Federer - Nadal h2h!

[jg153040]

Yes this again. Sorry guys. But I'm new here and I haven't given my opinion on the matter yet.

I just want to ask why is the h2h double counted? It is already reflected in
slams won. Slam finals. 6-2. Because of that it is 17 vs 11 slams instead
of 23 vs 5 slams. Federer has been more than enough penalized for his h2h.
Should he be even more? Is that fair to double count?

I think it would be fair to only count the h2h once.

So fair is this. Federer has 23 slams and Nadal 5. But at the same time he is superior because of the h2h.

Or u count h2h only in slams Federer is 17 nadal is 11.
Just my opinion on what I think is fair.

 

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

RNadal leads RFederer 19-10 overall, 8-2 in the slam h2h, and has 11 slams. That's fair.

 

[jg153040]

It just dawned on me. How on earth did Federer manage to win 17 slams.
He lost 8 slams to Nadal and he still looks good. Incredible.

 

[jg153040]

RNadal leads RFederer 19-10 overall, 8-2 in the slam h2h, and has 11 slams. That's fair.

Ok that's fair but then we have to give Federer 23 slams if h2h is invoked.
To avoid double counting.

But it is only my opinion. I can accept different views of fairness.

 

[Zildite]

I don't understand

 

[firepanda]

I don't understand

I think he's saying that the H2H that some people quote, as well as the ever-essential slam count statistic, both are based in part on the same event. He opposes this because it is 'double counting'. Instead, he proposes that, when they are counted together, the numbers are tweked somehow. I do not under stand the logic behind that part.

I don't this is necessary at all, however. Look at it this way: the H2H is simply a Nadal-friendly rewording of the all-important slam-count, by including Nadal-Federer clay matches and removing pre-Nadal slams.

 

[jg153040]

I don't understand

Federer is penalized two times for one loss. Let's say his 6 slam finals only with Nadal. Had Federer won he woul've had 23 slams vs 5 slams.

But because of those 6 losses it is 17 vs 11 slams. But those losses are already counted in slams won.

It's like giving Nadal 2 slams for every slam he won against Federer.
Either Nadal is 6-2 in slam finals. Or he is 11-17.

So now you give Nadal 6 wins that is why he has 11 slams. But additional to those wins you still say he is 6-2 vs Federer in slam finals. Like it gives Nadal 12 wins instead of 6.

It is not fair also if it woul've been reversed. Let's say Federer has 23 slams vs 5. And he leads Nadal 6-0 in slam finals. This is already counted in his 23 slams vs 5 slams difference. Not fair saying Federer has 23 slams AND 6-0 in slam finals.

It is only fair to use one statistic at the time.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

It is true. The other player is in the beaten field.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Which is why it is funny to say Federer was dominated when he has 303-102 weeks at nr 1, 17-11 in majors, and 6-0 in YEC for instance.

 

[jg153040]

I think it is fair foll all players and all all-time greats to only count once.
Not just this mathcup. I only brought up this matchup because it is the most popular and probably all people understand the dynamics of it.

 

[JackReacher]

Federer would only have 15 slams if Nadal's parents didn't get separated in 2009. And Nadal will definitely win more than 15 slams, because who can beat him at Roland Garros?

 

[jg153040]

I mean let's say Federer woul've lost those 6 finals to 6 different players.

So instead of Nadal vs Fed it would be the Field vs Fed.

So it would somehow mean that because of the Field is 6-0 vs Fed in slam finals that the Field is better than Fed.

So you would say Fed has 17 slams but he has a losing record vs the Field 6-0 in slam finals. Still double counting.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Federer would only have 15 slams if Nadal's parents didn't get separated in 2009. And Nadal will definitely win more than 15 slams, because who can beat him at Roland Garros?

And how many majors would Federer have had if he did not have mono and back issues. It is all part of the game.

 

[Zildite]

Their slam h2h is a subset of their complete h2h, how does it end up being counted against them twice? It is just applying a filter.
Don't think I can brain this, bruv.

 

[jg153040]

Federer would only have 15 slams if Nadal's parents didn't get separated in 2009. And Nadal will definitely win more than 15 slams, because who can beat him at Roland Garros?

I don't agree with this. Separating alone is not enough. But if Nadal's parents dind't get separate and Nadal in addition to that won those slams Federer would only have 15 slams. I have to agree. If Federer had 2 slams less he would have 15 slams.

 

[JackReacher]

I don't agree with this. Separating alone is not enough. But if Nadal's parents dind't get separate and Nadal in addition to that won those slams Federer would only have 15 slams. I have to agree. If Federer had 2 slams less he would have 15 slams.

Nadal lives with his parents, so I doubt there is anything bigger (apart from death) than one of them moving out.

 

[sbengte]

Nadal lives with his parents, so I doubt there is anything bigger (apart from death) than one of them moving out.

Murray's parents separated when he was very young and never got back together (unlike Nadal's). Not to mention, he witnessed the tragic Dunblane massacre as a kid. Considering this, Murray putting all this behind him to make it as a top pro player and winning a slam has got to be the greatest achievement in #worldhistory, in your book. I am not sure what would have happened to poor little Nadal if his childhood was ridden with such unfortunate circumstances.

 

[pound cat]

Nadal lives with his parents, so I doubt there is anything bigger (apart from death) than one of them moving out.

Where have you been for the last 3 or 4 years? Nadal's parents are diviorced and he found the divorce extremely tromatic. Maybe he lives with Xisca for all we know although his mother was very good about cleaning his messy room and cooking for him.

 

[jg153040]

It's tough being a champion I guess. That is why they are so few of them.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Yes this again. Sorry guys. But I'm new here and I haven't given my opinion on the matter yet.

I just want to ask why is the h2h double counted? It is already reflected in
slams won. Slam finals. 6-2. Because of that it is 17 vs 11 slams instead
of 23 vs 5 slams. Federer has been more than enough penalized for his h2h.
Should he be even more? Is that fair to double count?

I think it would be fair to only count the h2h once.

So fair is this. Federer has 23 slams and Nadal 5. But at the same time he is superior because of the h2h.

Or u count h2h only in slams Federer is 17 nadal is 11.
Just my opinion on what I think is fair.

Yeah, the H2H against Nadal is always held against Roger, but it could also be a positive in his record. Despite having a terrible nemesis against whom he lost 8 times in slam, he still won 17 majors. Nobody else achieved so much with such a nemesis. Nadal is the only reason tennis remained interesting since 2005. Without him, Fed would have won so many more slams, including several calendar slams, and a lot more masters 1000 (6).

Nice moniker by the way :-?

 

[pds999]

The OP's logic is flawed.

 

[jg153040]

The OP's logic is flawed.

OK. I see your point

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

Murray's parents separated when he was very young and never got back together (unlike Nadal's). Not to mention, he witnessed the tragic Dunblane massacre as a kid. Considering this, Murray putting all this behind him to make it as a top pro player and winning a slam has got to be the greatest achievement in #worldhistory, in your book. I am not sure what would have happened to poor little Nadal if his childhood was ridden with such unfortunate circumstances.

please, you cannot compare all that with the incommensurable trauma caused by tio toni's frightening fairy... you just can't.

 

[JackReacher]

Where have you been for the last 3 or 4 years? Nadal's parents are diviorced and he found the divorce extremely tromatic. Maybe he lives with Xisca for all we know although his mother was very good about cleaning his messy room and cooking for him.

Every commentator that I've heard speak on the matter said the Nadals separated (not divorced) in 2009 and that they were back together by 2010.

Nah, Nadal definitely does not live with Xisca, because I heard they are building a house for Nadal/Xisca but that he has not moved out of his family home yet.

 

[SLD76]

What is the point of all this

 

[JohnnyMac Fan!]

Yeah, the H2H against Nadal is always held against Roger, but it could also be a positive in his record. Despite having a terrible nemesis against whom he lost 8 times in slam, he still won 17 majors. Nobody else achieved so much with such a nemesis. Nadal is the only reason tennis remained interesting since 2005. Without him, Fed would have won so many more slams, including several calendar slams, and a lot more masters 1000 (6).

Nice moniker by the way :-?

I find this entire threat useless as it is all speculation.

On the other hand your Avatar is freaking awesome mate!!!

 

[Flash O'Groove]

I find this entire threat useless as it is all speculation.

On the other hand your Avatar is freaking awesome mate!!!

I'm very proud of it, but it's still not as regal as yours!

 

[Towser83]

Federer would only have 15 slams if Nadal's parents didn't get separated in 2009. And Nadal will definitely win more than 15 slams, because who can beat him at Roland Garros?

And Nadal would have continued to be owned by Djokovic last year if novak's grandfather didn't die. Nadal might have never recovered and been stuck on 10 slams forever. good thing Nadal hasn't had a painful loss like that or his career would have been over considering how sensitive he is about mummy and daddy splitting up even though he's a grown man. a grown multi millionaire who lives at home. aww bless.

 

[kragster]

OP, you raise an interesting point that I have thought a lot about before but unfortunately it leads down a slippery slope.

If you think about it almost ALL STATS ARE DOUBLE COUNTED. Let me give you an example.

If a player A wins more tournaments than player B, player A will likely be higher ranked than player B. So it would be double counting when we compare the two’s resumes if we say “ Player A won more titles and was higher ranked”. One led to the other so why do we count both? Why is player B penalized on two counts?

Another example would be winning streaks. If you win a number of matches in a row , that already implies that you won a bunch of titles.

So if we really think about it, the only “pure stat” is that in your career you won X titles, made Y finals, Z semifinals, R quarterfinals etc. Everything else is derived from this. Your total points, your ranking, win % etc etc.

H2H generates a lot of interest becomes it is generally not intuitive. If you showed someone who doesn’t know tennis Fed’s resume and Nadal’s resume and then asked them to guess the H2H , what do you think they would say? Or Safin-Santoro. Or Nadal-Davydenko.

 

[mandy01]

what kind of a whacko thread is this?

 

[jg153040]

OP, you raise an interesting point that I have thought a lot about before but unfortunately it leads down a slippery slope.

If you think about it almost ALL STATS ARE DOUBLE COUNTED.

Yes this is the point I was trying to raise.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Yes this is the point I was trying to raise.

Yes, if you look at it that way, tournament wins is at the top of the stats hierachy.

 

[Towser83]

what kind of a whacko thread is this?

I dunno. its pretty desperate and crazy..

 

[JackReacher]

And Nadal would have continued to be owned by Djokovic last year if novak's grandfather didn't die. Nadal might have never recovered and been stuck on 10 slams forever. good thing Nadal hasn't had a painful loss like that or his career would have been over considering how sensitive he is about mummy and daddy splitting up even though he's a grown man. a grown multi millionaire who lives at home. aww bless.

The writing was on the wall for Dj when he took 6 hours to beat Nadal at the AO (Dj's favorite slam, Nadal's worst slam- Nadal has only reached the SFs twice at AO).

 

[RF20Lennon]

Nadal lives with his parents, so I doubt there is anything bigger (apart from death) than one of them moving out.

He lost against a red hot soderling and skipped wimbledon because of a knee injury so how is that connected to his parents separating?

Also, then you could argue that Nole lost the MC final last year because his grandfather died.

 

[malbaker86]

wait.....what?!?!?!?!?

 

[Towser83]

The writing was on the wall for Dj when he took 6 hours to beat Nadal at the AO (Dj's favorite slam, Nadal's worst slam- Nadal has only reached the SFs twice at AO).

He was just playing badly that day and still won. He was exhausted after playing 5 hours with Murray for a start.Maybe his mummy and daddy had an argument or something, who knows?

But Djokovic was stopped from owning Nadal on clay again in 2012 by the death of his grandfather. Hopefully Nadal doesn't suffer such loss, because considering how sensitive he is, he would probably struggle to beat an under 14s champion.

 

[JackReacher]

He lost against a red hot soderling and skipped wimbledon because of a knee injury so how is that connected to his parents separating?

Also, then you could argue that Nole lost the MC final last year because his grandfather died.

I don't believe Nadal's knees were the reason why he skipped Wimbledon. Someone that has read his autobiography say it was implied that his parents problems made him so sad he lost his motivation for tennis. Also, remember Nadal played a couple of exhibition sets at London just before Wimbledon 2009 to test his knees. He didn't have any problem with the exhibition sets but ended up withdrawing from Wimbledon anyway. He said that he was withdrawing because he didn't want to play unless he was 100%. So he really could have played I think. Sure you can say Dj lost the MC final because of his grandfather. Not sure if you want to apply that to Rome and Roland Garros too which Nadal also beat Dj at.

 

[AREYOUOUTOFYOURVULCANMIND]

Nope. None of this matters. All that matters is ATP tour records with a point system to adjust for position in the record.

Federer - 93.35
Nadal - 39.43
Lendl - 36.10
Sampras - 24.71
Djokovic - 23.54

THE END.

 

[JackReacher]

Facts beat subjective stats any day....

Djokovic vs. Nadal
Nadal leads 19-15 overall.
Nadal leads 6-3 at slams.
Last slam meeting: Nadal won 6-4 6-3 2-6 7-5 at 2012 French Open.

Federer vs. Nadal
Nadal leads 19-10 overall.
Nadal leads 8-2 at slams.
Last slam meeting: Nadal won 6-7 6-2 7-6 6-4 at 2012 Australian Open.

Murray vs. Nadal
Nadal leads 13-5 overall.
Nadal leads 6-2 at slams.
Last slam meeting: Nadal won 6-4 6-2 3-6 6-2 at 2011 US Open.

 

[AREYOUOUTOFYOURVULCANMIND]

Dominik Hrbatý leads 3-1 against Nadal and 2-1 against Federer. He is the greatest.

 

[AREYOUOUTOFYOURVULCANMIND]

Facts beat subjective stats any day....

Djokovic vs. Nadal
Nadal leads 19-15 overall.
Nadal leads 6-3 at slams.
Last slam meeting: Nadal won 6-4 6-3 2-6 7-5 at 2012 French Open.

Federer vs. Nadal
Nadal leads 19-10 overall.
Nadal leads 8-2 at slams.
Last slam meeting: Nadal won 6-7 6-2 7-6 6-4 at 2012 Australian Open.

Murray vs. Nadal
Nadal leads 13-5 overall.
Nadal leads 6-2 at slams.
Last slam meeting: Nadal won 6-4 6-2 3-6 6-2 at 2011 US Open.

Those are also subjective statistics since you subjectively selected them to highlight your argument. At least mine incorporates a multitude of records to come to its conclusion. Yours is one number that doesn't really mean much in the grand scheme of tennis history.

 

[AREYOUOUTOFYOURVULCANMIND]

To be honest though. This debating is meaningless. I do like Federer, but I also like Nadal and Djokovic. I think this whole debate can be ended with we would all just say that Federer was the best between 2004-2007, Nadal was the best between 2008-2010, and Djokovic is the best from 2011-now.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

To be honest though. This debating is meaningless. I do like Federer, but I also like Nadal and Djokovic. I think this whole debate can be ended with we would all just say that Federer was the best between 2004-2007, Nadal was the best between 2008-2010, and Djokovic is the best from 2011-now.

But Federers numbers, and him going nr one in 2012 puts him at least a notch (a big one to be honest) over them imo. Federer was also nr 1 for about 18 months in 2008-10, allthough I realize there are explanations for that.