Federer's Grand Slam finals and semifinals streaks put into perspective

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by JennyS, Jan 1, 2010.

  1. JennyS

    JennyS Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,294
    Here's how much more consistent he's been than the guy who owns him:

    Consecutive Grand Slam Finals:
    1. Federer: 10 (05 W-07 USO)
    2. Federer: 7 (08 FO-present)
    3. Nadal: 2 (08 FO and W)

    Consecutive Grand Slam Semis:
    1. Federer: 22 (04 W-present)
    2. Nadal: 5 (08 AO-09 AO)

    Consecutive Grand Slam quarters:
    1. Federer: 22 (04 W to Present)
    2. Nadal: 6 (06 FO to 07 W)

    All of those streaks ranked:
    1. Federer Consecutive Grand Slam Semis: 22
    2. Federer Consecutive Grand Slam Finals: 10
    3. Federer Consecutive Grand Slam finals: 7
    4. Nadal Consecutive Grand Slam quarterfinals: 6
    5. Nadal Consecutive Grand Slam Semis: 5
    6. Nadal Consecutive Grand Slam finals: 2

    So Federer's SECOND longest Grand Slam FINALS streak is longer than Nadal's longest QUARTERFINALS streak! Amazing!
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2010
    #1
  2. JennyS

    JennyS Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,294
    or how about individual Slams?

    Consecutive titles at a Slam:
    1. Federer, Wimbledon: 5
    1. Federer, US Open: 5
    3. Nadal, French Open: 4
    4. Federer, Australian Open: 2

    Consecutive finals at a Slam:
    1. Federer, Wimbledon: 7
    2. Federer, US Open: 6
    3. Nadal, French Open: 4
    3. Federer, French Open: 4
    5. Nadal, Wimbledon: 3
    6. Federer, Australian Open: 2

    Consecutive Semis at a Slam
    1. Federer, Wimbledon: 7
    2. Federer, US Open: 6
    2. Federer, Australian Open: 6
    4. Federer, French Open: 5
    5. Nadal, French Open: 4
    6. Nadal, Wimbledon: 3
    7. Nadal, Australian Open: 2
    8. Nadal, US Open: 2
     
    #2
  3. Messarger

    Messarger Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Messages:
    1,828
    Why even bother comparing them? Just watch the tennis and enjoy it for what it is.
     
    #3
  4. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    20,084
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    WOOOOOWWWW!!! This is amazing!!

    But seriously, it is very impressive. I think Rosewall has some comparable streaks to Federer and maybe greater. For sure, Federer's consistency is almost uncanny.
     
    #4
  5. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    20,084
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    Limits are for wussies. One could do both.
     
    #5
  6. Messarger

    Messarger Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Messages:
    1,828
    Limits?? Of course one could do both, but at the end of the day numbers and figures dont always depict the whole picture. (accurate) comparisons should be made when both players are out on the courts battling with each other.
     
    #6
  7. BlakeGOAT

    BlakeGOAT Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    197
    Deleted...
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2010
    #7
  8. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    20,084
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    Umm it must be a typo. 05 Wimbly - 07 US Open = 10.
     
    #8
  9. asafi2

    asafi2 Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    368
    Yep I was just going to write that.
     
    #9
  10. BlakeGOAT

    BlakeGOAT Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    197
    Yea, i made a mistake myself. The streak is 10 ofcourse, not 8.
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2010
    #10
  11. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    20,084
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    Accurate comparisons can probably be made at any time whatsoever. And an accurate comparison is not obligated to tell 100% of the story, however its contribution can still be highly valuable. There is plenty of reason to bother comparing statistics of different questions; to draw conclusions out of curiosity in order to construct a hierarchy for example. The act in itself could be deemed aimless but curiosity didn't always kill the cat, you dig?
     
    #11
  12. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    20,084
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    =D

    10 caricatural chars.
     
    #12
  13. Agassifan

    Agassifan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,562
    Why bother comparing Fed's streaks with Rafa's? Nobody in tennis history come even close. Given the situation today, you could do something like

    Federer's streaks
    vs
    Rest of top 5's streaks (for instance, count EITHER of rafa, novak, murray and roddick making the semis of all slams in one year as a streak of 4)
     
    #13
  14. luvly

    luvly Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    Messages:
    1,189
    That sounds great I will do just the last three years I am doing off the top of my head and I am only using Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Roddick, Del Potro, and Murray ( I am only using Roddick because i can not remember who ended the year number 5 last year although I think it was Davydenko)


    2007-2009

    Federer -7 (F 08-USO 09)
    Others-8 (F07- AO 09)


    Semis
    Federer-12 (AO 07-PRESENT)
    Others-9 (AO 07-AO 09)
     
    #14
  15. Agassifan

    Agassifan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,562
    freaking unbelievable... and people talk about Roger not beating enough Top players in finals... if only they bothered to show up.
     
    #15
  16. Messarger

    Messarger Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Messages:
    1,828
    First of all, what hierachy are you talking about?

    Yes, of course, that is what discussion forums are for. But look at the tone of the original post again and tell me if that is consistent with what you said in bold.
     
    #16
  17. namelessone

    namelessone Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    9,745
    LOL,no one is arguing Fed's records and consistency but the stats you pointed show the fact that Federer only had one real rival(and a rival whose body is prone to breaking down) and that's kinda sad. Do the same stats for roddick and hewitt and see where you will end up. Hell,do the same for other supposed rivals like djoker and murray.
    If you think Roger's domination is amazing now,look at it this way: the guy would have had 2 calendar slams and about 19-20 GS(with 7 straight wimbledons and 4 RG's) if Nadal had been a late bloomer as well. While I don't buy into the weak era crap,it would have been better for Fed if there were more people to really challenge him.

    The reason why so many people hang on the Nadal h2h issue with Fed,even people who aren't fed haters, is that while Fed has broken 90% of the tennis records that matter,he hasn't really been able to dominate the one rival history threw at him. While for me as a Nadal fan,it isn't really a issue,I can understand why it bothers some people.
     
    #17
  18. P_Agony

    P_Agony Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    13,186
    Doesn't bother me as a Fed fan though. There are quite a few explanations to Nadal's H2H with Fed:

    1) Nadal is a bad matchup for Fed. Evreyone has their bad matchup, for Nadal it's the tall guys like Delpo, Cilic, Soderling or the ultra consistent aggressive baseliners like Djokovic and Davydenko. For Federer it's the counter punchers like Nadal, Murray and Simon, all have winning records against him.

    2) As much as everyone hates to admit it, it's true, Federer met Nadal mostly on clay, and it's pointless to say that Nadal is the best clay player in the world, maybe even all time. If Federer would have met Nadal more on indoor hard courts (for example), who knows what the H2H might be. Heck, if Federer would have lost semi finals on clay everytime, his record vs. Nadal would have been a lot better but his results much worse. Plus, with all those clay matches + bad matchup it was clear there was some mental complex in development for Fed.

    3) The H2H doesn't tell the full story. Most of Nadal's matches with Fed were very close. Take FO 2008 aside and maybe TMC 2007 and you're left with mostly competitive matches. Heck, even their exhebitions usually went the distance (Fed won a 3rd set in an HC exo in 2006, Nadal won the battle of surfaces after both had multiple match points).

    Why do I cosider Fed the superior tennis player? Because overall, even though he didn't conquer his nemesis, Nadal was never able to get the #1 spot until 2008, Fed's worst year and Nadal's best. Federer was always ahead of Nadal, despite losing to him more often than winning, he was always #1, was the one winning majors, had better H2Hs against the field. People discredit Federer of getting #1 back because Nadal was injured. But people also forget the fact that Nadal took atvantage of Federer's bad play in 2008 as well. Anyway, both are great players, and like I said before, I consider Fed the better tennis player and Nadal the better competitor.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2010
    #18
  19. Anaconda

    Anaconda Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    4,128
    Murray and Simon also have Federer's number. What have they done in slams.

    Does anyone really think that Nadal is a better player than Federer. Truly? Federer has outperformed Nadal at every slam excluding the French Open.

    Federer's French open record is better than Nadal's Wimbledon/US/AO record. lol
     
    #19
  20. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,803
    Location:
    Weak era
    No,Novak,Hewitt,Roddick and Safin are also Fed's rivals,they all played him plenty of times on the big stages,heck Novak played him 5 times in slams which is more times than any player aside from Andre played Pete in the 90s(If I remember correctly).

    Saying Nadal has been Fed's only rival is convenient for people to say and use against Fed because Fed has a losing H2H against him.It basically comes down to well yeah Fed has all those sick achivements but they don't really count because of his record against Nadal.

    Is Nadal Fed's main rival? Without question but is he his only rival? Heck no,his other rivals just weren't able able to handle more often than not Fed on the big stages once he hit his prime.

    Now I perfectly understand and agree with people saying Fed isn't the GOAT because of his H2H with his main rival(we're talking about the best of all time here)but taking a dump on all of his terrific accomplishments and acting like none of them hold ANY weight because of his record against one player(which is a common attitutude from Nadal/Sampras fans on this forum)is ridiculous IMO.

    But whatever,I can use Sampras/Nadal fanboy logic as well,let's see:

    -Nadal doesn't have any rivals on clay(he just dominates everyone,wasn't even ever pushed to five at the FO),weak clay era therefore Nadal's achievements on clay don't mean that much really.Guga is better,he had tougher competition.

    -The only player in all these years at the FO who didn't choke/wilt/was afraid of Nadal at the FO was Soderling this year and of course he beat him.Nadal failed his biggest FO test,therefore not so good on clay.

    -Sampras had no rivals during his prime(years he ended #1),all of them lost repeatedly against Pete on the big stages(Becker,Courier,Agassi,Goran)so they don't qualify as rivals,right? Weak era,his achievements don't mean much.

    -When Sampras faced the only player who wasn't afraid of him at Wimbledon(Krajicek),he lost in straights(in his prime).

    I could go on but I trust you get the point.
     
    #20
  21. JennyS

    JennyS Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,294
    Federer's longest Grand Slam finals streak: 10
    Sampras's longest Grand Slam finals AND semis streak: 3

    Federer's longest Grand Slam semis streak: 22
    Sampras' longest Grand Slam QUARTERS streak: 10 (92 FO-94 W)
     
    #21
  22. Cantankersore

    Cantankersore Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    513
    Well done.
     
    #22
  23. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    20,084
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    Naturally it is. JennyS is building up a hierarchy with regard to Federer and Nadal and is using various statistics in order to formulate it.
     
    #23
  24. namelessone

    namelessone Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    9,745
    First of all,I am not using "that" logic. A rival isn't someone you play with x nr of times even though a certain number of meetings is necessary. A rival is someone who really challenges you,and even beats you in a few key events or at least gets close.

    Nadal has rivals in the form of Fed,Djoker,Murray and now DelPo. All have hammered Rafa a couple of times,whether on grass and HC,some even on clay but he holds a respectable h2h with them and they have had a few memorable matches over the years. Maybe I can agree that Rafa doesn't really have rivals on clay but he certainly does for grass and HC.

    My point is that a rival should push you. Fed got pushed once by Safin but Safin wasn't a model for consistency over the years. A few times by hewitt when hewitt was at the peak of his career(hewitt's last victory over fed was in 03'). Roddick has been his pigeon in most matches(at times I almost felt pity for andy) though he redeemed himself a bit in WB 09'. I hope I don't have to tell you about davydenko,soderling and "most rivals". Dare I say Nalbandian was the only one who really believed he could beat Fed over the years but we know what happened to him. Forget winning h2h,a few wins over federer would have been nice,in this respect at least hewitt has 7 wins in 23 matches and Nalby has 8 wins in 18 matches. There are other "rivals" whose wins over Federer came only this year. Safin has 2 wins over Fed in 12 matches,Roddick has 2 wins in 21 matches,Davy has 1 win in 13 matches and so on.

    So no,I don't believe Federer had REAL RIVALS outside of Rafa,at least not in the 03'-09' stretch. We had a few guys who really tried but ultimately Fed got in their head with his awesome game and crushed them all like bugs over the years. A lot of times these "rivals" were defeated before they even stepped on court against Fed,almost like journeymen.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2010
    #24
  25. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,803
    Location:
    Weak era
    LOL,love the double standard.So Novak,Murray and Delpo are Nadal's rivals but not Fed's(you said they're "so called" Fed rivals)? Do explain why,especially Novak's case.

    And what is this about "some" of them(Fed,Novak,Murray,Delpo) hammering Nadal even on clay? The only one in that group who ever beat Nadal on clay is Fed and he also lost like 9 times or something to Nadal on clay,Novak's H2H with Nadal on clay is terrible.

    But still the fact remains that using your logic Nadal has zero rivals on clay,heck he never even got "pushed" to five sets at FO.He had something like 80 wins in a row on clay at one point,if that's not being defeated before stepping on court I don't know what is.So his achievements on clay(his most succesful surface by far)aren't that impressive,right? He was just the benefactor of a very weak clay era.

    Dare I say Soderling is the only one who believed/didn't choke/wasn't scared/whatever other BS you come up with/ when facing Nadal at the FO.He saved claycourt tennis which has been boring for last 4 years,what a stud,right?
     
    #25
  26. namelessone

    namelessone Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    9,745
    Perhaps you are misunderstanding. We know Nadal can get hammered by Federer,Djoker,Delpo and so on. But we know he can also hammer them.
    Clay is one surface and Rafa has dominated it for about 4 years. Where does Nadal dominate Fed/Djoker/Delpo/Murray outside of clay?

    Novak? He's Nadal's age but hasn't been as consistent as him against Federer,the measuring stick for success on the tour in the last 5-6 years,since these guys only meet each other in the later stages of the big tourneys. He had some good victories over him while Fed was in the pits this year at miami and rome and at the end of the year when Fed winded down a bit after his great GS season and when novak usually has his best part of the year. He is still pretty weak against Fed in GS's(when it matters most)beating him only one time and losing 4 times. Ok,I'll let this one go and consider Djoker a rival,even though he's only been a threat since 07' and doesn't perform as well in GS's.

    Federer was great everywhere(including clay except where Nadal was concerned) in the 04'-09' period. The ONLY constant roadblock he had in this period as a whole was Nadal on clay and later on grass and HC.

    I am not arguing about weak era. I don't believe in it. I already said so. I am arguing about why some people might view it as a weak era because they see almost no rivals for fed(which I agree on) but they automatically view these players as weak,not that talented and so on(hence the weak era argument). I am saying just that they couldn't stand up to Fed,for a multitude of reasons,and that some of them were downright pathetic in their attempt to be "rivals" to Federer. Roddick has 2 victories in 21 freaking matches. Davy's first victory in 13 matches came this year. Safin has 2 victories in 12 matches.

    The only ones who had some(notice I said some,not necessarily a positive h2h or anything like that) success over Fed were Hewitt(but his last win came in 03') and Nalbandian,who really had potential,but unfortunately he was inconsistent and later plagued by injuries.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2010
    #26
  27. Cyan

    Cyan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,372
    This is what is called a really weak era. No wonder Fed piled up the slams in those years. Put this Fed in the 1980s and he doesn't win more than 8 slams, you know, like Lendl who was unlucky to play in the toughest era ever....:oops:
     
    #27
  28. mandy01

    mandy01 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    11,518
    I agree .Same with Nadal.Probably dosent win more than 3.:oops:
     
    #28
  29. Justin Side

    Justin Side Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2009
    Messages:
    2,790
    Location:
    On the edge
    Great job. Another important stat, Federer is 28 years old and Rafa is 23.

    When Fed finished the year he turned 23 years old(2004), he had 4 GS titles. When Nadal finished the year he turned 23(2009), he had 6 GS titles.
     
    #29
  30. namelessone

    namelessone Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    9,745
    Safin,Nalbandian,Davydenko,Roddick,Hewitt(from fed's prime and older era) aren't bad players at all(nalbandian was god like when he was on,we know what hewitt can do and safin beat sampras and had a killer semi with Fed in AO 05'). They would probably be multiple slam winners in a non-fed era.
    It's just that Fed is better than them but my problem wasn't weak era and all that,it was with calling them rivals because they can't consistently push Roger. Some of them were more minor nuisances than rivals. When Nadal at 23 has as many wins over Fed(and he actually won some of these in fed's best years-gamewise) as a lot of these so called rivals put together it just goes to show that there really weren't many people consistent enough to take on Federer on in that period,not to mention the fact that Nadal was the only one to beat Fed at slams more than once in the 03'-09' period,where it matters.
     
    #30
  31. Cyan

    Cyan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    Messages:
    3,372
    Safin,Nalbandian,Davydenko,Roddick,Hewitt are not as good as Mcenroe, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Connors, the players Lendl had to play in the 1980s. No contest, really. Transport Lendl to the noughties and he piles up 15 slams like Fed....:oops:
     
    #31
  32. LiveForever

    LiveForever Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Messages:
    656
    [​IMG]
     
    #32
  33. World Beater

    World Beater Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,751
    transport ****** to the 90s and he wins 0 slams.
     
    #33
  34. Steve132

    Steve132 Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    842
    You have not addressed Zagor's main point, which is that your definition of a "rival" is tendentious and belittles Federer's real achievements. Federer's rivals are not restricted to the players who beat him. They are the players that (a) are consistently ranked among the best, and (b) play him often. By these criteria Hewitt, Nalbandian and Roddick - not to mention Djokovic - are all Federer's rivals. The fact that he has favorable H2H records against them is a tribute to his talents, not an indication that they are not rivals.

    The alternative, as has been pointed out several times on this forum, is to embrace a circular logic which states that:

    This is a weak era because Federer has no competition other than Nadal
    Other players are not competition because Federer beats them consistently
    If Federer lost more often to these players they would become competition for him - but he would, of course, win fewer titles.

    I don't find that argument particularly compelling.
     
    #34
  35. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    20,084
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    Best players of their respective eras are of course well suited and adapted to the era in which they grew into. However, it is likely that the same players would adapt in other eras and win plenty regardless, even if most other eras might not have been such a snug fit. On the other hand maybe some players from certain eras may have been even more successful in other eras.

    Players adapt to their surroundings.
     
    #35
  36. namelessone

    namelessone Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    9,745
    I don't think it belittles Fed's achievements,my point is that Federer obliterated almost everyone for about 6 years and that he has one or maybe two players which could be seen as his RIVALS. Again,my problem is with defining these players as rivals for Fed. It is your business what you want to extrapolate from this(weak era or other things). I don't really care much about discussing eras,it is quite a boring and neverending discussion.

    This word,rival,is thrown around way too much around here,just like rivalry. Barca and Madrid are rivals. Celtic and Rangers. Inter and Milan. Boca and River and so on.
    Sorry for repeating myself but a rival has to really push you and yes,even beat you a few times. He/she should be a challenge. It's not like Roger has a positive h2h with (most) of them after 5 or 6 matches,he has as much as 21 matches with some of them(over all surfaces) and if the other guy got more than 2 wins it was seen as somewhat of a miracle. I wouldn't hold this against any journeyman but a rival should do better,no matter how good Fed is.

    And mind you I am lowering my standards a bit,there a lot of people who think that rivalries are only made in GS and as of now,Federer absolutely OWNS everyone(including murray,delpo and djoker) outside of Nadal in GS matches. Sure,some of them can reverse this trend as Fed gets older(delpo has already started) but the fact remains that the spaniard was the only one who constantly challenged him in Fed's peak years. He beat Fed,he got his ass kicked,they both suffered bitter defeats and great moments at the highest level(GS),everything a rivalry should be,regardless of h2h and all that crap. If there is one guy who really could have developed into a monster rival for Fed,even bigger than Rafa,it was Nalbandian but we know what happened to him. He had both the game and head required to beat Federer. Hopefully we will be back in 2010.

    You can scratch Roddick,Safin,Davydenko of the rival list for fed,their combined h2h against fed is 43-5,the only one managing to snag a GS win over him being Safin in 05'.
     
    #36
  37. Rippy

    Rippy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,709
    Location:
    England
    That's a bit stupid, frankly.

    Federer played the same players frequently - he just beat them lots. They were rivalries, albeit lopsided ones.

    It's that stupid point again: "Fed only had one rival, and has a losing H2H against him". Erm... no, he had more rivals, it's just you conveniently forget about the ones who Fed has a winning H2H against.
     
    #37
  38. djones

    djones Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,783
    Ok, and how about Federer's amazing numbers at the age of 23?
     
    #38
  39. asafi2

    asafi2 Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    368
    What is more important is comparing them at the same point in their careers. Nadal has been a pro for 8 years and Roger at 25 was a pro for 8 years.

    Age means nothing.
     
    #39
  40. Serve_Ace

    Serve_Ace Professional

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Messages:
    992
    Location:
    State College
    Exactly, Nadal is constantly called Federer's rival. But according to some logic on here Nadal shouldn't be, because Federer is far too weak for Nadal (just look at the H2H).
     
    #40
  41. dh003i

    dh003i Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,137
    H2H is a flawed metric to analyze players and it doesn't really belong in the GOAT discussion, unless there are two candidates from the same era who are otherwise tied. Even there, it wouldn't be an astoundingly powerful argument. Let's say that Nadal somehow magically gets to 15 slams, and their H2H remains in the same ratio. Maybe that would give him some edge, because several of his slams came over Federer (an all-time great); but the point is, Federer got slams elsewhere, and the guys he beat were all playing incredible.

    So at best, H2H can serve as a kind of tie-breaker. We can use it for some players in the 80s, to separate players who otherwise have the same # of slams. But even there. McEnroe and Wilander both have 7 slams. But 3 of Wilanders came from the AO, which was thin in competition during that era and not as highly regarded. So irrelevant of their H2H, McEnroe is a greater player.

    The Point that No-One Seems to Respond To

    H2H double-counts results. Federer's H2H with Nadal is already reflected in his slam total and number of weeks at #1. So if people are going to argue he "isn't the GOAT" because of that, they are really faulting him for not having more than 15 slams, which is ridiculous. Laver has 11, Sampras 14. If you want to fault Federer there, you really have to go back to before the Open Era, and take into consideration some of Moose Malloy's arguments that a player would need 20-22 slams to compare with some of the greats from that era. (but I'd argue that that era was less physical and less competitive).
     
    #41
  42. West Coast Ace

    West Coast Ace G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    13,896
    Location:
    So Cal
    Amen. I think it's funny too - these critics must not play - just watch - you play who the tournament director tells you to - not your fault if someone else gets clipped before you can play them. Fed haters will bring up anything. There are comparisons to boxing - but it has limits. Boxing is known for guys who duck tough opponents - can't do that in tennis.
     
    #42
  43. Davy_for _GOAT

    Davy_for _GOAT Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2009
    Messages:
    350
    Would you mind owning JeMar for his stupid statements regarding Lendl and Roddick, too?
     
    #43
  44. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,803
    Location:
    Weak era
    But according to your standards Novak is not a rival for Nadal,all he did against nadal in their 4 slam meetings is take one measly set while against Fed he atleast scored a win in a slam(in straights no less),he's also overall 14-7 against Nadal(some rival lol).

    Murray beat Nadal in a slam true but he's stil 2-7 overall,really not impressive H2H for the supposed big rival.

    Delpo is a rival I agree and seems to be a tough match-up for Nadal and may be a big obstacle for him in the future.

    As for Fed,we are reminded daily here from Nadal/Sampras fans that Nadal completely owns him so he doesn't really constitute for a rival either.It's a complete ownage,heck the only times Fed won their encounters was when Nadal was exhausted/had a busted knee/was too young/played on too high altitude.

    So when we look overall aside from Delpo who only really started to come into his own this year Nadal never had any rivals,it's been a major cakewalk for him.
     
    #44
  45. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,803
    Location:
    Weak era
    I didn't read whatever statements he said about Roddick and Lendl,I can't respond to something I didn't even read.Don't really know what comparison is there between Roddick and Lendl,their results,playing style,personality etc. are all very different.
     
    #45
  46. ksbh

    ksbh Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    4,155
    I won't be surprised if someone tells me that some Federer lovers, especially OP JennyS, sing themselves to sleep every night with the mantra ... 'Federer really is better than Sampras regardless of his H2H against Nadal or his poor mental strength'!
     
    #46
  47. namelessone

    namelessone Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    9,745
    Nadal has rivals in Djoker/Murray/now Delpo(who will be a threat in the future) but he just developed earlier than them so that's why he has some great h2h's with them(and more titles overall at 23 years of age),not to mention the fact that a lot of those meetings took place on clay and grass,where Nadal is better than them for the moment. Djoker/Murray/Delpo are favourites against Rafa on HC,no matter what their h2h is.

    Rafa,Djoker,Murray,DelPo all come from the same generation basically,just like safin,davy,roddick,nalbandian and so on grew up with Roger. Rafa is the leader in every area but the others from his generation are catching up fast and they at least score some wins over him. Also,let's give murray and the gang another 3-4 years to catch up and then let us judge h2h and things like that. Not everyone is a prodigy like Rafa.

    My point is that while both Roger and Rafa dominated their generation colleagues,at least Rafa's got some wins over him from time to time. And again,I don't mean that these guys from Fed's generation sucked but man did they lack belief at times. Roddick is 19-2 for God's sake. Davy is 12-1. One was the best server on tour in Roger's prime and the other is terrific in the ground game. Combined,they have 3 wins in 34 matches,which proves that they had a mental block against fFed as much as he was a great player.

    IMO,the only guys with enough cojones(and game)to really take it to fed on a consistent base were hewitt(but even this is very debatable since the aussie didn't register one win over fed since 2003 and they met 13 more times after that) and nalbandian(who has a respectable 10-8 h2h against fed and he actually took it to fed during his prime,registering some impressive wins in TMC,Madrid,Paris; and he also took young fed out in 2003 in two slams,AO and NYC)
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2010
    #47
  48. TheFifthSet

    TheFifthSet Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2009
    Messages:
    2,428
    Is that really worse than not being a factor on 40% of the tour?
     
    #48
  49. ksbh

    ksbh Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    4,155
    5th ... I don't quite understand. Are you referring to Nadal or Sampras or something entirely different? Please elaborate! :)

     
    #49
  50. jstr

    jstr Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    135
    The miracle continues .. And thank God for Henin making a re-entry to spice up womens tennis !!
     
    #50

Share This Page