PDA

View Full Version : Dominik Hrbaty is the true GOAT


Rhino
06-07-2009, 03:36 PM
So apparently according to some Nadal fans, winning 14 Grans Slams, including the career Grand Slam, does not make you the GOAT.

No, no, no... titles are nothing! It's all about head-2-head records, right? Because they tell the true story.

Which makes Dominik Hrbaty the true GOAT, because he has a winning head to head record against both Federer AND Nadal.

Wow, how stupid we were to think it was about actual achievements!

Federer is the GOAT. Get over it.

icestorm
06-07-2009, 03:37 PM
I've always believed Dominik Hrbaty is the true GOAT.

Radical Shot
06-07-2009, 03:40 PM
Hrbaty should retire ;-)

dincuss
06-07-2009, 03:47 PM
Hrbaty should retire ;-)

Unless he changes racquet heads;)

pricey_aus
06-07-2009, 03:48 PM
But Hrbaty has a loosing record against Marcos Daniel, which makes him the GOAT

Andyk028
06-07-2009, 03:51 PM
stupid thread..ive never even heard anyone argue that.

malakas
06-07-2009, 04:00 PM
Hrbaty is definitely the GOAT!!
His stylistic choices far surpass both Fed's man purse AND Nadal's pink shirt.
He's Goat.

Blinkism
06-07-2009, 04:06 PM
Nadal's h2h against Federer is an important factor in looking at Federer's career because the two men have faced each other in more finals than any other rivals in tennis history, and also because they've faced each other 20 times and Nadal's won 13 times.

Of those 13 times, 11 were in finals, and 6 were Grand Slam finals. That's pretty significant considering no one else ever beat Federer in that sense in his prime and especially no one has beaten Federer in Grand Slam finals (especially not in Wimbledon).

Also important is that Nadal took Federer's #1 rank and ended his hardcourt and grass court winning streaks.

I think that's more important and a better gauge of a man's career, rather than Dominik Hrbaty having a 2-1 h2h with Federer (beating him in 2000 when Fed was in his 2nd year on the pro tour, and a tight match in 2004 in Cincinatti, but losing when it really mattered in Wimbledon- but never in a final) or a 3-1 h2h with Nadal (one of which was on carpet at the very beginning of Nadal's career when he was 16, once in Nadal's first ever final on a hardcourt, and once when Nadal had to retire due to injury).

Not a very logical argument, IMO, Rhino... You're just making hollow analogies to prove a point. Totally misleading.

And, yes, I realize you're being sarcastic, but at the same time you're completely discrediting the Nadal-Federer h2h as being not an important gauge of whether or not Federer's the GOAT, when it is one of the many huge parts of his career. Tennis is a h2h sport, is it not?

Rhino
06-07-2009, 04:11 PM
I'm just trying to show that the H2H thing is way less significant than the winning titles thing.

And also the fact that so many of the match-ups are on clay makes it lop-sided. I mean if you take away clay - for example Blake has a winning head-2-head against Nadal too, because they never met on clay. Does that make Blake a better player than Nadal....?

vive le beau jeu !
06-07-2009, 04:11 PM
So apparently according to some Nadal fans, winning 14 Grans Slams, including the career Grand Slam, does not make you the GOAT.

No, no, no... titles are nothing! It's all about head-2-head records, right? Because they tell the true story.

Which makes Dominik Hrbaty the true GOAT, because he has a winning head to head record against both Federer AND Nadal.

Wow, how stupid we were to think it was about actual achievements!

Federer is the GOAT. Get over it.

Hrbaty is definitely the GOAT!!
His stylistic choices far surpass both Fed's man purse AND Nadal's pink shirt.
He's Goat.
NOBODY can beat that shirt. :)
http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/nm_hrbaty_060831_ssv.jpg

malakas
06-07-2009, 04:14 PM
NOBODY can beat that shirt. :)
http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/nm_hrbaty_060831_ssv.jpg

exactly what I was thinking.Noone can beat that.Definitely Goat!

Blinkism
06-07-2009, 04:16 PM
I'm just trying to show that the H2H thing is way less significant than the winning titles thing.

And also the fact that so many of the match-ups are on clay makes it lop-sided. I mean if you take away clay - for example Blake has a winning head-2-head against Nadal too, because they never met on clay. Does that make Blake a better player than Nadal....?

But Federer's the French Open and Madrid champion, surely he's got some mettle on clay.

I mean, on the same note, if you take away hardcourt/grass court from the match-ups, then Nadal TOTALLY dominates...

You can't adjust the facts to fit your vision of history. The fact is that Nadal has beaten Federer when it mattered, more so than Federer has beaten Nadal when it mattered, and that's a big asterisk next to his name when you're discussing his greatness in his own generation, nevermind of all time.

It's fair to say that Federer is the most ACCOMPLISHED tennis player of the open era, sure, but to say he is the greatest is not a foolproof argument and the H2H is a big reason why people can say he is not the GOAT, but rather that he is the most accomplished player of all time.

If Nadal, hypothetically, goes on to match all of Federer's big accomplishments (slam count, career slam, etc.) then he will have a much stronger argument as GOAT and the H2H will be a big part of it (even if Nadal has a losing record against Blake, because those matches were not as significant as the H2H between Nadal and Federer).

Having just a losing record against a player is not the be-all-end-all way to judge someone. A historically relevant H2H should be atleast 10+ matches and a good chunk should be significant matches such as finals. And if you're judging potential GOATs then we're talking about Slam finals, really.

That's why the Federer-Nadal H2H is significant and the Hrbaty-Nadal/Federer and Nadal-Blake H2H's are not. That's because they didn't influence the important parts of the opponent's career, whereas Nadal stopped Federer from winning a calendar Grand Slam, and stopped his various surface streaks, and took him off the top ranking spot. It's not fair to compare other H2H's, especially as insignificant as Hrabty's, with the Nadal-Federer H2H, which is probably on of the most, if not the most, significant, famous, and influental H2H's in tennis history!

bruce38
06-07-2009, 04:20 PM
Nadal's h2h against Federer is an important factor in looking at Federer's career because the two men have faced each other in more finals than any other rivals in tennis history, and also because they've faced each other 20 times and Nadal's won 13 times.

Of those 13 times, 11 were in finals, and 6 were Grand Slam finals. That's pretty significant considering no one else ever beat Federer in that sense in his prime and especially no one has beaten Federer in Grand Slam finals (especially not in Wimbledon).

Also important is that Nadal took Federer's #1 rank and ended his hardcourt and grass court winning streaks.

I think that's more important and a better gauge of a man's career, rather than Dominik Hrbaty having a 2-1 h2h with Federer (beating him in 2000 when Fed was in his 2nd year on the pro tour, and a tight match in 2004 in Cincinatti, but losing when it really mattered in Wimbledon- but never in a final) or a 3-1 h2h with Nadal (one of which was on carpet at the very beginning of Nadal's career when he was 16, once in Nadal's first ever final on a hardcourt, and once when Nadal had to retire due to injury).

Not a very logical argument, IMO, Rhino... You're just making hollow analogies to prove a point. Totally misleading.

And, yes, I realize you're being sarcastic, but at the same time you're completely discrediting the Nadal-Federer h2h as being not an important gauge of whether or not Federer's the GOAT, when it is one of the many huge parts of his career. Tennis is a h2h sport, is it not?

In the prime Fed years, had Nadal been good enough to reach more finals, Fed's H-2-H against Nadal would have likely been better or at worst closer. Hence the h2H you quote is skewed. In Nadal's prime now, Fed still makes the finals and likely will continue to do so. Nadal even in his prime will not do so as consistently - as proven by this year's FO.

Blinkism
06-07-2009, 04:34 PM
In the prime Fed years, had Nadal been good enough to reach more finals, Fed's H-2-H against Nadal would have likely been better or at worst closer. Hence the h2H you quote is skewed. In Nadal's prime now, Fed still makes the finals and likely will continue to do so. Nadal even in his prime will not do so as consistently - as proven by this year's FO.

Yes, but Federer's H2H is more significant in tennis history than Nadal's H2H is because Nadal was the one chasing Federer while he was on top. Nadal's been playing Federer since 2004, the beginning of Fed's prime, until now which is the tail-end of Fed's prime. Whereas, Nadal will keep playing for years, so Federer is a less important part of his prime and Nadal has been an important part of Federer's prime.

To say Federer is still not in his prime right now, though, is completely false as the man has just reached the last 5 Grand Slam finals and won 2 of those, including the French Open which has eluded him his ENTIRE career. Not prime? HA!

The H2H I quote is not skewed unless you consider Federer an incompetent claycourter and if you consider claycourt tennis as a less than important part of being the greatest tennis player of all time (and consider claycourt tennis as a lower form of tennis).

The fact is that Nadal presented Federer with a real important challenge 20 times and he was only able to overcome the challenge 7 times.

That's significant!

rosenstar
06-07-2009, 04:37 PM
I agree, the Fed/Nadal head to head stats cannot be used to argue that Federer is not at all the GOAT. Tennis is a series of head to head competitions, but it is also a series of match-ups. How do two players match up? How can player A handle player B's forehand?

Nadal has loses to blake, Youzney (SP?), Soderling, Gonzolez, and other players who tend to hit a flatter ball. Federer has dominated every one of these players.

The other thing that must be remembered is that Federer is slowly passing his peak, while Nadal is simaltainiosly approaching his. The match up favor's Nadal more and more every day.

Finally, for anyone who thinks Federer doesn't deserve this title, how can you say Nadal deserves it? He couldn't even beat a guy he nearly double bageled a week ago!

Federer is the most achieved player of the open era. He has broken/tied more records than anyone else, and deserves credit for that, regardless of his era

rosenstar
06-07-2009, 04:43 PM
Yes, but Federer's H2H is more significant in tennis history than Nadal's H2H is because Nadal was the one chasing Federer while he was on top. Nadal's been playing Federer since 2004, the beginning of Fed's prime, until now which is the tail-end of Fed's prime. Whereas, Nadal will keep playing for years, so Federer is a less important part of his prime and Nadal has been an important part of Federer's prime.

To say Federer is still not in his prime right now, though, is completely false as the man has just reached the last 5 Grand Slam finals and won 2 of those, including the French Open which has eluded him his ENTIRE career. Not prime? HA!

The H2H I quote is not skewed unless you consider Federer an incompetent claycourter and if you consider claycourt tennis as a less than important part of being the greatest tennis player of all time (and consider claycourt tennis as a lower form of tennis).

The fact is that Nadal presented Federer with a real important challenge 20 times and he was only able to overcome the challenge 7 times.

That's significant!

mmm disagree. Federer is not dominating as he once was, (though he is still a great player with even more to accomplish) I think his "prime" years officially ended when he lost to Novak Djokovic in the Australian open. Fed went 3 straight years with less than 10 losses a year. He already has 6 losses at the year's half way point. He won 2 less grand slams last year than 2 of the previous 3 years. He is still a force to be reckoned with, and no doubt one of the 3 best players on tour, but not in his "prime."

bruce38
06-07-2009, 04:43 PM
Yes, but Federer's H2H is more significant in tennis history than Nadal's H2H is because Nadal was the one chasing Federer while he was on top. Nadal's been playing Federer since 2004, the beginning of Fed's prime, until now which is the tail-end of Fed's prime. Whereas, Nadal will keep playing for years, so Federer is a less important part of his prime and Nadal has been an important part of Federer's prime.

To say Federer is still not in his prime right now, though, is completely false as the man has just reached the last 5 Grand Slam finals and won 2 of those, including the French Open which has eluded him his ENTIRE career. Not prime? HA!

The H2H I quote is not skewed unless you consider Federer an incompetent claycourter and if you consider claycourt tennis as a less than important part of being the greatest tennis player of all time (and consider claycourt tennis as a lower form of tennis).

The fact is that Nadal presented Federer with a real important challenge 20 times and he was only able to overcome the challenge 7 times.

That's significant!

Between 2004-2007 (Prime Fed), Fed played in 9 GS finals that Nadal FAILED to reach. Had Nadal been good enough to reach these, Fed's H2H record against would very likely be 16-13 in favor of Fed. Nadal failed to reach the finals of Fed's surfaces, whereas Fed reached the final of Nadal's surface. This leads it to be skewed. How can you not see this?

Blinkism
06-07-2009, 05:01 PM
Between 2004-2007 (Prime Fed), Fed played in 9 GS finals that Nadal FAILED to reach. Had Nadal been good enough to reach these, Fed's H2H record against would very likely be 16-13 in favor of Fed. Nadal failed to reach the finals of Fed's surfaces, whereas Fed reached the final of Nadal's surface. This leads it to be skewed. How can you not see this?

Because I thought this too until the Australian Open final when all I heard was, Nadal's tired, Federer's the GOAT on hardcourts, no way will Nadal win, blah blah.

It's conjecture to say Nadal wouldn't have beaten Federer if he had reached Hardcourt finals earlier in his career. It never happened so we don't know what the results would have been. I mean, Nadal managed to beat Federer in the 2004 Miami, the final of the 2006 Dubai tourney, and the Australian Open final in 2009. He's won the Canada Masters (identical court to US Open) twice! Madrid he won once. He won Indian Wells twice. He's reached the Miami finals twice and the Paris final once. Last I check, those were all Hard Court surfaces. On top of that he's won a title in Beijing and also the Olympics in Beijing, both on hard courts!!

Nadal's hardcourt resume might not be amazing, but it's basically on the same level as Federer's clay court career (minus a few slam finals, ofcourse).
Nadal might not be accomplished on grass, but he took his chops from Federer on that surface.

And Nadal DID reach the Wimbledon finals as soon as he could in his career, and last I checked 2 of Federer's 14 slams come from a victory in the final to none other than Rafael Nadal!!

In fact, if I use the same logic as some of you (adjusting facts to fit my argument) and consider the Master's Cup as a different surface (Indoor Hardcourts) then Federer was never ahead in the Hardcourt H2H with Nadal when it comes to outdoor Hardcourts (which, last I checked, is the surface of 2 of the 4 Grand Slams and has been for a while now...)

I do think that Federer is GOAT, don't get me wrong, but to completely discredit his H2H with Nadal is putting down a huge part of Nadal's accomplishments and Federer's shortcomings.

bruce38
06-07-2009, 05:43 PM
deleted post

bruce38
06-07-2009, 05:47 PM
Because I thought this too until the Australian Open final when all I heard was, Nadal's tired, Federer's the GOAT on hardcourts, no way will Nadal win, blah blah.

It's conjecture to say Nadal wouldn't have beaten Federer if he had reached Hardcourt finals earlier in his career. It never happened so we don't know what the results would have been. I mean, Nadal managed to beat Federer in the 2004 Miami, the final of the 2006 Dubai tourney, and the Australian Open final in 2009. He's won the Canada Masters (identical court to US Open) twice! Madrid he won once. He won Indian Wells twice. He's reached the Miami finals twice and the Paris final once. Last I check, those were all Hard Court surfaces. On top of that he's won a title in Beijing and also the Olympics in Beijing, both on hard courts!!

Nadal's hardcourt resume might not be amazing, but it's basically on the same level as Federer's clay court career (minus a few slam finals, ofcourse).
Nadal might not be accomplished on grass, but he took his chops from Federer on that surface.

And Nadal DID reach the Wimbledon finals as soon as he could in his career, and last I checked 2 of Federer's 14 slams come from a victory in the final to none other than Rafael Nadal!!

In fact, if I use the same logic as some of you (adjusting facts to fit my argument) and consider the Master's Cup as a different surface (Indoor Hardcourts) then Federer was never ahead in the Hardcourt H2H with Nadal when it comes to outdoor Hardcourts (which, last I checked, is the surface of 2 of the 4 Grand Slams and has been for a while now...)

I do think that Federer is GOAT, don't get me wrong, but to completely discredit his H2H with Nadal is putting down a huge part of Nadal's accomplishments and Federer's shortcomings.

#1) Non-majors don't count. Fed is a different beast in majors. He proved that this past weekend. Yes it is conjecture to say Nadal would have lost all of the finals with Fed in his prime, but most erudite fans will agree that in that time, Fed would likely have won most of them if not all of them (as he proved in Wimb 2006/2007). Nadal has only just won his first major on hardcourt so during that time he most likely would have lost to Fed, albeit conjecture. Hence the record would likely not be so skewed as it is.

#2) minus a few slam finals for Nadal is perhaps the most significant thing you seem to overlook. Getting to slam finals is what it is all about next to winning them.

#3) Nadal failing to get to the FO final this year proves all of the above about the H2H being skewed. Fed continues to get there, while Nadal lost to a nobody like Soderling, fairly easily. Maybe he was injured, tired, blah blah blah. Funny, we never heard anything like that from Fed during 2004-2007. If Nadal had gotten to the final this year you would say he would have won, but that too is conjecture as you pointed out on my part. Likely he would have won and his H2H record would have improved once again skewing it, since Fed continues to get to the finals on Nadal's surface.

And now this year Nadal may miss Wimbledon, and Fed will probably get to the final again, once again preventing Fed from improving his record against Nadal. I'm not saying he would beat Nadal for sure, but at least he has the opportunity to improve it. Nadal doesn't get there. He likely won't this year. Just wait and see.

Blinkism
06-07-2009, 05:54 PM
#1) Non-majors don't count. Fed is a different beast in majors. He proved that this past weekend. Yes it is conjecture to say Nadal would have lost all of the finals with Fed in his prime, but most erudite fans will agree that in that time, Fed would likely have won most of them if not all of them (as he proved in Wimb 2006/2007). Nadal has only just won his first major on hardcourt so during that time he most likely would have lost to Fed, albeit conjecture. Hence the record would likely not be so skewed as it is.

#2) minus a few slam finals for Nadal is perhaps the most significant thing you seem to overlook. Getting to slam finals is what it is all about next to winning them.

#3) Nadal failing to get to the FO final this year proves all of the above about the H2H being skewed. Fed continues to get there, while Nadal lost to a nobody like Soderling, fairly easily. Maybe he was injured, tired, blah blah blah. Funny, we never heard anything like that from Fed during 2004-2007. If Nadal had gotten to the final this year you would say he would have won, but that too is conjecture as you pointed out on my part. Likely he would have won and his H2H record would have improved once again skewing it, since Fed continues to get to the finals on Nadal's surface.

And now this year Nadal may miss Wimbledon, and Fed will probably get to the final again, once again preventing Fed from improving his record against Nadal. I'm not saying he would beat Nadal for sure, but at least he has the opportunity to improve it. Nadal doesn't get there. He likely won't this year. Just wait and see.

1. The most erudite of posters would know conjecture and assumptions don't make for solid argument because they form no mutual basis for discussion.

2. You're making it sound like Nadal amassed a big H2H by winning all of his clay matches against Federer at Roland Garros. He only did this for 4 out of 9 of his victories on clay. He did this against a guy who had won a clay masters before he ever even won a tournament (also, Federer was in the Rome final before Nadal hit the scene, and lost to Mantilla + The French Open quarters before Rafa ever played there).

3. "If Nadal had gotten to the final this year you would say he would have won, but that too is conjecture as you pointed out on my part."
You're right, that is conjecture because I wouldn't say that and you have no proof I would. Nadal's injuries don't take away from the fact he beat Federer when it mattered and stood in the way of history. His wins over Federer are more significant than Federer's wins over him (to be fair Fed stopped Nadal's clay streak and stopped him from getting the clay triple this year). The fact that the injury riddled Nadal managed to amass a winning record against the very dominant and healthy Federer is a credit to Nadal, I think. Perhaps if Nadal didn't get injured so much in his career he would have had more practice and experience on grass and on hardcourts, and he would have been a better player at an earlier stage in his career. Oh wait, that's just more conjecture (oops!!).

Are you telling me that Nadal beating Federer 4 years in a row, (stopping him from winning the calendar slam on 2 of those occasions, and the calendar slam on all of those occasions), beating him at Wimbledon (stopping him from getting consecutive record), and beating him at Australia (stopping Fed from tying Sampras's record, which he ultimately did anyways without facing Rafa in the FO, and tying the record for most AO titles) aren't significant losses in Federer's career?

Also, losing his #1 spot is something that is a direct result of his losses to Nadal.

All of this is proof that Nadal single-handidly affected Federer's career for the worse. That's something significant to acknowledge, instead of just disregarding it!

Like I said, tennis is a head-to-head sport. Match-ups or not, the Greatest Of All Time should also be great enough to figure out a way to win when it matters and adopt a new strategy when it matters to beat his rivals. If he fails to do this, then it's only fair people can use that against him when discussing whether or not he is the GOAT. I mean, Nadal and Federer had played each other 8 times before he had lost to Nadal 5 times in a row before finally beating him in Madrid!!

Again, I'm not saying Federer is not the GOAT, i'm just saying that the H2H should be a part of the discussion.

prosealster
06-07-2009, 06:22 PM
So apparently according to some Nadal fans, winning 14 Grans Slams, including the career Grand Slam, does not make you the GOAT.

No, no, no... titles are nothing! It's all about head-2-head records, right? Because they tell the true story.

Which makes Dominik Hrbaty the true GOAT, because he has a winning head to head record against both Federer AND Nadal.

Wow, how stupid we were to think it was about actual achievements!

Federer is the GOAT. Get over it.

i think it's mostly sampras fans not nadal fans are putting the emphasis on the h2h...
but since we r talking about the GOAT...it's haarhuis since he has a winning h2h against sampras who has a winning h2h vs hrbaty :)

bruce38
06-07-2009, 06:28 PM
1. The most erudite of posters would know conjecture and assumptions don't make for solid argument because they form no mutual basis for discussion.

2. You're making it sound like Nadal amassed a big H2H by winning all of his clay matches against Federer at Roland Garros. He only did this for 4 out of 9 of his victories on clay. He did this against a guy who had won a clay masters before he ever even won a tournament (also, Federer was in the Rome final before Nadal hit the scene, and lost to Mantilla + The French Open quarters before Rafa ever played there).

3. "If Nadal had gotten to the final this year you would say he would have won, but that too is conjecture as you pointed out on my part."
You're right, that is conjecture because I wouldn't say that and you have no proof I would. Nadal's injuries don't take away from the fact he beat Federer when it mattered and stood in the way of history. His wins over Federer are more significant than Federer's wins over him (to be fair Fed stopped Nadal's clay streak and stopped him from getting the clay triple this year). The fact that the injury riddled Nadal managed to amass a winning record against the very dominant and healthy Federer is a credit to Nadal, I think. Perhaps if Nadal didn't get injured so much in his career he would have had more practice and experience on grass and on hardcourts, and he would have been a better player at an earlier stage in his career. Oh wait, that's just more conjecture (oops!!).

Are you telling me that Nadal beating Federer 4 years in a row, (stopping him from winning the calendar slam on 2 of those occasions, and the calendar slam on all of those occasions), beating him at Wimbledon (stopping him from getting consecutive record), and beating him at Australia (stopping Fed from tying Sampras's record, which he ultimately did anyways without facing Rafa in the FO, and tying the record for most AO titles) aren't significant losses in Federer's career?

Also, losing his #1 spot is something that is a direct result of his losses to Nadal.

All of this is proof that Nadal single-handidly affected Federer's career for the worse. That's something significant to acknowledge, instead of just disregarding it!

Like I said, tennis is a head-to-head sport. Match-ups or not, the Greatest Of All Time should also be great enough to figure out a way to win when it matters and adopt a new strategy when it matters to beat his rivals. If he fails to do this, then it's only fair people can use that against him when discussing whether or not he is the GOAT. I mean, Nadal and Federer had played each other 8 times before he had lost to Nadal 5 times in a row before finally beating him in Madrid!!

Again, I'm not saying Federer is not the GOAT, i'm just saying that the H2H should be a part of the discussion.

I wrote a detailed response here but it got lost and too lazy to type it in again. The gist was that only H2H in majors counts, because only majors count in assessing a player's greatness. Nadal's H2H is majors is better because Fed got to more clay finals than Nadal on other surfaces. Now he doesn't even get to clay finals. H2H will be meaningless when this era is passed. Only the number of majors on difference surfaces will matter.

ClarkC
06-07-2009, 06:59 PM
A deceiving part of head to head comparisons can be the fact that two players might meet more often on the favorite surface of one of them, which is actually to the credit of the OTHER player for making it that far in a tourney on his bad surface.

For example, Lendl was 11-10 vs. Becker in their careers, and 13-14 vs. Edberg. But that includes only 1-0 on clay vs. Becker and 0-0 vs. Edberg, because Becker and Edberg could not consistently get far enough on clay to play Lendl, whereas Lendl could get far enough on grass to play Edberg and Becker. Thus, their apparently even head-to-head is deceptive, and Lendl's greater career accomplishments reflect his greater ability across all surfaces.

Also, Becker and Edberg were very streaky players. They could be on fire and do great, or fizzle out early in a tournament. Lendl was so consistent and such a hard worker, fitness freak, etc., that he would make the semis even when he seemed to be having a bad tournament. So, these other players got to pad their records when they were hot and he really wasn't. Yet, they could only get to the even mark head to head.

Let's look at all of Nadal's head to head records after he makes 20 consecutive grand slam semifinals.

Blinkism
06-07-2009, 07:07 PM
I wrote a detailed response here but it got lost and too lazy to type it in again. The gist was that only H2H in majors counts, because only majors count in assessing a player's greatness. Nadal's H2H is majors is better because Fed got to more clay finals than Nadal on other surfaces. Now he doesn't even get to clay finals. H2H will be meaningless when this era is passed. Only the number of majors on difference surfaces will matter.

Ok, that's fair... but that would make Nadal-Federer 2-2 in non-clay major finals.

.. and Nadal leads 1-0 on hardcourts?

You need to look at the rest of their H2H to see that the 1-0 on hardcourts in not representative of their careers, so that's why I think h2h in majors matter, but looking at the rest of the h2h is important too. Especially when they've had epic matches in Master's tourney's.

Anyways, I think I made my point, which was that Nadal's H2H with Federer shouldn't be left out of the discussion. Let's agree to disagree, then?

bruce38
06-07-2009, 07:21 PM
Ok, that's fair... but that would make Nadal-Federer 2-2 in non-clay major finals.

.. and Nadal leads 1-0 on hardcourts?

You need to look at the rest of their H2H to see that the 1-0 on hardcourts in not representative of their careers, so that's why I think h2h in majors matter, but looking at the rest of the h2h is important too. Especially when they've had epic matches in Master's tourney's.

Anyways, I think I made my point, which was that Nadal's H2H with Federer shouldn't be left out of the discussion. Let's agree to disagree, then?

Yes Nadal leads 1-0 on hardcourts because he never made the finals of the previous 8 finals (3 Aus, 5 USO) that fed won on hard courts. My conjecture (which I think most would agree with) is that Fed would have won the majority of those). He also never made the finals of 3/5 wimbledon's, and 3/4 Aussie opens. Yes we all know Rafa dominates on clay, and Fed provides the opportunity for Rafa to display his prowess thus improving his H2H. Rafa does not reciprocate. As the previous poster stated, let's see what Nadal's H2H's are when he has made 20 CONSECUTIVE Major's semis. Then we'll talk.

JennyS
06-07-2009, 07:38 PM
In the prime Fed years, had Nadal been good enough to reach more finals, Fed's H-2-H against Nadal would have likely been better or at worst closer. Hence the h2H you quote is skewed. In Nadal's prime now, Fed still makes the finals and likely will continue to do so. Nadal even in his prime will not do so as consistently - as proven by this year's FO.

That's a good point. Plus, i think this is important: Federer is five years older than Nadal. In tennis that's a huge age difference. Pete and Andre were one year apart.

royer
06-07-2009, 09:50 PM
NOBODY can beat that shirt. :)
http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/nm_hrbaty_060831_ssv.jpg

Yeah, ... "HER BODY!" How fitting!

timnz
06-07-2009, 11:50 PM
Like comparing Connors - Lendl head to head when Connors was 7.5 year older

Also there is not balance in their rivalry - the majority of their matches have been on clay - Federer's weakest surface.

The shame is that Indoor Carpet is a disappearing surface. I don't think Nadal would win more than 3 out of 10 against Federer on that surface.