The definitive explanation of why the Federer Nadal head-to-head is bogus

• Federer and Nadal entered 151 tournaments together.
• Federer won more of these (47 vs. 37) and went further more often (73 vs. 67 with 11 ties).
• The same is true of the 46 majors they entered together - Federer went further more often (25 v. 19), and won more (16 v. 14).
• They have played in 25% of tournaments entered together (37)
• Interestingly, Federer won the title each time he beat Nadal (14/14). Whereas Nadal won the title 17/23 times he beat Federer.

• Nadal does better than Federer in the first half of the season, until RG (went further 50 vs. 29). And Federer does better after RG (went further 44 vs. 17). This should tell you how big a favourite Federer is for the year end ranking in 2017 - it won't even be close.
• The same trend is reflected in their head to head. Nadal leads 20-7 in the first half, and Federer leads 7-3 in the second half.
• The two most common explanations offered for this trend are: increased court speeds in the second half of the year, and fatigue for Nadal after clay court exertions.

• A key question is: why have they played 27 matches in the first half of the year, and only 10 in the second?
• There are two reasons for this:
  • The first is that they entered far fewer draws together in the second half (67 vs. 84)
  • The second is that they played in a greater fraction of the draws they entered in the first half of the year, than in the second (in first half, met in 32% of common tournaments, vs. 15% in the second half).
• Both of these reasons are due to Nadal:
  • First, he enters far fewer events in the second half of the year (only 46% of his career tournament entries are after RG vs. 52% for Federer - not shown on the chart).
  • Second, in the tournaments Nadal and Federer did play in the second half, Nadal only reached 28% of "dates". Federer, on the other hand, reached 64%. Compare this to the first half, where Federer was much closer to Nadal in reaching "dates" (51% vs. 58%)

• We can see the same trend when we split their records by surface.
• On clay Nadal killed Federer 13-2, and they played in 38% of draws entered together.
• On grass and hard courts, Federer leads, and they have only met 20% of the time on each.
• Specifically, on hard courts in the second half of the season, Federer leads 5-2; in such draws, they play each other only 1/3 as often as clay. (13% of draws, vs. 38%).
• Again, Nadal is clearly the culprit, having only reached their "date" 27% of the time. vs. 60% for Federer.

• As a consequence of the 5 year age difference, their peaks have no overlap. Federer's peak of winning 11/16 majors was from 2004-2007. Whereas Nadal's peak years were all between 2008 and 2013.
• During Federer's peak, out of 24 tournaments in the first half of the season, they met 10 times (42%). Nadal won 8. However, out of 24 tournaments late in the season, they only met 4 times (17%). Federer won all 4.
• Again, the smaller number of matches in the second half was due to Nadal. Nadal showed up for "dates" much more often in the first half of the year (54% vs. 21%). Whereas Federer showed up to 75% of "dates" in the first half season, and 79% in the second.
• By comparison, during Nadal's peak years, Federer was much more consistent about reaching the "date" early and late in the season. (40% vs. 45%).

StanTheMan said:

Or who won more tournaments that they both played (Federer 47-37).

Click to expand...

falstaff78 said:

if Nadal had played better against the field later in the year, especially on hard courts, and especially between 2003 and 2007, his head to head with Federer would have been much less dominant.

Click to expand...

falstaff78 said:

This thread analyses each and every tour level tournament that Federer and Nadal entered together. For each draw, I looked at the round in which they were due to have their "date," and who reached the "date".

This allows us to quantify the worst-kept secret in tennis - that Nadal's head to head record vs. Federer has been protected because in many situations favouring Federer, Nadal wasn't good enough to reach him.


Overall

• Federer and Nadal entered 151 tournaments together.
• Federer won more of these (47 vs. 37) and went further more often (73 vs. 67 with 11 ties).
• The same is true of the 46 majors they have entered together. Federer went further more often (25 v. 19), and won more (16 v. 14).
• Interestingly, Federer wins the title each time he beats Nadal (14/14). Whereas Nadal has won the title 17/23 times he has beaten Federer.

Split by first and second half of season

• Nadal does better than Federer in the first half of the season (up till RG). And Federer does much better after RG. (This should tell you how big a favourite Federer is for the year end ranking in 2017 - it won't even be close.)
• The same trend is reflected in their head to head. Nadal leads 20-7 in the first half, and Federer leads 7-3 in the second half. (And 2 of those losses were in 2013 when Fed had a back injury.)
• The two most common explanations offered for this trend are: increased court speeds in the second half of the year, and fatigue for Nadal after clay court exertions.

• So a key question is: why have they played 27 matches in the first half of the year, and only 10 in the second?
• There are two reasons for this:
  • The first is that they entered far fewer draws together in the second half (67 vs. 84)
  • The second is that they played with far greater frequency in the first half of the year, than in the second (met in 32% of common first half tournaments, vs. 15% in the second half).
• Both of these reasons are due to Nadal:
  • First, he enters far fewer events in the second half of the year (only 46% of his career tournament entries are after RG - not shown on the chart - vs. 52% for Federer).
  • Second, when Nadal and Federer did play tournaments together in the second half, Nadal only reached his "date" with Federer 28% of the time. Federer, on the other hand, reached the "date" 64% of the time. Compare this to the first half, where Federer was much closer to Nadal in reaching the "date" (51% vs. 58%)

Split by surface

• We can see the same trend when we split their records by surface.
• On clay Nadal has killed Federer 13-2, and they have played in 38% of draws entered together.
• On grass and hard courts, Federer leads and they have only met 20% of the time on each.
• In fact, if you look at hard courts in the second half

Click to expand...

falstaff78 said:

This thread analyses each and every tour level tournament that Federer and Nadal entered together. For each draw, I looked at the round in which they were due to have their "date," and who reached the "date".

This allows us to quantify the worst-kept secret in tennis - that Nadal's head to head record vs. Federer has been protected because in many situations favouring Federer, Nadal wasn't good enough to reach him.


Overall

• Federer and Nadal entered 151 tournaments together.
• Federer won more of these (47 vs. 37) and went further more often (73 vs. 67 with 11 ties).
• The same is true of the 46 majors they have entered together. Federer went further more often (25 v. 19), and won more (16 v. 14).
• Interestingly, Federer wins the title each time he beats Nadal (14/14). Whereas Nadal has won the title 17/23 times he has beaten Federer.

Split by first and second half of season

• Nadal does better than Federer in the first half of the season (up till RG). And Federer does much better after RG. (This should tell you how big a favourite Federer is for the year end ranking in 2017 - it won't even be close.)
• The same trend is reflected in their head to head. Nadal leads 20-7 in the first half, and Federer leads 7-3 in the second half. (And 2 of those losses were in 2013 when Fed had a back injury.)
• The two most common explanations offered for this trend are: increased court speeds in the second half of the year, and fatigue for Nadal after clay court exertions.

• So a key question is: why have they played 27 matches in the first half of the year, and only 10 in the second?
• There are two reasons for this:
  • The first is that they entered far fewer draws together in the second half (67 vs. 84)
  • The second is that they played with far greater frequency in the first half of the year, than in the second (met in 32% of common first half tournaments, vs. 15% in the second half).
• Both of these reasons are due to Nadal:
  • First, he enters far fewer events in the second half of the year (only 46% of his career tournament entries are after RG - not shown on the chart - vs. 52% for Federer).
  • Second, when Nadal and Federer did play tournaments together in the second half, Nadal only reached his "date" with Federer 28% of the time. Federer, on the other hand, reached the "date" 64% of the time. Compare this to the first half, where Federer was much closer to Nadal in reaching the "date" (51% vs. 58%)

Split by surface

• We can see the same trend when we split their records by surface.
• On clay Nadal has killed Federer 13-2, and they have played in 38% of draws entered together.
• On grass and hard courts, Federer leads and they have only met 20% of the time on each.
• In fact, if you look at hard courts in the second half of the season, where Federer leads 5-2, they have played only 1/3 as often as clay. (13% of draws, vs. 38% of draws). Again, Nadal is clearly the culprit, having only reached his "date" 27% of the time. vs. 60% for Federer.

Split by time

• The first thing to note is that as a consequence of the 5 year age difference, their peaks have no overlap. Federer's peak of winning 11/16 majors was from 2004-2007. Whereas Nadal's peak years were all between 2008 and 2013.
• During Federer's peak years, they met 10 times out of 24 tournaments, early in the season. Nadal led 8-2. However they only met 4 times out of 24 tournaments late in the season. Federer winning all 4.
• Federer was showing up to the "date" consistently throughout the year (75% vs. 79%) but Nadal showed up much more often in the first half of the year (54% vs. 21%)
• By comparison, during Nadal's peak years, Federer was much more consistent about reaching the "date" early and late in the season. (40% vs. 45%).

To conclude, this post has merely quantified what we already know: that the matches Federer and Nadal have played are strongly skewed in favor of conditions that suit Nadal. And the reason head to head is such a silly metric is: if Nadal had played better against the field later in the year, especially on hard courts, and especially between 2003 and 2007, his head to head with Federer would have been much less dominant.

The purpose of professional tennis is to advance as far as possible in tournaments. It is therefore much more relevant to look at who went further in more tournaments that both played (Federer 73-67). Or who won more tournaments that they both played (Federer 47-37). This objectively means Federer has done better than Nadal, head to head.

Enjoy.

Click to expand...

Andrew6866 said:

Pretty awesome analysis. I'm a new participant here, but have read these boards for years. Will be interesting to see what kind of debate this sparks.

Has anyone ever done an analysis to measure how deep a player gets on average in tournaments entered? Or percentage of exits by round of all tournaments entered? Would be interesting to compare the greats against each other. Going with what you have shown here, Nadal has clearly won lots of tournaments and is an all time great - but the comment I have heard so many times is that Nadal (especially lately) either goes out early or he wins it/makes the final. Whereas Federer more constantly makes it into later rounds, but had a higher volume of semifinal loses.

Would be interesting to validate those statements with numbers if it hasn't already been done.

Click to expand...

tenisdecente said:

Good poAst but where is the option in the poll "Fedr needs to forfeit the match"?

1/5 thread just for that

Click to expand...

falstaff78 said:

not everyone can reach the same heights of eloquence as our friend 90s

Click to expand...

Sentinel said:

Funnily, the reply I have consistently got is : -- had Nadal faced Federer in the final he would have won. Forgetting the fact that you don't just walk into the final. You have to win your previous matches to reach there. If you lost to someone early on, then what are you talking about beating the eventual winner who won all his matches ?

Click to expand...

Zetty said:

This topic has kinda been beaten to death already,

Click to expand...

falstaff78 said:

I could run an "average round reached" analysis pretty easily for these 151 tournaments. If you let me know which scenario you'd like to see it for?

Alternatively, the site tennis abstract would help you run numbers very easily. For example, I cranked out the following in about 5 minutes:

Nadal in majors:
R128 47-2 (96%)
R64 42-5 (89%)
R32 37-4 (90%)
R16 31-6 (84%)
QF 25-6 (81%)
SF 22-3 (88%)
F 15-7 (68%)

Federer in majors:
R128 64-6 (91%)
R64 62-1 (98%)
R32 58-5 (92%)
R16 47-8 (85%)
QF 42-8 (84%)
SF 29-13 (69%)
F 19-10 (66%)

Click to expand...

Sport said:

Excuses. To put excuses to Nadal's advantadge over Federer in the h2h is exactly the same as to create the excuse of the "weak era" to deny value to Federer's Grand Slams in the 2004-2007 period.

Click to expand...

TheGhostOfAgassi said:

Whats the use of voting when there is 80% crazy Fed fans in here

Click to expand...

Silence said:

The question is rather what were you trying to accomplish by your "question".

You are rolling down a lost highway in my opinion Ghost

Click to expand...

Silence said:

Thanks for this interesting perspective @falstaff78

The time and energy you put into this is not a small thing, I am impress!

I am now convinced you are the fella writing the Brain Game articles on the ATP site, and you save the good sh|t for TTW

Click to expand...

stringertom said:

Craig O'Shannessy picked Nadal for Wimby'17. He ain't no Falstaff!

Click to expand...

falstaff78 said:

This thread looks at all 151 tour level tournaments that Federer and Nadal entered together. For each draw, I looked at the round in which they were due to have their "date," and who reached the "date".

This allows us to quantify the worst-kept secret in tennis: that Nadal's head to head record vs. Federer has been protected because Nadal wasn't good enough to reach Federer, in many situations which favoured Federer.


Overall

• Federer and Nadal entered 151 tournaments together.
• Federer won more of these (47 vs. 37) and went further more often (73 vs. 67 with 11 ties).
• The same is true of the 46 majors they entered together - Federer went further more often (25 v. 19), and won more (16 v. 14).
• Interestingly, Federer won the title each time he beat Nadal (14/14). Whereas Nadal won the title 17/23 times he beat Federer.

Split by first and second half of season

• Nadal does better than Federer in the first half of the season, until RG (went further 50 vs. 29). And Federer does better after RG (went further 44 vs. 17). This should tell you how big a favourite Federer is for the year end ranking in 2017 - it won't even be close.
• The same trend is reflected in their head to head. Nadal leads 20-7 in the first half, and Federer leads 7-3 in the second half. (And 2 of those losses were in 2013 when Fed had a back injury.)
• The two most common explanations offered for this trend are: increased court speeds in the second half of the year, and fatigue for Nadal after clay court exertions.

• A key question is: why have they played 27 matches in the first half of the year, and only 10 in the second?
• There are two reasons for this:
  • The first is that they entered far fewer draws together in the second half (67 vs. 84)
  • The second is that they played with far greater frequency in the first half of the year, than in the second (in first half, met in 32% of common tournaments, vs. 15% in the second half).
• Both of these reasons are due to Nadal:
  • First, he enters far fewer events in the second half of the year (only 46% of his career tournament entries are after RG vs. 52% for Federer - not shown on the chart).
  • Second, in the tournaments Nadal and Federer did play in the second half, Nadal only reached 28% of "dates" with Federer. Federer, on the other hand, reached 64%. Compare this to the first half, where Federer was much closer to Nadal in reaching "dates" (51% vs. 58%)

Split by surface

• We can see the same trend when we split their records by surface.
• On clay Nadal killed Federer 13-2, and they played in 38% of draws entered together.
• On grass and hard courts, Federer leads, and they have only met 20% of the time on each.
• Specifically, on hard courts in the second half of the season, Federer leads 5-2, and both the losses were due to injury; in such draws, they play each other only 1/3 as often as clay. (13% of draws, vs. 38%). Again, Nadal is clearly the culprit, having only reached his "date" 27% of the time. vs. 60% for Federer.

Split by time

• As a consequence of the 5 year age difference, their peaks have no overlap. Federer's peak of winning 11/16 majors was from 2004-2007. Whereas Nadal's peak years were all between 2008 and 2013.
• During Federer's peak, out of 24 tournaments in the first half of the season, they met 10 times (42%). Nadal won 8. However, out of 24 tournaments late in the season, they only met 4 times (17%). Federer won all 4.
• Again, the smaller number of matches in the second half was due to Nadal. Nadal showed up for "dates" much more often in the first half of the year (54% vs. 21%). Whereas Federer showed up to 75% of "dates" in the first half season, and 79% in the second.
• By comparison, during Nadal's peak years, Federer was much more consistent about reaching the "date" early and late in the season. (40% vs. 45%).

To conclude, this post has merely quantified what we already know: that Federer vs. Nadal matches were strongly skewed towards conditions suiting Nadal. The reason head-to-head is such a silly metric is: if Nadal had played better against the field later in the year, especially on hard courts, and especially between 2003 and 2007, his head to head with Federer would have been much closer to parity.

The purpose of professional tennis is to advance as far as possible in tournaments. It is therefore much more relevant to look at who went further in more tournaments that both played (Federer 73-67). Or who won more tournaments that they both played (Federer 47-37). This objectively means Federer has done better than Nadal, head to head.

Enjoy.

Click to expand...

tenisdecente said:

Good poAst but where is the option in the poll "Fedr needs to forfeit the match"?

1/5 thread just for that

Click to expand...

stringertom said:

Nadal fans and Trumpf supporters really do go hand in hand...fedr winning Wimby is fake news bcoz it didn't come h2h vs their boy.

Click to expand...

falstaff78 said:

If someone had backed it up with numbers, perhaps it wouldn't have been beaten to death?

Click to expand...

every7 said:

I don't think the head to head is bogus but I think this is great analysis. It highlights a big Federer strength over Nadal, and a source of frustration for me as a Nadal fan. The fact is Federer is better against the field when it counts most and over the full course of a season. That to me is a big deal as a tennis fan. We have questions over how Nadal would've have fared on potential matchups like USO 2009 final because he didn't make the date. As a Nadal fan I want to say I believe he would've won, and I think he would have, but unfortunately we have no way of knowing. And it's not Federer's fault...... he was there waiting, but Nadal didn't make it.

I know we Nadal fans talk a lot about the Head to Head, but IF we are going to consider Nadal's record against Federer as an important statistic (particularly in majors), then we should also value Federer's record against EVERYONE else just as highly.



LOLOLOLOLOLOL



For combined Nadal / Sanders supporters, the Sunshine Swing would've been particularly brutal. In Europe, Nadal fans at least had some political victories to offset the pain of those losses against Fed lol.

Click to expand...

abmk said:

@falstaff78 : Good work, but a nitpick, I'd take prime years as 04-09 for federer (not 03-07)

Click to expand...

Silence said:

Thanks for this interesting perspective @falstaff78

The time and energy you put into this is not a small thing, I am impress!

I am now convinced you are the fella writing the Brain Game articles on the ATP site, and you save the good sh|t for TTW

Click to expand...

every7 said:

I don't think the head to head is bogus but I think this is great analysis. It highlights a big Federer strength over Nadal, and a source of frustration for me as a Nadal fan. The fact is Federer is better against the field when it counts most and over the full course of a season. That to me is a big deal as a tennis fan. We have questions over how Nadal would've have fared on potential matchups like USO 2009 final because he didn't make the date. As a Nadal fan I want to say I believe he would've won, and I think he would have, but unfortunately we have no way of knowing. And it's not Federer's fault...... he was there waiting, but Nadal didn't make it.

I know we Nadal fans talk a lot about the Head to Head, but IF we are going to consider Nadal's record against Federer as an important statistic (particularly in majors), then we should also value Federer's record against EVERYONE else just as highly.

Click to expand...

Kalin said:

This pretty much sums it up (I'm a Roger fan). The just-finished Wimbledon was yet another example of a projected match-up where Rafa didn't make it and there was nothing stopping him with Murray injured.

Excellent work OP! Puts in hard numbers what many of us have been talking about for years.

Click to expand...

every7 said:

I don't think the head to head is bogus but I think this is great analysis. It highlights a big Federer strength over Nadal, and a source of frustration for me as a Nadal fan. The fact is Federer is better against the field when it counts most and over the full course of a season. That to me is a big deal as a tennis fan. We have questions over how Nadal would've have fared on potential matchups like USO 2009 final because he didn't make the date. As a Nadal fan I want to say I believe he would've won, and I think he would have, but unfortunately we have no way of knowing. And it's not Federer's fault...... he was there waiting, but Nadal didn't make it.
.

Click to expand...

PeteD said:

Juan demolished Nadal 2 2 2 IIRC. Fed put up a better fight.

Click to expand...

titoelcolombiano said:

100% agreed that Fed went further in more tournaments - the slam count, weeks at #1 and YE #1 stats are the ones that tell this story perfectly.

But the very definition of head-to-head is when two players match up against each other directly.

Having said that, I believe that slam count is the major factor when Fedal and Djokovic are retired that will tell us who came out on top and things like head-to-head come in as a tie breaker when the main factors are tied or very close.

For example, if the final slam count on retirement of all three current contenders is:

Fed: 19
Rafa: 15
Djokovic: 12

then Fed is GOAT.

If the slam count is tied or even close:
Fed 19
Rafa 18
Djokovic 18

then you would have to consider that these guys were each other's main rivals and look at thinks like YE # 1, Weeks at # 1 and then H2H

Click to expand...

falstaff78 said:

I suspect you may missed the point I was trying to make. the head to head tells you nothing. if Nadal had been better vs. the field, his head to head vs. federer would have been close to parity.

they played 17 more matches in the first half of the year than the second, because nadal wasn't good enough to reach federer.

Click to expand...

titoelcolombiano said:

I guess we'll have to disagree. The H2H off clay is pretty even so those matches that didn't happen could have gone either way.

Click to expand...

-NN- said:

That whole RG 2008 gig might have had a quite crushing ripple effect.

Click to expand...

The_18th_Slam said:

GOAT thread. I've made similar arguments in the past about the skew, but this is more comprehensive than I could ever hope to be. I just wish you didn't use "Federer was injured in 2013" as an excuse. Leave the "injured!" excuse for the Nadal fans.

Click to expand...

titoelcolombiano said:

For example, if the final slam count on retirement of all three current contenders is:

Fed: 19
Rafa: 15
Djokovic: 12

then Fed is GOAT.

If the slam count is tied or even close:
Fed 19
Rafa 18
Djokovic 18

then you would have to consider that these guys were each other's main rivals and look at thinks like YE # 1, Weeks at # 1 and then H2H

Click to expand...

indianabones said:

Secondly, one factor which a lot of people (particularly Fed fans) completely ignore, is the fact that Novak held all 4 slams at the same time. That on it's own is worth in my opinion 3 slams or more.

Click to expand...

falstaff78 said:

By far the bigger disparity is number of matches and not winning %. So if they played 27 matches in the second half of the season, it would clearly be much closer to parity. (without getting into how close)

Click to expand...