Federer-Nadal Slam2Slam w/o clay bias: Roger WAY BETTER...

GasquetGOAT

GasquetGOAT

Hall of Fame
15-6

take away clay bias,

14-2,

Roger >>>>> Rafa.


Importance of H2H verses number of slams won,

15-6 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 13-7


End of day,

Roger >>>>> Rafa



/Thread
 
Last edited:
jamesblakefan#1

jamesblakefan#1

G.O.A.T.
Here's why the h2h is skewed:

Since 2006:

Federer made the final of 11 of the 16 clay court events which both played in. (GS & MS events)
Nadal made the final of 14 of the 16 major CC events which both played in.

Nadal made the final of 7 of the 36 major HC events which both played in. (GS, MS, and TMC/YEC)
Federer made the finals of 18 of the 36 major HC events both played in.

So while Federer has left Nadal 'hanging' so to speak only 3 times on clay, Nadal has failed to return the favor in 11 events where Federer made the finals on HC. Not to mention that there are more HC events in a year, yet a majority of the meetings have still come on clay due to Nadal's inability to reach HC finals. This is more directed at the people who try to claim the h2h makes Nadal the better player, which is clearly not the case.
 
GasquetGOAT

GasquetGOAT

Hall of Fame
TheFifthSet said:
Take away his 13 loses and he leads 7-0. :)
Click to expand...

Obviously you can't take away anything, thats the point of this thread. The logic of "Fed-Rafa H2H w/o clay bias: Rafa still better " thread is dumb and pointless.

But at least I have a valid point that At end of the day, 15-6 is way more important than the H2H between them.
 
TheFifthSet

TheFifthSet

Legend
jamesblakefan#1 said:
Here's why the h2h is skewed:

Since 2006:

Federer made the final of 11 of the 16 clay court events which both played in. (GS & MS events)
Nadal made the final of 14 of the 16 major CC events which both played in.

Nadal made the final of 7 of the 36 major HC events which both played in. (GS, MS, and TMC/YEC)
Federer made the finals of 18 of the 36 major HC events both played in.

So while Federer has left Nadal 'hanging' so to speak only 3 times on clay, Nadal has failed to return the favor in 11 events where Federer made the finals on HC. Not to mention that there are more HC events in a year, yet a majority of the meetings have still come on clay due to Nadal's inability to reach HC finals. This is more directed at the people who try to claim the h2h makes Nadal the better player, which is clearly not the case.
Click to expand...

Let's say Nadal and Federer met 20 times on clay and 20 times on other surfaces . . . what do you think their h2h would be??

Again, Fed is clearly a better player than Nadal, but that 7-13 is a big blemish, no matter that Nadal is a bad match-up for Fed.
 
D

dh003i

Legend
The total slam count will be more meaningful by the end of their careers. Right now, the comparison ought to be more like 12-6 or 13-6, the number of slams Federer won since Nadal first came on the scene and won his first FO. It's still a large margin.
 
jamesblakefan#1

jamesblakefan#1

G.O.A.T.
TheFifthSet said:
Let's say Nadal and Federer met 20 times on clay and 20 times on other surfaces . . . what do you think their h2h would be??

Again, Fed is clearly a better player than Nadal, but that 7-13 is a big blemish, no matter that Nadal is a bad match-up for Fed.
Click to expand...

Nadal is much more dominant on clay than Fed is on HC. No one is arguing that. This is beared out in the amt of finals each made on the respective surfaces. While Nadal made 87% of the clay finals during the time, Fed only made 50% of the HC finals during the time period. So since Nadal is better on Clay than Fed is on HC, its always going to be skewed towards Nadal.
 
D

dh003i

Legend
TheFifthSet said:
Let's say Nadal and Federer met 20 times on clay and 20 times on other surfaces . . . what do you think their h2h would be??

Again, Fed is clearly a better player than Nadal, but that 7-13 is a big blemish, no matter that Nadal is a bad match-up for Fed.
Click to expand...

It is already reflected in Federer's grand slam count of 15, and not more. It isn't reasonable to double-count it, like some want to do.
 
D

Deleted member 3771

Guest
Nadal is even more dominant over Fed than I thought!

* All Matches: Nadal 13-7
* All Finals: Nadal 11–5
* Grand Slams: Nadal 6–2
* Grand Slam Finals: Nadal 5–2
* Masters Cup: Federer 2–0
* Masters Series: Nadal 6–3
* Masters Series Finals: Nadal 5–3
 
T

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
TheNatural said:
Nadal is even more dominant over Fed than I thought!

* All Matches: Nadal 13-7
* All Finals: Nadal 11–5
* Grand Slams: Nadal 6–2
* Grand Slam Finals: Nadal 5–2
* Masters Cup: Federer 2–0
* Masters Series: Nadal 6–3
* Masters Series Finals: Nadal 5–3
Click to expand...

I think Rafa should worry more about the top ten players than thinking about Federer.

Rafa's last 10 matches against the top ten players has a record of 1-9. These are the top players he met:

1. Federer – Madrid
2. Soderling – RG
3. Del Potro – Canada
4. Djokovic – Cincinati
5. Del Potro – US Open
6. Davydenko – Shanghai
7. Tsonga – Paris(WIN!)
8. Djokovic – Paris
9. Soderling – WTF
10. Davydenko – WTF


His win/loss ratio in those 10 matches:
Win….Loss
0……….2
0……….2
2……….0
0……….2
0……….2
0……….3
0……….2
0……….2
1……….3
0……….2

Total set win = 3
Total set lost = 20


And:
Of those 10 matches:
-His serve was broken 37 times.
-His opponents got broken 8 times.
 
Mustard

Mustard

Bionic Poster
GasquetGOAT said:
15-6

take away clay bias,

14-2,

Roger >>>>> Rafa.


Importance of H2H verses number of slams won,

15-6 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 13-7


End of day,

Roger >>>>> Rafa



/Thread
Click to expand...

picard-facepalm.jpg
 
edmondsm

edmondsm

Legend
Can we make a pact with the mods? Any new thread on this subject leads to an instant ban of the OP, no questions asked.
 
D

Deleted member 21996

Guest
hey... while the math geniouses are playing homage to the great tanker, why not take away his 15 slams and we end up wit another record for the biggest underachiever ever...

now i see how you guys come up with every other "new" record thread...
 
GustafsonFanatic

GustafsonFanatic

Banned
GasquetGOAT said:
Yeah why not? It always was the *********s and samprasclowns that bring up Fed/Nadal H2H in every single threads.
Click to expand...

*********? Samprasclown?

Moi????

Nadal is probably my least favorite player in Top 10 (apart from Muzzer). I never cared too much for Pete either, and I believe Federer is a far more legitimate GOAT contender than him.
 
Last edited:
GasquetGOAT

GasquetGOAT

Hall of Fame
GustafsonFanatic said:
*********? Samprasclown?

Moi????

Nadal is probably my least favorite player in Top 10 (apart from Muzzer). I never cared too much for Pete either, and I believe Federer is a far more legitimate GOAT contender than him.
Click to expand...

Well it wasn't exactly directed at you in general but the Nadal/Samprasclowns that bring the H2H argument into every single discussions on this board just to troll, even the none Fed/Nadal related threads. I know you created that thread for whatever reasons you thought might be interesting but it gave the nadal/samprasclowns a chance to jump all over it and express why their think H2H is so important (this thread shoves them back in their little hole).
 
GustafsonFanatic

GustafsonFanatic

Banned
GasquetGOAT said:
Well it wasn't exactly directed at you in general but the Nadal/Samprasclowns that bring the H2H argument into every single discussions on this board just to troll, even the none Fed/Nadal related threads. I know you created that thread for whatever reasons you thought might be interesting but it gave the nadal/samprasclowns a chance to jump all over it and express why their think H2H is so important (this thread shoves them back in their little hole).
Click to expand...

I didn't create a thread for "whatever reason I thought might be interesting". I made a thread because I believe Nadal would lead H2H even if they played most matches on hardcourts.

H2H is what it is. If Fedfans believe that H2H doesn't matter, that's OK with me. The number of slams is more important than H2H and Federer has obviously more slams (and will finish his career with more slams).

But, the problem is that some Fedfans (many Fedfans, actually) say that the H2H is skewed because of matches played on clay. And that's not true. And I made a thread to respond to those people (not anyone else). If anyone thinks H2H is less important than the number of slams, he should simply disregard my thread.

So, bottom line, H2H is entirely legit. Rafa would still lead even if the matches were evenly distributed throughout the entire season (meaning: mathces on HC the most frequent, then the matches on clay, and the matches on grass the least frequent). It's a perfectly correct to say that H2H is not that important. But it is not correct to say that Rafa leads H2H just because of clay.
 
Last edited:
big bang

big bang

Hall of Fame
GasquetGOAT said:
15-6

take away clay bias,

14-2,

Roger >>>>> Rafa.


Importance of H2H verses number of slams won,

15-6 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 13-7


End of day,

Roger >>>>> Rafa



/Thread
Click to expand...

you got serious problems thats pretty clear to me:shock:
its like saying take away hc and grass slams, now Nadal leads 4-1 stupid ****..
 
GasquetGOAT

GasquetGOAT

Hall of Fame
GustafsonFanatic said:
So, bottom line, H2H is entirely legit. Rafa would still lead even if the matches were evenly distributed throughout the entire season (meaning: mathces on HC the most frequent, then the matches on clay, and the matches on grass the least frequent). It's a perfectly correct to say that H2H is not that important. But it is not correct to say that Rafa leads H2H just because of clay.
Click to expand...

I see your point and I won't disagree that it is not correct to say that Rafa leads H2H just because of clay.

Point of this thread is for those nadal/samprasclowns that think Nadal is better than Federer because of H2H, and sampras is somehow (insanely) better than federer too because of feds losing H2H with Nadal.
 
Last edited:
GasquetGOAT

GasquetGOAT

Hall of Fame
big bang said:
you got serious problems thats pretty clear to me:shock:
its like saying take away hc and grass slams, now Nadal leads 4-1 stupid ****..
Click to expand...

I think your the stupid **** who can't accept the fact slam record is more important than H2H. Point of this thread is 15-6 is more significant than 13-7. Get it, dumbdumb?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GustafsonFanatic
Fed-Rafa H2H w/o clay bias: Rafa still better
2
Replies
86
Views
4K
Ledigs
L
Neptune
What are the good takeaways from Fedal H2H rivalry?
2 3 4
Replies
162
Views
4K
messiahrobins
M
BGod
Definitive Federer's Matchup with Nadal
Replies
5
Views
464
NEW_BORN
NEW_BORN
M
Hail Nadal, but he has NOT surpassed Fed...at least yet.
Replies
8
Views
462
ChaelAZ
ChaelAZ
T
Roger Federer amazing stats.....
Replies
3
Views
1K
FedFan_2007
F
Top