Federer and Nadal Records Vs. Top 10 Ranked

[McEnroeisanartist]

Updated After 2012

Federer
Career - 159-82 65.98%
2012 - 16-9 64%

Nadal
Career - 99-51 66.0%
2012 - 11-2 84.62%

Federer is 69.63% against everyone else but Nadal in the top 10.
Nadal is 66.67% against everyone else but Federer in the top 10.

Given Nadal's record against Federer, it seems he should have a much better record against everyone else.

It is also worth noting that Federer's 25 matches against top 10 players in 2012 is more than any season in his career.

[NatF]

What was Federer's percentage at the same age as Nadal?

[The-Champ]

Originally Posted by McEnroeisanartist

Updated After 2012

Federer
Career - 159-82 65.98%
2012 - 16-9 64%

Nadal
Career - 99-51 66.0%
2012 - 11-2 84.62%

Federer is 69.63% against everyone else but Nadal in the top 10.
Nadal is 66.67% against everyone else but Federer in the top 10.

Given Nadal's record against Federer, it seems he should have a much better record against everyone else.

It is also worth noting that Federer's 25 matches against top 10 players in 2012 is more than any season in his career.

Does this indicate strong or weak era?

[The Bawss]

Originally Posted by The-Champ

Does this indicate strong or weak era?

Weak era. Has this forum not taught you anything?

[veroniquem]

Top 10 is a completely artificial demarcation. It corresponds to nothing tangible and there is no discernable difference between the #10 and the #12. I could understand top 8 because those are the seeds that are supposed to meet in quarters in every tournament. Top 10 has no significance whatsoever in terms of seeding.

[boredone3456]

This is mainly due to Fed being the stronger all surface player across his career than Nadal. It took Nadal a while to adapt himself outside of clay (especially to hard courts) where Fed is overall consistent. Plus Fed is older when Nadal and him are both retired the numbers might be closer who knows.

[sbengte]

There was already a thread on detailed records against top 10 players for Fedal with stats provided by Mustard.
There were some interesting points like Nadal always faced/beat fewer top 10 players than Fed even when he was no.1 (like in 2010).
One reason Nadal faces fewer top 10 players is that he didn't make it deep to non clay tournaments consistently until a couple of years ago(and tends to somehow get easier draws comparatively).

[DropShotArtist]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

Top 10 is a completely artificial demarcation. It corresponds to nothing tangible and there is no discernable difference between the #10 and the #12. I could understand top 8 because those are the seeds that are supposed to meet in quarters in every tournament. Top 10 has no significance whatsoever in terms of seeding.

No different than your artificial demarcation of Tier 1 events being slams, masters, olympics.

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by McEnroeisanartist

Updated After 2012

Federer
Career - 159-82 65.98%
2012 - 16-9 64%

Nadal
Career - 99-51 66.0%
2012 - 11-2 84.62%

It's a ludicrous comparison really considering Nadal sat out the half of the calendar where he typically has his worst results of the year.

Ergo: completely irrelevant stats... no more relevant than counting only Federer's results off clay and also excluding the Aussie Open.

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

And when Nadal ends up with more slams than Federer, and Masters Shields, nobody will care.

[Agassifan]

Fed is going to end up with more Slams (for sure), more WTFs (of course), More weeks at #1 (of course) and possibly more mandatory masters shields.

That's not a slight on Rafa.. he has the potential to finish his career as the #2 GOAT.

[RAFA2005RG]

11-2?

Just when you think Nadal couldn't get any better, he takes it to a whole new level in 2012. 11-2 vs top 10 players is a crazy stat. Maybe Nadal is getting better with age. 2013-2016 could be his best years.

[RAFA2005RG]

Originally Posted by Agassifan

Fed is going to end up with more Slams (for sure)

The problem with your post is....Talk Tennis has ALWAYS been "sure" yet has a history of never being able to predict what happens each year.

At the end of 2007 it was believed that Federer would continue to dominate. Instead, Nadal won Roland Garros, Wimbledon and Olympic Gold in 2008.

At the end of 2008 it was believed that Nadal would continue to dominate.
Instead, Federer won Roland Garros and Wimbledon in 2009.

At the end of 2009 it was believed that Nadal was headed for retirement.
Instead, Nadal won 3 slams in 2010, becoming the only man ever to win slams on clay, grass and hardcourt in a Calendar Year.

At the end of 2010 it was believed that Nadal would continue to rule the world.
Instead, Djokovic won 3 slams in 2011.

At the end of 2011 it was believed that Djokovic would continue to dominate the slams.
Instead, we had 4 different slam winners, and Djokovic's Australian Open win was the closest slam final of the year.

[joeri888]

Originally Posted by RAFA2005RG

The problem with your post is....Talk Tennis has ALWAYS been "sure" yet has a history of never being able to predict what happens each year.

At the end of 2007 it was believed that Federer would continue to dominate. Instead, Nadal won Roland Garros, Wimbledon and Olympic Gold in 2008.

At the end of 2008 it was believed that Nadal would continue to dominate.
Instead, Federer won Roland Garros and Wimbledon in 2009.

At the end of 2009 it was believed that Nadal was headed for retirement.
Instead, Nadal won 3 slams in 2010, becoming the only man ever to win slams on clay, grass and hardcourt in a Calendar Year.

At the end of 2010 it was believed that Nadal would continue to rule the world.
Instead, Djokovic won 3 slams in 2011.

At the end of 2011 it was believed that Djokovic would continue to dominate the slams.
Instead, we had 4 different slam winners, and Djokovic's Australian Open win was the closest slam final of the year.

This is all true. That's why just like the *******s and Rafa haters out there, you should cut the 'Fed is done' 'stick a fork in Roger' BS, as well. We just don't know what will happen next year. Both are extremely talented and both have proved to be able to perform great after disappointments. Wouldn't write off either to win a Slam or more next year, though a really dominant year for Fed is hard to imagine given his age.

[SQA333]

Pfft.. Nadal would've lost way more times if he had actually SHOWED UP.

This is like saying we're all undefeated against the big 4.

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by DropShotArtist

No different than your artificial demarcation of Tier 1 events being slams, masters, olympics.

Nothing artificial about that. Events where the top players participate: masters and slams. And events that give the most points as well. Olympics is just a matter of prestige.

[Netspirit]

I do not think Federer's and Nadal's percentages are comparable. Before 2010 Nadal used to avoid top 10 players in the second half of each year while Federer played through the entire season and reached late stages of tournaments on all surfaces.

Example: in 2012, Nadal only played on slow HC and clay, and therefore had more opportunities for a good record against top 10.

[monfed]

70% of Ralph's resume is clay based, too bad he'll only be viewed as a dirtballer who got lucky in an era of slow surfaces. Throw him in the 90s and he'd be another Muster/Brugera.

Seriously a one trick pony isn't GOAT worthy at all. He hasn't even surpassed Sampras let alone Borg.

[namelessone]

Originally Posted by monfed

70% of Ralph's resume is clay based, too bad he'll only be viewed as a dirtballer who got lucky in an era of slow surfaces. Throw him in the 90s and he'd be another Muster/Brugera.

Seriously a one trick pony isn't GOAT worthy at all. He hasn't even surpassed Sampras let alone Borg.

Throw Sampras in today's slowcourt era and he would do jack s**t.

See how easy that was?

And who said anything about Nadal being GOAT, the OP was comparing their stats about the top 10.

I have to give out an obvious TROLLOLOL to you since you compare Nadal's clay prowess to Muster/Bruguera. So you're saying that, in the 90's, not only would Nadal get murdered on any non-clay court but even on clay he couldn't reach a better status than a Muster(1 RG) or Bruguera(2 RG).

I don't remember who said it first but he/she was right, we are indeed living in a weak trolling era.

[Alexandros]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

Nothing artificial about that. Events where the top players participate: masters and slams. And events that give the most points as well. Olympics is just a matter of prestige.

And there isn't anything artificial about the top 10... players outside of it refer to their desire to get into it, the first page of the ATP website has the top 10 players listed, media (both specifically tennis and general sports) refer to the top 10 players all the time, certainly moreso than "top 8" or any other cut off/criteria for the current best players in the sport.