PDA

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


McEnroeisanartist
10-19-2012, 09:18 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, 09:27 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, 10:00 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, 10:04 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, 10:09 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, 10:16 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, 10:22 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, 10:24 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, 10:36 AM
More important how many times Fed done it against a top 5 player?

TMF
10-19-2012, 11:27 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, 11:31 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, 11:39 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, 11:58 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, 12:02 PM
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, 12:35 PM
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, 12:40 PM
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, 01:21 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, 02:09 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, 02:32 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, 03:09 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, 06:04 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.

kOaMaster
09-05-2014, 06:00 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.

I updated your numbers (btw, you were slightly off and forgot some matches I think (masters finals?)

I'll drop in information from this post here:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=4895968&postcount=201

2000 US Open R128: Roger Federer def. Peter Wessels (4-6, 4-6, 6-3, 7-5, 3-4 ret.)
2001 French Open R64: Roger Federer def. Sargis Sargsian (4-6, 3-6, 6-2, 6-4, 9-7)
2005 Miami F: Roger Federer def. Rafael Nadal (2-6, 6-7, 7-6, 6-3, 6-1)
2009 Australian Open R16: Roger Federer def. Tomas Berdych (4-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-4, 6-2)
2009 French Open R16: Roger Federer def. Tommy Haas (6-7, 5-7, 6-4, 6-0, 6-2)
2010 Wimbledon R128: Roger Federer def. Alejandro Falla (5-7, 4-6, 6-4, 7-6, 6-0)
2012 French Open QF: Roger Federer def. Juan Martin del Potro (3-6, 6-7, 6-2, 6-0, 6-3)
2012 Wimbledon R32: Roger Federer def. Julien Benneteau (4-6, 6-7, 6-2, 7-6, 6-1)

And now new:
2014 US Open QF: Roger Federer def. Gael Monfils (4-6, 3-6, 6-4, 7-5, 6-2)

Makes a total of 9 times coming back from two sets down, 8 of those at grand slams.

Interesting is also the following statistic: Out of all matches Federer and Nadal were 0-2 sets down, the outcome was:
Federer
Lost in 3/4/5 sets: 26 times
Won in 5 sets: 9 times

Since winning his first grand slam, Federer is 6-11 in matches when he loses the first two sets. and overall he does win 9/35. win-percentage after 0-2 down is 26%.

Nadal
Lost in 3/4/5 sets: 16 times
Won in 5 sets: 3 times

Since winning his first grand slam, Nadal is 3-11 in matches when he loses the first two sets. overall 3/19. win-percentage after 0-2 down is 16%.

Djokovic
Lost in 3/4/5 sets: 22 times
Won in 5 sets: 3 times

Since winning his first grand slam, Nadal is 2-13 in matches when he loses the first two sets. overall 3/25. win-percentage after 0-2 down is 12%.
Credits to McEnroeisanartist, I used his posting here (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=6964119&postcount=7) and updated it.

Winning 26% of ALL matches Federer was 2 sets down is a lot. And we are talking career-overall!
Nadal on the other hand doesn't seem to be able to fight back that good after two sets down. his three unique times were ljubicic in 2005 madrid/indoor, kendrick 2006 and youzhny 2007 wimbledon (quite a while ago).
-> Nadal doesn't have the possibilities as Federer to perform comebacks from being way down.

And we are not going to talk about Djokovic on that topic....

Mustard
09-05-2014, 08:17 AM
Makes a total of 9 times coming back from two sets down.

That equals Todd Martin. Aaron Krickstein and Boris Becker did it 10 times.

clayqueen
09-05-2014, 08:21 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.

Isn't that because Nadal doesn't go 2 sets down as often as Federer?

mike danny
09-05-2014, 08:23 AM
Isn't that because Nadal doesn't go 2 sets down as often as Federer?
But when he does, he rarely comes back

jg153040
09-05-2014, 08:41 AM
But when he does, he rarely comes back

I don't think that is related to being a warrior. That is due to skills and playing style.

Rafa when down, he doesn't have variety in his game. But Federer can mix it up and has a plan C, plan D, so he can neutralize god modes with variety.

Rafa fights more is better warrior, but nothing can help you if you don't have the game.

My point is that Federer if he is playing badly can bring down opponent who is playing amazing tennis.

Nadal has less options, so if his opponent is playing god mode, he can't do that much to bring him down.

Also Rafa tries anything to win. Time wasting, gamesmanship and so on. That is being a warrior.

Fiji
09-05-2014, 08:44 AM
Federer is the more complete player.

The_Order
09-05-2014, 09:05 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.

I suppose Rafa should let Berdych, Falla, Benneteau and Monfils win the first 2 sets next time he plays them in a major so he can make the "heroic" comebacks like Federer does.

The_Order
09-05-2014, 09:08 AM
But when he does, he rarely comes back

Yeah because Nadal rarely goes down 2 sets to 0 against the mugs that Fed does. Darcis is the only one I can remember since 2008 when it hasn't happened against a top player.

Strobe Lights
09-05-2014, 09:10 AM
Using 5-set records for this can be misleading. Let's say your opponent is playing better than you and you manage to, primarily through mental strength, take it to a 5th set which you then lose. That is not mentally weak. In fact, it is the opposite.

Not that I don't believe Nadal is mentally stronger, as I think he is. I think a better way is to look at matches that you feel a player SHOULD have won but did not. For Rafa, there is only really one big match for me and that is the Miami final against Fed where he led by 2 sets and a break. People could argue the 2012 AO final but Novak should have won that in 4 and Rafa managed to take it to a 5th, which he possibly should have then won. Fed has far more matches that I think he should have won but did not.

jg153040
09-05-2014, 09:13 AM
I suppose Rafa should let Berdych, Falla, Benneteau and Monfils win the first 2 sets next time he plays them in a major so he can make the "heroic" comebacks like Federer does.

Haha, you know what the irony is? That you are absolutely correct. And that you don't see that with h2h with Federer vs Rafa because of your bias.

So, Fed should have lost in 1st round all those tournaments he lost to Rafa, so he would be 10-0 vs Rafa and the goat?

Now, I know you are trolling :)

See this is the problem. You are perfectly capable using your mind and reason, but this goes out of the window when Nadal is involved.

This argument is called reductio ad absurdum.

It's like religious people. They are perfectly fine debunking all opposite religions, except their own :).

That's why all religious people are atheists about all other gods except for their own god.

Fed881981
09-05-2014, 09:13 AM
But when he does, he rarely comes back
We are talking percentage wise.

The_Order
09-05-2014, 09:29 AM
Haha, you know what the irony is? That you are absolutely correct. And that you don't see that with h2h with Federer vs Rafa because of your bias.

So, Fed should have lost in 1st round all those tournaments he lost to Rafa, so he would be 10-0 vs Rafa and the goat?

Now, I know you are trolling :)

See this is the problem. You are perfectly capable using your mind and reason, but this goes out of the window when Nadal is involved.

This argument is called reductio ad absurdum.

It's like religious people. They are perfectly fine debunking all opposite religions, except their own :).

That's why all religious people are atheists about all other gods except for their own god.

Federer isn't the goat because such a player doesn't exist. Nadal has only lost in the first round of a major once in his career. Fed going out before reaching Nadal has happened at the US Open 3 times and had it happened more often in other majors, it would only strengthen the weaker era argument :lol:

Fed is supposed to be your goat, but Nadal HAS owned him 23 times and Nadal has NOT gone down 2 sets to 0 against the mugs that Federer did. Reality dude, deal with it.

mike danny
09-05-2014, 09:33 AM
Federer isn't the goat because such a player doesn't exist. Nadal has only lost in the first round of a major once in his career. Fed going out before reaching Nadal has happened at the US Open 3 times and had it happened more often in other majors, it would only strengthen the weaker era argument :lol:

Fed is supposed to be your goat, but Nadal HAS owned him 23 times and Nadal has NOT gone down 2 sets to 0 against the mugs that Federer did. Reality dude, deal with it.
Who cares? Federer in his prime didn't lose to 3 players ranked in the 100's for 3 years in a row at the same slam. I say that's worse.

TMF
09-05-2014, 09:33 AM
That equals Todd Martin. Aaron Krickstein and Boris Becker did it 10 times.

I only find Boris comeback and win at the slam after being 2 sets down 7 times. I didn't bother to check for Todd and Aaron, so I doubt that you are correct on that one.


1. US Open 1987
2. US Open 1989
3. AO 1990
4. RG 1991
5. US Open 1993
6. AO 1996
7. Wimbledon 1999

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Be/B/Boris-Becker.aspx?t=pa&y=0&m=s&e=gs

joeri888
09-05-2014, 09:35 AM
It would be interesting to break it down even further. In what sets do They statistically do well if it Goes to five? If 2-0 down who loses in 5 more, and inn4? Who is blown of the court more often etc?

The_Order
09-05-2014, 09:40 AM
Who cares? Federer in his prime didn't lose to 3 players ranked in the 100's for 3 years in a row at the same slam. I say that's worse.

Rafa's been finished on grass for years. I wouldn't be saying he has been playing at his prime level on grass the last 3 years. And no, it's not worse than repeatedly going out in majors in the first round, players need to be judged on their entire career not just their prime.

jg153040
09-05-2014, 09:41 AM
Federer isn't the goat because such a player doesn't exist. Nadal has only lost in the first round of a major once in his career. Fed going out before reaching Nadal has happened at the US Open 3 times and had it happened more often in other majors, it would only strengthen the weaker era argument :lol:

Fed is supposed to be your goat, but Nadal HAS owned him 23 times and Nadal has NOT gone down 2 sets to 0 against the mugs that Federer did. Reality dude, deal with it.

Ok, if there is no goat, then why are any records even important? Why do you then even bring h2h if you assert that there is no goat.

If you claim that there is no way to determine who is greater or better, then all stats are meaningless. You are wasting your time even bringing them up.

TMF
09-05-2014, 09:46 AM
I suppose Rafa should let Berdych, Falla, Benneteau and Monfils win the first 2 sets next time he plays them in a major so he can make the "heroic" comebacks like Federer does.

All great players have to face the same situation. Between Federer and Nadal, Federer handle better when hanging by a thread. He has the game/skills to comeback.

Keep in mind Federer almost beat Nadal in 2008 Wimbledon when he was 2 sets down. Had the match was played an hour ahead of scheduled(avoid the darkness), who knows Federer could have won that match.

Mustard
09-05-2014, 10:22 AM
I only find Boris comeback and win at the slam after being 2 sets down 7 times. I didn't bother to check for Todd and Aaron, so I doubt that you are correct on that one.

How very convenient. Read my post again. I wasn't only talking about majors.

Krickstein also won 8 matches from 2 sets down in majors, and at all 4 majors. He was called "Marathon Man" for a reason.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=4816199&postcount=74

1983 US Open (against Gerulaitis)
1984 US Open (against Manson)
1986 US Open (against Novacek and Annacone)
1989 US Open (against Volkov)
1992 French Open (against Washington)
1995 Australian Open (against Edberg)
1995 Wimbledon (against Bergstrom)


Todd Martin's 9 wins from 2 sets down were all in majors:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=4922567&postcount=255

1993 US Open (against Burillo)
1994 US Open (against Raoux)
1999 Australian Open (against Meligeni)
1999 Wimbledon (against Dreekmann)
1999 US Open (against Rusedski)
2000 Australian Open (against B. Black)
2000 US Open (against Moya)
2001 Wimbledon (against J. Novak)
2004 Australian Open (against Dupuis)

TMF
09-05-2014, 10:39 AM
^
Did Becker win 10 times from being down 2 sets ?

Djokovic2011
09-05-2014, 10:44 AM
Federer isn't the goat because such a player doesn't exist. Nadal has only lost in the first round of a major once in his career. Fed going out before reaching Nadal has happened at the US Open 3 times and had it happened more often in other majors, it would only strengthen the weaker era argument :lol:



What about all the years when Fed was consistently reaching the final at the US Open and Nadal was going out early to lesser players? Roger would have had a great chance of getting more Slam wins over him between 04-07.

Mustard
09-05-2014, 10:45 AM
^
Did Becker win 10 times from being down 2 sets ?

Yes, he did. Krickstein also did.

Becker's 5-set matches listed in the link below:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=4816930&postcount=81

TMF
09-05-2014, 10:50 AM
What about all the years when Fed was consistently reaching the final at the US Open and Nadal was going out early to lesser players? Roger would have had a great chance of getting more Slam wins over him between 04-07.

He's just trolling you. Deep down he knows Federer is the goat but doesn't want to admit it in front of Federer fans.

Mustard
09-05-2014, 10:52 AM
What about all the years when Fed was consistently reaching the final at the US Open and Nadal was going out early to lesser players? Roger would have had a great chance of getting more Slam wins over him between 04-07.

When Nadal was age 18-21? What had Federer won at that stage of his life? I can just as easily blame Federer for not reaching major finals in 2001-2002, so Hewitt could beat him more often.

mike danny
09-05-2014, 10:53 AM
Federer isn't the goat because such a player doesn't exist. Nadal has only lost in the first round of a major once in his career. Fed going out before reaching Nadal has happened at the US Open 3 times and had it happened more often in other majors, it would only strengthen the weaker era argument :lol:

Fed is supposed to be your goat, but Nadal HAS owned him 23 times and Nadal has NOT gone down 2 sets to 0 against the mugs that Federer did. Reality dude, deal with it.
Federer at one point reached 6 consecutive USO finals. Where was Nadal during that time? Losing to other players.

My point is why was it Federer's duty to reach Nadal? He can't reach finals everytime. He already reached 6 in a row, nobody in the last 15 years did better than that. So he played his part for so many years. Yet Nadal was always bowing out before meeting him.

Sorry but it is more Nadal's fault than Federer's for not meeting at the USO

TMF
09-05-2014, 10:54 AM
Yes, he did. Krickstein also did.

Becker's 5-set matches listed in the link below:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=4816930&postcount=81

Ok, but I'm not sure 1992 Brussels was that big a deal since it's a small tournament with a 32-man draw.

Mustard
09-05-2014, 10:56 AM
Ok, but I'm not sure 1992 Brussels was that big a deal since it's a small tournament with a 32-man draw.

He beat Courier, who was world number 1 at the time. The tour was somewhat different in the 1990s compared to today. Back then, no Super 9 tournaments were compulsory, and you could pick up almost as many points from other tournaments.

tennisfan87
09-05-2014, 11:00 AM
What about all the years when Fed was consistently reaching the final at the US Open and Nadal was going out early to lesser players? Roger would have had a great chance of getting more Slam wins over him between 04-07.

You know, I have been hearing this argument being made countless of times over the years, but actually it doesn't hold any merit.

How on earth was Rafa supposed to reach him in 2004 when he was only 18 years old (a teenager), wasn't even a top player and just won his 1st title that year. Where was Federer at 18?

The 2005 - 2007 period has merit since Nadal became a top 2 player for the 1st time in 2005. But even then, it all balances itself out pretty neatly. Rafa didn't reach him during that period but Federer didn't reach Rafa in 2010, 2011 and 2013.

Nathaniel_Near
09-05-2014, 11:04 AM
Nadal also didn't reach Federer in 2008 or 2009. Perhaps they're destined to never meet there.

mike danny
09-05-2014, 11:05 AM
You know, I have been hearing this argument being made countless of times over the years, but actually it doesn't hold any merit.

How on earth was Rafa supposed to reach him in 2004 when he was only 18 years old (a teenager), wasn't even a top player and just won his 1st title that year. Where was Federer at 18?

The 2005 - 2007 period has merit since Nadal became a top 2 player for the 1st time in 2005. But even then, it all balances itself out pretty neatly. Rafa didn't reach him during that period but Federer didn't reach Rafa in 2010, 2011 and 2013.
Fed reached 6 straight USO finals. He couldn't do better than that. He played his part every year between 2005-2009, when Nadal was always below him at no.2

Surely you can't expect him to keep reaching finals past 29.

Mustard
09-05-2014, 11:10 AM
Nadal also didn't reach Federer in 2008 or 2009. Perhaps they're destined to never meet there.

Federer didn't reach Nadal in 2010, 2011 or 2013 either.

Nathaniel_Near
09-05-2014, 11:11 AM
Federer didn't reach Nadal in 2010, 2011 or 2013 either.

Read the above posts...

TMF
09-05-2014, 11:15 AM
2014 US Open Quarterfinal.

ďAt the beginning I feel good, because when you have a tactic or plan, a game plan, stick with,Ē Monfils said. ďThatís why heís Roger Federer, because he change so many times. He start with chipping very low. I think I handled it good. So then he stick with longer points. It was 50-50, and then he try to come to the net like very often. It was a bit better for him. Then suddenly he start to mix everything. Thatís why heís the greatest player, because he can do everything."

Gael Monfils: Federer Started Mixing Everything Up, Thatís Why Heís The Greatest (http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2014-09-05/16953.php)

Djokovic2011
09-05-2014, 11:37 AM
You know, I have been hearing this argument being made countless of times over the years, but actually it doesn't hold any merit.

How on earth was Rafa supposed to reach him in 2004 when he was only 18 years old (a teenager), wasn't even a top player and just won his 1st title that year. Where was Federer at 18?

The 2005 - 2007 period has merit since Nadal became a top 2 player for the 1st time in 2005. But even then, it all balances itself out pretty neatly. Rafa didn't reach him during that period but Federer didn't reach Rafa in 2010, 2011 and 2013.

If you're gonna discount 04-07 for Nadal being too young then you should also discount any wins that Nadal's had over Federer in the last couple of years(when Fed still managed to reach him in the latter stages irrespective of his form at the time) when Roger's been too old. That seems about right to me.

vive le beau jeu !
09-05-2014, 11:45 AM
Ok, but I'm not sure 1992 Brussels was that big a deal since it's a small tournament with a 32-man draw.
He beat Courier, who was world number 1 at the time. The tour was somewhat different in the 1990s compared to today. Back then, no Super 9 tournaments were compulsory, and you could pick up almost as many points from other tournaments.
agreed !

it was fun to have those 5-sets finals (even more when courier loses, it's true) :) in some 'regular' tournaments back in the (not so) 'old' times...

and now they don't even let us having a best-of-5 in the WTF... WTF !!! :(

Mustard
09-05-2014, 11:45 AM
If you're gonna discount 04-07 for Nadal being too young then you should also discount any wins that Nadal's had over Federer in the last couple of years(when Fed still managed to reach him in the latter stages irrespective of his form at the time) when Roger's been too old. That seems about right to me.

I don't discount them. Nadal wasn't good enough to get to the final of the Australian Opens and US Opens that he played when he was 18-21. That's all there is to it.

Egoista
09-05-2014, 11:48 AM
nadal is mentally stronger unfortunately

but thats just him

Djokovic2011
09-05-2014, 11:49 AM
I don't discount them. Nadal wasn't good enough to get to the final of the Australian Opens and US Opens that he played when he was 18-21. That's all there is to it.

And yet Fed is still good enough to get to Slam finals between 30-33! :razz:

tennisfan87
09-05-2014, 12:41 PM
If you're gonna discount 04-07 for Nadal being too young ...

I didn't do that, you should read more carefully. I only excused him for 2004 because, not only was he just a teenager back then, but the most important thing - not a top player yet. Is that so hard to understand?

Maybe Novak should've reached the UO final that year too? So what if he was only 17 years old and nowhere close to being a top player? As you say, it doesn't matter.

It was just 1 match and with a good reason, not the whole 2004 - 2007 period as you say.

... then you should also discount any wins that Nadal's had over Federer in the last couple of years(when Fed still managed to reach him in the latter stages irrespective of his form at the time) when Roger's been too old. That seems about right to me.

And I just did that :)

So we have this situation: I excused Rafa for only 1 match because he wasn't a top player yet. I started counting from the moment he became a top 2 player and won his 1st slam, 2005 RG. We have 3 other matches - 2005, 2006, 2007.

Nadal didn't reach Federer those 3 times (teenager, was just a claycourt specialist) but Federer also didn't reach Rafa in 2010, 2011 and 2013 (because of age, decline, being out of prime).

Like I said, it all balances itself out in the end. I have excused both of them in this case. And if you want, you can take away Rafa's 1st win over Federer ( 2004 Miami, they didn't meet in any other matches that year) and swap it with that 2004 UO final where he didn't meet Federer.

Again, it all balances itself out. They're even in this case.

Nadal also didn't reach Federer in 2008 or 2009. Perhaps they're destined to never meet there.

This I agree with. Rafa was in his peak and prime years in 2008 and 2009 so I can give those 2 matches to Roger. But that's still only 2 matches and not 6 like many like to emphasize.

I think it's fair. I have excused both of them, Rafa for 2004 - 2007, Roger for 2010, 2011, 2013 (so that's even) and I gave Roger those 2 matches in 2008 and 2009 (Rafa's peak and prime years).

So that's +2 for Roger but not +6 as initially stated. Can posters agree with this?

mike danny
09-05-2014, 12:56 PM
I didn't do that, you should read more carefully. I only excused him for 2004 because, not only was he just a teenager back then, but the most important thing - not a top player yet. Is that so hard to understand?

Maybe Novak should've reached the UO final that year too? So what if he was only 17 years old and nowhere close to being a top player? As you say, it doesn't matter.

It was just 1 match and with a good reason, not the whole 2004 - 2007 period as you say.



And I just did that :)

So we have this situation: I excused Rafa for only 1 match because he wasn't a top player yet. I started counting from the moment he became a top 2 player and won his 1st slam, 2005 RG. We have 3 other matches - 2005, 2006, 2007.

Nadal didn't reach Federer those 3 times (teenager, was just a claycourt specialist) but Federer also didn't reach Rafa in 2010, 2011 and 2013 (because of age, decline, being out of prime).

Like I said, it all balances itself out in the end. I have excused both of them in this case. And if you want, you can take away Rafa's 1st win over Federer ( 2004 Miami, they didn't meet in any other matches that year) and swap it with that 2004 UO final where he didn't meet Federer.

Again, it all balances itself out. They're even in this case.



This I agree with. Rafa was in his peak and prime years in 2008 and 2009 so I can give those 2 matches to Roger. But that's still only 2 matches and not 6 like many like to emphasize.

I think it's fair. I have excused both of them, Rafa for 2004 - 2007, Roger for 2010, 2011, 2013 (so that's even) and I gave Roger those 2 matches in 2008 and 2009 (Rafa's peak and prime years).

So that's +2 for Roger but not +6 as initially stated. Can posters agree with this?
Federer missed 3 matches: 2010,2011,2013

Nadal missed 5 matches: 2005-2009.

5>3.

Nadal therefore missed more matches than Federer.

Nathaniel_Near
09-05-2014, 12:58 PM
tennisfan87 - I agree that the difference was overstated.

abmk
09-05-2014, 01:06 PM
You know, I have been hearing this argument being made countless of times over the years, but actually it doesn't hold any merit.

How on earth was Rafa supposed to reach him in 2004 when he was only 18 years old (a teenager), wasn't even a top player and just won his 1st title that year. Where was Federer at 18?

The 2005 - 2007 period has merit since Nadal became a top 2 player for the 1st time in 2005. But even then, it all balances itself out pretty neatly. Rafa didn't reach him during that period but Federer didn't reach Rafa in 2010, 2011 and 2013.

take out 2011 from that ...he played djokovic much closer in the semi than rafa did in the final ..

the rest of it is fine ....though one could still nitpick about 13 -- because it was an injury-affected year for federer ...

sportsfan1
09-05-2014, 01:13 PM
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

Needs further breakdown or group. How many of the wins/losses were against top 10 or top 20 opponents? Maybe the final answer would still be the same, but it would be interesting analysis.

The_Order
09-05-2014, 11:39 PM
And yet Fed is still good enough to get to Slam finals between 30-33! :razz:

Laver won the cygs at 31. Rosewall made it to 2 finals in a row at age 40. Agassi was still making finals in his mid 30's.

Stop making out that 30 is like 80, it isn't. You don't just suddenly stop being able to run and lose all your fitness. Federer is in better condition than most of the 25 year olds on tour.

Federer is one of the greatest HC champions, yet even he wasn't making it to finals at age 18-21.

Nadal's best ball is on clay. He made it to the clay major final almost immediately and has continuously done so for the past 10 years apart from 2009.

However, Nadal still made it to his first HC major final at roughly the same age as Federer was when he first made it to a HC major final. The only problem for Nadal is, Djokovic played unbelievable tennis from A02011 - AO2012. He effectively took away 2 HC titles and a Wimbledon title Nadal would have won. Nobody of that calibre arrived during Federer's peak, only the same old pigeon Roddick, Hewitt and 34+ yr old Agassi were consistently facing him in majors.

Put a 35 year old Agassi against Nadal in US2011 and in 2005 put 2011 Djokovic against Federer. The trophy cabinet would look very different with Nadal having 3 US Opens and Federer 4.

Furthermore, had the 2010 and 2013 version of Nadal showed up to the US Open in any of the 2 years from 04-07 you can take away 2 US Opens from Federer and add them to Nadal because he won't be beating Nadal playing at his best.

Federer's a great player, but his slam count and achievements are inflated. He had a 4 year period where there was very little to really challenge him apart from Nadal on clay (and in 07 Nadal on grass). If peak Djokovic was in Federer's path and not in Nadal's things would be very different. If you don't believe that then why all of a sudden Federer stopped winning 3 majors a year from 2008 onwards? Only 2009 he won 2 and that was because Nadal was out of the way. You really want to tell me that 26-28 is too old? Why doesn't Nadal have that problem at age 26-28? Nadal's 2014 is a definite drop from 2013, but he still made it to AO final and won RG against his main rival. If it weren't for bad luck with injuries (something that has plagued him his entire career) who knows what he would've achieved. He'd probably have beaten Stan in the AO final and made it to the US final again this year. I say this because he's dominated Stan in the past without even losing a set and made it to the final in 5 of the last 6 HC slams he's played in and it's not like the competition is tough this year, it's dropped off big time with Murray not reaching his best, Del Potro being out, Nadal being out, Djokovic focusing on family and young players still fragile in majors for the most part.

But hey it's ok, there's no point trying to convince you with logic, believe what you want.

The_Order
09-05-2014, 11:43 PM
take out 2011 from that ...he played djokovic much closer in the semi than rafa did in the final ..

the rest of it is fine ....though one could still nitpick about 13 -- because it was an injury-affected year for federer ...

No you can't still nitpick 2013 because he tanked to freaking Robredo. Nadal had an injury affected 2009 and no one's *****ing about that now are they? He couldn't serve for sh*t against Del Po.

And the performance of Roger in 2011 US being closer to beating Novak than Rafa has nothing to do with it. Roger still failed to reach the final against Nadal who was sitting there waiting.

I don't understand your point anyway, the same thing would happen to Fed as AO. He'd win a set here and there, but ultimately we all know the result will be another Nadal victory because Federer isn't good enough to consistently beat Nadal in majors, particularly outdoor HC ones where his record stands at 0 wins and 3 losses.