PDA

View Full Version : Fed-Rafa H2H w/o clay bias: Rafa still better

GustafsonFanatic
11-25-2009, 10:48 PM
Since Fedfans are saying that H2H is skewed because of all the clay matches, consider what the H2H would be if they met proportionally on all surfaces.

Let's take Federer in 2008 (this is all very approximate, of course)

Federer played 20 tournaments: 2 on grass, 5 on clay, 13 on hardcourts.

So if Federer played Rafa in every single one of them, there would be 2 matches, 5 on clay, and 13 on hardcourts. Agree?

So, the frequency of the surfaces is:

Grass: 2/20 = 0.1
Clay: 5/20 = 0.25
Hard: 13/20 = 0.65

Now, look at their H2H:

Grass: 2-1 Fed
Clay: 9-2 Rafa
Hard: 3-3

Next step, multiple the wins by frequency of each surface:

Federer:

Grass: 2*0.1 = 0.2
Clay: 2*0.25 = 0.5
Hard: 3*0.65 = 1.95
Total = 0.2+0.5+1.95 = 2.65

Grass: 1*0.1 = 0.1
Clay: 9*0.25 = 2.25
Hard: 3*0.65 = 1.95
Total = 0.1+2.25+1.95 = 4.3

As you can see, 4.3>2.65, Rafa would still have a positive H2H even if they played on all surfaces with corresponding frequency.

Any way you look at it, Nadal is simply better in H2H.

This has nothing to do with the number of slams won by each player. Federer has way more slams right now and he will definitely have more at the end of their careers.

GustafsonFanatic
11-25-2009, 10:52 PM
This took me no more than 5 minutes.

If you find it too complicated, just look at it this way:

1) HC is the most frequent surface and on HC, H2H is 3-3, equal
2) There are more tournaments on clay than on grass, and Nadal leads the H2H on clay by a huge margin (9-2) whereas Fed leads on grass by just 2-1, so Nadal's clay wins overwhelm Fed's wins on grass.

11-25-2009, 10:54 PM
Not to mention, Federer leads their non-clay H2H by just 1 match. Even if they just met 2 times on clay, the most likely scenario would be that Nadal would win both those matches and lead the H2H

Also, before anyone gets into anything about how Nadal's success on other surfaces against Federer is because of his mental edge on clay translating into other surfaces, don't forget that

in their first 2 matches that a 17 year old Nadal, first, put the beatdown in less than an hour on Federer (just fresh from winning the AO and reaching #1) in Miami and, a year later, almost beat Fed in straights in the final.

This was all before Nadal had begun his prominence as a clay-courter. At this point, Federer had achieved more on clay (1 Master's title, 1 Master's final, 1 QF appearance at the FO as opposed to no Master's finals on clay or appearances at the FO for Nadal). Their first 2 matches were on hardcourts and already Nadal was getting into Fed's head.

Their next 2 matches were split on clay and hardcourts. First, Nadal denied Fed his first chance to reach a FO final and then he beat him in Dubai. Already, 3/4 of their matches were on HC's and Nadal, overall, was the superior in 2 of those matches.

People exaggerate the impact of clay on the Nadal-Federer rivalry.

The fact is that Nadal was always able to compete with Federer on HC's and on Grass. Federer was also able to compete with Rafa on clay, many of their matches being very close- but, at the end of the day, what matters is the victory. Nadal fully deserves all of the matches he won and it's not fear to pretend like the H2H is meaningless and their rivalry is just the result of Nadal's clay court prowess. Forget clay courts for a second- who has ever challenged a prime Federer on hardcourts like Nadal did? For sure, no one challenged Fed on grass like Nadal did.

lawrence
11-25-2009, 10:56 PM
edit: nevermind

Agassifan
11-25-2009, 10:57 PM
If it makes you sleep better, so be it.

GustafsonFanatic
11-25-2009, 10:57 PM
Not to mention, Federer leads their non-clay H2H by just 1 match.

Even if they just met 2 times on clay, the most likely scenario would be that Nadal would win both those matches and lead the H2H

Also, before anyone gets into anything about how Nadal's success on other surfaces against Federer is because of his mental edge on clay translating into other surfaces, don't forget that

in their first 2 matches Nadal, first, put the beatdown in less than an hour on Federer (just fresh from winning the AO and reaching #1) and almost beat Fed in straights in Miami

Their next 2 matches were split on clay and hardcourts.

First Nadal denied Fed his first chance to reach a FO final and then he beat him in Dubai.

Already, 3/4 of their matches were on HC's and Nadal, overall, was the superior in 2 of those matches.

People exaggerate the impact of clay on the Nadal-Federer rivalry.

The fact is that Nadal was always able to compete with Federer on HC's and on Grass.

Federer was also able to compete with Rafa on clay, many of their matches being very close- but, at the end of the day, what matters is the victory.

I agree. I mean, it's obvious just looking at their HC H2H. It's equal (3-3) and Nadal is much superior on clay than Fed on grass.

This doesn't mean that Nadal is more GOAT than Fed. It's just that the clay is not that much of an impact on H2H, as you say.

GustafsonFanatic
11-25-2009, 10:59 PM
I think you missed the whole important part where you multiply the hard and grass values to match up with the clay to get the proper result.

My brain is a bit too dead to think atm so I'll let you do this and post back after

What do you mean? :confused:

You just take the frequency of the surface and multiply it by the number of wins on that surface.

11-25-2009, 11:03 PM
I agree. I mean, it's obvious just looking at their HC H2H. It's equal (3-3) and Nadal is much superior on clay than Fed on grass.

This doesn't mean that Nadal is more GOAT than Fed. It's just that the clay is not that much of an impact on H2H, as you say.

No, obviously it doesn't.

I just feel, sometimes, that people discredit the H2H to put down Nadal more than put down any argument that Nadal is GOAT (what sane poster actually argues that?).

lawrence
11-25-2009, 11:05 PM
Yeah you have your point, but basically it's telling us what we already knew right?

Nadal is a LOT better on clay over Federer than Federer is on grass over Nadal.

GustafsonFanatic
11-25-2009, 11:10 PM
No, obviously it doesn't.

I just feel, sometimes, that people discredit the H2H to put down Nadal more than put down any argument that Nadal is GOAT (what sane poster actually argues that?).

I wonder what they think about Rafa's H2H vs Novak, which is 14-6 (just 1 more win for Rafa than 13-7). Djokovic actually leads 6-5 when you discard the clay.

Is 14-6 close?

I just feel, sometimes, that people discredit the H2H to put down Nadal more than put down any argument that Nadal is GOAT (what sane poster actually argues that?).

I dont' know. Does anyone?

David L
11-25-2009, 11:20 PM
Yes, because h2hs reflect the comparative ability of players much more than titles won, which is why Paul Haarhuis and Richard Krajicek, for example, are better than Sampras.

GustafsonFanatic
11-25-2009, 11:26 PM
Yes, because h2hs reflect the comparative ability of players much more than titles won, which is why Paul Haarhuis and Richard Krajicek, for example, are better than Sampras.

Who said that?

I heard a lot of complaining about how Nadal leads H2H just because they played too many clay matches. That's not true.

That's the only thing I'm addressing. Look at my other posts if you think I'm a ********.

TennisVeritas
11-25-2009, 11:33 PM
Since Fedfans are saying that H2H is skewed because of all the clay matches, consider what the H2H would be if they met proportionally on all surfaces.

Let's take Federer in 2008 (this is all very approximate, of course):oops::oops:

.....

As you can see, 4.3>2.65, Rafa would still have a positive H2H even if they played on all surfaces with corresponding frequency.

Any way you look at it, Nadal is simply better in H2H.

This has nothing to do with the number of slams won by each player. Federer has way more slams right now and he will definitely have more at the end of their careers.

Quite pathetic really..I mean why are you taking the '08 as a reference season to judge about the H2H between these two great players? Is your agenda to tarnish FED's stats!!

It is like judge Rafa's career based on his worst (half) a season, i.e. the '09 one after RG...What is the purpose of your "work" if not winding up FED's fans..

Give us a break: FEDvs Rafa stats are clearly biased by the surface factor and this is in my opinion a fact (how many time they had the opportunity to play one against the other in the US summer events when FED was at his best.. Think about that)..

David L
11-25-2009, 11:35 PM
Who said that?

I heard a lot of complaining about how Nadal leads H2H just because they played too many clay matches. That's not true.

That's the only thing I'm addressing. Look at my other posts if you think I'm a ********.
No, people say the h2h is lopsided because of the disproportionate number of matches played on clay. That is true.

Maybe you did not mean Nadal is literally better and was only referring to the h2h, but the title is a tad unclear in this regard:

'Fed-Rafa H2H w/o clay bias: Rafa still better'

GustafsonFanatic
11-25-2009, 11:39 PM
Quite pathetic really..I mean why are you taking the '08 as a reference season to judge about the H2H between these two great players? Is your agenda to tarnish FED's stats!!

It is like judge Rafa's career based on his worst (half) a season, i.e. the '09 one after RG...What is the purpose of your "work" if not winding up FED's fans..

Give us a break: FEDvs Rafa stats are clearly biased by the surface factor and this is in my opinion a fact (how many time they had the opportunity to play one against the other in the US summer events when FED was at his best.. Think about that)..

If you want, you can divide the hardcourts into slow and fast, and do an even more detailed analysis.

You say that they played too many mathces in 2008 when Fed was at his worst. That's true, but they played each other since 2004 when Rafa was 17!!!

They also played 8 matches from 2004 to 2006 (during Fed's absolute prime). Was Rafa in his prime in those years? When he was 20, and before that?

GustafsonFanatic
11-25-2009, 11:42 PM
No, people say the h2h is lopsided because of the disproportionate number of matches played on clay. That is true.

Maybe you did not mean Nadal is literally better and was only referring to the h2h, but the title is a tad unclear in this regard:

'Fed-Rafa H2H w/o clay bias: Rafa still better'

I mean better in H2H (in actual matches he plays against Fed, regardless of surface), not tennis ability or success. Fed obviously had more success and Rafa will not match him by the end of his career.

What would you call Rafa's h2H with Djokovic (14-6, and 9 matches on clay)? Ownage, lopsided, equal?

namelessone
11-25-2009, 11:46 PM
If I remember correctly,they are 13-7 in the h2h with 11 matches on clay and 9 on non-clay surfaces. Rafa leads the clay with 9-2 and Roger the non-clay with 5-4 on non-clay surfaces. 5-4 is still pretty close. Let's say for the sake of argument that Rafa was in his HC prime in the 2004(their first HC meeting)-2207(their last HC meeting outside of AO 09' where presumably fed wasn't in his prime). They shared their victories quite evenly on non-clay surfaces though one expected to obliterate Nadal on those. 2-1 on grass for Fed and 3-3 on HC. And they usually went to 5 sets outside of clay,there were 5 sets in miami 05',5 sets in WB 07 and WB 08'. Though there was a memorable 5 set final in Rome between them.

If I had to draw a conclusion,I would have to say that Rafa dominates Fed on clay though Fed is one of the few who can stand up to Rafa on clay and that Rafa holds his own quite nicely against Fed outside of clay as well,though if Fed is on a roll he can dominate him on fast surfaces,a la TMC 06' and 07.

akv89
11-25-2009, 11:47 PM
Who said that?

I heard a lot of complaining about how Nadal leads H2H just because they played too many clay matches. That's not true.

That's the only thing I'm addressing. Look at my other posts if you think I'm a ********.

You make a good point. Nadal does have Fed's number regardless of the "most matches are on clay" argument. But it doesn't change my opinion that H2H is by nature very misleading. In addition to biases created by what surface the player play on, there are biases in the H2H created by matchups, and also by the time in the player's career when the matches were played (or not played). For example, there is bias in the H2H that does not reflect the recent form of the two players because Nadal hasn't been able to reach the finals of any of the tournaments that both have played since Madrid as a result of his decrease in form.

Netspirit
11-25-2009, 11:49 PM
Nadal is not better than Federer simply because they are both measured against the tour, not against each other.

The tour is always there, it does not have mono or tendinitis. The tour is now playing the Year-End Championship in London while Nadal just lost 2 matches and the opportunity to update their H2H with Federer. Yes, again.

As I say, I have a pretty solid H2H with Federer myself. In fact, I never lose to the guy despite all his futile efforts. Neither does Nadal these days.

joeri888
11-25-2009, 11:50 PM
Of course Nadal is better h2h. He leads their h2h because of clay. But clay is an important surface. On other surfaces he's done equally well in their matches against each other. Still I feel there are a ton of reasons to say the h2h is biased, and not telling the whole story. Fact is just that Rafa does well against Roger.

However, imo a h2h tells nothing about who the better player is. Soderling isn't better than Davydenko, Nalbandian isn't better than Rafa, Murray isn't better than Federer, Krajicek isn't better than Sampras.

GustafsonFanatic
11-25-2009, 11:57 PM
You make a good point. Nadal does have Fed's number regardless of the "most matches are on clay" argument. But it doesn't change my opinion that H2H is by nature very misleading. In addition to biases created by what surface the player play on, there are biases in the H2H created by matchups, and also by the time in the player's career when the matches were played (or not played). For example, there is bias in the H2H that does not reflect the recent form of the two players because Nadal hasn't been able to reach the finals of any of the tournaments that both have played since Madrid as a result of his decrease in form.

Ok, I can agree with almost everything. Nadal is a bad matchup for Fed. And they didn't play recently when Rafa was in bad shape. But, H2H also doesn't reflect that fact that they played a lot of matches from 2004 to 2006 when Fed was at his very best and Nadal was still 2 years before his best (2008 ).

Actually Rafa leads 6-2 in 2004-2006. Those are Federer's best years. Nadal was still 2 years before his prime (which is 2008 ). Nadal only became really good on HC in 2008 (by "good" I mean good enough to reach semis of a slam and stop losing to Gonzo and Blake ).

Speranza
11-26-2009, 12:04 AM
delete post.

David L
11-26-2009, 12:14 AM
The problem with placing great value in h2hs generally, even outside of surface bias, is that there are no constants and is no consistency in when and how players meet. In football leagues, teams will play each other a set number of times at home and away, so neither side has an unfair advantage. Teams can also make up for any shortfalls/injuries/illnesses/problems elsewhere with the substitution of other quality team mates. There is also consistency in the duration of matches and the periods between them.

In tennis there are no such constants. You can play a particular player 5 times in one season, when you are having a particularly bad period with injury, illness or confidence problems, yet meet them only 1 or 2 times during a season where circumstances are reversed. There is no regularity in when you meet and no team support when you are not up to the task. Other times you may play a particular individual more often on their preferred surface and your least or in circumstances which suit them more. H2hs tell us less than overall results because there is no consistency in the circumstances and number of meetings.

David L
11-26-2009, 12:31 AM
I mean better in H2H (in actual matches he plays against Fed, regardless of surface), not tennis ability or success. Fed obviously had more success and Rafa will not match him by the end of his career.

What would you call Rafa's h2H with Djokovic (14-6, and 9 matches on clay)? Ownage, lopsided, equal?
I would say their h2h is lopsided. Even though h2hs can behave in funny ways and should not always be taken as gospel, their h2h clearly shows Nadal is stronger on clay/grass and Djokovic is stronger on hardcourts. This conclusion is also supported by their overall results. Given that this is the case, when, how and on what surfaces they meet have a huge impact on what the h2h looks like taken out of context. I would not describe it as ownage, other than on clay. Nadal is 9-0 on clay and 2-0 on grass. Djokovic is 6-3 on hard. This plus their overall results paint a very clear and consistent picture.

joeri888
11-26-2009, 12:40 AM
Ok, I can agree with almost everything. Nadal is a bad matchup for Fed. And they didn't play recently when Rafa was in bad shape. But, H2H also doesn't reflect that fact that they played a lot of matches from 2004 to 2006 when Fed was at his very best and Nadal was still 2 years before his best (2008 ).

Actually Rafa leads 6-2 in 2004-2006. Those are Federer's best years. Nadal was still 2 years before his prime (which is 2008 ). Nadal only became really good on HC in 2008 (by "good" I mean good enough to reach semis of a slam and stop losing to Gonzo and Blake ).

Fed's loss in Dubai was inexcusable.
I do however think that Fed's prime on Clay was 2006-2009 rather than 2004-2006. His level of play on clay was just subpar especially in 2004, but also in 2005.

David L
11-26-2009, 01:39 AM
Ok, I can agree with almost everything. Nadal is a bad matchup for Fed. And they didn't play recently when Rafa was in bad shape. But, H2H also doesn't reflect that fact that they played a lot of matches from 2004 to 2006 when Fed was at his very best and Nadal was still 2 years before his best (2008 ).

Actually Rafa leads 6-2 in 2004-2006. Those are Federer's best years. Nadal was still 2 years before his prime (which is 2008 ). Nadal only became really good on HC in 2008 (by "good" I mean good enough to reach semis of a slam and stop losing to Gonzo and Blake ).
Not true and this is not a good definition of 'good'. Nadal won the Candian and Madrid 1000 tournaments in 2005, plus made the final in Miami. Outside of the Slams, this is the year he posted his best hardcourt results, which demonstrates he could play very well on the surface. What might have been preventing him at the hardcourt Slams could have been any number of things. Maybe he got tougher draws, maybe the competition were playing particularly well or were more determined on those particular days. Best of 5 is also more challenging than best of 3, so there may have been physical reasons earlier on also. Having said that, he did dominate the clay season in 2005 as well as win Roland Garros, but hardcourts also pose a different physical challenge. We should also bear in mind that even now, Nadal is less strong on hardcourts than he is on clay. In the last 2 years his results at the hardcourt Slams have improved, but his results and performances weren't exactly chopped liver back then either and his results at other hardcourt events have not really improved noticeably from those in 2005. Results can change from day to day based on many factors and may not always be exactly proportionate to how good you are in relation to another time. Look at footage of some of Nadal's performances in 04, 05, 06. He is not playing markedly less well than he was in 07, 08, 09, despite improvements.

Also, although Nadal was very young in his early matches with Federer, he was still the No.2 through most of that, so we should focus on his level more than his age. Look at tennis history amongst the best. It's not particularly rare to see prodigious ability like this i.e. Becker, Chang, Borg, Agassi etc. Human ability is not limitless. There is a limit and a learning curve that gradually straightens. If you get to that sooner than others, so be it, but it does not mean you will continue at this rate. Nadal improved, but they were not huge improvements and it's not as if others were not improving as well or getting worse. There are also other pieces of information which might be missing, like the fact Federer had heatstroke the first time they met. I mean, you never really know what is going on with these players from one moment to the next. You have to wait until the autobiography, à la Agassi, before you can get the inside track and even then you still may be in the dark. In any case, overall ranking and results do not lie.

Rhino
11-26-2009, 02:18 AM
I can't be bothered to read this whole thread but if you are using Federer in 2008 as your data reference then this is a joke.
That is the period when Fed was in his biggest ever decline/slump vs Rafa in his all-time prime....

namelessone
11-26-2009, 02:23 AM
I can't be bothered to read this whole thread but if you are using Federer in 2008 as your data reference then this is a joke.
That is the period when Fed was in his biggest ever decline/slump vs Rafa in his all-time prime....

So if other people will compare Rafa's matches from 2009,they should leave out the second part of the season because he was in a major slump as well?
Fed had his share of problems in 08' but like I said before the guy made 3 out of 4 Slam finals and missed his chance in AO because that was when mono seemed to be affecting him the most(he was sweating buckets and his face looked swollen). There is a good chance that if he faced anyone else other than Nadal(bad match-up) he would have won both RG and WB that year.

Rhino
11-26-2009, 02:29 AM
So if other people will compare Rafa's matches from 2009,they should leave out the second part of the season because he was in a major slump as well?

No, ok use 2009 instead then. Oh, they played twice, one win a piece, and Roger is the better clay-courter?
Better to do it across their whole H2h.

TennisVeritas
11-26-2009, 02:51 AM
If you want, you can divide the hardcourts into slow and fast, and do an even more detailed analysis.

You say that they played too many mathces in 2008 when Fed was at his worst. That's true, but they played each other since 2004 when Rafa was 17!!!

They also played 8 matches from 2004 to 2006 (during Fed's absolute prime). Was Rafa in his prime in those years? When he was 20, and before that?

You are just wrong, when you are referring to this concept, i.e. the prime years of Rafa. As far as we know Rafa best years might be over yet: Rafa started a lot early in the professional tour, who knows if he did reach his beast last year and the '06-'07 were the seasons in which he was near his peak (on clay it is quite likely this was the case)..who knows: Do you have a crystal ball to tell when a tennis player has his own peak..

The main critic remains: You are analyzing everything taking the '08 as the main season..give us a break: this was the worst FED's season and by far.

GustafsonFanatic
11-26-2009, 03:04 AM
I can't be bothered to read this whole thread but if you are using Federer in 2008 as your data reference then this is a joke.
That is the period when Fed was in his biggest ever decline/slump vs Rafa in his all-time prime....

You are just wrong, when you are referring to this concept, i.e. the prime years of Rafa. As far as we know Rafa best years might be over yet: Rafa started a lot early in the professional tour, who knows if he did reach his beast last year and the '06-'07 were the seasons in which he was near his peak (on clay it is quite likely this was the case)..who knows: Do you have a crystal ball to tell when a tennis player has his own peak..

The main critic remains: You are analyzing everything taking the '08 as the main season..give us a break: this was the worst FED's season and by far.

No, no, no, I never used 2008 for anything. The only thing I used 2008 for was to see how many tournametns are played on each surface. In 2008, Fed played 13 on HC, 5 on clay, and 2 on grass. Federer usually plays 2 tournaments on grass, 4-5 on clay, and about 10-13 on hardcourts. I could have taken any other year and my results would be nearly identical (ie. Nadal would have better H2H).

So, forget about 2008. I didn't use matches in 2008. I only used H2H throughout their entire careers.

GustafsonFanatic
11-26-2009, 03:20 AM
Not true and this is not a good definition of 'good'. Nadal won the Candian and Madrid 1000 tournaments in 2005, plus made the final in Miami. Outside of the Slams, this is the year he posted his best hardcourt results, which demonstrates he could play very well on the surface. What might have been preventing him at the hardcourt Slams could have been any number of things. Maybe he got tougher draws, maybe the competition were playing particularly well or were more determined on those particular days. Best of 5 is also more challenging than best of 3, so there may have been physical reasons earlier on also. Having said that, he did dominate the clay season in 2005 as well as win Roland Garros, but hardcourts also pose a different physical challenge. We should also bear in mind that even now, Nadal is less strong on hardcourts than he is on clay. In the last 2 years his results at the hardcourt Slams have improved, but his results and performances weren't exactly chopped liver back then either and his results at other hardcourt events have not really improved noticeably from those in 2005. Results can change from day to day based on many factors and may not always be exactly proportionate to how good you are in relation to another time. Look at footage of some of Nadal's performances in 04, 05, 06. He is not playing markedly less well than he was in 07, 08, 09, despite improvements.

For a player like Nadal, it's more difficult to see clearly what and how they improved. But it is clear that he improved a lot in 2006 and 2007 on clay. He was losing to Andreev before that and getting bageled by Gaudio. And even that is nothing compared to 2008.

But, he was always a bad matchup for Federer, though. Even when he was young, Fed found it difficult to play with him (even though Blake and Berdych didn't), so you have a point there. But, nevertheless, Fed got beaten far worse in RG 2008 than RG 2005, and it wasn't just because of mono. Nadal just got better in the meantime.

Also, although Nadal was very young in his early matches with Federer, he was still the No.2 through most of that, so we should focus on his level more than his age. Look at tennis history amongst the best. It's not particularly rare to see prodigious ability like this i.e. Becker, Chang, Borg, Agassi etc. Human ability is not limitless. There is a limit and a learning curve that gradually straightens. If you get to that sooner than others, so be it, but it does not mean you will continue at this rate. Nadal improved, but they were not huge improvements and it's not as if others were not improving as well or getting worse. There are also other pieces of information which might be missing, like the fact Federer had heatstroke the first time they met. I mean, you never really know what is going on with these players from one moment to the next. You have to wait until the autobiography, à la Agassi, before you can get the inside track and even then you still may be in the dark. In any case, overall ranking and results do not lie.

Well, you are coming up with excuses for Federer now. I know he has had a few serious ailments (heatstroke, mono, backpain). But I can come up with a whole bunch of excuses for Rafa as well (tired in Madrid, injured in Wimb2007, confused in his 1st Wimby final in 2006, choked and wasn't fit in Miami). Rafa probably has even more excuses than Fed since he had more injuries in his career.

David L
11-26-2009, 05:01 AM
For a player like Nadal, it's more difficult to see clearly what and how they improved. But it is clear that he improved a lot in 2006 and 2007 on clay. He was losing to Andreev before that and getting bageled by Gaudio. And even that is nothing compared to 2008.

But, he was always a bad matchup for Federer, though. Even when he was young, Fed found it difficult to play with him (even though Blake and Berdych didn't), so you have a point there. But, nevertheless, Fed got beaten far worse in RG 2008 than RG 2005, and it wasn't just because of mono. Nadal just got better in the meantime.

Well, you are coming up with excuses for Federer now. I know he has had a few serious ailments (heatstroke, mono, backpain). But I can come up with a whole bunch of excuses for Rafa as well (tired in Madrid, injured in Wimb2007, confused in his 1st Wimby final in 2006, choked and wasn't fit in Miami). Rafa probably has even more excuses than Fed since he had more injuries in his career.
Nadal was ranked No.2 (where he is now) by the start of the 2005 US summer hardcourt season. That's the kind of level he was playing at, not that of an 18 year old playing junior tournaments. He was the No.2 amongst men. Of course he improved from this point, but he's not the only player on tour. There are many players out there improving or getting worse at any given time and by degrees. Also, Gaudio was pretty good on clay back then, but Nadal still mainly handled him quite comfortably.

Nadal hit peak levels at Roland Garros 2008, but this may not be truly reflective of a level he is capable of sustaining. None of his other score-lines last year matched this particular purple patch. Also, I do not believe Federer was fit enough, stamina wise, at Roland Garros last year, because of the disruption caused to his training schedule by his illness. This I believe resulted in uber aggressive tactics and a swifter defeat in the final than might otherwise have been the case. It was a one-off, not something you can regularly expect. If Nadal got unimaginably better in 2008, you have to wonder what Davydenko was doing beating him so handily in Miami. The fact is that players can have good runs or purple patches, as well as poor runs, without necessarily experiencing huge material changes in their general ability. It's happened to Federer, Safin, Gaudio, Davydenko and practically every other player who has played the game. Nadal got better, but not that much better and he was not alone.

As far as excuses/reasons go, if they a real, then it skews the outcome of particular matches, regardless of what we make of them, but you cannot skew a whole career, which is truly reflective of a player.

JennyS
11-26-2009, 05:29 AM
Some people are forgetting something: out of Nadal and Federer's hardcourt meetings, only two came during the later part of the season. The others: Miami 04, Miami 05, Dubai and the Australian Open were at the start of the season. Nadal's Jan-March hardcourt results are almost always better than his summer/fall hardcourt results.

I think the proper way to break down their meetings is the time of year the matches occured:

July: Federer 2-1
August-October: no meetings
November: Federer 2-0

1st half of the season: Nadal 12-3
2nd half of the season: Federer 4-1.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
11-26-2009, 05:31 AM
Some people are forgetting something: out of Nadal and Federer's hardcourt meetings, only two came during the later part of the season. The others: Miami 04, Miami 05, Dubai and the Australian Open were at the start of the season. Nadal's Jan-March hardcourt results are almost always better than his summer/fall hardcourt results.

I think the proper way to break down their meetings is the time of year the matches occured:

July: Federer 2-1
August-October: no meetings
November: Federer 2-0

What if we flipped it? The h2h would probably be:
April-June: no meetings
July: Federer 2-1
August-October: Federer 8-4 or 7-5(Nadal wouldn't have any mental edge without any clay meetings)
November: Federer 3-0

overall it would be Federer 13-7 or 12-8.

The time of year has weighed heavily on the results.

Good post Jenny,

Nadal it seems is trying to win as much as possible in a short period of time whereas Federer will probably win slams over a 8-9 year span (not impossible) and Federer is 5 years (thats a lot in tennis) older than Nadal but a lot fresher over the whole season.

AM95
11-26-2009, 05:43 AM
Since Fedfans are saying that H2H is skewed because of all the clay matches, consider what the H2H would be if they met proportionally on all surfaces.

Let's take Federer in 2008 (this is all very approximate, of course)

Federer played 20 tournaments: 2 on grass, 5 on clay, 13 on hardcourts.

So if Federer played Rafa in every single one of them, there would be 2 matches, 5 on clay, and 13 on hardcourts. Agree?

So, the frequency of the surfaces is:

Grass: 2/20 = 0.1
Clay: 5/20 = 0.25
Hard: 13/20 = 0.65

Now, look at their H2H:

Grass: 2-1 Fed
Clay: 9-2 Rafa
Hard: 3-3

Next step, multiple the wins by frequency of each surface:

Federer:

Grass: 2*0.1 = 0.2
Clay: 2*0.25 = 0.5
Hard: 3*0.65 = 1.95
Total = 0.2+0.5+1.95 = 2.65

Grass: 1*0.1 = 0.1
Clay: 9*0.25 = 2.25
Hard: 3*0.65 = 1.95
Total = 0.1+2.25+1.95 = 4.3

As you can see, 4.3>2.65, Rafa would still have a positive H2H even if they played on all surfaces with corresponding frequency.

Any way you look at it, Nadal is simply better in H2H.

This has nothing to do with the number of slams won by each player. Federer has way more slams right now and he will definitely have more at the end of their careers.

you fail..your still taking the clay h2h in account

JennyS
11-26-2009, 05:46 AM
Agassi vs Sampras broken down by time of year

1st half of the season
Agassi 8-7

2nd half of the season
Sampras:13-6

bruce38
11-26-2009, 05:53 AM
I think the point *********s keep missing is this:

As pointed out by the OP, the total number of HC matches is actually >> clay court matches. YET, they have had more encounters in clay court matches than hardcourt. Can someone please answer why? What *********s can't fathom is that the answer to this question also impacts H2H.

JennyS
11-26-2009, 05:55 AM
Good post Jenny,

Nadal it seems is trying to win as much as possible in a short period of time whereas Federer will probably win slams over a 8-9 year span (not impossible) and Federer is 5 years (thats a lot in tennis) older than Nadal but a lot fresher over the whole season.

Thanks!

Imagine if 15 of the meetings were during the second half of the season and only 5 were during the first half of the season. Nadal never would have gotten in Federer's head without all of those clay losses. So if they had mostly met in the later stages of the season, Fed would have been the one in Nadal's head!

Heck, Nadal may not have won Wimbledon without the psychological advantage of leading the h2h. Without having beaten Federer 11 times prior to the 2008 Wimbledon final, would he have had the belief that he could beat him there?

TheTruth
11-26-2009, 06:11 AM
Oh my goodness.

Give it a break.

Without getting too technical.

Rafa's h2h isn't skewed by the clay.

It's close on hard and grass as well.

And all of this while Fed is five full years older than him.

Imagine if they were the same age.

bruce38
11-26-2009, 06:16 AM
Oh my goodness.

Give it a break.

Without getting too technical.

Rafa's h2h isn't skewed by the clay.

It's close on hard and grass as well.

And all of this while Fed is five full years older than him.

Imagine if they were the same age.

So you say give it a break then go on to rattle of 4 more points that continues it. Interesting "logical" process.

JennyS
11-26-2009, 06:16 AM
I think the point *********s keep missing is this:

As pointed out by the OP, the total number of HC matches is actually >> clay court matches. YET, they have had more encounters in clay court matches than hardcourt. Can someone please answer why? What *********s can't fathom is that the answer to this question also impacts H2H.

That's a good point. I think we should consider the number of same clay tournaments played versus same hardcourt tournaments played starting with Miami 2005:

Same hardcourt tournaments played: 40, played each other in 5
Same claycourt tournaments played: 17, played each other in 11

Overall, Federer and Nadal have played each other in 12.5% of their hardcourt tournaments and in 64.7% of their claycourt tournaments since spring 05. Unbelievable!

bruce38
11-26-2009, 06:19 AM
That's a good point. I think we should consider the number of same clay tournaments played versus same hardcourt tournaments played starting with Miami 2005:

Same hardcourt tournaments played: 40, played each other in 5
Same claycourt tournaments played: 17, played each other in 11

Overall, Federer and Nadal have played each other in 12.5% of their hardcourt tournaments and in 64.7% of their claycourt tournaments since spring 05. Unbelievable!

Thanks for backing up my point with stats. Any *********s care to answer why this is the case? Anyone???? *********s?? Are you there???

TheTruth
11-26-2009, 06:25 AM
The debate isn't about who's better. I think that's what many fans are missing.

The issue is that the results aren't skewed because we are talking about the #1 and #2 players on clay are meeting the most, because they are the best.

But, if Nadal gets to Fed on the other surfaces, Fed does not dominate Nadal on his better surfaces like Nadal dominates Fed on his best surface.

This does not mean Nadal is the GOAT.
Or, he is better than Fed.
Or, that he will end up with more slams than Fed.

It was only brought up to disprove the claim that the h2h is skewed because of the clay.

If people want to pick and choose that would open up the door to the disparity in their ages, primes, first and half of the season and other such nonsense.

The bottom line is that it's a bad matchup. Nothing more. Nothing less.

JennyS
11-26-2009, 06:26 AM
Thanks for backing up my point with stats. Any *********s care to answer why this is the case? Anyone???? *********s?? Are you there???

Thanks!

Here is an even better stat

From 2006-2008, Nadal and Federer met in 9 out of 11 same clay court tournaments played! In that same period of time, they only played each other 3 times on hardcourts!

drakulie
11-26-2009, 06:26 AM
Since Fedfans are saying that H2H is skewed because of all the clay matches, consider what the H2H would be if they met proportionally on all surfaces.

Uhmmm, you fail miserably. You took one year (2008 )to come up with this BS??

Let me give you some stats:

Between 2004 and 2008, Fed played 8 hard court slams, made it to the finals of 7, in which he won all 7.

Nadal failed to make the finals of any of them, because he wasn't good enough to meet fed that deep in a hard court slam.

By comparison, between 2005 -2008 Fed was good enough to face Nadal 4 straight years at the French.

Sartorius
11-26-2009, 06:28 AM
And all of this while Fed is five full years older than him.

Imagine if they were the same age.

I think that would be better for Federer.

In my opinion, the most important aspect of this rivalry is not clay (not to say it's not important at all though), it's the age difference. For the most part, it has and is going to play against Federer's favor.

I have an advantage in regards to him (Federer) and that is my age.

bruce38
11-26-2009, 06:33 AM
The debate isn't about who's better. I think that's what many fans are missing.

The issue is that the results aren't skewed because we are talking about the #1 and #2 players on clay are meeting the most, because they are the best.

But, if Nadal gets to Fed on the other surfaces, Fed does not dominate Nadal on his better surfaces like Nadal dominates Fed on his best surface.

This does not mean Nadal is the GOAT.
Or, he is better than Fed.
Or, that he will end up with more slams than Fed.

It was only brought up to disprove the claim that the h2h is skewed because of the clay.

If people want to pick and choose that would open up the door to the disparity in their ages, primes, first and half of the season and other such nonsense.

The bottom line is that it's a bad matchup. Nothing more. Nothing less.

What happened to give it a rest? Do you not practice what you preach?

jamesblakefan#1
11-26-2009, 06:38 AM
The debate isn't about who's better. I think that's what many fans are missing.

The issue is that the results aren't skewed because we are talking about the #1 and #2 players on clay are meeting the most, because they are the best.

But, if Nadal gets to Fed on the other surfaces, Fed does not dominate Nadal on his better surfaces like Nadal dominates Fed on his best surface.

This does not mean Nadal is the GOAT.
Or, he is better than Fed.
Or, that he will end up with more slams than Fed.

It was only brought up to disprove the claim that the h2h is skewed because of the clay.

If people want to pick and choose that would open up the door to the disparity in their ages, primes, first and half of the season and other such nonsense.

The bottom line is that it's a bad matchup. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Whatever happened to this?

ROFL at the obsession with numbers and stats around here.

drakulie
11-26-2009, 06:39 AM
I think the point *********s keep missing is this:

As pointed out by the OP, the total number of HC matches is actually >> clay court matches. YET, they have had more encounters in clay court matches than hardcourt. Can someone please answer why? What *********s can't fathom is that the answer to this question also impacts H2H.

That's a good point. I think we should consider the number of same clay tournaments played versus same hardcourt tournaments played starting with Miami 2005:

Same hardcourt tournaments played: 40, played each other in 5
Same claycourt tournaments played: 17, played each other in 11

Overall, Federer and Nadal have played each other in 12.5% of their hardcourt tournaments and in 64.7% of their claycourt tournaments since spring 05. Unbelievable!

Thanks!

Here is an even better stat

From 2006-2008, Nadal and Federer met in 9 out of 11 same clay court tournaments played! In that same period of time, they only played each other 3 times on hardcourts!

all excellent posts, and yet these momos don't get it.

Guess they were absent from school when math and logic were taught.

Mr. Tennis
11-26-2009, 06:39 AM

Let's face it .....when history looks back at players all they rememebr is grand slams. No one is going to rememebr a tournament on bumble fawk Illinois.

drakulie
11-26-2009, 06:43 AM

Let's face it .....when history looks back at players all they rememebr is grand slams. No one is going to rememebr a tournament on bumble fawk Illinois.

bruce38
11-26-2009, 06:47 AM

Let's face it .....when history looks back at players all they rememebr is grand slams. No one is going to rememebr a tournament on bumble fawk Illinois.

Yes that's true, so the number remembered will be 15-6, not 6-2 you dillweed.

Omega_7000
11-26-2009, 06:50 AM
Uhmmm, you fail miserably. You took one year (2008 )to come up with this BS??

Let me give you some stats:

Between 2004 and 2008, Fed played 8 hard court slams, made it to the finals of 7, in which he won all 7.

Nadal failed to make the finals of any of them, because he wasn't good enough to meet fed that deep in a hard court slam.

By comparison, between 2005 -2008 Fed was good enough to face Nadal 4 straight years at the French.

Nadal was exhausted between 2004 & early 2008 everywhere except the FO's...

Jchurch
11-26-2009, 06:51 AM

Let's face it .....when history looks back at players all they rememebr is grand slams. No one is going to rememebr a tournament on bumble fawk Illinois.

I can't help it that people don't want to be critical thinkers :)

Jchurch
11-26-2009, 06:52 AM
Nadal was exhausted between 2004 & early 2008 everywhere except the FO's...

That makes total sense. :wink:

JennyS
11-26-2009, 06:53 AM
The debate isn't about who's better. I think that's what many fans are missing.

The issue is that the results aren't skewed because we are talking about the #1 and #2 players on clay are meeting the most, because they are the best.

But, if Nadal gets to Fed on the other surfaces, Fed does not dominate Nadal on his better surfaces like Nadal dominates Fed on his best surface.

This does not mean Nadal is the GOAT.
Or, he is better than Fed.
Or, that he will end up with more slams than Fed.

It was only brought up to disprove the claim that the h2h is skewed because of the clay.

If people want to pick and choose that would open up the door to the disparity in their ages, primes, first and half of the season and other such nonsense.

The bottom line is that it's a bad matchup. Nothing more. Nothing less.

No, it's not just a bad matchup:

11 of the matches were on clay.
4 of the 6 hardcourt matches were in the early part of the season.
Only 2 out of their 20 matches have been after Wimbledon.

Also, consider their h2h during 2005-2007
Federer was 4-1 off clay.

Or how about Djokovic? Nadal leads 14-6 in the h2h. Is he just a bad matchup? Djokovic is 0-10 vs Nadal on clay but 6-3 on hard. The surface makes a difference there too.

DownTheLine
11-26-2009, 06:55 AM
Nadal only has a winning record against Fed is because the way he plays is the perfect way to beat Fed.

Nadal isn't better it's just a match up problem for Fed.

JennyS
11-26-2009, 07:01 AM
Someone came up with an alternate h2h: same tournaments played h2h. Whichever player had the better result in the tournament gets a point.

If we do this at Slams....

Starfury
11-26-2009, 07:08 AM
H2H doesn't matter for much for 1 simple reason. It discounts the time where the two players don't meet.

This is what you say when you try to compare Nadal v Federer by looking at the H2H:

Any Hardcourt tournament between TMC 06 and TMC 07 doesn't matter
All of 2009 after Madrid doesn't matter
The time between Wimbledon 08 and AO 09 doesn't matter
Dubai matters just as much as Wimbledon (both count as 1 match)
2006 matters 3 times as much as 2009 (6 matches vs 2)

dh003i
11-26-2009, 07:15 AM
Perhaps, but this assumes that Nadal would continue beating Federer on the surface where he is the greatest player of all time, at an on-par ratio. Recent results suggest otherwise.

Just as valid would be to look at tournament each player won vs. tournaments both entered. Federer leads that statistic by an enormous margin.

Really, the reality is that H2H doesn't matter in and of itself. It matters in terms of what it means in the larger scheme of things. But some people want to double-count it. Nadal's great H2H vs. Federer is already reflected in his 6 grand slams. Federer's losses to him in slams are reflected in his slam total being 15 so-far, not 21. It seems pretty ridiculous to knock the guy for "only" having 15 slams.

TheTruth
11-26-2009, 07:15 AM
I think that would be better for Federer.

In my opinion, the most important aspect of this rivalry is not clay (not to say it's not important at all though), it's the age difference. For the most part, it has and is going to play against Federer's favor.

I agree. The ridiculous part is taking a prime Federer against a teenaged Nadal and not realizing the five years make a huge difference. Unless you want to cross your fingers and hope that Nadal's career isn't going to be long.

I remember people saying Serena and Venus wouldn't last because of their playing style vs. Hingis. It didn't happen. They're still winning grand slams while Hingis is the one who exited the tour.

TheTruth
11-26-2009, 07:18 AM
Whatever happened to this?

Do you see a detailed analysis from me about how many times they played? Or what surface? What years? Which part of the season?

Again. The h2h is not skewed because of the clay.

Your post appears to be an attempt to throw us off the actual issue.

TheTruth
11-26-2009, 07:20 AM
Nadal was exhausted between 2004 & early 2008 everywhere except the FO's...

Nadal was exhausted between 2004 & early 2008 everywhere except the FO's...

And still managed a 13-7 h2h.

TheTruth
11-26-2009, 07:27 AM
No, it's not just a bad matchup:

11 of the matches were on clay.
4 of the 6 hardcourt matches were in the early part of the season.
Only 2 out of their 20 matches have been after Wimbledon.

Also, consider their h2h during 2005-2007
Federer was 4-1 off clay.

Or how about Djokovic? Nadal leads 14-6 in the h2h. Is he just a bad matchup? Djokovic is 0-10 vs Nadal on clay but 6-3 on hard. The surface makes a difference there too.

The issue is that the results aren't skewed by the clay since Fed is the #2 clay court player and had many opportunities to even out the h2h.

I don't want to get off topic since this thread is not about Djokovic and Rafa. It's about Fed and Rafa, and whether or not clay skews the h2h.

TheTruth
11-26-2009, 07:29 AM
Nadal only has a winning record against Fed is because the way he plays is the perfect way to beat Fed.

Nadal isn't better it's just a match up problem for Fed.

It's not about who's better. Many posters are failing to realize this.

TheTruth
11-26-2009, 07:35 AM
Someone came up with an alternate h2h: same tournaments played h2h. Whichever player had the better result in the tournament gets a point.

If we do this at Slams....

Now, that's skewing. You're giving Fed an advantage in USO's that Rafa never played in.

I don't think the ATP will allow that.

Australian Open: Federer leads 3 (4)-0

Disclaimer:

Blake never played in these finals, but Federer did, so it can accurately reflect Fed's dominance.

jamesblakefan#1
11-26-2009, 07:36 AM
Do you see a detailed analysis from me about how many times they played? Or what surface?

No but I see you post 5 times in a row in a thread about numbers, when supposedly numbers don't matter to real fans, according to you. :rolleyes:

EDIT: Make that 6 times in a row. Without a reply. Numbers don't matter huh?

TheTruth
11-26-2009, 07:43 AM
Perhaps, but this assumes that Nadal would continue beating Federer on the surface where he is the greatest player of all time, at an on-par ratio. Recent results suggest otherwise.

Just as valid would be to look at tournament each player won vs. tournaments both entered. Federer leads that statistic by an enormous margin.

Really, the reality is that H2H doesn't matter in and of itself. It matters in terms of what it means in the larger scheme of things. But some people want to double-count it. Nadal's great H2H vs. Federer is already reflected in his 6 grand slams. Federer's losses to him in slams are reflected in his slam total being 15 so-far, not 21. It seems pretty ridiculous to knock the guy for "only" having 15 slams.

No one is knocking Federer. Fed's fans are assuming this. Let's go back to the real issue. This is not about Fed's undeniable dominance. It's about the erroneous claim that the h2h is skewed because of the clay. It isn't, because they actually met on the surface and Federer lost seven of the nine encounters. This is something Fed had a hand in. So, if it's off-balance it's because Fed lost on those occasions.

Then, you have those who say "well, what if they met on different surfaces?"

They did. And the h2h is only 5-4 Fed.

It is a match up issue, not a surface issue. Because they are extremely close on the other surfaces as well.

This doesn't mean Nadal is better. It just means you can't take away Nadal's accomplishments to evelate Federer. (Not you personally)

kishnabe
11-26-2009, 07:43 AM
head to head doesn't matter, both are equal it is just that one of them has to win.

TheTruth
11-26-2009, 07:44 AM
No but I see you post 5 times in a row in a thread about numbers, when supposedly numbers don't matter to real fans, according to you. :rolleyes:

EDIT: Make that 6 times in a row. Without a reply. Numbers don't matter huh?

And gives up on this poster.

jamesblakefan#1
11-26-2009, 08:18 AM

And gives up on this poster.

I mean you're being blatantly hypocritical right now. You say "real fans" don't care about numbers, but then reply 23 times to this thread and 10 times to another thread related to the h2h numbers. That's hypocracy, right?

I quote again:

ROFL at the obsession with numbers and stats around here. Is that really why many of you like Fed?

grafselesfan
11-26-2009, 08:20 AM
Excellent thread. Very well broken down and detailed. It shows what many Nadal fans have been saying for years, that Nadal's overall edge over Federer in head to head play in the previous years is not strictly exclusively how often they play on clay. Nadal has done better vs Federer on all surfaces than Federer has been able to vs Nadal on clay in previous years. TheTruth dont be bothered by jamesblakefan and his attempted bullying. He thinks he is the Mother Theresa of TW for some bizarre reason.

jamesblakefan#1
11-26-2009, 08:22 AM
Excellent thread. Very well broken down and detailed. It shows what many Nadal fans have been saying for years, that Nadal's overall edge over Federer in head to head play in the previous years is not strictly exclusively how often they play on clay. Nadal has done better vs Federer on all surfaces than Federer has been able to vs Nadal on clay in previous years. TheTruth dont be bothered by jamesblakefan and his attempted bullying. He thinks he is the Mother Theresa of TW for some bizarre reason.

Get bent troll.

TheTruth
11-26-2009, 08:24 AM
Excellent thread. Very well broken down and detailed. It shows what many Nadal fans have been saying for years, that Nadal's overall edge over Federer in head to head play in the previous years is not strictly exclusively how often they play on clay. Nadal has done better vs Federer on all surfaces than Federer has been able to vs Nadal on clay in previous years. TheTruth dont be bothered by jamesblakefan and his attempted bullying. He thinks he is the Mother Theresa of TW for some bizarre reason.

I'm not. I don't think he's making any sense, so he doesn't bother me at all.

bruce38
11-26-2009, 08:37 AM
Excellent thread. Very well broken down and detailed. It shows what many Nadal fans have been saying for years, that Nadal's overall edge over Federer in head to head play in the previous years is not strictly exclusively how often they play on clay. Nadal has done better vs Federer on all surfaces than Federer has been able to vs Nadal on clay in previous years. TheTruth dont be bothered by jamesblakefan and his attempted bullying. He thinks he is the Mother Theresa of TW for some bizarre reason.

Hey grafseles, please try and explain this:

That's a good point. I think we should consider the number of same clay tournaments played versus same hardcourt tournaments played starting with Miami 2005:

Same hardcourt tournaments played: 40, played each other in 5
Same claycourt tournaments played: 17, played each other in 11

Overall, Federer and Nadal have played each other in 12.5% of their hardcourt tournaments and in 64.7% of their claycourt tournaments since spring 05. Unbelievable!

Why is it that they have met so many fewer times on HC even though it is a much more prevalent surface on the tour?

11-26-2009, 08:43 AM
I know Nadal wasn't good enough to reach the finals of all of those HC finals Fed played in, but it's not all one-sided.

Fed lost early at the Olympics and Canada Masters in 2008. Nadal won both tournaments.

Not to mention Indian Wells this year and in 2007 or Miami in 2008.

Fed didn't make the final in Paris when Rafa did in 2007, either.

That's 6 tournaments right there where Federer could have had a chance to make the H2H closer. Had Fed made the finals and beaten Rafa their H2H would be 13-13.

There you go.

bruce38
11-26-2009, 08:46 AM
I know Nadal wasn't good enough to reach the finals of all of those HC finals Fed played in, but it's not all one-sided.

Fed lost early at the Olympics and Canada Masters in 2008. Nadal won both tournaments.

Not to mention Indian Wells this year or Miami in 2008.

Fed didn't make the final in Paris when Rafa did in 2007, either.

Yes there are examples on both sides like that. But if you count them up there are many many more such examples on Nadal's side. That's the point.

jamesblakefan#1
11-26-2009, 08:46 AM
I know Nadal wasn't good enough to reach the finals of all of those HC finals Fed played in, but it's not all one-sided.

Fed lost early at the Olympics and Canada Masters in 2008. Nadal won both tournaments.

Not to mention Indian Wells this year.

Did you see what I posted earlier?

Since 2006:

Federer made the final of 11 of the 16 clay court events which both played in. (GS & MS events)
Nadal made the final of 14 of the 16 major CC events which both played in.

Nadal made the final of 7 of the 36 major HC events which both played in. (GS, MS, and TMC/YEC)
Federer made the finals of 18 of the 36 major HC events both played in.

So while Federer has left Nadal 'hanging' so to speak only 3 times on clay, Nadal has failed to return the favor in 11 events where Federer made the finals on HC. Not to mention that there are more HC events in a year, yet a majority of the meetings have still come on clay due to Nadal's inability to reach HC finals.

11-26-2009, 08:53 AM
I'm just sayin'

It's funny how it's exactly 6 tournaments that Fed could have met Nadal in the final but missed his chance- and he's got a 6 match deficit in the H2H

dh003i
11-26-2009, 08:54 AM
No one is knocking Federer. Fed's fans are assuming this. Let's go back to the real issue. This is not about Fed's undeniable dominance. It's about the erroneous claim that the h2h is skewed because of the clay. It isn't, because they actually met on the surface and Federer lost seven of the nine encounters. This is something Fed had a hand in. So, if it's off-balance it's because Fed lost on those occasions.

Then, you have those who say "well, what if they met on different surfaces?"

They did. And the h2h is only 5-4 Fed.

It is a match up issue, not a surface issue. Because they are extremely close on the other surfaces as well.

This doesn't mean Nadal is better. It just means you can't take away Nadal's accomplishments to evelate Federer. (Not you personally)

Actually, a lot of people are using that to knock Federer. And part of the point people make is that H2H is being double-counted, once in-and-of-itself, and again in that Federer has 15, not more, Grand Slams. This is not a reasonable way of looking at things.

Nadal's main accomplishment is 6 grand slams. I'm not trying to take that away from him. It is impressive that he beat Federer for 5 of those, but that's largely a match-up issue (and Nadal has benefited from his toughest matchups not being as talented or mentally strong, until recently).

jackson vile
11-26-2009, 09:29 AM
The fact is that over the entire tour Roger is better than Nadal, however in one on one Nadal is far better than Roger.

One thing that really bothers me about the head to head is that Nadal had to face and beat Roger at his absolute prime from the very begining when Nadal was only 19. Roger did not have other player to fight against, it was easier for Roger than what it was for Nadal.

Really people have to face it, Nadal beat Roger at Wim and at the AO. Wim was almost a sweep if not for the rain (again). Nadal indeed owns Roger, Roger indeed owns everyone else.

Those are the facts, like it or hate it Roger has more titles and records and respectively Nadal dominates Roger end of story.

JerrYMeeE
11-26-2009, 09:52 AM
-sigh- the grass record is 2-1 only because they met in those finals..
it would've been 3-1 if nadal could've made it to this year's final, and so on for the years to come.

P_Agony
11-26-2009, 10:00 AM
Not to mention, Federer leads their non-clay H2H by just 1 match. Even if they just met 2 times on clay, the most likely scenario would be that Nadal would win both those matches and lead the H2H

Also, before anyone gets into anything about how Nadal's success on other surfaces against Federer is because of his mental edge on clay translating into other surfaces, don't forget that

in their first 2 matches that a 17 year old Nadal, first, put the beatdown in less than an hour on Federer (just fresh from winning the AO and reaching #1) in Miami and, a year later, almost beat Fed in straights in the final.

This was all before Nadal had begun his prominence as a clay-courter. At this point, Federer had achieved more on clay (1 Master's title, 1 Master's final, 1 QF appearance at the FO as opposed to no Master's finals on clay or appearances at the FO for Nadal). Their first 2 matches were on hardcourts and already Nadal was getting into Fed's head.

Their next 2 matches were split on clay and hardcourts. First, Nadal denied Fed his first chance to reach a FO final and then he beat him in Dubai. Already, 3/4 of their matches were on HC's and Nadal, overall, was the superior in 2 of those matches.

People exaggerate the impact of clay on the Nadal-Federer rivalry.

The fact is that Nadal was always able to compete with Federer on HC's and on Grass. Federer was also able to compete with Rafa on clay, many of their matches being very close- but, at the end of the day, what matters is the victory. Nadal fully deserves all of the matches he won and it's not fear to pretend like the H2H is meaningless and their rivalry is just the result of Nadal's clay court prowess. Forget clay courts for a second- who has ever challenged a prime Federer on hardcourts like Nadal did? For sure, no one challenged Fed on grass like Nadal did.

There are many different ways to looks at it.

Don't forget Nadal took great benefit of Federer not being Federer in 2008-early 2009. Some would say Nadal never reached HC finals in Fed's prime, and Fed was reaching (and is reaching) clay finals every year.

I think the biggest reason for their H2H is Nadal being exactly the worst matchup Federer could have ever asked for.

Still, the best player, to me, is the one who can be #1. Federer, despite losing to Nadal, stayed number 1 until mid-2008 despite both playing against the very same field. If Nadal was truly the better player, he'd have taken that spot a lot sooner. The fact Federer regained has to do both with Nadal not being able to defend it but also Federer fighting to get it back.

Both are legends.

11-26-2009, 10:05 AM
^^ I also think, because of so many close matches, that it's a great credit to Nadal's fighting spirit to pull out so many tight matches.

Federer is no slouch at pulling out the tough ones either- Miami 2005 and Wimbledon 2007 were spectacular gets for Fed.

Most of their matches have been tight so you can't say the H2H hasn't been competitive. Nadal's only overwhelmed Fed on clay on a few occasions. Fed's had his share of easier wins (TMC 2006/2007)

It's give-and-take with these guys. That's why it's so epic, because neither wants to give anything away.

Andy G
11-26-2009, 10:17 AM
Since Fedfans are saying that H2H is skewed because of all the clay matches, consider what the H2H would be if they met proportionally on all surfaces.

Let's take Federer in 2008 (this is all very approximate, of course)

Federer played 20 tournaments: 2 on grass, 5 on clay, 13 on hardcourts.

So if Federer played Rafa in every single one of them, there would be 2 matches, 5 on clay, and 13 on hardcourts. Agree?

So, the frequency of the surfaces is:

Grass: 2/20 = 0.1
Clay: 5/20 = 0.25
Hard: 13/20 = 0.65

Now, look at their H2H:

Grass: 2-1 Fed
Clay: 9-2 Rafa
Hard: 3-3

Next step, multiple the wins by frequency of each surface:

Federer:

Grass: 2*0.1 = 0.2
Clay: 2*0.25 = 0.5
Hard: 3*0.65 = 1.95
Total = 0.2+0.5+1.95 = 2.65

Grass: 1*0.1 = 0.1
Clay: 9*0.25 = 2.25
Hard: 3*0.65 = 1.95
Total = 0.1+2.25+1.95 = 4.3

As you can see, 4.3>2.65, Rafa would still have a positive H2H even if they played on all surfaces with corresponding frequency.

Any way you look at it, Nadal is simply better in H2H.

This has nothing to do with the number of slams won by each player. Federer has way more slams right now and he will definitely have more at the end of their careers.

Great way to make a pro-Nadal argument by using Fed's off year, the year he started off with mono, and Nadal's best year of his career. How about a comparo of Fed 2008 and Nadal 2009! Both were their respective off years. That would make too much sense. By your argument, we might as well compare Nadal 2009 to Fed 2006, and say how much better Fed is by the comparo results. Federer is the better player. Period. All you have to do is look at their accomplishments. If Nadal could ever manage to make the finals of ever major in a single year, yet do that multiply times, then I would consider him in Fed's caliber of player. But, he'll never do it. He's just not good enough.

Ledigs
11-26-2009, 10:19 AM
Not to mention, Federer leads their non-clay H2H by just 1 match. Even if they just met 2 times on clay, the most likely scenario would be that Nadal would win both those matches and lead the H2H

Also, before anyone gets into anything about how Nadal's success on other surfaces against Federer is because of his mental edge on clay translating into other surfaces, don't forget that

in their first 2 matches that a 17 year old Nadal, first, put the beatdown in less than an hour on Federer (just fresh from winning the AO and reaching #1) in Miami and, a year later, almost beat Fed in straights in the final.

This was all before Nadal had begun his prominence as a clay-courter. At this point, Federer had achieved more on clay (1 Master's title, 1 Master's final, 1 QF appearance at the FO as opposed to no Master's finals on clay or appearances at the FO for Nadal). Their first 2 matches were on hardcourts and already Nadal was getting into Fed's head.

Their next 2 matches were split on clay and hardcourts. First, Nadal denied Fed his first chance to reach a FO final and then he beat him in Dubai. Already, 3/4 of their matches were on HC's and Nadal, overall, was the superior in 2 of those matches.

People exaggerate the impact of clay on the Nadal-Federer rivalry.

The fact is that Nadal was always able to compete with Federer on HC's and on Grass. Federer was also able to compete with Rafa on clay, many of their matches being very close- but, at the end of the day, what matters is the victory. Nadal fully deserves all of the matches he won and it's not fear to pretend like the H2H is meaningless and their rivalry is just the result of Nadal's clay court prowess. Forget clay courts for a second- who has ever challenged a prime Federer on hardcourts like Nadal did? For sure, no one challenged Fed on grass like Nadal did.

amazing insightful post