Settling the Federer v Nadal H2H argument against Federer.

[cueboyzn]

This has become such a fall-back position for so-called "Tennis fans" (read: Nadal fans) every time Federer adds another GS title and is widely acclaimed as the Greatest player Of All Time.

It's an argument that has numerous holes in it, but why let all those holes spoil a good excuse to denigrate Federer's achievements and at the same time pump Nadal up to All-Time Great status he has not (yet) earned (with the exception of clay)?

We pick apart the argument as follows:

Myth: Federer despite all his achievements has a 7-13 head-to-head against Nadal, who is almost universally recognized among tennis circles as being the Greatest (or at least one of the Greatest) clay court players of All-Time. Therefore Federer cannot be the Greatest Ever.

Actual truth: Federer and Nadal out of the 20 times they have played, have met on clay 11 times, with Nadal holding an 9-2 advantage. Given the fact that Clay is Federer's weakest surface (relatively speaking) and Nadal is the de-facto GOAT on Clay, this is no disgrace. The rest of their H2H in their remaining 9 matches on other surfaces is: 5-4 Federer.

Fact: Nadal was not good enough to keep getting to the finals of the US Open or Australian Open when Federer was in his pomp. He always fell out early, thus depriving Federer of the same opportunities to beat him on his worst surface (hardcourt) that Federer, by reaching the finals of almost all the clay tournaments from 2005-2009, was giving Nadal on his best surface (clay).

Therefore can we assume that if Federer was just a bit worse on clay like for e.g. Pete Sampras, he would not have given Nadal the opportunity to beat him all those times on clay because Federer would have bombed out relatively early in all the clay court events, thus depriving Nadal of an advantageous H2H record against him. (Nadal would have been playing other cannon-fodder in all those finals instead of Federer).

But wait, isn't it due to Federer's prowess on clay that he (eventually) won the elusive French Open after 3 final attempts, when Nadal did not do his part and show up in the final at the tournament he ruled with an iron fist, thus completing the career Grand Slam, which was so widely acclaimed at the time.

So due to Federer's prowess on Clay, not only has he an inferior H2H record against Nadal, but he also has French Open crown which made him the only man after Andre Agassi to have won all 4 Grand Slams on 4 different surfaces.

Now if he did not have this clay-court prowess, he would not have won the French Open, but would still have 15 GS titles, but I can almost guarantee that if he had 15 GS titles and no French, that this would be used as an argument against him for GOAT. Well which way do you want it? You cannot have it both ways. Federer has the losing H2H record vs Nadal due to his excellent clay court aptitude which ALLOWED him to get to all the finals vs Nadal, only to lose 9 times out of 11. Thus giving Nadal this lopsided H2H advantage. Turn it around and ask yourself if Nadal had met Federer 11 times on US Open's DecoTurf (and Cincy & Montreal/Toronto) from 2005-2008, how lopsided the H2H would be in Federer's favour? Sadly for Federer, Nadal wasn't good enough to get to all those finals.

Now we move on to hard stats:

Federer: reached 23 consecutive GS Semi Finals spanning 5 years.
Nadal: his best SF consecutive record is 5 SF's from AO 2008, to AO 2009.

Federer: 10 consecutive GS Finals (prior to AO 2008 ), 8 consecutive GS Finals (current)
Nadal: 2 consecutive GS finals, 3 times

Federer: 237 consecutive weeks at No. 1
Nadal: ? weeks at No. 1

Federer: 5 consecutive GS titles at 2 different GS events
Nadal: 4 consecutive FO titles

(Yes, Nadal could not even do on his absolute best surface, what Federer could do TWICE on his two best surfaces).

Federer: 16 GS titles (22 finals)
Nadal 6 GS Titles (8 finals)

So in a nutshell do people honestly think that we people who are intelligent tennis followers, are devoid of all common sense? We see a player who has made a mockery of statistics and established an unprecedented record of dominance and consistency in the game for the last 5 years, but he is denigrated because he happens to have been good enough on his worst surface to keep getting to finals, where he has been beaten by the GOAT on that surface.

I'm not sure there are many people even among the idiots (like Mats Wilander for one) who openly flog Federer for his abysmal H2H record against Nadal, who would choose Nadal's career record (and his resultant prize money) over Federer's. At the end of the day your career is determined by the Major titles you won, not by favourable/unfavorable records against any one single player, especially not when that player is nowhere even remotely close to your career records. At present Nadal has not even reached the title haul of Ivan Lendl & Andre Agassi, and has no career slam so he is even below Agassi at this point in reckoning. He has another 2 GS to win to get to their level.

In the meantime, Roger Federer, at the ripe age of 28, continues to rack up the Grand Slam titles, with apparently no end in sight.

 

[Serendipitous]

Federer despite all his achievements has a 7-13 head-to-head against Nadal.

 

[djokovicgonzalez2010]

They've played 11 times with an 11-2 H2H?

 

[Rippy]

THis has been done loads of time now. But yes, I agree that for various reasons, it's highly illogical to place too much weighting on the "H2H issue".

 

[cueboyzn]

They've played 11 times with an 11-2 H2H?

it was typed in error.

 

[djokovicgonzalez2010]

is it 9-2 or 11-2 w/ 13 matches?

 

[mandy01]

Federer despite all his achievements has a 7-13 head-to-head against Nadal.

That's still better than your record against gj.

*Meow*

 

[cueboyzn]

is it 9-2 or 11-2 w/ 13 matches?

9-2 w 11 matches.

 

[djokovicgonzalez2010]

case closed

 

[fed_rulz]

This has become such a fall-back position for so-called "Tennis fans" (read: Nadal fans) every time Federer adds another GS title and is widely acclaimed as the Greatest player Of All Time.

.........

Great post. Agree almost completely, except for bolded part:

It's the insecure among Pete-****s that bring up the h2h, because that's the only stick they have to beat Federer with (and some of them under the guise of being a "nadal-fan" root for Nadal only because he'd help their cause by delaying/preventing Fed from erasing Pete's records).

I fully expect their whining decibels to sharply increase if Fed breaks Pete's weeks @ #1. And expect another surge if Fed wins wimby #7 and/or ends the year @ #1 to equal Pete's feat. If Fed wins wimby #7 and ends the year as #1, then the ONLY (in)significant record that Pete would have over Fed is his h2h with his nearest rival.

Most nadal-****s are sensible enough to understand that the Fed-nadal rivalry adds to each other's legacies, and also admit that 16>6. The more Fed wins, the more it magnifies the significance of Nadal's achievements. Plus, if Nadal wins enough majors to put himself among the GOAT candidates, then it'd be impossible to put Fed ahead of him if the current h2h persists.

 

[Rippy]

Great post. Agree almost completely, except for bolded part:

It's the insecure among Pete-****s that bring up the h2h, because that's the only stick they have to beat Federer with (and some of them under the guise of being a "nadal-fan" root for Nadal only because he'd help their cause by delaying/preventing Fed from erasing Pete's records).

I fully expect their whining decibels to sharply increase if Fed breaks Pete's weeks @ #1. And expect another surge if Fed wins wimby #7 and/or ends the year @ #1 to equal Pete's feat. If Fed wins wimby #7 and ends the year as #1, then the ONLY (in)significant record that Pete would have over Fed is his h2h with his nearest rival.

Most nadal-****s are sensible enough to understand that the Fed-nadal rivalry adds to each other's legacies, and also admit that 16>6. The more Fed wins, the more it magnifies the significance of Nadal's achievements. Plus, if Nadal wins enough majors to put himself among the GOAT candidates, then it'd be impossible to put Fed ahead of him if the current h2h persists.

Only if Nadal equals Fed in majors, then I believe H2H should be used.

 

[jackson vile]

Even more interesting is if you look at the H2H for slams. As always, get over it, Nadal owns Federer.

 

[Azzurri]

how long did it take you to type this?

 

[bruce38]

How about looking at H2H for finals reached out of slams entered? Then Nadal doesn't own so much anymore. I wonder why?

 

[bolo]

Decent post. You nicely point out that federer's ability to keep meeting and losing to nadal on clay is also the same ability that got him a FO which separates him from some of the other great fast court players.

But don't be too sure that H-H would change all that much if nadal met federer a few more times on fast hard courts. We know nadal has the perfect game to take out federer even on serve friendly surfaces like wimbledon. In larger samples it well might be that nadal also has a 50/50 with federer on U.S. open type courts.

Furthermore clay is a substantial portion of the tour, that's just the nature of the atp beast. If you assume 50/50 w% between the two on non-clay (which imo is reasonable), a 80/20 w% for nadal on clay and that 30% of their encounters happen on clay and the rest on non clay, the W% between them is going to be 60%in favor of nadal. This is not all that different from the 65% in favor of nadal right now.

Plus you can't forget that all of this H-H was built up after fed. was a developed player and while nadal was still a developing player.

 

[tacou]

h2h doesn't lessen Federer's career, definitely doesn't take away his title as GOAT, but Nadal leads the h2h. fact

 

[All-rounder]

Only if Nadal equals Fed in majors, then I believe H2H should be used.

Nadal get another 10 slams??? as talented as he is thats a huuuuuuge mountain to reach

 

[lambros]

I agree with the OP

 

[35ft6]

Great post. Agree almost completely, except for bolded part:

It's the insecure among Pete-****s that bring up the h2h, because that's the only stick they have to beat Federer with (and some of them under the guise of being a "nadal-fan" root for Nadal only because he'd help their cause by delaying/preventing Fed from erasing Pete's records).

Pete had losing records against Kraijeck, Safin, and Stich.

Like somebody pointed out a long time ago, Federer is being undermined in some ways by his own brilliance. Pete never went far enough on clay, consistently enough, to lose to somebody over and over. He definitely didn't play in the time of a Nadal, the best clay courter I've ever seen. Even if he did, because he could lose to so many on clay, doubtful they would have had anything remotely close to a "rivalry" on clay. He just wouldn't have gotten far enough in the draw.

Nadal gained a huge psychological edge at one point over Federer based on his dominance on clay. The edge translated to other surfaces, but I doubt that Nadal will ever beat Fed again on a fast surface. The quest for the French is over. His claim over GOAT is IMO complete. Big monkey off his back. I think Nadal's psychological edge is gone, now it's back to the tennis, and on anything but clay, Fed is superior.

In Pete's book, it seems he's suggesting consecutive finishes as the year end number 1 should be considered more significant than Grand Slams, a stunning claim IMO. Actually, he more or less says it point blank. I don't think that one is going to gain any traction though. Not sure if anybody will ever consider Hewitt a greater player than Agassi, for example.

 

[fed_rulz]

Pete had losing records against Kraijeck, Safin, and Stich.

Like somebody pointed out a long time ago, Federer is being undermined in some ways by his own brilliance. Pete never went far enough on clay, consistently enough, to lose to somebody over and over. He definitely didn't play in the time of a Nadal, the best clay courter I've ever seen. Even if he did, because he could lose to so many on clay, doubtful they would have had anything remotely close to a "rivalry" on clay. He just wouldn't have gotten far enough in the draw.

Nadal gained a huge psychological edge at one point over Federer based on his dominance on clay. The edge translated to other surfaces, but I doubt that Nadal will ever beat Fed again on a fast surface. The quest for the French is over. His claim over GOAT is IMO complete. Big monkey off his back. I think Nadal's psychological edge is gone, now it's back to the tennis, and on anything but clay, Fed is superior.

In Pete's book, it seems he's suggesting consecutive finishes as the year end number 1 should be considered more significant than Grand Slams, a stunning claim IMO. Actually, he more or less says it point blank. I don't think that one is going to gain any traction though. Not sure if anybody will ever consider Hewitt a greater player than Agassi, for example.

Pete did have losing records to the abovementioned, but the '****s will argue that they were not his "main" rivals. I haven't read Pete's book, but it appears that he made up the GOAT criteria as he went along, based on what he achieved?

 

[JennyS]

This has become such a fall-back position for so-called "Tennis fans" (read: Nadal fans) every time Federer adds another GS title and is widely acclaimed as the Greatest player Of All Time.

It's an argument that has numerous holes in it, but why let all those holes spoil a good excuse to denigrate Federer's achievements and at the same time pump Nadal up to All-Time Great status he has not (yet) earned (with the exception of clay)?

We pick apart the argument as follows:

Myth: Federer despite all his achievements has a 7-13 head-to-head against Nadal, who is almost universally recognized among tennis circles as being the Greatest (or at least one of the Greatest) clay court players of All-Time. Therefore Federer cannot be the Greatest Ever.

Actual truth: Federer and Nadal out of the 20 times they have played, have met on clay 11 times, with Nadal holding an 9-2 advantage. Given the fact that Clay is Federer's weakest surface (relatively speaking) and Nadal is the de-facto GOAT on Clay, this is no disgrace. The rest of their H2H in their remaining 9 matches on other surfaces is: 5-4 Federer.

Fact: Nadal was not good enough to keep getting to the finals of the US Open or Australian Open when Federer was in his pomp. He always fell out early, thus depriving Federer of the same opportunities to beat him on his worst surface (hardcourt) that Federer, by reaching the finals of almost all the clay tournaments from 2005-2009, was giving Nadal on his best surface (clay).

Therefore can we assume that if Federer was just a bit worse on clay like for e.g. Pete Sampras, he would not have given Nadal the opportunity to beat him all those times on clay because Federer would have bombed out relatively early in all the clay court events, thus depriving Nadal of an advantageous H2H record against him. (Nadal would have been playing other cannon-fodder in all those finals instead of Federer).

But wait, isn't it due to Federer's prowess on clay that he (eventually) won the elusive French Open after 3 final attempts, when Nadal did not do his part and show up in the final at the tournament he ruled with an iron fist, thus completing the career Grand Slam, which was so widely acclaimed at the time.

So due to Federer's prowess on Clay, not only has he an inferior H2H record against Nadal, but he also has French Open crown which made him the only man after Andre Agassi to have won all 4 Grand Slams on 4 different surfaces.

Now if he did not have this clay-court prowess, he would not have won the French Open, but would still have 15 GS titles, but I can almost guarantee that if he had 15 GS titles and no French, that this would be used as an argument against him for GOAT. Well which way do you want it? You cannot have it both ways. Federer has the losing H2H record vs Nadal due to his excellent clay court aptitude which ALLOWED him to get to all the finals vs Nadal, only to lose 9 times out of 11. Thus giving Nadal this lopsided H2H advantage. Turn it around and ask yourself if Nadal had met Federer 11 times on US Open's DecoTurf (and Cincy & Montreal/Toronto) from 2005-2008, how lopsided the H2H would be in Federer's favour? Sadly for Federer, Nadal wasn't good enough to get to all those finals.

Now we move on to hard stats:

Federer: reached 23 consecutive GS Semi Finals spanning 5 years.
Nadal: his best SF consecutive record is 5 SF's from AO 2008, to AO 2009.

Federer: 10 consecutive GS Finals (prior to AO 2008 ), 8 consecutive GS Finals (current)
Nadal: 2 consecutive GS finals, 3 times

Federer: 237 consecutive weeks at No. 1
Nadal: ? weeks at No. 1

Federer: 5 consecutive GS titles at 2 different GS events
Nadal: 4 consecutive FO titles

(Yes, Nadal could not even do on his absolute best surface, what Federer could do TWICE on his two best surfaces).

Federer: 16 GS titles (22 finals)
Nadal 6 GS Titles (8 finals)

So in a nutshell do people honestly think that we people who are intelligent tennis followers, are devoid of all common sense? We see a player who has made a mockery of statistics and established an unprecedented record of dominance and consistency in the game for the last 5 years, but he is denigrated because he happens to have been good enough on his worst surface to keep getting to finals, where he has been beaten by the GOAT on that surface.

I'm not sure there are many people even among the idiots (like Mats Wilander for one) who openly flog Federer for his abysmal H2H record against Nadal, who would choose Nadal's career record (and his resultant prize money) over Federer's. At the end of the day your career is determined by the Major titles you won, not by favourable/unfavorable records against any one single player, especially not when that player is nowhere even remotely close to your career records. At present Nadal has not even reached the title haul of Ivan Lendl & Andre Agassi, and has no career slam so he is even below Agassi at this point in reckoning. He has another 2 GS to win to get to their level.

In the meantime, Roger Federer, at the ripe age of 28, continues to rack up the Grand Slam titles, with apparently no end in sight.

This IMO, is one of the best arguments I've seen. The best being your point that Roger couldn't have both a winning h2h against Nadal AND a French Open title. Obviously Nadal on clay is a horrible matchup for him (and every player), but if he had bombed out of the event, I doubt he wins the 2009 event. Nadal wasn't in the 2004 tournament either and Fed lost in the third round to an (over the hill?) Guga.

The h2h has shown how backwards people can think in the tennis world. They almost act like losing in earlier rounds to a variety of players is BETTER than making semis and finals.

Of all the players in the open era, Federer is the only player whose best surface is grass to do really well at the French Open. McEnroe, Sampras, Becker, Edberg and Connors combined for two French Open finals. Imagine if any of them had to go up against prime Borg, Lendl, Wilander, Kuerten, Courier or Bruguera 4 times at the French Open!

The funny thing is that the players that often suffer bad h2h's are those that succeed on their weakest surface. Lendl was good enough to face Becker at Wimbledon 3 times (going 0-3) but wasn't good enough to face Lendl at the French. Becker wound up with a 5-1 h2h against him!

 

[JennyS]

Great post. Agree almost completely, except for bolded part:

It's the insecure among Pete-****s that bring up the h2h, because that's the only stick they have to beat Federer with (and some of them under the guise of being a "nadal-fan" root for Nadal only because he'd help their cause by delaying/preventing Fed from erasing Pete's records).

I fully expect their whining decibels to sharply increase if Fed breaks Pete's weeks @ #1. And expect another surge if Fed wins wimby #7 and/or ends the year @ #1 to equal Pete's feat. If Fed wins wimby #7 and ends the year as #1, then the ONLY (in)significant record that Pete would have over Fed is his h2h with his nearest rival.

Most nadal-****s are sensible enough to understand that the Fed-nadal rivalry adds to each other's legacies, and also admit that 16>6. The more Fed wins, the more it magnifies the significance of Nadal's achievements. Plus, if Nadal wins enough majors to put himself among the GOAT candidates, then it'd be impossible to put Fed ahead of him if the current h2h persists.

Federer's dominating h2h vs Roddick and Hewitt should count as dominating his top competitiors of his generation. I know Nadal is an old 23 year old, but Sampras never had a real rivalry with a player 5 years younger than him.

 

[JennyS]

Pete had losing records against Kraijeck, Safin, and Stich.

Like somebody pointed out a long time ago, Federer is being undermined in some ways by his own brilliance. Pete never went far enough on clay, consistently enough, to lose to somebody over and over. He definitely didn't play in the time of a Nadal, the best clay courter I've ever seen. Even if he did, because he could lose to so many on clay, doubtful they would have had anything remotely close to a "rivalry" on clay. He just wouldn't have gotten far enough in the draw.

Nadal gained a huge psychological edge at one point over Federer based on his dominance on clay. The edge translated to other surfaces, but I doubt that Nadal will ever beat Fed again on a fast surface. The quest for the French is over. His claim over GOAT is IMO complete. Big monkey off his back. I think Nadal's psychological edge is gone, now it's back to the tennis, and on anything but clay, Fed is superior.

In Pete's book, it seems he's suggesting consecutive finishes as the year end number 1 should be considered more significant than Grand Slams, a stunning claim IMO. Actually, he more or less says it point blank. I don't think that one is going to gain any traction though. Not sure if anybody will ever consider Hewitt a greater player than Agassi, for example.

I agree that Nadal's domination over Federer on clay helped him have the confidence to beat him at Wimbledon and the Australian Open. Interestingly if Federer had never made any of those French Open matchups, perhaps he wouldn't have lost the two non clay finals against him. Nadal wouldn't have the experience of beating him in a Slam final and maybe Federer would have played those matches with more confidence.

Still, if Roger had just gotten one of those two Championship points at Rome, I think the h2h would have turned out a little differently.

 

[fed_rulz]

Federer's dominating h2h vs Roddick and Hewitt should count as dominating his top competitiors of his generation. I know Nadal is an old 23 year old, but Sampras never had a real rivalry with a player 5 years younger than him.

That's true. But the point I was trying to make was that it was the Sampras-****s, and not the nadal-****s as much that use the h2h; as an aside, I also pointed out that the h2h can be used AGAINST Fed only if Nadal throws himself into the GOAT mix.

 

[fed_rulz]

I agree that Nadal's domination over Federer on clay helped him have the confidence to beat him at Wimbledon and the Australian Open. Interestingly if Federer had never made any of those French Open matchups, perhaps he wouldn't have lost the two non clay finals against him. Nadal wouldn't have the experience of beating him in a Slam final and maybe Federer would have played those matches with more confidence.

Still, if Roger had just gotten one of those two Championship points at Rome, I think the h2h would have turned out a little differently.

what an awesome match it was. That's the best I've seen Fed play on clay. I agree with you too, and have always wondered how the h2h would've panned out had he won that match.. I guess he buried that ghost only after winning the RG.

 

[lawrence]

The H2H is a useless argument anyway, the only people who still use it (I don't know if they even believe it themselves) are the haters who are clinging onto any hope that Federer didn't become the G.O.A.T of modern tennis after he captured his FO and 15th title.

 

[raiden031]

case closed

Peter Sampras is 0-1 against Federer. Federer has won infinitely more of their matches than Sampras has.

Case Closed.

 

[Jay_The_Nomad]

You raise valid points. It is true that relying on H2H records alone can be very deceptive; if one were to look only at their h2h & nothing else, one would think that Rafa is the better player overall.

However, while the H2H record can be deceptive when taken on its own, it isn't an irrelevant statistic. In fact, it is a rather substantial & telling bit of statistic. Tennis is all about the match up of different styles of play & what the H2H tells us is that Federer struggles when against Nadal particularly on clay courts.

It is a blemish on Federer's otherwise perfect record and will unfortunately stay that way given Nadal's injury problems as of late.

No one should take anything away from Nadal's positive H2H. Beating Federer once on any surface is a feat in and of itself. Doing it comprehensively multiple times on a surface that happens to be your favourite, is quite something else.

The good news is that 20 years from now, the bit of statistic that will remain in people's memory is Federer's total GrandSlam haul. The H2H will probably dissipate into the obscure archives of interesting trivia to be pulled out every now and then, UNLESS Nadal starts winning multiple grandslams again and takes his GS haul closer to Federer's. If Nadal manages to do so, than that H2H will start getting more and more attention.

 

[BounceHitBounceHit]

Pete had losing records against Kraijeck, Safin, and Stich.

Like somebody pointed out a long time ago, Federer is being undermined in some ways by his own brilliance. Pete never went far enough on clay, consistently enough, to lose to somebody over and over. He definitely didn't play in the time of a Nadal, the best clay courter I've ever seen. Even if he did, because he could lose to so many on clay, doubtful they would have had anything remotely close to a "rivalry" on clay. He just wouldn't have gotten far enough in the draw.

Nadal gained a huge psychological edge at one point over Federer based on his dominance on clay. The edge translated to other surfaces, but I doubt that Nadal will ever beat Fed again on a fast surface. The quest for the French is over. His claim over GOAT is IMO complete. Big monkey off his back. I think Nadal's psychological edge is gone, now it's back to the tennis, and on anything but clay, Fed is superior.

In Pete's book, it seems he's suggesting consecutive finishes as the year end number 1 should be considered more significant than Grand Slams, a stunning claim IMO. Actually, he more or less says it point blank. I don't think that one is going to gain any traction though. Not sure if anybody will ever consider Hewitt a greater player than Agassi, for example.

Great, thoughtful post. I agree.

In fairness, it must be very, very tough for Pete. He was, and is, a great champion. When he was ending his career I felt honest grief, because I thought at the time we'd never see another so great as he. I am sure the same thought passed Pete's mind, only to have Fed catch absolute fire the following year, eclipsing all he had worked so hard to acheive. BHBH

 

[JennyS]

I think it's time that people started using Federer's 2-6 Grand Slam h2h against Nadal in his FAVOR. Why? Because it shows that Federer is so good, the only player that can beat him is his best possible opponent (who happens to be a bad matchup). Meanwhile, Nadal has lost to a lot more different players.

Compare their Grand Slam losses since 2005:

Federer: 9 losses to 4 different players in 21 Grand Slams played
Nadal: 6
Safin: 1
Djokovic: 1
Del Potro: 1

Nadal: 13 losses to 11 different players in 19 Grand Slams played
Federer: 2
Murray: 2
Hewitt: 1
Muller: 1
Blake: 1
Youzhny: 1
Gonzalez: 1
Ferrer: 1
Tsonga: 1
Soderling: 1
Del Potro: 1

Nadal has lost to 7 more players in two fewer events than Federer has.

 

[Blinkism]

Everyone knows clay court tennis isn't real tennis, anyways.

 

[JennyS]

In the same period (2005 to present), Hewitt has also had a lot of high quality losses to the best opponents (Federer, Nadal)

Federer: 5
Nadal: 3
Roddick: 2
Djokovic: 2
Gonzalez: 2
Safin: 1
Chela: 1
Baghdatis: 1
Calleri: 1
Ferrer: 1

 

[Markov]

That H2H argument is illogical, yes. But you shouldn't worry so much about what someone else thinks. We are talking about opinions (like "who I personally think is the best player ever") after all.

 

[bruce38]

No way, my opinion is fact.:twisted:

 

[Rippy]

Nadal get another 10 slams??? as talented as he is thats a huuuuuuge mountain to reach

I don't think he will get another 10 slams. But if he does, including a US Open, then I suppose that with the winning H2H, he would have the legitimate claim to being better than Federer.

 

[JennyS]

I don't think he will get another 10 slams. But if he does, including a US Open, then I suppose that with the winning H2H, he would have the legitimate claim to being better than Federer.

To win 10 more Slams, Nadal would have to win at least 4 more French Opens (putting him 2 ahead of clay Goat Borg) and 6 more somewhere else. Considering the effort it took him to win two non French Open Slams, that seems unlikely.

I just don't see a player with Nadal's game style winning that many Slams in his mid to late 20's.

 

[35ft6]

In fairness, it must be very, very tough for Pete. He was, and is, a great champion. When he was ending his career I felt honest grief, because I thought at the time we'd never see another so great as he. I am sure the same thought passed Pete's mind, only to have Fed catch absolute fire the following year, eclipsing all he had worked so hard to acheive. BHBH

Yeah, it was kind of shocking for everybody to see for how little time his record stood, let alone for Sampras. If you read his book, he's very up front about how tennis was all he cared about. If he had any interest in anything outside of tennis, he failed to mention it. And his whole identity was "tennis player." He wasn't opinionated, didn't care to be known for his personality, only as a tennis player, and so being called the GOAT must have been the ultimate vindication. He's still the second greatest of the Open Era, which is incredible, but his legend, the one that he was going to live off for the rest of his life, has definitely been dampened by the ridiculously quick emergence of Federer. Pete barely had time to savor his career. But in another way, Federer's success has made people talk about Sampras a lot. And Pete has been gracious really. He'll say something about the Nadal H2H or consecutive number 1's, but for the most part, he's been very nice when it comes to Fed. I think it makes it easier for him that Fed has a "classic" game and a relatively low key demeanor.

 

[JennyS]

Yeah, it was kind of shocking for everybody to see for how little time his record stood, let alone for Sampras. If you read his book, he's very up front about how tennis was all he cared about. If he had any interest in anything outside of tennis, he failed to mention it. And his whole identity was "tennis player." He wasn't opinionated, didn't care to be known for his personality, only as a tennis player, and so being called the GOAT must have been the ultimate vindication. He's still the second greatest of the Open Era, which is incredible, but his legend, the one that he was going to live off for the rest of his life, has definitely been dampened by the ridiculously quick emergence of Federer. Pete barely had time to savor his career. But in another way, Federer's success has made people talk about Sampras a lot. And Pete has been gracious really. He'll say something about the Nadal H2H or consecutive number 1's, but for the most part, he's been very nice when it comes to Fed. I think it makes it easier for him that Fed has a "classic" game and a relatively low key demeanor.

And Pete was there for Roger's 15th Slam, so that was nice

 

[Agassifan]

36-24 is the real H2H and it is in favor of Fed

 

[LameTennisPlayer]

I don't think he will get another 10 slams. But if he does, including a US Open, then I suppose that with the winning H2H, he would have the legitimate claim to being better than Federer.

nadal has to get 10 slams to just match federer; are u assuming that federer will get no slams from now on?? thats just as ridiculous as nadal getting 10 slams

 

[valiant]

That H2H argument is illogical, yes. But you shouldn't worry so much about what someone else thinks. We are talking about opinions (like "who I personally think is the best player ever") after all.

I agree with you.

 

[ksbh]

Honestly, I must admit ... rather good effort by cueboyzn!

But for someone who is touted by his fans as the undisputed GOAT, it's staggering how they choose to ignore one startling fact .... that Federer steps on the court against his chief rival, and only legitimate one, knowing what Rafa is going to do time & time again and yet can't find a way past! GOAT? ROFL!

 

[All-rounder]

Honestly, I must admit ... rather good effort by cueboyzn!

But for someone who is touted by his fans as the undisputed GOAT, it's staggering how they choose to ignore one startling fact .... that Federer steps on the court against his chief rival, and only legitimate one, knowing what Rafa is going to do time & time again and yet can't find a way past! GOAT? ROFL!

Didn't Federer win their previous meeting on clay?

 

[Rippy]

Honestly, I must admit ... rather good effort by cueboyzn!

But for someone who is touted by his fans as the undisputed GOAT, it's staggering how they choose to ignore one startling fact .... that Federer steps on the court against his chief rival, and only legitimate one, knowing what Rafa is going to do time & time again and yet can't find a way past! GOAT? ROFL!

Why is Nadal the only legitimate rival? Because he's the only one with a winning H2H? How convenient...

 

[JennyS]

Why is Nadal the only legitimate rival? Because he's the only one with a winning H2H? How convenient...

Yeah, I consider Roddick and Hewitt to be legit rivals. Since Roger started winning Slams, they both consistently made it to their meetings with Roger. He just beat them.