PDA

View Full Version : What's the most impressive h2h of the top four players, not against each other?


joeri888
03-07-2012, 11:16 PM
So, easy question I think? What do you consider the most impressive h2h of any Djokovic, Nadal, Federer and Murray that's not a h2h against each other. So no 16-14; 19-9; 8-7 etc.

Very curious what you guys are most impressed with.

GasquetGOAT
03-07-2012, 11:21 PM
Does Djokovic's 7-0 in straight finals against certain double digit slams winner count?

I think this is the most impressive h2h stats in recent times.

joeri888
03-07-2012, 11:25 PM
Does Djokovic 7-0 in straight finals against certain double digit slams winner count?

I think this is the most impressive h2h stats in recent times.

Uhm, no. that is against each other right? I know 7-0 and 19-9 are very impressive stats, but most of us tennis junkies are fully aware of those and they hve been discussed in full.

But for instance, Murray's record against Roddick is not often looked at. While 8-3 might not seem that special, it is if you consider that these guys played 6 of those matches prior to 2008 and Murray won four of those.

Federer's record against Ferrer is also very impressive in my eyes. Yes he matches up well, but with Ferrer's mental fortitude and fighting spirit, you expect him to win once or twice when Federer's somewhat off his game.

Love all
03-08-2012, 12:22 AM
Federer vs Roddick,
Federer vs Sodrling
Federer vS Davydenko
Federer vs Ferrer

monfed
03-08-2012, 12:36 AM
Ralph vs his Spanish lapdogs(all of em) :lol:

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-08-2012, 12:48 AM
Does Djokovic's 7-0 in straight finals against certain double digit slams winner count?

I think this is the most impressive h2h stats in recent times.

No, because Nadal leads Djokovic 5-3 in slam meetings and 16-14 overall, and Nadal won 5 straight over Djokovic within that 16-14 and Nadal won 5 straight slam meetings overall Djokovic within that 5-3. So most of the stats surrounding Nadal vs Djokovic are in Nadal's favor.

joeri888
03-08-2012, 12:48 AM
Ralph vs his Spanish lapdogs(all of em) :lol:

You find his record against Lopez so impressive? I think he has one or two losses against him.

Or how about Ferrer? He's lost twice at a Slam to Daveed?

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-08-2012, 12:50 AM
How about Federer's record vs Spanish players outside of Nadal?

And how about Federer's record vs left-handers outside of Nadal?

joeri888
03-08-2012, 02:08 AM
How about Federer's record vs Spanish players outside of Nadal?

And how about Federer's record vs left-handers outside of Nadal?

What are his records? Federer at least has losses to Corretja and Montanes of the spaniards.

batz
03-08-2012, 02:21 AM
Murray's 5-1 H2H with Delpo isn't too shabby

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-08-2012, 02:24 AM
What are his records? Federer at least has losses to Corretja and Montanes of the spaniards.

Federer H2H/stats are not important enough for me to research.

Wilander Fan
03-08-2012, 02:35 AM
Nadal has the most impressive H2H over the rest:

Nadal 47-28
Nole 31-35
Fed 30-36
Murray 18-27

However, again these numbers are skewed by clay results. Nadal is an astounding 25-4 on clay in his career against the other top 4. Prior Novak's breakthrough last year, Nadal was 25-2 with only Federer managing to beat Nadal.

Off clay, Nadal is below .500 against the group as a whole and against everyone individually except Murray.

Basically, this shows that Nadal has been incredibly dominant on clay. Also, this shows that off clay, the head to head within the group has Fed the best (28-24), followed closely by Novak (29-26). Nadal becomes a distant 3rd at 22-24 and Murray still far behind at 18-23.

batz
03-08-2012, 02:39 AM
Nadal has the most impressive H2H over the rest:

Nadal 47-28
Nole 31-35
Fed 30-36
Murray 18-27

However, again these numbers are skewed by clay results. Nadal is an astounding 25-4 on clay in his career against the other top 4. Prior Novak's breakthrough last year, Nadal was 25-2 with only Federer managing to beat Nadal.

Off clay, Nadal is below .500 against the group as a whole and against everyone individually except Murray.

Basically, this shows that Nadal has been incredibly dominant on clay. Also, this shows that off clay, the head to head within the group has Fed the best (28-24), followed closely by Novak (29-26). Nadal becomes a distant 3rd at 22-24 and Murray still far behind at 18-23.


How do the head to heads v each other look if we consider finals only?

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-08-2012, 02:40 AM
Nadal has the most impressive H2H over the rest:

Nadal 47-28
Nole 31-35
Fed 30-36
Murray 18-27

However, again these numbers are skewed by clay results. Nadal is an astounding 25-4 on clay in his career against the other top 4. Prior Novak's breakthrough last year, Nadal was 25-2 with only Federer managing to beat Nadal.

Off clay, Nadal is below .500 against the group as a whole and against everyone individually except Murray.

Basically, this shows that Nadal has been incredibly dominant on clay. Also, this shows that off clay, the head to head within the group has Fed the best (28-24), followed closely by Novak (29-26). Nadal becomes a distant 3rd at 22-24 and Murray still far behind at 18-23.

If only 2 of 4 slams were played on clay. Instead, 2 of the 4 slams are played on hardcourt....

The Bawss
03-08-2012, 02:52 AM
Murray's 5-1 H2H with Delpo isn't too shabby

Maybe that's impressive because it's Murray, but Federer has 10-2 against Delpo which is superior as the sample size is twice as large.
In terms of most skewed h2h you're probably looking at Fed vs Soderling, Blake, Ferrer, Davydenko, Lopez, Youzhny, Gonzalez.

But I think the ongoing streak of 7-0 of Djoko vs Nadal is more impressive.

joeri888
03-08-2012, 02:54 AM
Maybe that's impressive because it's Murray, but Federer has 10-2 against Delpo which is superior as the sample size is twice as large.
In terms of most skewed h2h you're probably looking at Fed vs Soderling, Blake, Ferrer, Davydenko, Lopez, Youzhny, Gonzalez.

But I think the ongoing streak of 7-0 of Djoko vs Nadal is more impressive.

I think 16-2 or so against Davydenko is less impressive than 12-0 against Ferrer, because Ferrer is a tough fighter and Davydenko can go on court already lost.

vernonbc
03-08-2012, 04:24 AM
If only 2 of 4 slams were played on clay. Instead, 2 of the 4 slams are played on hardcourt....
Exactly. The number aren't skewed in Nadal's favour because of his clay expertise. They are skewed against Rafa because so many matches are played on hard courts, which makes his record all the more impressive.

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-08-2012, 04:36 AM
Exactly. The number aren't skewed in Nadal's favour because of his clay expertise. They are skewed against Rafa because so many matches are played on hard courts, which makes his record all the more impressive.

True that. Rafa gets teased for 6 of his 10 slam titles being clay. Imagine what would happen if 2 of the 4 slams were on clay!

Mainad
03-08-2012, 04:36 AM
As I posted on an earlier thread, Federer holds some pretty impressive H2Hs against current players:

v Roddick 21-2
v Hewitt 18-8
v Davydenko 17-2
v Soderling 16-1
v Ferrer 12-0
v Youzhny 12-0
v Berdych 10-4
v Del Potro 10-2
v Tsonga 8-3
v Fish 7-1

joeri888
03-08-2012, 04:44 AM
As I posted on an earlier thread, Federer holds some pretty impressive H2Hs against current players:

v Roddick 21-2
v Hewitt 18-8
v Davydenko 17-2
v Soderling 16-1
v Ferrer 12-0
v Youzhny 12-0
v Berdych 10-4
v Del Potro 10-2
v Tsonga 8-3
v Fish 7-1
Not sure I'm impressed with Tsonga and Berdych. Especially the fact that he lost a big Wimbledon match against both hurts him imo. Plus the Olympic match with Berdych of course

Totai
03-08-2012, 05:14 AM
True that. Rafa gets teased for 6 of his 10 slam titles being clay. Imagine what would happen if 2 of the 4 slams were on clay!

If 2 of the 4 slams were on clay then there would be many more players on the tour that are clay courters, which could be detrimental to Nadal's chances.

If the FO was actually an indoor hardcourt, then fed would have multiple CYGS by now ;)

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-08-2012, 05:24 AM
If 2 of the 4 slams were on clay then there would be many more players on the tour that are clay courters, which could be detrimental to Nadal's chances.

If the FO was actually an indoor hardcourt, then fed would have multiple CYGS by now ;)

If 2 of the 4 slams were on clay, more players would be good at clay, but I seriously doubt any would get the same amount of topspin as Nadal. There were many claycourt specialists in the 1990's but none resembled Nadal's level.

In your hypothetical of the French Open being an indoor hardcourt, does that mean 3 of the slams are hardcourt, 1 is grass and none are clay?

DjokovicForTheWin
03-08-2012, 06:06 AM
Borg > Nadal on clay.

The Bawss
03-08-2012, 06:33 AM
As I posted on an earlier thread, Federer holds some pretty impressive H2Hs against current players:

v Roddick 21-2
v Hewitt 18-8
v Davydenko 17-2
v Soderling 16-1
v Ferrer 12-0
v Youzhny 12-0
v Berdych 10-4
v Del Potro 10-2
v Tsonga 8-3
v Fish 7-1

You can also add:
v Lopez 10-0
v Gonzalez 12-1 (Hasn't quite retired yet)
v Ljubicic 13-3
v Blake 10-1

Mainad
03-08-2012, 06:46 AM
You can also add:
v Lopez 10-0
v Gonzalez 12-1 (Hasn't quite retired yet)
v Ljubicic 13-3
v Blake 10-1

Yet more evidence. I think Fed must have more impressive H2Hs against current players than anybody else I know!

Course, he's been practicing longer than most!! :)

Mainad
03-08-2012, 06:55 AM
Some notable H2Hs of the other top 4 against the current top 10 (5 and below):

Djokovic:

v Berdych 8-1
v Fish 7-0
v Del Potro 4-1
v Tipsarevic 4-1

Nadal:

v Ferrer 13-4
v Berdych 11-3
v Fish 8-1
v Del Potro 7-3

Murray:

v Tsonga 5-1
v Del Potro 5-1

joeri888
03-08-2012, 07:10 AM
Federer has faired way better against his generation than the others have. Whether that's him being better in peak years or his contemporaries being weaker is up to you.


What are Fed's h2h's against Robredo (former top 10 as well) and Nieminen as well.

I don't know about Rafa or Djokovic holding more than a 10-0 advantage over somebody already.

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-08-2012, 07:20 AM
Federer has faired way better against his generation than the others have. Whether that's him being better in peak years or his contemporaries being weaker is up to you.


What are Fed's h2h's against Robredo (former top 10 as well) and Nieminen as well.

I don't know about Rafa or Djokovic holding more than a 10-0 advantage over somebody already.

Better than 10. Nadal leads Verdasco 12-0.

The Bawss
03-08-2012, 07:26 AM
Federer has faired way better against his generation than the others have. Whether that's him being better in peak years or his contemporaries being weaker is up to you.


What are Fed's h2h's against Robredo (former top 10 as well) and Nieminen as well.

I don't know about Rafa or Djokovic holding more than a 10-0 advantage over somebody already.

Nice, I hadn't thought of these two.

v Nieminen 13-0
v Robredo 10-0

Other interesting ones:

v Safin 10-2
v Kohlschreiber 6-0
v Moya 7-0
v Johansson 7-0
v Baghdatis 7-1
v Karlovic 10-1
v Wawrinka 10-1
v Haas 10-2

Netzroller
03-08-2012, 07:35 AM
Does Djokovic's 7-0 in straight finals against certain double digit slams winner count?

I think this is the most impressive h2h stats in recent times.
Good gob, the quesion of the thread was one simple sentence and you still weren't able to understand what the discussion was supossed to be about :lol::lol:

You must have had a very tough time in school...
Ralph vs his Spanish lapdogs(all of em) :lol:
Federer's record against them is actually better. Certainly one worth mentioning here.

joeri888
03-08-2012, 08:18 AM
Whats feds record against dasco and almagro?

OddJack
03-08-2012, 08:24 AM
lets not kid ourselves folks,
The most impressive h2h is 17-9, or whatever it is now

Rodge h2h against Roddick, or Davy doesnt matter, who cares? They are in quite different league.

But, as impressive at it is now, it is something history will not care much about. Who cares about Wilander's h2h agaisnt, say, Becker now?? The frequency of their names mentioned is in direct relation to number of majors won.
Consider Wilander, philipousis(or whatever his name) and a guy named Henman.

monfed
03-08-2012, 08:31 AM
lets not kid ourselves folks,
The most impressive h2h is 17-9, or whatever it is now

Rodge h2h against Roddick, or Davy doesnt matter, who cares? They are in quite different league.

But, as impressive at it is now, it is something history will not care much about. Who cares about Wilander's h2h agaisnt, say, Becker now?? The frequency of their names mentioned is in direct relation to number of majors won.
Consider Wilander, philipousis(or whatever his name) and a guy named Henman.


I see your point but the Fed-Nadal H2H has been done to death. Something new for a change, dude ;)

Fedex
03-08-2012, 08:40 AM
Murray's 5-1 H2H with Delpo isn't too shabby

Even more impressive is that's against pre injury Delpo plus a Slam win thrown into the pot.

Wonder what Twatman will have to say about that?
Ski Ba Bop Ba Dop Bop...

mattennis
03-08-2012, 08:43 AM
lets not kid ourselves folks,
The most impressive h2h is 17-9, or whatever it is now

Rodge h2h against Roddick, or Davy doesnt matter, who cares? They are in quite different league.

But, as impressive at it is now, it is something history will not care much about. Who cares about Wilander's h2h agaisnt, say, Becker now?? The frequency of their names mentioned is in direct relation to number of majors won.
Consider Wilander, philipousis(or whatever his name) and a guy named Henman.

I think it is interesting. It is like the M-1000 tournaments, they are not GS tournaments, but they are quite important themselves. It is interesting to know those head-to-head as it is interesting to know that Lendl won 22 M-1000 (Grand Prix Championship Series they were called back then), McEnroe won 19 of them, Connors won 18, Borg won 15, Becker won 13....

stringertom
03-08-2012, 09:02 AM
Sticking to topic, the most impressive stat I've come up with is Fed's record vs the rest of the ATP field from '04 to present. In that time, almost half of his total losses (36 of seventy-eight) have been to Djokdalray. That means 42 losses outside the current other top 4, or almost exactly an average of 5 per year in a sample size of 8 plus years.

Towser83
03-08-2012, 09:08 AM
Exactly. The number aren't skewed in Nadal's favour because of his clay expertise. They are skewed against Rafa because so many matches are played on hard courts, which makes his record all the more impressive.

It's skewed against him because the one surface where he's almost unbeatable only has one slam and has less tournaments overall than hardcourt? That's like saying from 2003-2007 the slams were skewed against Federer cos only one slam was on grass and virtually no other tournaments.

Before you say it, Federer was not unbeatable on hardcourt, he just happened to have 2 of 3 surfaces where he was the best player. The only way you can make excuses for it being skewed against Nadal is if you say that he is the best player on only one surface, in which case surface skew makes no difference, because what we get is odds. If in your prime you are the best player on 2 surfaces you will probably win more than a guy who has one surface where he is the best.

However nadal's dominance on that surface is so great that it dwarfs anyone else's surface domination.

However if clay was to take over from hardcourt and have many many tournaments, nadal would suffer more clay defeats because it is a lot easier to pack it into a couple of months than through the whole season. Given the fact you could have different types of clay and conditions as well - nadal has much less advantage in hamburg and Madrid for example (hamburg where Federer beat him and probably should have wn even in 2008 when nadal was playing his best tennis that year) than MC Rome and RG

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-08-2012, 09:16 AM
If only 2 of 4 slams were played on clay. Instead, 2 of the 4 slams are played on hardcourt....

If only three of the slams were still on grass........

Biscuitmcgriddleson
03-08-2012, 09:18 AM
Exactly. The number aren't skewed in Nadal's favour because of his clay expertise. They are skewed against Rafa because so many matches are played on hard courts, which makes his record all the more impressive.

When most of the H2H meetings are on clay it sure does make a difference. You know damn well if Nadal and Federer played on indoor as many times as they did clay, that you'd say it matters.

TMF
03-08-2012, 09:22 AM
Exactly. The number aren't skewed in Nadal's favour because of his clay expertise. They are skewed against Rafa because so many matches are played on hard courts, which makes his record all the more impressive.

Besides most of the time were played on clay, the age difference also skew the number since Nadal is 5 years apart.

The same with Davy having a better H2H against Nadal...the number are skewed since most of the time they met on hc.

Get it now ?

devila
03-08-2012, 09:26 AM
fedboys, you know all too well that clay AND grass court events have bad competition. that's why dimwit roddick won houston clay events and made the wimbledon semi/finals to humiliate himself while federer was still not playing his best. roddick is something useless but it's an insult to call him a name that is sport-related.
coria had nadal and gaudio down on rome and roland garros clay and collapsed too.

djoker's impressive because he was more a chameleon and skier than a totally dedicated tennis prodigy a few years ago.
he doesn't need to be extremely hard working to beat federer, nadal and murray.
fed, nadal and murray, in contrast, have to be focused and healthy to beat djoker.

purge
03-08-2012, 09:31 AM
the zeros are obviously the most impressive. fed sports quite alot of those

i think some combined ones would look rather cruel as well..

such as nadal vs the all active spaniards

or fed vs all active german speaking people lol

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-08-2012, 01:55 PM
When most of the H2H meetings are on clay it sure does make a difference. You know damn well if Nadal and Federer played on indoor as many times as they did clay, that you'd say it matters.

Indoor? Tennis is an outdoor sport. The fact they play the World Tour Finals indoors makes no sense as it is. The 4 slams are outdoors and then the top 8 players of the year are supposed to compete indoors? Crazy.

billnepill
03-08-2012, 02:05 PM
Tennis Is a sport with various surfaces. For all of them to play similar = slow doesn't make sense at all. Crazy

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-08-2012, 02:07 PM
Tennis Is a sport with various surfaces. For all of them to play similar = slow doesn't make sense at all. Crazy

Roland Garros was faster in 2011 than it ever was before. Still complaints?

Cup8489
03-08-2012, 02:30 PM
Indoor? Tennis is an outdoor sport. The fact they play the World Tour Finals indoors makes no sense as it is. The 4 slams are outdoors and then the top 8 players of the year are supposed to compete indoors? Crazy.

odd how the only one who complains about it is you. hmm.

but then again you've said there should be two clay majors, so I suppose I should just not even listen to you.

billnepill
03-08-2012, 02:33 PM
Roland Garros was faster in 2011 than it ever was before. Still complaints?

Yes it was too fast for Djokovic to reach the final and to dethrone nadal as he proved he can do on ALL surfaces

Colin
03-09-2012, 02:26 AM
Indoor? Tennis is an outdoor sport.

Um, no. The presence or absence of a roof neither validates nor negates the intrinsic nature of tennis. It's all about the balls, the net and the lines (like a good Hollywood party, but I digress...)

Sadly, I must pause and wonder about your insistence that the elements play a supporting role in the affair. How lame is it that you have to admit that your strengths are your forehand and a moderate breeze?

The WTF is designed in fact to counter the glaring lack of indoor tennis during the Grand Slams. Some — griping endlessly just last year about the inclement weather affecting the U.S. Open schedule — might suggest Slam organizers would be better off putting a roof on it.

Anyway, perhaps you should go out into your community and survey the goodly transients in your midst. Ask them what's better — four walls and a roof or the "great outdoors"? — and don't try bringing Rafa's name into it because he's too metrosexual; they're obviously fans of Murray for his vagrant-casual ensemble and his "I can only shave in public toilets" grooming habits. In the end, someone who looks like he woke up in a pile of leaves and dog feces has truly earned the right to insist on outdoor play.

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-09-2012, 03:27 AM
Well, it takes more skill to control a ball in heavy winds than to control a ball in tranquil conditions. So I guess if your game is a bit fragile you would prefer indoors.

Colin
03-09-2012, 03:40 AM
Well, it takes more skill to control a ball in heavy winds than to control a ball in tranquil conditions. So I guess if your game is a bit fragile you would prefer indoors.

I think there's only one way to settle this, Bully, my friend.

Fed vs. Nadal, next Category 4 hurricane. (No middling tropical storms, please.)

While Rafa does have the advantage with his heavy spin, I think it will be nullified by the sustained winds of 140 mph. Fed, on the other hand, will dance around the court, staying perfectly balanced amid the devastating gusts, hitting winners with wild abandon.

If flooding should ensue, no doubt Fed will walk capriciously upon the water while Rafa cries out, his mouth half-filled with water, cursing uncle Toni for never teaching him to swim — decrying that he would never be a Phelps-style Olympian and that he should instead focus on hitting balls with his left hand.

SLD76
03-09-2012, 03:50 AM
Federer H2H/stats are not important enough for me to research.

but they are important enough for you to mention them in the first place.

I think your second obsession aside from Nadal is Federer.

SLD76
03-09-2012, 03:52 AM
Well, it takes more skill to control a ball in heavy winds than to control a ball in tranquil conditions. So I guess if your game is a bit fragile you would prefer indoors.

Or maybe indoor tennis doesnt count because its rafa's worst surface what with the faster courts and low bounces.

we all know rafa lika da high bouncy bouncy.

SLD76
03-09-2012, 03:57 AM
When most of the H2H meetings are on clay it sure does make a difference. You know damn well if Nadal and Federer played on indoor as many times as they did clay, that you'd say it matters.


this. rafa fans crying HC bias again? Or maybe nadal just needs to learn to play HC tennis instead of clay game on HC?

Yes, no?

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-09-2012, 04:44 AM
I think there's only one way to settle this, Bully, my friend.

Fed vs. Nadal, next Category 4 hurricane. (No middling tropical storms, please.)

While Rafa does have the advantage with his heavy spin, I think it will be nullified by the sustained winds of 140 mph. Fed, on the other hand, will dance around the court, staying perfectly balanced amid the devastating gusts, hitting winners with wild abandon.

If flooding should ensue, no doubt Fed will walk capriciously upon the water while Rafa cries out, his mouth half-filled with water, cursing uncle Toni for never teaching him to swim — decrying that he would never be a Phelps-style Olympian and that he should instead focus on hitting balls with his left hand.

You've just confirmed it. You are a frustrated writer, with no knowledge of tennis, so you litter this board with verbose misplaced and above all meaningless mumblings. To the ignore bin you go 'friend'.

celoft
03-09-2012, 04:46 AM
Federer has faired way better against his generation than the others have.

Impressive ownage.

SLD76
03-09-2012, 04:46 AM
You've just confirmed it. You are a frustrated writer, with no knowledge of tennis, so you litter this board with verbose misplaced and above all meaningless mumblings. To the ignore bin you go 'friend'.

Is it lack of a sense of humor or lack of reading skills that is bothering you most?

Towser83
03-09-2012, 09:24 AM
Well, it takes more skill to control a ball in heavy winds than to control a ball in tranquil conditions. So I guess if your game is a bit fragile you would prefer indoors.

If he had greater skill why wouldn't he be able to beat Federer indoors? The lack of wind does not nullify skill, more the opposite, wind nullifies accuracy. Hence an agressive ball striker intent on hitting winners and painting lines is going to make more errors. A defensive player, concerned with keeping the ball in play and drawing errors is not so effected.

It is a test playing in wind but indoor tennis is a more controlled enviorment and thus demonstrates the pure tennis skills of two players without any other variables. If tennis and tennis shots were subjected to scientific tests, it would be done indoors. What we can see is in terms of pure game, with nothing else to effect it, Federer's game is better than Nadal's. Knowing his game is as good as it is, he's probably too stubborn to alter it to a defensive based game to suit windy conditions. Nadal knows his game is not quite as good and thus has no problem using the elements to help him.

Moreover, winning matches without grinding requires greater skill, but I guess if yourr game is a bit fragile you take the long, hard and physically taxing route.

stringertom
03-09-2012, 09:32 AM
You've just confirmed it. You are a frustrated writer, with no knowledge of tennis, so you litter this board with verbose misplaced and above all meaningless mumblings. To the ignore bin you go 'friend'.
((Colin for Poet Laureate of TT! The double brackets are for the 2.0 version of Bullz1lla. You are outdoing the original. Keep it up))

christinamaniac7
03-09-2012, 10:14 AM
Anyone knows the most lopsided H2H of all time?

kragster
03-09-2012, 10:41 AM
If he had greater skill why wouldn't he be able to beat Federer indoors? The lack of wind does not nullify skill, more the opposite, wind nullifies accuracy. Hence an agressive ball striker intent on hitting winners and painting lines is going to make more errors. A defensive player, concerned with keeping the ball in play and drawing errors is not so effected.

It is a test playing in wind but indoor tennis is a more controlled enviorment and thus demonstrates the pure tennis skills of two players without any other variables. If tennis and tennis shots were subjected to scientific tests, it would be done indoors. What we can see is in terms of pure game, with nothing else to effect it, Federer's game is better than Nadal's. Knowing his game is as good as it is, he's probably too stubborn to alter it to a defensive based game to suit windy conditions. Nadal knows his game is not quite as good and thus has no problem using the elements to help him.

Moreover, winning matches without grinding requires greater skill, but I guess if yourr game is a bit fragile you take the long, hard and physically taxing route.

I know you're just responding to a troll but I don't think indoor tennis is the only 'true tennis' just like windy tennis is not the only true tennis. Every surface and playing condition are valid, unless it's something ludicrous like playing in the arctic on land mines. So tennis talent should not be defined by how you play in windless conditions but rather how you adapt to each and every surface and condition. I'm pretty sure the majority of tennis courts today and in the past have been outdoors so dealing with wind has and always will be a requirement of a good tennis player.

stringertom
03-09-2012, 11:28 AM
Anyone knows the most lopsided H2H of all time?

"Let this be a lesson to you...nobody beats Vitas Gerulaitis 17 times in a row!" Uttered by Vitas after finally beating Jimbo.

That streak had to be up there. Fed has a nice one going @ 12-0 vs a top 5 guy...Ferrer.

fed_rulz
03-09-2012, 12:55 PM
it is ridiculous to see some morons claim that Federer can't play in the wind. Federer is one of the best players under windy conditions. check out his match against Agassi in 2004 (Agassi was considered the GOAT of windy conditions), or his masterclass against Soderling in 2009 (federer bagelled Soderling with precision shot making in the first set under 30+mph wind)

The Bawss
03-09-2012, 01:30 PM
it is ridiculous to see some morons claim that Federer can't play in the wind. Federer is one of the best players under windy conditions. check out his match against Agassi in 2004 (Agassi was considered the GOAT of windy conditions), or his masterclass against Soderling in 2009 (federer bagelled Soderling with precision shot making in the first set under 30+mph wind)

I remember that USO match in 2009, Fed handled Soderling like a college player during that first set.

FlashFlare11
03-09-2012, 01:34 PM
it is ridiculous to see some morons claim that Federer can't play in the wind. Federer is one of the best players under windy conditions. check out his match against Agassi in 2004 (Agassi was considered the GOAT of windy conditions), or his masterclass against Soderling in 2009 (federer bagelled Soderling with precision shot making in the first set under 30+mph wind)

2010 USO QF against Soderling was even windier. Roger hit 18 aces in that match. Incredible hitting in the wind!

ZeroSkid
03-09-2012, 01:37 PM
Nadal is the only player in the top 10 to not have losing h2h record against anyone in the top 10

celoft
03-09-2012, 01:45 PM
Nadal is the only player in the top 10 to not have losing h2h record against anyone in the top 10

Until now.

FlashFlare11
03-09-2012, 01:45 PM
Nadal is the only player in the top 10 to not have losing h2h record against anyone in the top 10

Admittedly, that's pretty incredible.

Mainad
03-09-2012, 02:34 PM
Nadal is the only player in the top 10 to not have losing h2h record against anyone in the top 10

Good one. Federer has a losing H2H against just two, Nadal and Murray. I might be wrong but I have a feeling these are the ONLY 2 players he has a negative H2H against in the entire tour!

Mustard
03-09-2012, 03:13 PM
Good one. Federer has a losing H2H against just two, Nadal and Murray. I might be wrong but I have a feeling these are the ONLY 2 players he has a negative H2H against in the entire tour!

Unless you count Lucas Arnold Ker, who still has a doubles ranking. Nadal has negative head-to-heads against Nikolay Davydenko and Florian Mayer. Oh, and Joachim Johansson, who still has a singles ranking.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-09-2012, 03:36 PM
^^^ and Hrbarty no?

Mustard
03-09-2012, 03:50 PM
^^^ and Hrbarty no?

Ah yes, he's still an active player ranked 798 in the world. Hrbaty has a winning head-to-head against both Nadal and Federer.

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-09-2012, 05:07 PM
Ah yes, he's still an active player ranked 798 in the world. Hrbaty has a winning head-to-head against both Nadal and Federer.

Although like Davy, he's never played Nadal at a slam :(

DjokovicForTheWin
03-09-2012, 05:14 PM
Although like Davy, he's never played Nadal at a slam :(

You mean Nadal has never played Davy at a slam.

The Bawss
03-09-2012, 05:17 PM
You mean Nadal has never played Davy at a slam.

LOL great answer.

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-09-2012, 05:21 PM
Yeah, an answer that offers nothing. Great answer....

PSNELKE
03-09-2012, 05:26 PM
Does Djokovic's 7-0 in straight finals against certain double digit slams winner count?

I think this is the most impressive h2h stats in recent times.

Kinda funny how people forget about the actual H2H. :lol:
Just another attempt for some bashing even though the title says H2H, not h2h over a certain time span.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-09-2012, 05:48 PM
Yeah, an answer that offers nothing. Great answer....

Isn't that your whole modus operandi?

DjokovicForTheWin
03-09-2012, 05:49 PM
Kinda funny how people forget about the actual H2H. :lol:
Just another attempt for some bashing even though the title says H2H, not h2h over a certain time span.

Well if you were making a prediction on who would win between Nadal and Hrbarty if they played today, wouldn't you also rightfully discard their actual H2H?

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-09-2012, 06:14 PM
Isn't that your whole modus operandi?

Well, I post specifically about tennis. You just play on words most of the time.

DeShaun
03-09-2012, 06:26 PM
True that. Rafa gets teased for 6 of his 10 slam titles being clay. Imagine what would happen if 2 of the 4 slams were on clay!

Yeah, just imagine if courts played faster and precision serving was rewarded like at the start of Roger's career.
Unlikely Rafa would have "transformed himself" into an all-surface threat (Ha ha) without surface homogenization.
Please keep the (dis-)advantages of playing surface in perspective. Thank you.

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-09-2012, 06:32 PM
Yeah, just imagine if courts played faster and precision serving was rewarded like at the start of Roger's career; unlikely Rafa would have became an all surface threat (Ha ha) without surface homogenization. Please keep the (dis-)advantages of playing surface in perspective. Thank you.

Nadal would be even better on clay if it was as slow as the 1990s clay, that is for sure. Nadal is unfortunate that Roland Garros is faster than ever, not the speed of traditional clay. Or maybe Nadal prefers the faster surfaces. Nadal has a better record at the US Open than at the Australian Open. And Wimbledon is fast, and the last time Nadal lost before the final at Wimbledon is 2005. Even Nadal's Gold Medal was on a fast hardcourt 2008, described as being the pace of Cincy.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-09-2012, 06:40 PM
Well, I post specifically about tennis. You just play on words most of the time.

Did you actually count my posts to determine that I do it most of the time?

Is carrying a flag really about tennis? Think about it before you answer, and don't hurt yourself.

BULLZ1LLA2.0
03-09-2012, 06:51 PM
Did you actually count my posts to determine that I do it most of the time?

Is carrying a flag really about tennis? Think about it before you answer, and don't hurt yourself.

I was posting about Olympic tennis, so of course its about tennis. No I don't count your posts, but I get the impression you focus on posters more than tennis. Hey, I just thought of a good idea to safe time, I'll put you on my ignore list right now, bye.

dh003i
03-09-2012, 07:00 PM
Unless you count Lucas Arnold Ker, who still has a doubles ranking. Nadal has negative head-to-heads against Nikolay Davydenko and Florian Mayer. Oh, and Joachim Johansson, who still has a singles ranking.

Obviously, those 3 are better than Nadal.

DjokovicForTheWin
03-09-2012, 07:56 PM
I was posting about Olympic tennis, so of course its about tennis. No I don't count your posts, but I get the impression you focus on posters more than tennis. Hey, I just thought of a good idea to safe time, I'll put you on my ignore list right now, bye.

You did not post about Olympic tennis, you posted about carrying flags, which has nothing to do with tennis whatsoever. Perhaps you need to take a break from posting huh *********?

Povl Carstensen
03-09-2012, 08:42 PM
I know you're just responding to a troll but I don't think indoor tennis is the only 'true tennis' just like windy tennis is not the only true tennis. Every surface and playing condition are valid, unless it's something ludicrous like playing in the arctic on land mines. So tennis talent should not be defined by how you play in windless conditions but rather how you adapt to each and every surface and condition. I'm pretty sure the majority of tennis courts today and in the past have been outdoors so dealing with wind has and always will be a requirement of a good tennis player.No one said indoor tennis is the only`'true tennis', there was just this one guy saying the opposite.

TheTruth
03-09-2012, 08:45 PM
I wonder why posters never erase hardcourts, grass, or the WTF. Baffling.

Povl Carstensen
03-09-2012, 08:47 PM
Yes, should be on the ignore list.

SLD76
03-10-2012, 03:50 AM
You did not post about Olympic tennis, you posted about carrying flags, which has nothing to do with tennis whatsoever. Perhaps you need to take a break from posting huh *********?

watch him go back and edit his original post now.

Povl Carstensen
03-10-2012, 03:05 PM
There are things you don't wish for your enemy, being on BULLZ1LLA2.0's ignore list is not very high on the list.

Crazy man
03-10-2012, 03:32 PM
Too many variables to come up with one definitive answer.................


Just pure dominance: Federer/Roddick. Some Federer fans will act like this should be the case but I don't really care for them. Roddick out of prime can still own Djokovic, take it too Nadal, beat Murray at Wimbledon. This is impressive in this variable simply because Roddick is a very good tennis player.




In terms of winning tricky theoretical matchups I would go with Nadal's record over Nalbandian. Firstly, what is impressive is that Nalbandian should have won that match in IW and lost and even Miami 2010 he lost it after winning the first (although he was on the comeback trail). Nalbandian hits on the rise, flat, deep and is one of the most creative players on tour when in full flight. Winner machine, a shot-maker. Nadal plays primarily quite a defensive game and Nalbandian does normally dictate play. Yet Nadal comes out best from A) A tough matchup on paper and B) From hopeless positions like at IW. So for what should happen and what does happen, Nadal's record with Nalbandian is pretty decent.


Oh yeah, forgot Davydenko/Federer. Davydenko from a matchup perspective should be fully capable of beating Federer. Federer has won so many tough matches with Davydenko (although I'll reserve the opinion that Davy chokes usually).


Murray (a defensive player with no imposing weapons) beating JMDP more than the latter is impressive. Not quite as impressive as the top 3 above this paragraph because JMDP does struggle with junk because he relies on timing, but JMDP plays that kind of game.......

SLD76
03-10-2012, 03:48 PM
Too many variables to come up with one definitive answer.................


Just pure dominance: Federer/Roddick. Some Federer fans will act like this should be the case but I don't really care for them. Roddick out of prime can still own Djokovic, take it too Nadal, beat Murray at Wimbledon. This is impressive in this variable simply because Roddick is a very good tennis player.




In terms of winning tricky theoretical matchups I would go with Nadal's record over Nalbandian. Firstly, what is impressive is that Nalbandian should have won that match in IW and lost and even Miami 2010 he lost it after winning the first (although he was on the comeback trail). Nalbandian hits on the rise, flat, deep and is one of the most creative players on tour when in full flight. Winner machine, a shot-maker. Nadal plays primarily quite a defensive game and Nalbandian does normally dictate play. Yet Nadal comes out best from A) A tough matchup on paper and B) From hopeless positions like at IW. So for what should happen and what does happen, Nadal's record with Nalbandian is pretty decent.


Oh yeah, forgot Davydenko/Federer. Davydenko from a matchup perspective should be fully capable of beating Federer. Federer has won so many tough matches with Davydenko (although I'll reserve the opinion that Davy chokes usually).


Murray (a defensive player with no imposing weapons) beating JMDP more than the latter is impressive. Not quite as impressive as the top 3 above this paragraph because JMDP does struggle with junk because he relies on timing, but JMDP plays that kind of game.......

I was with you til this last sentence...Murray has a fairly big bh, and his defense and return of serve are plenty big weapons imo.

Crazy man
03-11-2012, 03:53 PM
I was with you til this last sentence...Murray has a fairly big bh, and his defense and return of serve are plenty big weapons imo.

Ok his backhand is very good, I'll give him that. Defensive play is a dimension, not a weapon. The return is a weapon if you're agassi or Nalbandian who can dictate return games or hit service winners at will. Murray has the best defensive return on tour - this is not a weapon. This is a tool. There is clearly a difference.

SLD76
03-11-2012, 03:54 PM
Ok his backhand is very good, I'll give him that. Defensive play is a dimension, not a weapon. The return is a weapon if you're agassi or Nalbandian who can dictate return games or hit service winners at will. Murray has the best defensive return on tour - this is not a weapon. This is a tool. There is clearly a difference.

Mmmhmmm...tell to that to one Rafael Nadal Perrera.

Crazy man
03-11-2012, 04:00 PM
Mmmhmmm...tell to that to one Rafael Nadal Perrera.

Um, I play tennis. I'm actually quite defensive myself and I win some matches by playing defense alone. A weapon would be a good serve; because it either does one of the following; gets a point/sets up a rally in your favour. With defensive play and a defensive return, you have no say in what happens. A weapon allows you to dictate play one way or another and lets you have the point on your racket.

SLD76
03-11-2012, 04:04 PM
Um, I play tennis. I'm actually quite defensive myself and I win some matches by playing defense alone. A weapon would be a good serve; because it either does one of the following; gets a point/sets up a rally in your favour. With defensive play and a defensive return, you have no say in what happens. A weapon allows you to dictate play one way or another and lets you have the point on your racket.

So defense and foot speed are never a weapon..at all? Ever? Players knowing that they cant get a ball past you isnt a weapon?

Pray tell what huge weapons did Hewitt have that allowed him to be ranked number one and win 2 slams? Aside from his excellent return of serve?
It sure wasnt his fh, and while his bh was very good, it wasnt a huge weapon.

Mainad
03-11-2012, 04:12 PM
Um, I play tennis. I'm actually quite defensive myself and I win some matches by playing defense alone. A weapon would be a good serve; because it either does one of the following; gets a point/sets up a rally in your favour. With defensive play and a defensive return, you have no say in what happens. A weapon allows you to dictate play one way or another and lets you have the point on your racket.

It depends what you do with the defensive return. If you just retrieve the ball and put it back into play....what is known as 'pushing', then you are correct. But if you hit the defensive return with purpose so as to put it in a position from which your opponent will find hard to return back, then you are taking control of the point. Murray has been known to do both but it is his use of the defensive return with purpose that has got him as far as he has. Indeed he couldn't have done it without it.

Crazy man
03-11-2012, 04:13 PM
So defense and foot speed are never a weapon..at all? Ever? Players knowing that they cant get a ball past you isnt a weapon?

Pray tell what huge weapons did Hewitt have that allowed him to be ranked number one and win 2 slams? Aside from his excellent return of serve?
It sure wasnt his fh, and while his bh was very good, it wasnt a huge weapon.

Um, foot coordination and speed are not weapons. Anticipation isn't even a weapon because defense doesn't solely win you tennis tournaments.


The bolded is ignorance I'd expect from the general TW poster. Hewitt had a very well rounded game with no huge weapons but he had no holes tht could be exploited either. Hewitt hit a flat ball, constructed points very well and hit on the rise. Hewitt had many dimensions in his game, not weapons, which helped him win on the tennis court.

SLD76
03-11-2012, 04:16 PM
Um, foot coordination and speed are not weapons. Anticipation isn't even a weapon because defense doesn't solely win you tennis tournaments.


The bolded is ignorance I'd expect from the general TW poster. Hewitt had a very well rounded game with no huge weapons but he had no holes tht could be exploited either. Hewitt hit a flat ball, constructed points very well and hit on the rise. Hewitt had many dimensions in his game, not weapons, which helped him win on the tennis court.

seems a bit of semantic musical chairs if you ask me.
but fair enough, we disagree.

Crisstti
03-11-2012, 05:29 PM
Nadal has the most impressive H2H over the rest:

Nadal 47-28
Nole 31-35
Fed 30-36
Murray 18-27

However, again these numbers are skewed by clay results. Nadal is an astounding 25-4 on clay in his career against the other top 4. Prior Novak's breakthrough last year, Nadal was 25-2 with only Federer managing to beat Nadal.

Off clay, Nadal is below .500 against the group as a whole and against everyone individually except Murray.

Basically, this shows that Nadal has been incredibly dominant on clay. Also, this shows that off clay, the head to head within the group has Fed the best (28-24), followed closely by Novak (29-26). Nadal becomes a distant 3rd at 22-24 and Murray still far behind at 18-23.

There's no reason to even consider the numbers "off clay"... unless you do the same with the other surfaces.

Exactly. The number aren't skewed in Nadal's favour because of his clay expertise. They are skewed against Rafa because so many matches are played on hard courts, which makes his record all the more impressive.

Yes, exactly.


However if clay was to take over from hardcourt and have many many tournaments, nadal would suffer more clay defeats because it is a lot easier to pack it into a couple of months than through the whole season. Given the fact you could have different types of clay and conditions as well - nadal has much less advantage in hamburg and Madrid for example (hamburg where Federer beat him and probably should have wn even in 2008 when nadal was playing his best tennis that year) than MC Rome and RG

He also would have a lot more wins.

devila
03-11-2012, 09:15 PM
novak is great on both bh and fh sides.
his defense balanced with the right amount of offense on different surfaces, so he wins 95 percent of slams.

nadal has good offense with great defense which gives him the davis cup title, olympic gold & slams.

fed is not great in long matches, so he was destroyed in 5 setters, davis cup ties and olympics.

pame
03-11-2012, 09:29 PM
novak is great on both bh and fh sides.
his defense balanced with the right amount of offense on different surfaces, so he wins 95 percent of slams.

nadal has good offense with great defense which gives him the davis cup title, olympic gold & slams.

fed is not great in long matches, so he was destroyed in 5 setters, davis cup ties and olympics.

That probably accounts for why his Davis Cup record tops most of all active players, and better than many of the past greats... only Borg and Becker have a better winning percentage than Fed, while Fed has something in the region of 43 wins to 14 losses. If that's destruction, then his Grand Slam wins must have been Armageddon - either that or you're talking out of your hindermost orifice as you are wont to do :shock:

As for Djokovic having won 95 percent of the slams he's played in - well maybe you should consider going back to school on the days when they're actually teaching basic match

SLD76
03-11-2012, 09:32 PM
That probably accounts for why his Davis Cup record tops most of all active players, and better than many of the past greats... only Borg and Becker have a better winning percentage than Fed, while Fed has something in the region of 43 wins to 14 losses. If that's destruction, then his Grand Slam wins must have been Armageddon - either that or you're talking out of your hindermost orifice as you are wont to do :shock:

He is only aware that Switzerland has not won DC.

Hence to him, by the transitive property, Fed must be terrible in DC matches.