PDA

View Full Version : Since yesterday Nadal doesn´t have a losing record against any active player,right?


Leonidas
03-29-2010, 02:02 PM
I believe he doesn´t. Moreover i believe he doesn´t have a losing head to head against any former or current player who played more than 2 times against him ( players such as corretja or Hhrbaty beat him when he was a teenager, but that doesn´t really count i guess). Correct me if I´m wrong, because that , indeed, would be an awesome feat

sjam316
03-29-2010, 02:08 PM
davydenkos 5-4 against nadal

abraxas21
03-29-2010, 02:08 PM
Kolya 5-4 in the head-to-head

Breaker
03-29-2010, 02:10 PM
Nikolay 5-4 winning record, in case you don't read the first two posts.

Leonidas
03-29-2010, 02:10 PM
thanks
10chars

Rippy
03-29-2010, 02:11 PM
that´s kolshraiber? is he really 5-4? wow i didn´t know that. Maybe Nadal will play Davy and kolya during the clay season so that nobody will have a winning Head to head against him

Kolya is Davydenko

Li Ching Yuen
03-29-2010, 02:11 PM
that´s kolshraiber? is he really 5-4? wow i didn´t know that. Maybe Nadal will play Davy and kolya during the clay season so that nobody will have a winning Head to head against him

:neutral::neutral::neutral:

abraxas21
03-29-2010, 02:13 PM
that´s kolshraiber? is he really 5-4? wow i didn´t know that. Maybe Nadal will play Davy and kolya during the clay season so that nobody will have a winning Head to head against him

No :) Kohlschriber (i'm not sure if I spelled that right) doesn't have that kind of head to head against Nadal.

Kolya is a diminutive nickname for Nikolay I think. Hence, I was talking about Davydenko.

KAndersonFan
03-29-2010, 02:15 PM
Cilic does as well..

Leonidas
03-29-2010, 02:17 PM
Cilic does as well..

just checked and you´re right. nevertheless they played only once...

Rippy
03-29-2010, 02:20 PM
just checked and you´re right. nevertheless they played only once...

Well it's still a losing H2H, albeit an insignificant one. :p

Ocean Drive
03-29-2010, 02:28 PM
Del Potro will soon have a winning head to head against Nadal.

forzamilan90
03-29-2010, 02:55 PM
Del Potro will soon have a winning head to head against Nadal.

federer too

dmt
03-29-2010, 03:36 PM
federer too

federer fans can only wish

Cup8489
03-29-2010, 03:40 PM
federer fans can only wish

Nope, we have only to wait :oops: :roll:

Rippy
03-29-2010, 03:43 PM
federer too

Hehe that'll never happen.

kraggy
03-29-2010, 03:52 PM
Nope, we have only to wait :oops: :roll:

I'm sure Fed will have a few more wins over Nadal , but changing to a positive H2H is quite unlikely. This is because if Nadal is playing well , he is a great matchup gamewise against Fed. If Nadal is playing badly, he won't even get to meet Fed regularly because he will be knocked out earlier.

ReturnWinner
03-29-2010, 03:56 PM
Cilic is 1-0, Soderling is 2-2 and could pass him soon.

dmt
03-29-2010, 04:06 PM
Nadal is 3-2 vs Soderling. and for all the Nadal haters, this thread is not about who can or who might or who will have a winning record vs him, it it a thread about who HAS a winning record against him, please learn to read.

to answer the question, Nikolay Davydenko has a winning head to head record vs Nadal.

ReturnWinner
03-29-2010, 04:13 PM
Nadal is 3-2 true I forget about the match in Roland Garros in 2006

reversef
03-30-2010, 12:14 AM
Davydenko is the only one. With Cilic, but Nadal and Cilic only met once. I don't think it's relevant yet.

Jchurch
03-30-2010, 12:27 AM
If you consider Nalbandian active, he is 2-1 versus Nadal. Should have been 2-2 though

Rhino
03-30-2010, 12:33 AM
Dominik Hrbaty.

rovex
03-30-2010, 12:39 AM
Doesn't Blake lead their H2H 2-1???

tarasb22
03-30-2010, 12:39 AM
If you consider Nalbandian active, he is 2-1 versus Nadal. Should have been 2-2 though

He was 2-1 before their last game (2-2 counting w-o), and Nadal won last game.

Jchurch
03-30-2010, 12:49 AM
He was 2-1 before their last game (2-2 counting w-o), and Nadal won last game.

Walkovers don't count as wins. Either way Nalbandian is 2-1 and was very close to being 3-0

dmt
03-30-2010, 12:52 AM
Walkovers don't count as wins. Either way Nalbandian is 2-1 and was very close to being 3-0

what are u talking about? There was no walkover, Nadal won the match fair and square.

Jchurch
03-30-2010, 12:53 AM
Doesn't Blake lead their H2H 2-1???

No. I thought Blake was leading also, but it is 4 to 3 Nadal.

Jchurch
03-30-2010, 12:55 AM
what are u talking about? There was no walkover, Nadal won the match fair and square.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=N301&oId=N409

Nalbandian pulled out of their match at Barcelona in 2009. Not a doubt in my mind that Nadal would have won that.

At the 2009 Indian Wells, Nalbandian was very close to beating Rafa in strait sets. However he was bageled in the third.

dmt
03-30-2010, 12:57 AM
and Nadal just beat Nalbandian at Miami, u didnt see the match? Nadal won 6-7, 6-2. 6-2. That makes it 2-2

Sangria
03-30-2010, 12:58 AM
Walkovers don't count as wins. Either way Nalbandian is 2-1 and was very close to being 3-0

I lol'd at this comment big time. I will now consider 3 or 5 set matches on all Nadals wins as "walkovers". On one condition that his opponents need not play at 100% according to your analysis

Jchurch
03-30-2010, 01:00 AM
and Nadal just beat Nalbandian at Miami, u didnt see the match? Nadal won 6-7, 6-2. 6-2. That makes it 2-2

No I didn't.

Jchurch
03-30-2010, 01:01 AM
I lol'd at this comment big time. I will now consider 3 or 5 set matches on all Nadals wins as "walkovers". On one condition that his opponents need not play at 100% according to your analysis

Not really. I hadn't seen the Miami match. And when I checked the h2h it hadn't updated.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=N301&oId=N409

Sangria
03-30-2010, 01:04 AM
After watching their Miami match

Sangria
03-30-2010, 01:07 AM
Nalby looked good, just that Nadal tends to do that to players. I give credit to Nalby for trying as long as he could considering match fitness wasn't up to par, but it was a great match to watch.

KuanMaster
03-30-2010, 01:10 AM
davydenko is kolya
kohlschreiber is kohli, right?

Sangria
03-30-2010, 01:52 AM
davydenko is kolya
kohlschreiber is kohli, right?

Yes 10 char

Dark Tempest
03-30-2010, 01:53 AM
Dominik Hrbaty.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
03-30-2010, 02:22 AM
federer fans can only wish

16-6...ok???

bodave2
03-30-2010, 04:31 AM
I'm sure Fed will have a few more wins over Nadal , but changing to a positive H2H is quite unlikely. This is because if Nadal is playing well , he is a great matchup gamewise against Fed. If Nadal is playing badly, he won't even get to meet Fed regularly because he will be knocked out earlier.

That and the fact they usualy only face on clay becouse Nadal was #2 so long they could only play in Finals and he was not getting that far on hard court.

Clay courts: Nadal 9–2
Hard courts: 3–3
Grass courts: Federer 2–1

Sentinel
03-30-2010, 04:50 AM
So as per the impeccable logic of Nadal fans, Kolya is the real real genuine GOAT ??

namelessone
03-30-2010, 05:18 AM
So as per the impeccable logic of Nadal fans, Kolya is the real real genuine GOAT ??

While I do not believe in h2h in general,the reason some brought up the head to head in these discussions is because Fed and Nadal are the only two major players from this era and at one point they were basically IT as far as slams were concerned so they were pretty much on the same level as far as slams go. Ok,Nadal has a lot of catching up to do,but when you have only one guy before 2009 who won a slam beside Fed and Rafa you can see why some people analyze these two on all levels. Tennis needs rivalries and as fed was trampling everyone in his path,Nadal rose to be the only real rival for him,hence the comparisons. Even if Rafa only had 2-3 slams up until point people would always point to him as the thorn in Fed's side cause he would have been the only one to bother him at slams.

They had no one to compare Fed to cause his contemporaries got owned by him so when Rafa came around,not only with a winning h2h,but with slam victories against the swiss,something no one managed to do in quite some time(since 2005 Fed has lost to just three players at slams,nadal 6 times,djoker once,delpo once) so you can see how it was a big deal.

Other than Fed-Rafa you don't really see a lot of h2h discussions around here,probably because there are no other major rivalries going on right now.

veroniquem
03-30-2010, 05:38 AM
So as per the impeccable logic of Nadal fans, Kolya is the real real genuine GOAT ??
There is a significant difference with leading the head to head by double number of victories to defeats like 14-7 for instance and leading a head to head by 1 match. What I would say currently about Nadal is that only 2 players lead in the head to head vs him and that those 2 players only lead by 1 match (something that could be easily overturned). No other player on the tour can claim such a feat at the moment, particularly not the other top 5 players: Djoko, Murray, Fed who are all significantly dominated in the head to head by other top players. (incidently all of them by Nadal of course :))

dropshot winner
03-30-2010, 05:46 AM
There is a significant difference with leading the head to head by double number of victories to defeats like 14-7 for instance and leading a head to head by 1 match. What I would say currently about Nadal is that only 2 players lead in the head to head vs him and that those 2 players only lead by 1 match (something that could be easily overturned). No other player on the tour can claim such a feat at the moment, particularly not the other top 5 players: Djoko, Murray, Fed who are all significantly dominated in the head to head by other top players. (incidently all of them by Nadal of course :))
In Djokovic's case I wouldn't call it overall domination.

Djokovic is useless against Nadal on clay. With useless I mean that all he can do on clay is keep it close. But on hardcourt it's a VERY different story. Djokovic has won 12 straight sets against Nadal on the Masters-series level, that's ownage of the highest order.

sh@de
03-30-2010, 06:17 AM
There is a significant difference with leading the head to head by double number of victories to defeats like 14-7 for instance and leading a head to head by 1 match. What I would say currently about Nadal is that only 2 players lead in the head to head vs him and that those 2 players only lead by 1 match (something that could be easily overturned). No other player on the tour can claim such a feat at the moment, particularly not the other top 5 players: Djoko, Murray, Fed who are all significantly dominated in the head to head by other top players. (incidently all of them by Nadal of course :))

So you think the stat of 13>7 is more important than 16>6? I mean, if you're really gonna push it to such a ******** level, I could tell you that 16-6 = 10 and 13 - 7 = 6 and 10>6 so...

And seriously, even THAT is a ******** way of putting it. The point is, the number of majors matter, not H2Hs. Would you rather have 4 slams and a 11-0 record against a guy who has 20 slams? Or would you rather be the guy with 20 slams...? I think it's quite obvious who normal people (i.e. those with a proper brain) would choose.

And you're a teacher right? I hope you don't teach maths, because you'll probably come up with some funky stuff about how my maths is wrong.

paulorenzo
03-30-2010, 06:29 AM
There is a significant difference with leading the head to head by double number of victories to defeats like 14-7 for instance and leading a head to head by 1 match. What I would say currently about Nadal is that only 2 players lead in the head to head vs him and that those 2 players only lead by 1 match (something that could be easily overturned). No other player on the tour can claim such a feat at the moment, particularly not the other top 5 players: Djoko, Murray, Fed who are all significantly dominated in the head to head by other top players. (incidently all of them by Nadal of course :))

federer will go down in history as a better player than nadal.

Gorecki
03-30-2010, 06:54 AM
isnt Hrabty the guy with positive h2h vs both nadal and federer?

:):) greatest generation ever...

bruce38
03-30-2010, 08:07 AM
Nadal's H2H against the other top players is highly skewed because he is not good enough to get deep into the draw on fast hardcourts (last couple of US opens the exception). Moreover, the clay season is much more emphasized in terms of tourneys versus grass which is why the bulk of Nadal's wins come on clay i.e. the other top guys are good enough to get deep into clay draws. Fed would lead H2H if there were as many Master's on grass. But even then during 2004-2007, Nadal would never have gotten far enough to face him.

rwn
03-30-2010, 08:57 AM
I believe he doesn´t. Moreover i believe he doesn´t have a losing head to head against any former or current player who played more than 2 times against him ( players such as corretja or Hhrbaty beat him when he was a teenager, but that doesn´t really count i guess). Correct me if I´m wrong, because that , indeed, would be an awesome feat

And look at all his losses in slams against players he should beat. What a mentally weak underachiever, isn´t he ?

namelessone
03-30-2010, 09:22 AM
Nadal's H2H against the other top players is highly skewed because he is not good enough to get deep into the draw on fast hardcourts (last couple of US opens the exception). Moreover, the clay season is much more emphasized in terms of tourneys versus grass which is why the bulk of Nadal's wins come on clay i.e. the other top guys are good enough to get deep into clay draws. Fed would lead H2H if there were as many Master's on grass. But even then during 2004-2007, Nadal would never have gotten far enough to face him.

I disagree. Nadal's h2h are not massively skewed as the guy is a legend on clay,very good on grass(only good GC along with fed,roddick,hewitt and maybe murray) and can more than hold his own on HC. The only surfaces on which I would not give him a fighting chance are very fast HC/indoors. Nadal has 400 tour wins in less than 500 matches and clay has only a couple of big tourneys each year.

Now it depends how you wanna look at the h2h's. Are we talking top 10 or top 30,top50? If so,Nadal has the skills to beat most players on most surfaces. He basically only has trouble with a couple of really good guys on HC(davy,djoker,murray,delpo etc.) and maybe fed on grass(though a roddick/hewitt could give a tough match I reckon). On clay he mostly owns everyone.

What do you mean by getting deep in the draws on HC? Nadal's only early exits since 2007 on HC have come in 4th round USO 07'(ferrer defeated him) and rotterdam 08' in second round(seppi) if I remember correctly. So Nadal has been a solid QF/SF guy on HC for the last two years.

Nadal has met most of the top guys on HC and for the most part has got beaten. But he has got his fair share of wins,that's how he has build his h2h's with these guys: he builds a solid lead on clay,loses quite a few matches on HC but also wins some and he usually gets them on grass,should they ever meet there. I understand where you are coming from but clay&grass is one third of the tour,HC,whatever the speed,completes the rest.

Nadal did not get away from the 6 or 7 better hardcourters than him for the last two years at least,because he has been there,making at least quarters 90% of the time. There are two reasons it has not hurt the h2h much:

-nadal actually won some of these matches.

-there are more top players on HC than there are on clay and grass,which is only normal since there is more HC. If you want to win on clay you have to go through nadal or fed. Same goes for grass. If you want to win on HC you could be facing any one of 6 or 7 guys from QF onwards,fed being the first obviously. Since there are so many guys,even if Nadal gets 10 beatings from 10 guys in 10 tourneys(all in QF/SF let's say),it does not affect his h2h's much because if those guys make QF or SF in a couple of clay tourneys, Nadal will be there 90% of the time and he will usually beat them.

If clay,grass and HC would be evenly spread,it would be harder for Nadal to keep winning h2h's because players would know that they would have to keep weapons for each surface at hand. As it is today,there are a lot of players who know that they don't have a shot at grass(federer with 6 WB) and clay(Nadal with 4 RG's) so they prefer to stick to HC,since there are way more HC events,therefore more chances to win.

Li Ching Yuen
03-30-2010, 09:24 AM
I swear to god that the discussions about Nadal on this forum are the most annoying ones yet.

And I don't even dislike the guy.

valiant
03-30-2010, 11:35 AM
I just wonder how namelessone writes so much. He must be into journalism.

bruce38
03-30-2010, 12:12 PM
I disagree. Nadal's h2h are not massively skewed as the guy is a legend on clay,very good on grass(only good GC along with fed,roddick,hewitt and maybe murray) and can more than hold his own on HC. The only surfaces on which I would not give him a fighting chance are very fast HC/indoors. Nadal has 400 tour wins in less than 500 matches and clay has only a couple of big tourneys each year.

Now it depends how you wanna look at the h2h's. Are we talking top 10 or top 30,top50? If so,Nadal has the skills to beat most players on most surfaces. He basically only has trouble with a couple of really good guys on HC(davy,djoker,murray,delpo etc.) and maybe fed on grass(though a roddick/hewitt could give a tough match I reckon). On clay he mostly owns everyone.

What do you mean by getting deep in the draws on HC? Nadal's only early exits since 2007 on HC have come in 4th round USO 07'(ferrer defeated him) and rotterdam 08' in second round(seppi) if I remember correctly. So Nadal has been a solid QF/SF guy on HC for the last two years.

Nadal has met most of the top guys on HC and for the most part has got beaten. But he has got his fair share of wins,that's how he has build his h2h's with these guys: he builds a solid lead on clay,loses quite a few matches on HC but also wins some and he usually gets them on grass,should they ever meet there. I understand where you are coming from but clay&grass is one third of the tour,HC,whatever the speed,completes the rest.

Nadal did not get away from the 6 or 7 better hardcourters than him for the last two years at least,because he has been there,making at least quarters 90% of the time. There are two reasons it has not hurt the h2h much:

-nadal actually won some of these matches.

-there are more top players on HC than there are on clay and grass,which is only normal since there is more HC. If you want to win on clay you have to go through nadal or fed. Same goes for grass. If you want to win on HC you could be facing any one of 6 or 7 guys from QF onwards,fed being the first obviously. Since there are so many guys,even if Nadal gets 10 beatings from 10 guys in 10 tourneys(all in QF/SF let's say),it does not affect his h2h's much because if those guys make QF or SF in a couple of clay tourneys, Nadal will be there 90% of the time and he will usually beat them.

If clay,grass and HC would be evenly spread,it would be harder for Nadal to keep winning h2h's . ^^^ EXACTLY! Hence the use of the word skewed.

All I'm saying is if you parse his H2H's with the top guys into different surfaces, he holds the edge because of a big advantage on clay. If an even number of matches were played on all surfaces, he would not hold the H2H advantage he currently has against the top players. Keep in mind, I'm not saying to not count clay, it's a surface like any other, but let's just distribute the matches more evenly, and see what the H2H would be. This is what I mean by skewed.

namelessone
03-30-2010, 12:31 PM
^^^ EXACTLY! Hence the use of the word skewed.

All I'm saying is if you parse his H2H's with the top guys into different surfaces, he holds the edge because of a big advantage on clay. If an even number of matches were played on all surfaces, he would not hold the H2H advantage he currently has against the top players. Keep in mind, I'm not saying to not count clay, it's a surface like any other, but let's just distribute the matches more evenly, and see what the H2H would be. This is what I mean by skewed.

Essentially we are saying the same thing but you make it sound as if Nadal wins clay tourneys only to lose in the first rounds everywhere else,which is not the case. The way too many HC tourneys have created a diluted field(look at how many guys HC masters year by year and by that I mean that they are the same 5 or 6 guys) whereas on the smaller seasons(clay-2 months,grass-1 month) basically there have been two guys in the last three years,nadal and federer,with a little bit of djoker thrown in. No murray,no davydenko,no delpo(yet),no tsonga and so on.

Evened out surfaces(1/3 clay,1/3 grass,1/3 HC) would even things out for everybody,not just Nadal. If it were today's grass it would give nadal an advantage because it would cut some HC and give him a softer surface to play on(and he is no slouch on grass).

namelessone
03-30-2010, 12:32 PM
I just wonder how namelessone writes so much. He must be into journalism.

I just think too much. I should cut it out.:)

bruce38
03-30-2010, 12:35 PM
Essentially we are saying the same thing but you make it sound as if Nadal wins clay tourneys only to lose in the first rounds everywhere else,which is not the case. The way too many HC tourneys have created a diluted field(look at how many guys HC masters year by year and by that I mean that they are the same 5 or 6 guys) whereas on the smaller seasons(clay-2 months,grass-1 month) basically there have been two guys in the last three years,nadal and federer,with a little bit of djoker thrown in. No murray,no davydenko,no delpo(yet),no tsonga and so on.

Evened out surfaces(1/3 clay,1/3 grass,1/3 HC) would even things out for everybody,not just Nadal. If it were today's grass it would give nadal an advantage because it would cut some HC and give him a softer surface to play on(and he is no slouch on grass).

No I never said that at all. All I hear are the *********s and poor ***********s claiming how great Nadal's H2Hs are against the top players, and they don't see that there is an uneven distribution of matches on clay. Even that out, and Nadal's H2H goes down, FROM WHERE IT IS NOW (<-- please pay close attention to his before you misinterpret and respond).

volleynets
03-30-2010, 12:44 PM
No :) Kohlschriber (i'm not sure if I spelled that right) doesn't have that kind of head to head against Nadal.

Kolya is a diminutive nickname for Nikolay I think. Hence, I was talking about Davydenko.

Yep in Russian his name is Nikolay. In the US Nicolas or Nikolay is usually abbreviated to Nick but in Russia Nikolay takes the middle portion of the name for the abbreviation. Kolya is short for Nikolay basically.

Just like Masha is a nickname for Maria. IT is NOT Ma from Maria and Sha from Sharapova. Every Maria can be called Masha in Russia regardless of her last name.

P_Agony
03-30-2010, 12:44 PM
There is a significant difference with leading the head to head by double number of victories to defeats like 14-7 for instance and leading a head to head by 1 match. What I would say currently about Nadal is that only 2 players lead in the head to head vs him and that those 2 players only lead by 1 match (something that could be easily overturned). No other player on the tour can claim such a feat at the moment, particularly not the other top 5 players: Djoko, Murray, Fed who are all significantly dominated in the head to head by other top players. (incidently all of them by Nadal of course :))

Likewise, Nadal doesn't have nearly as many dominating as, say, Federer. Federer's H2H with most players looks like this:

Federer - Enter a big number here, perhaps even a double digits figure.
Player X - 0 or 1 in most casses.

Look for examples Federer's dominating H2Hs against Roddick, Blake, Soderling, Davydenko, Safin. All great players who are most of the time dominated by Federer, and he has plenty more of those H2Hs. I think someone (Jenny?) once posted a statistic here about the top players' dominance against the field and Federer was head and shoulders above everyone else, including Nadal. That is perhaps the reason why Federer, despite losing to Nadal more often than not, has managed to stay #1 for so long, and was only moved from that spot in his worst, and Nadal's best, year.

Nadal has dominance over Federer, but he doesn't have dominance over the field like Federer does, and that's how it's always been. A proof of that is their perdormence at slams, Nadal is 6-2 against Fed at slams, total domination I admit, however Nadal has seen far more early rounds upsets, where Federer, since 2003, has seen exactly 0.

volleynets
03-30-2010, 12:47 PM
Likewise, Nadal doesn't have nearly as many dominating as, say, Federer. Federer's H2H with most players looks like this:

Federer - Enter a big number here, perhaps even a double digits figure.
Player X - 0 or 1 in most casses.

Look for examples Federer's dominating H2Hs against Roddick, Blake, Soderling, Davydenko, Safin. All great players who are most of the time dominated by Federer, and he has plenty more of those H2Hs. I think someone (Jenny?) once posted a statistic here about the top players' dominance against the field and Federer was head and shoulders above everyone else, including Nadal. That is perhaps the reason why Federer, despite losing to Nadal more often than not, has managed to stay #1 for so long, and was only moved from that spot in his worst, and Nadal's best, year.

Nadal has dominance over Federer, but he doesn't have dominance over the field like Federer does, and that's how it's always been. A proof of that is their perdormence at slams, Nadal is 6-2 against Fed at slams, total domination I admit, however Nadal has seen far more early rounds upsets, where Federer, since 2003, has seen exactly 0.

Just to clarify, you meant in slams right?

jukka1970
03-30-2010, 01:05 PM
I believe he doesn´t. Moreover i believe he doesn´t have a losing head to head against any former or current player who played more than 2 times against him ( players such as corretja or Hhrbaty beat him when he was a teenager, but that doesn´t really count i guess). Correct me if I´m wrong, because that , indeed, would be an awesome feat

well no matter who your favorite player(s) are, it's pretty damn incredible that only cilic and davydenko have a winning h2h against Nadal. And if corretja and Hrbaty are being counted, I would change this statement to active players. Because you can go back on anyone whether it be Nadal, Federer, Roddick, etc. far enough to find players that have since retired that said player is losing to.

John

P_Agony
03-30-2010, 01:13 PM
Just to clarify, you meant in slams right?

Yeah, I mentioned the word "slams" a copule times there :-)

zagor
03-30-2010, 01:17 PM
I don't know,this stat doesn't impress me that much to be honest.I find Nadal's dominance on clay and FO+Wimbledon double much more impressive to be honest than having so few losing H2Hs.

P_Agony
03-30-2010, 01:20 PM
I don't know,this stat doesn't impress me that much to be honest.I find Nadal's dominance on clay and FO+Wimbledon double much more impressive to be honest than having so few losing H2Hs.

Quoted For Truth

Rippy
03-30-2010, 02:29 PM
There is a significant difference with leading the head to head by double number of victories to defeats like 14-7 for instance and leading a head to head by 1 match. :))

Federer's winning H2Hs tend to be a lot larger than Nadal's if you want to go down that road...

bakla
03-30-2010, 06:53 PM
I'm sure Fed will have a few more wins over Nadal , but changing to a positive H2H is quite unlikely. This is because if Nadal is playing well , he is a great matchup gamewise against Fed. If Nadal is playing badly, he won't even get to meet Fed regularly because he will be knocked out earlier.

You think they'll keep seeding Nadal at #2 if he starts losing a lot earlier? The more he loses, the more he'll be seeing Fed in the early rounds.