A closer look at the Federer/Nadal h2h (Prime Federer did well against Prime Nadal)

[JennyS]

First let's divide the players' careers into stages:

Federer

1. Prime Federer (2003 Wimbledon-2007)
2. Post Prime Federer (2008-Present)

Nadal:
1. Pre Prime Nadal (pre-2005 claycourt season)
2. Prime Nadal (2005 claycourt season-present)


And now the matches....

1. Prime Federer vs Pre Prime Nadal:
Non Clay Matches: Tied 1-1
Clay: 0-0
Overall: Tied 1-1

2. Prime Federer vs Prime Nadal:
Non clay matches: Federer 4-1
Clay matches: Nadal: 6-1
Slams: Nadal 3-2
Slam Finals: Tied 2-2
Overall: Nadal 7-5

3. Post Prime Federer vs Prime Nadal:
Non clay matches: Nadal 2-0
Clay matches: Nadal 3-1
Slams: Nadal 3-0
Overall: Nadal 5-1

So Prime Nadal has gotten to play non Prime Federer SIX times while Prime Federer only got to play non Prime Nadal twice! (and Fed was sick the first time )

Also: Prime Federer only got to play non prime Andy Murray twice, but prime Andy Murray has played non prime Federer 6 times!

 

[FILA]

Nadal >>>> Federer

 

[NonP]

2. Prime Nadal (2005 claycourt season-present)

Is this for real? I'm dying here!

 

[FILA]

JennyS you really are a muppet. You twisted the facts in favor of Federer and even put in a few excuses for Roger.

Just to let you know, Murray is not in his prime. He defeated 'prime' Federer in 2006 when Murray was anywhere near as good as he is now.

 

[JennyS]

Fine, we can divide them up this way instead:

Federer

1. Early Prime Federer (2003 Wimbledon-2004)
2. Peak Prime Federer (2005-2006)
3. Prime Federer (2007)
4. Post Prime Federer (2008-present)

Nadal:
1. Pre Prime Nadal (pre 2005 claycourt season)
2. Early Prime Nadal (2005 FO-end of 2005)
3. Prime Nadal (2006-2008 Miami)
4. Preak Prime Nadal (2008 claycourt season-2009 French Open)

Now their h2h:

Early Prime Federer vs Pre Prime Nadal:
Tied: 1-1 (both matches played on Miami hardcourts)

Peak Prime Federer vs Early Prime Nadal:
Nadal 1-0 (clay)

Peak Prime Federer vs Prime Nadal
Non Clay Matches: Federer 2-1
Clay Matches: Nadal: 3-0
Slams: Tied 1-1
Overall: Nadal 4-2

Prime Federer vs Prime Nadal:
Non Clay Matches: Federer 2-0
Clay Matches: Nadal 2-1
Slams: Tied 1-1
Overall: Federer 3-2

Post Prime Federer vs Peak Prime Nadal
Non Clay Matches: Nadal 2-0
Clay Matches: Nadal 3-1
Slams: Nadal 3-0
Overall: Nadal 5-1

 

[JennyS]

Think a h2h isn't partially dependent on what stages of the careers the matches play? Consider Federer vs Nalbandian:

Pre Prime Federer: 0-3 vs Nalbandian
Early Prime Federer: Tied 2-2
Peak Prime Federer: 6-1
Prime Federer: 0-2
Post Prime Federer: 2-0

See? Peak Prime Federer OWNED Nalbandian. 6-1 against a player that used to own him!

 

[NonP]

Your reasoning is flawed, as usual, as your prime-peak demarcations don't factor in the surface issues. Many a player, particularly Nadal, develops differently with regard to the surface. To claim that Nadal entered his early "prime" on all surfaces when he won his 1st FO is laughable, to say the least. And that's assuming a player's prime does start with his 1st major title, which is a questionable assumption to begin with.

 

[Rjtennis]

These threads have been beat to death. Honestly, these Federer/Nadal topics need there own category. They are both great players with very different games. All players have difficult against playing styles that are vastly different from their own. That wicked inside out shot would be difficult for anyone with a one handed backhand to defend and I think that accounts for many of Federer's loses to Nadal.

 

[JennyS]

Your reasoning is flawed, as usual, as your prime-peak demarcations don't factor in the surface issues. Many a player, particularly Nadal, develops differently with regard to the surface. To claim that Nadal entered his early "prime" on all surfaces when he won his 1st FO is laughable, to say the least. And that's assuming a player's prime does start with his 1st major title, which is a questionable assumption to begin with.

But what about Fed? He won 3 Slams in 2004, yet lost early at Rome and the French Open. Both losses came to over the hill former FO winners. He wasn't in his clay prime in 2004 but he was in his prime!

Nadal on the other hand, won TWO hardcourt Masters titles in 2005, beat Federer at Dubai and was runner up at Wimbledon in 2006 and won Indian Wells and was runner up in Wimbledon in 2007. He was Definitely in his prime in 2006-2007.

 

[NonP]

But what about Fed? He won 3 Slams in 2004, yet lost early at Rome and the French Open. Both losses came to over the hill former FO winners. He wasn't in his clay prime in 2004 but he was in his prime!

Nadal on the other hand, won TWO hardcourt Masters titles in 2005, beat Federer at Dubai and was runner up at Wimbledon in 2006 and won Indian Wells and was runner up in Wimbledon in 2007. He was Definitely in his prime in 2006-2007.

Did I say Fed was in his clay prime in '04? No, didn't think so. BTW you apparently haven't seen his '04 FO loss in the 3rd round to Kuerten.

And yeah, Nadal did win two MS HC titles in '05, but faced only one great hard-court player in Agassi. The rest of the field consisted of "over the hill" Moya, Mello, Grosjean, Puerta and Mathieu in Montreal, and Hanescu, Robredo, Stepanek, Ginepri and Ljubicic in Madrid. No Federer in sight. And Rafa bowed out in the 1st round in Cincy. Ditto with Rafa's overall results from '06 and '07 other than the ones you cherry-picked from the pool. Sounds like he was well into his prime.

Also, if you really think a prime should be determined by Slam results, you may also wanna bring up Rafa's HC Slam results before '08. At least be consistent in your "analysis."

 

[NamRanger]

Did I say Fed was in his clay prime in '04? No, didn't think so. BTW you apparently haven't seen his '04 FO loss in the 3rd round to Kuerten.

And yeah, Nadal did win two MS HC titles in '05, but faced only one great hard-court player in Agassi. The rest of the field consisted of "over the hill" Moya, Mello, Grosjean, Puerta and Mathieu in Montreal, and Hanescu, Robredo, Stepanek, Ginepri and Ljubicic in Madrid. No Federer in sight. And Rafa bowed out in the 1st round in Cincy. Ditto with Rafa's overall results from '06 and '07 other than the ones you cherry-picked from the pool. Sounds like he was well into his prime.

Also, if you really think a prime should be determined by Slam results, you may also wanna bring up Rafa's HC Slam results before '08. At least be consistent in your "analysis."

Nadal lost 1st round in Cincinnati after Montreal because he was either tired or he tanked. It's the same with Federer in 2006 when he tanked against Murray too.



There is no fact bending here. Only wrong analysis. Prime Federer and Prime Nadal can never be compared because they were never even on any surfaces.

 

[NonP]

Nadal lost 1st round in Cincinnati after Montreal because he was either tired or he tanked. It's the same with Federer in 2006 when he tanked against Murray too.



There is no fact bending here. Only wrong analysis. Prime Federer and Prime Nadal can never be compared because they were never even on any surfaces.

My problem isn't with the "fact bending" per se, but with the selective citation of results. Anyway we agree that the analysis is flawed.

 

[NamRanger]

My problem isn't with the "fact bending" per se, but with the selective citation of results. Anyway we agree that the analysis is flawed.

Exactly, you can't ever really compare them fairly because they are just too far apart in age, and their skills on certain surfaces are just worlds apart. For example, Federer is just way ahead of Nadal when it comes to HCs, while Nadal is way ahead of Federer on clay.

 

[NonP]

Exactly, you can't ever really compare them fairly because they are just too far apart in age, and their skills on certain surfaces are just worlds apart. For example, Federer is just way ahead of Nadal when it comes to HCs, while Nadal is way ahead of Federer on clay.

Think Nadal's edge on clay is rather more significant than Fed's edge on HCs, but we more or less agree. I actually don't mind the comparisons between Fed and Nadal (or any other two players, for that matter), as long as they're done fairly without any fallacy and selective stats. If you care here's what I said about the Fed-Nadal H2H earlier today (on a separate thread):

First the claim that Fed is a better grass-court player than Nadal. Based on what? The H2H? News flash: They've met only three times on grass. Three times. If you think you can make a fair comparison given such a small sample and the age difference between the two players, I've got a Raelian tract you could use. And last time I checked their last two meetings on the lawns were very close scraps.

On to the hard-court H2H. So they've split their six meetings between them. A slightly bigger sample, but hardly conclusive. Oh, but Fed has a much more impressive HC resume, you say? Fallacious. We're discussing who's the better player, not greater.

Ah, but there's the age difference, right? First of all, a 5-year age difference isn’t considered such a big gap in tennis. Connors and McEnroe were born almost 6 years apart, but we still consider them rivals. Ditto with Jimmy vs. Lendl, Lendl vs. Becker, Lendl vs. Edberg, etc. Also, a 5-year difference matters less when players A and B are, say, 26 and 21 years old respectively than when they're 31 and 26.

But let’s grant that the gap is big enough to put the H2H in perspective, and look at the years in question. Was Fed in his prime between ’04 and ’07? Yes. Rafa? No, certainly not on hard courts (and grass, for that matter), though he was starting to catch up in ’07. So one could easily argue--correctly, IMV--that the age difference actually favors Fed over Nadal. I mean, if Rafa in those years, with his serve yet to break the 110-120 mark on average, could handle TMF so well on arguably his best surface (HC), what makes you think an improved Rafa wouldn’t have been able to do the same and more? And don't forget that Rafa's prime has begun just recently, with his dominant clay, grass and HC seasons last year. There's little reason to think he has already seen the end of his prime at the tender age of 23.

The reason why Nadal's superior H2H against Fed gets mentioned isn't just that a few anti-Fed evangelists want to bring down their object of disdain, but also that Rafa has already proven to be an all-surface threat and is on his way to the exclusive GOAT club. That's why the H2H as it stands can’t be dismissed so flippantly. So try not to get so worked up next time someone brings it up. It’s a legitimate issue, whether you like it or not.

 

[Nadalfan89]

JennyS is by far the worst ******* on this board.

The way she cherry picks stats to make Federer look good is comical. Even her signature consists of arbitrary dates that can be used to make anyone look good.

1-0 Blake's non anything but hard court record against Federer from july08-september08.

^See how easy it is.

 

[bolo]

]1-0 Blake's non anything but hard court record against Federer from july08-september08.

lol. 10 char.

 

[Deleted member 25923]

Finally someone mentions it. Federer is in the very tail end of his prime. He's still winning slams.

Nadal last year wasn't prime. It was frickin peak!

 

[JennyS]

JennyS is by far the worst ******* on this board.

The way she cherry picks stats to make Federer look good is comical. Even her signature consists of arbitrary dates that can be used to make anyone look good.

1-0 Blake's non anything but hard court record against Federer from july08-september08.

^See how easy it is.

Hey I can make Nadal look good too:
Nadal: 5-0 against Federer in 2008

 

[JennyS]

How about this as the new classifications for Nadal's career:

2004: pre prime Nadal
2005: Clay Prime/Pre prime on other surfaces
2006: Clay Prime/Pre prime on other surfaces
2007: Clay Prime/Early prime on other surfaces
2008: All Surfaces Prime Nadal
2009: All Surfaces Prime Nadal (at least through the spring)

So all of the claycourt meetings between Nadal and Federer occured during CLAY PRIME Nadal or Overall Prime Nadal's career.

Of the non claycourt meetings, the last two have been during Nadal's all-around prime, while two more (07 Wimbledon and 07 Masters Cup) occurred as Nadal was getting much much better off clay.

 

[namelessone]

How about this as the new classifications for Nadal's career:

2004: pre prime Nadal
2005: Clay Prime/Pre prime on other surfaces
2006: Clay Prime/Pre prime on other surfaces
2007: Clay Prime/Early prime on other surfaces
2008: All Surfaces Prime Nadal
2009: All Surfaces Prime Nadal (at least through the spring)

So all of the claycourt meetings between Nadal and Federer occured during CLAY PRIME Nadal or Overall Prime Nadal's career.

Of the non claycourt meetings, the last two have been during Nadal's all-around prime, while two more (07 Wimbledon and 07 Masters Cup) occurred as Nadal was getting much much better off clay.

You cannot classify primes,peaks and such when a player's career is ongoing.The only true indication of a player's prime is if he is winning titles or not.Ok,we can argue if he wins them in a convincing manner or not,but if he wins them he is good enough.This is why I find it funny that federer is post-prime game-wise but somehow he isn't prime now even though he's raking 2 GS a year on average.Same thing applies to Nadal.So Nadal's prime was in 2008.What do you do if Nadal wins 2 slams in 2010? Do you reconsider the numbers or the primes? I have said in another thread that it's pointless to argue about these 2 players because the age difference means that they didn't really meet each other that much in their "primes".

The only times when primes met was at RG when prime clay Nadal was meeting prime clay Federer,meeting 4 times there and federer got beat each time.If my "prime" standards were more lax I could say that they met in grass also but 2006 Nadal was just learning to play on grass,he lost the 07' final fair and square against still prime Federer and went on to win 08' against what many thought was a post-prime federer but as WB 09' has shown us that's not the case.So far in the "prime" contest Nadal leads on clay by a large margin and let's say fed leads the grass meetings.

Comparing HC prime results in just plain wrong.Nadal was learning to play grass,which he did very well,and at the same time was expected to take the HC courts by storm.He obviously couldn't do it because people were expecting too much of him.In fed's hc prime Nadal didn't even make finals in HC so what are we talking about? Now that Nadal has learned to play HC somewhat,making his first final in AO(and his first HC slam),one could say that Federer is over the hill so he will be past HC prime and Nadal's eventual victories over him won't be as shiny as they would have been in 2004-2007.

If you feel the need to compare,you should do it after these guys hang up their rackets.

 

[~ZoSo~]

First let's divide the players' careers into stages:

Federer

1. Prime Federer (2003 Wimbledon-2007)
2. Post Prime Federer (2008-Present)

Nadal:
1. Pre Prime Nadal (pre-2005 claycourt season)
2. Prime Nadal (2005 claycourt season-present)


And now the matches....

1. Prime Federer vs Pre Prime Nadal:
Non Clay Matches: Tied 1-1
Clay: 0-0
Overall: Tied 1-1

2. Prime Federer vs Prime Nadal:
Non clay matches: Federer 4-1
Clay matches: Nadal: 6-1
Slams: Nadal 3-2
Slam Finals: Tied 2-2
Overall: Nadal 7-5

3. Post Prime Federer vs Prime Nadal:
Non clay matches: Nadal 2-0
Clay matches: Nadal 3-1
Slams: Nadal 3-0
Overall: Nadal 5-1

So Prime Nadal has gotten to play non Prime Federer SIX times while Prime Federer only got to play non Prime Nadal twice! (and Fed was sick the first time )

Also: Prime Federer only got to play non prime Andy Murray twice, but prime Andy Murray has played non prime Federer 6 times!

Please get a life. And instead of taking time to hilariously cook up stats, just accept fed struggles against nadal, great player though he is