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

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyEE

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.

Do we? What alternate universe do you have access to?

Originally Posted by WhiskeyEE

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.

Remind me who has blown match points in US Open semi finals in the last 2 years?

[YellowBall77]

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

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.

They absolutely would. the H2H is really damning no matter how you spin it.

[MichaelNadal]

Originally Posted by MTF07

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-, and the mental edge Nadal has now would not exist in those matches, if they had met elsewhere.

You sound a little ****-ish man.

[YouCantBeSerious]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyEE

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.

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.

[Rippy]

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

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).

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.

[YellowBall77]

Originally Posted by Rippy

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.

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.

[Rippy]

Originally Posted by YellowBall77

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.

I see, so if Federer lost early in Roland Garros in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2011, he'd be considered a better player?

[WhiskeyEE]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Do we? What alternate universe do you have access to?

The one that doesn't include clay-**** bias.

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

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.

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.

[YellowBall77]

Originally Posted by Rippy

I see, so if Federer lost early in Roland Garros in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2011, he'd be considered a better player?

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.

[YouCantBeSerious]

Originally Posted by Rippy

I see, so if Federer lost early in Roland Garros in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2011, he'd be considered a better player?

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.

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Do we? What alternate universe do you have access to?

Originally Posted by Mustard

Remind me who has blown match points in US Open semi finals in the last 2 years?

And this has to do anything with the post you quoted, because?

[YouCantBeSerious]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyEE

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.

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.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

That tells me a lot

Originally Posted by Tennis_Hands

And this has to do anything with the post you quoted, because?

"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.

[WhiskeyEE]

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

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.

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.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyEE

Rafa's h2h lead over Roger is all he has. What else has he accomplished? A bunch of meaningless RG and Monte Carlo titles?

Meaningless? Amazing how you think a major and a masters series is meaningless

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by WhiskeyEE

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.

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?

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Meaningless? Amazing how you think a major and a masters series is meaningless

Amazing how you do not get the irony in that post.

[Rippy]

Originally Posted by YouCantBeSerious

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).

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.

[Rippy]

Originally Posted by YellowBall77

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.

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.

[Tennis_Hands]

Originally Posted by Mustard

That tells me a lot .

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.

Originally Posted by Mustard

"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.

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

Oh, wait, he has.