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

Is head to head a bogus metric?

  • I didn't think h2h is bogus - but after this post I do

  • I thought h2h is bogus - this post merely confirms that

  • I didn't think h2h is bogus - and I still don't after this post

  • I thought h2h is bogus - but after this post I think it isn't

Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
TheGhostOfAgassi

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
merlinpinpin said:
Borg was a superb player, no doubt about that. But ultimately, he has absolutely no claim to GOAThood whatsoever, as sustained dominance over a long time was obviously impossible for a guy who quit at 26. He's definitely among the best tier 2 players out there, though, so top 10 all-time, which is huge (not tier one, though--not by a long shot).
Click to expand...
The_18th_Slam said:
Lots of arguments can be made against Borg. Perhaps the biggest would be that he never managed to win the 2nd biggest title of his time. In no way did he master the sport like no one else, considering the US Open was bigger than the French Open during his time.

Federer at Wimbledon > Borg at the French Open
Federer at the US Open > Borg at Wimbledon
Federer at the French Open > Borg at the US Open
Federer at the YECs > Borg at the YECs

Not going to consider the AO in fairness to Borg.

Retiring early doesn't give you phantom trophies or bonus points. And I'm not sure why we would want to change that. If anything, you'd want to change that so Borg might have won more.
Click to expand...


Im speaking of mastery of the sport. To win clay grass slams back to back, and master both of those surfaces which is the surfaces most different to play on.
In Borgs time they didnt count slams like they do now. Ive watched loads of documentaries about this and interviews. The mentality was very different. For me to say someone is the goat its much more than slams that count. For me now, Borg is the best tennis player that ever lived because he did what is most difficult.
 
D

deBroglie

Professional
TheGhostOfAgassi said:
Im speaking of mastery of the sport. To win clay grass slams back to back, and master both of those surfaces which is the surfaces most different to play on.
In Borgs time they didnt count slams like they do now. Ive watched loads of documentaries about this and interviews. The mentality was very different. For me to say someone is the goat its much more than slams that count. For me now, Borg is the best tennis player that ever lived because he did what is most difficult.
Click to expand...

Does it have anything to do with being Scandinavian? :p

I agree though, Borg wasn't running after the Slam record (Emerson's) like Nadal is going after Federer's now. The Channel Slam was a much bigger achievement in Borg's time. Too bad all the clips of him playing on YouTube are, what, 120p?
 
TheGhostOfAgassi

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
deBroglie said:
Does it have anything to do with being Scandinavian? :p

I agree though, Borg wasn't running after the Slam record (Emerson's) like Nadal is going after Federer's now. The Channel Slam was a much bigger achievement in Borg's time. Too bad all the clips of him playing on YouTube are, what, 120p?
Click to expand...
The channel slam was the thing to do back then, agree to that.
What do you mean w 120p? Its many matches on Youtube. His mind was just fab, so young and ice running in his veins. He was incredible fit, he never run out of gas, never. He said he has never really been exhausted in a match, he was so fit, trained more than the others.
 
D

deBroglie

Professional
TheGhostOfAgassi said:
The channel slam was the thing to do back then, agree to that.
What do you mean w 120p? Its many matches on Youtube. His mind was just fab, so young and ice running in his veins. He was incredible fit, he never run out of gas, never. He said he has never really been exhausted in a match, he was so fit, trained more than the others.
Click to expand...

120p refers to the terrible quality. I'm to used to HD matches (can't remember the last time I saw a match or even highlights that wasn't in HD).

I'm surprised at how Borg remained fit; I heard he ate steak and potatoes for every meal (could be confusing him with someone else though).
 
The_18th_Slam

The_18th_Slam

Hall of Fame
TheGhostOfAgassi said:
Im speaking of mastery of the sport. To win clay grass slams back to back, and master both of those surfaces which is the surfaces most different to play on
Click to expand...
Yeah, he did that, but he didn't manage to win Wimbledon and US Open back-to-back, which is perhaps the most common double in men's Tennis. Is it more impressive to do something difficult and fail at something easier than it is do something easy and fail at something more difficult, particularly when the sum total is the same?

Anyway, yeah, sure you can make an argument for Borg, or any player, really. But a lot of players "mastered the sport like no one else", in their own way. Federer just did it in more ways than anyone else, at least in the Open Era.
 
Last edited:
TheGhostOfAgassi

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
deBroglie said:
120p refers to the terrible quality. I'm to used to HD matches (can't remember the last time I saw a match or even highlights that wasn't in HD).

I'm surprised at how Borg remained fit; I heard he ate steak and potatoes for every meal (could be confusing him with someone else though).
Click to expand...
He was running a lot. Doing lots of cardio. He was known for being the fittest player. He totally made his own way to the top with extreme focus from young age. What many doesnt know is that he had really bad court behavior as young, so the Swedish tennis federation banned him for 6 months. After that he was so afraid of getting banned again so he kept all the anger inside. He was famous for his cold behavior on court, never gave anything away.
 
TheGhostOfAgassi

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
The_18th_Slam said:
Yeah, he did that, but he didn't manage to win Wimbledon and US Open back-to-back, which is perhaps the most common double in men's Tennis. Is it more impressive to do something difficult and fail at something easier than it is do something easy and fail at something more difficult, particularly when the sum total is the same?

Anyway, yeah, sure you can make an argument for Borg, or any player, really. But a lot of players "mastered the sport like no one else", in their own way. Federer just did in more ways than anyone else, at least in the Open Era.
Click to expand...
Nope, at that time Channel slam was the thing to do. And me too find that more impressive than Wimbledon USO back to back.
Of course others can have different opinions.
 
The_18th_Slam

The_18th_Slam

Hall of Fame
TheGhostOfAgassi said:
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Not sure what you're rolling your eyes at. If the Channel Slam was the thing to do, Borg wouldn't have made himself ineligible to play the 1977 French Open because he opted to play World Team Tennis. If the Channel Slam was the thing to do, Connors wouldn't have missed the French Open in some of his very best years from 1974-1978. If the Channel Slam was the thing to do, Lendl wouldn't have skipped the 1990 French Open because he wanted to devote more time to improve his grasscourt game in order to win Wimbledon.

If there was a primary thing to do during Borg's time, it was to make money. If there was a secondary thing to do during Borg's time, it was to win Wimbledon. The Channel Slam is mostly a marketing and media hype job.
 
TheGhostOfAgassi

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
The_18th_Slam said:
Not sure what you're rolling your eyes at. If the Channel Slam was the thing to do, Borg wouldn't have made himself ineligible to play the 1977 French Open because he opted to play World Team Tennis. If the Channel Slam was the thing to do, Connors wouldn't have missed the French Open in some of his very best years from 1974-1978. If the Channel Slam was the thing to do, Lendl wouldn't have skipped the 1990 French Open because he wanted to devote more time to improve his grasscourt game in order to win Wimbledon.

If there was a primary thing to do during Borg's time, it was to make money. If there was a secondary thing to do during Borg's time, it was to win Wimbledon. The Channel Slam is mostly a marketing and media hype job.
Click to expand...
Im not old enough for knowing exactly how it was during Borgs time. But I have watched lots of documentaries and matches. I also have a family member that was pro in the same time (he is south European, I am half scandi half south Euro so this is not coming from a Scandi Borg hype) and from what I have learned from him and these old friends from there the Channel slam and winning on those two surfaces was the thing. Maybe this was an European think idk. London and Paris quite close. I also think its the most impressive thing to do. Also racking up lots of slams wasnt the goal, it was a lot to do w rivaly.
 
7

73west

Semi-Pro
TheGhostOfAgassi said:
The channel slam was the thing to do back then, agree to that.
Click to expand...

These kinds of arguments are always a red flag, when fans of a particular player put aside the common metrics and start quoting some other, targeted metric where their favorite is the tops. I could go back to when some Agassi fans tried to say a Career Grand Slam trumped Sampras's major titles & #1 rankings. Or it's Borg's "Channel Slam". Or Nadal or Djokovic fans who will start touting "Double Career Grand Slam" if they achieve that.

When fans start putting aside the common metrics and reaching for arcane or less quoted ones, it usually means they are doing so because they are looking for support for a conclusion they've already reached.
 
falstaff78

falstaff78

Hall of Fame
**the original thread was deleted for a while, before the mods kindly brought it back to life. In the interim I created a replacement thread. When the original was revived I requested the mods to merge the two threads, which they kindly did. Hence this post which is almost identical to the OP**

~~~~~~~~~

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 vs the field 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).
  • 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.

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 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%)
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 their "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, and that this is due to Nadal's shortcomings vs the field.

The reason this head-to-head is such a misleading stat 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.


qLmC43R.png



tagging from memory and from cache of page 1. please tag others who were involved in the discussion whom I may have left out.
@FedFosterWallace @StanTheMan @BeatlesFan @Andrew6866 @Silence @stringertom @Meles @Gary Duane @Sysyphus @PeteD @abmk @Kalin @-NN- @Red Rick @VaporDude95 @Vrad @mightyjeditribble @Chanwan @tenisdecente @helterskelter @Tennis wizard @Sentinel @73west

request to not have any political jokes (@Rago), or personal comments about other posters (@Mr Feeny) like last time. which would create an excuse to delete this thread. cheers.
 
Last edited:
Krish872007

Krish872007

Talk Tennis Guru
Ok, I'll weigh in on this. Thanks for the stats as always @falstaff78, this is a discussion that has been present in many threads over the years. My thoughts on these topics are generally subjective and more qualitative in nature, which I think is also nice to have to complement analysis (something Meles could learn to do a bit more :p - just joking!)

In terms of playing to win titles, I think the middle section is particularly interesting - I view it as a form of "H2H / Title conversion rate" and it's something that is primarily linked to players' confidence levels and the way they match up against each other. So every time Federer has defeated Nadal he has gone on to win the tournament (though of course 9 of these 14 wins were in Finals). Nadal has gone on to win the tournament on 17 of the 23 total occasions, of which 14 wins were in finals. This might give extra credence to those who believe in match-up issues.
From Nadal's side, I do find his Slam record particularly impressive regardless of the periods in which they played.

And in any H2H it is going to be extremely difficult to find something that is very evenly distributed across surfaces, time of year, etc. I would suspect that the closest we get to that (in terms of big rivalries) is Roger Federer vs. Novak Djokovic. That has really been a rivalry of two "phases" and is quite evenly balanced overall. In fact, if Federer were to beat Djokovic on grass at some point, they would be exactly tied on all surfaces: 2-2 on grass, 4-4 on clay, 17-17 on hard. Though hard courts would still be proportionately over-represented relative to clay considering the length of the clay season.

Nevertheless, I think it is a meaningful stat. It's certainly not the be-all and end-all but it's not the complete nonsense that some people seem to think it is either. In fact, H2H is something that is partially inherently reflected in elite players' achievements. In a way, the current Slam, Masters and other title tallies account for these wins and losses considering the zero-sum nature of the sport. The element that is not covered is the hypothetical.
 
Meles

Meles

Bionic Poster
Krish872007 said:
Ok, I'll weigh in on this. Thanks for the stats as always @falstaff78, this is a discussion that has been present in many threads over the years. My thoughts on these topics are generally subjective and more qualitative in nature, which I think is also nice to have to complement analysis (something Meles could learn to do a bit more :p - just joking!)

In terms of playing to win titles, I think the middle section is particularly interesting - I view it as a form of "H2H / Title conversion rate" and it's something that is primarily linked to players' confidence levels and the way they match up against each other. So every time Federer has defeated Nadal he has gone on to win the tournament (though of course 9 of these 14 wins were in Finals). Nadal has gone on to win the tournament on 17 of the 23 total occasions, of which 14 wins were in finals. This might give extra credence to those who believe in match-up issues.
From Nadal's side, I do find his Slam record particularly impressive regardless of the periods in which they played.

And in any H2H it is going to be extremely difficult to find something that is very evenly distributed across surfaces, time of year, etc. I would suspect that the closest we get to that (in terms of big rivalries) is Roger Federer vs. Novak Djokovic. That has really been a rivalry of two "phases" and is quite evenly balanced overall. In fact, if Federer were to beat Djokovic on grass at some point, they would be exactly tied on all surfaces: 2-2 on grass, 4-4 on clay, 17-17 on hard. Though hard courts would still be proportionately over-represented relative to clay considering the length of the clay season.

Nevertheless, I think it is a meaningful stat. It's certainly not the be-all and end-all but it's not the complete nonsense that some people seem to think it is either. In fact, H2H is something that is partially inherently reflected in elite players' achievements. In a way, the current Slam, Masters and other title tallies account for these wins and losses considering the zero-sum nature of the sport. The element that is not covered is the hypothetical.
Click to expand...
Sometimes the head to head and results are because one player outclasses the other. Fedal and Fedovic are interesting because arguably the lesser player, Nadal has a matchup advantage with the greater player (Federer). It is certainly meaningful (H2H) because with great players this decides slams. Federer to my mind has a matchup advantage with Djokovic and has kept the head to head pretty even despite a big age gap. RG2011 just killed Nole who probably would have won event with that match.:D
 
H

helterskelter

G.O.A.T.
@falstaff78

Good job of quantifying this. As you said, it's putting formally what we (well, most of us!) already know, and you're quite right that tennis is about advancing as far as possible in every tournament, not about winning against one particular opponent.

I do think that Nadal has a slight matchup advantage against Federer - meaning that it is to be expected that Nadal would do better in the rivalry than general results would indicate, not that Nadal would "win" the rivalry - as, really, Federer should probably never have lost to Nadal on grass, and he should always have had a winning head-to-head record against him on hard courts, and a better one than he did on outdoor hard.

Clearly, Nadal is indeed much better than Federer on clay, and there wasn't much Federer could have done differently - other than, as you said, losing early. But nobody denies that.
 
H

helterskelter

G.O.A.T.
@falstaff78

I hadn't noticed carefully the fact that Nadal won the title on 17 of 23 occasions he beat Federer. Given that 14 were, as @Krish872007 points out, finals, does that really mean that Nadal only won the title on three of the nine occasions that he beat Federer before a final?

Krish872007 said:
Ok, I'll weigh in on this. Thanks for the stats as always @falstaff78, this is a discussion that has been present in many threads over the years. My thoughts on these topics are generally subjective and more qualitative in nature, which I think is also nice to have to complement analysis (something Meles could learn to do a bit more :p - just joking!)

In terms of playing to win titles, I think the middle section is particularly interesting - I view it as a form of "H2H / Title conversion rate" and it's something that is primarily linked to players' confidence levels and the way they match up against each other. So every time Federer has defeated Nadal he has gone on to win the tournament (though of course 9 of these 14 wins were in Finals). Nadal has gone on to win the tournament on 17 of the 23 total occasions, of which 14 wins were in finals. This might give extra credence to those who believe in match-up issues.
From Nadal's side, I do find his Slam record particularly impressive regardless of the periods in which they played.

And in any H2H it is going to be extremely difficult to find something that is very evenly distributed across surfaces, time of year, etc. I would suspect that the closest we get to that (in terms of big rivalries) is Roger Federer vs. Novak Djokovic. That has really been a rivalry of two "phases" and is quite evenly balanced overall. In fact, if Federer were to beat Djokovic on grass at some point, they would be exactly tied on all surfaces: 2-2 on grass, 4-4 on clay, 17-17 on hard. Though hard courts would still be proportionately over-represented relative to clay considering the length of the clay season.

Nevertheless, I think it is a meaningful stat. It's certainly not the be-all and end-all but it's not the complete nonsense that some people seem to think it is either. In fact, H2H is something that is partially inherently reflected in elite players' achievements. In a way, the current Slam, Masters and other title tallies account for these wins and losses considering the zero-sum nature of the sport. The element that is not covered is the hypothetical.
Click to expand...
 
Krish872007

Krish872007

Talk Tennis Guru
helterskelter said:
@falstaff78

I hadn't noticed carefully the fact that Nadal won the title on 17 of 23 occasions he beat Federer. Given that 14 were, as @Krish872007 points out, finals, does that really mean that Nadal only won the title on three of the nine occasions that he beat Federer before a final?
Click to expand...

It looks like it. These were the 6 losses:

Miami 2004 - lost to Gonzalez in the Round of 16 right after beating Federer
Miami 2011 - lost to Djokovic in the Final, beat Federer in the SF
Madrid 2011 - lost to Djokovic in the Final, beat Federer in the SF
AO 2012 - lost to Djokovic in the Final, beat Federer in the SF
WTF 2013 - lost to Djokovic in the Final, beat Federer in the SF
AO 2014 - lost to Wawrinka in the Final, beat Federer in the SF
 
TheGhostOfAgassi

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
Krish872007 said:
It looks like it. These were the 6 losses:

Miami 2004 - lost to Gonzalez in the Round of 16 right after beating Federer
Miami 2011 - lost to Djokovic in the Final, beat Federer in the SF
Madrid 2011 - lost to Djokovic in the Final, beat Federer in the SF
AO 2012 - lost to Djokovic in the Final, beat Federer in the SF
WTF 2013 - lost to Djokovic in the Final, beat Federer in the SF
AO 2014 - lost to Wawrinka in the Final, beat Federer in the SF
Click to expand...

Similar stats Novak vs Rafa and Fed could be interesting too.
 
Krish872007

Krish872007

Talk Tennis Guru
TheGhostOfAgassi said:
Similar stats Novak vs Rafa and Fed could be interesting too.
Click to expand...

I will look into it

Rafa vs Novak - I think 19 of Nadal's 24 wins against Djokovic resulted in him winning the title. Out of the 5 losses after beating Djokovic, 1 was in a Davis Cup match (so I isolated it), and the remaining 4 were all to Federer (Wimbledon 2007 Final, YEC 2007 SF, Madrid 2009 Final, WTF 2010 Final)

For Djokovic: of his 26 wins, 22 resulted in title wins. Only losses were in Cincinnati 2008 (to Murray), Cincinnati 2009 (to Federer), WTF 2009 (to Soderling), and 2015 RG (to Wawrinka)

Federer-Djokovic is more interesting.

For Roger - only 13 of his 22 wins against Djokovic were part of title runs. 1 was a Davis Cup match (isolated).
For the remaining 8: lost to Nadal (2006 Monte Carlo, 2008 Monte Carlo, 2011 French Open), lost to Murray (Shanghai & Canada 2010), lost to Wawrinka (2014 Monte Carlo), lost to Djokovic himself (2015 WTF Final) and 1 to Del Potro (2009 US Open Final).

Djokovic - won the tournament on 18 of the 23 occasions. Only losses were to Nadal (2012 RG, 2012 Rome, 2009 Rome, 2010 US Open) and Murray (2009 Miami).
 
Last edited:
TheGhostOfAgassi

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
Krish872007 said:
I will look into it

Rafa vs Novak - I think 19 of Nadal's 24 wins against Djokovic resulted in him winning the title. Out of the 5 losses after beating Djokovic, 1 was in a Davis Cup match (so I isolated it), and the remaining 4 were all to Federer (Wimbledon 2007 Final, YEC 2007 SF, Madrid 2009 Final, WTF 2010 Final)

For Djokovic: of his 26 wins, 22 resulted in title wins. Only losses were in Cincinnati 2008 (to Murray), Cincinnati 2009 (to Federer), WTF 2009 (to Soderling), and 2015 RG (to Wawrinka)
Click to expand...
Thank you. How about Novak Federer?
 
Antonio Puente

Antonio Puente

Hall of Fame
Much time and effort has gone into disproving something I've been told repeatedly for a decade doesn't matter - H2H.

Here's the reality: Fed fans have to live with the fact Nadal dominated him for a decade while Nadal fans must live with the fact Fed has the most slams. It is what it is. Deal with it.
 
Krish872007

Krish872007

Talk Tennis Guru
Antonio Puente said:
Fed didn't beat Nadal in a slam for a decade. Not sure if that has been mentioned before or not.
Click to expand...

Yep, The Guardian (not a fan at all, but still) referenced it during the AO Final: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/l...rer-v-rafael-nadal-australian-open-final-live

"Federer watches the screen. Then his face breaks out into the biggest smile you’ll ever see! He’s roaring at his disbelieving box! He’s jumping up and down on the spot! He’s embracing a distraught Rafa Nadal at the net! He’s done it! It was in! Roger Federer has won his 18th grand slam title at the age of 35!
Almost ten years since Roger Federer last beat Rafa Nadal in a grand slam, he’s beaten him in five sets at the age of 35. He spent six months out with a knee injury last year. Can there be any doubt?
Federer was a break down in the fifth set. A break down against Rafael Nadal. A break down against a player who’d beaten him 23 times in 34 matches. He was having treatment on his right quad. Are you kidding me?"
 
TheGhostOfAgassi

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
Krish872007 said:
I will look into it

Rafa vs Novak - I think 19 of Nadal's 24 wins against Djokovic resulted in him winning the title. Out of the 5 losses after beating Djokovic, 1 was in a Davis Cup match (so I isolated it), and the remaining 4 were all to Federer (Wimbledon 2007 Final, YEC 2007 SF, Madrid 2009 Final, WTF 2010 Final)

For Djokovic: of his 26 wins, 22 resulted in title wins. Only losses were in Cincinnati 2008 (to Murray), Cincinnati 2009 (to Federer), WTF 2009 (to Soderling), and 2015 RG (to Wawrinka)

Federer-Djokovic is more interesting.

For Roger - only 13 of his 22 wins against Djokovic were part of title runs. 1 was a Davis Cup match (isolated).
For the remaining 8: lost to Nadal (2006 Monte Carlo, 2008 Monte Carlo, 2011 French Open), lost to Murray (Shanghai & Canada 2010), lost to Wawrinka (2014 Monte Carlo), lost to Djokovic himself (2015 WTF Final) and 1 to Del Potro (2009 US Open Final).

Djokovic - won the tournament on 18 of the 23 occasions. Only losses were to Nadal (2012 RG, 2012 Rome, 2009 Rome, 2010 US Open) and Murray (2009 Miami).
Click to expand...

Thats was what I thought ;) That Federers win/loss vs Novak would look different that the other scenarios.

Thank you for the update.
 
Krish872007

Krish872007

Talk Tennis Guru
Fed - Murray:

Federer 14 wins, 9 title conversions. Murray 11 wins, 5 title conversions

Nadal - Murray:

Nadal 17 wins, 10 title conversions. Murray 7 wins, 3 title conversions.

Djokovic - Murray:

Djokovic 25 wins, 20 title conversions. Murray 11 wins, 9 title conversions.
 
TheGhostOfAgassi

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
Krish872007 said:
Fed - Murray:

Federer 14 wins, 9 title conversions. Murray 11 wins, 5 title conversions

Nadal - Murray:

Nadal 17 wins, 10 title conversions. Murray 7 wins, 3 title conversions.

Djokovic - Murray:

Djokovic 25 wins, 20 title conversions. Murray 11 wins, 9 title conversions.
Click to expand...

Funny that Nadals wins over Murray and title conversions are similar in % to Feds wins over Novak. So It would be interesting to see which matches involved.

To win over Novak before or after 2011 doesnt really seem to matter of the title conversion.
(In some ways to me peak Novak is the toughest player you can ever handle, but what do I know)
 
Krish872007

Krish872007

Talk Tennis Guru
TheGhostOfAgassi said:
Funny that Nadals wins over Murray and title conversions are similar in % to Feds wins over Novak. So It would be interesting to see which matches involved.

To win over Novak before or after 2011 doesnt really seem to matter of the title conversion.
(In some ways to me peak Novak is the toughest player you can ever handle, but what do I know)
Click to expand...

Nadal over Murray?

The ones where he failed to win the tournament are as follows (chronologically):

2007 AO - lost to Gonzalez
2007 Madrid - lost to Nalbandian
2010 WTF - lost to Federer
2011 Wimbledon - lost to Djokovic
2011 US Open - lost to Djokovic
2014 Rome - lost to Djokovic
2015 WTF - lost to Djokovic

Most of these results aren't particularly conclusive and we could actually argue these points in any way we wanted to. Perhaps the only conclusive one would be Federer over Nadal (gaining confidence, being even harder to stop after that). As for beating Novak, again no obvious reason why - maybe it takes effort out of the person and they flop in the next match.
 
falstaff78

falstaff78

Hall of Fame
moonballs said:
I guess the first thread turned into flame wars. Let's keep this one civil so that OPs work don't get lost.

If people don't like facts and post snide one liner remarks, let's just ignore them. Facts in the op speak for themselves.
Click to expand...

StanTheMan said:
Why the hell did the other thread get deleted?
Click to expand...

It's not at all clear why the other one was deleted. There were no flame wars. I saw it a few minutes before it was deleted.
 
falstaff78

falstaff78

Hall of Fame
Antonio Puente said:
Much time and effort has gone into disproving something I've been told repeatedly for a decade doesn't matter - H2H.

Here's the reality: Fed fans have to live with the fact Nadal dominated him for a decade while Nadal fans must live with the fact Fed has the most slams. It is what it is. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the post. I have one disagreement:

No one has to live with anything. If we don't question stereotypes they become dogma.

So how do you respond to the points in the OP?
 
Antonio Puente

Antonio Puente

Hall of Fame
falstaff78 said:
So how do you respond to the points in the OP?
Click to expand...

Outside of the glaring insecurity?

Fed has a 4 slam margin over Nadal. Were you secure in your beliefs, you would never create a thread like this. Never. With a 4 slam margin, you shouldn't have to.

Why would you create a thread like this? It's because even after Fed has just won #19, you"re still not sure about it. You don't feel secure. The OP created this thread three days after Fed has won #19? Three days?

Honestly, were I a Fed fan, I would just shut up and stop talking about the H2H, but posters like the OP have given us an opening, so here we are. Thanks for the opening. Much appreciated.
 
falstaff78

falstaff78

Hall of Fame
falstaff78 said:
So how do you respond to the points in the OP?
Click to expand...

Antonio Puente said:
Outside of the glaring insecurity?

Fed has a 4 slam margin over Nadal. Were you secure in your beliefs, you would never create a thread like this. Never. With a 4 slam margin, you shouldn't have to.

Why would you create a thread like this? It's because even after Fed has just won #19, you"re still not sure about it. You don't feel secure. The OP created this thread three days after Fed has won #19? Three days?

Honestly, were I a Fed fan, I would just shut up and stop talking about the H2H, but posters like the OP have given us an opening, so here we are. Thanks for the opening. Much appreciated.
Click to expand...

There are three ways to respond when someone punctures lazy stereotypes with facts and logic.

1. Invocation of dogma (think teaching creationism in US schools)
2. Hysteria (think Catholic church in the Middle Ages and Renaissance)
3. Denial (think current US government re: climate change)

Your response falls somewhere between (2) and (3).

Try again. How do you respond to the points in the OP?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

initialize
Why the Nadal/Federer H2H is bogus
3 4 5
Replies
212
Views
5K
titoelcolombiano
titoelcolombiano
R
Aus Open Draw Out
Replies
6
Views
850
vive le beau jeu !
vive le beau jeu !
falstaff78
tournament head-to-heads, calculated
Replies
0
Views
464
falstaff78
falstaff78
M
Credit to Djokovic for having by far the most balanced resume of Big Titles Among the Big 3
Replies
30
Views
611
Sorry_to_tell_you_mate
Sorry_to_tell_you_mate
kraggy
So far, 2009 is failing to be the epic year I hoped for!
Replies
29
Views
2K
darkestlights
D
Top