PDA

View Full Version : About FED-NAD 3-7 record, why hasn't anyone pointed this out to Fed haters?


Kim
05-02-2007, 11:11 PM
Of that 3-7 record, 5 matches were played on clay, 4 of those being clay finals, 1 on RG semifinals..0-1 on grass, 2-2 on hardcourts. Consistently appearing on clay court finals shows just how good Fed is on clay, although as of now, not as good as Nadal. But, Fed just hasn't been able to "win" back this rivalry precisely because Nadal hasn't really been to the finals of many grass and hardcourt events where Federer has the advantage (esp on grass). The point is, that 7-3 record is actually proof of how good Fed is, and NOT of assertions that "Nadal owns Fed"...On clay, Fed can come close to Nadal, but on other surfaces Nadal rarely comes close to playing with Federer on tournament finals to ever give him (Fed) the chance to win over Nadal.

Kim

Rhino
05-03-2007, 12:24 AM
I agree with this and have thought about bringing it up but Fed haters are not really the type to get into constructive arguements, they are more likely the type to just put their fingers in their ears and just wander round yelling "7-3, 7-3...." at the top of their voice.
Anyway I think the entry ranking system shows it up since Rafa is always quite far behind after the grass/hard seasons.

Grimjack
05-03-2007, 01:16 AM
This has been brought up over and over again.

Pro Staff Pete
05-03-2007, 01:28 AM
5-0 on clay, 2-2 on hard.. makes 7-2 to me?

edit* Nadal won on grassclay aswell, 8-2

tkauffm
05-03-2007, 01:50 AM
I tell this to people that don't really follow a lot of tennis. Your reasoning makes perfect sense to me. Don't worry about the haters, even this clear, coherent argument isn't going to stop them from b****ing

jelle v
05-03-2007, 01:52 AM
Of that 3-7 record, 5 matches were played on clay, 4 of those being clay finals, 1 on RG semifinals..0-1 on grass, 2-2 on hardcourts. Consistently appearing on clay court finals shows just how good Fed is on clay, although as of now, not as good as Nadal. But, Fed just hasn't been able to "win" back this rivalry precisely because Nadal hasn't really been to the finals of many grass and hardcourt events where Federer has the advantage (esp on grass). The point is, that 7-3 record is actually proof of how good Fed is, and NOT of assertions that "Nadal owns Fed"...On clay, Fed can come close to Nadal, but on other surfaces Nadal rarely comes close to playing with Federer on tournament finals to ever give him (Fed) the chance to win over Nadal.

Kim

Now.. I'm a Federer fan, but I'm gonna be advocate of the devil:

if the score is 7-3 for Nadal and 5 of those were on gravel, then there also were 5 matches on non-clay. So the score should be something like 5-5. The fact that it's 7-3 for Nadal, could mean that Nadal is closer to Federer on non-clay than Federer to Nadal on clay. So far, Nadal has been able to win 2 matches on non-clay in 5 matches.. Federer hasn't been able to win 1 in 5 matches on clay.

Sadly enough.. :(

Kim
05-03-2007, 02:09 AM
1-0 on GRASS.

You're forgetting the most important Fed advantage--GRASS. If they met more times on GRASS, I bet it would be, 5-0 on Grass (Fed's favor).

They are even on hard court 2-2, 0-5 on CLAY (Nadal's forte) and 1-0 on GRASS (Fed's forte). Its like hardcourts are in-between, while clay and grass are the extremes...they always meet on clay finals, but only met once on grass finals (but Fed's is ALWAYS on Grass finals :)). So it would still mean that, Fed is closer to Nadal on clay (since Fed is now always in clay finals), but Nadal is way off on grass (only once in final of Wimby 2006). As I pointed out, hardcourts are in-between.

tennis_hand
05-03-2007, 02:23 AM
people know it. don't assume people don't know it. search around then post this.

kimizz
05-03-2007, 02:24 AM
Its always possible to make an argument favoring the player you like. Federer 10slams, nadal 7-3,Nadal is younger, Federer cant tie the records because Nadal cannot reach a non-clay final, Where was Federer in the IW final this year...its all subjective. Like the sampras-fed rivalry. Sampras leads the GS records and Federer leads the h2h etc there is no end to this.

And to the OP, its not a new argument you came up with. I see it in all of the "I hate Nadal,I hate Federer topics"

And why the record is 1-0 on grass for Federer? Well there is 3 grass tournaments in a year, of these tournaments 2 are held at the same time. Isnt it ridicilous to expect that Nadal would have made it to a grass final with Federer 5 times? Hes 20 years old and grew up on clay.

I think its best to wait at least 3 years and then make some better conclusions. There is 2 things to look for in the future. Is Nadal going to take a GS title from AO,Wim or USO. If he can do it Rafa has a better chance to nr1 spot. The other question is how long Federer can dominate the non-clay season like he has done since 2004?

Zaragoza
05-03-2007, 03:53 AM
Now.. I'm a Federer fan, but I'm gonna be advocate of the devil:

if the score is 7-3 for Nadal and 5 of those were on gravel, then there also were 5 matches on non-clay. So the score should be something like 5-5. The fact that it's 7-3 for Nadal, could mean that Nadal is closer to Federer on non-clay than Federer to Nadal on clay. So far, Nadal has been able to win 2 matches on non-clay in 5 matches.. Federer hasn't been able to win 1 in 5 matches on clay.

Sadly enough.. :(

Exactly my thoughts.

JLyon
05-03-2007, 04:16 AM
Well look at who Federer has lost to over the last few years. A large majority are counterpunching shot-makers.
Nadal, Canas, Nalbandian, Murray, and could put Gasquet in there also.
Federer basically never loses to the big hitters (Roddick, Djovokic, etc..) with the one exception to Safin in the AO SF.

jaap deboeck
05-03-2007, 04:49 AM
Kim you would be good as a White House spokesperson explaining to the public how well the War in Iraq is really going!

illkhiboy
05-03-2007, 05:29 AM
Well look at who Federer has lost to over the last few years. A large majority are counterpunching shot-makers.
Nadal, Canas, Nalbandian, Murray, and could put Gasquet in there also.
Federer basically never loses to the big hitters (Roddick, Djovokic, etc..) with the one exception to Safin in the AO SF.

Why put Gasquet in there? He is more of shotmaker than a counterpuncher, if at all.
Federer losing to counter-punchers is a myth in my opinion. Nalbandian is not exactly the sort of guy who runs around all day and counter-punches. He plays strategically, and pounces at the right time. He can play very aggressive at times, and that's probably when he is at his best against Federer.
Nadal is an entirely different sort of a counterpuncher, who is basically the best retriever ever, and hits great offensive shots from defensive positions. Losing to him is not an example of a player faring worse against counterpunchers.
Canas is the one counterpuncher Federer has had trouble with lately. I think Canas got into Federer's head a bit and caught him on off-days - when is the last time Federer was missing his inside-out forehands by a foot before that Miami match?
I didn't see the Murray match, I wouldn't comment on it. According to reports I've read online, Federer was just really exhausted. He was making uncharacteristic mistakes off his favorite strokes and in that fatigued state, his victory to a supreme counterpuncher is not a great example of someone having 'trouble with counterpunchers.' Funny thing is, last year, people were talking about how a player with a good left wing is the key to Federer's problems. 2 losses and suddenly Federer dreads counter-punchers. Ask Lleyton Hewitt how much he really fears counterpunchers.
What about Federer's losses to Berdych at the Olympic games? Henman at Rotterdam? Hrbaty at Cincinatti?
What about Federer's great record against so many other counterpunchers in the game today?

caulcano
05-03-2007, 08:21 AM
Now.. I'm a Federer fan, but I'm gonna be advocate of the devil:

if the score is 7-3 for Nadal and 5 of those were on gravel, then there also were 5 matches on non-clay. So the score should be something like 5-5. The fact that it's 7-3 for Nadal, could mean that Nadal is closer to Federer on non-clay than Federer to Nadal on clay. So far, Nadal has been able to win 2 matches on non-clay in 5 matches.. Federer hasn't been able to win 1 in 5 matches on clay.

Sadly enough.. :(

It also means that the rest of the bunch are just waiting for scraps if either or both of them are in a tournament.

Also, if any of the bunch were to win a GS in the next few years, it would probably mean meeting either Nadal or Federer on the way to the title or more dauntingly both. Wouldn't that be something? Beating the #1 & #2.

kar<3Ty
05-03-2007, 09:31 AM
Kim you would be good as a White House spokesperson explaining to the public how well the War in Iraq is really going!

haha ouch

C'Mon Nadal!

Virtuous
05-03-2007, 10:56 AM
edit* Nadal won on grassclay aswell, 8-2
Yes, because we know all that 'grassclay' is legitimate surface...oh and that exhibitions count in the h2h, and Nadal that is 'ranked #1' now.

ferocious4hand
05-03-2007, 11:46 AM
a win is a win regardless of surface. fact is Nadal has Fed's number. END OF THREAD

ATXtennisaddict
05-03-2007, 11:49 AM
If Nadal met Fed in a grass final as many times as Fed met Nadal on a clay, the record would be just about even.

Unfortunately, the only possible time they'll meet is wimbledon. in the final.

While fed meets nadal at rome,monte carlo, FO

Kim
05-03-2007, 04:23 PM
Tsk tsk, here we go again about those pesky Fed haters....Ah no use, no use. NO USE.

Amone
05-03-2007, 08:19 PM
Kim, has anyone ever introduced you to the concept of a blind-spot?

The only particularly neutral surface for Fed/Nadal is cement, because Federer is strong on grass, and Nadal is strong on clay. On hard courts, they're even: 2 - 2. Whichever side you're on, the one thing we should all be able to agree on is that Federer is being challenged by Nadal, regardless of who you think will rise above in the end.

Alafter
05-03-2007, 09:02 PM
a win is a win regardless of surface. fact is Nadal has Fed's number. END OF THREAD

Has he called Federer yet?

Kim
05-03-2007, 09:05 PM
Amone, didn't I mention that hardcourts are their in-between surface and that they're 2-2 there? Hmm...I think I did.

jelle v
05-04-2007, 03:09 AM
Amone, didn't I mention that hardcourts are their in-between surface and that they're 2-2 there? Hmm...I think I did.

Their "in between surface", what is that supposed to mean.. that you consider them equal on hard-court? Federer always is favorite on hard-court. I don't really like Nadal, but whichever way you bend it.. it seems like Nadal is closer to Federer on non-clay than Federer is to Nadal on clay.

Kim
05-04-2007, 06:48 PM
Nadal is closer to GRASS to Fed than Fed is to Nadal on clay? Gimme a break...Has Nadal ever reached the finals of grass tournaments except with his joke of a draw in Wimby 2006?

I'm not bending anything...YOU want me to bend it for you, it seems.

Kim
05-04-2007, 06:49 PM
...Also, has Nadal reached as many finals on hardcourts as Fed has on clay? Hmmm...No.

Amone
05-04-2007, 06:53 PM
Nadal is closer to GRASS to Fed than Fed is to Nadal on clay? Gimme a break...Has Nadal ever reached the finals of grass tournaments except with his joke of a draw in Wimby 2006?

I'm not bending anything...YOU want me to bend it for you, it seems.

Alright, Kim, now you're just not reading.

To quote, jelle said "non-clay." Non clay is not both, it's the sum of.

Clay record, 5-0 Nadal.

Not-Clay record, 3-2 Federer.

The guy had a point.

Zaragoza
05-04-2007, 07:05 PM
...Also, has Nadal reached as many finals on hardcourts as Fed has on clay? Hmmm...No.

Not finals but titles:
Federer has won 3 MS on clay (Hamburg 2002,2004,2005 ).
Nadal has won 3 MS on hardcourts (Montreal 2005, Madrid 2005, Indian Wells 2007 ).
We will see how many MS or Grand Slams on hardcourts Nadal can win in the next 5 years (to make a fair comparison with Federerīs titles on clay at the same age).

Amone
05-04-2007, 07:25 PM
...Also, has Nadal reached as many finals on hardcourts as Fed has on clay? Hmmm...No.

You're entirely right, Kim. However, Federer has 3 years on Nadal. I cut it down to size, for your viewing pleasure. I didn't count Nadal's 2007 tournaments -- Therefor, my numbers are based on the 2001 (when he turned pro) to the 2006 tennis calandars.

Federer turned pro in 1998, so I counted his record up until 2003. Notice that those numbers are both the first 6 years of play.

Here are the numbers:

Rafael Nadal

6 - Hard court finals/titles (Auckland final, 2004. MS Canada, MS Madrid, Beijing titles, MS Miami final, 2005. Dubai title, 2006)


13 - Clay court finals/titles (irrelevant to the current discussion)

1 - Grass court final/title (Wimbledon final, 2006)

20 - Total finals/titles

---

Roger Federer

9 - Hard court finals/titles (also irrelevant)

4 - Clay court finals/titles (MS Hamburg title, 2002. Munich title, Gstaad and MS Rome finals, 2003)

1 - Grass court final/title (Halle title, 2003)

3 - "Carpet" court finals/titles (also irrelevant)

17 - Total finals/titles

---

If you want, I can cite the rest of the finals/titles that I left out as 'irrelevant.'

I find it interesting that using your measure (finals AND titles) that Federer and Nadal seem roughly equal [on grass courts, where Federer is the heavy favorite against anyone].

tlm
05-05-2007, 04:43 PM
Wait i thought fed is the greatest of all time.It should not matter what surface you play on if you are the goat.On hardcourts they are 2-2, how could this be possible?The greates player in the history of tennis is 3-7 against a 20 year old.Sounds to me like fed is no where near the goat!!!!

Nadal_Freak
05-05-2007, 04:53 PM
Federer has been in tennis longer than Nadal so of course he is going to have more titles. I don't agree that Nadal would lose to Federer everytime on grass. Nadal looked awesome in last years Wimbledon and played his worst match in the final or you could say his worst match was against that serve and volley player.

Amone
05-05-2007, 07:54 PM
Federer has been in tennis longer than Nadal so of course he is going to have more titles. I don't agree that Nadal would lose to Federer everytime on grass. Nadal looked awesome in last years Wimbledon and played his worst match in the final or you could say his worst match was against that serve and volley player.

There's no room for argument there. His worst match was his second round against Kendrick. He almost lost to some nobody outside the top 200? That's a horrifying match, especially for someone who went on to get to the finals.

Nadal_Freak
05-05-2007, 09:59 PM
There's no room for argument there. His worst match was his second round against Kendrick. He almost lost to some nobody outside the top 200? That's a horrifying match, especially for someone who went on to get to the finals.
Yeah but he came into Wimbledon with almost no experience after retiring against Hewitt with a shoulder injury. Once he got his game going he dominated everyone. Baghdatis got killed. Too bad Nadal couldn't put up his best game in the finals.

Kim
05-05-2007, 10:30 PM
Nadal DID put his best game on that Wimby final...He reached the finals in Wimby 2006 because of his JOKE of a draw. Gosh, these Nadal fanatics are too much.

Kim
05-05-2007, 10:31 PM
No more arguments here. Useless.

harrpau7
05-06-2007, 11:18 AM
Nadal DID put his best game on that Wimby final...He reached the finals in Wimby 2006 because of his JOKE of a draw. Gosh, these Nadal fanatics are too much.

No, Nadal got to the final because he was the better man in the previous 6 rounds, people also foget to mention that Federer had a couple of easy matches against Henman and Bjorkman.

Here is a different spin on it, look at Federer's route to the French Open final.....

R128 Hartfield, Diego (ARG) 157 7-5 7-6(2) 6-2
R64 Falla, Alejandro (COL) 139 6-1 6-4 6-3
R32 Massu, Nicolas (CHI) 35 6-1 6-2 6-7(4) 7-5
R16 Berdych, Tomas (CZE) 20 6-3 6-2 6-3
QF Ancic, Mario (CRO) 12 6-4 6-3 6-4 Stats
SF Nalbandian, David (ARG) 3 3-6 6-4 5-2 RET

Harldy difficult is it?

At the end of the day, Federer at the moment is the better player, 10 slams to 2, World Number 1 for 175 odd weeks, the stats don't lie, however when Nadal and Federer go head to head, Nadal has the edge at 7-3, irresptive of the surface, Nadal has won 70% of their matches, end of.

tlm
05-06-2007, 03:17 PM
We need to wait untill nadal has been playing as long as fed before you can make a fair comparison of thier careers.

skip1969
05-06-2007, 03:26 PM
jesus, not another fed nadal battle royale!

screw all the stats and the back and forth bullsh*t. when fed looks at himself in the mirror every day and asks, "Am I the best player in the world?" my guess is that he answers, "Yes."

i don't think anyone else can do the same.

federerfanatic
05-07-2007, 01:44 AM
Yeah but he came into Wimbledon with almost no experience after retiring against Hewitt with a shoulder injury. Once he got his game going he dominated everyone. Baghdatis got killed. Too bad Nadal couldn't put up his best game in the finals.

Actually it was Federer who did not put up his best game in the finals. Federer's performance in the final was his worst match of the whole tournament by far, and one of his worst matches of the year. Nadal played his best, but Federer is so much better then Nadal on grass Federer at his worst will still beat Nadal at his best. Nadal had a joke draw and took advantage of it. Yeah Fed would easily go 5-0 with Nadal on grass, in fact that is probably the only match Fed would have played awful enough for Nadal to sneak out a set.

GOD_BLESS_RAFA
05-07-2007, 01:54 AM
It's hard to compare them sometimes
Nadal is just out of his teens
Federer will enter his thirties soon...

dh003i
05-07-2007, 03:14 AM
Nadal is a challenge to Federer on clay, nothing else; in the sense of being an obstacle to the FO.

Overall, on all surfaces, over the past 2 years, Federer has many more titles than Nadal. Over the past 2 years not including this year, Federer has 5 slams, Nadal 2.

Swissv2
05-07-2007, 04:29 AM
Wait i thought fed is the greatest of all time.It should not matter what surface you play on if you are the goat.On hardcourts they are 2-2, how could this be possible?The greates player in the history of tennis is 3-7 against a 20 year old.Sounds to me like fed is no where near the goat!!!!

then that means Borg is no GOAT, just because of the fact he never won a US Open title. Honestly, is that how you think?

No tennis player is or has been "untouchable" on all surfaces, but the very fact that both #1 and #2 have proven much stronger than the rest of the field (just look at their points in the ATP race) goes to show this rivalry is no ordinary case.

Federer is consistently able to reach the Finals in all hardcourt-grass GS and win them no less, while Nadal becomes just a "strong contender" on hard courts (look at his last US Open run and his last Australian Open run).

While I enjoy the dominance of Nadal's clay game, I absolutely hate the Nadal "Fanatics" that go around honking their horn stating that Nadal is the GOAT - and in turn bash Federer who can at least get to the GS Finals of ALL surfaces. To me, the best person to learn how to play the clay court game is Nadal, but the best person to learn how to play the all around game is Federer.

kimizz
05-07-2007, 04:52 AM
I absolutely hate the Nadal "Fanatics" that go around honking their horn stating that Nadal is the GOAT - and in turn bash Federer who can at least get to the GS Finals of ALL surfaces. .

I havent seen many posts claiming Nadal is the GOAT. Nadal is a sensitive subject to federer fans cause the h2h records are so bad for Roger "K-FED" Federer.

I think most Nadal fans are saying he has a chance to win majors outside clay and the Federer fans disagree. And this debate gets ugly sometimes...

edmondsm
05-07-2007, 08:39 AM
Yeah no it's amazing, no Rafa fan has ever pointed out the head-to-head record. And I just found out today that bears don't actually poop in the woods.