Why H2H is important and what it's value is

[Blocker]

It never ceases to amaze me the amount of times I log on here and see comments about H2H and how it does not count towards anything. It seems player A can get ***** slapped around by player B in big matches time and time again and posters on here shrug it off as if it's no big deal. Well it is a big deal and this post will explain how and why.

I have formulated a model, which if I don't say so myself, is quite scientific and ingenious.

Rather than try to explain the formula, which will be a little confusing to some airheads on here, let me demonstrate by way of example.

Let's use Federer versus Nadal as the example. Both claim the other is their biggest rival, so why not use this rivalry as the example?

In slam matches, Federer versus Nadal looks something like this:

2006 W final - Federer defeated Nadal

2007 W final - Federer defeated Nadal

2008 W final - Nadal defeated Federer

2005 FO sf - Nadal defeated Federer

2006 FO final - Nadal defeated Federer

2007 FO final - Nadal defeated Federer

2008 FO final - Nadal defeated Federer

2011 FO final - Nadal defeated Federer

2009 AO final - Nadal defeated Federer

2012 AO sf - Nadal defeated Federer

2014 AO sf - Nadal defeated Federer

2017 AO sf - Federer defeated Nadal

So in 12 Sam matches, Nadal leads 9-3 in head to head. But, what matches contributed to, or significantly contributed to, one winning the slam whilst denying the other the trophy?

Let's break it down.

Federer denied Nadal the W 2006 and 2007 tiles and the 2017 AO title. That is 3 points for Federer.

Nadal denied Federer up to 5 FO trophies, 4 of which gave him the trophy directly and one win which significantly contributed to a FO trophy, ie their 2005 FO semi final match. Nadal denied Federer the 2009 AO trophy which Nadal won (another point) however his other wins at the AO did not contribute to any further titles at the AO. Nadal's win at W 2008 is an extra point. So that is 7 points for Nadal.

Now add the surplus that one has over the other and add that surplus to the slam count of the person who leads the slam H2H which at the same time denied the other and resulted in a slam trophy or significantly contributed to a slam trophy.

Each earns the following points from the above matches:

Nadal 7
Federer 3

7 minus 3 = 4.

Add the surplus of 4 to Nadal's slam count:

14 + 4 = 18

Federer has 18 slams.

So in slams and slam H2H, it is a tie, 18 each.

Now I know what some of you may be thinking? Is Blocker on drugs? Deluded? Delused? How much has he had to drink?

Well it turns out my formula is actually a brilliant piece of theoretical formulation. It takes into account H2H matches which denied the other AND contributed to, or significantly contributed to, holding up a slam trophy.

Fact is, if not for Nadal, Federer would have won 25 slams. If not for Federer, Nadal would have won 17 slams. Clearly the H2H is significant in this rivalry as 10 of their 12 slam matches has affected just who won the slam. And yet unbelievably, some people think their H2H oes not matter.

This is not a GOAT discussion, it's more me showing off my brilliant theory which factors in H2H and why it is so important.

I will do a Sampras v Agassi example in due course as that was the great rivalry which spanned the 80s, 90s and 2000s.

Thanks for reading.

That is all.

 

[Luckydog]

Thanks for writing.
Case closed.

 

[falstaff78]

I don't have anything to say. But this thread has the potential to be so historically bad that I wanted to get in early

 

[Deleted member 733170]

Sureshs himself should award you a gong for such ground breaking work.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

2017 AO sf - Federer defeated Nadal

That is all.

Federer defeated Nadal at the 2017 Aus Open SF? Wow, it's barely been a month and you've already forgotten about a fantastic slam FINAL.

 

[MasturB]

The most important H2H stat that the guys you mention actually care about is 18-14.

 

[Aussie Darcy]

Anyway, this formula is stupid. You're equating a H2H win as a slam win which is just beyond laughable.

 

[NGM]

Federer leads Nadal with lopsided 6:3 in final H2H outside of clay.

And he leads Sampras 1:0 on grass.

It hurts, I know.

 

[Sysyphus]

Now I know what some of you may be thinking? Is Blocker on drugs? Deluded? Delused? How much has he had to drink?

Excellent thread — I think it raises some very pertinent questions

 

[BVSlam]

It never ceases to amaze me the amount of times the same people/trolls make the same topics/trollbait. Among the 1000 unoriginal Federer topics active right now, the only different ones are crap like these, which have themselves been rehashed over and over and over.

I agree with Sysyphus that those are easily the most interesting questions in the topic.

 

[Prabhanjan]

.

Since you have a claim to being a theorist, please do the complete analysis of each and every player at each and every round and then return and restate your conclusion

 

[tennisaddict]

OP theory to prove h2h is important is by stating h2h is important

 

[Blocker]

Waiting for all the intelligent people to come in and give their constructive feedback. Clearly you lot would all troll Einstein too because your peabrains could not decipher 1 + 2.

That is all.

 

[chjtennis]

Waiting for all the intelligent people to come in and give their constructive feedback. Clearly you lot would all troll Einstein too because your peabrains could not decipher 1 + 2.

That is all.

My advice: don't waste your time waiting. Smart people wouldn't even care about what you've said.

 

[JMR]

Typical masterpiece of illogic from the OP. He can't be the brother-in-law of every single mod here, can he?

Actual proposition demonstrated: The head-to-head record, especially in the Fedal case, is already reflected in the total slam count, so there's no need to count it separately.

Wacky proposition claimed to have been demonstrated: The head-to-head record, especially in the Fedal case, is already reflected in the total slam count, so therefore we should count all these matches twice.

 

[TheFifthSet]

You really are brilliant. Thanks for the invaluable contribution.

 

[SinjinCooper]

Didn't read, as I've relegated the OP to the intellectual trash heap long ago.

But I will say that as much as you don't want to lose in the final to Rafael Nadal, it's objectively a much better result than losing in the second to Lukas Rosol. Get enough of each kind of result in your career, and the disparity only grows.

18 > 14 is enough on its own, of course, but the tallied results of those tournaments that don't end up as wins is where Federer really runs laps around his so called peers. With as many finals and semis as Roger has, Nadal probably needs 20+ slams to be considered Federer's equal at this point. And of course, since Fed is still the best player in tennis, the gap is only likely to keep widening.

 

[KINGROGER]

As you said, the only relevancy the H2H has is how many slams it stopped them from winning. So without Nadal, Federer would likely have 25 slams > 14 for Sampras.

Without Federer, Nadal would likely have 16-17 slams (not a lock to beat Wawrinka in 2017) meaning he would be the GOAT over Sampras on 14.

As it happens, Federer has 18 slams, his next nearest rivals have 14 so he's the GOAT. Nadal just stopped him from being the insurmountable, invincible records will never be broken immortal tennis god GOAT with likely 2-3 CYGS.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I will do a Sampras v Agassi example in due course as that was the great rivalry which spanned the 80s, 90s and 2000s.

They played once in 1989 -- Agassi walking away the winner 6-2, 6-1 at your boy's favorite clay venue. That doesn't count as spanning 3 decades. Their last match was in 2002, that isn't even 15 years.

 

[Shaolin]

Pro tennis will always be about beating the field and winning tournaments, not tailoring your game to beat one specific person.

The only people who think differently are deranged Nadal fanboys.

 

[Hitman's Gurl]

OP is very bitter about Roger overtaking Pete. That is all I got from this thread. Not a nice feeling to live with.

 

[TMF]

Pro tennis will always be about beating the field and winning tournaments, not tailoring your game to beat one specific person.

The only people who think differently are deranged Nadal fanboys.

And Sampras fanboys like the OP.

 

[Kalin]

If Rafa and Roger had met in pretty much all important tournaments I'd put a lot more stock in this stat. Like the Pro tour was in the 1950s where people would play each other all the time.

As it were, Rafa has missed a ton of big tournaments during the years (usually on his weaker surfaces) and is generally prone to protecting his H2H (not only vs Roger but also vs Novak too) by either not showing up or losing earlier. Thus, the H2H is not that relevant. Just think about it; their total match count comes to just over 2 matches per year if my math is correct, maybe 3. A very tiny amount... Didn't Roger win his 1000th match recently? 2-3 matches per year is nothing to base any judgement on.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

It never ceases to amaze me the amount of times I log on here and see comments about H2H and how it does not count towards anything. It seems player A can get ***** slapped around by player B in big matches time and time again and posters on here shrug it off as if it's no big deal. Well it is a big deal and this post will explain how and why.

I have formulated a model, which if I don't say so myself, is quite scientific and ingenious.

Rather than try to explain the formula, which will be a little confusing to some airheads on here, let me demonstrate by way of example.

Let's use Federer versus Nadal as the example. Both claim the other is their biggest rival, so why not use this rivalry as the example?

In slam matches, Federer versus Nadal looks something like this:

2006 W final - Federer defeated Nadal

2007 W final - Federer defeated Nadal

2008 W final - Nadal defeated Federer

2005 FO sf - Nadal defeated Federer

2006 FO final - Nadal defeated Federer

2007 FO final - Nadal defeated Federer

2008 FO final - Nadal defeated Federer

2011 FO final - Nadal defeated Federer

2009 AO final - Nadal defeated Federer

2012 AO sf - Nadal defeated Federer

2014 AO sf - Nadal defeated Federer

2017 AO sf - Federer defeated Nadal

So in 12 Sam matches, Nadal leads 9-3 in head to head. But, what matches contributed to, or significantly contributed to, one winning the slam whilst denying the other the trophy?

Let's break it down.

Federer denied Nadal the W 2006 and 2007 tiles and the 2017 AO title. That is 3 points for Federer.

Nadal denied Federer up to 5 FO trophies, 4 of which gave him the trophy directly and one win which significantly contributed to a FO trophy, ie their 2005 FO semi final match. Nadal denied Federer the 2009 AO trophy which Nadal won (another point) however his other wins at the AO did not contribute to any further titles at the AO. Nadal's win at W 2008 is an extra point. So that is 7 points for Nadal.

Now add the surplus that one has over the other and add that surplus to the slam count of the person who leads the slam H2H which at the same time denied the other and resulted in a slam trophy or significantly contributed to a slam trophy.

Each earns the following points from the above matches:

Nadal 7
Federer 3

7 minus 3 = 4.

Add the surplus of 4 to Nadal's slam count:

14 + 4 = 18

Federer has 18 slams.

So in slams and slam H2H, it is a tie, 18 each.

Now I know what some of you may be thinking? Is Blocker on drugs? Deluded? Delused? How much has he had to drink?

Well it turns out my formula is actually a brilliant piece of theoretical formulation. It takes into account H2H matches which denied the other AND contributed to, or significantly contributed to, holding up a slam trophy.

Fact is, if not for Nadal, Federer would have won 25 slams. If not for Federer, Nadal would have won 17 slams. Clearly the H2H is significant in this rivalry as 10 of their 12 slam matches has affected just who won the slam. And yet unbelievably, some people think their H2H oes not matter.

This is not a GOAT discussion, it's more me showing off my brilliant theory which factors in H2H and why it is so important.

I will do a Sampras v Agassi example in due course as that was the great rivalry which spanned the 80s, 90s and 2000s.

Thanks for reading.

That is all.

posts like this make you appreciate 60's weed even more... like him or not, his grumpy posts are at least effortless and quick/fun to read

 

[Daniel_K]

confusing to some airheads on here

Well it is a big deal and this post will explain how and why.

which if I don't say so myself, is quite scientific and ingenious.

it turns out my formula is actually a brilliant piece of theoretical formulation.

me showing off my brilliant theory

That is all.

Some would call you ever so slightly narcissistic.

I think its more interesting that DB leads Nadal 2-0 in H2H.

 

[TheMusicLover]

Wow, I think there's some poaster to add to my signature active in this thread...

 

[BeatlesFan]

It never ceases to amaze me the amount of times I log on here and see comments about H2H and how it does not count towards anything.

Stop reading at that point, knowing the resulting prattle would be the emanations of another butt hurt Nadal fan.

For the OP: please direct us to the ATP official site and point out where H2H is an official stat on any player's biography. The reason "it doesn't count towards anything" is because it doesn't. H2H has never been a stat in tennis. And it was pretty meaningless until the last 10-12 years. Nobody in the 70's-90's cared about H2H with the prior greats.

The only people droning on about this are Nadal and Djoker fans. Literally.

 

[Tennisanity]

Krajicek > Sampras.

 

[Zara]

"Fact is, if not for Nadal, Federer would have won 25 slams. If not for Federer, Nadal would have won 17 slams. Clearly the H2H is significant in this rivalry as 10 of their 12 slam matches has affected just who won the slam. And yet unbelievably, some people think their H2H does not matter."

I think the most important point of Blocker's post is the one above. For example, Murray lost 5 finals to Djokovic and 4 of those came at AO alone. If he had won some of those, he probably would have equaled Becker, Edberg by now and that would have put him in Tier 3 and perhaps Djokovic would have been with Agassi, Lendl etc. And there are 3 additional final losses to Federer.

So yes, it does make a big difference if you have a losing track to another player in Major finals. You may still stay in denial or call some of the posters bitter about whatever, but it does not take away the fact I just stated.

Also, if Federer had a couple of wins over Nadal at RG and if Nadal hadn't dominated Federer in Majors in a big way, Federer would have been regarded GOAT without any question marks around it, but Nadal's crucial victories over Federer in those finals put a permanent dent to Federer's apparent GOAT status. Not only that but it also put Nadal in the same conversation with Federer and Sampras as well.

You can't deny it no matter how you want to slice or dice it.

 

[ghostofMecir]

I have formulated a model, which if I don't say so myself, is quite scientific and ingenious.

Rather than try to explain the formula, which will be a little confusing to some airheads on here, let me demonstrate by way of example.

This is not a GOAT discussion, it's more me showing off my brilliant theory which factors in H2H and why it is so important.

.

Maybe you should have used your "brilliance" to use the correct "its" in the title. Hint: It's not "it's."

 

[JMR]

So yes, it does make a big difference if you have a losing track to another player in Major finals.

Yes, the "big difference" is that you have lost slam finals that you otherwise would have won, while your rival has won slam finals that he otherwise would have lost. That makes each match a two-slam swing in the GOAT standings -- a huge outcome. But any counting beyond that is redundant and silly.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

It never ceases to amaze me the amount of times I log on here and see comments about H2H and how it does not count towards anything. It seems player A can get ***** slapped around by player B in big matches time and time again and posters on here shrug it off as if it's no big deal. Well it is a big deal and this post will explain how and why.

I have formulated a model, which if I don't say so myself, is quite scientific and ingenious.

Rather than try to explain the formula, which will be a little confusing to some airheads on here, let me demonstrate by way of example.

Let's use Federer versus Nadal as the example. Both claim the other is their biggest rival, so why not use this rivalry as the example?

In slam matches, Federer versus Nadal looks something like this:

2006 W final - Federer defeated Nadal

2007 W final - Federer defeated Nadal

2008 W final - Nadal defeated Federer

2005 FO sf - Nadal defeated Federer

2006 FO final - Nadal defeated Federer

2007 FO final - Nadal defeated Federer

2008 FO final - Nadal defeated Federer

2011 FO final - Nadal defeated Federer

2009 AO final - Nadal defeated Federer

2012 AO sf - Nadal defeated Federer

2014 AO sf - Nadal defeated Federer

2017 AO sf - Federer defeated Nadal

So in 12 Sam matches, Nadal leads 9-3 in head to head. But, what matches contributed to, or significantly contributed to, one winning the slam whilst denying the other the trophy?

Let's break it down.

Federer denied Nadal the W 2006 and 2007 tiles and the 2017 AO title. That is 3 points for Federer.

Nadal denied Federer up to 5 FO trophies, 4 of which gave him the trophy directly and one win which significantly contributed to a FO trophy, ie their 2005 FO semi final match. Nadal denied Federer the 2009 AO trophy which Nadal won (another point) however his other wins at the AO did not contribute to any further titles at the AO. Nadal's win at W 2008 is an extra point. So that is 7 points for Nadal.

Now add the surplus that one has over the other and add that surplus to the slam count of the person who leads the slam H2H which at the same time denied the other and resulted in a slam trophy or significantly contributed to a slam trophy.

Each earns the following points from the above matches:

Nadal 7
Federer 3

7 minus 3 = 4.

Add the surplus of 4 to Nadal's slam count:

14 + 4 = 18

Federer has 18 slams.

So in slams and slam H2H, it is a tie, 18 each.

Now I know what some of you may be thinking? Is Blocker on drugs? Deluded? Delused? How much has he had to drink?

Well it turns out my formula is actually a brilliant piece of theoretical formulation. It takes into account H2H matches which denied the other AND contributed to, or significantly contributed to, holding up a slam trophy.

Fact is, if not for Nadal, Federer would have won 25 slams. If not for Federer, Nadal would have won 17 slams. Clearly the H2H is significant in this rivalry as 10 of their 12 slam matches has affected just who won the slam. And yet unbelievably, some people think their H2H oes not matter.

This is not a GOAT discussion, it's more me showing off my brilliant theory which factors in H2H and why it is so important.

I will do a Sampras v Agassi example in due course as that was the great rivalry which spanned the 80s, 90s and 2000s.

Thanks for reading.

That is all.

An interesting take at how important the H2H is to look at how much its stands the test of time. Take Becker and Edberg.

It's well known that both won 6 slams each. Both of them have been n°1. Edberg for a longer time than Becker. Edberg has been year end n°1 twice, Becker none. Edberg won 41 titles, Becker 49. These players are considered equals in all discussions.

Becker leads the H2H 25-10. Nobody care.

 

[Zara]

An interesting take at how important the H2H is to look at how much its stands the test of time. Take Becker and Edberg.

It's well known that both won 6 slams each. Both of them have been n°1. Edberg for a longer time than Becker. Edberg has been year end n°1 twice, Becker none. Edberg won 41 titles, Becker 49. These players are considered equals in all discussions.

Becker leads the H2H 25-10. Nobody care.

They are fairly equal however Edberg, on top of being No. 1 twice, also led the H2H 3-1 in Slams. But the point is, these are not GOAT contenders.

Having said, that, there can be a separate discussion on these two where we can argue who was better despite having 6 slams each. Where H2H would definitely play a role. Because you are comparing one player to the other so how can it not come into play?

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

An interesting take at how important the H2H is to look at how much its stands the test of time. Take Becker and Edberg.

It's well known that both won 6 slams each. Both of them have been n°1. Edberg for a longer time than Becker. Edberg has been year end n°1 twice, Becker none. Edberg won 41 titles, Becker 49. These players are considered equals in all discussions.

Becker leads the H2H 25-10. Nobody care.

The 25-10 H2H is largely offset by 1-2 H2H in Wimbledon finals, Wimby being Becker's best major. But then, had Becker led it as he would be supposed to according to his level of proficiency on grass, it would change the distribution of major titles and make Becker greater on his own merit (7 vs 5 or even 8 vs 4 instead of 6 vs 6 as it is), without any extra H2H concerns.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Nadal's crucial victories over Federer in those finals put a permanent dent to Federer's apparent GOAT status.

Correct. Laver for GOAT, I say.

Not only that but it also put Nadal in the same conversation with Federer and Sampras as well.

Not correct. Nadal does not have enough top title wins (18>14, 6>0).

Besides, Sampras not winning RG automatically removes him from the conversation. Agassi showed that it was possible to win the Career Slam even back then, so no excuses: no Career Slam = no GOAT.

 

[TMF]

But no matter what Federer is still the goat no matter if Nadal existed or not. Of course Federer would have won ~25 slams had not for two all time great(Nadal/Nole), but he doesn't need this much since he's already the most achieved tennis player and holds most of the ATP/ITF records.

 

[JMR]

Having said, that, there can be a separate discussion on these two where we can argue who's was better despite having 6 slams each. Where H2H would definitely play a role. Because you are comparing one player to the other so how can it not come into play?

For tennis players, "better" means "usually beats the other player" only if those two players comprise the entire field, e.g., two players alone on a desert island. Or two players on a pro circuit that consists of the two of them playing barnstorming matches against each other across the country for six months. In those limited situations, "usually beats the other player" does indeed mean "better," because there's nothing else to measure.

When the field of players reaches three or higher -- and a fortiori, therefore, when the field is hundreds of players -- head-to-head records no longer can be used to determine "better" and/or to rank players. (Blame the math, not me.) You must look at overall results.

So if you want to isolate the head-to-head record of two players who are participating in a normal, tournament-based tennis system, you are left with the circular conclusion that "usually beats the other player" means only "usually beats the other player." That's useful for predicting the outcomes of matches, and perhaps for a juvenile sort of bragging rights ("My dad can beat up your dad!"), but it can't establish which player is better, let alone serve a foundational role in all-time rankings.

 

[Zara]

Correct. Laver for GOAT, I say.



Not correct. Nadal does not have enough top title wins (18>14, 6>0).

Besides, Sampras not winning RG automatically removes him from the conversation. Agassi showed that it was possible to win the Career Slam even back then, so no excuses: no Career Slam = no GOAT.

Nadal's win over Federer in Major finals does offset the total titles count; reasons why he can be in the same conversation. As to Sampras, he played in more polarized and specialists era and despite that, he still won 14 Slams and stayed at No. 1 for 6 straight years. Agassi may have a career slam (played much longer than Sampras), but he doesn't have 14 slams to his credit nor does he have as many WTF or No. 1 raking to his credit. And it's not like Federer won a few RGs. There's a vast difference between one making gazillion finals and one actually winning it several times. Though he won 1 time but he didn't exactly beat Nadal to win it. He beat Soderling who never won anything significant. These can all be argued.

 

[Zara]

For tennis players, "better" means "usually beats the other player" only if those two players comprise the entire field, e.g., two players alone on a desert island. Or two players on a pro circuit that consists of the two of them playing barnstorming matches against each other across the country for six months. In those limited situations, "usually beats the other player" does indeed mean "better," because there's nothing else to measure.

When the field of players reaches three or higher -- and a fortiori, therefore, when the field is hundreds of players -- head-to-head records no longer can be used to determine "better" and/or to rank players. (Blame the math, not me.) You must look at overall results.

So if you want to isolate the head-to-head record of two players who are participating in a normal, tournament-based tennis system, you are left with the circular conclusion that "usually beats the other player" means only "usually beats the other player." That's useful for predicting the outcomes of matches, and perhaps for a juvenile sort of bragging rights ("My dad can beat up your dad!"), but it can't establish which player is better, let alone serve a foundational role in all-time rankings.

I have no reason to isolate H2H only. The overall results count and H2H is one of the factors of the overall results.

 

[jm1980]

The only people droning on about this are Nadal and Djoker fans. Literally.

Which Djoker fans drone on about H2H?

This is almost exclusively perpetrated by Nadal fans (and only the worst Nadal fans).
It may also be occasionally used by other fanbases to discredit Federer

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Nadal's win over Federer in Major finals does offset the total titles count

Of course it doesn't. It actually highlights how much the insufficient number of titles hurts his case. Owns Federer, yet can't win more titles than him, even though that would be the logical expectation, had Nadal not been busy losing to lesser players far too often.

Winning titles is much more important than beating specific players.

As to Sampras, he played in more polarized and specialists era and despite that, he still won 14 Slams and stayed at No. 1 for 6 straight years. Agassi may have a career slam (played much longer than Sampras), but he doesn't have 14 slams to his credit nor does he have as many WTF or No. 1 raking to his credit.

There is no proper reason to give Sampras extra credit for his era, since winning the Career Slam was still possible, therefore his failure to do should fully count against him, and it is a massive failure that kills his GOAT credentials. Obviously Sampras is still a tier 1 ATG.

And it's not like Federer won a few RGs. There's a vast difference between one making gazillion finals and one actually winning it several times. Though he won 1 time but he didn't exactly beat Nadal to win it. He beat Soderling who never won anything significant. These can all be argued.

Federer succeeded where Nadal failed, losing to Söderling in R4 that year. So it's Nadal's fault and cannot be counted against Federer. Arguing about external factors is ultimately futile. These are not ordinary people, but one of their best in their chosen field, so it makes no sense to apply ordinary standards to them. By a standard of an ordinary player, injuries are a "force of nature" that cannot be resisted, but at the highest ATG level, a player should be fully responsible for his or her well-being. If Nadal was not feeling well enough on the day of his defeat, it is his fault for allowing that to happen. The same applies to every ATG, yet it is Federer who comes on top in actual reality, in the Open era, because the simple truth is that winning titles is much more important than beating specific players.

 

[Zara]

Of course it doesn't. It actually highlights how much the insufficient number of titles hurts his case. Owns Federer, yet can't win more titles than him, even though that would be the logical expectation, had Nadal not been busy losing to lesser players far too often.

Winning titles is much more important than beating specific players.



There is no proper reason to give Sampras extra credit for his era, since winning the Career Slam was still possible, therefore his failure to do should fully count against him, and it is a massive failure that kills his GOAT credentials. Obviously Sampras is still a tier 1 ATG.




Federer succeeded where Nadal failed, losing to Söderling in R4 that year. So it's Nadal's fault and cannot be counted against Federer. Arguing about external factors is ultimately futile. These are not ordinary people, but one of their best in their chosen field, so it makes no sense to apply ordinary standards to them. By a standard of an ordinary player, injuries are a "force of nature" that cannot be resisted, but at the highest ATG level, a player should be fully responsible for his or her well-being. If Nadal was not feeling well enough on the day of his defeat, it is his fault for allowing that to happen. The same applies to every ATG, yet it is Federer who comes on top in actual reality, in the Open era, because the simple truth is that winning titles is much more important than beating specific players.

Nadal, I believe, also had a prime Djokovic to deal with along with Federer. In between 2003 to 2007, Federer didn't have any consistent rival outside clay. Nadal had to deal with Federer first and then a combination of Federer and Djokovic later. It did not allow him to rack up as many titles as Federer did in between 2003-2007 (12 Slams).

As to the bolded part, 6 of these major titles came beating Federer in the final.

And I don't care if Sampras is tier 10. The GOAT discussion is something that Federer fans love to harp on. Some of us only would like to point out the hole it has. Personally, I don't see anyone as GOAT as I don't believe there can be such a thing. But if Sampras were to be in the discussion, then we'd have to take into account the fact that things are much more in players' favour than it ever was. I mean it's no coincidence that all of a sudden, within the same decade or two, we see 3 players who have won at least 12 slams. It took decades for a player like Sampras to come and break Emerson's record.

It's funny the way you spin things. Who's talking about injuries here or if it was Nadal's fault that he lost to Soderling? I am talking about the fact that Federer had a number of chances to beat Nadal in the finals and yet, he wasn't able to beat even one time. He had to wait for someone else to take Nadal out so that he could claim his GOAT status. That negates it if anything.

 

[Indio]

I'm sure Federer would prefer to have a favorable head-to-head against Nadal, but not having one doesn't alter their positioning in the ATG rankings (unless Nadal somehow has several sensational seasons left in him). Imagine that the God of Tennis offered Fed a chance to reverse his head-to-head with Nadal, but with a catch--they also exchange their career achievements and records. Would Fed take it?

 

[BHud]

And yet Nads is a career #2 guy...always in the passenger seat?

 

[sarmpas]

Anyway, this formula is stupid. You're equating a H2H win as a slam win which is just beyond laughable.

I guess we should award Dustin Brown, Tsonga, Soderling, Istomin and Zverev with slam equivalent titles. The pain Federer's Aus Open 2017 has caused runs deep with the some posters.

 

[guanzishou]

18 [emoji16]

 

[Prabhanjan]

I think the most important point of Blocker's post is the one above. For example, Murray lost 5 finals to Djokovic and 4 of those came at AO alone. If he had won some of those, he probably would have equaled Becker, Edberg by now and that would have put him in Tier 3 and perhaps Djokovic would have been with Agassi, Lendl etc. And there are 3 additional final losses to Federer.

Murray won 3 finals and lost 8 finals, isn't it. If he was not facing Fed for his 08 final, he might have lost to Nole. Then in 10 AO, he might have lost to Tsonga as he had lost to Tsonga earlier at AO. Same about 12 Wimbledon, and why not. Coz if he had not faced Fed, he might have lost to whom Fed conquered in semi, or Nole's loser of QF, and so forth. Basically, whoever lost in an earlier rounds and had not had positive H2H, could as well have won. Basically, any final that Murray lost, he might as well have lost to anybody else who lost the other semi. What sense does H2H make then? Apply it to one and all and there be no rankings and seedings but H2H

So yes, it does make a big difference if you have a losing track to another player in Major finals. You may still stay in denial or call some of the posters bitter about whatever, but it does not take away the fact I just stated.

The lame H2H argument should even give AO17 to Nadal, but it doesn't! Why play matches at slams at all, and finals above all, if H2H is all that matters?

Also, if Federer had a couple of wins over Nadal at RG and if Nadal hadn't dominated Federer in Majors in a big way, Federer would have been regarded GOAT without any question marks around it, but Nadal's crucial victories over Federer in those finals put a permanent dent to Federer's apparent GOAT status. Not only that but it also put Nadal in the same conversation with Federer and Sampras as well.

Borg and Sampras were in GOAT contention without ever having the grand slam full set. If it was not a problem for them, why should it be for Fed just coz he lost finals to one single player. Also, Borg and Sampras did not face any two-digit slam winner, or especially one who was 5+ years younger than themselves. More importantly, what good is the H2H advantage to Nadal if it does not help him win more slams than Fed?

You can't deny it no matter how you want to slice or dice it.

You can't deny the H2H futility when it does not help Nadal win more slams than Fed. Also, it is almost 8+ years since Fed has the slam record. So why does Nadal not have the slam record already if H2H, and especially slam H2H, matter for anything?

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Nadal, I believe, also had a prime Djokovic to deal with along with Federer. In between 2003 to 2007, Federer didn't have any consistent rival outside clay. Nadal had to deal with Federer first and then a combination of Federer and Djokovic later. It did not allow him to rack up as many titles as Federer did in between 2003-2007 (12 Slams).

Nadal did not allow himself to rack up as many titles by failing to beat his opponents more often, whoever they were.

The GOAT discussion is something that Federer fans love to harp on.

Just as Nadal fans love to assert that Nadal is greater and the moral victor of many tournaments he didn't win due not being at his best for a variety of reasons.

Some of us only would like to point out the hole it has. Personally, I don't see anyone as GOAT as I don't believe there can be such a thing.

I have already said "undisputed GOAT" is not a thing in tennis. Nobody has bested the field as much as, say, Bjoerndalen in men's biathlon.

But if Sampras were to be in the discussion, then we'd have to take into account the fact that things are much more in players' favour than it ever was. I mean it's no coincidence that all of a sudden, within the same decade or two, we see 3 players who have won at least 12 slams. It took decades for a player like Sampras to come and break Emerson's record.

Correlation does not imply causation. It happened that this period features three tier 1 ATGs playing at the same time at a high level. The same happened 50 years ago with Gonzales, Rosewall and Laver. For tier 2 ATGs, it happened with Connors, Borg and McEnroe for a short while, and then Connors, McEnroe, and Lendl for a few years after Borg retired. Moral: 3 ATGs playing at the same time happens once in a while.

It's funny the way you spin things. Who's talking about injuries here or if it was Nadal's fault that he lost to Soderling? I am talking about the fact that Federer had a number of chances to beat Nadal in the finals and yet, he wasn't able to beat even one time. He had to wait for someone else to take Nadal out so that he could claim his GOAT status. That negates it if anything.

Nadal had a number of chances to win the YEC and didn't. Even he finally beat Federer, he lost meekly to Djokovic in the final. See, I can find similar facts about Nadal as well.

Geatness has a subjective component, but what Federer clearly achieved is being the most accomplished men's singles player of the Open era, which most viewers seem to think makes him the greatest. You are free to have the opinion that pleases you

 

[Prabhanjan]

They are fairly equal however Edberg, on top of being No. 1 twice, also led the H2H 3-1 in Slams. But the point is, these are not GOAT contenders.

You are certainly kidding if you think that the H2H which is not useful to settle the greater among 6-slam winners will be helpful to decide GOAT

Having said, that, there can be a separate discussion on these two where we can argue who was better despite having 6 slams each. Where H2H would definitely play a role. Because you are comparing one player to the other so how can it not come into play?

There is NO separate discussion, and why should that be the case? The important question in Edberg and Becker case is what happened to Becker's 25-10 advantage when he could not win more slams or even matches against Edberg in the slams? Can't you see that H2H fails to help even win slam matches, so how can it be of any use in any place?

 

[KINGROGER]

If Rafa and Roger had met in pretty much all important tournaments I'd put a lot more stock in this stat. Like the Pro tour was in the 1950s where people would play each other all the time.

As it were, Rafa has missed a ton of big tournaments during the years (usually on his weaker surfaces) and is generally prone to protecting his H2H (not only vs Roger but also vs Novak too) by either not showing up or losing earlier. Thus, the H2H is not that relevant. Just think about it; their total match count comes to just over 2 matches per year if my math is correct, maybe 3. A very tiny amount... Didn't Roger win his 1000th match recently? 2-3 matches per year is nothing to base any judgement on.

Yep. This is why Roger and Novak's rivalry is much more relevant at 23-22, 17-17, 2-1, 4-4 across the surfaces, with Djokovic's age advantage coming into play there.

"Fact is, if not for Nadal, Federer would have won 25 slams. If not for Federer, Nadal would have won 17 slams. Clearly the H2H is significant in this rivalry as 10 of their 12 slam matches has affected just who won the slam. And yet unbelievably, some people think their H2H does not matter."

I think the most important point of Blocker's post is the one above. For example, Murray lost 5 finals to Djokovic and 4 of those came at AO alone. If he had won some of those, he probably would have equaled Becker, Edberg by now and that would have put him in Tier 3 and perhaps Djokovic would have been with Agassi, Lendl etc. And there are 3 additional final losses to Federer.

So yes, it does make a big difference if you have a losing track to another player in Major finals. You may still stay in denial or call some of the posters bitter about whatever, but it does not take away the fact I just stated.

Also, if Federer had a couple of wins over Nadal at RG and if Nadal hadn't dominated Federer in Majors in a big way, Federer would have been regarded GOAT without any question marks around it, but Nadal's crucial victories over Federer in those finals put a permanent dent to Federer's apparent GOAT status. Not only that but it also put Nadal in the same conversation with Federer and Sampras as well.

You can't deny it no matter how you want to slice or dice it.

Hahahaha absolutely not. Nadal is not in the conversation with Federer at 4 less slams, less weeks at no1, less titles, 6 less WTF, less YE#1 etc. He has slam losses to MURRAY x2, FERRERx2, Tsonga, Gonzalez, Rosol, Darcis, Washed up Hewitt, Youzny, Blake, Brown, Krygios etc.... so your argument that he had to face Djokovic and Fed is irrelevant as he barely reached them... as evidenced above ^^

Nadal, I believe, also had a prime Djokovic to deal with along with Federer. In between 2003 to 2007, Federer didn't have any consistent rival outside clay. Nadal had to deal with Federer first and then a combination of Federer and Djokovic later. It did not allow him to rack up as many titles as Federer did in between 2003-2007 (12 Slams).

As to the bolded part, 6 of these major titles came beating Federer in the final.

And I don't care if Sampras is tier 10. The GOAT discussion is something that Federer fans love to harp on. Some of us only would like to point out the hole it has. Personally, I don't see anyone as GOAT as I don't believe there can be such a thing. But if Sampras were to be in the discussion, then we'd have to take into account the fact that things are much more in players' favour than it ever was. I mean it's no coincidence that all of a sudden, within the same decade or two, we see 3 players who have won at least 12 slams. It took decades for a player like Sampras to come and break Emerson's record.

It's funny the way you spin things. Who's talking about injuries here or if it was Nadal's fault that he lost to Soderling? I am talking about the fact that Federer had a number of chances to beat Nadal in the finals and yet, he wasn't able to beat even one time. He had to wait for someone else to take Nadal out so that he could claim his GOAT status. That negates it if anything.

Again having to wait for Nadal to get knocked out? Irrelevant. Pete Sampras never won RG and he was GOAT. And a win is win, with some very tough opponents took down none the less. Doesn’t detract from his GOAThood.


Federer’s GOAT status isn’t changed by the H2H. It made his GOAT status more reachable, but he still became GOAT none the less. It actually reads badly on Nadal that he only has 14, despite winning 9-3 at slams vs the GOAT (most of these matches vs post prime old Fed or on clay as they’re 5 years apart and not same generation.)