8 H2H.. his h2h is awful and no goat should be owned like that by anyone.

abraxas21
01-29-2012, 12:33 AM
I think the answer to your very specific hypothetical would be no. He'd still have a poor record vs him in slam finals, which is the epitome of the sport.

well, if i were a pro player, i'd rather have 10+ lost GS finals against one player and just 1 GS title instead of having a positive/equal h2h against all players and no GS title

as for federer, who has many GS titles at this point, i don't think it would be any different.

leng jai
01-29-2012, 12:38 AM
well, if i were a pro player, i'd rather have 10+ lost GS finals against one player and just 1 GS title instead of having a positive/equal h2h against all players and no GS title

What kind of comparison is this? Of course someone with NO slams at all would want that above anything. Its a bit different when you have 15 already and potential for more.

MatchFederer
01-29-2012, 12:40 AM
well, if i were a pro player, i'd rather have 10+ lost GS finals against one player and just 1 GS title instead of having a positive/equal h2h against all players and no GS title

as for federer, who has many GS titles at this point, i don't think it would be any different.

The difference between 1 and 0 though is infinite or whatever; between 1 and 2, twofold; between 15 and 16, barely nothing. So, it would become a serious consideration especially as he'd still have the record, where as from 15 to 14 is different due to Sampras.

abraxas21
01-29-2012, 12:42 AM
What kind of comparison is this? Of course someone with NO slams at all would want that above anything. Its a bit different when you have 15 already and potential for more.

i had edited that post before you quoted it precisely to include fed's case.

really, i don't think it would make much of a difference. a GS is a GS and a lost final is a lost final. the fact that almost all of federer's GS lost finals have come at the hands of just one player is just anecdotic when considering the rest of the numbers.

i don't think federer should be regarded as the GOAT btw. I just say the h2h analysis is overblown out of proportion.

abraxas21
01-29-2012, 12:46 AM
The difference between 1 and 0 though is infinite or whatever; between 1 and 2, twofold; between 15 and 16, barely nothing. So, it would become a serious consideration especially as he'd still have the record, where as from 15 to 14 is different due to Sampras.

with the surface homogenization i have no doubt that one day not too far from now a new player will win more than 16 GS.

the fact that right now people speak of 2 contemporary players being capable of breaking the GS record of a player who hasn't even retired speaks volumes about how fast things can change.

MatchFederer
01-29-2012, 12:46 AM
with the surface homogenization i have no doubt that one day not too far from now a new player will win more than 16 GS.

the fact that right now people speak of nadal and djokovic being capable of breaking the GS's record of a player who hasn't even retired speaks volumes about how fast things can change.

Certainly it's hardly a positive shift. It's pure bullshit.

Time Violation
01-29-2012, 12:47 AM
This 2334x. Of course he would. we are not talking about a 10-8 H2H.. his h2h is awful and no goat should be owned like that by anyone.

That H2H basically says Nadal is superior claycourter compared to Fed (2/3 of the Fed losses), and that would still be true even if they met on claycourt like two or three times, meeting 14 or 15 times only reaffirms the fact.

Vice versa, if they met 15 times on indoor hard, then Fed would be comfortably leading H2H, but that would only mean Nadal is not so good indoors.

Bottom line, is (for example) 2+2+2+2 = 8 slams better than 3+1+3+1 = 8 slams? :)

Last but not least, if 25 yrs old Fed were playing against 30 yrs old Nadal, how many games would Nadal win in a best of 5, one? Two perhaps? :p

Friday16
01-29-2012, 01:01 AM
If Federer had been like Sampras on clay court, he wouldn't have reached finals at RG and the other clay tournaments that much and had better H2H against Nadal. Does it make him better player?

Or if Nadal had been better at fast hard courts, he would have reached more finals (esp. US Open) when Federer was at his peak, he would have had worse H2H against Federer. Does it make him worse player?

:rolleyes:

Kiedis
01-29-2012, 01:06 AM
Last but not least, if 25 yrs old Fed were playing against 30 yrs old Nadal, how many games would Nadal win in a best of 5, one? Two perhaps? :p

25 yrs old Fed were playing againts 20 yrs old Nadal so wich are valid for you? 2009 - 2010 pherhaps but not 2005-2008 or 2001-?

Time Violation
01-29-2012, 01:09 AM
25 yrs old Fed were playing againts 20 yrs old Nadal so these results don't count?

Nope, that's not my point. Fed at his peak playing against old and declining Nadal, what happens then? I think Nadal would struggle to win points, let alone games.

Paylu2007
01-29-2012, 01:11 AM
cant speak for them but i for one want nadal to stop winning GS because he's a disgrace to tennis. his persona and his style style are disgusting. every match he wins sinks tennis to new depths.

the sooner he retires, the better it is for the sport

This.

Kiedis
01-29-2012, 01:14 AM
Nope, that's not my point. Fed at his peak playing against old and declining Nadal, what happens then? I think Nadal would struggle to win points, let alone games.

I'm asking you if the matches between Fed at his peak against a teenager Nadal (or even a not peek Nadal) count for you or don't. Excuses are like assholes. We all have our own.

superslam77
01-29-2012, 01:23 AM
That H2H basically says Nadal is superior claycourter compared to Fed (2/3 of the Fed losses), and that would still be true even if they met on claycourt like two or three times, meeting 14 or 15 times only reaffirms the fact.

Vice versa, if they met 15 times on indoor hard, then Fed would be comfortably leading H2H, but that would only mean Nadal is not so good indoors.

Bottom line, is (for example) 2+2+2+2 = 8 slams better than 3+1+3+1 = 8 slams? :)

Last but not least, if 25 yrs old Fed were playing against 30 yrs old Nadal, how many games would Nadal win in a best of 5, one? Two perhaps? :p

finally someone with a brain...

rickcastle
01-29-2012, 02:02 AM
It certainly matters but it's good to hear that he's not beating himself up over things that are out of his power.

masterclass
01-29-2012, 02:10 AM
That H2H basically says Nadal is superior claycourter compared to Fed (2/3 of the Fed losses), and that would still be true even if they met on claycourt like two or three times, meeting 14 or 15 times only reaffirms the fact.

Vice versa, if they met 15 times on indoor hard, then Fed would be comfortably leading H2H, but that would only mean Nadal is not so good indoors.

Bottom line, is (for example) 2+2+2+2 = 8 slams better than 3+1+3+1 = 8 slams? :)

Precisely.
I would even take it a step further and generalize it to say that Mr. Nadal is the superior slow court/high bounce player and Mr. Federer is superior on anything else.

Of Mr. Nadal's 18 H2H wins, 12 came on clay, 5 on known slower and/or high bouncing hard courts (Miami twice, Rod Laver Arena twice, and 1 on the post 2001 altered Wimbledon grass (rye grass with a somewhat higher bouncing base purposely designed to help slow down play and allow clay court/baseline players to be more competitive).

Of Mr. Federer's 9 H2H wins vs Mr. Nadal, 4 have come on indoor hard, 2 on Wimbledon grass, 1 at Miami, and 2 on clay.

The fact that they have met more on clay than any other surface and Mr. Federer has been beaten in 5 Roland Garros Finals is indicative that Mr. Federer is still excellent on clay, just not as great as Mr. Nadal.

Can one still be considered among the greatest players and yet be dominated by one player on a particular surface type? That's a whole other topic, but I think yes.

Respectfully,
masterclass

skittleball
01-29-2012, 02:14 AM
Yes, I'm sure he'll remember the Wimbledon 08 final described as the greatest match everrr and not the head to head

thrust
01-29-2012, 02:33 AM
head to head records certainly matter in slams.

fed would probably be sitting on 24 slams or more if the clay warrior had not come along.

similarly nadal would have 5 more slams had fed and nole not come along.

and no telling how many more slams nole would have already had had fed and nadal not existed.

so head to head matters greatly in slams.

Well, Rafa leads 8-2 in Slams. Fed came first, and had weak competition till Rafa reached his near peak. Now there is Nole for both Rafa and Fed to contend with. The fact is, the only Laver could possibly be considered GOAT, achievement wise.

Benny_Maths
01-29-2012, 02:42 AM
At the end of the day the only thing that really matters is the number of titles won. H2H is basically an artificial construct, it doesn't actually mean anything. It's like assessing a player's performance in a match by how they played in the 3rd game of the match. How they did in that game might have had implications for the rest of the match, but you don't win a match on the basis of one game. Likewise, you don't win titles by beating one player.

thrust
01-29-2012, 02:42 AM
Precisely.
I would even take it a step further and generalize it to say that Mr. Nadal is the superior slow court/high bounce player and Mr. Federer is superior on anything else.

Of Mr. Nadal's 18 H2H wins, 12 came on clay, 5 on known slower and/or high bouncing hard courts (Miami twice, Rod Laver Arena twice, and 1 on the post 2001 altered Wimbledon grass (rye grass with a somewhat higher bouncing base purposely designed to help slow down play and allow clay court/baseline players to be more competitive).

Of Mr. Federer's 9 H2H wins vs Mr. Nadal, 4 have come on indoor hard, 2 on Wimbledon grass, 1 at Miami, and 2 on clay.

The fact that they have met more on clay than any other surface and Mr. Federer has been beaten in 5 Roland Garros Finals is indicative that Mr. Federer is still excellent on clay, just not as great as Mr. Nadal.

Can one still be considered among the greatest players and yet be dominated by one player on a particular surface type? That's a whole other topic, but I think yes.

Respectfully,
masterclass

Unfortunately for Roger, Clay wins count just as much as fast indoor courts. Overall, I would still rank Roger slightly ahead of Rafa, as of now. But as McEnore once said, How can won be considered GOAT, when he has a poor record against a player of his era?

Marc23
01-29-2012, 02:51 AM
]I don't remember the head-to-head that much.[/url]

Maybe you don't(I don't believe you) if you don't have the reason,but other people do...

SaFed2005
01-29-2012, 02:52 AM
Nadal leads 12-2 clay
Nadal leads 5-1 outdoor hard
Federer leads 4-0 indoor hard
Federer leads 2-1 grass

It would not be as lopsided if there were more indoor and grass tournaments I guess.

Jimnik
01-29-2012, 03:05 AM
Shouldn't this be merged with "Endless Federer-Nadal debates" thread?

homogenius
01-29-2012, 03:16 AM
What the H2H also shows is how superior Nadal is in big matches.He leads 13-6 in the finals they played.He leads 8-2 in slams and 6-2 in slam finals.
And the results in slams kinda shows that it's not just a question of surfaces : they played 10 times and only half of them were on clay (5-0 for Nadal)so the H2H could be even but Nadal leads 3-2 in matches played outside the FO (2-0 in Australia, 1-2 in Wimbledon).One is simply tougher mentally (by a long margin) than the other.

Matt01
01-29-2012, 03:29 AM
Nadal leads 12-2 clay
Nadal leads 5-1 outdoor hard
Federer leads 4-0 indoor hard
Federer leads 2-1 grass

It would not be as lopsided if there were more indoor and grass tournaments I guess.


Probably yes but outdoor hard and clay are more important (and fairer IMO) surfaces than grass and indoor hard/carpet so it's only natural they played more often there.

SheepleBuster
01-29-2012, 03:35 AM
Of course they count, that's why Roger says they don't. Who cares. Roger literally pissed his legacy away with this 19-8 record. If he was 0-4 or 0-5, it would still be better. But now we have a large enough sample to say Rafa owned and abused Roger when they met. Yes. Roger is a more complete and better player at his best. But his good is not good enough for Rafa's best. Roger can't keep his best for 5 sets. Roger lost so many big matches to the guy and won only 2 Wimbledons (lost 1)... Sorry Roger. But you fucked up.

Mimi
01-29-2012, 04:14 AM
head to head records certainly matter in slams.

fed would probably be sitting on 24 slams or more if the clay warrior had not come along.

similarly nadal would have 5 more slams had fed and nole not come along.

and no telling how many more slams nole would have already had had fed and nadal not existed.

so head to head matters greatly in slams.

good post :yeah:

Jimnik
01-29-2012, 04:52 AM
Federer vs Nadal

2012 Australian Open Australia Hard SF Nadal 6-7(5), 6-2, 7-6(5), 6-4
2011 Barclays ATP World Tour Finals Great Britain Hard RR Federer 6-3, 6-0
2011 Roland Garros France Clay F Nadal 7-5, 7-6(3), 5-7, 6-1
2011 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Madrid Spain Clay S Nadal 5-7, 6-1, 6-3
2011 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Miami FL, U.S.A. Hard S Nadal 6-3, 6-2
2010 Barclays ATP World Tour Finals London, England Hard F Federer 6-3, 3-6, 6-1
2010 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Madrid Spain Clay F Nadal 6-4, 7-6(5)
2009 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Madrid Spain Clay F Federer 6-4, 6-4
2009 Australian Open Australia Hard F Nadal 7-5, 3-6, 7-6(3), 3-6, 6-2
2008 Wimbledon Great Britain Grass F Nadal 6-4, 6-4, 6-7(5), 6-7(8), 9-7
2008 Roland Garros France Clay F Nadal 6-1, 6-3, 6-0
2008 ATP Masters Series Hamburg Germany Clay F Nadal 7-5, 6-7(3), 6-3
2008 ATP Masters Series Monte Carlo Monaco Clay F Nadal 7-5, 7-5
2007 Tennis Masters Cup China Hard S Federer 6-4, 6-1
2007 Wimbledon Great Britain Grass F Federer 7-6(7), 4-6, 7-6(3), 2-6, 6-2
2007 Roland Garros France Clay F Nadal 6-3, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4
2007 ATP Masters Series Hamburg Germany Clay F Federer 2-6, 6-2, 6-0
2007 ATP Masters Series Monte Carlo Monaco Clay F Nadal 6-4, 6-4
2006 Tennis Masters Cup China Hard S Federer 6-4, 7-5
2006 Wimbledon England Grass F Federer 6-0, 7-6(5), 6-7(2), 6-3
2006 Roland Garros France Clay F Nadal 1-6, 6-1, 6-4, 7-6(4)
2006 ATP Masters Series Rome Italy Clay F Nadal 6-7(0), 7-6(5), 6-4, 2-6, 7-6(5)
2006 ATP Masters Series Monte Carlo Monaco Clay F Nadal 6-2, 6-7(2), 6-3, 7-6(5)
2006 Dubai U.A.E. Hard F Nadal 2-6, 6-4, 6-4
2005 Roland Garros France Clay S Nadal 6-3, 4-6, 6-4, 6-3
2005 ATP Masters Series Miami FL, U.S.A. Hard F Federer 2-6, 6-7(4), 7-6(5), 6-3, 6-1
2004 ATP Masters Series Miami FL, U.S.A. Hard R32 Nadal 6-3, 6-3

Nadal leads 18-9 overall
Nadal leads 12-2 clay
Nadal leads 5-1 outdoor hard
Federer leads 4-0 indoor hard
Federer leads 2-1 grass

Nadal leads 8-2 at slams
Nadal leads 10-3 in best-of-5 sets
Nadal leads 53-36 in sets

Jimnik
01-29-2012, 04:53 AM
Seems very one-sided on all surfaces except grass. Shame the grass season is too short.

Pirata.
01-29-2012, 05:02 AM
Probably yes but outdoor hard and clay are more important (and fairer IMO) surfaces than grass and indoor hard/carpet so it's only natural they played more often there.

Another post of absolute :bs: from Matt01

If Djokovic beats Rafa many times again this year and overtakes him in their H2H, will Rafatards start calling to disregard the H2H?

Mountaindewslave
01-29-2012, 05:08 AM
question:

does anyone here thinks federer would trade just 1 of his GS titles for a positive h2h against nadal?

yeah, didn't think so

that is a good question to ask and does in fact prove that the H2H just does not mean A HUGE thing in the big picture. I agree Roger is downplaying it's importance, but in the end he is right in that the number of titles and accomplishments you have is what will be remembered most.

now if Nadal somehow wins 5 or more GS titles from here on out then the H2H certainly becomes a bigger issue

masterclass
01-29-2012, 05:50 AM
Probably yes but outdoor hard and clay are more important (and fairer IMO) surfaces than grass and indoor hard/carpet so it's only natural they played more often there.

Hmm, yes, they definitely play more clay court and outdoor hard court matches than grass and indoors.

But it's not only that. It also depends on the relative quality of the players on a particular surface. They have played a lot on clay, because Mr. Federer is just below Mr. Nadal's ability on clay, despite it being a slow high bouncing surface. Mr. Federer is clearly second best at Roland Garros, losing 5 times in the final to Mr. Nadal. As I've said elsewhere, if Mr. Federer were not very close to Mr. Nadal's quality on clay, they probably would have never or rarely met at Roland Garros as well as other clay court events. They would likely only have met on the few clay courts where conditions would have been more to Mr. Federer's liking.

On outdoor hard courts, the 5-1 H2H advantage for Mr. Nadal is definitely misleading. Mr. Federer is in general the better hard court player, but they have almost exclusively met on the slowest hard courts. Why? Because those are the courts that favor Mr. Nadal's game. He has rarely been in a position to meet Mr. Federer on faster hard courts because it doesn't suit his game and favors players like Mr. Federer. What's their H2H at the US Open? 0-0. Force them to play a series of events on faster/low bouncing hard courts against each other, and I doubt Mr. Nadal could win much more than 10-20%. It would be a similar record to indoors.

Of course the trend has been in recent years to "homogenize" the courts, or make all courts all-player friendly, mostly by slowing down many of the outdoor hard courts and grass at Wimbledon, so it's not surprising that players like Mr. Nadal are at the top.

Respectfully,
masterclass

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
01-29-2012, 05:55 AM
pete sampras is considered one of the mentally strongest (if not the mentally strongest) player of all time

and his H2H with agassi is 21-14

if they played 14 matches on a clay court agassi would have a 18-9 (at least) lead againt sampras- and sampras mentally would not be any different

if nadal played in the 90s half the players would have a huge lopsided h2h with him-

a) because he would reach far enough into a grass tourny to get his ass handed to him

b) they would never meet him on clay

the same people who today call nadal a mental giant would be calling him a mental midget in those circmstances

fedal is a matchup nightmare- the strings have got to a point where its almost a joke now

huge sweet spot zones- makes passing shots easy (when back in the day you needed to be a baseline shot maker to hit a good passing shot)

slow courts allow for this boring brand of attrition defense tennis

Matt01
01-29-2012, 11:17 AM
Another post of absolute :bs: from Matt01


Please elaborate why my post is BS, clown.


Hmm, yes, they definitely play more clay court and outdoor hard court matches than grass and indoors.

But it's not only that. It also depends on the relative quality of the players on a particular surface. They have played a lot on clay, because Mr. Federer is just below Mr. Nadal's ability on clay, despite it being a slow high bouncing surface. Mr. Federer is clearly second best at Roland Garros, losing 5 times in the final to Mr. Nadal. As I've said elsewhere, if Mr. Federer were not very close to Mr. Nadal's quality on clay, they probably would have never or rarely met at Roland Garros as well as other clay court events. They would likely only have met on the few clay courts where conditions would have been more to Mr. Federer's liking.


I agree with this. They played often on clay because Federer was good enough to meet Nadal in all those clay finals which is why clay is a bit overrepresented in their H2H.



On outdoor hard courts, the 5-1 H2H advantage for Mr. Nadal is definitely misleading. Mr. Federer is in general the better hard court player, but they have almost exclusively met on the slowest hard courts. Why? Because those are the courts that favor Mr. Nadal's game. He has rarely been in a position to meet Mr. Federer on faster hard courts because it doesn't suit his game and favors players like Mr. Federer. What's their H2H at the US Open? 0-0. Force them to play a series of events on faster/low bouncing hard courts against each other, and I doubt Mr. Nadal could win much more than 10-20%. It would be a similar record to indoors.


The last part is of course pure speculation and not backed up by the facts. I rememeber their Dubai match on a fast HC in one of Fed's best years and Nadal stil won in 3 sets.
There is a difference between the match-up issue and the overall achievements on a certain surface, which is why the H2H on HC outdoors between Nadal and Federer is not misleading. Still no one would say that Nadal is a better player than Fed on that surface overall.

samanosuke
01-29-2012, 11:43 AM
muggty boy trying to give some tennis opinions but can't stop the falling

LoveFifteen
01-29-2012, 12:50 PM
question:

does anyone here thinks federer would trade just 1 of his GS titles for a positive h2h against nadal?

yeah, didn't think so

Well ... a positive H2H would mean that Federer had several more Slams. ;)

bokehlicious
01-29-2012, 12:52 PM
:lol: Matt, so clay is fairer than grass? :awww: :hug:

Matt01
01-29-2012, 01:17 PM
:lol: Matt, so clay is fairer than grass? :awww: :hug:


Fairer, better, more important. ATP seems to agree with me when you look at the schedule. :D

rocketassist
01-29-2012, 02:19 PM
Fairer, better, more important. ATP seems to agree with me when you look at the schedule. :D

No it's not.

juan27
01-29-2012, 03:06 PM
you're describing exactly what happened to SetSampras, and yes it will happen to a number of Fedfans.

But Federer himself is a happier guy : he has understood all of those things and accepted them.

He has always said that he was not a kind of a "Goat" but he was very happy to be called among them. I remember he said that exactly to John McEnroe on court right after his win in Roland-Garros 2009, when McEnroe (not anybody, a glory of the game) told him "how is it like to be the best of all time ?" he answered "no I'm not, I'm just happy to be called among all these glories of the game"

this.

by the way , after saw the final nole-nadal , it`s clear that nadal when he faces roger , plays his best tennis ever , is the really black beast of roger.....nadal always play perfecto or near perfect against roger

juan27
01-29-2012, 03:13 PM
Well, Rafa leads 8-2 in Slams. Fed came first, and had weak competition till Rafa reached his near peak. Now there is Nole for both Rafa and Fed to contend with. The fact is, the only Laver could possibly be considered GOAT, achievement wise.

if federer had weak competiton....

what great competition had nadal in clay??????

his main rival was a fast court specialist , never faced real competition in clay.

and outside clay , he started to won when federer past his peak form and before nole2.0.

he was beneficit of the empy beetwen past peak roger and pre peak nole

Chris Kuerten
01-29-2012, 03:16 PM
This shows it really bothers him, otherwise he wouldn't say such a delusional thing.

TennisGrandSlam
01-29-2012, 03:18 PM
if federer had weak competiton....

what great competition had nadal in clay??????

his main rival was a fast court specialist , never faced real competition in clay.

and outside clay , he started to won when federer past his peak form and before nole2.0.

he was beneficit of the empy beetwen past peak roger and pre peak nole

Yea, if FED is not great, Rafa is also not great! :devil:

rickcastle
01-29-2012, 03:23 PM
This shows it really bothers him, otherwise he wouldn't say such a delusional thing.

I'm sure he's bothered by it a bit, who wouldn't be? But this just says that he acknowledges that it's there but he doesn't let it get to define what makes him happy as a player and a person because it's out of his hands now. Seriously, if you're a player like Federer who has won everything and holds almost every record and has been made rich, famous and loved by this sport and his talents - would you choose to be unhappy just because Nadal has a positive H2H over you? It just shows that Federer has the right perspective on life and what makes him happy.

Infinity
01-29-2012, 03:36 PM
question:

does anyone here thinks federer would trade just 1 of his GS titles for a positive h2h against nadal?

yeah, didn't think so

question:

Does anyone here think Federer would trade just 1 of his GS victories over Roddick for another 1 against Nadal?

Yeah, thought so.

Chris Kuerten
01-29-2012, 03:36 PM
I'm sure he's bothered by it a bit, who wouldn't be? But this just says that he acknowledges that it's there but he doesn't let it get to define what makes him happy as a player and a person because it's out of his hands now. Seriously, if you're a player like Federer who has won everything and holds almost every record and has been made rich, famous and loved by this sport and his talents - would you choose to be unhappy just because Nadal has a positive H2H over you? It just shows that Federer has the right perspective on life and what makes him happy.A great champion should be pissed off over getting consistently owned by his main rival. He lacks mentality, we could all see the difference between him and the two bravehearts in the final today.

rickcastle
01-29-2012, 03:42 PM
A great champion should be pissed off over getting consistently owned by his main rival. He lacks mentality, we could all see the difference between him and the two bravehearts in the final today.

Well, there's where your priorities differ. Federer chooses to focus on the positive things on his career, which there are many of.

Federer could choose to dwell on all those wasted opportunities or he can move forward and honestly try to play the best he can. Nadal's game is a bad match up for him, and look at that match between those two in the finals - do you honestly think Federer can still keep up with them on those rallies? 20-30 shots just to win one point. It's hard for Federer to dwell on it now because he's older and he can't go toe to toe with these guys anymore, he can just move forward and focus on the future and try to make little changes to his game but at this point in his career, we can all agree that he cannot change it entirely anymore.

Anyway, gist is, Federer chooses to be happy despite his negative H2H against Nadal because he recognizes that he still has a lot more to be thankful for. I think that's a good outlook on life. You can't have everything.

Boris Franz Ecker
01-29-2012, 03:45 PM
the thing is, you can't be GOAT if someone was better.
And Nadal simply was better than Federer if they played each other.
not a little bit, that could be probably overlookeed, but very much better. And that will not be overlooked.
That means, Federer has the grand slam title record, which is a good thing.
But he will not end as undisputed GOAT.
i don't thin he would with 16 grand slam titles. The difference is not big enough.
But with that difference and the question mark Nadal, it's impossible.

Jamoz
01-29-2012, 03:50 PM
the thing is, you can't be GOAT if someone was better.
And Nadal simply was better than Federer if they played each other.
not a little bit, that could be probably overlookeed, but very much better. And that will not be overlooked.
That means, Federer has the grand slam title record, which is a good thing.
But he will not end as undisputed GOAT.
i don't thin he would with 16 grand slam titles. The difference is not big enough.
But with that difference and the question mark Nadal, it's impossible.

There is no such thing as undisputed goat. There is always a better player or upcoming young gun etc... Nadal beat Fed and now Nole is beating Nadal, so he must be GOAT! no?? :o:rolleyes:

Mjau!
01-29-2012, 03:50 PM
The H2H is very surface specific. 16 of Nadal's 18 victories are on slow surfaces.

Clay & slow hard: Nadal leads 16-3
Grass & fast hard: Federer leads 7-2

Jaz
01-29-2012, 03:57 PM
the thing is, you can't be GOAT if someone was better.
And Nadal simply was better than Federer if they played each other.
not a little bit, that could be probably overlookeed, but very much better. And that will not be overlooked.
That means, Federer has the grand slam title record, which is a good thing.
But he will not end as undisputed GOAT.
i don't thin he would with 16 grand slam titles. The difference is not big enough.
But with that difference and the question mark Nadal, it's impossible.

There is no such thing as an undisputed GOAT.

This isn't boxing, they play so many matches a year, it's perfectly conceivable that multiple players will have negative head to heads.

One bad year i.e. Nadal versus Djokovic could, potentially, give a negative h2h.

lazybear
01-29-2012, 03:59 PM
the thing is, you can't be GOAT if someone was better.
And Nadal simply was better than Federer if they played each other.
not a little bit, that could be probably overlookeed, but very much better. And that will not be overlooked.
That means, Federer has the grand slam title record, which is a good thing.
But he will not end as undisputed GOAT.
i don't thin he would with 16 grand slam titles. The difference is not big enough.
But with that difference and the question mark Nadal, it's impossible.

6 grand slams is an enormous difference in this sport. Even 3-4 would be huge difference.

superslam77
01-29-2012, 04:02 PM
The H2H is very surface specific. 16 of Nadal's 18 victories are on slow surfaces.

Clay & slow hard: Nadal leads 16-3
Grass & fast hard: Federer leads 7-2

this...and also age specific.

if say tomic or some upcoming mug goes 10-0 vs nadull in his 30's

Singularity
01-29-2012, 04:02 PM
the thing is, you can't be GOAT if someone was better.

Player A beats player B, player B beats player C, player C beats player A. Who's the greatest?

superslam77
01-29-2012, 04:04 PM
Fed has greatest achievemets and best style(plays real tennis)

rafull fans are desperate.

rickcastle
01-29-2012, 04:08 PM
Dominik Hrbaty is the greatest, has positive H2H with both Nadal and Federer! GOAT! :worship:

Jaz
01-29-2012, 04:09 PM
Dominik Hrbaty is the greatest, has positive H2H with both Nadal and Federer! GOAT! :worship:

Absolutely, superb player.

TennisGrandSlam
01-29-2012, 04:11 PM
the thing is, you can't be GOAT if someone was better.
And Nadal simply was better than Federer if they played each other.
not a little bit, that could be probably overlookeed, but very much better. And that will not be overlooked.
That means, Federer has the grand slam title record, which is a good thing.
But he will not end as undisputed GOAT.
i don't thin he would with 16 grand slam titles. The difference is not big enough.
But with that difference and the question mark Nadal, it's impossible.

Becker 25-10 Edberg, so, Becker is better than Edberg.
Lendl 11-10 Becker, so Lendl is better than Becker.
Edberg 14-13 Lendl, so Edberg is better than Lendl.

:devil::rolleyes::o:cool:

duong
01-29-2012, 06:03 PM
Nadal leads 12-2 clay
Nadal leads 5-1 outdoor hard
Federer leads 4-0 indoor hard
Federer leads 2-1 grass

It would not be as lopsided if there were more indoor and grass tournaments I guess.

And it would not be that lopsided if Fed and Nadal had played on fast outdoor hardcourts

their meetings on outdoor hard courts :

- Australia x2 on plexicushion, which means after the tournament was slown down
- Miami x3 : slow court, and Fed was sick during the first match
- Dubai

duong
01-29-2012, 06:07 PM
pete sampras is considered one of the mentally strongest (if not the mentally strongest) player of all time

and his H2H with agassi is 21-14

if they played 14 matches on a clay court agassi would have a 18-9 (at least) lead againt sampras- and sampras mentally would not be any different

if nadal played in the 90s half the players would have a huge lopsided h2h with him-

a) because he would reach far enough into a grass tourny to get his ass handed to him

b) they would never meet him on clay

the same people who today call nadal a mental giant would be calling him a mental midget in those circmstances

fedal is a matchup nightmare- the strings have got to a point where its almost a joke now

huge sweet spot zones- makes passing shots easy (when back in the day you needed to be a baseline shot maker to hit a good passing shot)

slow courts allow for this boring brand of attrition defense tennis

yes the Sampras-Agassi H2H owes a lot to the nature of the surfaces where they played as well.

Agassi usually won on clay and slow hardcourts, and I had calculated that if they had played the same ratio of claymatches as Fed and Nadal, their H2H would be equal.

Yet, now everybody says that Sampas would beat Agassi any day,

and that Nadal would beat Fed any day.

And this is not mentioning the mental advantage which comes with that :
if you've played all of your first matches against on opponent on his best surface and he wins nearly all of them, of course he has the mental advantage for the following.

And it's quite clear that Nadal has a mental advantage over Fed and that Sampras had a mental advantage over Agassi.

duong
01-29-2012, 06:15 PM
This shows it really bothers him, otherwise he wouldn't say such a delusional thing.

Fed is a positive and happy person, he shows it again and again.

Journalists try to lead him to a negative question, the same kind of questions which surround all of MTF :

deal with it but Fed is not a MTF member, his words are not supposed to be part of a MTF conversation,

he talks for himself : for himself it's not important, it's not sad, it's not a catastrophe, "it is what it is" as he said and he keeps on, whatever that : especially he hjas accepted keeping on playing for long, which means losing many times again to Nadal and Djokovic ... but he just loves keeping on ;)

As for Mac's comments, the same Mcenroe said :

- you can't be called a Goat when you lose so often to another player
- after Roland-Garros 2009 final he asked Roger "How does it feel like being the greatest player ever ?"

You know journalists' gossiping : hear Wilander before the semifinal saying that Fed will beat Nadal in 3 easy sets :lol:

Laver is not a journalist, he looks at all of those things with more detachment and more clarity.

duong
01-29-2012, 06:17 PM
I'm sure he's bothered by it a bit, who wouldn't be? But this just says that he acknowledges that it's there but he doesn't let it get to define what makes him happy as a player and a person because it's out of his hands now. Seriously, if you're a player like Federer who has won everything and holds almost every record and has been made rich, famous and loved by this sport and his talents - would you choose to be unhappy just because Nadal has a positive H2H over you? It just shows that Federer has the right perspective on life and what makes him happy.

Exactly : he's happy :)

duong
01-29-2012, 06:21 PM
A great champion should be pissed off over getting consistently owned by his main rival. He lacks mentality, we could all see the difference between him and the two bravehearts in the final today.

Deal with it : you're not talking about Federer here, he's not that kind of person.

And that's why he keeps on playing for our pleasure despite having been called for retirement so often :)

He's not the "Goat" but he's happy, he has so much to be happy about :shrug:

Eden
01-29-2012, 06:27 PM
question:

does anyone here thinks federer would trade just 1 of his GS titles for a positive h2h against nadal?

yeah, didn't think so

Why do you ask this question in a forum where it is considered a bigger achievement to lose earlier on in a GS instead of having a negative H2H against a player?

Sampras has a negative H2H against Hewitt, Safin, Krajicek and Stich for example but I don't think anyone doubts that he was the best player of the generation he played back then.

It has been discussed so many times that Rafa is surely a terrible match-up for Roger but that it also didn't helped Roger to improve the H2H when he played against Rafa on clay in many matches and that Rafa on the other hand didn't reached the finals of tournaments where he could have met Roger.

Some of their matches were close and could have got either way. It would surely look nicer if the H2H would be a bit more balanced between these 2 but although people on MTF suggest Roger to tank matches in order to avoid to play against Rafa he would never think about something like this. Same as Rafa would never think about tanking against Roger in order to avoid to play Novak.

The Roger-Rafa rivalry will always be remembered for the matches they have played against each other and for the respect they share. Surely people will think about the H2H between these 2 players but in the end what matters will be the titles a player was able to win in a career. Tennis is not a sport between 2 players.

calvinhobbes
01-30-2012, 02:05 AM
As it has been pointed out in several instances, Federer has the best career as a tennis player. (Maybe shared with Laver because of that CYGS issue). GOAT is a very provisional concept, as tennis will be still played for a long time from now on. GOAT is quite different from GOD. And I feel some haters confound the two terms. They are demanding from the GOAT title some godlike results that are far away from human nature. They forget that records are made of victories along with defeats. And is the existence of defeats what makes victories the most valuable. A spotless career would seem highly suspicious, and if someone would attain it, this poor guy would be investigated for generations in search of genetic manipulations, traceless drugs or enhancers and what not. In no time, this GOAT title would be marked with a big asterisk.
Roger´s career is up to this moment better than those of Nadal´s or Djoko´s, because he has extended the game´s positive records to limits never reached before. If we refuse to aknowledge this achievement to Roger, whose career would take this place? Certainly none in the past (except maybe Laver, but putting a huge amount of IFS on this statement). There´s no choice but to wait some years until Nadal´s, Nole´s and Roger´s careers have been ended. Then a final judgement will come (not necesarily armageddon. . . .). An THEN, not before, the H2H issue against Nadal could validly be taken into consideration as a kind of tiebreak against Nadal himself. But a tiebreak is not always the whole match. It would need some quelification and precedence.
We ignore the data and circumstances of this final judgement. So it´s better to postpone these discussions until then.

hadouken!
01-30-2012, 02:48 AM
This is certainly a blemish on his resume no matter what he says.

Fedfanforever
01-30-2012, 02:54 AM
This is certainly a blemish on his resume no matter what he says.
Yeah, but show me one GOAT candidate without a blemish.

Jimnik
01-30-2012, 03:07 AM
Sampras has a negative H2H against Hewitt, Safin, Krajicek and Stich for example but I don't think anyone doubts that he was the best player of the generation he played back then.
All those H2Hs were less than 10 meetings and none were negative by more than one or two wins. Sampras was never anywhere near a 9-18 H2H deficit vs a single player. Nor were Laver, Borg, Lendl, Agassi or Nadal.

Sunset of Age
01-30-2012, 03:10 AM
All those H2Hs were less than 10 meetings and none were negative by more than one or two wins. Sampras was never anywhere near a 9-18 H2H deficit vs a single player. Nor were Borg, Lendl, Agassi or Nadal.

If only Sampy was able to reach the QF/semis of RG a little more often. :angel: :wavey:

Jimnik
01-30-2012, 03:15 AM
If only Sampy was able to reach the QF/semis of RG a little more often. :angel: :wavey:
He had 3 QF and 1 SF appearances at RG. Problem is there was no consistent clay king to beat him once he made it that far. Courier, Bruguera, Muster, Kafelnikov and Kuerten all shared the spoils. In any case, he defeated all of them on clay despite being by far the inferior clay player.

Sunset of Age
01-30-2012, 03:17 AM
He had 3 QF and 1 SF appearances at RG. Problem is there was no consistent clay king to beat him once he made it that far. Courier, Bruguera, Muster, Kafelnikov and Kuerten all shared the spoils.

Which, em... proves my point. ;)
Never mind.

luie
01-30-2012, 03:20 AM
All those H2Hs were less than 10 meetings and none were negative by more than one or two wins. Sampras was never anywhere near a 9-18 H2H deficit vs a single player. Nor were Borg, Lendl, Agassi or Nadal.
Well thats true Sampras was never dominate on clay,, so he wouldnt have had the 12-2 deficit on the surface.
Agassi career was very sporadic , to develope that consist meeting with opponents.Plus the tour was divided with variety of surfaces. Majority of his titles came @ AO some of his finals opponents are mugs etc.
Borg retired @ 26 years , the usual date for physical decline & thus results suffer. For eg fed @ 26 years had a respectible h2h 6-8 advantage nadull.
Lendl lost alot of finals plus like the 90s variety of surfaces so u dont face the samme opponent over & over again like now with the slowed homogenized surfaces.
Nadull is still 25 years old , as time goes on negative h2h begin to appear.Like the direction the nadull-novak rivalry.

Jimnik
01-30-2012, 03:34 AM
Well thats true Sampras was never dominate on clay,, so he wouldnt have had the 12-2 deficit on the surface.
Agassi career was very sporadic , to develope that consist meeting with opponents.Plus the tour was divided with variety of surfaces. Majority of his titles came @ AO some of his finals opponents are mugs etc.
Borg retired @ 26 years , the usual date for physical decline & thus results suffer. For eg fed @ 26 years had a respectible h2h 6-8 advantage nadull.
Lendl lost alot of finals plus like the 90s variety of surfaces so u dont face the samme opponent over & over again like now with the slowed homogenized surfaces.
Nadull is still 25 years old , as time goes on negative h2h begin to appear.Like the direction the nadull-novak rivalry.
You can make all the excuses you like for the other 8+ slam winners but it doesn't remove the fact Federer has the worst H2H deficit of them all. Up until 2006, Nadal was a teenager and Federer at his peak yet the H2H was as one-sided as it is now.

homogenius
01-30-2012, 03:35 AM
The way Novak reversed the H2H against Rafa, and matches like the final that just happened (in which Novak accepted the physical battle and beat Rafa at his own game : pure fighting), reinforce what rafa showed the last 5 years in his big matches with Fed : Roger may be one of the most (if not the most)gifted player ever but he seriously lacks heart and mental toughness in comparison to guys like Rafa and Novak.Despite all his game he never found the solution against rafa and could only hope to reach the level of mental strengh displayed by both guys (let alone being the winner of such a duel)in this final.I suppose you can't have it all...

ballbasher101
01-30-2012, 03:59 AM
I hate Rihanna but I will say this I love the way you lie Monsieur Federer. No one and I mean no one enjoys getting stuffed by the same player over and over again. Federer is a proud man, Nadal has hurt him badly over the years. Who can forget those tears. He still wants to beat Rafa one more time in a major but that is not going to happen. It's like watching the same movie and hoping for a different ending. Groundhog day anyone. Like any Federer fan I still watch Fedal matches knowing full well how the story ends.

luie
01-30-2012, 04:17 AM
You can make all the excuses you like for the other 8+ slam winners but it doesn't remove the fact Federer has the worst H2H deficit of them all. Up until 2006, Nadal was a teenager and Federer at his peak yet the H2H was as one-sided as it is now.
They are facts , granted fed has the worst h2h of the 8+ slam winners my point is not that but its more than that.
When fed was 26 years 6 months he h2h with nadull was 6-8 overall and 5-2 off clay. 3-2 slams.
Nadull is 25 years 6 months ,, give him time h2h get negative with age.,,,Novak is proving that.
Nadull a teenager thats all u can come up with,,he was an early bloomer much like borg,becker,hewitt,chang.

My point is it is easy to say fed has the worst h2h but u have to look at facts u cant compare him h2h wise with borg n nadull he played during his decline , borg didnt & nadull is still in his prime.

Agassi career was sporadic & AO heavy late in his career,,he wasnt consistent as fed n' nadull is today but the surfaces played a part.but facts are facts if u want me to bring up his career record.

Jimnik
01-30-2012, 05:06 AM
They are facts , granted fed has the worst h2h of the 8+ slam winners my point is not that but its more than that.
When fed was 26 years 6 months he h2h with nadull was 6-8 overall and 5-2 off clay. 3-2 slams.
Here are some more facts. When Borg was 26 years 6 months his h2h with Connors was 15-8 and McEnroe 7-7. He was never close to getting owned by anyone. Nadal led Federer 8-6 overall and 3-2 at slams.


Nadull is 25 years 6 months ,, give him time h2h get negative with age.,,,Novak is proving that.
Nadull a teenager thats all u can come up with,,he was an early bloomer much like borg,becker,hewitt,chang.
Nadal is an early bloomer, that's all you can come up with? He was a teenager who consistently defeated a peak Federer, even on hard courts. Another fact.


My point is it is easy to say fed has the worst h2h but u have to look at facts u cant compare him h2h wise with borg n nadull he played during his decline , borg didnt & nadull is still in his prime.
My point is it is easy to come up with excuses to defend your favorite but you have to look at the facts. Federer has a 9-18 record against a single opponent. No other 8+ slam champion comes close.

Here are two more facts. You're grammar sucks and calling Nadal "Nadull" only exposes how biased you are on this topic.

Marc23
01-30-2012, 05:11 AM
"Ohhh God,it's killing me." is just a proof how unimportant that is...if he managed to beat Rafa in just half of the Slams they played he would have 20+ GS titles...

evilmindbulgaria
01-30-2012, 05:15 AM
"Ohhh God,it's killing me." is just a proof how unimportant that is...if he managed to beat Rafa in just half of the Slams they played he would have 20+ GS titles...

Well said :yeah:

tripwires
01-30-2012, 05:15 AM
"Ohhh God,it's killing me." is just a proof how unimportant that is...if he managed to beat Rafa in just half of the Slams they played he would have 20+ GS titles...

Way to take the quote out of context. Apart from that, damnit you are right.

rickcastle
01-30-2012, 05:22 AM
There is no GOAT because everyone has a blemish on their records - Federer who has a lopsided H2H with his main rival, Nadal who is getting reamed in the ass by Djokovic 7x in a row, Sampras who never reached a Roland Garros final and who doesn't have the career grandslam? Who is the GOAT then? No one is. There is only the most successful tennis player and that player currently is Federer, he is happy about that and it is true what he says that the H2H doesn't take away any of his successes so in reality it doesn't matter, in fact it even adds to it that he was still able to collect a pretty good resume on clay despite playing alongside arguably the clay GOAT.

tektonac
01-30-2012, 05:58 AM
if it was the opposite, it would've been one of the most important indicators in tennis history :lol:

cardio
01-30-2012, 06:31 AM
Well ... a positive H2H would mean that Federer had several more Slams. ;)

No, it wouldnt,it was explained zillion times .Let`s say Fed would have won Miami R 32,Dubai F 2006,Rome F 2006,Monte Carlo F 2007,Monte Carlo F 2008 and Madrid F 2010,+ every other result remains as it really was, his H2H would have been 15 - 12 with same amount of slams.

Would he prefer to be better claycourter than he already was and have all those extra clay titles + one more Dubai ? Probably yes, thats why he played those tournaments in the first place, to win.

Would he trade one of his Wimby trophys to all those montecarlos, rome,extra dubai and extra Madrid ? Sure as hell NO .

Level of stupidity in this thread is amazing , even for MTF...

Sharpshooter
01-30-2012, 07:02 AM
Of course there's no GOAT. As long as human beings play tennis, there will never be a player with a gameplan that dominates every other player's gameplan. There's always going to be a weakness. Roger didn't look like he had one until Rafa came along, then Rafa looked like he would be unstoppable until Djoker improved his skills, now he looks unstoppable... that is until someone figures him out.

So there you have it there is no such "greatest of all time" and cleaning up titles when there's only Hewitt and Roddick (consistently) around as your contenders it's no surprise Fed has 16. If you put Rafa or Djoker of today in 2004-2007 then they'd win 3 if not all 4 majors every year just like Fed did.

There's no doubt we are in one of the toughest era's of men's tennis with Fed still playing really well, Rafa and Djoker both in their prime and a potential contender in Murray. It is much tougher to win a major now than probably ever. Right now Novak is sitting on top of the throne as the king of men's tennis, but Murray and Rafa are both close to knocking him off the throne and Fed still has the ability to as well. There is no guarantee Novak will win every major he plays this year, he just barely won the AO, in fact if a routine Nadal passing shot off the BH side goes 1 more centimeter to the left, Rafa wins the AO this year IMO.

bandabou
01-30-2012, 07:08 AM
well, the way things are going right now...Nadal has his own things to worry about with Djokovic, no?!

The h2h is what it is...Fed is obviously lying when he says it don't mean nothing, but c'est la vie.

oz_boz
01-30-2012, 08:33 AM
So you say winning titles against the likes of Roddick and Hewitt is harder than winning against Djokovic, Murray, Berdych, Soderling, Tsonga....?

Or, to put a different way, losing to Rafa in slams is worse than losing to the likes of Ferrer, Murray, Tsonga, Gonzalez...? Amazing how everyone pointing at the h2h cannot realize that tennis is a lot more than a game between just 2 or 3 players. And they also forget that if Fed had been a slightly lesser claycourter he would still be just as good as Sampras resultwise, with the h2h against Rafa "fixed", so anyone who has ever considered Pete the GOAT has to put Federer above him.

But OK, let's just pretend that Roddick and Hewitt always sucked big time, as well as Safin, so we completely discount all results ahead of RG 2005. If we count the best slam results and weeks at #1 from RG 2005 (Rafa's first), and also discount the slams where either #1 or #2 couldn't take part in the contest, we end up with this result:

Fed: Slam wins 10, final losses 7, 235 weeks at #1 235
Rafa: Slam wins 10, final losses 5, 102 weeks at #1 102
Nole: Slam wins 5, final losses 2, 32 weeks at #1

Fed has also won a number of YEC, Rafa has won a number of masters and an Olympic Gold. I'd give Fed the nod for having the best results. BTW this "era" starts with Rafa being 19 and ends with Fed being 30, so I think it counts in roughly the same amount of bad time for both (given that peak for a tennis player is usually between 22 and 27).

(And if you want to do keep playing the game, like for example disregard Rafa's performances outside clay pre-2008, you might as well do the same with Fed's all playing activity post-2007, since after that his record went down the drain with losses against ton of lesser players, quite unlike during his peak 2004-7. If you say Fed was lucky that Rafa didn't peak earlier, the same goes for Nadal with Djokovic, and Djokovic with soemone yet to emerge, etc etc.)

If you put Rafa or Djoker of today in 2004-2007 then they'd win 3 if not all 4 majors every year just like Fed did.


:lol: Last time I checked, Nadal won his first Slam in 2005 and actually reached #2 that year. But he did not win 3 slams any of the following years.

TennisGrandSlam
01-30-2012, 08:39 AM
All those H2Hs were less than 10 meetings and none were negative by more than one or two wins. Sampras was never anywhere near a 9-18 H2H deficit vs a single player. Nor were Laver, Borg, Lendl, Agassi or Nadal.

As your logic, should Fed deliberately lose all Clay semi-finals to avoid Nadal in 2005 - 2011? :o:o:o

Commander Data
01-30-2012, 09:23 AM
H2H is relativizated by Nadal-Nole H2H. You can no longer argue that Nadal is better then Fed because his ownage of Fed; because that would hint Nole > Nadal. which would lead to Nole > Fed, at that point it becomes evident that something is flawed.

The H2H is less important then Slams and thank good Nole came along to prove that point. But of course it has a meaning.

rickcastle
01-30-2012, 09:31 AM
Or, to put a different way, losing to Rafa in slams is worse than losing to the likes of Ferrer, Murray, Tsonga, Gonzalez...? Amazing how everyone pointing at the h2h cannot realize that tennis is a lot more than a game between just 2 or 3 players. And they also forget that if Fed had been a slightly lesser claycourter he would still be just as good as Sampras resultwise, with the h2h against Rafa "fixed", so anyone who has ever considered Pete the GOAT has to put Federer above him.

How I wish Federer just tanked all his Roland Garros SFs when he knew Nadal would be in the finals and just went ahead and got the job done when he knew Nadal went out in the 4th in 2009. He would've had the career grandslam and a more reasonable if not positive H2H against Nadal. Who knows - if he wasn't humiliated in RG 2008, he might've gone on to seal the deal in Wimbledon 2008. And if he didn't take so much pounding against Nadal on clay in the nascent of their rivalries, he wouldn't have such an inferiority complex against Nadal and might've actually won more matches out of it.

Of course, that's not the kind of player Federer is. That's why he has the record of most grandslams and most grandslam finals ever.

duong
01-30-2012, 10:56 AM
I hate Rihanna but I will say this I love the way you lie Monsieur Federer. No one and I mean no one enjoys getting stuffed by the same player over and over again. Federer is a proud man, Nadal has hurt him badly over the years. Who can forget those tears. He still wants to beat Rafa one more time in a major but that is not going to happen.

yes there were those tears in 2009, but after the match this year, Fed was cheerful during the press conference.

Fed has changed by becoming an old player and a family man.

Fed's mother, Lynette, was said last year "how do you feel that he's called the best of all time" ? she answered "pff this is all temporary, another player will surpass his achievements soon"

I guess Fed has reached the same feeling about that.

Anyway once again from all of his interviews people should realize that Fed is a very positive mind, a positiveness which is clearly not shared in this forum.

duong
01-30-2012, 11:05 AM
As for the "Goat concept", there's no surprise that it's a Sampras's fan who started this thread.

This whole concept started with Sampras.

I remember when Borg was there, there were not such gossipings.

Laver also lived in a totally different world.

It all started with Sampras : the concepts which I often read that "Sampras would not allow another player to do that", "Sampras would serve it out for sure", "Sampras would find a way", etc.

Something magical, really godly, which is part of Sampras's myth.

Federer is completely different from that myth : the main thing people will remember about Fed is his game and style, totally different myth.

superslam77
01-30-2012, 11:07 AM
Here are some more facts. When Borg was 26 years 6 months his h2h with Connors was 15-8 and McEnroe 7-7. He was never close to getting owned by anyone. Nadal led Federer 8-6 overall and 3-2 at slams.



Nadal is an early bloomer, that's all you can come up with? He was a teenager who consistently defeated a peak Federer, even on hard courts. Another fact.



My point is it is easy to come up with excuses to defend your favorite but you have to look at the facts. Federer has a 9-18 record against a single opponent. No other 8+ slam champion comes close.

Here are two more facts. You're grammar sucks and calling Nadal "Nadull" only exposes how biased you are on this topic.

"you're grammar sucks" was all i needed to read :o

your grammar sucks is the correct way to write it :facepalm:

Time Violation
01-30-2012, 11:20 AM
It all started with Sampras : the concepts which I often read that "Sampras would not allow another player to do that", "Sampras would serve it out for sure", "Sampras would find a way", etc.

Americans like the numbers/stats, no wonder :p

Sophocles
01-30-2012, 11:50 AM
Alright. If he had 15 slams and a positive H2H with Nadull (even in slams) then I would think he would give that scenario serious consideration.

Really? Have you compared his celebrations when winning a slam to his celebrations when beating Nadal in a match?

Sophocles
01-30-2012, 12:19 PM
If the H2H didn't play on Fed's mind when he was on court against Nadal, then I'm sure we'd see less choking & fewer disastrous errors, but I'm perfectly willing to believe that after the career he's had, a losing record against a guy 5 years younger who's mostly played him on surfaces accentuating Nadal's match-up advantage, doesn't mean a whole lot of shit to Federer.

masterclass
01-30-2012, 12:29 PM
Here are some more facts. When Borg was 26 years 6 months his h2h with Connors was 15-8 and McEnroe 7-7. He was never close to getting owned by anyone. Nadal led Federer 8-6 overall and 3-2 at slams.



Nadal is an early bloomer, that's all you can come up with? He was a teenager who consistently defeated a peak Federer, even on hard courts. Another fact.



My point is it is easy to come up with excuses to defend your favorite but you have to look at the facts. Federer has a 9-18 record against a single opponent. No other 8+ slam champion comes close.

Here are two more facts. You're grammar sucks and calling Nadal "Nadull" only exposes how biased you are on this topic.

There is no bias in what I'm stating now. The following are facts, not excuses, and conclusions based on facts.
Please try to look at them in a similar light. Look at the final conclusion at the bottom if you don't want to read the details.

Mr. Federer's and Mr. Nadal's overall records speak for themselves.
However, H2H meetings can be misleading when trying to apply it to comparison of the player's achievements as a whole.

In their particular case, the conclusions are clear. I've explained the rationale in other threads. I'll break the H2H down by surface to make this more clear.

CLAY (Outdoors): Total: Nadal (12-2) Major - Roland Garros: Nadal (5-0)
Mr. Nadal has clearly been the dominant player on CLAY vs. everyone including Mr. Federer.
Mr. Federer has a poor head to head against him on that surface in the totality of clay tournaments as well as the major played on that surface - Roland Garros - ONLY because he is probably the second best clay court player, especially at Roland Garros (At Roland Garros, Mr. Nadal beat Mr. Federer 5 times in the final). Mr. Federer was able to win twice on clay, but these are exceptions to the rule.

CLAY H2H in contextual conclusion:
Mr. Nadal's dominance on clay (Clay King) eclipses Mr. Federer's excellence on clay.
The high number of H2H meetings on this surface is because Mr. Federer is very close to Mr. Nadal's ability.
Ironically for Mr. Federer, it leads to a disproportionately high H2H total, but it is definitely representative of their relative ability.

It's worth noting that if Mr. Federer were more inferior on clay, they would have significantly fewer head to head total appearances (perhaps even favoring Mr. Federer if he could only win when conditions favored him), and likely no H2H slam record on that surface, similar to their 0-0 record at the US Open, which would then be misleading in terms of their relative ability on the surface.

HARD (Indoors):Total: Federer (4-0) Major - Year End Championships (not officially, but often termed the "5th major") Federer (*4-0) *Not typically included in slam H2H records
The hard court indoor H2H record indicates that Mr. Federer is the dominant player on indoor hard courts.
However, there are only 4 total H2H appearances (1/3 of their clay record). This can be attributed to a few things:

1. Mr. Nadal is more inferior on indoor hard courts than Mr. Federer on clay and thus doesn't have as many meetings indoors.
2. There are not as many indoor events as there are clay court events
3. The indoor events generally take place in the latter part of the year. Many players skip some of the indoor tournaments to recover from their toil previous to the indoor season.

There probably would not be even 4 meetings indoors except for the Year End Championships format, which automatically puts you in the tournament if you are in the top 8 rankings for the year, and is played in a round robin format where one can lose a match or two, but still get to the finals. The top 8 can include slow and fast court players and in this age of slower higher bouncing courts, it tends to lean toward having more slow court or all-court players. This almost forces Federer-Nadal to play against each other at some point. Sure enough, their only meetings indoors have come at the YEC. Twice at the China Tennis Master Cup and twice at the London World Tour Finals with Federer having 2 SF victories, 1 Final, and 1 Round Robin victory. If we look closer at the matches, it is evident why Mr. Nadal was able to face Mr. Federer in as many YEC as he did. In 2006, Mr. Nadal lost to James Blake (likes fast court) in round robin, but beat Tommy Robredo (likes slow courts), and beat Nikolay Davydenko (all court, but better on slow), before losing to Mr. Federer (all court, prefers fast/low bounce)in the SF. In 2007, Mr. Nadal beat Richard Gasquet (all court, slightly better on clay, better on grass) in 3 sets, lost to David Ferrer (all court, somewhat better on slow)in 3 sets, and beat Novak Djokovic (all court, better on slow) to again lose to Mr. Federer in the SF. In Mr. Nadal's incredible peak 2010 year, he made it to the finals, defeating Andy Roddick(all court,fast) Novak Djokovic, Tomas Berdych(all court, fast), Andy Murray(all court,fast) before losing to Mr. Federer in 3 sets. In spite of losing, this was an exceptional performance by Mr. Nadal. In 2011, Mr. Nadal beat Mardy Fish, then lost to Mr. Federer badly.

HARD (Indoor) H2H contextual conclusion:

Mr. Federer dominates here.
Mr. Nadal is not as competent in these conditions, leading to few meetings.
H2H is fairly representative of their relative ability indoors due to "forced" meetings at Year End Championships, otherwise they might have no record.

GRASS (Outdoors): Total: Federer (2-1) Major - Wimbledon: Federer (2-1)
Their overall grass record indicates that Mr. Federer has been more dominant on grass primarily due to Mr. Federer's Wimbledon record.
The H2H numbers are few due to the few grass tournaments played these days.
Mr. Nadal gradually improved on the Wimbledon grass as that grass became more playable (slower and higher bouncing) over the last few years. He only has 1 tournament win on grass outside Wimbledon, at Queens Club in 2008.

Grass H2H contextual conclusion:

Mr. Federer's H2H on grass is slightly better than Mr. Nadal.
They have played only 3 matches due to few grass tournaments and Mr. Nadal not being close to Mr. Federer's level at the time of Mr. Federer's Wimbledon dominance.
Mr. Federer's overall H2H numbers are less representative due to that.

HARD (Outdoors): Total: Nadal (5-1) Major - US Open: (0-0)
Here is where the total H2H is the most misleading. This is because we have outdoor hard courts that play differently unlike clay which varies less from tournament to tournament.
There are the slower and/or high bouncing courts like Miami, Indian Wells, Australian Open.
There are the faster/lower bouncing courts like Cincinnati, US Open (generally faster).
Mr Nadal's 5 wins have come primarily where conditions favor him, the slow higher bouncing courts of Miami(2) and the Australian Open(2).
There is one exception at Dubai. But Mr. Federer also has a couple of exceptions on clay. These exceptions don't prove anything.
The major H2H gives us a clue. They have never met at the US Open, despite Mr. Federer winning 5 straight titles there.
The other indicator is how deep they both went in the hard court tournaments in which they both played.
There is another thread that gives the answer to this, and it is clearly in Mr. Federer's favor showing that Mr. Federer is better on outdoor hard courts.
I would be remiss to not include Mr. Nadal's amazing 2010 US Open winning performance which was an exception to the rule - he went deeper than Mr. Federer in conditions that favored Mr. Federer. Mr Nadal beat Mr. Djokovic in the finals, who had just beaten Mr. Federer in the SF.

HARD (outdoor) H2H contextual conclusion:
The H2H record shows that Mr. Nadal was better in hard court conditions that favored him, but where Mr Federer still has almost equal compentence.
Mr. Nadal was too inferior to Mr. Federer to meet him in most hard court tournaments, so there is no head to head record in those.
The H2H numbers are grossly disproportionate to their relative ability on the outdoor hard courts.

Total H2H in context Conclusion:
The H2H record in context is what it is. Mr. Nadal has a better overall H2H record.
These numbers indicate how they were able to perform on the particular surfaces/conditions.
When those conditions favored a players style, they won with only minor exceptions.
If they had a high number of H2H meetings on a surface it has been due to them having similar ability (clay).
When they have not played each other often, it is mostly due to them having disparate ability (in all cases Federer's superior and Mr. Nadal's inferior) and sometimes fewer tournaments on a surface (e.g. grass).
In especially one case (hard court outdoors), the H2H is grossly misleading of their relative ability on the surface because they only played H2H when the conditions favored the inferior player.

To generalize:
Favor Mr. Nadal more on slower and/or high bouncing conditions.
Favor Mr. Federer much more on faster and/or lower bouncing conditions.
Since we recently have had more of the former, and fewer of the latter, generally favor Mr. Nadal against Mr. Federer.
Is it possible for one to beat the other when the conditions are not favorable? Sure, but this would be an exception.

Respectfully,
masterclass

Shirogane
01-30-2012, 12:49 PM
^Good post, and yes, it is what it is. (Exactly what Federer said.)

And of course OP got it wrong with the thread title – he said "not the most important", not "not important". :rolleyes:

buzz
01-30-2012, 01:31 PM
I want to add to Mr. masterclass his post that the sliding possibilities on clay favor Nadal his style more than Federers. And so do the irregular bounces on clay and grass.

:topic: I think that post is very very long considering the amount of points it adds.

masterclass
01-30-2012, 02:13 PM
I want to add to Mr. masterclass his post that the sliding possibilities on clay favor Nadal his style more than Federers. And so do the irregular bounces on clay and grass.

:topic: I think that post is very very long considering the amount of points it adds.

Agreed on all points :). This is one reason why grass had been a traditionally serve and volley game. There is a very low bounce or irregular bounce. Therefore it was much better strategy to take it out of the air. Changing the Wimbledon surface so much to accommodate clay court players has almost destroyed what the grass court game was meant to be. I think Rod Laver has said Center court is like a billiard table now compared to what it was in his day.

Interesting point about sliding. And I think that's what has been bothering me about Mr. Djokovic as I can't figure out why he doesn't have a better game on clay. He wants to slide even on hard courts and reaches many balls with his stretching ability.

Oh, I did warn in my very very long post to only read the final conclusion at the bottom if you didn't want to bother with the details. :)

Respectfully,
masterclass

masterclass
01-30-2012, 02:48 PM
If the H2H didn't play on Fed's mind when he was on court against Nadal, then I'm sure we'd see less choking & fewer disastrous errors, but I'm perfectly willing to believe that after the career he's had, a losing record against a guy 5 years younger who's mostly played him on surfaces accentuating Nadal's match-up advantage, doesn't mean a whole lot of shit to Federer.

Mostly agree with this. Certainly he's trying to find a way to beat him on the slower playing surfaces and not being able to do must play on his mind. Currently, I think Mr. Federer goes for far more winners than he should when the conditions don't suit and then missing creates even more pressure to pull risky shots off and that generates more missing and so on. But it's a no win situation. If he doesn't go for more, Mr. Nadal retrieves almost everything, and then they have 20-30 shot rallies, which also works in Mr. Nadal's favor.

Respectfully,
masterclass

SerenaFederer
01-30-2012, 03:27 PM
No, it wouldnt,it was explained zillion times .Let`s say Fed would have won Miami R 32,Dubai F 2006,Rome F 2006,Monte Carlo F 2007,Monte Carlo F 2008 and Madrid F 2010,+ every other result remains as it really was, his H2H would have been 15 - 12 with same amount of slams.

Would he prefer to be better claycourter than he already was and have all those extra clay titles + one more Dubai ? Probably yes, thats why he played those tournaments in the first place, to win.

Would he trade one of his Wimby trophys to all those montecarlos, rome,extra dubai and extra Madrid ? Sure as hell NO .

Level of stupidity in this thread is amazing , even for MTF...

basically this :o

buzz
01-30-2012, 03:44 PM
Interesting point about sliding. And I think that's what has been bothering me about Mr. Djokovic as I can't figure out why he doesn't have a better game on clay. He wants to slide even on hard courts and reaches many balls with his stretching ability.
Maybe because he already slides a lot on hard, so sliding on clay won't improve his retrieving compared to hardcourts. Accelerating and changing direction on clay is more difficult due to the slippery of the court. In general I think you can say the clay surface helps players movement more when they play further behind the baseline because there more distance to cover and relatively less direction changes.

Oh, I did warn in my very very long post to only read the final conclusion at the bottom if you didn't want to bother with the details. :)

Somehow that's the only part I skipped:rolleyes:

homogenius
01-30-2012, 03:51 PM
HARD (Outdoors): Total: Nadal (5-1) Major - US Open: (0-0)
Here is where the total H2H is the most misleading. This is because we have outdoor hard courts that play differently unlike clay which varies less from tournament to tournament.
There are the slower and/or high bouncing courts like Miami, Indian Wells, Australian Open.
There are the faster/lower bouncing courts like Cincinnati, US Open (generally faster).
Mr Nadal's 5 wins have come primarily where conditions favor him, the slow higher bouncing courts of Miami(2) and the Australian Open(2).
There is one exception at Dubai. But Mr. Federer also has a couple of exceptions on clay. These exceptions don't prove anything.
The major H2H gives us a clue. They have never met at the US Open, despite Mr. Federer winning 5 straight titles there.
The other indicator is how deep they both went in the hard court tournaments in which they both played.
There is another thread that gives the answer to this, and it is clearly in Mr. Federer's favor showing that Mr. Federer is better on outdoor hard courts.
I would be remiss to not include Mr. Nadal's amazing 2010 US Open winning performance which was an exception to the rule - he went deeper than Mr. Federer in conditions that favored Mr. Federer. Mr Nadal beat Mr. Djokovic in the finals, who had just beaten Mr. Federer in the SF.

HARD (outdoor) H2H contextual conclusion:
The H2H record shows that Mr. Nadal was better in hard court conditions that favored him, but where Mr Federer still has almost equal compentence.
Mr. Nadal was too inferior to Mr. Federer to meet him in most hard court tournaments, so there is no head to head record in those.
The H2H numbers are grossly disproportionate to their relative ability on the outdoor hard courts.



Post is too long so I can' tbe bothered to take each point in detail but just want to react to this : AO's conditions supposedly favors Nadal yet players like Tsonga or Gonzales have been able to dismantle him while Fed had 2 occasions and failed.Also, it took Nadal time to improve on fast hc so they never met at the USO but it's not the only reason : Fed wasted 2 occasions to meet him in the final (2010 and 2011)and that's not Nadal's fault.Let's suppose he was able to beat Novak in these 2 SF, do you really think he'd have beaten Rafa in the final ? Even Fed stans know that Rafa would have find a way to win cause no matter the surface he owns Roger mentally in big matches.

I'm not saying the surfaces have no impact on the H2H but I truly believe the reason why this H2H is so lopsided is that Nadal is vastly superior mentally.Sure he is a bad match-up for him but Fed still had enough game to win some here and there.He failed cause he never was able to beat Nadal at his own game : the mental battle.
As I said in another post, take a look at what Novak has been doing the past year : he used to be owned by Rafa as well (especially in big matches), had many painful losses no matter the surfaces.Yet he improved, forgot the losses and started to impose his game to Rafa, even on clay and grass.And when the context put him in a situation like this Ao's final (the kind of matches Rafa loves to play and win) he accepted the challenge and outfought an ultra-motivated Rafa.Roger could have done the same to Rafa at one point but he simply never found enough of what it takes : heart/balls...whatever.The type of surface has little to do with this.

ballbasher101
01-30-2012, 04:22 PM
Mostly agree with this. Certainly he's trying to find a way to beat him on the slower playing surfaces and not being able to do must play on his mind. Currently, I think Mr. Federer goes for far more winners than he should when the conditions don't suit and then missing creates even more pressure to pull risky shots off and that generates more missing and so on. But it's a no win situation. If he doesn't go for more, Mr. Nadal retrieves almost everything, and then they have 20-30 shot rallies, which also works in Mr. Nadal's favor.

Respectfully,
masterclass


You just kill me :dance:. Well put. Never thought I would ever see or hear anyone call Nadal Mr :lol:

Shirogane
01-30-2012, 04:50 PM
Post is too long so I can' tbe bothered to take each point in detail but just want to react to this : AO's conditions supposedly favors Nadal yet players like Tsonga or Gonzales have been able to dismantle him while Fed had 2 occasions and failed.Also, it took Nadal time to improve on fast hc so they never met at the USO but it's not the only reason : Fed wasted 2 occasions to meet him in the final (2010 and 2011)and that's not Nadal's fault.Let's suppose he was able to beat Novak in these 2 SF, do you really think he'd have beaten Rafa in the final ? Even Fed stans know that Rafa would have find a way to win cause no matter the surface he owns Roger mentally in big matches.

I'm not saying the surfaces have no impact on the H2H but I truly believe the reason why this H2H is so lopsided is that Nadal is vastly superior mentally.Sure he is a bad match-up for him but Fed still had enough game to win some here and there.He failed cause he never was able to beat Nadal at his own game : the mental battle.
As I said in another post, take a look at what Novak has been doing the past year : he used to be owned by Rafa as well (especially in big matches), had many painful losses no matter the surfaces.Yet he improved, forgot the losses and started to impose his game to Rafa, even on clay and grass.And when the context put him in a situation like this Ao's final (the kind of matches Rafa loves to play and win) he accepted the challenge and outfought an ultra-motivated Rafa.Roger could have done the same to Rafa at one point but he simply never found enough of what it takes : heart/balls...whatever.The type of surface has little to do with this.When the match up is bad, it's obviously going to affect the mental part, just look at Nadal yesterday. Plus, while he did look "ultra-motivated" to finally get that win against this Djoker, do you really think he's just as good as he used to be even two years ago? Hasn't he started to decline, just as much as Novak significantly got better? I guess we'll have to wait for the clay court season to find out.


You just kill me :dance:. Well put. Never thought I would ever see or hear anyone call Nadal Mr :lol:Never thought I would write something nice about Mr. Nadal.

Matt01
01-30-2012, 09:52 PM
Post is too long so I can' tbe bothered to take each point in detail but just want to react to this : AO's conditions supposedly favors Nadal yet players like Tsonga or Gonzales have been able to dismantle him while Fed had 2 occasions and failed.Also, it took Nadal time to improve on fast hc so they never met at the USO but it's not the only reason : Fed wasted 2 occasions to meet him in the final (2010 and 2011)and that's not Nadal's fault.Let's suppose he was able to beat Novak in these 2 SF, do you really think he'd have beaten Rafa in the final ? Even Fed stans know that Rafa would have find a way to win cause no matter the surface he owns Roger mentally in big matches.

I'm not saying the surfaces have no impact on the H2H but I truly believe the reason why this H2H is so lopsided is that Nadal is vastly superior mentally.Sure he is a bad match-up for him but Fed still had enough game to win some here and there.He failed cause he never was able to beat Nadal at his own game : the mental battle.
As I said in another post, take a look at what Novak has been doing the past year : he used to be owned by Rafa as well (especially in big matches), had many painful losses no matter the surfaces.Yet he improved, forgot the losses and started to impose his game to Rafa, even on clay and grass.And when the context put him in a situation like this Ao's final (the kind of matches Rafa loves to play and win) he accepted the challenge and outfought an ultra-motivated Rafa.Roger could have done the same to Rafa at one point but he simply never found enough of what it takes : heart/balls...whatever.The type of surface has little to do with this.


Exactly.

Shirogane
01-30-2012, 09:53 PM
Yeah.

theKSHE
01-30-2012, 09:54 PM
Sure.

bandabou
01-30-2012, 10:03 PM
Post is too long so I can' tbe bothered to take each point in detail but just want to react to this : AO's conditions supposedly favors Nadal yet players like Tsonga or Gonzales have been able to dismantle him while Fed had 2 occasions and failed.Also, it took Nadal time to improve on fast hc so they never met at the USO but it's not the only reason : Fed wasted 2 occasions to meet him in the final (2010 and 2011)and that's not Nadal's fault.Let's suppose he was able to beat Novak in these 2 SF, do you really think he'd have beaten Rafa in the final ? Even Fed stans know that Rafa would have find a way to win cause no matter the surface he owns Roger mentally in big matches.

I'm not saying the surfaces have no impact on the H2H but I truly believe the reason why this H2H is so lopsided is that Nadal is vastly superior mentally.Sure he is a bad match-up for him but Fed still had enough game to win some here and there.He failed cause he never was able to beat Nadal at his own game : the mental battle.
As I said in another post, take a look at what Novak has been doing the past year : he used to be owned by Rafa as well (especially in big matches), had many painful losses no matter the surfaces.Yet he improved, forgot the losses and started to impose his game to Rafa, even on clay and grass.And when the context put him in a situation like this Ao's final (the kind of matches Rafa loves to play and win) he accepted the challenge and outfought an ultra-motivated Rafa.Roger could have done the same to Rafa at one point but he simply never found enough of what it takes : heart/balls...whatever.The type of surface has little to do with this.

Uhumm...only knock on Roger really..he isn't a down and dirty player. Sure we all like to win playing like Mozart or Beethoven on the court, but sometimes you've to get dirty. Roger's the player who would never slide into 3rd base to make a double a triple.

Sharpshooter
01-30-2012, 10:15 PM
:lol: Last time I checked, Nadal won his first Slam in 2005 and actually reached #2 that year. But he did not win 3 slams any of the following years.

Before you start laughing why don't you read what I posted properly? I said rafa of today not rafa of 2005 when he was still a teenager or in his very early 20's. He's obviously a far better player now than he was back then. Plus teen/very early 20's fed wouldn't stand a chance against him. If the roles were reversed ie rafa was born the year fed was and vice versa, then it would be fed chasing Rafa's slam count today and when you consider that rafa would still be around and djoker is playing the way he is it would be pretty tough for fed to reach 16 majors. Same if we swapped djoker with fed. My point is fed was very fortunate to be the first of the 3 to come around and clean up against easier opponents.

r3d_d3v1l_
01-30-2012, 10:25 PM
Federer is owned by Nadal.

Nadal is owned by Djokovic.

Djokovic is owned by Federer.

Murray owns no Slam.

Yeah, H2H´s mean shit.

duong
01-30-2012, 10:27 PM
Post is too long so I can' tbe bothered to take each point in detail but just want to react to this : AO's conditions supposedly favors Nadal yet players like Tsonga or Gonzales have been able to dismantle him while Fed had 2 occasions and failed.


Fed is not a ballbasher like Tsonga who can trust on his pure power, heavy balls hurt him more than Tsonga.

Personally I read everywhere : "Fed always beats Nadal indoors, he always loses on outdoor hardcourts".

I say : that's how it happened but when people think that the difference is made by playing indoors, I seriously doubt it's why it happened like this, since the matches they played indoors were also on faster surfaces and lighter balls than the matches they played on outdoor hardcourts in mainly TWO tournaments : Australian Open (twice, first time Fed was superior imo but match turned against him, here you can think of the mental, not only Fed's one but also Nadal's one) and Miami (3 times, first time, Fed was sick) (only one other match in Dubai)

I think it's too easy to draw a conclusion that the difference is made by playing indoors, no wind (yes a lot of wind in Miami), etc. Did you see any difference in the match sunday when they closed the roof ?

I think the speed of the surface and the ball are as important.

And there's the factor of age : I don't understand the importance which people give to their matches now since Fed is clearly old.

I know that people will tell me "Nadal was a teenager in 2005-2006-2007",

but sincerely when I look at their match in the MAsters 2006, I don't have the impression that this player was worse than the player we can see recently :shrug: , at least not much :

Nadal-Federer Masters 2006 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMmVf4PBAg0)

For Federer, I can see a very clear difference.

As for the mental advantage, it always comes from a history between two players : the fact is they played many matches on clay in the beginning, which were very hard for Fed, that's a fact.

And this always derives in a mental advantage (both positive for the winner and negative for the loser).

Also happened between Sampras and Agassi, and Djokovic and Nadal now.

However, imo, I still think that the main explanation of Nadal-Federer H2H is the technical match-up which is clearly in Nadal's favour, whatever their respective levels.

Although, as for their levels, it's not clear at all for me that Federer is a better tennis player than Nadal, despite all of the words people say about that.

He would have been, yes, in the conditions of past tennis (70s, 80s, 90s) but in modern conditions, even not talking of the H2H, I believe they have close level. And Djokovic as well. People saying "he just runs better" : well legs are hugely important in modern tennis, this is not tennis of the 70s !

I prefer watching Fed play but that's another story.

samanosuke
01-30-2012, 10:39 PM
ask murray would he accept to be Fed's turkey for just one slam

Matt01
01-30-2012, 10:53 PM
Federer is owned by Nadal.

Nadal is owned by Djokovic.

Djokovic is owned by Federer.

Murray owns no Slam.

Yeah, H2H´s mean shit.


Djokovic isn't owned by Federer. Therefore: Djokovic = true GOAT :cool:

Sophocles
01-30-2012, 11:50 PM
I said rafa of today not rafa of 2005 when he was still a teenager or in his very early 20's. He's obviously a far better player now than he was back then.

This simply isn't borne out by results. Nadal won 11 titles in 2005 including his only one indoors. Last year he won 3 titles, all on clay. This year? Could be even fewer.

Sharpshooter
01-31-2012, 12:26 AM
This simply isn't borne out by results. Nadal won 11 titles in 2005 including his only one indoors. Last year he won 3 titles, all on clay. This year? Could be even fewer.

Only an idiot would truly believe nadal of 2005 is better than nadal of today. Most of those titles were mickey mouse and on clay. Btw he wasn't making it to the final of every grand slam either

Sophocles
01-31-2012, 12:36 AM
Only an idiot would truly believe nadal of 2005 is better than nadal of today. Most of those titles were mickey mouse and on clay. Btw he wasn't making it to the final of every grand slam either

Er no, he won R.G., Monte Carlo, & Rome, as well as Toronto on hard (against Agassi if I remember correctly, who went on to make the U.S.O. final playing excellently against peak Fed) & Madrid Masters indoors & came within a few points of winning Miami against peak Fed. He was as yet very raw on grass but on clay he was better than now (not for example being taken to 5 by John Isner ffs) & on hard courts, he was only slightly worse, being vulnerable to a wider range of players than today, although that's partly because there were more good players on fast hard courts then.

Roddickominator
01-31-2012, 12:45 AM
Djokovic isn't owned by Federer. Therefore: Djokovic = true GOAT :cool:

Djokovic is owned by Roddick

Jimnik
01-31-2012, 12:47 AM
Roddick's H2H record vs Federer not important

masterclass
01-31-2012, 01:06 AM
Post is too long so I can' tbe bothered to take each point in detail but just want to react to this : AO's conditions supposedly favors Nadal yet players like Tsonga or Gonzales have been able to dismantle him while Fed had 2 occasions and failed.Also, it took Nadal time to improve on fast hc so they never met at the USO but it's not the only reason : Fed wasted 2 occasions to meet him in the final (2010 and 2011)and that's not Nadal's fault.Let's suppose he was able to beat Novak in these 2 SF, do you really think he'd have beaten Rafa in the final ? Even Fed stans know that Rafa would have find a way to win cause no matter the surface he owns Roger mentally in big matches.

I'll repeat. For Mr. Federer and Mr. Nadal, it is indeed all about playing conditions. There is ownership in that sense.
Mr. Nadal "owns" Mr. Federer on slower/high bouncing courts such as clay. They played many more times on clay than any other one surface because Mr. Federer is also excellent on clay, just not as good as Mr. Nadal.
Mr. Federer "owns" Mr. Nadal on faster/lower bouncing courts, especially indoors. They only have 4 meetings there.

Mr. Federer played Mr. Nadal in the AO final of 2009 at night, and this year in the semifinal on the coolest slowest playing night of the tournament - Mr. Federer's misfortune, Mr. Nadal's good luck. That's it. The cool nighttime slow playing conditions allowed Mr. Nadal to reach many balls that he would normally never reach during the heat of the day, especially after the balls fluffed up after 3 games or so. This put pressure on Mr. Federer to play riskier, flatter shots, and resulted in a high amount of unforced errors into the net, or playing low percentage drop shots. In 2009, it was a bit warmer than 2012, but not by much. It started at 25 C. (77 F.) and dropped to around 19C (66 F.) by the end of the 5th set.

...The type of surface has little to do with this.

Entirely disagree, if my lengthy post didn't convince you and others like you, nothing will.

Respectfully,
masterclass

leng jai
01-31-2012, 01:42 AM
Roddick's H2H record vs Federer not important

Roddick's legacy isn't good enough for such a match up to be relevant at all.

FEDtheGOAT
01-31-2012, 01:51 AM
There is no bias in what I'm stating now. The following are facts, not excuses, and conclusions based on facts.
Please try to look at them in a similar light. Look at the final conclusion at the bottom if you don't want to read the details.

Mr. Federer's and Mr. Nadal's overall records speak for themselves.
However, H2H meetings can be misleading when trying to apply it to comparison of the player's achievements as a whole.

In their particular case, the conclusions are clear. I've explained the rationale in other threads. I'll break the H2H down by surface to make this more clear.

CLAY (Outdoors): Total: Nadal (12-2) Major - Roland Garros: Nadal (5-0)
Mr. Nadal has clearly been the dominant player on CLAY vs. everyone including Mr. Federer.
Mr. Federer has a poor head to head against him on that surface in the totality of clay tournaments as well as the major played on that surface - Roland Garros - ONLY because he is probably the second best clay court player, especially at Roland Garros (At Roland Garros, Mr. Nadal beat Mr. Federer 5 times in the final). Mr. Federer was able to win twice on clay, but these are exceptions to the rule.

CLAY H2H in contextual conclusion:
Mr. Nadal's dominance on clay (Clay King) eclipses Mr. Federer's excellence on clay.
The high number of H2H meetings on this surface is because Mr. Federer is very close to Mr. Nadal's ability.
Ironically for Mr. Federer, it leads to a disproportionately high H2H total, but it is definitely representative of their relative ability.

It's worth noting that if Mr. Federer were more inferior on clay, they would have significantly fewer head to head total appearances (perhaps even favoring Mr. Federer if he could only win when conditions favored him), and likely no H2H slam record on that surface, similar to their 0-0 record at the US Open, which would then be misleading in terms of their relative ability on the surface.

HARD (Indoors):Total: Federer (4-0) Major - Year End Championships (not officially, but often termed the "5th major") Federer (*4-0) *Not typically included in slam H2H records
The hard court indoor H2H record indicates that Mr. Federer is the dominant player on indoor hard courts.
However, there are only 4 total H2H appearances (1/3 of their clay record). This can be attributed to a few things:

1. Mr. Nadal is more inferior on indoor hard courts than Mr. Federer on clay and thus doesn't have as many meetings indoors.
2. There are not as many indoor events as there are clay court events
3. The indoor events generally take place in the latter part of the year. Many players skip some of the indoor tournaments to recover from their toil previous to the indoor season.

There probably would not be even 4 meetings indoors except for the Year End Championships format, which automatically puts you in the tournament if you are in the top 8 rankings for the year, and is played in a round robin format where one can lose a match or two, but still get to the finals. The top 8 can include slow and fast court players and in this age of slower higher bouncing courts, it tends to lean toward having more slow court or all-court players. This almost forces Federer-Nadal to play against each other at some point. Sure enough, their only meetings indoors have come at the YEC. Twice at the China Tennis Master Cup and twice at the London World Tour Finals with Federer having 2 SF victories, 1 Final, and 1 Round Robin victory. If we look closer at the matches, it is evident why Mr. Nadal was able to face Mr. Federer in as many YEC as he did. In 2006, Mr. Nadal lost to James Blake (likes fast court) in round robin, but beat Tommy Robredo (likes slow courts), and beat Nikolay Davydenko (all court, but better on slow), before losing to Mr. Federer (all court, prefers fast/low bounce)in the SF. In 2007, Mr. Nadal beat Richard Gasquet (all court, slightly better on clay, better on grass) in 3 sets, lost to David Ferrer (all court, somewhat better on slow)in 3 sets, and beat Novak Djokovic (all court, better on slow) to again lose to Mr. Federer in the SF. In Mr. Nadal's incredible peak 2010 year, he made it to the finals, defeating Andy Roddick(all court,fast) Novak Djokovic, Tomas Berdych(all court, fast), Andy Murray(all court,fast) before losing to Mr. Federer in 3 sets. In spite of losing, this was an exceptional performance by Mr. Nadal. In 2011, Mr. Nadal beat Mardy Fish, then lost to Mr. Federer badly.

HARD (Indoor) H2H contextual conclusion:

Mr. Federer dominates here.
Mr. Nadal is not as competent in these conditions, leading to few meetings.
H2H is fairly representative of their relative ability indoors due to "forced" meetings at Year End Championships, otherwise they might have no record.

GRASS (Outdoors): Total: Federer (2-1) Major - Wimbledon: Federer (2-1)
Their overall grass record indicates that Mr. Federer has been more dominant on grass primarily due to Mr. Federer's Wimbledon record.
The H2H numbers are few due to the few grass tournaments played these days.
Mr. Nadal gradually improved on the Wimbledon grass as that grass became more playable (slower and higher bouncing) over the last few years. He only has 1 tournament win on grass outside Wimbledon, at Queens Club in 2008.

Grass H2H contextual conclusion:

Mr. Federer's H2H on grass is slightly better than Mr. Nadal.
They have played only 3 matches due to few grass tournaments and Mr. Nadal not being close to Mr. Federer's level at the time of Mr. Federer's Wimbledon dominance.
Mr. Federer's overall H2H numbers are less representative due to that.

HARD (Outdoors): Total: Nadal (5-1) Major - US Open: (0-0)
Here is where the total H2H is the most misleading. This is because we have outdoor hard courts that play differently unlike clay which varies less from tournament to tournament.
There are the slower and/or high bouncing courts like Miami, Indian Wells, Australian Open.
There are the faster/lower bouncing courts like Cincinnati, US Open (generally faster).
Mr Nadal's 5 wins have come primarily where conditions favor him, the slow higher bouncing courts of Miami(2) and the Australian Open(2).
There is one exception at Dubai. But Mr. Federer also has a couple of exceptions on clay. These exceptions don't prove anything.
The major H2H gives us a clue. They have never met at the US Open, despite Mr. Federer winning 5 straight titles there.
The other indicator is how deep they both went in the hard court tournaments in which they both played.
There is another thread that gives the answer to this, and it is clearly in Mr. Federer's favor showing that Mr. Federer is better on outdoor hard courts.
I would be remiss to not include Mr. Nadal's amazing 2010 US Open winning performance which was an exception to the rule - he went deeper than Mr. Federer in conditions that favored Mr. Federer. Mr Nadal beat Mr. Djokovic in the finals, who had just beaten Mr. Federer in the SF.

HARD (outdoor) H2H contextual conclusion:
The H2H record shows that Mr. Nadal was better in hard court conditions that favored him, but where Mr Federer still has almost equal compentence.
Mr. Nadal was too inferior to Mr. Federer to meet him in most hard court tournaments, so there is no head to head record in those.
The H2H numbers are grossly disproportionate to their relative ability on the outdoor hard courts.

Total H2H in context Conclusion:
The H2H record in context is what it is. Mr. Nadal has a better overall H2H record.
These numbers indicate how they were able to perform on the particular surfaces/conditions.
When those conditions favored a players style, they won with only minor exceptions.
If they had a high number of H2H meetings on a surface it has been due to them having similar ability (clay).
When they have not played each other often, it is mostly due to them having disparate ability (in all cases Federer's superior and Mr. Nadal's inferior) and sometimes fewer tournaments on a surface (e.g. grass).
In especially one case (hard court outdoors), the H2H is grossly misleading of their relative ability on the surface because they only played H2H when the conditions favored the inferior player.

To generalize:
Favor Mr. Nadal more on slower and/or high bouncing conditions.
Favor Mr. Federer much more on faster and/or lower bouncing conditions.
Since we recently have had more of the former, and fewer of the latter, generally favor Mr. Nadal against Mr. Federer.
Is it possible for one to beat the other when the conditions are not favorable? Sure, but this would be an exception.

Respectfully,
masterclass


I really like this debate...when i read..i'm trying to figure out whose post are the smartest...

it seems..the only argument Nadal fans have is ''the weak era Federer was in '' and the H2H again RAFA..

if 2004-2007 was a weak era,.....then we have to say the same for RAFA....in 03-07 FED has 12 slams vs 3 for RAFA.( and also by their logic this era don't count for RAFA cause he wasn't in his speak but still he managed to get 3 slams and 2 years as number 2....wow....he was really crappy in that weak era...and in the strong era..he didn't even managed to be number 1 for 2 full years...and still a 30 year old roger is number 3...LOL )....

so by their logic RAFA 3 slams doesn't count...so as the 12 slams of FED..but in 08-12...in the ''strong era'' lol....FED has 4 slams vs 7 slams for RAFA.....( for a decline fed ) but if all of 12 slams of FED doesn't count cause of the weak ERA...it implies that he's wouldn't have the same amount of slams in the strong era...would mean is not as good as people thinks...so by that logic we have to substract RAFA 7 slams that he won against FED who is not that great since he won all of his slams in a weak era....That leaves RAFA with only 3 slams...over FED 4 slams..

you follow me...i hope so..

and another thing...for the RAFA fans..would you trade RAFA 10 slams and career over FED 16 slams and all his records and having the 9-18 H2H ......yea i thought so..

i know RAFA would take the 16 slams in a minute and the poor H2H..over how 10 slams..just saying'

FEDtheGOAT
01-31-2012, 02:00 AM
I'll repeat. For Mr. Federer and Mr. Nadal, it is indeed all about playing conditions. There is ownership in that sense.
Mr. Nadal "owns" Mr. Federer on slower/high bouncing courts such as clay. They played many more times on clay than any other one surface because Mr. Federer is also excellent on clay, just not as good as Mr. Nadal.
Mr. Federer "owns" Mr. Nadal on faster/lower bouncing courts, especially indoors. They only have 4 meetings there.

Mr. Federer played Mr. Nadal in the AO final of 2009 at night, and this year in the semifinal on the coolest slowest playing night of the tournament - Mr. Federer's misfortune, Mr. Nadal's good luck. That's it. The cool nighttime slow playing conditions allowed Mr. Nadal to reach many balls that he would normally never reach during the heat of the day, especially after the balls fluffed up after 3 games or so. This put pressure on Mr. Federer to play riskier, flatter shots, and resulted in a high amount of unforced errors into the net, or playing low percentage drop shots. In 2009, it was a bit warmer than 2012, but not by much. It started at 25 C. (77 F.) and dropped to around 19C (66 F.) by the end of the 5th set.



Entirely disagree, if my lengthy post didn't convince you and others like you, nothing will.

Respectfully,
masterclass


you're very smart..as of many FED fans here who uses their logic instead of their emotions...but i think...there's nothing we can do right now to show those morons ( not all...there's some great analysis from RAFA fans ) why ROGER is the greatest,...


if player A ( roger ) beats B (crappy player,,hewiit, roddick ) and C ( Nadal) beats A ( Roger )....is the same by saying C beats B..so the 7 slams DOESN'T COUNT OK?.so by that logic we have to substract RAFA 7 slams that he won against FED who is not that great since he won all of his slams in a weak era.

Matt01
01-31-2012, 09:27 PM
Mr. Federer played Mr. Nadal in the AO final of 2009 at night, and this year in the semifinal on the coolest slowest playing night of the tournament - Mr. Federer's misfortune, Mr. Nadal's good luck.


Now we are finally getting to your real point and what you are really trying to say: That Nadal's ownage of Federer is pure luck. Trust me, there will be lots of Fedfans here who will be prasing you for this idea (an idea which isn't new at all) but the posters with a brain will see through your propaganda and know that you couldn't be more wrong. :D

Shirogane
01-31-2012, 09:58 PM
Woah, what the hell ? :lol: Don't get all worked up over this Matt, it's only an expression. And of course you're taking this way out of context. Reducing everything he's written to that sure isn't the smartest thing to do, don't you think.

Paranoid much? :confused:

Matt01
01-31-2012, 10:02 PM
Woah, what the hell ? :lol: Don't get all worked up over this Matt, it's only an expression. And of course you're taking this way out of context. Reducing everything he's written to that sure isn't the smartest thing to do, don't you think.

Paranoid much? :confused:


I could have stated my opinion even more directly but I think I've been rather nice to Mr. Masterclass, no? :angel:

Raiden
01-31-2012, 10:04 PM
All those H2Hs were less than 10 meetings.... Sampras was never anywhere near a 9-18 H2H deficit vs a single player. That's cuz unlike Federer Sampras got his ass handed to him in 1st & 2nd round of a grand slam almost every year, even during his peak.

If you always chicken out in the 1st and 2nd round of one slam every year then you make your one or two surface-dominated H2H an inferior form of H2H.

By the way it is for Sampras himself (in order to make him goat) that slam-count became the most important thing in tennis.

In other words, Petetards singlehandedly invented the criteria which made Roger the goat :p

abraxas21
07-12-2012, 10:13 AM
truth be told, fedmugs h2h v. nadal is the main blemish on his resume as an aspiring GOAT

Sophocles
07-12-2012, 11:54 AM
truth be told, fedmugs h2h v. nadal is the main blemish on his resume as an aspiring GOAT

So show me a GOAT candidate with no losing H2H.

dencod16
07-12-2012, 12:00 PM
Yeah, it doesn't matter because Rafa has gotten to his head. It's like Djoko to Rafa last year, the only difference is Federer is still bugged by Rafa.

JanKowalski
07-12-2012, 12:10 PM
truth be told, fedmugs h2h v. nadal is the main blemish on his resume as an aspiring GOAT

Not to anyone who really understands all aspects of this sport.

manadrainer
07-12-2012, 12:14 PM
truth be told, fedmugs h2h v. nadal is the main blemish on his resume as an aspiring GOAT

There's no GOAT. Fed said it himself.

But there's Slam record holder and Fed is certainly that. :sport:

ServeVolley
07-12-2012, 12:59 PM
I've always wondered what exactly happened in the Federer-Nadal rivalry after 2007.

Before that time, Federer seemed to have got a working gameplan together against Nadal and had narrowed the career HTH to 6-8 (from that initial 1-6), winning 3 of the 5 matches they played that year.

But in 2008, he lost every single encounter, and to this day hasn't won another slam match against him...

Was it because Federer was past his prime by 2008 (and he needed his absolute best level to beat Nadal)? Was it just a bad year (with the mononucleosis and everything), but which gave Nadal the mental edge for future meetings? Or did Nadal get better?

It's just perplexing to me that heading into 2008, they were 2-2 0n hard, 1-6 0n clay, 2-0 0n grass, and 3-5 in BO5 set matches, but afterwards, Nadal dominated nearly every match they played (Masters Cup the only exception), regardless of surface or format. :shrug:

manadrainer
07-12-2012, 01:10 PM
I've always wondered what exactly happened in the Federer-Nadal rivalry after 2007.

Before that time, Federer seemed to have got a working gameplan together against Nadal and had narrowed the career HTH to 6-8 (from that initial 1-6), winning 3 of the 5 matches they played that year.

But in 2008, he lost every single encounter, and to this day hasn't won another slam match against him...

Was it because Federer was past his prime by 2008 (and he needed his absolute best level to beat Nadal)? Was it just a bad year (with the mononucleosis and everything), but which gave Nadal the mental edge for future meetings? Or did Nadal get better?

It's just perplexing to me that heading into 2008, they were 2-2 0n hard, 1-6 0n clay, 2-0 0n grass, and 3-5 in BO5 set matches, but afterwards, Nadal dominated nearly every match they played (Masters Cup the only exception), regardless of surface or format. :shrug:

Nadal hit his peak in 2008, Fed started to decline (losing to mugs all around not only Rafa). I think Rafa from 2008 clay season to IW 2009 was at his absolute best.

nick the greek
07-12-2012, 01:38 PM
Roger Federer: telling it like it is since 1981.
:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

nick the greek
07-12-2012, 01:43 PM
More opposition than Federer? Anyone who claims that should have their brain examined. The investigation will probably find there isn't one to be checked.
In your case there is no "probably",the investigation will surely find that there isn't any brain to be checked.:)

Crazy Girl
07-12-2012, 01:52 PM
yeah it's important between them. Stop.
It's more important to win 17 slams.
So, for me NOWADAYS, it's important the 7 wimby, the 17 slams, the n. 1 in the ranking.
If, then, he will lose again against Nadull,....sorry People of MTF, honestly I don't give a single penny.

nick the greek
07-12-2012, 02:07 PM
yeah it's important between them. Stop.
It's more important to win 17 slams.
So, for me NOWADAYS, it's important the 7 wimby, the 17 slams, the n. 1 in the ranking.
If, then, he will lose again against Nadull,....sorry People of MTF, honestly I don't give a single penny.
NADAL>>>>>uglyrer:wavey:

Johnbert
07-12-2012, 02:10 PM
NADAL>>>>>uglyrer:wavey:

17>11
286>102

nick the greek
07-12-2012, 02:12 PM
17>11
286>102
18>>>>>10:wavey:

abraxas21
07-12-2012, 02:14 PM
So show me a GOAT candidate with no losing H2H.

it's the relevance of each h2h that has to be taken into account. federer also has a losing h2h against hrbaty but of course no-one would hold it against him in the "GOAT debates". what makes federer's h2h v. nadal so significant is that he's lost 6/8 slam finals to nadal.

if federer had won the finals in that wimbedon five setter and that AO five setter, there would be a case to be made about nadal's dominance extended mostly on clay with federer dominating hardcourts and grass. that would be fairly respectable for federer imo. then again, what we have in reality is that this doesn't happen. the only courts in which federer dominates against nadal are indoors and i wouldn't be surprised if one day nadal beats him at that stage too.

abraxas21
07-12-2012, 02:15 PM
There's no GOAT. Fed said it himself.

he did and he's right.

then again, deep down federer wants to be considered the GOAT by others.

ServeVolley
07-12-2012, 02:29 PM
18>>>>>10:wavey:

6 >>> 5
2 >>> 1

;):wavey:

Branimir
07-12-2012, 02:35 PM
It does matter. It matters so much that Federer didn't even try at RG semi-final because he knew what would happen in the final.

superslam77
07-12-2012, 02:39 PM
rosol is goat by rafatard logic

Johnbert
07-12-2012, 03:00 PM
It does matter. It matters so much that Federer didn't even try at RG semi-final because he knew what would happen in the final.

fed was NEVER afraid to face nadal at rg. otherwise he would've gifted djokovic 2.0 the final last year. so it's bs to say "he even didn't try" this year. djoker was just the better player at the semifinal.

luie
07-12-2012, 03:11 PM
It will be important if they both end up with the same # Slams. Nadull will take the edge. Unless nadull wins like 10 RG and not much HC n Grass to even fed. Then fed gets the edge.

Crazy Girl
07-12-2012, 03:18 PM
18>>>>>10:wavey:

17>>>>>11.

for now nadull is behind looking at the view of the ass of roger.

(take it... and take it to home):wavey::wavey::wavey:

nick the greek
07-12-2012, 03:21 PM
17>>>>>11.

for now nadull is behind looking at the view of the ass of roger.

(take it... and take it to home):wavey::wavey::wavey:
Ha,ha.No matter what arroganterer will ALWAYS be UGLYRER.

Crazy Girl
07-12-2012, 03:24 PM
18>>>>>10:wavey:

17>>>>>11.

for now nadull is behind looking at the view of the ass of roger.

(take it... and take it to home):wavey::wavey::wavey:

Run....rafito....run... (before or after, there's always an hope in life...don't give up) :wavey::wavey:

manadrainer
07-12-2012, 03:24 PM
Ha,ha.No matter what arroganterer will ALWAYS be UGLYRER.

Man, this last wimbledon has really hurt you.

luie
07-12-2012, 03:25 PM
NADAL>>>>>uglyrer:wavey:

Novak will never be in that conversation though. He is a bh based player. Most of the GOAT contenders are fh based players. With good serves.( apart from nadull ). He will have an Agassi / Connors. Career a second tier just behind the best of that particular era.

Crazy Girl
07-12-2012, 03:30 PM
The question is simple.
ask to a real and nice nadal's fan with a little bit of salt in the head (not admitted trolls, dulls, tards, ecc....ecccc...)
"What do you prefere honestly, sincerely, to have a positive H2H with Federer, or to have 17 slams indeed 11, and the first spot in the ranking?".
The answer is there.

Crazy Girl
07-12-2012, 03:30 PM
Man, this last wimbledon has really hurt you.ahahahahha :hug::hug:

abraxas21
07-12-2012, 03:30 PM
nick the geek has singlehandedly reduced the age-of-discussion of this board from 10 to 6. too bad that there is no shortage of fedtards to follow his lead :o

Sophocles
07-12-2012, 03:35 PM
it's the relevance of each h2h that has to be taken into account. federer also has a losing h2h against hrbaty but of course no-one would hold it against him in the "GOAT debates". what makes federer's h2h v. nadal so significant is that he's lost 6/8 slam finals to nadal.

if federer had won the finals in that wimbedon five setter and that AO five setter, there would be a case to be made about nadal's dominance extended mostly on clay with federer dominating hardcourts and grass. that would be fairly respectable for federer imo. then again, what we have in reality is that this doesn't happen. the only courts in which federer dominates against nadal are indoors and i wouldn't be surprised if one day nadal beats him at that stage too.

Yes, I take that point, and of course it would be better for Fed if he'd won those matches - he'd have 19 slams for a start -, but you can't disregard the fact they occurred after 2007, at a time when Federer, who is after all 5 years older than Nadal, was starting to decline & Nadal was peaking. There is some inherent importance in maintaining good H2Hs with your chief rivals, but ever since the days when tournament play superseded the round-robin duels of the 1950s professional circuit, your "main rivals" have been defined by their performance in tournaments, rather than by the whim of a promoter. And if performance in tournaments is the barometer for what even counts as a "main rival", how can performance against main rivals count for more than performance in tournaments? How can it be anything more than a secondary consideration to be brought into play when there is nothing to choose between players in terms of performance in tournaments as measured by titles & ranking history?

sco
07-12-2012, 05:41 PM
The question is simple.
ask to a real and nice nadal's fan with a little bit of salt in the head (not admitted trolls, dulls, tards, ecc....ecccc...)
"What do you prefere honestly, sincerely, to have a positive H2H with Federer, or to have 17 slams indeed 11, and the first spot in the ranking?".
The answer is there.

Nadal's claim to fame is his greatness on clay and his mis-match with Fed. That H2H is over-rated BECAUSE of Fed's greatness. If not for Nadal, Fed would have multiple FOs and multiple CYGSs. Life, of course, cannot go all one's way. Nadal is Fed's rain in his otherwise perfect tennis career and if not for him, Fed would probably be retired by now - not still playing to keep his records safe. Besides, what kind of GOAT candidate can lay claim to the most weeks at #2?

Honestly
07-12-2012, 06:11 PM
:lol: Typical Roger. Gotta love it. He is right though. It is of very little significance.

Honestly
07-12-2012, 06:14 PM
Btw Nick the Geek isn't really a great troll. We need something better to make things interesting.

Arkulari
07-12-2012, 07:21 PM
One only needs to see the OP to know which thread to avoid :spit:

Corey Feldman
07-12-2012, 07:24 PM
17 >>>>> 11 is the numbers that ppl remember

DJ Soup
07-12-2012, 07:56 PM
People don't seem to realize that the reason why Fed has a negative H2H against Nadal is because he is the second best player on CLAY, while being the BEST (in history?) on Hard, Grass and Indoors.

Roddickominator
07-12-2012, 08:09 PM
People don't seem to realize that the reason why Fed has a negative H2H against Nadal is because he is the second best player on CLAY, while being the BEST (in history?) on Hard, Grass and Indoors.

People realize this. But the underlying train of thought here is....

If Federer is the 2nd best player on clay of his era(and perhaps Top 3-5 all-time on the surface), and a true GOAT and greatest champion ever etc, then he should have been able to figure Nadal out on the surface and at least make it more interesting.

You can't just keep going that far and continue getting embarrassed. Yeah, some would make the argument that Nadal is just THAT great on clay, but it all depends on perspective. The greatest champion and player ever should make Nadal look worse on clay.

luie
07-12-2012, 08:13 PM
People realize this. But the underlying train of thought here is....

If Federer is the 2nd best player on clay of his era(and perhaps Top 3-5 all-time on the surface), and a true GOAT and greatest champion ever etc, then he should have been able to figure Nadal out on the surface and at least make it more interesting.

You can't just keep going that far and continue getting embarrassed. Yeah, some would make the argument that Nadal is just THAT great on clay, but it all depends on perspective. The greatest champion and player ever should make Nadal look worse on clay.

Fed is not even top ten all- time on clay. Fed just took advantage of a weak clay field , where today's generation play HC tennis on clay apart from nadull n fed.

Roddickominator
07-12-2012, 08:18 PM
Fed is not even top ten all- time on clay. Fed just took advantage of a weak clay field , where today's generation play HC tennis on clay apart from nadull n fed.

I agree with you, but there are certainly many who would make the argument that Federer would have like 5 French Open titles and such with no Nadal around...which would make many believe he is one of the clay greats.

sexybeast
07-12-2012, 08:24 PM
People realize this. But the underlying train of thought here is....

If Federer is the 2nd best player on clay of his era(and perhaps Top 3-5 all-time on the surface), and a true GOAT and greatest champion ever etc, then he should have been able to figure Nadal out on the surface and at least make it more interesting.

You can't just keep going that far and continue getting embarrassed. Yeah, some would make the argument that Nadal is just THAT great on clay, but it all depends on perspective. The greatest champion and player ever should make Nadal look worse on clay.

Nadal is better than Borg on clay and Borg-Vilas was even less competitive than Federer-Nadal on clay, Vilas is still known as one of the great claycourters of the open era.

luie
07-12-2012, 08:30 PM
Fed doesn't have the patience or top spin bh for clay. If he had to play Guga, Muster, corretja etc he wouldn't be making so many finals but he is good enough on the surface for 1 RG and couple finals. Not 5 finals

sweetkit
07-12-2012, 08:57 PM
Clay - start of MC till end of RG - mid-April till mid-June = 2 months
Grass & Hard - mid-June till mid-November + start of January till mid-April = 8,5 months

So let's finally discover how the REAL H2H looks like. Given that clay is getting a 0.19 ratio, and rest of surfaces are getting 0.81 ratio.

H2H on clay is Nadal 12-2 Federer
H2H on other s. is Nadal 6-8 Federer

H2H all-in-all is Nadal (10*0.19 - 2*0.81) = 0.28 Federer
Which can be interpreted as 2-0 in clay court matches, or a virtual 1/3 to 0 in normal court matches advantage.
Suddenly H2H isn't looking that impressive, eh? :D
And you would definitely not like it if we calc H2H Rafi vs Davydenko in this, the only fair, way.
So, stick to that greatest claycourter of all time label that he's objectively achieved and for ever and ever forget such thing as H2H when you're trying to make yet another of your constantly invalid points in Fed vs Rafa discussions. Just don't. Ever.

evilmindbulgaria
07-12-2012, 09:01 PM
Clay - start of MC till end of RG - mid-April till mid-June = 2 months
Grass & Hard - mid-June till mid-November + start of January till mid-April = 8,5 months

So let's finally discover how the REAL H2H looks like. Given that clay is getting a 0.19 ratio, and rest of surfaces are getting 0.81 ratio.

H2H on clay is Nadal 12-2 Federer
H2H on other s. is Nadal 6-8 Federer

H2H all-in-all is Nadal (10*0.19 - 2*0.81) = 0.28 Federer
Which can be interpreted as 2-0 in clay court matches, or a virtual 1/3 to 0 in normal court matches advantage.
Suddenly H2H isn't looking that impressive, eh? :D
And you would definitely not like it if we calc H2H Rafi vs Davydenko in this, the only fair, way.
So, stick to that greatest claycourter of all time label that he's objectively achieved and for ever and ever forget such thing as H2H when you're trying to make yet another of your constantly invalid points in Fed vs Rafa discussions. Just don't. Ever.

:superlol:

BigJohn
07-12-2012, 09:12 PM
Compared to the massive numbers and records from Federer, it is neither important nor relevant.

sweetkit
07-12-2012, 09:13 PM
:superlol:

Do not really expect Rafifans to understand that clay is just a slight factor on the whole map of the game of tennis.

Dr.Slice
07-12-2012, 10:06 PM
Fed doesn't have the patience or top spin bh for clay. If he had to play Guga, Muster, corretja etc he wouldn't be making so many finals but he is good enough on the surface for 1 RG and couple finals. Not 5 finals
Muster and Kuerten? Perhaps. Corretja? LOL. He beat Djokovic last year who is a greater player than any of the 3 mentioned and by a long distance.

Rafa is the GOAT
07-12-2012, 10:10 PM
If Rafa ties his slam record, it'll matter.

BigJohn
07-12-2012, 10:24 PM
If Rafa ties his slam record, it'll matter.

So when pigs fly. Until then, rafatards should really just STFU. Now what are the odds on that?

ServeVolley
07-12-2012, 10:25 PM
If Rafa ties his slam record, it'll matter.

Only if he ties the WTF record and weeks at #1 too... :)

Matt01
07-12-2012, 10:41 PM
Only if he ties the WTF record and weeks at #1 too... :)


:bs:

Honestly
07-12-2012, 10:44 PM
:bs:

Wrong again Maddy. Being number one and wining WTF titles are more important than a h2h.

Fedex
07-12-2012, 10:58 PM
If Rafa ties his slam record, it'll matter.

Good luck to Nadal winning at least 6 more slams when he can't win outside of RG anymore.

manadrainer
07-12-2012, 10:59 PM
Only if he ties the WTF record and weeks at #1 too... :)

Pretty much this. If he can tie weeks at #1 and WTF titles, he will be better than Federer.

EliSter
07-12-2012, 11:02 PM
Clay - start of MC till end of RG - mid-April till mid-June = 2 months
Grass & Hard - mid-June till mid-November + start of January till mid-April = 8,5 months

So let's finally discover how the REAL H2H looks like. Given that clay is getting a 0.19 ratio, and rest of surfaces are getting 0.81 ratio.

H2H on clay is Nadal 12-2 Federer
H2H on other s. is Nadal 6-8 Federer

H2H all-in-all is Nadal (10*0.19 - 2*0.81) = 0.28 Federer
Which can be interpreted as 2-0 in clay court matches, or a virtual 1/3 to 0 in normal court matches advantage.
Suddenly H2H isn't looking that impressive, eh? :D
And you would definitely not like it if we calc H2H Rafi vs Davydenko in this, the only fair, way.
So, stick to that greatest claycourter of all time label that he's objectively achieved and for ever and ever forget such thing as H2H when you're trying to make yet another of your constantly invalid points in Fed vs Rafa discussions. Just don't. Ever.

Teach me moar of your math please?! It looks so good :hearts:






















:rolleyes:

EliSter
07-12-2012, 11:04 PM
Only if he ties the WTF record and weeks at #1 too... :)

No 1 cares about WTF titles only Fedtards, IF Nadal finish his career with more slams he will be better. End of story.

BigJohn
07-12-2012, 11:05 PM
Wrong again Maddy.

This is usually right. You can't go wrong by pointing out to Mattie he's wrong

Being number one and wining WTF titles are more important than a h2h.

This is right. Any idiot would know that.

Matt01
07-12-2012, 11:11 PM
No 1 cares about WTF titles only Fedtards, IF Nadal finish his career with more slams he will be better. End of story.


This is right. Any idiot would know that.

sweetkit
07-12-2012, 11:13 PM
Teach me moar of your math please?! It looks so good :hearts:

What moar can be said- clay tennis season is a tiny fraction of the year's calendar, thus should be treated as such in H2H discussions.:wavey:

manadrainer
07-12-2012, 11:15 PM
No 1 cares about WTF titles only Fedtards, IF Nadal finish his career with more slams he will be better. End of story.

Right. We should have remembered that "Spartans" are too exhausted from winning slams during the grueling season to compete at the WTF.

Too bad some "ballerina" managed too make 5 consecutive finals at the WTF (winning 4 of them), when he was winning Slams left and right...

I suppose also being the player with most weeks at #1 is an overrated achievement...

BigJohn
07-12-2012, 11:15 PM
This is right. Any idiot would know that.

The all clay * would be hard to disregard as a major flaw on that resume.

But then again...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Junction_17.svg/320px-Junction_17.svg.png

sweetkit
07-12-2012, 11:19 PM
No one cares about WTF titles, Monte-Carlo ones are the only ones that will matter in the end. :hearts:

Matt01
07-12-2012, 11:23 PM
The all clay * would be hard to disregard as a major flaw on that resume.


What all clay asterisk? There is no clay asterisk since Nadal leads the H2H with Fed not only on clay but also on HC outdoors which are the two most important surfaces in tennis :wavey:


But then again...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Junction_17.svg/320px-Junction_17.svg.png


18:10. Get over it already :wavey: