If Roger had lost earlier in clay tournaments his h2h against Nadal would be better

JennyS · Jun 7, 2009

Some people say that Roger can't be considered the best player of all time, because he is 7-13 against Nadal and 2-6 against him in Grand Slams.

So, here's an interesting thought: let's go back in time and pretend that Roger lost one round earlier in the 2005, 2007 and 2008 French Opens and only got to the 2006 Final. So instead of 1 SF and 3 Finals losses to Nadal, he would have one finals loss to Nadal and two sf and one qf loss to other players. This would still be an EXCELLENT record and superior to Pete's result. But it would also remove THREE losses to Nadal (two of them finals)

And again, let's pretend that instead of losing to Nadal in 5 claycourt Masters series events, that he got to only 3 of those finals and lost in the semis of the other two. Again, that removes three more losses to Nadal.

Now if all of the other results remained the same, this would be the new head to head:

overall: 7-7
Grand Slams: Nadal 3-2

So if Roger had lost earlier at these events, a lot of people might think he was a BETTER player! Weird.

Chelsea_Kiwi · Jun 7, 2009

Thanks but this has been covered millions of times.

prosealster · Jun 7, 2009

yeah....as above....i agree with ur views...but u just cant convince people who want to see it the way they want to see it!!

bruce38 · Jun 7, 2009

Excellent points. The irony is rampant.

BigServer1 · Jun 7, 2009

The fact that Federer was second best on clay from 2006-2008 indeed hurt him in the h2h.

Still, the recent losses at Wimby 08 and (much, much worse, imo) AO 09, Federer missed golden opportunities to make that h2h better. For example, it would be 12-8 and 4-3 in GS finals in favor of Nadal had Fed won the AO, which looks a lot better than 13-7 and 5-2.

Something tells me that Federer has a shot to win 2-3 matches in a row against Nadal as we get to the grass/HC/indoor season. If he does that and gets it to 13-10, it will look a lot better. A Slam win in there wouldn't hurt matters either.

One thing that's interesting to me, is that if you look at the record after the FO 2006, it's 7-6 in favor of Nadal, 3-2 Nadal in GS matches. Much closer overall since Nadal started with a 6-1 cushion over Fed.

Andres · Jun 7, 2009

JennyS said:
So if Roger had lost earlier at these events, a lot of people might think he was a BETTER player! Weird.

Flawed logic.
If he had lost earlier at those events, he would be considered a MUCH WORSE player, specially since he wouldn't had reached those clay Slam finals and MS finals.

Ronny · Jun 7, 2009

thats a very good point actually..hmmm

Chelsea_Kiwi · Jun 7, 2009

Andres Guazzelli said:
Flawed logic.
If he had lost earlier at those events, he would be considered a MUCH WORSE player, specially since he wouldn't had reached those clay Slam finals and MS finals.

No his H2H versus Nadal outways this. Don't tell other people there logic is flawed when yours clearly is.

bruce38 · Jun 7, 2009

Andres Guazzelli said:
Flawed logic.
If he had lost earlier at those events, he would be considered a MUCH WORSE player, specially since he wouldn't had reached those clay Slam finals and MS finals.

Not really, his GS count would be the same, which is the most important thing considered. And his H2H would be better.

ghostbear · Jun 7, 2009

Pointless thread. If Nadal had lost earlier in Wimby in 06 and 07, he'd have a 6-0 slam record against Fed. See what I did there?

Andres · Jun 7, 2009

Chelsea_Kiwi said:
No his H2H versus Nadal outways this. Don't tell other people there logic is flawed when yours clearly is.

Then explain me how a guy with:

* Three French Open runner-ups less
* One French Open Semifinal less
* Three Montecarlo runner-ups less
* One Rome runner-ups less
* One Hamburg runner-ups less

is a better player, only because his H2H against Nadal is 5-5 or something.

Yeah, my logic is SOOOO flawed

bruce38 · Jun 7, 2009

ghostbear said:
Pointless thread. If Nadal had lost earlier in Wimby in 06 and 07, he'd have a 6-0 slam record against Fed. See what I did there?

Exactly. So remove all of their H2H's and who is the better player?

ghostbear · Jun 7, 2009

bruce38 said:
Exactly. So remove all of their H2H's and who is the better player?

Non sequitur.

Chelsea_Kiwi · Jun 7, 2009

Andres Guazzelli said:
Then explain me how a guy with:

* Three French Open runner-ups less
* One French Open Semifinal less
* Three Montecarlo runner-ups less
* One Rome runner-ups less
* One Hamburg runner-ups less

is a better player, only because his H2H against Nadal is 5-5 or something.

Yeah, my logic is SOOOO flawed

So you think that the GOAT should be good at coming second and have a poor H2H with his major rival?

Andres · Jun 7, 2009

Chelsea_Kiwi said:
So you think that the GOAT should be good at coming second and have a poor H2H with his major rival?

I prefer coming second than coming 16th.
How can a guy can be labeled greatest of all time if he loses early 33% of the season?

bruce38 · Jun 7, 2009

ghostbear said:
Non sequitur.

The point being, no one will look at H2H when evaluating things like GOAT (except for some TW geeks analyzing every score).

bruce38 · Jun 7, 2009

Andres Guazzelli said:
Then explain me how a guy with:

* Three French Open runner-ups less
* One French Open Semifinal less
* Three Montecarlo runner-ups less
* One Rome runner-ups less
* One Hamburg runner-ups less

is a better player, only because his H2H against Nadal is 5-5 or something.

Yeah, my logic is SOOOO flawed

The point is no one looks at those stats, except when someone does it in a mind-boggling 20 consecutive times (semis) like Fed has. No one knows these stats off the top of their heads for Pete or other greats. Total GS comes first, followed by H2H somewhere down the list. So an improved H2H will make him a "better" player at least cosmetically.

Chelsea_Kiwi · Jun 7, 2009

Andres Guazzelli said:
I prefer coming second than coming 16th.
How can a guy can be labeled greatest of all time if he loses early 33% of the season?

Tbh I agree with you but alot of people think you need a good H2H with your main rival(s). I think the consistency in finals and semis makes up for this but they don't... I was just trying to be objective.

ghostbear · Jun 7, 2009

bruce38 said:
The point being, no one will look at H2H when evaluating things like GOAT (except for some TW geeks analyzing every score).

Not really. I remember after this year's AO, ESPN commentators saying something along the line of 'how can you consider Fed to be the GOAT when he gets beaten consistently by the same guy?' They went on to say Fed may not be the GOAT of this era. So H2H does come into play for some experts and former tennis champs.

It's not like Nadal accumulate this lopsided H2H against Fed playing some exhibition matches. Fed said slams are a different animal than non-slams. Look at their slam H2H record. You can't just throw it out the window. It is what it is.

Andres · Jun 7, 2009

bruce38 said:
The point is no one looks at those stats, except when someone does it in a mind-boggling 20 consecutive times (semis) like Fed has. No one knows these stats off the top of their heads for Pete or other greats. Total GS comes first, followed by H2H somewhere down the list. So an improved H2H will make him a "better" player at least cosmetically.

Total GS comes first, total MS comes second, total Masters Cups comes third. No one cares about H2H.

bruce38 · Jun 7, 2009

ghostbear said:
Not really. I remember after this year's AO, ESPN commentators saying something along the line of 'how can you consider Fed to be the GOAT when he gets beaten consistently by the same guy?' They went on to say Fed may not be the GOAT of this era. So H2H does come into play for some experts and former tennis champs.

It's not like Nadal accumulate this lopsided H2H against Fed playing some exhibition matches. Fed said slams are a different animal than non-slams. Look at their slam H2H record. You can't just throw it out the window. It is what it is.

Yes they comment on it now because it is happening NOW. In 10-20 years time no one will give a rat's ass about H2H. But the GS record will always be quoted. H2H slam record would be a lot closer if Nadal managed to reach more slam finals during Fed's domination era.

bruce38 · Jun 7, 2009

Andres Guazzelli said:
Total GS comes first, total MS comes second, total Masters Cups comes third. No one cares about H2H.

I agree. And total GS of 20 (player 1) to 15 (player 2) edge will count much more even if there is a 100 (player 2) to 1 (player 1) edge in MS.

ghostbear · Jun 7, 2009

bruce38 said:
Yes they comment on it now because it is happening NOW. In 10-20 years time no one will give a rat's ass about H2H. But the GS record will always be quoted. H2H slam record would be a lot closer if Nadal managed to reach more slam finals during Fed's domination era.

Don't be so sure. When they talk about who Fed's main rival was, the first thing they'll see is the H2H record. And it'll be a serious dent on Fed's resume.

And as for your last hypothesis, who really knows? Nadal is not a good match-up for Fed as their first encounter, which was in 2004 when Fed was in his prime, indicated. After all, Fed didn't lose a set in Wimby last year until he faced Nadal, didn't he? You can't positively say, their H2H would be closer if so and so. It's all speculation.

neveron · Jun 7, 2009

my opinion on fed nadal h2h

if nadal made it up to most of the finals in the other surfaces esp. hardcourts where he couldve faced federer the past years. their h2h will be so much different . federer has always performed well on any surface. but only meets nadal on slower surfaces, where nadal has the edge.

bruce38 · Jun 7, 2009

ghostbear said:
Don't be so sure. When they talk about who Fed's main rival was, the first thing they'll see is the H2H record. And it'll be a serious dent on Fed's resume.

And as for your last hypothesis, who really knows? Nadal is not a good match-up for Fed as their first encounter, which was in 2004 when Fed was in his prime, indicated. After all, Fed didn't lose a set in Wimby last year until he faced Nadal, didn't he? You can't positively say, their H2H would be closer if so and so. It's all speculation.

If Nadal isn't a good matchup for Fed, how did Fed win 2 Wimb's from him? What about the 3 Wimb's prior to that which Nadal did not make the final of?
Only majors encounters count. No one can positively say anything obviously. Why point out the obvious? But the likelihood is that Fed would have pulled out earlier encounters based on the trends at the time. As for H2H in 20 years time, what was Laver's H2H against his contemporaries? What about Mac vs Connors? Yes you can look them up but no one really remembers them. What was Edberg's H2H against Becker? See the point? All you remember is the GS count. It is fresh now so you think H2H's will be remembered but they won't.

Nadal_Freak · Jun 7, 2009

If Roger was the next Blake or Berdych, people would think he owned Nadal but also call him a mindless ballbasher. His style is so much different from that and thus why he has seen more consistent results but not matchup quite as good against Nadal.

checkmilu · Jun 8, 2009

uhm the OP has a good point. May be, we need to calculate the total ATP points accumulated by a player throughout his career to determine who is the GOAT?

ghostbear · Jun 8, 2009

bruce38 said:
If Nadal isn't a good matchup for Fed, how did Fed win 2 Wimb's from him? What about the 3 Wimb's prior to that which Nadal did not make the final of?
Only majors encounters count. No one can positively say anything obviously. Why point out the obvious? But the likelihood is that Fed would have pulled out earlier encounters based on the trends at the time. As for H2H in 20 years time, what was Laver's H2H against his contemporaries? What about Mac vs Connors? Yes you can look them up but no one really remembers them. What was Edberg's H2H against Becker? See the point? All you remember is the GS count. It is fresh now so you think H2H's will be remembered but they won't.

So are you denying Nadal is not a good match-up for Fed? I think even Fed would acknowledge this secretly even if he won't say it publicly given the way he went on and on about how he wished he were a lefty. And yes, only slam records count. That's where their H2H 6-2 slam record comes in. :twisted:

As for your later points, of course, they still talk about it. Everyone knows the Wimbledon rivalry of Edberg and Becker and how Edberg came up on top in slams while Becker had a lopsided H2H against Edberg. So what will they talk about when they talk about Fed in 10 years? The rivalry against Nadal and also what many call the greatest match will surely be two of the first.

Winners or Errors · Jun 8, 2009

ghostbear said:
Pointless thread. If Nadal had lost earlier in Wimby in 06 and 07, he'd have a 6-0 slam record against Fed. See what I did there?

No, it'd probably be 4-0, because he never would have made the 08 Wimbledon final, and the same is true for the 09 AO... All his wins would be on, you got it, clay. Why do you hate Nadal so much that you take away his ability to adapt to other surfaces, something I consider his most impressive achievement?

JennyS · Jun 8, 2009

bruce38 said:
Excellent points. The irony is rampant.

I know! But it's sad that a lot of people would think Roger is a BETTER player if he had lost EARLIER in these tournaments to LESS TALENTED players, because at least it would improve his record against Nadal!

And btw, these would have been the players Roger would have lost to in my hypothetical situation:

French Open:
2005 quarterfinals: Victor Henescu
2007 semifinals: Nikolay Davydenko
2008 semifinals: Gael Monfils

Masters Series events:
2006 Rome semifinals: David Nalbandian
2006 Monte Carlo semifinals: Fernando Gonzalez
2007 Monte Carlo semifinals: Juan Carlos Ferrero

vtmike · Jun 8, 2009

JennyS said:
Some people say that Roger can't be considered the best player of all time, because he is 7-13 against Nadal and 2-6 against him in Grand Slams.

So, here's an interesting thought: let's go back in time and pretend that Roger lost one round earlier in the 2005, 2007 and 2008 French Opens and only got to the 2006 Final. So instead of 1 SF and 3 Finals losses to Nadal, he would have one finals loss to Nadal and two sf and one qf loss to other players. This would still be an EXCELLENT record and superior to Pete's result. But it would also remove THREE losses to Nadal (two of them finals)

And again, let's pretend that instead of losing to Nadal in 5 claycourt Masters series events, that he got to only 3 of those finals and lost in the semis of the other two. Again, that removes three more losses to Nadal.

Now if all of the other results remained the same, this would be the new head to head:

overall: 7-7
Grand Slams: Nadal 3-2

So if Roger had lost earlier at these events, a lot of people might think he was a BETTER player! Weird.

A lot of posters (including me) have been trying to say the exact same thing...but some guys are just too adamant and will see what they want to see...

JennyS · Jun 8, 2009

ghostbear said:
Pointless thread. If Nadal had lost earlier in Wimby in 06 and 07, he'd have a 6-0 slam record against Fed. See what I did there?

Not pointless. I'm only showing how Federer's excellent showing on clay hurt him in his h2h against Nadal.

Roger and Rafa have played each other 11 times on clay and only 6 times on hardcourts, even though there are a lot more hardcourt tournaments.

Sampras and Agassi only played each other FIVE TIMES on clay and that was over a much longer period of time.

JennyS · Jun 8, 2009

bruce38 said:
Yes they comment on it now because it is happening NOW. In 10-20 years time no one will give a rat's ass about H2H. But the GS record will always be quoted. H2H slam record would be a lot closer if Nadal managed to reach more slam finals during Fed's domination era.

Agreed.

And I'd also like to consider this: what if instead of meeting 6 times on hardcourts and 11 times on clay, it was reversed? I bet their head to head would be much closer.

In fact, I'd argue that Nadal accumulating all of those claycourt wins over Federer gave him the confidence he needed to beat Federer on grass and hardcourts. If most of their early matches had been on hardcourts instead of clay, their rivalry would have been completely different.

Winners or Errors · Jun 8, 2009

Bingo! Absolute clay dominance = confidence to win on other surfaces. Why is this so hard for so many to understand?

jstr · Jun 8, 2009

The Nadal v. Federer fixation seems to overshadow EVERTHING. Somehow it has been forgotten that Federer played and beat Sampras and Agassi.

bruce38 · Jun 8, 2009

ghostbear said:
So are you denying Nadal is not a good match-up for Fed? I think even Fed would acknowledge this secretly even if he won't say it publicly given the way he went on and on about how he wished he were a lefty. And yes, only slam records count. That's where their H2H 6-2 slam record comes in. :twisted:

As for your later points, of course, they still talk about it. Everyone knows the Wimbledon rivalry of Edberg and Becker and how Edberg came up on top in slams while Becker had a lopsided H2H against Edberg. So what will they talk about when they talk about Fed in 10 years? The rivalry against Nadal and also what many call the greatest match will surely be two of the first.

I'm not denying that Nadal is not a good match up for Fed...NOW. Nadal is playing better than Fed now but Fed CONTINUES to make finals and Nadal beats him. But there was a time when Nadal was a decent match up for Fed as for example the early Wimbledon. If in those times and prior years Nadal made it to finals like Fed still continues to do, the H2H would not be what it is. No one talks about what you said about Edberg and Becker save for tennis fanatics who follow every stat. The Nadal-Fed rivalry will be remembered in 10 years, but the actual numbers on the H2H? No. Only the total number of GS will be considered most.

Steve132 · Jun 8, 2009

Andres Guazzelli said:
Then explain me how a guy with:

* Three French Open runner-ups less
* One French Open Semifinal less
* Three Montecarlo runner-ups less
* One Rome runner-ups less
* One Hamburg runner-ups less

is a better player, only because his H2H against Nadal is 5-5 or something.

Yeah, my logic is SOOOO flawed

Actually, your logic is impeccable, but several posters on this forum (mainly Sampras fans) have argued that H2H records are critical in evaluating players. This argument has some counter-intuitive implications, such as the conclusion that Federer would be a better player if he had lost in the first rounds of clay court tournaments rather than lost to Nadal in the finals. His H2H record against Nadal would have been better, but I don't see how anyone could seriously argue that he would have been a greater player.

timnz · Jun 8, 2009

Masters Cup more prestiguous than MS

Andres Guazzelli said:
Total GS comes first, total MS comes second, total Masters Cups comes third. No one cares about H2H.

I'd rate Masters Cups above Masters events. There are no easy matches (top 8 in the world competing). Also in history - End of Year Championships have always been regarded as more prestigous that what is equivalent to Masters series events.

If Roger had lost earlier in clay tournaments his h2h against Nadal would be better

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Professional

Banned

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Banned

Rookie

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Rookie

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Banned

Hall of Fame

Rookie

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Banned

Rookie

New User

Banned

Banned

Semi-Pro

Rookie

Legend

Hall of Fame

Banned

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

Rookie

Banned

Professional

Legend

Similar threads