Why the h2h is unimportant

gennosuke · Jul 30, 2012

I realize that this thread has been done before but this one is a somewhat new take on it.

My argument is that it's unimportant to bring up 18-10 because it counts nadal's victories over Federer twice.

There is that old argument:

"Look at who won more slams, there you have who is superior."

"Of course you would look at achievements, but how can you ignore that Nadal beat Fed so often?"

Here is where it becomes dumb: NOBODY is ignoring that fact. That fact is considered everytime somebody looks at Federer's slam count/career achievements and notices how puny they are.

Let's analyze what Federer would've achieved without those losses to Nadal:

24 major titles.

2 consecutive CYGS.

Winning 10 consecutive GS at one point and 6 consecutive at another.

Absolutely owning the **** out of the Masters 1000 titles (owning every single one but Shanghai and being ahead of Nadal and Agassi by a huge margin)

Having an even more dominant record at the top of the rankings.

If Nadal hadn't beaten Federer as often as he has, Federer would've made an absolute mockery of the sport. People would refer to "GOATs" as "Federers" as in "Fedor Emelianenko is the Federer of MMA".
The fact that Nadal beat him as often as he did is the exact reason why Federer only owns 17 majors. We aren't overlooking anything when we look at majors only.

The same way, ignoring the head to head doesn't take anything away from Nadal either: without all those victories over Federer, would be a 4 times major champion only. It is doubtful that he would've achieved even 50% of what he's achieved in his career.

This is why including the head to head record in Nadal's favour or against Federer's favour is redundant.

The Bawss · Jul 30, 2012

Desperate ****. Like it or not h2h is an obviously huge component in any individual sport when comparing greats.

Gangsta · Jul 30, 2012

I agree to an extent. Not with the logic in the lead post, but with the thread title. I think H2H's by themselves are meaningless, but here is the catch. That is only UNTIL Nadal gets closer. If at all Rafa does get to within 3-4 slams of Federer, then the H2H suddenly starts to gain more prominence IMO.

Mainad · Jul 30, 2012

gennosuke said:
Absolutely owning the **** out of the Masters 1000 titles (owning every single one but Shanghai.

He doesn't own Monte Carlo or Rome either.

gennosuke said:
This is why including the head to head record in Nadal's favour or against Federer's favour is redundant.

But the fact is the H2H IS important or else Federer would have won the FO more often, won a few more Masters titles etc. and the reverse for Nadal although he would have probably won the 2010 WTF.

Without it, Federer would have been even more successful and Nadal perhaps less so how could it not be important?

Gangsta · Jul 30, 2012

Anyways, the H2H already seem important enough. Where else does all the Nadal hate stem from...

gennosuke · Jul 30, 2012

The Bawss said:
Desperate ****. Like it or not h2h is an obviously huge component in any individual sport when comparing greats.

No it's not you imbecile. I mean it has been explained why H2h in tennis is a terrible tool to compare and federer is the perfect example why it's nigh meaningless.

Gangsta said:
I agree to an extent. Not with the logic in the lead post, but with the thread title. I think H2H's by themselves are meaningless, but here is the catch. That is only UNTIL Nadal gets closer. If at all Rafa does get to within 3-4 slams of Federer, then the H2H suddenly starts to gain more prominence IMO.

You#re an idiot. ESPECIALLY nadal's h2h is unimportant, not only because of the reasons listed in the thread but also because of the obvious clay skew and the fact that Nadal never had to do anything impressive to win (CC FH, CC FH etc)

nadal was a joke compared to Federer during his prime, yet had a winning record over him. he routinely lost to people in slams that were comprehensively owned by him.

Mainad said:
He doesn't own Rome either.

But the fact is the H2H IS important or else Federer would have won the FO more often, won a few more Masters titles etc. and the reverse for Nadal although he would have probably won the 2010 WTF.

Without it, Federer would have been even more successful and Nadal perhaps less so how could it not be important?

You must be a little slow. He WOULD own Rome if Nadal hadn't beaten him 2006.

What you do not understand is the fact that Federer's diminished slam/title count already shows that Nadal beat him. He only owns 17 and not 24 BECAUSE Nadal beat him as often as he did. He didn't win 2 consecutive CYGS (and 10 and 6 consecutive slams at one point) BECAUSE Nadal won as often as he did. The fact that he is only recently the more of less consensus GOAT and not the synonym of GOAT across all sports is because if Nadal. There is no need to look at it again unless you are a child with ADD.

Gangsta said:
Anyways, the H2H already seem important enough. Where else does all the Nadal hate stem from...

......................facepalm

Fed Kennedy · Jul 30, 2012

Mustard · Jul 30, 2012

Mainad said:
He doesn't own Rome either.

Nor Monte Carlo.

Mustard · Jul 30, 2012

gennosuke said:
nadal was a joke compared to Federer during his prime, yet had a winning record over him. he routinely lost to people in slams that were comprehensively owned by him.

Wow. Nadal must be a genius to be such a "joke", and yet beat Federer 8 times out 10 matches in majors. Wow, just wow.

gennosuke said:
You must be a little slow. He WOULD own Rome if Nadal hadn't beaten him 2006.

But Nadal did beat him. We can play what ifs all day.

Flash O'Groove · Jul 30, 2012

Mustard said:
Nor Monte Carlo.

He lost 3 consecutive finals vs Nadal. After that he gave up this tournament.

The OP has a good argument when he shows that the H2H is taken into account it the titles count.

Federererer · Jul 30, 2012

The only H2H that matters is your overall H2H against the field.

ChanceEncounter · Jul 30, 2012

Mainad said:
But the fact is the H2H IS important or else Federer would have won the FO more often, won a few more Masters titles etc. and the reverse for Nadal although he would have probably won the 2010 WTF.

Without it, Federer would have been even more successful and Nadal perhaps less so how could it not be important?

It amazes me to see people miss such a basic point.

His point is that the H2H is already factored into their overall resumes. This means when people say that Federer "has 17 grand slams", they're already taking into account that he's won 17 despite Nadal's lopsided H2H, especially on clay where he's denied Federer numerous FO's.

So if you try to bring up H2H again, you're basically double-counting H2H. Once where the H2H already influenced the overall results, and then once again just for giggles.

10is · Jul 30, 2012

The Bawss said:
Desperate ****. Like it or not h2h is an obviously huge component in any individual sport when comparing greats.

Only when those greats are of relatively equal stature. Not the case here. Ergo, no ****ness displayed by the OP.

Federererer · Jul 30, 2012

i.e. saying Fed has 17 slams is equivalent to saying Fed has (25 - 8 ) slams (-8 coming from the negative Nadal H2H)

Fed Kennedy · Jul 30, 2012

ChanceEncounter · Jul 30, 2012

Federererer said:
i.e. saying Fed has 17 slams is equivalent to saying Fed has (25 - 8 ) slams (-8 coming from the negative Nadal H2H)

No, that's not fair either, because there's no guarantee that Federer would have beaten the player that would have been there if not for Nadal. Odds are he would've, but it's not a guarantee.

Besides, this argument needs no use of hypotheticals. The fact of the matter is that the H2H argument is already factored into their overall resume, of which Federer's is still better than Nadal's.

Deleted member 21996 · Jul 30, 2012

dummesss OP Adolfman doesnt even see that by assumnig Nadal h2h is the reason of Fed's sucess not being even more impressive is himself recognixzing that Nadal is inferior overall and if not for him Fed would have been even more of a dominant force...

Dummess Natard tries to be smart and ends up in giving Fetards more ammo!!!

*******... gotta love

Tennis_Hands · Jul 30, 2012

Mustard said:
Wow. Nadal must be a genius to be such a "joke", and yet beat Federer 8 times out 10 matches in majors. Wow, just wow.

Nadal beating Federer more often than not, but failing to fare so well against the competition shows only one thing - how favourable the matchup between the two is for Nadal. It is a simple concept, really.

Tennis_Hands · Jul 30, 2012

gennosuke said:
This is why including the head to head record in Nadal's favour or against Federer's favour is redundant.

Neither of the players was denied every Major title, they didn't win, by a loss from the other guy. In some it was the case in some it wasn't.

It is not redundand. It is just way down on the list of achievements, that count, when comparing two players.

Antonio Puente · Jul 30, 2012

gennosuke said:
I realize that this thread has been done before but this one is a somewhat new take on it.

My argument is that it's unimportant to bring up 18-10 because it counts nadal's victories over Federer twice.

There is that old argument:

"Look at who won more slams, there you have who is superior."

"Of course you would look at achievements, but how can you ignore that Nadal beat Fed so often?"

Here is where it becomes dumb: NOBODY is ignoring that fact. That fact is considered everytime somebody looks at Federer's slam count/career achievements and notices how puny they are.

Let's analyze what Federer would've achieved without those losses to Nadal:

24 major titles.

2 consecutive CYGS.

Winning 10 consecutive GS at one point and 6 consecutive at another.

Absolutely owning the **** out of the Masters 1000 titles (owning every single one but Shanghai and being ahead of Nadal and Agassi by a huge margin)

Having an even more dominant record at the top of the rankings.

If Nadal hadn't beaten Federer as often as he has, Federer would've made an absolute mockery of the sport. People would refer to "GOATs" as "Federers" as in "Fedor Emelianenko is the Federer of MMA".
The fact that Nadal beat him as often as he did is the exact reason why Federer only owns 17 majors. We aren't overlooking anything when we look at majors only.

The same way, ignoring the head to head doesn't take anything away from Nadal either: without all those victories over Federer, would be a 4 times major champion only. It is doubtful that he would've achieved even 50% of what he's achieved in his career.

This is why including the head to head record in Nadal's favour or against Federer's favour is redundant.

At best, that was moronic. And that might be a bit generous.

Antonio Puente · Jul 30, 2012

Tennis_Hands said:
Nadal beating Federer more often than not, but failing to fare so well against the competition shows only one thing - how favourable the matchup between the two is for Nadal. It is a simple concept, really.

Now, exactly who hasn't he fared well against?

bullslayer · Jul 30, 2012

how did nadal fail to win those 17?

Antonio Puente · Jul 30, 2012

It's this simple: as a ******* you can't have it all. It would be nice if, in addition to the 17 slams and records, he did own Nadal, but he doesn't. Deal with it. Face reality.

Similarly, Nadal fans can't have it all. It would be nice if Nadal hadn't run into Djoker over the past year and half, but he did. If not for Djoker, Nadal would already be sitting at 14 slams, plus numerous other 1,000s, but he's not. Deal with it.

It is what it is. Covering your ears and pretending it hasn't happened is silly.

YellowBall77 · Jul 30, 2012

Ridiculous thread. Judging by your logic, after a 3 day weekend, we don't get the added benefit of only a 4 day week. Since we already got an extra day off, counting it again would be 'redundant.'

ChanceEncounter · Jul 30, 2012

Antonio Puente said:
It's this simple: as a ******* you can't have it all. It would be nice if, in addition to the 17 slams and records, he did own Nadal, but he doesn't. Deal with it. Face reality.

Similarly, Nadal fans can't have it all. It would be nice if Nadal hadn't run into Djoker over the past year and half, but he did. If not for Djoker, Nadal would already be sitting at 14 slams, plus numerous other 1,000s, but he's not. Deal with it.

It is what it is. Covering your ears and pretending it hasn't happened is silly.

Do you have an issue with reading comprehension, or do you like being an ass for no particular reason?

Here's what you have to deal with: Nadal's H2H advantage is already factored into their overall resume. If Nadal didn't have a H2H advantage, he would have fewer slams and Federer would have more.

So what's the point again in saying that Nadal has 11 grand slams AND the H2H advantage against Federer? Nothing. It's superfluous. It's counting the same thing twice.

Those are the facts. Federer has a poor H2H against Nadal and his overall resume has suffered because of it. Nadal has a good H2H and his overall resume is boosted because of it. Counting H2H again makes you look silly. Deal with it.

YellowBall77 · Jul 30, 2012

ChanceEncounter said:
Do you have an issue with reading comprehension, or do you like being an ass for no particular reason?

Here's what you have to deal with: Nadal's H2H advantage is already factored into their overall resume. If Nadal didn't have a H2H advantage, he would have fewer slams and Federer would have more.

So what's the point again in saying that Nadal has 11 grand slams AND the H2H advantage against Federer? Nothing. It's superfluous. It's counting the same thing twice.

Those are the facts. Federer has a poor H2H against Nadal and his overall resume has suffered because of it. Nadal has a good H2H and his overall resume is boosted because of it. Counting H2H again makes you look silly. Deal with it.

No it doesn't, seriously one fact can have more than 1 effect. This is the dumbest thread/worst logic I've seen in a long time. I really hope none of you guys arguing the OP's position are lawyers/working with money etc.

Clarky21 · Jul 30, 2012

Oh,I have a feeling if the h2h was reversed in Fed's favor,*******s/gloryhunters would harp on it constantly.

JustBob · Jul 30, 2012

Clarky21 said:
Oh,I have a feeling if the h2h was reversed in Fed's favor,*******s/gloryhunters would harp on it constantly.

Why? Federer fans don't have to dig to find out his accomplishments, the list is as long as my arm. Nadal fans are not content that he's already an all time great with 11 slams, they cling to what Federer doesn't have (the silly H2H and "weak era" stuff) like babies to a mother's tit.

Rippy · Jul 30, 2012

JustBob said:
Why? Federer fans don't have to dig to find out his accomplishments, the list is as long as my arm. Nadal fans are not content that he's already an all time great with 11 slams, they cling to what Federer doesn't have (the silly H2H and "weak era" stuff) like babies to a mother's tit.

Exactly.....

Clarky21 · Jul 30, 2012

JustBob said:
Why? Federer fans don't have to dig to find out his accomplishments, the list is as long as my arm. Nadal fans are not content that he's already an all time great with 11 slams, they cling to what Federer doesn't have (the silly H2H and "weak era" stuff) like babies to a mother's tit.

No they don't but they do,and if the h2h were reversed they would never fail to make sure Nadal fans knew it.

tennisaddict · Jul 30, 2012

gennosuke said:
This is why including the head to head record in Nadal's favour or against Federer's favour is redundant.

I agree with your theory. H2H is redundant when talking about overall accomplishments.

Infact, we should stop using the term GOAT , rather we should use FOAT ( Federer of all time)

Any great player of the future will have to be measured against FOAT standards

JustBob · Jul 30, 2012

Clarky21 said:
No they don't but they do,and if the h2h were reversed they would never fail to make sure Nadal fans knew it.

17 > 11

Your argument that "but they would do it too!" is just childish nonsense. Who the heck brings up H2H except Nadal fans? Nobody.

billnepill · Jul 30, 2012

Nadal's loopy FH to Federer's backhand has won him the majority of matches. This advantage doesn't always translate to the rest of the field where Nadal got ***** by many players.

Federer has been far more dominant. 17>11, 280 + > 104. Even with the stars aligning for Nadal for all surfaces to be slowed down, he is still not up there with Federer.

In most of his career Nadal zoned for 3 months a year to sweep the clay and to make a run at Wimbledon and disappeared. Obviously that's far easier than performing at your best for 11 months as Federer did. Federer's worst brings him to semis and finals whereas nadal can crash against top 100 in his prime.

This might be tough to hear but its is all backed up by facts.

Taking the h2h and trying to show Nadal's superiority just doesn't fit with the rest of the facts. Btw, even if you take the H2H and want to make it a standalone fact and repeat it to death, it still shows Nadal was a king on clay and Federer leads the head to head on other surfaces by 8:6 which is still tight considering 16>4 in off clay slams. (why would that be?)

The strange conclusion is that if Federer was a worse player with inferior game and crashed against top 100 when not completely 100% his resume would be regarded better than it is now by a fair share of the moronic population.

Federererer · Jul 30, 2012

Clarky21 said:
No they don't but they do,and if the h2h were reversed they would never fail to make sure Nadal fans knew it.

If the H2H were reversed there would be no Nadal fans to let know

billnepill · Jul 30, 2012

Clarky21 said:
No they don't but they do,and if the h2h were reversed they would never fail to make sure Nadal fans knew it.

Why would anyone mention such a meaningless thing if you have the slam record, tied record at 3 out of 4 slams, the nr 1 record, consecutive weeks at nr 1 record, WTF record and many more?

JustBob · Jul 30, 2012

Federererer said:
If the H2H were reversed there would be no Nadal fans to let know

Then they would just cling to some other obscure stat like:

Nadal has a higher winning % against players ranked 2,3,5,7,10 in matches played on Saturday afternoon after eating pizza for lunch.

ZeroSkid · Jul 30, 2012

anything the shows how federer is not so great is unimportant to *******s, they remain ignorant for life

ChanceEncounter · Jul 30, 2012

YellowBall77 said:
No it doesn't, seriously one fact can have more than 1 effect. This is the dumbest thread/worst logic I've seen in a long time. I really hope none of you guys arguing the OP's position are lawyers/working with money etc.

Really, what's the secondary effect that the H2H has besides improve Nadal's overall resume and weaken Federer's overall resume?

This should be good...

YellowBall77 · Jul 30, 2012

ChanceEncounter said:
Really, what's the secondary effect that the H2H has besides improve Nadal's overall resume and weaken Federer's overall resume?

This should be good...

That is the secondary effect. The first affect is the 18-10 H2h record itself. Read the OP LOL.

If you are still not satisfied and want an insurance 3rd effect, then I will say it has also catapulted Nadal into the GOAT discussion as well as opened the door for Djokovic to be an all time legend.

JustBob · Jul 30, 2012

YellowBall77 said:
That is the secondary effect. The first affect is the 18-10 H2h record itself. Read the OP LOL.

If you are still not satisfied and want an insurance 3rd effect, then I will say it has also catapulted Nadal into the GOAT discussion as well as opened the door for Djokovic to be an all time legend.

Exaggeration and hyperbole are not your friends.

BeGreat · Jul 30, 2012

gennosuke said:
Let's analyze what Federer would've achieved without those losses to Nadal:

24 major titles.

sometimes i wonder if posters are stupid, have no concept of math and common sense, or just...7.

What you're saying is the following: If Federer hadn't lost to Nadal, he would have won.

Thank you.

YellowBall77 · Jul 30, 2012

JustBob said:
Exaggeration and hyperbole are not your friends.

Yeah, that's why I don't use them

No exaggeration on my behalf...seriously Nadal if he finishes with around 15 which is more than reasonable is DEFINITELY in the GOAT discussion along with Fed.

And Djokovic could be an all time legend, if not goat candidate. That's more than reasonable...Agassi is an all time legend...why can't Djoker be?

JustBob · Jul 30, 2012

YellowBall77 said:
Yeah, that's why I don't use them No exaggeration on my behalf...seriously Nadal if he finishes with around 15 which is more than reasonable is DEFINITELY in the GOAT discussion along with Fed.

And Djokovic could be an all time legend, if not goat candidate. That's more than reasonable...Agassi is an all time legend...why can't Djoker be?

Then you might want to change your statement from "it has also" to "it might sometimes in the future IF".

YellowBall77 · Jul 30, 2012

JustBob said:
Then you might want to change your statement from "it has also" to "it might sometimes in the future IF".

I said it has also catapulted Nadal into the GOAT convo...it's more than reasonable to consider it now since 14-15 slams seems like a forgone conclusion for him. And Djokovic being an all time legend also seems inevitable...it would be amazing if he didn't get to 10 slams.

Tennis_Hands · Jul 30, 2012

billnepill said:
Why would anyone mention such a meaningless thing if you have the slam record, tied record at 3 out of 4 slams, the nr 1 record, consecutive weeks at nr 1 record, WTF record and many more?

It is beacuse Clarky21 is bored with reality, so she needs to speculate, in order to make herself feel better.

The reality is, that Federer fans (maybe with some extreme exceptions) do not speculate about any of his positive H2H. Even against all time greats like Agassi. There is no point in that, since there are so much important ways to measure the career of a tennis player. It is just the *******s, that stick to one of the few things, in which their idol is better than Federer. Which is actually normal.

Tennis_Hands · Jul 30, 2012

YellowBall77 said:
Yeah, that's why I don't use them No exaggeration on my behalf...seriously Nadal if he finishes with around 15 which is more than reasonable is DEFINITELY in the GOAT discussion along with Fed.

And Djokovic could be an all time legend, if not goat candidate. That's more than reasonable...Agassi is an all time legend...why can't Djoker be?

GOAT doesn't exist.

Other than that. We wil have to wait and see, what will happen, before we pass judgements on who is "in the discussion".

If Nadal falls short in almost every major category it is difficult to include him in any discussion of that sort. Hell, Federer possesses almost every important record in the modern era, yet, he is regarded by many not on par with the other members of the "GOAT candidate" club (albeit accepted as a potentially suitable for comparisons with the old tennis legends).

JustBob · Jul 30, 2012

YellowBall77 said:
I said it has also catapulted Nadal into the GOAT convo...it's more than reasonable to consider it now since 14-15 slams seems like a forgone conclusion for him. And Djokovic being an all time legend also seems inevitable...it would be amazing if he didn't get to 10 slams.

I admire your optimism but I bet you that the future will tell otherwise. Nadal has never been in GOAT discussion and I give him little chance to even catch Sampras. Djokovic has a better shot at making it to 10 slams.

YellowBall77 · Jul 30, 2012

JustBob said:
I admire your optimism but I bet you that reality will tell otherwise. Nadal has never been in GOAT discussion and won't even catch Sampras. Djokovic has a better shot at making it to 10 slams.

I agree Djoker has a better chance of making it to 10 than Nadal to 15, but Nadal has a great shot at 13-14....he can win at least 2 of the 4 next RG no doubt about it. I really don't like Nadal that much so I'm not trying to artificially boost him or anything. I just think a lot of Fed fans are delusional about how good Nadal is/how much of a substantial dent he has made in Fed's legacy.

Tennis_Hands · Jul 30, 2012

Double post.

Tennis_Hands · Jul 30, 2012

YellowBall77 said:
I agree Djoker has a better chance of making it to 10 than Nadal to 15, but Nadal has a great shot at 13-14....he can win at least 2 of the 4 next RG no doubt about it. I really don't like Nadal that much so I'm not trying to artificially boost him or anything. I just think a lot of Fed fans are delusional about how good Nadal is/how much of a substantial dent he has made in Fed's legacy.

There are all sorts of fans. Delusional as well.

The reality says, that you achieve as much as you can. No IFs and BUTs. Who says, that if it wasn't for Nadal, there wouldn't have been another player, who would have taken over the tour, and his presense would have overshadowed Federer achievementwise. There is not such garantie, that is why talking hypotheticals like "If it wasn't for Nadal, Federer would SURELY :lol: have won those and those titles" are useless.

Why the h2h is unimportant

Banned

Banned

Rookie

Bionic Poster

Rookie

Banned

Legend

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Banned

Professional

Professional

Banned

Legend

Professional

Deleted member 21996

Guest

Banned

Banned

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

New User

Hall of Fame

Banned

Professional

Banned

Banned

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Banned

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Banned

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Banned

Professional

Banned

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Banned

Hall of Fame

Banned

Banned

Banned

Hall of Fame

Banned

Banned

Banned

Similar threads