PDA

View Full Version : Has Nadal ever hit more winners than Federer in a match?


Ray Mercer
04-17-2011, 09:02 PM
This is an odd question but has Nadal ever hit more winners than Federer in any of their matches against one another other than maybe RG 08? Are winner stats available for all of their matches?

corners
04-17-2011, 10:04 PM
This is an odd question but has Nadal ever hit more winners than Federer in any of their matches against one another other than maybe RG 08? Are winner stats available for all of their matches?

I think you have to dig for them after the tournament's are over. The ATP website keeps stats for each match played but they don't include winners and UEs. For recent matches you can try the websites of the tournaments, which are sometimes kept up for a while, but I don't know how long, maybe just until the next year. The Madrid clay event website has already switched to '11.

miyagi
04-17-2011, 11:37 PM
I would seriously doubt it, Nadal is by all accounts a more patient / defensive player. Federer is one of THE most aggressive players.

lemon
04-17-2011, 11:48 PM
Ridiculous by definition. Nadal sucks in this most important aspect of the game as hitting winners.

SirGounder
04-18-2011, 07:02 AM
I am going to guess yes. It doesn't happen often but there is probably a fluke match in there somewhere for both players.

dominikk1985
04-18-2011, 07:08 AM
Ridiculous by definition. Nadal sucks in this most important aspect of the game as hitting winners.

that's ********. nadal hits usually a lot of winners. especially passing shots. he also hits many balls that the opponent just touches.

Clay lover
04-18-2011, 07:34 AM
i would think that Nadal had done so in some of his earlier hardcourt matches vs Federer where he was more aggresive and in some of the more one sided clay court matches. When Nadal was younger he made so many passes on that surface it's ridiculous.

billnepill
04-18-2011, 08:32 AM
i would think that Nadal had done so in some of his earlier hardcourt matches vs Federer where he was more aggresive and in some of the more one sided clay court matches. When Nadal was younger he made so many passes on that surface it's ridiculous.

Still, I haven't seen a match between the two with Nadal hitting more winners than Federer apart FO 2008.

And I usually pay great deal of attention to this particular stat.

Maybe Miami 2004? I didn't see this match live.

tenniswarrior
04-18-2011, 09:49 AM
Miami 2011 felt like Nadal hit more than Federer did, although the stats say Nadal was 11-10 with winner/UE and Federer was 20-38.

soyizgood
04-19-2011, 12:21 AM
Ummm... FO 2008?

mcr619619
04-19-2011, 01:25 AM
i don't remember anything like that, but maybe FO 08.. Nadal's game is great, but boring to me...no offense, it's just a..aghh... nevermind... well Fed always win in making UE....

Netzroller
04-19-2011, 07:11 AM
Ridiculous by definition. Nadal sucks in this most important aspect of the game as hitting winners.
From what I know the most important aspect of the game is winning points...

If you don't like that, watch a game that focusses on beatiful form - e.g. figure skating ;-)

mistik
04-19-2011, 07:27 AM
To be honest nadal most of the time dominate fed from the baseline,fed ace numbers at times gives you false impression about his shot making ability.anyway tennis is a game to find the right BALANCE of hitting winners and errors.if you hit 60 winners but make 40 errors this is still too much,and guy who hit 30 winners but only 7 errors deserves to win.there are also many non clean winners in tennis that your opponent can only respond but can't do that much.there is no doubt that Nadal has more effective game than fed at the back off the court.

DjokerIsTheBest
04-19-2011, 08:07 AM
Usually pushers are not known for their winner hitting capabilities.

kishnabe
04-19-2011, 08:53 AM
2004 Miami...the most aggressive form of Nadal in a fedal match.

2008 FO...I would guess because it was a beatdown that Nadal should have got more winners.( I don't know how Federer couldn't win more games in that match. Nadal looked the same level as before.)

DjokerIsTheBest
04-19-2011, 08:58 AM
2004 Miami...the most aggressive form of Nadal in a fedal match.

2008 FO...I would guess because it was a beatdown that Nadal should have got more winners.( I don't know how Federer couldn't win more games in that match. Nadal looked the same level as before.)

Federer just played awful in FO08. He lost a lot of practice time due to mono that year. Nadal probably still would have won, but it would have been tighter.

NadalAgassi
04-19-2011, 10:37 AM
Federer didnt play that well at the 2008 French compared to his former clay standards but his clay court game has declined gradually after 2007. His clay court peak was definitely 05-07, especialy 05-06. Heck tennis wise he was a better clay courter even from 2002-2004 then 2008-today, he simply didnt have the mental toughness to deliver and fight of off days at the French those earlier years which he had in abundance in his later years.

His performance at the 2008 French was in line with his natural decline on clay which has continued ever since. He after all played worse at the 2009 French overall than 2008 and won it because of Nadal's loss.

And Nadal played better than ever at the 2008 French and Federer couldnt even beat him or come that close from 2005-2007, so even if Federer played at his 05-06 clay level at the 2008 French he still would have lost in straight sets to Nadal probably.

tennis_pro
04-19-2011, 10:48 AM
Federer didnt play that well at the 2008 French compared to his former clay standards but his clay court game has declined gradually after 2007. His clay court peak was definitely 05-07, especialy 05-06. Heck tennis wise he was a better clay courter even from 2002-2004 then 2008-today, he simply didnt have the mental toughness to deliver and fight of off days at the French those earlier years which he had in abundance in his later years.

His performance at the 2008 French was in line with his natural decline on clay which has continued ever since. He after all played worse at the 2009 French overall than 2008 and won it because of Nadal's loss.

And Nadal played better than ever at the 2008 French and Federer couldnt even beat him or come that close from 2005-2007, so even if Federer played at his 05-06 clay level at the 2008 French he still would have lost in straight sets to Nadal probably.

1):shock: Don't get ahead of yourself, Federer before 2004 wasn't even near any of the post 2005 years on clay, if that wasn't obvious enough. I remember one match he played against Coria on clay in 2004, that was one of the best matches I've seen from him on clay in his career. Results speak for themselves, tho, he lost in Rome and the FO that year pretty badly


2) Dunno, that's still guessing, I'd say he'd probably lose anyway which is the point in this discussion. Don't forget that Fed played Nadal twice on clay in 2008 and the final scores were 7-5 7-5 and 7-5 6-7 6-3, Fed really had chances to win both matches, but only God knows how he squanders those 5-1 4-0 leads over Nadal. Federer on clay in 2008 was close to his 2005-2007 level, people are critisizing his clay campaign in 2008 based on that 1 awful match he played against Nadal in the final of the FO.

mistik
04-19-2011, 11:05 AM
Fed didn't play an awful match in RG 2008.it was nadal at his very best and all the players were counting the games they have won against him that year fed was also one of them.djoko manage to win 10 games from Rafa that year,rafa lost concentration 3 set which went to tiebreak.as I said before players were counting the games they have won against Rafa fed was one of them.he didn't play that badly.

Dilettante
04-19-2011, 11:44 AM
Has Nadal ever hit more winners than Federer in a match?

I don't know, but Federer goes much more for risky winners and Nadal plays a percentage game, so the usual statistic should almost always be Federer hitting more winners and Nadal making less UE's.

Ridiculous by definition. Nadal sucks in this most important aspect of the game as hitting winners.

Not true.

It's just his game is more of a patience/ percentage game, he tries to avoid errors, but he can hit amazing winners from both sides. You should know that already.

pvaudio
04-19-2011, 11:53 AM
Not likely, but at the same time, not relevant. As said, it's like asking the reverse: has Federer ever had less UEs than Nadal? Probably not.

vandre
04-19-2011, 11:56 AM
I would seriously doubt it, Nadal is by all accounts a more patient / defensive player. Federer is one of THE most aggressive players.

trust mr. miyagi here. when fed plays nadal, fed's the one going for broke so i'd expect his winner total would be higher than nadal's. it's also why fed kills himself with ues when he plays rafa.

mandy01
04-19-2011, 12:00 PM
Federer just played awful in FO08. I agree with you.I don't know where he was.It was shocking.It wasn't so much the loss-that was nothing unexpected.It's the manner in which he went down.

No matter what anyone has to say about FO09 Roger was better imo.He fought but he fought against players who were playing some really good tennis.Particularly Del Potro.That's some of the best stuff I'ver ever seen from DP on clay.

NadalAgassi
04-19-2011, 12:09 PM
1):shock: Don't get ahead of yourself, Federer before 2004 wasn't even near any of the post 2005 years on clay, if that wasn't obvious enough. I remember one match he played against Coria on clay in 2004, that was one of the best matches I've seen from him on clay in his career. Results speak for themselves, tho, he lost in Rome and the FO that year pretty badly

Federer was overall more effective on clay from 2008-2010 than 2002-2004 due to his vastly superior mental toughness and consistency. However his best days on clay from 2002-2004 were better than 2008-2010 IMO. I have never seen Federer post 2008 play a match on clay like his Hamburg final with Safin in 2002 or the Hamburg final with Coria in 2004. Of course from 2005-2007, 05 and 06 especialy, was BY FAR his best tennis on clay ever period.


2) Dunno, that's still guessing, I'd say he'd probably lose anyway which is the point in this discussion. Don't forget that Fed played Nadal twice on clay in 2008 and the final scores were 7-5 7-5 and 7-5 6-7 6-3, Fed really had chances to win both matches, but only God knows how he squanders those 5-1 4-0 leads over Nadal. Federer on clay in 2008 was close to his 2005-2007 level, people are critisizing his clay campaign in 2008 based on that 1 awful match he played against Nadal in the final of the FO.

Except for Monte Carlo Djokovic played a higher level of clay court tennis than Federer in 2008. Do you really dispute that if you watched Rome, Hamburg, and the French? Federer lost to Stepanek, hardly a clay court danger, in Rome. And I think he nearly lost to a really old Moya (who he owned even in Moya's prime years) at one of the other Masters. Monte Carlo he had no real chance to win the match, maybe win a set. Hamburg yes he had a chance but Nadal was worn from his semi with amazing semi Djokovic so it was similar to 2007, but except this time Federer couldnt capatilize.

At the French I knew after watching Federer clown around and struggle so much with MONFILS of all people that an on fire Nadal would destroy him and I predicted that before the match.

On the whole though I agree Federer still had a pretty good clay campaign in 2008. As I said I think he was better on clay (as far as actual tennis level) in 08 than 09. Basically every year since 2007 it has gone down a bit and will probably continue. Clay is not an old mans surface.

NadalAgassi
04-19-2011, 12:13 PM
No matter what anyone has to say about FO09 Roger was better imo.He fought but he fought against players who were playing some really good tennis.Particularly Del Potro.That's some of the best stuff I'ver ever seen from DP on clay.

The only matches Federer was better at the 2009 French was the final (obviously) and probably the semis (though he was still badly overpowered by an on fire Del Potro for 3 sets and lucky to sneak out that 2nd set somehow and not lose in 3 straight sets). Before that Federer nearly lost to Acasuso and a 31 year old Haas, and I think one other even more obscure opponent gave him trouble. How is that better?

mandy01
04-19-2011, 12:34 PM
The only matches Federer was better at the 2009 French was the final (obviously) and probably the semis (though he was still badly overpowered by an on fire Del Potro for 3 sets and lucky to sneak out that 2nd set somehow and not lose in 3 straight sets). Before that Federer nearly lost to Acasuso and a 31 year old Haas, and I think one other even more obscure opponent gave him trouble. How is that better?

Haas was playing some good tennis during that stretch,going on to win Halle and making Wimbledon semis subsequently.It doesn't matter that was 31 year old.It doesn't change the fact that he played well.Even then Roger hadn't lost a single point on his service games despite losing the first set in the TB.Next time watch the match before you talk.Yes,it was close one and he could've lost it but he didn't.Just like he could've lost against Berdych at the AO that year and didn't or just like he could've lost to Andreev at the USO in 2008 and didn't.The point being,that once Roger had made the recovery,he never looked back.Despite those being five setters he was never completely on the back foot game wise (like he was against Falla at last year's Wimbledon).
Even Nadal lost sets at Wimbledon last year to players one had barely hear of (Atleast people know about Haas).Doesn't automatically mean he was poor.He played solid tennis when it counted and was there fighting mentally and physically.
And no,Roger lost a set to Acasuso .Sure he was trailing 1-5 in the second but that doesn't immediately translate into a near loss especially considering the fact that he made up the deficit and didn't look back from there on.
As for the DP match-Yes, overwhelmed,he was at the beginning.But he weathered the storm brilliantly.He wore DP down mentally and physically.So overall he definitely did better.And I have to LOL at the 'lucky to sneak it out' stuff from you.I don't remember *******s coming up with such stuff when their boy is just getting by.(AO 09 SF being a fine example of it.Maybe Nadal was just 'lucky' to win that tournament.).
Overall,as a tournament,I would still say Roger played better than he did in 08 when imo,he looked both physically and mentally weary.Neither 09 and 08 were brilliant from him.But in 09 I thought he was more prepared to fight for it with or without Nadal and so he played very well nearly everytime it had to.When push came to shove he was ready and I don't think he would've lost to Nadal again the way he did in RG 08 even if they had met in the finals( here the Madrid victory also played its part.It gave him much needed confidence.So even if he might not have been there at his very best game wise line in 08,he was there both mentally and physically).And while Nadal wasn't there his absence did put added pressure on Fed (I did feel he was terribly nervous in both the Haas and Monfils matches and of course he admitted to being under a lot of pressure later).It was almost a must-win situation for him.

NadalAgassi
04-19-2011, 03:36 PM
Federer hasnt lost to Haas since January 2002. Haas's worst surface is clay. I dont care if Haas was playing well, Federer should have never been in position to lose in straight sets to Haas. Yeah Haas was playing well but when they played at Wimbledon when Haas was playing even better Federer destroyed him, and clay should be just as easy against this opponent. As for the Acasuso match at the very least it was a very hard tussle. And you cant compare Nadal-Verdasco from the 09 Australian to Federer-Del Potro from the 09 French. Del Potro basically overwhelmed Federer the first 3 sets, but Federer fought hard to get into the 2nd set tibreak and somehow pulled it out. Verdasco never dominated any stretch of the match vs Nadal. If Nadal was playing Del Potro and won the match a similar way yes I would say he was lucky to not lose in straight sets in the end. Anyway you cant compare Del Potro to Verdasco, Del Potro is a great player, a legit top 5 when healthy. Verdasco of course is a clown and the biggest embarassment to the top 10 in years- nobody should ever imagine that chump beating Nadal or Federer in a big match no matter how close he gets.

I dont think overall he played better at the 09 French than 2008 at all. We will have to agree to disagree on that. And even if you were right, the 08 French as mentioned was worse than he usually played on clay by then, and 2009 FO was his typical level on clay by then or even a bit better, so it wouldnt at all contradict my point that his overall clay game has been in gradual decline for several years now, inspite of his FO title in 2009.

MRG
04-19-2011, 08:27 PM
I would say Nadal never frame more shots than Federer in a match.

tlm
04-19-2011, 09:01 PM
Who cares who hit how many winners? What do you win for hitting more winners than your opponent?

tennis_pro
04-19-2011, 09:18 PM
Except for Monte Carlo Djokovic played a higher level of clay court tennis than Federer in 2008. Do you really dispute that if you watched Rome, Hamburg, and the French? Federer lost to Stepanek, hardly a clay court danger, in Rome. And I think he nearly lost to a really old Moya (who he owned even in Moya's prime years) at one of the other Masters. Monte Carlo he had no real chance to win the match, maybe win a set. Hamburg yes he had a chance but Nadal was worn from his semi with amazing semi Djokovic so it was similar to 2007, but except this time Federer couldnt capatilize.

At the French I knew after watching Federer clown around and struggle so much with MONFILS of all people that an on fire Nadal would destroy him and I predicted that before the match.

On the whole though I agree Federer still had a pretty good clay campaign in 2008. As I said I think he was better on clay (as far as actual tennis level) in 08 than 09. Basically every year since 2007 it has gone down a bit and will probably continue. Clay is not an old mans surface.

1)Their level on clay was comparable, I'd even give the slight edge to Federer as he won their only meeting on clay that year.

Federer lost 3 finals to Nadal (Monte Carlo, Hamburg, French Open) and 1 random loss to Stepanek.

Djokovic won Rome and lost to Federer in Monte Carlo and to Nadal at the French and in Hamburg.

2) The last match Federer played against Moya was Hamburg in 2007, even though he lost to first set he was nowhere near losing + Moya played great in 2007 (QF in French and US) so he wasn't a pushover.

3) :shock: Nadal worn down after a 7-5 2-6 6-2 win?

So Federer must've been really exhausted against Djokovic in Monte Carlo that year as he played a match against Nalbandian in the quartefinal that ended with a near identical score of 5-7 6-2 6-2.

TheTruth
04-20-2011, 07:38 AM
Who cares who hit how many winners? What do you win for hitting more winners than your opponent?

That's what I was thinking. It's all about the w/l column. Everything else is moot; bad day at the office, injury, winners/errors, 1st serve %age, nobody cares about that stuff after the match is over.

mandy01
04-20-2011, 08:16 AM
[QUOTE]Federer hasnt lost to Haas since January 2002. Haas's worst surface is clay.
I dont care if Haas was playing well, Federer should have never been in position to lose in straight sets to Haas. Yeah Haas was playing well but when they played at Wimbledon when Haas was playing even better Federer destroyed him, and clay should be just as easy against this opponent.

It doesn't matter that clay is Haas's worst surface.In that tournament,he wasn't playing like it.Overall,that was just a fairly good period for him.And I do not care what position you think Fed should have or should not have been in.Roger should've probably never been two sets down to love against Berdych at the AO that year either.But he was.All i know is that Haas played a good match and won two closely contested sets.Inspite of losing two sets like I said,Roger was never on the back foot in the match.His service games in particular were very strong from his side.The match was more or less on even footing.It was just one poor tb in the first set and one poor service game in the second set and I think Haas who was serving extremely well himself,won that tiebreak on just one minibreak so again,it was a closely contested set.Other than that however,Roger was completely dominant on his service games.
I cannot tell you in certain terms if Haas was better at Wimbledon SF but I definitely think Fed was better there from what I can remember of the match..But again,that doesn't matter.I never said Federer was excellent at the FO09.I just think he was better than 08.Also imo he seemed nervous in the Haas match for a while.Once he settled down,once he took control of the match he never looked behind,he never let any doubt seep into his game. .Perhaps the knowledge that Nadal was out the previous day and he knew what that meant made him nervous initially.

Also,imo, it's not about the sets lost.Even Nadal lost sets to players people have barely heard of at Wimbledon last year-and all this in one of his best years ever result-wise.But he was solid when he needed to be.That is somewhat(not exactly, so don't fly off handle) how I saw Roger's form at the FO .
Anyway,it doesn't matter that you disagree.You do make some pretty good points as well.So I see your side of the argument.But I still stand by what I said.

Hitman
04-20-2011, 10:57 AM
Haas was playing some good tennis during that stretch,going on to win Halle and making Wimbledon semis subsequently.It doesn't matter that was 31 year old.It doesn't change the fact that he played well.Even then Roger hadn't lost a single point on his service games despite losing the first set in the TB.Next time watch the match before you talk.Yes,it was close one and he could've lost it but he didn't.Just like he could've lost against Berdych at the AO that year and didn't or just like he could've lost to Andreev at the USO in 2008 and didn't.The point being,that once Roger had made the recovery,he never looked back.Despite those being five setters he was never completely on the back foot game wise (like he was against Falla at last year's Wimbledon).
Even Nadal lost sets at Wimbledon last year to players one had barely hear of (Atleast people know about Haas).Doesn't automatically mean he was poor.He played solid tennis when it counted and was there fighting mentally and physically.
And no,Roger lost a set to Acasuso .Sure he was trailing 1-5 in the second but that doesn't immediately translate into a near loss especially considering the fact that he made up the deficit and didn't look back from there on.
As for the DP match-Yes, overwhelmed,he was at the beginning.But he weathered the storm brilliantly.He wore DP down mentally and physically.So overall he definitely did better.And I have to LOL at the 'lucky to sneak it out' stuff from you.I don't remember *******s coming up with such stuff when their boy is just getting by.(AO 09 SF being a fine example of it.Maybe Nadal was just 'lucky' to win that tournament.).
Overall,as a tournament,I would still say Roger played better than he did in 08 when imo,he looked both physically and mentally weary.Neither 09 and 08 were brilliant from him.But in 09 I thought he was more prepared to fight for it with or without Nadal and so he played very well nearly everytime it had to.When push came to shove he was ready and I don't think he would've lost to Nadal again the way he did in RG 08 even if they had met in the finals( here the Madrid victory also played its part.It gave him much needed confidence.So even if he might not have been there at his very best game wise line in 08,he was there both mentally and physically).And while Nadal wasn't there his absence did put added pressure on Fed (I did feel he was terribly nervous in both the Haas and Monfils matches and of course he admitted to being under a lot of pressure later).It was almost a must-win situation for him.

Great post Mandy!

I really enjoy reading them. To me this was an accurate representation of Federer on clay. His performance in FO09 after Nadal went out, showed his iron will...it was do or die, and he came through like a champion. And that match with Del Potro was a war! It took something special for him to win that one.

big bang
04-21-2011, 04:55 AM
Usually pushers are not known for their winner hitting capabilities.
And you are already known for posting idiotic stuff..

DjokerIsTheBest
04-21-2011, 05:07 AM
And you are already known for posting idiotic stuff..

Sometimes the truth hurts and causes posters to lash out. Don't worry I understand.

miyagi
04-21-2011, 08:45 AM
Nadal isn't a pusher. He hits plenty of winners and generally has the right balance of aggressiveness and patience!