Is a part of Federer's success cemented on Nadal's failure

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by YouCantBeSerious, Aug 1, 2012.

  1. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    Nadal spent many years without making it deep at the USO or AO, and still his consistency in those slams leaves much to be desired.

    Knowing what we know now about the match-up and the results that can be expected from it, and some other data (for example, Federer only winning Wimbledon after 2007 when Rafa is not in the final), can we make the case that Nadal's failures (relatively speaking with respect to his supremacy in Roland Garros) have actually cemented Fed's success?

    On the other hand, how can you make the same case for Nadal against other player? Nadal's success doesn't depend on any other player's failure to meet him at Finals, in my opinion. And 2011 is a clear example of this fact, where Nadal took a big hit from potential additional success due to a very consistent, very powerful adversary which didn't fail to meet him in all but 1 slam final.
     
    #1
  2. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Not really. Federer could only beat who was in front of him. If Nadal didn't get to the final to face Federer, that's Nadal's fault.
     
    #2
  3. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    Damn it Mustard, why do you have to be such a reasonable Nadal fan? You are failing to fulfill the prophecy of those in the Federer camp who claim you are the Antichrist. 8)
     
    #3
  4. BigServer1

    BigServer1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,037
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    I think this would look different if Nadal had met Fed early in those HC matches. I think Fed getting wins on big stages earlier in their rivalry would have helped him overall.
     
    #4
  5. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Haha :twisted:

    ;)
     
    #5
  6. tudwell

    tudwell Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    Messages:
    4,408
    Everyone's success is cemented on everyone else's failure. That's kind of how sports work.
     
    #6
  7. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    Exactly. It could have been a double-edged sword. If Rafa had made it deep before he was ready to challenge Fed, Fed would likely had won those encounters like he did in Wimby 06 and 07.

    Then again, Miami 04 points to it being otherwise (at least potentially).
     
    #7
  8. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    Yes, I understand. I think that part of what makes this different is that, because the matchup is so unfavorable for Fed, it is reasonable to question whether if Nadal had developed faster as a hard court player, he could have at least taken some of the slams which Fed won.
     
    #8
  9. YellowBall77

    YellowBall77 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    258
    This is the flip-side of the common 'Nadal wasn't good enough to make it deep on hard court early on so thats why he leads the H2H over Fed. Don't reward him for being inept!' It's actually an interesting way to look at it and quite convincing.
     
    #9
  10. MTF07

    MTF07 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    775
    Nadal would not have beaten Federer at the US Open or Australian Open any year from 2004-2007. I think anyone who actually watches tennis those years knows that. And yes, Nadal was actually fortunate he wasn't good enough to meet Federer those years.
     
    #10
  11. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    Exactly! You got it. If Nadal had made it deep, even if we can't expect him to have taken the majority of the matches, it's reasonable to expect some wins.

    I guess the double effect would have been to tilt the H2H a little on Fed's favor, while taking some slams from Fed and putting them on Nadal's scoreboard.

    Which begs the question: Would Fed fans trade 2 slam titles for a balanced H2H against Nadal? Say Nadal 13, Fed 15, and an even 14 -14 H2H?

    I don't expect them to acknowledge they would, although I suspect many of them deeply wish such transactions were possible.
     
    #11
  12. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    Did you expect Nadal to take AO 09? How about Wimbledon 08?

    It's Nadal vs Federer. In those slam finals, anything can happen (except RG, we know what happens there).
     
    #12
  13. MTF07

    MTF07 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    775
    Uh, no, no one in their right mind would trade slams for head to head wins.

    No one remembers what Laver's record was against Ken Rosewall. But they do remember Laver winning 2 Grand Slams and 11 majors overall.

    No one will remember the Nadal/Federer head to head in 10 years, except for jealous Nadal fans looking to downplay Fed's accomplishments.
     
    #13
  14. Rippy

    Rippy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,709
    Location:
    England
    Lol, obviously not. In fact, if Federer was rubbish on clay, the H2H would look like that, but Federer would be an objectively worse player.
     
    #14
  15. MTF07

    MTF07 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    775
    None of those matches you reference happened in Federer's PRIME.

    Not to mention if we're talking the years 04-07, Federer wasn't down significantly in the head to head (after 07 he only trailed 6-8), and the mental edge Nadal has now would not exist in those matches, if they had met elsewhere.
     
    #15
  16. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    You are assuming Nadal will never approach Fed's slam count significantly to consider the H2H. But what if Nadal gets within 2-3 slams of Fed?

    In that case, the H2H is very relevant. Except if you don't like the numbers.
     
    #16
  17. MTF07

    MTF07 Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    775
    Even if he gets to within 3 slams, it's still not a relevant issue. 3 slams is a pretty big difference, plus Federer will still have all those other records, time at #1, YEC titles that Nadal will never sniff.

    But I find that unlikely anyway. I could see Federer/Nadal finishing 19-12 or 19-13 in major count.
     
    #17
  18. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    Do you really think the mental edge is such a big factor? In Miami 04 there were no previous encounters and therefore no possible mental edge, yet Nadal basically killed Federer (on hard court, which makes it even more relevant).

    I think Nadal has too many strengths against Federer (even without considering the mental edge) to consider this hypothesis too improbable to consider.
     
    #18
  19. WhiskeyEE

    WhiskeyEE Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,367
    I think that, ironically, part of Nadal's legacy is cemented in his past failures. We all know what would've happened if Fed and Nadal would've met at USO, or even at the AO during Fed's prime. Nadal conveniently disappears after Wimbledon every year and doesn't start making HC finals until 2009. And the surface skewed h2h that he has created has actually managed to convince a few people that he's worthy of GOAT consideration. It's ridiculous.
     
    #19
  20. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    And why is time at #1 more relevant than the H2H? I understand the slams, but why the #1 week count?

    Number of weeks at #1 is irrelevant in itself (look at the WTA in recent years to figure that out).
     
    #20
  21. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Do we? What alternate universe do you have access to?

    Remind me who has blown match points in US Open semi finals in the last 2 years?
     
    #21
  22. YellowBall77

    YellowBall77 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    258
    They absolutely would. the H2H is really damning no matter how you spin it.
     
    #22
  23. MichaelNadal

    MichaelNadal Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    Messages:
    30,232
    Location:
    Orlando FL
    You sound a little ****-ish man.
     
    #23
  24. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    I think you are mistaken. How could Nadal come out worse by making finals than by being eliminated earlier? You mean because the H2H would be more balanced?

    What I said earlier is a likely outcome: H2H tilted slightly towards Fed, but around 2-3 slams on Nadal's scoreboard (and out of Fed's).

    Fed might not have been in his prime in Miami 04 but he was on paper a much better hard court player than Nadal, and look what happened.
     
    #24
  25. Rippy

    Rippy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,709
    Location:
    England
    Is this a joke? Weeks at number one reflects how dominant you were over the field as a whole.

    H2H, nobody cared much about anyway until it was a stat that Nadal beat Federer at, so Nadal fans then kept going on about it incessantly (like the Gold Medal). If someone looks at things logically, you can see that if Federer was a worse tennis player, and lost earlier in clay tournaments, his H2H with Nadal would actually be better, despite him being a worse tennis player. Sorry, but I think you would have to be completely illogical to consider H2H a major determinant of who the better player is.

    I certainly wouldn't trade slam wins for H2H victories - as I say, if Fed was poor on clay, he'd have a better H2H against Nadal.
     
    #25
  26. YellowBall77

    YellowBall77 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    258
    That's ridiculous..you're like people who say 'Well if h2h matter than What about Hrbaty?' Look H2h, is a major factor if we're comparing 2 all time greats over many meeting across surfaces in slams and slam finals.
     
    #26
  27. Rippy

    Rippy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,709
    Location:
    England
    I see, so if Federer lost early in Roland Garros in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2011, he'd be considered a better player?

    :lol:
     
    #27
  28. WhiskeyEE

    WhiskeyEE Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,367
    The one that doesn't include clay-**** bias.

    He was also sick during that tournament and Miami may as well be played on clay. I'm not joking. Miami is the slowest of the slow hard courts. If you look at their h2h, they have conveniently never played post-Wimby, during the fast-court season, where Fed would've beaten him every time. Except at the WTF and we've all seen what happens there.

    If Nadal had won a few more matches post-Wimbledon, the h2h would be even and the few people who like to pretend that Nadal is an all time great would have no ammunition.
     
    #28
  29. YellowBall77

    YellowBall77 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    258
    There's no reason to believe Rafa wouldn't have at least taken Fed out at AO's throughout the year if he could have gotten thru the field. He knocked Fed out in a very similar Miami court rather one-sidedly in their first ever meeting.
     
    #29
  30. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    Of course not. But we already know the outcome of RG's finals. Federer, by meeting Nadal in RG, screwed himself doubly (no slams and crappy H2H). I think Nadal on hard courts is a much tougher threat to Fed (especially in slam finals) than Fed to Nadal in RG finals. The data is there. There is some uncertainty, but you certainly can make an educated guess.
     
    #30
  31. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    4,138
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    :roll:

    And this has to do anything with the post you quoted, because?
     
    #31
  32. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    So according to you a bad H2H can't damage Federer's legacy but it can destroy Nadal's. Yeah, it makes perfect sense!

    And, again, WTF is the worst case scenario for Nadal (last tournament of the season, etc). Nadal puts more miles than any other player towards the first part of the season, so it's reasonable to expect some wear towards the end.

    Regardless, Nadal is 1-0 in hardcourt finals against Federer. That is a fact.
     
    #32
  33. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    That tells me a lot :-|

    "Nadal conveniently disappears after Wimbledon every year".

    Nadal has reached the last 2 US Open finals, while Federer has had match points in his semi finals in both years, yet lost both matches.
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2012
    #33
  34. WhiskeyEE

    WhiskeyEE Legend

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,367
    Rafa's h2h lead over Roger is all he has. What else has he accomplished? A bunch of meaningless RG and Monte Carlo titles? He has never defended a non-clay title and, if it weren't for the h2h, his name would never come up during GOAT discussions.

    That Rafa's mileage BS is a cop out and everyone knows it. Does he have the same mileage issue during Cincinnati? He just sucks on fast courts, but has gotten lucky a couple times.
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2012
    #34
  35. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,114
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Meaningless? Amazing how you think a major and a masters series is meaningless :razz:
     
    #35
  36. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    4,138
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    Our dear friend IamNOTserious, wishes tennis to be some kind of trade, so that Nadal is able to trade whatever he has for what Federer has.

    The only thing, that I do not understand is, why, since he and the likes of him are convinced, that H2H is the read deal, they are not satisfied with it and calm down?
     
    #36
  37. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    4,138
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    Amazing how you do not get the irony in that post.
     
    #37
  38. Rippy

    Rippy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,709
    Location:
    England
    No, losing to Nadal (clay court GOAT) in the final is better than losing earlier. Coming runner-up in RG multiple times is not "screwing himself doubly" - obviously it'd be better for him if he won, but it's certainly better than losing earlier and not getting to the final at all.
     
    #38
  39. Rippy

    Rippy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,709
    Location:
    England
    I would agree with that. I'm not really sure of its relevance to the post of mine you quoted though.

    I would actually agree with the original post in this thread to be honest, but as someone else said, that's just a major part of how sports work anyway.
     
    #39
  40. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    4,138
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    I wanted to let you get it. Apparently you can't, so, I will be crystal clear.

    It is rich from you to talk about alternate universe.

    He was speaking about the years prior to 2009. I wish he wrote that.

    Oh, wait, he has.
     
    #40
  41. Tennis_Hands

    Tennis_Hands Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    4,138
    Location:
    Inside the service box - the business end
    The *******s' thinking is truly amazing. They think, that Federer is busy meeting or avoiding Nadal. That is why they cannot wrap their heads around the fact, that every match between those two is another day in the office for both players.

    But I guess, since they apply their weird logic to reality, they see Nadal's loss to Rosol as better for Nadal, than advancing further in the tournament.
     
    #41
  42. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,545
    Location:
    Weak era
    @OP: Well, I guess you should tell Nadal not to fail so often then?
     
    #42
  43. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    Excellent response (even if you avoid the questions posed).

    [​IMG]

    BTW, the people above are clearly Fed fans, since all of them wear Rolex.
     
    #43
  44. zagor

    zagor Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,545
    Location:
    Weak era
    Not at all, I posted under the assumption that the OP's premise is correct, therefore we can conclude Nadal is an utter failure given how much success Fed had in his career.

    Maybe if Nadal's peak lasted for more than one year overall, things would be different.
     
    #44
  45. Sid_Vicious

    Sid_Vicious G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Messages:
    11,680
    Location:
    In The City
    Nadal is undefeated when he wins.
     
    #45
  46. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    Who said that? That's just outrageous. Nadal actually has a chance to win Wimbledon if he gets to the final and Federer is there waiting for him.
     
    #46
  47. YouCantBeSerious

    YouCantBeSerious Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    Location:
    Land of the Free Buffet
    I said that only part of Federer's success could be attributed to Nadal. I estimate 2-3 slams. Certainly 1-2 AOs, RG 09, and Wimbledon 09 as well. Probably USO (I want to see them play there).

    I wouldn't say the concept of a single "peak" for Nadal is a good way to look at things because he has suffered interruptions. I think his best play in all surfaces and results took place between second half of 08 and first half of 09, and in 2010. The problems he had in RG 09 set a break point.

    We'll see if he's done or not yet, but if he is going to "peak" again it needs to happen in 2013 or 2014 at the latest.
     
    #47
  48. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,525
    Yes kind of.. Nadal hadn't matured into an all surface type player until 2008.. Fed had his run of the yard from 2003-2007. Mainly because Nadal didn't hit a true stride until 2008.

    It seems like Fed is always triumph when Nadal isn't around. Not his fault of course, since you can only play who's in front of you.. But still its a gift for him to avoid Nadal.. OBVIOUSLY
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2012
    #48
  49. sonicare

    sonicare Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2010
    Messages:
    1,733
    Location:
    london
    Its nadal who has benefited from Rosol's failures.

    nadal has never beaten rosol at a slam and rosol has beaten nadal 100% of the time on the biggest stage.

    riddle that OP
     
    #49
  50. Antonio Puente

    Antonio Puente Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,205
    Location:
    Buenavista
    What do you expect? He can't play Fed every match.:)
     
    #50

Share This Page