PDA

View Full Version : Federer's record would look much better if he was a poorer clay court player


timnz
05-09-2009, 09:38 PM
Federer has played Nadal 10 times on Clay and only won once. And everyone of those matches except one have been in the final of a tournament. But if he had been more like Sampras and lost many times early in French open and then never got to face Nadal, then his record against his main rival would be something like 5 to Federer, 4 to Nadal.

If Sampras had been better at Clay but not the best, like #2, and consistently lost to a dominant clay courter in finals, then his record would be more tarnished.

Ironically Federer being so good an all rounder actually hurts him.

Blinkism
05-09-2009, 11:42 PM
Federer only leads their H2H on grass, 2-1.

Otherwise their hard-court h2h is tied at 3-3.

So Federer would lead 5-4, but we'd have to consider the fact that they'd probably play at least ONCE on clay. And if Federer was a poorer clay courter, he'd lose that match for sure and the h2h would be 5-5.

So even in a hypothetical world, Federer could only be better than Nadal if they NEVER met on clay. And even then he is only slightly better than Nadal.

And people would still say things like "Federer's record is only so even because he never had to play the king of clay on clay, otherwise his record would be something like 13-6!!!!"

Sephiroth_FFVII
05-10-2009, 12:33 AM
Federer only leads their H2H on grass, 2-1.

Otherwise their hard-court h2h is tied at 3-3.

So Federer would lead 5-4, but we'd have to consider the fact that they'd probably play at least ONCE on clay. And if Federer was a poorer clay courter, he'd lose that match for sure and the h2h would be 5-5.

So even in a hypothetical world, Federer could only be better than Nadal if they NEVER met on clay. And even then he is only slightly better than Nadal.

And people would still say things like "Federer's record is only so even because he never had to play the king of clay on clay, otherwise his record would be something like 13-6!!!!"

Being #1 and #2 they wouldn't meet until the final even if Fed was a bad clay court player...did Sampras make any clay tournament finals at all?

Blinkism
05-10-2009, 12:47 AM
Being #1 and #2 they wouldn't meet until the final even if Fed was a bad clay court player...did Sampras make any clay tournament finals at all?

Sampras won the Rome Master's series title, so yes.

But Sampras met many of his rivals on clay, regardless of if it was in a final. The 2005 FO Semi might have still happened in Federer wasn't that great on clay. Sampras made the semi at the French Open.

And neither's career is over yet, so there's still the hypothetical situation that Federer's ranking ensures that his seeding puts him, hypothetically, into the same half of the draw as Nadal.

It'd be ridiculous to think that Federer, in this hypothetical world, wouldn't have met Nadal on clay at least ONCE in his entire career.

jelle v
05-10-2009, 01:28 AM
Sampras won the Rome Master's series title, so yes.

But Sampras met many of his rivals on clay, regardless of if it was in a final. The 2005 FO Semi might have still happened in Federer wasn't that great on clay. Sampras made the semi at the French Open.

And neither's career is over yet, so there's still the hypothetical situation that Federer's ranking ensures that his seeding puts him, hypothetically, into the same half of the draw as Nadal.

It'd be ridiculous to think that Federer, in this hypothetical world, wouldn't have met Nadal on clay at least ONCE in his entire career.

I think your missing the point of this thread.. point is that the Sampraslovers on this board keep hammering on the argument that Federer isn't the GOAT, because of his losing record to Nadal. But he only has such a big losing record to Nadal because Federer is good enough to meet his main rival Nadal on Nadal's strongest surface and Federer's weakest surface. Sampras never even got far on his weakest surface so he has no main (clay)rival to whom he could build a losing record. Sampraslovers put forward this argument of the losing record to argue that Federer couldn't be the GOAT, that's the world upside down..

P_Agony
05-10-2009, 01:31 AM
Federer only leads their H2H on grass, 2-1.

Otherwise their hard-court h2h is tied at 3-3.

So Federer would lead 5-4, but we'd have to consider the fact that they'd probably play at least ONCE on clay. And if Federer was a poorer clay courter, he'd lose that match for sure and the h2h would be 5-5.

So even in a hypothetical world, Federer could only be better than Nadal if they NEVER met on clay. And even then he is only slightly better than Nadal.

And people would still say things like "Federer's record is only so even because he never had to play the king of clay on clay, otherwise his record would be something like 13-6!!!!"

I disagree. Federer's losses to Nadal on clay affected his confidence and results on other surfaces. If Federer never met Nadal on clay, I'm not sure he'd lose Wimbly 2008 and (especially) AO 2009. Federer now losses to Nadal on all surfaces. Part of it is because Nadal is an improved player and Federer isn't as good as he once was, and part of it is because Federer isn't in the match mentally. I have never seen Federer DF in set point unless it's against Nadal, for example.

TennisandMusic
05-10-2009, 01:53 AM
I think your missing the point of this thread.. point is that the Sampraslovers on this board keep hammering on the argument that Federer isn't the GOAT, because of his losing record to Nadal. But he only has such a big losing record to Nadal because Federer is good enough to meet his main rival Nadal on Nadal's strongest surface and Federer's weakest surface. Sampras never even got far on his weakest surface so he has no main (clay)rival to whom he could build a losing record. Sampraslovers put forward this argument of the losing record to argue that Federer couldn't be the GOAT, that's the world upside down..

I really don't think there even NEEDS to be a "GOAT" argument. It's futile. First off, no one will EVER agree. Secondly, you can't REALLY pick a greatest of all time. Sampras is one of the greatest. So is Federer. So is Nadal really, though his achievements aren't up to theirs. Isn't that sort of enough? It's just a game, meant for entertainment.

You know I think once both players are done and gone, BOTH sides of fans will wish we could see them play again. So we should all be enjoying it while we have it.

Blinkism
05-10-2009, 02:26 AM
I disagree. Federer's losses to Nadal on clay affected his confidence and results on other surfaces. If Federer never met Nadal on clay, I'm not sure he'd lose Wimbly 2008 and (especially) AO 2009. Federer now losses to Nadal on all surfaces. Part of it is because Nadal is an improved player and Federer isn't as good as he once was, and part of it is because Federer isn't in the match mentally. I have never seen Federer DF in set point unless it's against Nadal, for example.

I agree, actually. There's always too many ifs and buts and extra scenario's to bring in, that we wouldn't know how the whole thing would have turned out.

I agree with your points about Wimby 2008 and AO 2009. At the same time, though, maybe Federer's initial confidence at the beginning of his career had something to do with his first big title in Hamburg on clay and his first QF at a Grand Slam at Roland Garros?

Too many if's!

Blinkism
05-10-2009, 02:29 AM
I think your missing the point of this thread.. point is that the Sampraslovers on this board keep hammering on the argument that Federer isn't the GOAT, because of his losing record to Nadal. But he only has such a big losing record to Nadal because Federer is good enough to meet his main rival Nadal on Nadal's strongest surface and Federer's weakest surface. Sampras never even got far on his weakest surface so he has no main (clay)rival to whom he could build a losing record. Sampraslovers put forward this argument of the losing record to argue that Federer couldn't be the GOAT, that's the world upside down..

Yes, but Nadal would have been Federer's biggest rival regardless of clay. Just like Sampras's biggest rival was Agassi, and they played on clay a few times.

My biggest thing, though, is why people leave out a surface in their criteria for the Greatest Tennis Players of All Time?

Clay Tennis is still Tennis. It's an integral part of Tennis and just because the guy you're rooting for can't be the best on a certain surface doesn't mean it's less important than any other.

A GOAT should not have a big weakness on any surface. They should be better than everyone on any Tennis court.

VictorS.
05-10-2009, 05:54 PM
Federer has played Nadal 10 times on Clay and only won once. And everyone of those matches except one have been in the final of a tournament. But if he had been more like Sampras and lost many times early in French open and then never got to face Nadal, then his record against his main rival would be something like 5 to Federer, 4 to Nadal.

If Sampras had been better at Clay but not the best, like #2, and consistently lost to a dominant clay courter in finals, then his record would be more tarnished.

Ironically Federer being so good an all rounder actually hurts him.

I agree with you totally. There definitely is a lot that can be taken from looking at head-to-head match-ups. However, they can sometimes be deceiving. I think between 2004-7, Federer was unquestionably the best player in the game. People forget that during this time Nadal lacked the consistency on other surfaces. Therefore it was extremely difficult for Federer to even get a crack at him on surfaces other than clay. There's no doubt that Nadal is a tough match-up for Federer. However, I think the record could've easily been a lot closer.

Swissv2
05-10-2009, 06:11 PM
I disagree with the OP. Federer went to the FO FINALS for 3 years in a row. He can challenge any other player on clay. If Federer lost easily to any other player than Nadal on clay, then that hurts him more, i.e. confidence in getting to the finals is a BIG boost for Federer's game.

Unfortunately, Nadal has yet to show signs of weakness on clay.