The truth about the Federer/ Nadal record [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

The truth about the Federer/ Nadal record

renz
03-01-2007, 09:22 PM
I guess you can tell from my board name that Roger's my guy, but I just want to ask one thing.... how much value does their head to head record actually have? I mean, if Rog's #1, and Rafa's #2, but when they enter the same tournament (non-clay and with Wimbledon 2006 the exception), Roger gets to the final every time and Rafa doesn't, it can't mean much.
If Nadal lived up to his ranking, the way Roger does, I think they'd have more than evened the score by now! And I really wish the commentators would notice that instead of bringing up the stupid head to head every time.
:wavey:

krakenzero
03-01-2007, 09:29 PM
lika Dubai last year?? I don't see the point of this thread...

bokehlicious
03-01-2007, 09:35 PM
No doubt would Nadal reach more final stage would the hh be more even...

sarciness
03-01-2007, 09:36 PM
Heya ranz, you're a Trini guy?

I'm 1/2 Trini.

Eden
03-01-2007, 09:44 PM
how much value does their head to head record actually have? I mean, if Rog's #1, and Rafa's #2, but when they enter the same tournament (non-clay and with Wimbledon 2006 the exception), Roger gets to the final every time and Rafa doesn't, it can't mean much.


Roger/Rafa is the perfect example of how misinterpreting a h2h can be. A h2h just says something about the matchup between players and there are several examples of players who have a negative h2h against someone you would never expect it.

I would even dare to say that the h2h between Roger and Rafa has done Roger more favour as the other way round. His matches against Rafa have uncovered his weaknesses and just have a look at how his backhand has improved during the last months.

It's useless to speculate how the h2h between them would look like if they have meet more times on other surfaces than clay. There have been so many tournaments were everyone was waiting for a match between them, but other players prevented it.

renz
03-01-2007, 09:45 PM
Nope...I'm not a trini guy, I'm an island girl, a true Carnival baby... as David Rudder would say, 'trini to de bone!
':D

guga2120
03-01-2007, 09:46 PM
the way Nadal played in 05/06 there was a reason Nadal beat Federer more, but since last summer he has been playing average at best, not even top 10 really, i don't know whats been up with him. If they played now, Federer would beat him fairly easily, i would assume.

And they bring up the H2H b/c what else are you going to talk about with Federer, he destroys everybody he plays.

senorgato
03-01-2007, 09:50 PM
H2H don't mean a whole lot when all is said and done.

marcRD
03-01-2007, 10:27 PM
Nadal is good enought to win a match now and then against Federer on hardcourt but most of the time Federer will win on hardcourt or grass.

The same goes for clay where Nadal most often will win but Federer is good enought o beat Nadal but just hasnt been fortunate (or simply weakminded) in the matches against Nadal on clay.

FluffyYellowBall
03-01-2007, 10:32 PM
here goes the viscous circle....Another broad, pointless discussion that will only increase tardism

RonE
03-01-2007, 11:48 PM
Roger/Rafa is the perfect example of how misinterpreting a h2h can be. A h2h just says something about the matchup between players and there are several examples of players who have a negative h2h against someone you would never expect it.

I would even dare to say that the h2h between Roger and Rafa has done Roger more favour as the other way round. His matches against Rafa have uncovered his weaknesses and just have a look at how his backhand has improved during the last months.
It's useless to speculate how the h2h between them would look like if they have meet more times on other surfaces than clay. There have been so many tournaments were everyone was waiting for a match between them, but other players prevented it.

Absolutely right! In that regard Rafa forced Roger to work even more on his game. Had Rafa not been around I wonder if we would be seeing such an improved backhand from Roger.

General Suburbia
03-01-2007, 11:54 PM
H2H will tell you a heck of a lot of things if you know how to read into it. While the big numbers that tell you "Rafa is leading" may be misleading, the stats behind the numbers will pretty much sum up what anyone's rivalry will be like. Dates, scores, surfaces, etc.

megadeth
03-01-2007, 11:59 PM
oh, they'll meet again for sure... probably in the qtrs or semis in an event sometime this year... once rafa's ranking dips :devil:

Snowwy
03-02-2007, 01:06 AM
Why are you so convinced his ranking will drop, he has more points this year outside of the clay season than he did last year.

Allure
03-02-2007, 01:10 AM
Roger/Rafa is the perfect example of how misinterpreting a h2h can be. A h2h just says something about the matchup between players and there are several examples of players who have a negative h2h against someone you would never expect it.

I would even dare to say that the h2h between Roger and Rafa has done Roger more favour as the other way round. His matches against Rafa have uncovered his weaknesses and just have a look at how his backhand has improved during the last months.

It's useless to speculate how the h2h between them would look like if they have meet more times on other surfaces than clay. There have been so many tournaments were everyone was waiting for a match between them, but other players prevented it.

No it isn't. Nadal is clearly better than Federer and if he wasn't tired and choked the match away today, he would have beaten Fed in the finals.

Sunset of Age
03-02-2007, 01:12 AM
Roger/Rafa is the perfect example of how misinterpreting a h2h can be. A h2h just says something about the matchup between players and there are several examples of players who have a negative h2h against someone you would never expect it.

I would even dare to say that the h2h between Roger and Rafa has done Roger more favour as the other way round. His matches against Rafa have uncovered his weaknesses and just have a look at how his backhand has improved during the last months.

It's useless to speculate how the h2h between them would look like if they have meet more times on other surfaces than clay. There have been so many tournaments were everyone was waiting for a match between them, but other players prevented it.

Spot on, Doris! :worship:

PlayOnClay
03-02-2007, 01:35 AM
The record doesn't mean anything because they are going to face each other only on clay. Right now it's very difficult for Nadal to make a final on any other surface (Wimbledom last year was an anomaly). If they could play against each other on different surfaces, the record would be different.

gogogirl
03-02-2007, 02:03 AM
All,

These two may not even meet in 2007. Someone could take out either one of them on clay and/or any other surface. For all of us fans clamoring to watch a final between them last year - and/or some predicting a final between them - we should realize that this year it just might not happen. Neither of them may make the final at Monte Carlo.

"Everything Must Change - Nothing Stays the Same" (By Quincy Jones)

I think what the past has shown us is that these two played each other close. There are some matchups between players where it's just like that. Most of their matches have gone the distance or near 'bout.

If there is one constant concerning their H2H record - is that the winner won their respective matches fair and square. That's the ultimate result. And that we hope they both remain fit and healthy.

kindablue
03-02-2007, 02:28 AM
Go Haas :lol:

Neely
03-02-2007, 11:47 AM
This discussion can be endless. Sure did Nadal get the majority of his wins against Federer on clay. Applying this line of argumentation, the same would apply vice versa then, if Nadal reached nine finals of tournaments on hardcourt or grass and Federer would have won 7 of 9 them on a fast surface, that the h2h is 7-2 overall, it would also not say us much.

bokehlicious
03-02-2007, 11:51 AM
This discussion can be endless. Sure did Nadal get the majority of his wins against Federer on clay. Applying this line of argumentation, the same would apply vice versa then, if Nadal reached nine finals of tournaments on hardcourt or grass and Federer would have won 7 of 9 them on a fast surface, that the h2h is 7-2 overall, it would also not say us much.

Fact is Roger reached most clay finals whereas Nadal failed to do the same off clay...

Andre'sNo1Fan
03-02-2007, 01:53 PM
I guess you can tell from my board name that Roger's my guy, but I just want to ask one thing.... how much value does their head to head record actually have? I mean, if Rog's #1, and Rafa's #2, but when they enter the same tournament (non-clay and with Wimbledon 2006 the exception), Roger gets to the final every time and Rafa doesn't, it can't mean much.
If Nadal lived up to his ranking, the way Roger does, I think they'd have more than evened the score by now! And I really wish the commentators would notice that instead of bringing up the stupid head to head every time.
:wavey:
The head to head is 6-3, Rafa has beaten Roger 6 times and that is the only truth. Some people talk about clay as if it isn't a surface.

kobulingam
03-02-2007, 02:11 PM
Roger leads 5-4 in total points won in their matches. :p

Neely
03-02-2007, 02:16 PM
Fact is Roger reached most clay finals whereas Nadal failed to do the same off clay...
So it is about reaching the finals? Well, if you want to tell me that Federer got better results in terms of making finals on clay than Nadal lately on hardcourt, then I agree. If you want to compare the compact core of the European clay season to the rest of the season played not on clay, then I don't agree because the rest of the season "off clay" is a much bigger term and a more difficult task for somebody who prefers clay.

ezekiel
03-02-2007, 02:28 PM
Fact is Roger reached most clay finals whereas Nadal failed to do the same off clay...

Rafa has failed to reach a final since Wimbledon and it's bothering him as he seems anxious because he is used to winning

Jogy
03-03-2007, 05:53 PM
the truth in the record is that Nadal OWNS Federer on claycourts clear and that he could beat Federer on hardcourt already in two matches

truth is Federer did not beat Nadal on claycourt yet, in many trys

GlennMirnyi
03-03-2007, 05:56 PM
:lol: At the rafatards. As Nadal can't go beyond QFs now, they cling to the H2H. Talk about being desperate.

DrJules
03-03-2007, 06:04 PM
So it is about reaching the finals? Well, if you want to tell me that Federer got better results in terms of making finals on clay than Nadal lately on hardcourt, then I agree. If you want to compare the compact core of the European clay season to the rest of the season played not on clay, then I don't agree because the rest of the season "off clay" is a much bigger term and a more difficult task for somebody who prefers clay.

And the grass court season has almost been squeezed out of existance.

Neely
03-03-2007, 06:16 PM
And the grass court season has almost been squeezed out of existance.
Unfortunately yes. If it was me, I would like to have a Masters on grass and at least six weeks of pure grass season to celebrate play on this fantastic surface.

trixtah
03-03-2007, 06:29 PM
Roger/Rafa is the perfect example of how misinterpreting a h2h can be. A h2h just says something about the matchup between players and there are several examples of players who have a negative h2h against someone you would never expect it.

I would even dare to say that the h2h between Roger and Rafa has done Roger more favour as the other way round. His matches against Rafa have uncovered his weaknesses and just have a look at how his backhand has improved during the last months.

It's useless to speculate how the h2h between them would look like if they have meet more times on other surfaces than clay. There have been so many tournaments were everyone was waiting for a match between them, but other players prevented it.

a negative head to head? that's amazing!

but the h2h can definitely tell you their strengths and weaknesses. Just as a player, the h2h is constantly evolving

t0x
03-03-2007, 10:40 PM
Roger leads 5-4 in total points won in their matches. :p

Indeed. Rome & Dubai could of been different, a stat that doesn't get enough attention...

Nadal still won their matches, but to me it's proof Federer is very capable of beating Rafa, on any surface. He looked mentally fragile against Nadal last year and these stats re-enforce that (also look at some of the BP conversion rates in their matches - especially MC).

Of course mental strength is very much a part of tennis... but the fact is, Rafa certainly doesn't 'own' Federer as some people suggest.

Andre'sNo1Fan
03-03-2007, 10:59 PM
Indeed. Rome & Dubai could of been different, a stat that doesn't get enough attention...
:lol: since when is that a 'stat'. how many matches in the past could have been different? at the end of the day the result is all that counts, because it includes winning the really big points.

t0x
03-03-2007, 11:05 PM
:lol: since when is that a 'stat'. how many matches in the past could have been different? at the end of the day the result is all that counts, because it includes winning the really big points.

A stat is a matter of fact... are you saying Federer and Nadal didn't win that many points?

No point repeating me yeah? I did indeed say Nadal won those matches :rolleyes: Read closer and you'll see more point is, Rafa sure as hell doesn't 'own' Fed. Even when they go out on clay, Federer is very capable of winning. Some of you rafatards think Federer is blown away on clay - not the case at all, and with Fed's confidence right now I think he'll do a lot better at turning those points into victories (he's won last 2 meetings).

Andre'sNo1Fan
03-03-2007, 11:12 PM
A stat is a matter of fact... are you saying Federer and Nadal didn't win that many points?

No point repeating me yeah? I did indeed say Nadal won those matches :rolleyes: Read closer and you'll see more point is, Rafa sure as hell doesn't 'own' Fed. Even when they go out on clay, Federer is very capable of winning. Some of you rafatards think Federer is blown away on clay - not the case at all, and with Fed's confidence right now I think he'll do a lot better at turning those points into victories (he's won last 2 meetings).
Nadal doesn't blow many players away on clay, including Federer, but he is clearly the best player. I mean the only match Federer only came close to beating Nadal in is Rome, and thats a fast clay surface, much faster than RG.

Since when is 'he could have won those matches' a stat? Thats the point I'm trying to make. Sure he could have won Rome, but not Dubai, he never got that close.

t0x
03-03-2007, 11:23 PM
Nadal doesn't blow many players away on clay, including Federer, but he is clearly the best player. I mean the only match Federer only came close to beating Nadal in is Rome, and thats a fast clay surface, much faster than RG.

Since when is 'he could have won those matches' a stat? Thats the point I'm trying to make. Sure he could have won Rome, but not Dubai, he never got that close.

I said he was capable of winning... but last year was very mentally fragile against Nadal. My evidence for this being crap BP conversions, wasted MPs in Rome (on shanked forehands, not by Nadal winning them) and losing matches where he won more points than Nadal. I never said he 'could of won', because mental strength is a very important part of tennis and clearly he didn't have it. My point simply was, with 2 victories in a row against Rafa now, don't expect him to be so wasteful... he's certainly very capable of taking out Rafa on the dirt, it's not set in stone that Rafa will dominate him again.