Originally Posted by The_Order
I'm not discussing Borg and McEnroe, I'm disucssing Nadal and Federer.
Now as for your grass h2h point. Fed does lead the surface h2h, but it's not like he dominates Nadal on that surface it is 1 extra win and 2 of their 3 grass meetings were very close. That's why I said it's quite even. If Federer had turned up to the WIM final in 2010 and 2011 Nadal would've beat him. Fed was lucky that Nadal was able to make it to Wimbledon final in 2006 so that he could beat a barely 20 Rafa whilst he was in his peak on his favorite surface. That 2006 final win doesn't really prove anything considering Nadal had played something like only 5 grass court matches prior to that tournament.
As for the HC meetings, if we include indoor and outdoor, they have met on a HC 11 times compared to 14 clay meetings. Quite even, yet it is NOWHERE near the dominance Nadal has on clay. Collectively it is 6-5 to Federer but if we isolate indoor and outdoor it's quite obvious that Fed only dominates indoor meetings and outdoor belongs to Nadal. This is the slam conditions (normally) they are outdoor HC and Nadal leads Fed 5-2, it's not even close. Not to mention in the majors Nadal leads 2-0. I recall so many ****s dismissing Murray's h2h with Fed because of Fed owning Muzza at the majors, well Fed's 6-5 doesn't count for much when you consider Nadal has owned him in HC major meetings.
Nadal has beat Fed in 3/4 slams, Fed has beat Nadal in 1/4 slams, and the record is 8-2 to say that isn't dominance at all is ridiculous. Nadal has owned him, if you ask Federer himself which opponent he'd least want to meet in any major he'll tell you Nadal before you even finish asking the question.
Which means on clay Nadal owns Federer and on other surfaces it's "quite even". I agree.
The 2-0 on HC slams is a bit misleading though considering they didn't meet til 2009 when Federer has been dominating the HC slams for 4 years having won 8 out of the last 10. 8 is more than anyone else in history has won and Federer was towards the end of his HC glory days. He wasn't washed up or anything, but we're talking small margins and Federer needed to be a bit better to beat Nadal who was starting to play his best HC tennis. If Federer happens to lose to Nadal this year at the USO, 9 years after winning his first USO title,people will probably use that to "prove" Nadal owns Federer at the USO and would have beaten him 6 times there or whatever. It's a bit like if now someone who never played Nadal at RG before beat him this year after he's won 7 titles. Does it really give a fair reflection?
To the original point of the article, Nadal-Djokovic is impressive. It's impressive how they can keep a rally going for ages but more than half the match is boring. It becomes too much.Just too long and grinding with no variety. Fedal is better to watch even on clay when you know who's going to win. You know the outcome but the tennis has more contrast.