How impressive is Nadal's 50-29 record vs. rest of top 4? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

How impressive is Nadal's 50-29 record vs. rest of top 4?

Busterovic
07-24-2012, 04:31 AM
Obviously theres a direct correlation to this stat and winning slams since Murray has a dismal record in this department. Here is the rest of the top 4:

Federer: 33-38

Djokovic: 34-39

Murray: 18-29

To me Nadal's record is absolutely mind blowing. I realize that the majority of Nadal's wins are on clay and the fact that he isn't consistently playing these guys on hard courts is a knock on his game but this mark cannot be denied.

I for one thought that Nadal was done winning slams away from clay right after Djokovic eased to a 4 set win @ Wimbledon last year. Theres some support to this as its probably not well known but should be that Nadal has not won an AMS1000 event away from clay since March of 2009 at Indian Wells. Thats over a 40 month drought.

But theres no denying that to win slams its proven that you have to beat these guys and Nadal has shown that he can certainly do that. Again, I realize that Djokovic's record is not much worse than Murray's yet Nole is considered a living legend and Murray a bust so this stat doesn't tell the complete story but its definitely something to think about going forward and almost assures Nadal another slam or two.

superslam77
07-24-2012, 04:37 AM
most of the wins are on clay aren't they?

on fast surfaces he gets smashed.

Freak3yman84
07-24-2012, 04:38 AM
Yup. That is undeniably impressive. Nadal dominates the top 4. Too bad he can't keep up that level against the likes of Dodig and Rosol...

superslam77
07-24-2012, 04:41 AM
huuuh has anyone ever seen world tour finals?

Mark Lenders
07-24-2012, 04:43 AM
Djokovic: 19-14

Federer: 18-10

Murray: 13-5

Tsonga: 7-3

Berdych: 12-3

Del Potro: 7-3

Ferrer: 16-4

Tipsy: 3-0

Monaco: 4-1



One more win over Monaco and Tipsy and all the current top 10 will be his pigeons :eek:

abraxas21
07-24-2012, 04:47 AM
monaco has a win over nadal? wow

superslam77
07-24-2012, 04:50 AM
for the last time he is not nearly as good on fast surfaces.

show me the h2h on fast hc.

Chase Visa
07-24-2012, 05:11 AM
Very impressive, though I think it's boosted by clay somewhat.

bry17may
07-24-2012, 05:20 AM
Nadal has a record of 22-25 without clay

And in the top 10 he is

Federer 6-8
Djokovic 7-12
Murray 9-5
Ferrer 3-3
Tsonga 6-3
Berdych 8-3
Tipsarevic 1-0
Del Potro 5-3
Monaco 0-1

For a total of 45-38

HKz
07-24-2012, 05:29 AM
monaco has a win over nadal? wow

By retirement. Pico had won the first set in a tie break, and if I remember correctly, Nadal retired with a shoulder injury.


Nadal has a record of 22-25 without clay

And in the top 10 he is

Federer 6-8
Djokovic 7-12
Murray 9-5
Ferrer 3-3
Tsonga 6-3
Berdych 8-3
Tipsarevic 1-0
Del Potro 5-3
Monaco 0-1

For a total of 45-38

Either way, while his stats are certainly skewed a bit because of clay, still impressive in general.

Travod
07-24-2012, 05:32 AM
It's not really fair to say, "Yes but without his best surface he sucks." If you do that, why bother comparing? Take out the best surface from Federer, Djokovic, etc and how do they stand?

Johnbert
07-24-2012, 05:42 AM
nadal leading the most important stat: h2h! :rocker2:

h2h goat

HKz
07-24-2012, 05:42 AM
It's not really fair to say, "Yes but without his best surface he sucks." If you do that, why bother comparing? Take out the best surface from Federer, Djokovic, etc and how do they stand?

No it isn't fair, but you see how what proportion of his wins come off clay compared to the other surfaces. Regardless, this fact alone makes it very difficult to compare, especially considering a surface like grass is barely played on, because Federer is what, 4 wins 1 losses against Novak, Andy and Rafa on grass?

eclecticist
07-24-2012, 05:50 AM
It's not really fair to say, "Yes but without his best surface he sucks." If you do that, why bother comparing? Take out the best surface from Federer, Djokovic, etc and how do they stand?

see, the thing is, so many of his matches against the top 4 are played on clay because the rest of the top 4 (barring perhaps murray) can consistently get to the SF and F of clay events, whereas nadal is not nearly as consistent in getting to the SF and F of non-clay events compared to fed and djoko.

so in way the rest of the top 4 are punished rather than rewarded for their consistency on all surfaces by reaching late rounds at clay events where they continually lose to nadal, but nadal hardly gets to lose in the late rounds at non-clay events because he isn't good enough to get there consistently in the first place. this is also why the fed-nadal H2H is pointless, off clay nadal has a losing record against fed (although only slightly)

leng jai
07-24-2012, 06:05 AM
Impressive whichever way you look at it but severely skewed by his clay dominance much like some his other stats. Every player has their best surface but not to this extent. It also helps that Federer hates playing him and the other two can't really blow him off the court.

Arkulari
07-24-2012, 06:29 AM
Impressive whichever way you look at it but severely skewed by his clay dominance much like some his other stats. Every player has their best surface but not to this extent. It also helps that Federer hates playing him and the other two can't really blow him off the court.

This.

Rafa is an amazing player but his stats are heavily clay-based. He doesn't make it far in all the non-clay events so his chances of meeting top 4 players in his worst surface are lower.

evilmindbulgaria
07-24-2012, 06:33 AM
most of the wins are on clay aren't they?

on fast surfaces he gets smashed.

Here we go again :facepalm: Isn't clay a tennis surface?

It is an unbelievable record, no doubt about it! Haters are gonna hate!

evilmindbulgaria
07-24-2012, 06:39 AM
see, the thing is, so many of his matches against the top 4 are played on clay because the rest of the top 4 (barring perhaps murray) can consistently get to the SF and F of clay events, whereas nadal is not nearly as consistent in getting to the SF and F of non-clay events compared to fed and djoko.

so in way the rest of the top 4 are punished rather than rewarded for their consistency on all surfaces by reaching late rounds at clay events where they continually lose to nadal, but nadal hardly gets to lose in the late rounds at non-clay events because he isn't good enough to get there consistently in the first place. this is also why the fed-nadal H2H is pointless, off clay nadal has a losing record against fed (although only slightly)

Oh, really, remind me again what happened at WI'08, AO'09,AO'12? How many chances does Federer need "off clay" to beat Rafa at a slam?

born_on_clay
07-24-2012, 06:39 AM
Rafa :hatoff:

Acer
07-24-2012, 07:05 AM
He's clearly outstanding on clay, and much less impressive on all the other surfaces. I personally prefer, someone who's more EVEN, like the other 3.

Mountaindewslave
07-24-2012, 07:14 AM
He's clearly outstanding on clay, and much less impressive on all the other surfaces. I personally prefer, someone who's more EVEN, like the other 3.

irrelevant what you prefer. there are a lot of big clay tournaments which means the H2H is significant stat to consider.

regardless of the surface, it is what it is. and of course he has beaten them all on hard court and grass too so it is sort of irrelevant. there are multiple surfaces that is part of the sport. if take away hard court from Murray and Djokovic then they would have almost no wins against Nadal so.

and it's false that Nadal doesn't make it too many non-clay later rounds, obviously he does. in certain years he does well against competition at these stages, and certain years he gets demolished. regardless of fashion or surface, it is very rare and pretty incredible to have a winning H2H against practically every player on tour in your career (at least thus far). I don't think there ever has been a player who had almost a perfect H2H advantage +++++ against all significant players in the field before

Acer
07-24-2012, 07:19 AM
irrelevant what you prefer.

What *I* think is not irrelevant to me. Do sod off.

GSMnadal
07-24-2012, 07:50 AM
NID. Everybody talking about 'taking away clay'. Is it not a surface, ffs? Why don't we start taking away every fast surface in Federer's achievements, see if you're left with something more than one RG title and about a 2-14 H2H with Rafa.

n8
07-24-2012, 08:03 AM
Rafa has the most impressive h2h stats!

Litotes
07-24-2012, 08:17 AM
His H2H against top-10 players is great, but also somewhat flattering given that the top-10 players he has had the most problems with have fallen in the rankings.

If we look at career stats, Federer is slightly better against top-10 opponents. 67,2% as opposed to Nadal's 66%. Murray has 54,5% and Djokovic 54,2%. Tsonga 40,6%, Ferrer 34,9%, Del Potro 34,3%, Berdych 29,9%, Monaco 28,6% and Tipsarevic 28%.

Benny_Maths
07-24-2012, 08:24 AM
NID. Everybody talking about 'taking away clay'. Is it not a surface, ffs? Why don't we start taking away every fast surface in Federer's achievements, see if you're left with something more than one RG title and about a 2-14 H2H with Rafa.

If you only take the 'fast' surfaces in Fed's achievements, you'd still be left with a heap of big titles.;)

GSMnadal
07-24-2012, 08:32 AM
His H2H against top-10 players is great, but also somewhat flattering given that the top-10 players he has had the most problems with have fallen in the rankings.

If we look at career stats, Federer is slightly better against top-10 opponents. 67,2% as opposed to Nadal's 66%. Murray has 54,5% and Djokovic 54,2%. Tsonga 40,6%, Ferrer 34,9%, Del Potro 34,3%, Berdych 29,9%, Monaco 28,6% and Tipsarevic 28%.

Skewed, irrelevant stats. Give me the stats without hardcourt matches, because that is so much more relevant.

TigerTim
07-24-2012, 08:34 AM
Rafa has played in a mug era that has lasted the past 120 years, no weak era records are impressive to me

GSMnadal
07-24-2012, 08:37 AM
If you only take the 'fast' surfaces in Fed's achievements, you'd still be left with a heap of big titles.;)

No. I've been told yesterday Federer won almost all his AO titles on a super fast surface, and the grass was quick on all of his Wimbledon wins, and USO's as well.

So he has 2 slams, RG 09/AO 10. Impressive. I believe Rafa has more outside clay, no? But hey, Rafa is the one trick pony here. Federer just has the benefit that 3/4 slams are quick (Ao is debatable, it's still a hardcourt), and just one is slow each year.

tyruk14
07-24-2012, 09:04 AM
One cannot hold against him the domination to the virtual propensity of monopolisation of his best surface.

RForever
07-24-2012, 09:06 AM
Oh, come one! The thread is about Rafa overall h2h, not with Fed. We have plenty of those already. His overall h2h is great, no doubt about it. He never chokes, fights for every ball, frustrates every opponent by forcing him to play extra ball (or ten extra balls) so no wonder he achieved it.

So no one taking anything away from him but when you do some analysis of h2h it is only normal to consider what part of it is clay, hc or grass. It is fact that they met more times on clay as Fed was able to make it there to SF or F. Ad he got no chance to make this h2h little bit better on other surfaces, making it to finals, waiting there for Rafa never to show up. Considering that out of clay their h2h is different story it is normal to think that he could be able to make this h2h little bit better from his perspective. It would be still negative I guess as he is not that dominant out of clay as Rafa is on clay so it could be something like 22-17.


Sent from my iPad using VS Free

rickcastle
07-24-2012, 09:08 AM
It's absurd to suggest to remove clay and then run away with the resulting H2H to disparage Nadal. But it's also valid to point out that in HC, Nadal does not have a positive H2H with Federer or Djokovic (also not positive with Murray if you count walkovers). In grass, he also does not have a positive H2H against Federer. Tennis surfaces play differently and it's fair to look at the H2H separately. But this statistic is impressive because it shows Nadal's just pure sheer dominance over everyone on clay. But for me, nothing more.

uxyzapenje
07-24-2012, 09:25 AM
It's very impresive. The fact is that Nadal allways fallowed though on clay and Federer (before) and Djokovic (now) do get to finals to face him (as they would dominate the clay without Nadal), Nadal doesn't do the same (at least not as much) on other surfaces. And that can be pointed out in cases of Novak and Roger. For the other players, that doesn't stand bcs he is better than them on the faster surfaces too.

buzz
07-24-2012, 10:07 AM
Nadal is obviously a clay god/king. Destroys every top ATP player in the clay H2H, On clay he has been very very consistent!

On hardcourts he has had very good performances but also a big amount of bad tournaments for a top4 player especially indoors. But still beating Federer at the AO twice, beating Djokovic at the USO, Olympics and WTF, Also beat Murray in big tournies is impressive. But he is less consistent at HC tournaments and most of his big wins were not in the same Nadal RG demolishing style.

Compare him to Federer and you see Federer is a lot more consistent against players ranked 3 and lower on surfaces where he has less results than Nadal, but he never beat Nadal at RG...

Both is impressive.

Sophocles
07-24-2012, 10:12 AM
Very impressive even accounting for the clay bias (and of course his dominance on clay is itself impressive). Borg has similar stats I believe in terms of H2Hs with Top 10s & win-loss percentage. Part of the reason they both stand out is that they came into their primes very young & in Borg's case, retired before declining, while Nadal's decline has just started.

buzz
07-24-2012, 10:15 AM
Oh, come one! The thread is about Rafa overall h2h, not with Fed.

Well if you want to rate Rafas H2H with other top4 players, you got to compare him with his rivals (Federer) H2H.

17 GS is huge and that is only because Nadal has only got 11 and Sampras only 14.

Beat
07-24-2012, 10:15 AM
To me Nadal's record is absolutely mind blowing. I realize that the majority of Nadal's wins are on clay and the fact that he isn't consistently playing these guys on hard courts is a knock on his game but this mark cannot be denied.

enough said :tape:

Han Solo
07-24-2012, 12:44 PM
Yes - it is really impressive. It shows he turns up for the big games more often than not.

If Nadal is in decline, as Sophocles states, then it will be interesting to see how this H2H changes over the next year or two: chances are Djokovic will be able to continue winning against him consistently, no? And maybe Murray more on hard courts. And of course Federer at the end of the season.

stebs
07-24-2012, 01:08 PM
Amazing statistics from Nadal in the H2H department. Only Davydenko managed to play him a decent number of times and keep a positive record. I think in big matches, Nadal is just so consistently good. Even when he's not at his best he's very hard to beat. It always takes an exceptional performance to beat him, and it seems like nobody can provide such performances more often than 50% of the time. As much as these numbers are conditioned by a large percentage of matches on clay, discounting it just because it is heavily represented is of little use. The fact is, in head to head, Nadal has overcome any challenges he had to overcome. The only one remaining is Djokovic post 2011 off clay which is already a very niche and specific challenge.

TheShowMustGoOn
07-24-2012, 01:15 PM
People talk about clay as if it's a surface he's good on for no reason and it means nothing.

leng jai
07-24-2012, 01:20 PM
Most people aren't dismissing the statistic completely. They're merely stating a factual reason which contributes to why it looks so impressive on paper :shrug:

Looner
07-24-2012, 01:23 PM
Yup, RN's stats would most likely be completely different in the time where 3/4 slams could be classed as fast to very fast by today's standards. He'd also be facing better grass-court players in week 1 of Wimbledon.

Benny_Maths
07-24-2012, 01:27 PM
No. I've been told yesterday Federer won almost all his AO titles on a super fast surface, and the grass was quick on all of his Wimbledon wins, and USO's as well.

So he has 2 slams, RG 09/AO 10. Impressive. I believe Rafa has more outside clay, no? But hey, Rafa is the one trick pony here. Federer just has the benefit that 3/4 slams are quick (Ao is debatable, it's still a hardcourt), and just one is slow each year.

You appear to have missed the ;) at the end of my post.

I really couldn't care less about the diversity of any player's slam wins. A slam is a slam.

GuiroNl
07-24-2012, 01:29 PM
It's a compliment that people are willing to dismiss Nadal's clay record. "He's more or less unbeatable on the surface so there's no point in talking about it."

You must be pretty damn good to achieve that.

IOFH
07-24-2012, 05:07 PM
Not as impressive as his clay-record vs. rest of the top 4.

Corey Feldman
07-24-2012, 05:54 PM
Good old clay

Silvester
07-24-2012, 06:10 PM
see, the thing is, so many of his matches against the top 4 are played on clay because the rest of the top 4 (barring perhaps murray) can consistently get to the SF and F of clay events, whereas nadal is not nearly as consistent in getting to the SF and F of non-clay events compared to fed and djoko.

so in way the rest of the top 4 are punished rather than rewarded for their consistency on all surfaces by reaching late rounds at clay events where they continually lose to nadal, but nadal hardly gets to lose in the late rounds at non-clay events because he isn't good enough to get there consistently in the first place. this is also why the fed-nadal H2H is pointless, off clay nadal has a losing record against fed (although only slightly)


This

He probably has more losses outside of Clay to lower ranked guys than the rest of the top 10. He has a losing record against Davydenko for $#@# sakes. Had they played 10 more matches on Clay he probably wouldn't, but because most matches were on Hard he does.

His record against a guy like Hewitt 6-4 overall with 6 wins on Clay, 4 losses outside of Clay.

evilmindbulgaria
07-24-2012, 06:43 PM
This

He probably has more losses outside of Clay to lower ranked guys than the rest of the top 10. He has a losing record against Davydenko for $#@# sakes. Had they played 10 more matches on Clay he probably wouldn't, but because most matches were on Hard he does.

His record against a guy like Hewitt 6-4 overall with 6 wins on Clay, 4 losses outside of Clay.

Beijing Olympics was played on clay :confused:

Mechlan
07-24-2012, 06:44 PM
It's a very good record. Sampras also has a great record against all of his major rivals.

HKz
07-24-2012, 06:49 PM
Skewed, irrelevant stats. Give me the stats without hardcourt matches, because that is so much more relevant.

Because that would make it relevant too right? Fact is, the numbers are skewed and CANNOT be compared to others, especially when you are discussing a player like Federer who in his peak years of 2003-2007 didn't lose a single match on grass, but it can't be helped the fact that there are only 2 tournaments a year on grass, one of which is very small, while Rafa plays 3 MS, 1 500 and 1 slam pretty much each year on clay.. I'm not saying Federer would achieve Rafa-like numbers on grass had he had the opportunity to play as many grass matches each year as Rafa, but this fact alone just makes this whole stat utterly pointelss to compare because it makes no sense to. This stat is only something that should be just looked at in awe, to tell Rafa congrats while keeping in mind that yes, it is a skewed stat. Not Rafa's fault, but it just shows what it is. Again, Federer is 4-1 against Murray, Djokovic and Nadal on grass. So many matches to compare..

Fujee
07-24-2012, 07:00 PM
No it isn't fair, but you see how what proportion of his wins come off clay compared to the other surfaces. Regardless, this fact alone makes it very difficult to compare, especially considering a surface like grass is barely played on, because Federer is what, 4 wins 1 losses against Novak, Andy and Rafa on grass?

Yeah, well said.

rwn
07-24-2012, 07:41 PM
It is impressive.

Unfortunately for him, tennis has a knock-out system, that means H2H is nice for staticians and nothing more.

In the end it only matters who wins the tournament.

superslam77
07-24-2012, 07:59 PM
yes the clay is brought up because tards like to use the h2h as a reference or likelyhood on all surfaces or to claim his idol is some kind of goat or to diminish other players. we just point out the huge difference on a non clay surface.

if h2h was so important fed and nole would have dodged all clay matches.

this doesn't warrant bad reps from evilmindbulgaria. you gonna get yours back soon.

LoveFifteen
07-24-2012, 09:02 PM
It's extremely impressive, but Nadal's haters will never be impressed with anything he does. Nadal isn't allowed to be proud of his achievements on clay, but Federer's achievements on grass are legendary. :unsure:

Ash86
07-24-2012, 09:29 PM
It's extremely impressive, but Nadal's haters will never be impressed with anything he does. Nadal isn't allowed to be proud of his achievements on clay, but Federer's achievements on grass are legendary. :unsure:

Haha - so true. Nadal dominates a surface which is preferred by a great number of the world's top players - most S.Americans and Southern Europeans - has WAY more tournaments on it and thus presents far more opportunities for him to be upset, yet it's just a thing he has - "it's Nadal and clay". Fed has a great record on a surface that most players get to play 1/2 matches a year on and his achievements are way better. Even though Sampras is still a comparable grass legend if not arguably better as he faced more dangerous grass courters in his time...

As to the H2H - yes the clay helps but it's still might impressive. Has had big wins on HCs and grass against all 3 of the rest of the top 4 so not like he can't beat them there either. Mainly just highlights again how insane his clay records are... in 8 seasons he's lost 4 times on clay to Murray, Fed and Novak - and probably won well over 20 I guess....

Looner
07-24-2012, 10:24 PM
Ash, the point is clay is NOT preferred by the players against which RN has a positive H2H, that is ND, RF and AM. How is that hard to understand :shrug:?

IOFH
07-24-2012, 10:29 PM
Haha - so true. Nadal dominates a surface which is preferred by a great number of the world's top players - most S.Americans and Southern Europeans - has WAY more tournaments on it and thus presents far more opportunities for him to be upset, yet it's just a thing he has - "it's Nadal and clay". Fed has a great record on a surface that most players get to play 1/2 matches a year on and his achievements are way better. Even though Sampras is still a comparable grass legend if not arguably better as he faced more dangerous grass courters in his time...


Federer's 65 wins in a row over 5+ years > Nadal's 81 wins in a row over 2+ years

Way easier to upset the best grass-court player on grass than to upset the best clay-court player on clay.

HKz
07-24-2012, 10:34 PM
Haha - so true. Nadal dominates a surface which is preferred by a great number of the world's top players - most S.Americans and Southern Europeans - has WAY more tournaments on it and thus presents far more opportunities for him to be upset, yet it's just a thing he has - "it's Nadal and clay". Fed has a great record on a surface that most players get to play 1/2 matches a year on and his achievements are way better. Even though Sampras is still a comparable grass legend if not arguably better as he faced more dangerous grass courters in his time...

As to the H2H - yes the clay helps but it's still might impressive. Has had big wins on HCs and grass against all 3 of the rest of the top 4 so not like he can't beat them there either. Mainly just highlights again how insane his clay records are... in 8 seasons he's lost 4 times on clay to Murray, Fed and Novak - and probably won well over 20 I guess....

Holy crap, such biased comments as usual. It has nothing to do with what you mentioned, winning mainly on clay is not a knock on Rafa or anything. The issue here is the fact that the proporation off clay is heavily favored towards Nadal and not correctly proportioned similarly to the other 3 and including other surfaces.. Aside from the WTF, they barely meet indoors, grass is 1 GS and maybe 1 250 event, etc. It makes the comparison between Nadal and the H2H records the other three individually have pointless. It should only be viewed on its own.

Honestly
07-24-2012, 10:50 PM
Not very impressive as he wins most of those matches on clay.

Ash86
07-24-2012, 10:51 PM
Federer's 65 wins in a row over 5+ years > Nadal's 81 wins in a row over 2+ years

Way easier to upset the best grass-court player on grass than to upset the best clay-court player on clay.

You're probably the only one who thinks that. 81 on clay is far more impressive. a) It's a lot more - 81 matches is a lot. b) That's over Masters. 500s, slams - lots of events, lots of players. Fed's are Halle and Wimbledon - winning best of 5 matches on grass at his peak wasn't that hard for him and an upset hard to pull off. That leaves winning Halle 5 years in a row - Nadal's won MC 8 years in a row - a best of 3 tournament; won Barcelona 5 yrs in a row too... :shrug:

Both are great but the 81 on clay is more impressive.

Choreos
07-24-2012, 10:54 PM
It's very impressive but not as a H2H record, but rather as another testament of his clay court skills.

sexybeast
07-24-2012, 11:03 PM
The question is not if claycourt matches should be taken away entirely but if he has played too many matches on clay against Federer and Djokovic (lets leave Murray out of this).

I mean 28 out of 61 matches on clay against his 2 greatest rivals means 46% of his matches against them has been on claycourt. Claycourts represent 25% of the tournaments on tour, so if this h2h would be fair he would not have almost half his matches on claycourts.

Imagine if Federer had half of his matches against Nadal/Djokovic on grass or indoor courts, how do you think the h2h would look like?

If Djokovic had half his matches against Nadal/Federer on slow hardcourt I think he would be leading both in the h2h.

Han Solo
07-24-2012, 11:05 PM
You're probably the only one who thinks that. 81 on clay is far more impressive. a) It's a lot more - 81 matches is a lot. b) That's over Masters. 500s, slams - lots of events, lots of players. Fed's are Halle and Wimbledon - winning best of 5 matches on grass at his peak wasn't that hard for him and an upset hard to pull off. That leaves winning Halle 5 years in a row - Nadal's won MC 8 years in a row - a best of 3 tournament; won Barcelona 5 yrs in a row too... :shrug:

Both are great but the 81 on clay is more impressive.

Agreed. Both are insanely good stats for the two greatest players of recent times - I won't class Djokovic as up with them...yet.

But you can't fight the numbers - it's many more matches in his winning streak and shows that Nadal is just that much more dominant on his favourite surface than Fed is/was on grass. And Fed was really dominant...

IOFH
07-24-2012, 11:06 PM
You're probably the only one who thinks that. 81 on clay is far more impressive. a) It's a lot more - 81 matches is a lot. b) That's over Masters. 500s, slams - lots of events, lots of players. Fed's are Halle and Wimbledon - winning best of 5 matches on grass at his peak wasn't that hard for him and an upset hard to pull off. That leaves winning Halle 5 years in a row - Nadal's won MC 8 years in a row - a best of 3 tournament; won Barcelona 5 yrs in a row too... :shrug:

Both are great but the 81 on clay is more impressive.

In general it's much easier to make a streak on a surface that rewards defense than offense be the margins are bigger. It's also easier to not lose over a 2-year span than 5-year one. As to the tournaments, 6(?) masters + 2 slams compared to 5 slams. Overall Fed's streak is more impressive I feel.

Roy Emerson
07-24-2012, 11:10 PM
Obviously theres a direct correlation to this stat and winning slams since Murray has a dismal record in this department. Here is the rest of the top 4:

Federer: 33-38

Djokovic: 34-39

Murray: 18-29

To me Nadal's record is absolutely mind blowing. I realize that the majority of Nadal's wins are on clay and the fact that he isn't consistently playing these guys on hard courts is a knock on his game but this mark cannot be denied.

I for one thought that Nadal was done winning slams away from clay right after Djokovic eased to a 4 set win @ Wimbledon last year. Theres some support to this as its probably not well known but should be that Nadal has not won an AMS1000 event away from clay since March of 2009 at Indian Wells. Thats over a 40 month drought.

But theres no denying that to win slams its proven that you have to beat these guys and Nadal has shown that he can certainly do that. Again, I realize that Djokovic's record is not much worse than Murray's yet Nole is considered a living legend and Murray a bust so this stat doesn't tell the complete story but its definitely something to think about going forward and almost assures Nadal another slam or two.

Most wins are on clay. Tells me Nadal's best chances to win titles are on clay(RG). Specially after his 2 year drought off clay.

guga2120
07-25-2012, 02:56 AM
In any one on one sport you are judged by how you do against the best, not just numbers. So its very impressive.

habibko
07-25-2012, 03:26 AM
doesn't tell us anything more than what we already know, he's usually fucked outside of clay

habibko
07-25-2012, 03:27 AM
In any one on one sport you are judged by how you do against the best, not just numbers. So its very impressive.

in tennis you are ultimately judged by what you achieve

being a top player-slayer means nothing if you can't achieve more than them

SaFed2005
07-25-2012, 03:52 AM
You're probably the only one who thinks that. 81 on clay is far more impressive. a) It's a lot more - 81 matches is a lot. b) That's over Masters. 500s, slams - lots of events, lots of players. Fed's are Halle and Wimbledon - winning best of 5 matches on grass at his peak wasn't that hard for him and an upset hard to pull off. That leaves winning Halle 5 years in a row - Nadal's won MC 8 years in a row - a best of 3 tournament; won Barcelona 5 yrs in a row too... :shrug:

Both are great but the 81 on clay is more impressive.

I agree with you that both are great stats BUT it's much easier to get upset on grass than on clay. A big server who can hit big has a much better chance of making a huge upset on grass than on clay. Think about the first round of Roland Garros last year where Isner took Nadal to 5. Had that been grass who knows... the upset would have been more likely. Upsets on clay is really not all that likely. Even Federer himself kept making the FO final over and over and over and losing to the greatest clay court player ever, Nadal himself.

If Nadal was not so damn amazing on clay we would most likely be looking at Federer with about 6 French Opens right now. Just putting things in perspective. Without Federer, Nadal still would not have any where close to 6 Wimby titles.

Pirata.
07-25-2012, 04:14 AM
Oh, come one! The thread is about Rafa overall h2h, not with Fed. We have plenty of those already. His overall h2h is great, no doubt about it. He never chokes, fights for every ball, frustrates every opponent by forcing him to play extra ball (or ten extra balls) so no wonder he achieved it.

NAEK8nl9njQ

Arkulari
07-25-2012, 06:10 AM
The question is not if claycourt matches should be taken away entirely but if he has played too many matches on clay against Federer and Djokovic (lets leave Murray out of this).

I mean 28 out of 61 matches on clay against his 2 greatest rivals means 46% of his matches against them has been on claycourt. Claycourts represent 25% of the tournaments on tour, so if this h2h would be fair he would not have almost half his matches on claycourts.

Imagine if Federer had half of his matches against Nadal/Djokovic on grass or indoor courts, how do you think the h2h would look like?

If Djokovic had half his matches against Nadal/Federer on slow hardcourt I think he would be leading both in the h2h.

This.

Rafa is a magnificent player and not a one-trick (aka clay) pony but it is certain that his resume is very clay heavy as some of his biggest wins are.

Matt01
07-25-2012, 12:06 PM
Impressive stats.


doesn't tell us anything more than what we already know, he's usually fucked outside of clay


If that is what you see in those stats then it's just a sad state of affairs.
Last time I checked, he won all different Slams on all different surfaces which is an impresive achievement as well.

Looner
07-25-2012, 12:10 PM
Last time I checked, he won all different Slams on all different surfaces which is an impresive achievement as well.

:haha:

Matt01
07-25-2012, 12:13 PM
:haha:


:rolleyes:

DrJules
07-25-2012, 12:54 PM
In any one on one sport you are judged by how you do against the best, not just numbers. So its very impressive.

But a head to head is a number of less importance than Grand Slam wins which is a measure of performance against the whole field.

DrJules
07-25-2012, 01:00 PM
It is impressive.

Unfortunately for him, tennis has a knock-out system, that means H2H is nice for staticians and nothing more.

In the end it only matters who wins the tournament.

Agree fully in respect of the top players and why Nadal is the 2nd best player of the last 10 years.

mark73
07-25-2012, 02:12 PM
This bullshit again. Forget head to head it's not important. Just look at slams. He has 7 FO and 4 of clay. Very impressive.

As Rosol proved h2h is irrelevant there are more than 4 guys on the tour.

Johnbert
07-25-2012, 02:35 PM
h2h is a nice dalliance, but nothing more. at the end it's all about titles.

as exampel:
murray, has had a positive h2h against fed for a long time, but the most important matches between them he lost all together.

Evitman
07-25-2012, 02:45 PM
Against active players, I think Federer has only 1 losing H2H record, while Nadal has 2. :D

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
07-25-2012, 03:27 PM
and he's never defended a non clay title

whilst federer has defended a clay title

Litotes
07-25-2012, 03:34 PM
and he's never defended a non clay title

whilst federer has defended a clay title

If we first tak about defending, Federer is the only one in history to defend titles in three different majors.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
07-25-2012, 03:36 PM
If we first tak about defending, Federer is the only one in history to defend titles in three different majors.


all whilst playing the most graceful stylish wonderful tennis the game has ever seen

DemiCrayanhan
07-25-2012, 03:55 PM
absofuckinglutely impressive.

but then so is playstation's H2H vs claystation.

my bottomline...there's much about rafa more impressive to focus on than this dirt-inflated stat however awesome it may be.

Houstonko
07-25-2012, 04:40 PM
Those H2H is useless, Nadal only play at 100% against top guys. Below 100% he will dodge the tournament, even slams. :) :) When his condition isn't good he never play so he is not hurting H2H.

Mountaindewslave
07-25-2012, 05:28 PM
doesn't tell us anything more than what we already know, he's usually fucked outside of clay

really because he's made what, 8 non clay slam finals? and has an incredible record off of clay? obviously he's not invincible off of clay but he is still VERY VERY good.

his H2H record against the top 4 off of clay is barely a losing one so that just shows that he wins ALWAYS on clay against them, and also wins a good amount off

Mark Lenders
07-25-2012, 05:34 PM
It's legendary.

On MTF language, all the current top 10 players are his pigeons bar Tipsarevic and Almagro (who just haven't faced Rafa often enough). Such ownage of ALL the best players in the world is amazing and legendary no matter how you look at it.

Matt01
07-25-2012, 06:41 PM
and he's never defended a non clay title

whilst federer has defended a clay title


Defending titles is even less important than H2H :spit:

Han Solo
07-25-2012, 06:47 PM
Defending titles is even less important than H2H :spit:

Agreed.

...which is less important than winning titles. Etc, etc...

Nole Rules
07-25-2012, 06:50 PM
Very impressive indeed. I believe if Nole 2.0 showed up eariler, Nadal wouldn't get more than 2/3 wins from him on Hardcourts. I doubt he beats Nole on Hard again to be honest but maybe Djoker will have an off day against him in the next few meetings on Hard and Rafa takes advantage of it. Nole didn't play well at all in AO this year yet he managed to beat on fire Nadal. Shows how good he is on Hard.

Nadal is the clay GOAT so no doubt he almost always wins on clay vs the top players.

Fed Muzza Killer
07-25-2012, 07:18 PM
he has been so dominant on Clay , not on other surfaces.
that's what you can get from these H2H!

Looner
07-25-2012, 08:33 PM
You only need to know the following to know why he has such a good H2H against the top guys and especially Muzz and Djoko.

Titles won from April to July - 37
Titles won from August to Feb - 13

So he has won 75% of his titles won in 25% of the year. I don't think you can argue with that.

IOFH
07-25-2012, 10:50 PM
You only need to know the following to know why he has such a good H2H against the top guys and especially Muzz and Djoko.

Titles won from April to July - 37
Titles won from August to Feb - 13

So he has won 75% of his titles won in 25% of the year. I don't think you can argue with that.

I think he's never faced Federer between Wimbledon and YEC/WTF? That's a pretty incredible stat.

swisht4u
07-26-2012, 12:06 AM
These are great stats by Nadal.

Here's Nadal against the top ten:

Fed: 18-10
Djokovic: 19-14
Murray: 13-5
Ferrer: 16-4
Tsonga: 7-3
Berdych: 12-3
Tipsarevic: 3-0
Del Potro: 7-3
Monaco: 4-1

Totals: 99-43 = 69.7%



But lets take a look at how Fed did in his prime, lets say 5 years ago in July 2007.

Nadal: 5 - 9
Djokovic: 4 - 0
Davydenko: 9 - 0
Roddick: 13 - 1
Gonzales: 10 - 0
Robredo: 8 - 0
Gasquet: 6 - 1
Haas: 8 - 2
Blake: 6 - 0

Totals: 66 - 13 = 83.5%


Fed lost 9 of the 13 to Nadal, half of the top ten never beat him.

Looner
07-26-2012, 12:12 AM
I think he's never faced Federer between Wimbledon and YEC/WTF? That's a pretty incredible stat.

Yup, just think what 4-5 meetings at Cincy/USO would have done with that H2H. No rational poster can argue RN's H2H with the top guys is heavily skewed in his favour due to his monstrous clay prowess.

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
07-26-2012, 12:36 AM
places nadal could defend a non clay title

DOHA
title defended by anyone in top 4- murray federer
nadal never won

CHENNAI
title defended?- no
nadal made 1 final- losing 0,1


SYDNEY
title defended- no (hewitt and blake have defended it)

QUEENS/HALLE
title defended- federer, roddick, hewitt
nadal won in 2008

VIENNA
title defended- federer,

ROTTERDAM
title defended- no (soderling has)
nadal made a final- murray bagled him


DUBAI
title defended- federer djokovic
nadal won in 2006

BEIJING
title defended- djokovic
nadal won in 2005

TOKYO
title defended> (ALMOST) no
2011 nadal made the final as defending champion- then got bagled by murray

BASEL
title defended- federer

INDIAN WELLS
title defended- federer
nadal won in 2007 2009-
in 2008 nole took him out in the SF
in 2010 ljubicic took him out in the SF

MIAMI
title defended- federer djokovic
nadal has never won it

CANADA
title defended- murray
nadal won in 2005 2008
in 2006 berdych took nadal out in r3
in 2009 del potro took nadal out in QF

CINCINATI
title defended- federer

SHANGHAI
title defnded- murray
nadal made a final

PARIS
title defended- no
nadal made the final in 2007- meeting peak nalbandian in the final

HKz
07-26-2012, 12:38 AM
These are great stats by Nadal.

Here's Nadal against the top ten:

Fed: 18-10
Djokovic: 19-14
Murray: 13-5
Ferrer: 16-4
Tsonga: 7-3
Berdych: 12-3
Tipsarevic: 3-0
Del Potro: 7-3
Monaco: 4-1

Totals: 99-43 = 69.7%



But lets take a look at how Fed did in his prime, lets say 5 years ago in July 2007.

Nadal: 5 - 9
Djokovic: 4 - 0
Davydenko: 9 - 0
Roddick: 13 - 1
Gonzales: 10 - 0
Robredo: 8 - 0
Gasquet: 6 - 1
Haas: 8 - 2
Blake: 6 - 0

Totals: 66 - 13 = 83.5%


Fed lost 9 of the 13 to Nadal, half of the top ten never beat him.

No you didn't! Now fools will ravage your post saying any of these things:

1. Fed's field during his prime was weak
2. Nadal has to deal with prime Djokovic/Federer now
3. You can't use Nadal's current top-10 because this isn't a "prime year"
4. Fed avoided Nadal in his prime years off clay
5. Nadal wasn't at his prime off clay yet

evilmindbulgaria
07-26-2012, 01:28 AM
No you didn't! Now fools will ravage your post saying any of these things:

1. Fed's field during his prime was weak
2. Nadal has to deal with prime Djokovic/Federer now
3. You can't use Nadal's current top-10 because this isn't a "prime year"
4. Fed avoided Nadal in his prime years off clay
5. Nadal wasn't at his prime off clay yet

And why would they be fools? Is this thread about Federer, BTW?

Fedtards are so blinded by their hate towards their idol's Master that they must pollute every single thread that is about Rafa. And if it isn't about Rafa, then they'll find a way to involve him and somehow diminish his accomplishments. That's what MTF has turned to since Nadal started bitchslapping Federer left and right!

swisht4u
07-26-2012, 01:30 AM
No you didn't! Now fools will ravage your post saying any of these things:

1. Fed's field during his prime was weak
2. Nadal has to deal with prime Djokovic/Federer now
3. You can't use Nadal's current top-10 because this isn't a "prime year"
4. Fed avoided Nadal in his prime years off clay
5. Nadal wasn't at his prime off clay yet

Haha

It's OK, I welcome other points of view and won't take offence. :wavey:

evilmindbulgaria
07-26-2012, 01:48 AM
Haha

It's OK, I welcome other points of view and won't take offence. :wavey:

Sure, here is a point:

Federer's record against the current Top 4 is 33-38, or 46.5%. Rafa's record against the current Top 4 is 50-29, or 63.3%.

Can you please find me another GOAT candidate who has an inferior such record by 16.8% to the rival he has played the most in his career.

Thank you!

Slice Winner
07-26-2012, 01:48 AM
Interesting how the top 10s from 2012 and 2007 are both arguably really rather strong.
'Weak' standout players being Tipsarevic and Monaco in 2012, and Robredo in 2007.

HKz
07-26-2012, 01:51 AM
And why would they be fools? Is this thread about Federer, BTW?

Fedtards are so blinded by their hate towards their idol's Master that they must pollute every single thread that is about Rafa. And if it isn't about Rafa, then they'll find a way to involve him and somehow diminish his accomplishments. That's what MTF has turned to since Nadal started bitchslapping Federer left and right!

Man, someone so much of a Rafatard that when I'm just pointing out hypocrisies of Fedhaters, they bad rep me and cry :worship:

Sure, here is a point:

Federer's record against the current Top 4 is 33-38, or 46.5%. Rafa's record against the current Top 4 is 50-29, or 63.3%.

Can you please find me another GOAT candidate who has an inferior such record by 16.8% to the rival he has played the most in his career.

Thank you!

The top 4 are the only players on the ATP World Tour.

BroTree123
07-26-2012, 01:53 AM
Oh the beauty of haters and their pathetic arguments. I'm talking about both sides here :facepalm:

Mark Lenders
07-26-2012, 01:57 AM
People trying to diminish this stat, just let this sink in.

What do Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Tsonga, Del Potro, Ferrer and Berdych all have in common?

They are all among the best players in the world and they are all Rafa's pigeons (per MTF speak) - Ferrer is actually a turkey and Federer, Murray and Berdych will probably become turkeys soon too.

His ownage of Berdych for instance is amazing: at one point, Rafa won 20 consecutive sets against him; there's no way a player of Berdych's quality should be losing 20 consecutive sets to anyone.

The impressive thing is that most great players have one top player (top 10) they struggle against/a tough matchup (negative or tight head-to-head): Federer in his prime had Nadal and Nalbandian, Djokovic now has Nadal, Murray, Tsonga... Nadal owns them all (in terms of head-to-head). In fact, is there anyone apart from Davydenko with a positive head-to-head against Rafa (having played him more than once of course).

evilmindbulgaria
07-26-2012, 01:59 AM
Man, someone so much of a Rafatard that when I'm just pointing out hypocrisies of Fedhaters, they bad rep me and cry :worship:



The top 4 are the only players on the ATP World Tour.

The Top 4 at the moment are, supposedly, much above the rest of the field :shrug: And both Rafa and Federer have been playing against them since 2005/2006.

evilmindbulgaria
07-26-2012, 02:05 AM
Lukas Rosol :superlol:

And so do Guccione, Dodig, Pim-pim, Srichaphan and Mutis, all 1:0. Noone has more than +2 against Nadal (Hrbaty and Corretja being the only exception).

But that's another quite amazing achievement :devil:

BroTree123
07-26-2012, 02:10 AM
And so do Guccione, Dodig, Pim-pim, Srichaphan and Mutis, all 1:0. Noone has more than +2 against Nadal (Hrbaty and Corretja being the only exception).

But that's another quite amazing achievement :devil:

No, you read it before I deleted it :(

Didn't read Mark's last bracket :facepalm:

Btw Dodig is 1-1 :devil:

HKz
07-26-2012, 02:13 AM
The Top 4 at the moment are, supposedly, much above the rest of the field :shrug: And both Rafa and Federer have been playing against them since 2005/2006.

Yet, Rafa struggles at the WTF..? I mean Guga has a WTF title and Borg has two. Don't tell me that Rafa tired at the end of a continuous season and indoor bullshit.

Fact is as I'll say for the 100th time, what the OP wrote about is an amazing stat I've never disagreed with this, however, it cannot be compared with others especially the stat of the other 3 players because surface proportions are nowhere near the same while how often the top 4 have played each other on each particular surface makes no sense to compare. Federer, for example, has never met Murray on clay and Wimbledon was their first meeting on grass. It is merely an interesting stat, doesn't mean anything at the end of the day just like Davydenko's H2H with Rafa, they mean nothing. It takes 7 different opponents to win a slam title.

Again, as I pointed out, I made no knock against Rafa, merely pointing out stupidity/hypocrisy of people who dislike Federer, yet you still bad rep me, :lol:

BroTree123
07-26-2012, 02:15 AM
He wasn't tired. His confidence was shot and his mind was wandering towards 2012. Although he didn't play that badly, he couldn't find an extra gear to be 'special'.

swisht4u
07-26-2012, 02:54 AM
Sure, here is a point:

Federer's record against the current Top 4 is 33-38, or 46.5%. Rafa's record against the current Top 4 is 50-29, or 63.3%.

Can you please find me another GOAT candidate who has an inferior such record by 16.8% to the rival he has played the most in his career.

Thank you!


How can Nadal have a better H2H against the top 4 but Fed is #1 and Nadal is #3 in the rankings?

Now if Nadal drops out of the top 4 Fed will have a much better percentage, but it won't do anything for his resume.

This won't help Nadal's resume either, he still needs slams and 200 more #1 weeks. These kind of shortcuts won't do it.


What else do you want to know?

BackhandDTL
07-26-2012, 03:12 AM
To say that Murray's record against the top four is "dismal" is quite relative. Compared to the guys behind him and most top players from the past, his results range from decent to average.

Anyway, the record itself is brilliant, but to me, 1v127 will always matter much more than 1v1 in the grand scheme of things. Winning a match against one guy will still only get you through one round.

leng jai
07-26-2012, 03:21 AM
doesn't tell us anything more than what we already know, he's usually fucked outside of clay

So fucked he has won every slam and made several other finals. If he is "fucked" then we need another term for the rest of the tour outside the top 3.

It's all well and good to hate but you still have to make some sense.

habibko
07-26-2012, 03:29 AM
People trying to diminish this stat, just let this sink in.

What do Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Tsonga, Del Potro, Ferrer and Berdych all have in common?

They are all among the best players in the world and they are all Rafa's pigeons (per MTF speak) - Ferrer is actually a turkey and Federer, Murray and Berdych will probably become turkeys soon too.

His ownage of Berdych for instance is amazing: at one point, Rafa won 20 consecutive sets against him; there's no way a player of Berdych's quality should be losing 20 consecutive sets to anyone.

The impressive thing is that most great players have one top player (top 10) they struggle against/a tough matchup (negative or tight head-to-head): Federer in his prime had Nadal and Nalbandian, Djokovic now has Nadal, Murray, Tsonga... Nadal owns them all (in terms of head-to-head). In fact, is there anyone apart from Davydenko with a positive head-to-head against Rafa (having played him more than once of course).

the only thing impressive about that stat is his dominance on clay which no one disputes, off-clay he has a losing record against the better players (Federer and Djokovic), the result of which is clearly shown by the rankings

habibko
07-26-2012, 03:31 AM
So fucked he has won every slam and made several other finals. If he is "fucked" then we need another term for the rest of the tour outside the top 3.

It's all well and good to hate but you still have to make some sense.

fucked by the better players, the two players ranked above him hold the advantage both in terms of wins and titles

Freak3yman84
07-26-2012, 03:34 AM
People trying to diminish this stat, just let this sink in.

What do Federer, Djokovic, Murray, Tsonga, Del Potro, Ferrer and Berdych all have in common?

They are all among the best players in the world and they are all Rafa's pigeons (per MTF speak) - Ferrer is actually a turkey and Federer, Murray and Berdych will probably become turkeys soon too.

His ownage of Berdych for instance is amazing: at one point, Rafa won 20 consecutive sets against him; there's no way a player of Berdych's quality should be losing 20 consecutive sets to anyone.

The impressive thing is that most great players have one top player (top 10) they struggle against/a tough matchup (negative or tight head-to-head): Federer in his prime had Nadal and Nalbandian, Djokovic now has Nadal, Murray, Tsonga... Nadal owns them all (in terms of head-to-head). In fact, is there anyone apart from Davydenko with a positive head-to-head against Rafa (having played him more than once of course).

Hrbaty and Corretja :banana:

leng jai
07-26-2012, 03:48 AM
fucked by the better players, the two players ranked above him hold the advantage both in terms of wins and titles

True to an extent but "fucked" is not really the word I would use. He's far from fucked against Federer and everyone has been fucked against Novak the last few years. Rafito is just unlucky he kept getting to the final in the same period and getting smashed :)

evilmindbulgaria
07-26-2012, 04:00 AM
Yet, Rafa struggles at the WTF..? I mean Guga has a WTF title and Borg has two. Don't tell me that Rafa tired at the end of a continuous season and indoor bullshit.

Fact is as I'll say for the 100th time, what the OP wrote about is an amazing stat I've never disagreed with this, however, it cannot be compared with others especially the stat of the other 3 players because surface proportions are nowhere near the same while how often the top 4 have played each other on each particular surface makes no sense to compare. Federer, for example, has never met Murray on clay and Wimbledon was their first meeting on grass. It is merely an interesting stat, doesn't mean anything at the end of the day just like Davydenko's H2H with Rafa, they mean nothing. It takes 7 different opponents to win a slam title.

Again, as I pointed out, I made no knock against Rafa, merely pointing out stupidity/hypocrisy of people who dislike Federer, yet you still bad rep me, :lol:

Well, with you it is next to impossible to figure out when you are being sarcastic and serious :shrug:

evilmindbulgaria
07-26-2012, 04:04 AM
How can Nadal have a better H2H against the top 4 but Fed is #1 and Nadal is #3 in the rankings?

Now if Nadal drops out of the top 4 Fed will have a much better percentage, but it won't do anything for his resume.

This won't help Nadal's resume either, he still needs slams and 200 more #1 weeks. These kind of shortcuts won't do it.


What else do you want to know?

The rankings only reflect a 12-month period, as far as I understand the thread is about a career achievement.

How about the answer to my earlier question.

ssj100
07-26-2012, 04:10 AM
Back on topic, head to head records are meaningless. A player could have positive head to head records against every top 4 (or top 10) player but not win any titles. Ultimately, it's winning titles that matters most. And in tennis, the most important titles are the Grand Slams.

evilmindbulgaria
07-26-2012, 04:35 AM
Back on topic, head to head records are meaningless. A player could have positive head to head records against every top 4 (or top 10) player but not win any titles. Ultimately, it's winning titles that matters most. And in tennis, the most important titles are the Grand Slams.

That's not the topic of this thread but don't let that get in the way of you diminishing certain player's achievements :wavey:

abraxas21
07-26-2012, 04:48 AM
i'm not impressed :shrug:

Litotes
07-26-2012, 04:52 AM
How can Nadal have a better H2H against the top 4 but Fed is #1 and Nadal is #3 in the rankings?


That is easy to illustrate. Look what happens in this years AO and Wimbledon. In these two tournaments Fed gets a W and an SF, giving him 2720 points. Nadal gets an F and a 2nd round. That gives him 1245 points, less than half of Federers total. But he also has 1-0 H2H against Fed separately in these two tournaments - beating him in AO. So you see, H2H against individual players does not explain rankings. But I don't think EMB will take this argument, as it does nothing to help his case.....

Johnbert
07-26-2012, 05:09 AM
now i remember why this evilmind-guy is on my ignore-list :facepalm:

Federer4Everer
07-26-2012, 06:01 AM
Nadal and Fed have the same % wins of 66-67% versus top 10, however Fed has 156 wins and Nadal has 99. when Nadal reaches 156 wins with a better win %, it will be impressive. Actually VERY impressive!

Matt01
07-26-2012, 11:27 AM
Nadal and Fed have the same % wins of 66-67% versus top 10, however Fed has 156 wins and Nadal has 99. when Nadal reaches 156 wins with a better win %, it will be impressive. Actually VERY impressive!


It already is impresive. You're not making sense. Nice username, though.

swisht4u
07-26-2012, 02:19 PM
Sure, here is a point:

Federer's record against the current Top 4 is 33-38, or 46.5%. Rafa's record against the current Top 4 is 50-29, or 63.3%.

Can you please find me another GOAT candidate who has an inferior such record by 16.8% to the rival he has played the most in his career.

Thank you!

It occured to me I never answered this question.

I can't think of another GOAT candidate but there may be.

Did you notice that in the year I posted about Fed that 2 of the top four never beat him once?
And five out of the top ten didn't even win once.
This is amazing!

Nadal: 5 - 9
Djokovic: 4 - 0
Davydenko: 9 - 0
Roddick: 13 - 1
Gonzales: 10 - 0
Robredo: 8 - 0
Gasquet: 6 - 1
Haas: 8 - 2
Blake: 6 - 0


You'll always have trouble arguing against Fed, it not just the Fedtards but they have volumes of records like this to use.

:wavey:

Looner
07-26-2012, 02:21 PM
It already is impresive. You're not making sense. Nice username, though.

Let me help your challenged mind. Having the same percentage over more matches is more impressive, considering the GOAT does not relly on dirt for most of his wins.

TBkeeper
07-26-2012, 02:24 PM
i'm not impressed :shrug:

Me too ... not at all :shrug:

Silvester
07-26-2012, 02:34 PM
Let help your challenged mind. Having the same percentage over more matches is more impressive, considering the GOAT does not really on dirt for most of his wins.

seemed pretty straight forward to me :confused: I doubt Nadal will still have that % when he reaches 31yrs old.

Looner
07-26-2012, 02:38 PM
seemed pretty straight forward to me :confused: I doubt Nadal will still have that % when he reaches 31yrs old.

The things is, this is Matt we're talking about. He has trouble accepting anything that can harm RN's credentials, including the important of WTF wins ;).

Tomatoes11
07-26-2012, 05:59 PM
I think this would be a better poll question. He has won 55% of his slams against Federer. So, if he played Djoker, Tsonga, Del Potro etc instead of his easy match up Federer, would he still have 11 slams?

I would say he would still have around 9 since most of them were on clay where he is unbeatable but I do think he has a few from fake confidence of beating the GOAT or a guaranteed win off of Federer as long as he just makes the finals.

He also has a slam geared schedule like the William sisters where Fed and Djoker has schedules geared towards no 1 and slams so that type of schedule is a lot harder.

Matt01
07-26-2012, 06:42 PM
Let me help your challenged mind. Having the same percentage over more matches is more impressive, considering the GOAT does not really on dirt for most of his wins.


What? :lol:
You need to work on your grammar and spelling because I still don't get it.

The only thing that stat told me is that Federer played more matches because he has been on the tour for a longer time. But of course tards like you are going to twist any stat to make Fed look good and Rafa look bad.

Matt01
07-26-2012, 06:43 PM
seemed pretty straight forward to me :confused: I doubt Nadal will still have that % when he reaches 31yrs old.


Speculation.

GSMnadal
07-26-2012, 06:45 PM
seemed pretty straight forward to me :confused: I doubt Nadal will still have that % when he reaches 31yrs old.

Exactly, he'll be up in the mid seventies feasting off his pigeons and turkeys

RForever
07-26-2012, 07:04 PM
It already is impresive. You're not making sense. Nice username, though.

Math F

Say Hey Kid
07-26-2012, 07:36 PM
Extremely impressive stat. I don't see how it's "skewed" because alot of the wins are on clay either.

evilmindbulgaria
07-26-2012, 07:37 PM
I think this would be a better poll question. He has won 55% of his slams against Federer. So, if he played Djoker, Tsonga, Del Potro etc instead of his easy match up Federer, would he still have 11 slams?

I would say he would still have around 9 since most of them were on clay where he is unbeatable but I do think he has a few from fake confidence of beating his Bitch or a guaranteed win off of Federer as long as he just makes the finals.

He also has a slam geared schedule like the William sisters where Fed and Djoker has schedules geared towards no 1 and slams so that type of schedule is a lot harder.

Fixed it for you ;)

Litotes
07-26-2012, 07:42 PM
I will apologize to Tomatoes11 for misquoting him

As you should.

IOFH
07-26-2012, 08:23 PM
It occured to me I never answered this question.

I can't think of another GOAT candidate but there may be.

Did you notice that in the year I posted about Fed that 2 of the top four never beat him once?
And five out of the top ten didn't even win once.
This is amazing!

Nadal: 5 - 9
Djokovic: 4 - 0
Davydenko: 9 - 0
Roddick: 13 - 1
Gonzales: 10 - 0
Robredo: 8 - 0
Gasquet: 6 - 1
Haas: 8 - 2
Blake: 6 - 0


You'll always have trouble arguing against Fed, it not just the Fedtards but they have volumes of records like this to use.

:wavey:

Federer was 6-8 against Nadal at the end of 2007. :p

DrJules
07-26-2012, 08:31 PM
That is easy to illustrate. Look what happens in this years AO and Wimbledon. In these two tournaments Fed gets a W and an SF, giving him 2720 points. Nadal gets an F and a 2nd round. That gives him 1245 points, less than half of Federers total. But he also has 1-0 H2H against Fed separately in these two tournaments - beating him in AO. So you see, H2H against individual players does not explain rankings. But I don't think EMB will take this argument, as it does nothing to help his case.....

An interesting point is that if Nadal had reached the semi-final and lost to Murray at Wimbledon his head to head versus top 4 players would be worse this year, but his GS performances would have been much better (F, W and SF instead of F, W, 2nd round and his top 4 would be 2-2 instead of 2-1).

Tennis is about the whole draw not just the top 4 players.

Doing well against top 4 is great, but Nadal has also had far more "bad" defeats than Federer i.e. players such as Rosol.

swisht4u
07-26-2012, 08:35 PM
Federer was 6-8 against Nadal at the end of 2007. :p

:)




http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=N409

Just after Wimbledon. :wavey:

oz_boz
07-26-2012, 09:11 PM
Impressive, albeit a somewhat skewed stat. Unskewing would yield 20 matches of the 79 on clay, say Nadal wins 17 of them. Then 59 on non-clay, Nadal wins 28 of them; h2h 45-34, still very good.

But he has more bad losses than Federer. To me it's worse to lose to different lesser players, than repeatedly against one or two very good opponents. Some think differently. In the end it's tournament victories that matter and in that regard Fed is the best of the 4 even counting only since Rafa's breakthrough slam.

IOFH
07-26-2012, 09:16 PM
:)




http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=N409

Just after Wimbledon. :wavey:

Aaah okay I thought you were doing that stat with the end of 2007 ending his prime. 5-8 then.

paseo
07-26-2012, 10:24 PM
The H2H record is good and all, but in the end it's all about titles and achievements.

I know I would rather have a big title (Slam) beating Ginepri, Volandri, and Young. Rather than having a smaller one (Masters 1000) beating Djokovic, Murray and Nadal.