[evilmindbulgaria]

Originally Posted by Tomatoes11

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]

Originally Posted by evilmindbulgaria

I will apologize to Tomatoes11 for misquoting him

As you should.

[IOFH]

Originally Posted by swisht4u

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.

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

[DrJules]

Originally Posted by Litotes

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]

Originally Posted by IOFH

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

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/...=F324&oId=N409

Just after Wimbledon.

[oz_boz]

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]

Originally Posted by swisht4u

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/...=F324&oId=N409

Just after Wimbledon.

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

[paseo]

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.