PDA

View Full Version : Federer and Nadal Down 2-0 Sets


McEnroeisanartist
10-19-2012, 08:18 AM
Anyone else find it interesting that Nadal is often portrayed as this warrior who would die before losing a tennis match, even though statistically Federer is the greater fighter.

27 times in his career, Federer has lost the first sets of a Grand Slam match. 7 times or 26% of the time he has fought and come back to win.

15 times in his career, Nadal has lost the first two sets of a Grand Slam match. 2 times or 13% of the time he has fought and come back to win.

zam88
10-19-2012, 08:27 AM
how often of those times did nad/fed get straight setted vs. pushing it to 4 or 5 sets?

federer's record has seemingly gotten better in this scenario of late... 2 of those comebacks have happened recently... 2011 French Open, then again at Wimbledon right?

dhdriver
10-19-2012, 09:00 AM
how often of those times did nad/fed get straight setted vs. pushing it to 4 or 5 sets?

federer's record has seemingly gotten better in this scenario of late... 2 of those comebacks have happened recently... 2011 French Open, then again at Wimbledon right?

I think Federer pulled it off against Delpo at this year's French Open

tacou
10-19-2012, 09:04 AM
OP is that a typo? what does fed's 0-1 record have to do with Nadal's 0-2 record?

El Diablo
10-19-2012, 09:09 AM
What makes these threads so lame is that the OP posts statistics, yet seems not to know anything about statistics (statistical significance, that is). If you think there is a statistically significant difference between 13% and 26% with such small sample sizes, then you also believe that if you flip a coin twice and it comes up heads twice, you've proven that a flipped coin will always come up heads. Data without statistical analysis is meaningless and misleading.

El Diablo
10-19-2012, 09:16 AM
(and data can be interpreted a variety of ways. One could say, for example, that the data here suggest Nadal is the greater warrior, as he's allowed himself to lose the first two sets in a slam far fewer times. Or that the data speak more to physical conditioning rather than warrior mentallity, with Fed perhaps having the stamina to come back more)

McEnroeisanartist
10-19-2012, 09:22 AM
how often of those times did nad/fed get straight setted vs. pushing it to 4 or 5 sets?

federer's record has seemingly gotten better in this scenario of late... 2 of those comebacks have happened recently... 2011 French Open, then again at Wimbledon right?

Federer
Lost in 3 15 times
Lost in 4 4 times
Lost in 5 1 time
Won in 5 7 times

Since winning his first grand slam, Federer is 5-8 in matches when he loses the first two sets.

Nadal
Lost in 3 9 times
Lost in 4 4 times
Lost in 5 0 Times
Won in 5 2 Times

Since winning his first grand slam, Nadal is 2-9 in matches when he loses the first two sets.

McEnroeisanartist
10-19-2012, 09:24 AM
What makes these threads so lame is that the OP posts statistics, yet seems not to know anything about statistics (statistical significance, that is). If you think there is a statistically significant difference between 13% and 26% with such small sample sizes, then you also believe that if you flip a coin twice and it comes up heads twice, you've proven that a flipped coin will always come up heads. Data without statistical analysis is meaningless and misleading.

Great post. Yes, I do not claim to be a statistics expert. I just think it is interesting that Nadal is portrayed as this fighter by so many when statistically, however, small the sample is, it seems Federer either has the stamina, will, or game to recover from losing the first two sets of a match more than Nadal. Before my analysis, I and am sure many others would have expected Nadal to have more comebacks.

smoledman
10-19-2012, 09:36 AM
More important how many times Fed done it against a top 5 player?

TMF
10-19-2012, 10:27 AM
Federer
Lost in 3 15 times
Lost in 4 4 times
Lost in 5 1 time
Won in 5 7 times

Since winning his first grand slam, Federer is 5-8 in matches when he loses the first two sets.

Nadal
Lost in 3 9 times
Lost in 4 4 times
Lost in 5 0 Times
Won in 5 2 Times

Since winning his first grand slam, Nadal is 2-9 in matches when he loses the first two sets.

So much for Nadal being mentally tougher.

It's an illusion, because those people believe positive h2h define who's mentally tougher when in fact it's about match up issues. When you measure player's results across the field, you see a clearer picture as to who's more tougher.

BTW, despite having a huge match up advantage over Fed, Nadal almost lost to Fed in '08 Wimbledon after being up 2 sets. If he was mentally tougher, he should have won easily after winning 2 sets.

Prisoner of Birth
10-19-2012, 10:31 AM
So much for Nadal being mentally tougher.

It's an illusion, because those people believe positive h2h define who's mentally tougher when in fact it's about match up issues. When you measure player's results across the field, you see a clearer picture as to who's more tougher.

BTW, despite having a huge match up advantage over Fed, Nadal almost lost to Fed in '08 Wimbledon after being up 2 sets. If he was mentally tougher, he should have won easily after winning 2 sets.

They're both mentally tough. No way they'd get to where they are otherwise.

Mustard
10-19-2012, 10:39 AM
Anyone else find it interesting that Nadal is often portrayed as this warrior who would die before losing a tennis match, even though statistically Federer is the greater fighter.

Federer's record in matches that have gone to 5 sets is nowhere near as good as Nadal's.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=4895968&postcount=201
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=4894978&postcount=186

beast of mallorca
10-19-2012, 10:58 AM
So much for Nadal being mentally tougher.

It's an illusion, because those people believe positive h2h define who's mentally tougher when in fact it's about match up issues. When you measure player's results across the field, you see a clearer picture as to who's more tougher.

BTW, despite having a huge match up advantage over Fed, Nadal almost lost to Fed in '08 Wimbledon after being up 2 sets. If he was mentally tougher, he should have won easily after winning 2 sets.

Are you still butthurt ? Because you're spouting a lot of crap dude. Just stop,
please :twisted:

smoledman
10-19-2012, 11:02 AM
Are you still butthurt ? Because you're spouting a lot of crap dude. Just stop,
please :twisted:

Sounds like to me the only ones "butthurt" these days are Nadal trolls.

"Nadal will be back for Shanghai!"
"Nadal will be back for London!"
"Nadal will be back for Davis Cup final!"
"Nadal will be back for AO!"
"Nadal will be back for Acapulco!"

paulorenzo
10-19-2012, 11:35 AM
Anyone else find it interesting that Nadal is often portrayed as this warrior who would die before losing a tennis match, even though statistically Federer is the greater fighter.

27 times in his career, Federer has lost the first sets of a Grand Slam match. 7 times or 26% of the time he has fought and come back to win.

15 times in his career, Nadal has lost the first two sets of a Grand Slam match. 2 times or 13% of the time he has fought and come back to win.

Federer's record in matches that have gone to 5 sets is nowhere near as good as Nadal's.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=4895968&postcount=201
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=4894978&postcount=186

mustard's stats are a better measure of a player's fighting spirit in my opinion, while McEnroeartist shows who is more streaky. although personally, i don't think the measure of fighting spirit should be heavily based on match records, but rather how players tend to handle situations, or even specific points, in a match.

McEnroeisanartist
10-19-2012, 11:40 AM
mustard's stats are a better measure of a player's fighting spirit in my opinion, while McEnroeartist shows who is more streaky. although personally, i don't think the measure of fighting spirit should be heavily based on match records, but rather how players tend to handle situations, or even specific points, in a match.

While I agree that Nadal's record in 5 sets is incredible. I think if you asked most people, if Nadal or Federer is down two sets to love, who would win. They would think Nadal, "he is that fighter, always fist pumping, blah, blah. While Federer statistically is more likely to come back and win the match.

I think if you asked most people, if Nadal or Federer go into a fifth set, who would win. They would think Nadal, which statically makes sense.

tennis_pro
10-19-2012, 12:21 PM
I think Federer pulled it off against Delpo at this year's French Open

and against Benneteau at Wimbledon

he also looked to be in the middle of a comeback against Berdych at the US Open before he finally lost in 4

the old man still got some fire left in him

paulorenzo
10-19-2012, 01:09 PM
While I agree that Nadal's record in 5 sets is incredible. I think if you asked most people, if Nadal or Federer is down two sets to love, who would win. They would think Nadal, "he is that fighter, always fist pumping, blah, blah. While Federer statistically is more likely to come back and win the match.

I think if you asked most people, if Nadal or Federer go into a fifth set, who would win. They would think Nadal, which statically makes sense.

that's very true in that sense. people's perception of 'fighter' may not translate in every scenario where, at first glance, it may seem like whether or not being a fighter is pertinent. in a down 2sets-0 scenario, common perception seems to say that a person who is often considered a fighter has a better chance of coming back. to add to that, if the player comes back to win, he would be dubbed a great fighter, further solidifying that, i feel, misconstrued notion. but there are more factors at play coming back from a big deficit than whether the player has strong fighting qualities or not.

Steve0904
10-19-2012, 01:32 PM
While it is true Nadal's 5 set record is much better, it depends on what you call a "fighter." In general, people look at Nadal, and say he's a fighter, and that's understandable, but often when he loses he loses in 3 or at most 4 sets. He's gotten blown off the court against players like Gonzalez, Tsonga, and Del Potro, and lost in 4 to guys like Soderling, Murray, Youhzny and Ferrer. The opposite is true in some sense for Federer. He often loses the longer matches, but rarely loses in 3 sets. So it all depends on what you call a "fighter."

McEnroeisanartist
10-19-2012, 02:09 PM
While it is true Nadal's 5 set record is much better, it depends on what you call a "fighter." In general, people look at Nadal, and say he's a fighter, and that's understandable, but often when he loses he loses in 3 or at most 4 sets. He's gotten blown off the court against players like Gonzalez, Tsonga, and Del Potro, and lost in 4 to guys like Soderling, Murray, Youhzny and Ferrer. The opposite is true in some sense for Federer. He often loses the longer matches, but rarely loses in 3 sets. So it all depends on what you call a "fighter."

I would define a fighter as a player who makes it very difficult to beat them when they are losing.

Towser83
10-19-2012, 05:04 PM
While I agree that Nadal's record in 5 sets is incredible. I think if you asked most people, if Nadal or Federer is down two sets to love, who would win. They would think Nadal, "he is that fighter, always fist pumping, blah, blah. While Federer statistically is more likely to come back and win the match.

I think if you asked most people, if Nadal or Federer go into a fifth set, who would win. They would think Nadal, which statically makes sense.

yes that makes sense.

What I also find funny, and it doesn't really mean anything, it's just the way things happened - the only time in a match between them that one has come back from 2 sets down, it was Federer beating Nadal in Miami 2005. Of course Nadal has only twice been 2 sets down, but then again I think Federer has been up 2 sets down 3 times, so not a massive difference (first time was RG 2008 I think)

Also though Nadal has a much better record in a 5th set compared to Federer, vs eachother in a 5th set Nadal only leads 3-2.

Again I don't thinkit means much, but it's just a stat that seem counter intuitive.