PDA

View Full Version : Federer clay results vs Nadal's summer/fall hardcourt results


JennyS
11-26-2009, 09:45 AM
Federer's results during the claycourt season 2005-2009

tournaments played: 19
Titles won: 5
Finals played in: 13
Wins against top 10 players: 14

Nadal's results during the summer/fall hardcourt season 2005-2009
tournaments played: 30
Titles Won: 4
Finals Played in: 6
Wins against top 10 players: 9

So Federer played 11 fewer tournaments, but has made more than twice as many finals and beaten 5 more top 10 players!

IvanAndreevich
11-26-2009, 09:50 AM
Interesting stats, but anyone who's been following the tour knows that Federer has better end of the year results than Nadal.

However, this does show that Nadal play a few too many tournaments.

JennyS
11-26-2009, 09:52 AM
Interesting stats, but anyone who's been following the tour knows that Federer has better end of the year results than Nadal.

However, this does show that Nadal play a few too many tournaments.

These aren't Federer's end of year results. Those are his clay results. I compared his clay results to Nadal's summer/fall hardcourt results because those are the weakest times of the year for both players.

namelessone
11-26-2009, 09:56 AM
Unless you have the same nr of tournaments in a certain time frame your stats are skewed and there is no objective way to look at it. Federer is better on clay than Nadal is on HC,that much is true. It's only natural for Fed to win more tournaments on a surface he is comfortable on(except against Nadal) and beat more top players than Nadal to win HC tournaments on a surface he is not comfortable on and where he is vulnerable against a lot of players.

Fed-->great claycourter-->fewer tournaments entered-->better success rate
Rafa-->above average HC'er-->more tournaments entered-->weaker success rate.

And again,this tells us nothing new,we all know Roger is a better claycourter than Rafa is a HC'er. Roger's game translates to clay very well whereas the opposite is true for Nadal and HC.

timnz
11-26-2009, 10:02 AM
I think the point is well made by the OP.

The comparison is between the players weakest surfaces. Federer is a great clay court player but it is also his weakest surface.

Hence, it establishes (Successfully I think) that Federer is stronger on his weakest surface than Nadal.

Another comparison would be to add up the number of finals/tournaments wins for Federer on clay vs Nadal's finals/Tournament wins after Wimbledon each year since 2005

TMF
11-26-2009, 10:07 AM
And again,this tells us nothing new,we all know Roger is a better claycourter than Rafa is a HC'er. Roger's game translates to clay very well whereas the opposite is true for Nadal and HC.

Yes it does. The stats IS interesting and gives a clear idea how much Fed separate himself from Rafa.

You should atleast thanks Jenny for the time/effort of pulling out those stats, rather than suggesting that it's pointless.

bruce38
11-26-2009, 10:07 AM
Unless you have the same nr of tournaments in a certain time frame your stats are skewed and there is no objective way to look at it. Federer is better on clay than Nadal is on HC,that much is true. It's only natural for Fed to win more tournaments on a surface he is comfortable on(except against Nadal) and beat more top players than Nadal to win HC tournaments on a surface he is not comfortable on and where he is vulnerable against a lot of players.

Fed-->great claycourter-->fewer tournaments entered-->better success rate
Rafa-->above average HC'er-->more tournaments entered-->weaker success rate.

And again,this tells us nothing new,we all know Roger is a better claycourter than Rafa is a HC'er. Roger's game translates to clay very well whereas the opposite is true for Nadal and HC.


You see this, but most idiot *********s don't. They argue that since off clay the H2H is closer than 9-2 that Nadal is better on his weaker surface. Yet they don't realize that the total number of tourney's on his weaker surface is drastically lower and therefore dramatically impacts H2H comparisons.

TMF
11-26-2009, 10:09 AM
Federer's results during the claycourt season 2005-2009

tournaments played: 19
Titles won: 5
Finals played in: 13
Wins against top 10 players: 14

Nadal's results during the summer/fall hardcourt season 2005-2009
tournaments played: 30
Titles Won: 4
Finals Played in: 6
Wins against top 10 players: 9

So Federer played 11 fewer tournaments, but has made more than twice as many finals and beaten 5 more top 10 players!

Thanks Jenny. It's much more interesting when reading facts rather than opinions.

Mustard
11-26-2009, 10:17 AM
You see this, but most idiot *********s don't. They argue that since off clay the H2H is closer than 9-2 that Nadal is better on his weaker surface. Yet they don't realize that the total number of tourney's on his weaker surface is drastically lower and therefore dramatically impacts H2H comparisons.

Nadal has still beaten Federer in Wimbledon and Australian Open finals, and that's without mentioning the French Open. Federer has never beaten Nadal in a grand slam final outside of Wimbledon. These facts could easily be used against Federer in discussions.

bruce38
11-26-2009, 10:21 AM
Nadal has still beaten Federer in Wimbledon and Australian Open finals, and that's without mentioning the French Open. Federer has never beaten Nadal in a grand slam final outside of Wimbledon. These facts could easily be used against Federer in discussions.

Why didn't Nadal beat Fed in any US OPEN finals? What about W from 2005-2007? What about AO pre 2008? Why not????

bruce38
11-26-2009, 10:22 AM
Nadal has still beaten Federer in Wimbledon and Australian Open finals, and that's without mentioning the French Open. Federer has never beaten Nadal in a grand slam final outside of Wimbledon. These facts could easily be used against Federer in discussions.

Oh here's an even better one. Why didn't Nadal beat Fed in FO 09??? Fed was there the last 4 years. Why wasn't Nadal?

bruce38
11-26-2009, 10:23 AM
Nadal has still beaten Federer in Wimbledon and Australian Open finals, and that's without mentioning the French Open. Federer has never beaten Nadal in a grand slam final outside of Wimbledon. These facts could easily be used against Federer in discussions.

Is any of this sinking in at all?

namelessone
11-26-2009, 10:41 AM
Yes it does. The stats IS interesting and gives a clear idea how much Fed separate himself from Rafa.

You should atleast thanks Jenny for the time/effort of pulling out those stats, rather than suggesting that it's pointless.

Maybe you are a new member or something(I'm not that old myself),but this has been discussed to death. Federer reaches more claycourt finals than Rafa reaches HC finals. EVERYBODY SHOULD KNOW THIS BY NOW.

Also,the stats should have the same nr of tourneys in a given period of time and it should take into consideration that there are far less clay tournaments than HC ones. So even if Rafa would be a better HC'er his record on tournament wins would still look pretty mediocre when set against a large number of tournaments entered(HC is 50% of the ATP) and Fed's win percentage could go down as well if there were more clay events for him to enter.

Example: In 2009,Rafa entered 12 HC events if I am not mistaken,on his worst surface,HC. Federer entered 4 events(MC,Rome,Madrid,RG) on his worst surface. Obviously Fed is a better claycourter than Rafa is a HC'er but I wonder what his stats were like if he had to play 12 events on clay.

Blinkism
11-26-2009, 10:47 AM
It would be more appropriate to compare Fed on clay vs. Rafa on grass, IMO

Mustard
11-26-2009, 10:54 AM
Why didn't Nadal beat Fed in any US OPEN finals?

Because he lost before the final. Why else? :-|

What about W from 2005-2007? What about AO pre 2008? Why not????

Because he either lost to Federer in the final (Wimbledon 2006-07) or again he lost before the final. I'm sorry to state the obvious but Nadal leads the head-to-head because he beats Federer more times than he loses to him when they do meet. I know it eats away at Federer fans that Nadal has beaten Federer so many times and in so many big matches, but honestly, get over it.

bruce38
11-26-2009, 10:55 AM
Because he lost before the final. Why else? :-|



Because he either lost to Federer in the final (Wimbledon 2006-07) or again he lost before the final. I'm sorry to state the obvious but Nadal leads the head-to-head because he beats Federer more times than he loses to him when they do meet. I know it eats away at Federer fans that Nadal has beaten Federer so many times and in so many big matches, but honestly, get over it.

Why did he lose before the final? Whereas Fed did not?

Mustard
11-26-2009, 10:56 AM
Why did he lose before the final? Whereas Fed did not?

Because he was beaten by another player. Again I'm stating the obvious.

bruce38
11-26-2009, 10:57 AM
It would be more appropriate to compare Fed on clay vs. Rafa on grass, IMO

In which case you would have to compare the number finals reached and victories.

Fed FO - 4 finals, 1 win
Nadal W - 3 finals, 1 win.

Case closed.

bruce38
11-26-2009, 10:58 AM
Because he was beaten by another player. Again I'm stating the obvious.

Why was Rafa beaten by another player so many times before the final and Fed not?

namelessone
11-26-2009, 10:59 AM
Why didn't Nadal beat Fed in any US OPEN finals? What about W from 2005-2007? What about AO pre 2008? Why not????

Two reasons:

1)Nadal does not have an HC game
2)He was what,19 in 2005? He hadn't even conquered clay yet,and yet he was supposed to win Wimbledon or go on to win USO finals? I understand Rafa being a early bloomer but that's asking too much. Rafa is however the youngest guy since Becker(in 84') to reach the third round of WB in 2003.

People should understand the 5 year gap between these two guys. Yes,Rafa is a early bloomer but no one learns that fast and that early. Maybe Borg,but in his time he got to USO when it was on clay,though he did make finals after they switched surface as well. That's all that's missing from Rafa. While his game is not tailored for HC,USO is the only slam missing. And among the other big trophies,he only lacks TMC and in the masters series he has reached finals in all of them except Cincinatti.

Mustard
11-26-2009, 11:00 AM
Why was Rafa beaten by another player so many times before the final and Fed not?

Because Nadal wasn't as good as his opponents on the days in question. Is this going anywhere? I don't see how any of this should alter the 13-7 lead Nadal has in his head-to-head with Federer.

JennyS
11-26-2009, 11:06 AM
It would be more appropriate to compare Fed on clay vs. Rafa on grass, IMO

Not really because Rafa only plays 2 grass tournaments a year (1 of which Fed doesn't play), and Federer usually plays 4 clay tournaments, all of which Nadal plays in.

pame
11-26-2009, 11:10 AM
It would be more appropriate to compare Fed on clay vs. Rafa on grass, IMO

Talk about skewed.. they have the chance to meet only on ONE grass surface, since they are essentially 2 tournaments each plays, and the one outside Wimbledon is not mutual.

So that's 1 grass compared to how many mutual and/or available clay... yikes! Also, isn't the OP's comparison point their weakest surface. I don't think you can really advance the argument that grass is Nadal's weakest surface.

tudwell
11-26-2009, 11:30 AM
Federer's results during the claycourt season 2005-2009

tournaments played: 19
Titles won: 5
Finals played in: 13
Wins against top 10 players: 14

Nadal's results during the summer/fall hardcourt season 2005-2009
tournaments played: 30
Titles Won: 4
Finals Played in: 6
Wins against top 10 players: 9

So Federer played 11 fewer tournaments, but has made more than twice as many finals and beaten 5 more top 10 players!

Do you have the number of losses to top ten players that each suffered in this time frame?