PDA

View Full Version : Federer and Nadal's record in finals


McEnroeisanartist
10-04-2012, 11:52 AM
Federer is 76-32 in singles finals (70.37%) in his career.
Federer has lost to the following players at least twice in finals: Nadal (12), Nalbandian (2), Djokovic (3), and Murray (2).

After Shanghai 2010, Federer had lost 6 out of his 8 previous finals. Since Shanghai 2010, Federer has gone 15-4 in finals.

Since 2005, Federer has lost 5 finals to players not in The Big Four.


Nadal is 50-21 in singles finals (70.42%) in his career.
Nadal has lost to the following players at least twice in finals: Federer (6), Davydenko (3), Murray (2), and Djokovic (7)

After Tokyo 2010, Nadal had won 43-55 of his previous finals. Since Tokyo 2010, Nadal has gone 7-9 in finals.

Since 2005, Nadal has lost 5 finals to players not in The Big Four.

smoledman
10-04-2012, 12:04 PM
Federer definitely has picked up the pace in finals the last 2 years.

20 slams and 90 titles is a big possibility for Maestro!

underground
10-05-2012, 11:07 AM
It's awkward how the 7 from Djokovic were all from 2011+2012.

Russeljones
10-05-2012, 12:02 PM
Federer is 76-32 in singles finals (70.37%) in his career.
Federer has lost to the following players at least twice in finals: Nadal (12), Nalbandian (2), Djokovic (3), and Murray (2).

After Shanghai 2010, Federer had lost 6 out of his 8 previous finals. Since Shanghai 2010, Federer has gone 15-4 in finals.

Since 2005, Federer has lost 5 finals to players not in The Big Four.


Nadal is 50-21 in singles finals (70.42%) in his career.
Nadal has lost to the following players at least twice in finals: Federer (6), Davydenko (3), Murray (2), and Djokovic (7)

After Tokyo 2010, Nadal had won 43-55 of his previous finals. Since Tokyo 2010, Nadal has gone 7-9 in finals.

Since 2005, Nadal has lost 5 finals to players not in The Big Four.

Nadal is the spanner in Federer's wheel.
Djokovic in Nadal's.
Rock paper we know already :)

smoledman
10-05-2012, 12:05 PM
Nadal is the spanner in Federer's wheel.
Djokovic in Nadal's.
Rock paper we know already :)

Except Nadal beat Djokovic in 3 big clay finals in a row this spring. Back to pwnage.

MichaelNadal
10-05-2012, 02:51 PM
Man what killer stats, a big, serious thanks man.

Mustard
10-05-2012, 05:32 PM
After Tokyo 2010, Nadal had won 43-55 of his previous finals. Since Tokyo 2010, Nadal has gone 7-9 in finals.

Hang on, 7 of those losses were to Djokovic when Djokovic had the voodoo spell on Nadal.

Nathaniel_Near
10-05-2012, 06:07 PM
Hang on, 7 of those losses were to Djokovic when Djokovic had the voodoo spell on Nadal.

And......?

RAFA2005RG
10-06-2012, 04:41 AM
I wonder what Federer's record is when he plays Rafa in finals. Both overall and in slams, its bound to be disgraceful.

RAFA2005RG
10-06-2012, 04:42 AM
Nadal is the spanner in Federer's wheel.
Djokovic in Nadal's.
Rock paper we know already :)

Rafa leads Djokovic 19-14.
Rafa leads Djokovic 6-3 at the slams (and Djokovic only has a positive h2h at the AO).

Rafa has won their last 3 encounters (including their last slam encounter).

Rafa definitely owns Djokovic, no question about it.

6-1 6-3 6-0
10-06-2012, 04:44 AM
I wonder what Federer's record is when he plays Rafa in finals. Both overall and in slams, its bound to be disgraceful.

In slam finals, Nadal leads 6-2. If you include all their finals, Nadal leads 13-6 (so Nadal leads 7-4 in the non-slam tournament finals). Yep, disgraceful.

RAFA2005RG
10-06-2012, 04:48 AM
In slam finals, Nadal leads 6-2. If you include all their finals, Nadal leads 13-6 (so Nadal leads 7-4 in the non-slam tournament finals). Yep, disgraceful.

If only Federer could still win slam semis regularly :(

6-1 6-3 6-0
10-06-2012, 05:11 AM
If only Federer could still win slam semis regularly :(

He's still got the QF streak going, not to mention the 4R streak, 3R streak, 2R streak and 1R streak. :oops:

RF20Lennon
10-06-2012, 07:09 AM
Enjoying a conversation with yourself NSK??

Hood_Man
10-06-2012, 07:14 AM
Hang on, 7 of those losses were to Djokovic when Djokovic had the voodoo spell on Nadal.

And......?

Yeah, where are you going with this mate? :)

Mustard
10-06-2012, 07:53 AM
Yeah, where are you going with this mate? :)

That those 7 losses were not a typical period of Nadal's career.

6-1 6-3 6-0
10-06-2012, 08:12 AM
Enjoying a conversation with yourself NSK??

Enjoying sending a message to a user that has been banned for quite a long time now?

Hood_Man
10-06-2012, 08:19 AM
That those 7 losses were not a typical period of Nadal's career.

But he still lost them.

6-1 6-3 6-0
10-06-2012, 08:27 AM
But he still lost them.

Djokovic beat Nadal 7 times in a row in a timespan lasting less than a year. So he dominated Nadal for a very short period of time. But it doesn't matter; Nadal still leads 6-3 in slams and 19-14 overall, one win away from tying the Sampras-Agassi H2H, and at AO 2013 he has the golden opportunity to beat Djokovic at all four slams and extend his dominance over Djokovic.

Advantage Nadal.

Whereas Federer has been dominated by Nadal for his entire career, not just for a short period.

6-1 6-3 6-0
10-06-2012, 08:29 AM
Enjoying a conversation with yourself NSK??

By the way, I hope Federer is pointing to the exit in that avatar, since that's the way he's heading. Although, personally, I don't want Federer to retire, since I'd like Nadal to finish up his career having beaten Federer in the final of all four slams, and have at least a 4-0 hard-court slam H2H lead, including 4-2 at Wimbledon (if Federer goes deep at Wimbledon, which is unlikely) and 2-0 at the US Open. One more win at Roland Garros would be nice too, making it a career bagel (6-0).

merlinpinpin
10-06-2012, 09:13 AM
Yeah, where are you going with this mate? :)

Usual stuff, really--these are losses to Djokovic, so they shouldn't be counted in the stats, etc.

Time for the Fed fans to counter it with "Nadal's wins on clay vs other surfaces", and we're back to square one. ;)

beast of mallorca
10-06-2012, 09:22 AM
By the way, I hope Federer is pointing to the exit in that avatar, since that's the way he's heading. Although, personally, I don't want Federer to retire, since I'd like Nadal to finish up his career having beaten Federer in the final of all four slams, and have at least a 4-0 hard-court slam H2H lead, including 4-1 at Wimbledon (if Federer goes deep at Wimbledon, which is unlikely) and 2-0 at the US Open. One more win at Roland Garros would be nice too, making it a career bagel (6-0).

You are a cruel, cruel guy. :twisted::twisted:

RF20Lennon
10-06-2012, 09:26 AM
By the way, I hope Federer is pointing to the exit in that avatar, since that's the way he's heading. Although, personally, I don't want Federer to retire, since I'd like Nadal to finish up his career having beaten Federer in the final of all four slams, and have at least a 4-0 hard-court slam H2H lead, including 4-1 at Wimbledon (if Federer goes deep at Wimbledon, which is unlikely) and 2-0 at the US Open. One more win at Roland Garros would be nice too, making it a career bagel (6-0).

OH you cruel person!! :twisted: but see feds already beaten nadal twice at wimbledon so cant happen but yes I can see how for a 26 year old in his prime beating a 31 year old is an achievment

beast of mallorca
10-06-2012, 09:30 AM
OH you cruel person!! :twisted: but see feds already beaten nadal twice at wimbledon so cant happen but yes I can see how for a 26 year old in his prime beating a 31 year old is an achievment

Just like when Fedfans contend when Fed beat Sampras on his sunset heh :)

RF20Lennon
10-06-2012, 09:36 AM
Just like when Fedfans contend when Fed beat Sampras on his sunset heh :)

FYI Sampras was defending champ and fed was 19. Rafa is 26 and in his prime

beast of mallorca
10-06-2012, 09:39 AM
FYI Sampras was defending champ and fed was 19. Rafa is 26 and in his prime

Yah, I forgot that it was still a "prime" Sampras playing :shock:

Hood_Man
10-06-2012, 09:39 AM
Usual stuff, really--these are losses to Djokovic, so they shouldn't be counted in the stats, etc.

Time for the Fed fans to counter it with "Nadal's wins on clay vs other surfaces", and we're back to square one. ;)

I'm keeping quiet this time :) These arguments are like trying to douse flames with petrol.

beast of mallorca
10-06-2012, 09:43 AM
I'm keeping quiet this time :) These arguments are like trying to douse flames with petrol.

With an electric fan in tow, with dry leaves all around it :twisted:

RF20Lennon
10-06-2012, 09:43 AM
Yah, I forgot that it was still a "prime" Sampras playing :shock:

I didnt say it was prime sampras. But neither of them were in their prime and plus Sampras had more experience on the big stages as he was Defending Champ But Nadal is 26 and in his prime! Its like if a 26 year old Fed beat sampras at wimbledon which clearly wasnt the case. Yes Nadal has beaten fed in his early 20's but except the Roland Garros wins, He's never beaten PEAK fed like the 2004-2006 (got bageled in the final of wimbledon actually first set in 2006)

beast of mallorca
10-06-2012, 09:57 AM
I didnt say it was prime sampras. But neither of them were in their prime and plus Sampras had more experience on the big stages as he was Defending Champ But Nadal is 26 and in his prime! Its like if a 26 year old Fed beat sampras at wimbledon which clearly wasnt the case. Yes Nadal has beaten fed in his early 20's but except the Roland Garros wins, He's never beaten PEAK fed like the 2004-2006 (got bageled in the final of wimbledon actually first set in 2006)

He was 17-18 at 2004. Rafa I believe beat that peak Fed on a hard court as a teenager at 17. In case you didn't know.

RF20Lennon
10-06-2012, 11:03 AM
He was 17-18 at 2004. Rafa I believe beat that peak Fed on a hard court as a teenager at 17. In case you didn't know.

wasnt a GS. That was my point back then in the 2004-2006 era except for RG it was almost impossible to beat fed in a GS

Hood_Man
10-06-2012, 11:10 AM
With an electric fan in tow, with dry leaves all around it :twisted:

And all happening within the vicinity of those precariously placed wooden crates full of dynamite and other explosives, that seem to populate the lairs of Bond villains and First Person Shooters :twisted:

RAFA2005RG
10-06-2012, 09:41 PM
wasnt a GS. That was my point back then in the 2004-2006 era except for RG it was almost impossible to beat fed in a GS

In 2006 Rafa was age 20 and called a "claycourt specialist" with very little experience on grass. He still took a set off Federer in the final. Not very convincing from Federer's perspective.

NadalDramaQueen
10-06-2012, 10:17 PM
In 2006 Rafa was age 20 and called a "claycourt specialist" with very little experience on grass. He still took a set off Federer in the final. Not very convincing from Federer's perspective.

He ate a bagel in the first set. Please grow up, Rafa didn't become infinitely better in two years. It was a combination of his ascension and Fed's decline, and for the hardcourt slams, it also had something to do with the decline of the types of players who were pummeling him there. Now, the players are mostly either inferior versions of Rafa or lower level aggressive players who are going to have trouble hitting through anyone given the speed of the courts.

wasnt a GS. That was my point back then in the 2004-2006 era except for RG it was almost impossible to beat fed in a GS

He won every non-clay slam from 2004-2007 except for one (AO 2005). His stats began to go down in 2007 but he still won three of four slams.

RAFA2005RG
10-06-2012, 10:20 PM
He ate a bagel in the first set. Please grow up, Rafa didn't become infinitely better in two years. It was a combination of his ascension and Fed's decline, and for the hardcourt slams, it also had something to do with the decline of the types of players who were pummeling him there.

If you want to take a look at reality, Rafa played more grasscourt matches in 2006 than he played in all the years as a pro prior to 2006 combined. That means the experienced he gained in 2006 alone was greater than his entire grass experience prior to 2006. And anyone who actually witnessed Rafa's 2006 final and 2007 final would see the huge differences in his serve (suddenly using the slice serve) and his court position and aggression.

NadalDramaQueen
10-06-2012, 10:29 PM
If you want to take a look at reality, Rafa played more grasscourt matches in 2006 than he played in all the years as a pro prior to 2006 combined. That means the experienced he gained in 2006 alone was greater than his entire grass experience prior to 2006. And anyone who actually witnessed Rafa's 2006 final and 2007 final would see the huge differences in his serve (suddenly using the slice serve) and his court position and aggression.

Right, he made his adjustments so that he could beat Federer. He was already good enough to reach him. He still didn't win in 2007, by the way. If you want to take a look at reality, Fed played terribly in the first two sets in 2008. He had his good moments and breaks that he blew completely. He still only lost 9-7 in the fifth set. It isn't a huge leap to suggest that a peak Federer is going to win his matches against peak Nadal on grass. The guy has seven titles to Nadal's two. Whine all you like, but that is reality, accept it and move on.

RAFA2005RG
10-06-2012, 10:33 PM
Right, he made his adjustments so that he could beat Federer. He was already good enough to reach him. He still didn't win in 2007, by the way. If you want to take a look at reality, Fed played terribly in the first two sets in 2008. He had his good moments and breaks that he blew completely. He still only lost 9-7 in the fifth set. It isn't a huge leap to suggest that a peak Federer is going to win his matches against peak Nadal on grass. The guy has seven titles to Nadal's two. Whine all you like, but that is reality, accept it and move on.

The only reason Rafa didn't win 2007 Wimbledon is because of his quad injury. Not an excuse, just reality. And Rafa didn't play well in the 2008 final, because he was very nervous once he got up 2 sets to love. I consider it a choke (despite winning). BTW, you post under a username that indicates you are only here to hate on Rafa. You aren't here to support Rafa. You aren't here to support any other player either. You are only here to hate on Rafa. That is pathetic.

NadalDramaQueen
10-06-2012, 10:38 PM
The only reason Rafa didn't win 2007 Wimbledon is because of his quad injury. Not an excuse, just reality. And Rafa didn't play well in the 2008 final, because he was very nervous once he got up 2 sets to love. I consider it a choke (despite winning). BTW, you post under a username that indicates you are only here to hate on Rafa. You aren't here to support Rafa. You aren't here to support any other player either. You are only here to hate on Rafa. That is pathetic.

Back to the username, NSK? It gets old after the third or fourth time.

The reality is that Rafa lost 2007 Wimbledon. I just checked to make sure. You should do the same. We can play this game all you want: Federer didn't play well, his back hurt, Rafa's parents got divorced, his tape was too tight, blah blah blah. It is all pathetic.

Fortunately, everyone on this planet is quite sure of the actual results, join the club, learn history (or the fairly recent past).

Zarfot Z
10-06-2012, 10:53 PM
Back to the username, NSK? It gets old after the third or fourth time.

The reality is that Rafa lost 2007 Wimbledon. I just checked to make sure. You should do the same. We can play this game all you want: Federer didn't play well, his back hurt, Rafa's parents got divorced, his tape was too tight, blah blah blah. It is all pathetic.

Fortunately, everyone on this planet is quite sure of the actual results, join the club, learn history (or the fairly recent past).

I think I love you NDQ.

TheFifthSet
10-06-2012, 10:58 PM
The only reason Rafa didn't win 2007 Wimbledon is because of his quad injury.

Federer was leading that match when Nadal injured his quad. He was up two sets to one.

Prisoner of Birth
10-06-2012, 11:19 PM
In 2006 Rafa was age 20 and called a "claycourt specialist" with very little experience on grass. He still took a set off Federer in the final. Not very convincing from Federer's perspective.

Why would you keep mentioning the "Clay Court specialist" crap? Only the judgmental types called him that and they've all changed their minds now. Nobody in their right mind would still call Nadal a clay court specialist. If you bring up that term just to denigrate Federer, you're denigrating Nadal more. Seriously, I can't believe the lengths people go to just to make their case while defeating their own purpose.

RAFA2005RG
10-07-2012, 09:12 AM
Federer was leading that match when Nadal injured his quad. He was up two sets to one.

Yeah but it got worse and worse until Rafa slowed down considerably midway through the 5th set.

RAFA2005RG
10-07-2012, 09:14 AM
Why would you keep mentioning the "Clay Court specialist" crap? Only the judgmental types called him that and they've all changed their minds now. Nobody in their right mind would still call Nadal a clay court specialist. If you bring up that term just to denigrate Federer, you're denigrating Nadal more. Seriously, I can't believe the lengths people go to just to make their case while defeating their own purpose.

Rafa was definitely a clay-court specialist in 2006. I mean prior to Wimbledon 2006, Rafa had won 2 Roland Garros titles and hadn't even made a slam final of the other slams. He was still adapting to the other surfaces. He had zero decent results at Wimbledon, and never made the semis of an Australian Open/US Open. That's not a criticism. Its a compliment, because it shows how far he has come since then.

Cup8489
10-07-2012, 09:44 AM
Rafa was definitely a clay-court specialist in 2006. I mean prior to Wimbledon 2006, Rafa had won 2 Roland Garros titles and hadn't even made a slam final of the other slams. He was still adapting to the other surfaces. He had zero decent results at Wimbledon, and never made the semis of an Australian Open/US Open. That's not a criticism. Its a compliment, because it shows how far he has come since then.

So how did he win 2005 Madrid if he's a clay court specialist.

Oh wait.. he's not.

DolgoSantoro
10-07-2012, 01:23 PM
He's still got the QF streak going, not to mention the 4R streak, 3R streak, 2R streak and 1R streak. :oops:

Hey, better than Rafa's 2nd round streak

kaku
10-07-2012, 01:31 PM
According to certain Nadal fans, he has ever lost when healthy I guess

Sartorius
10-07-2012, 01:38 PM
Hey, better than Rafa's 2nd round streak

http://th00.deviantart.net/fs70/150/f/2012/052/a/c/da_bum_tss__by_jurgenbot-d4qimra.png

TheFifthSet
10-07-2012, 01:42 PM
Yeah but it got worse and worse until Rafa slowed down considerably midway through the 5th set.

Federer was still leading the match lol.

If you wanna play that game, Nadal was getting trounced by Youhzny in the 4th round (0-2 in sets), until the Russian injured himself. Nadal shouldn't have even had the chance to face Federer.

Sartorius
10-07-2012, 01:46 PM
If you wanna play that game, ...

Oh, he's all about that game. Nay, he is the game.

Mike Sams
10-07-2012, 06:45 PM
Djokovic beat Nadal 7 times in a row in a timespan lasting less than a year. So he dominated Nadal for a very short period of time. But it doesn't matter; Nadal still leads 6-3 in slams and 19-14 overall, one win away from tying the Sampras-Agassi H2H, and at AO 2013 he has the golden opportunity to beat Djokovic at all four slams and extend his dominance over Djokovic.

Advantage Nadal.

Whereas Federer has been dominated by Nadal for his entire career, not just for a short period.

Nadal got 3 of his Slam wins over Djokovic in 2006-2007 when Djokovic was still very raw and not even in the top 3(till late 2007). RG 2006, RG 2007, Wimby 2007.
Nadal got him again at RG 2008 and USO 2010.
Djokovic turned the tables on him in 2011. Nadal rebounded on his best surface in 2012. But who's the one with physical problems right now? Obviously all these fights against Djokovic have taken their toll on Nadal whereas Djokovic is still playing top tennis, having just won the China Open today on a surface which Nadal hasn't won on since 2010.
Nadal has yet to prove that he can beat Djokovic off clay. Nadal as a matter of fact has yet to prove that he can win anything off clay. He hasn't won a non-clay title since Japan 2010.
The days of domination are over for Nadal. Djokovic has surpassed Nadal on hardcourts. He's won more hardcourt Masters titles and hardcourt Slam titles and has a lopsided hardcourt H2H over Nadal 11-5

Crisstti
10-07-2012, 07:20 PM
Nadal got 3 of his Slam wins over Djokovic in 2006-2007 when Djokovic was still very raw and not even in the top 3(till late 2007). RG 2006, RG 2007, Wimby 2007.
Nadal got him again at RG 2008 and USO 2010.
Djokovic turned the tables on him in 2011. Nadal rebounded on his best surface in 2012. But who's the one with physical problems right now? Obviously all these fights against Djokovic have taken their toll on Nadal whereas Djokovic is still playing top tennis, having just won the China Open today on a surface which Nadal hasn't won on since 2010.
Nadal has yet to prove that he can beat Djokovic off clay. Nadal as a matter of fact has yet to prove that he can win anything off clay. He hasn't won a non-clay title since Japan 2010.
The days of domination are over for Nadal. Djokovic has surpassed Nadal on hardcourts. He's won more hardcourt Masters titles and hardcourt Slam titles and has a lopsided hardcourt H2H over Nadal 11-5

Uhm, no, he doesn't have to. He has won plenty. Really, how long does it have to be without winning titles on a certain surface (despite very good results, BTW) to say that someone has to "prove himself" over again?.

sonicare
10-07-2012, 07:20 PM
Once again the stats show that the fed master is GOAT.

Not that we needed the stats because tennis historians and experts like myself already know that federer is the greatest player ever.

Nathaniel_Near
10-07-2012, 07:40 PM
That those 7 losses were not a typical period of Nadal's career.

You are absolutely hilarious. It's irrelevant, the matches were lost.

RF20Lennon
10-07-2012, 08:04 PM
Once again the stats show that the fed master is GOAT.

Not that we needed the stats because tennis historians and experts like myself already know that federer is the greatest player ever.

LOL what a boss^^

Mike Sams
10-07-2012, 08:11 PM
Uhm, no, he doesn't have to. He has won plenty. Really, how long does it have to be without winning titles on a certain surface (despite very good results, BTW) to say that someone has to "prove himself" over again?.

He doesn't have to prove himself OVER again. But he certainly has to IMPROVE though, don't you think? Because other players are improving including Djokovic and Murray who are both younger than Nadal. Hence Nadal has to improve if he's going to keep up with these younger players who are improving their game and getting physically stronger each season.

Sartorius
10-08-2012, 02:25 AM
Uhm, no, he doesn't have to. He has won plenty. Really, how long does it have to be without winning titles on a certain surface (despite very good results, BTW) to say that someone has to "prove himself" over again?.

Pretty much.

But Federer beating Nadal is something very (very, very,...) important, he would have to "prove he can win a match" against Nadal, right? :)

Crisstti
10-08-2012, 02:26 PM
wasnt a GS. That was my point back then in the 2004-2006 era except for RG it was almost impossible to beat fed in a GS

He was lucky Rafa wasn't still good enough off clay, that's all :)

He doesn't have to prove himself OVER again. But he certainly has to IMPROVE though, don't you think? Because other players are improving including Djokovic and Murray who are both younger than Nadal. Hence Nadal has to improve if he's going to keep up with these younger players who are improving their game and getting physically stronger each season.

He's improved against Djokovic, which is what he was needing. He has continually beaten Murray on slams.
We will have to see what his level is now though.

Pretty much.

But Federer beating Nadal is something very (very, very,...) important, he would have to "prove he can win a match" against Nadal, right? :)

Sorry, not sure what is your point...