A reasonable take on the fed-nadal h2h

B

Betterer92

New User
I know this has been done to death, but I feel like it always gets too fan-boy and personal. I'm not fussed whether you think fed or nadal is the better player, but they're clearly both GOAT contenders. I happen to believe that fed has the better GOAT argument but I'm perfectly happy for anyone to favour nadal instead, I don't even think we'll ever have an agreed upon GOAT unless someone comes along and wins 25 plus slams and 150 plus tourneys in a strong era (although it would be criticised as a weak era given that one player dominated, funny how that works).

Anyway, my feeling is that the h2h is fairly explainable and shouldn't count against fed too much (although it's definitely a negative against him). You've got two GOAT contenders, very similar levels, one whose natural playing style matches up brilliantly for him against the other. When the difference in levels between players is so small, any little advantage is going to be huge, and that's where nadals lefty shots and high bounce to Feds bh come in. I think it's as simple as that, it doesn't mean that nadal is instantly better than fed because he can beat him more often than not, and nadal isn't just lucky or fed always plays badly against Rafa as some people use as an excuse. It's just, when these two particular players meet in isolation, they're very close and one player has some small advantages that over a match add up to a win more often than not. This all just seems pretty obvious to me.
 
No offense but you've brought nothing new to the discussion, just woken the lightly sleeping giant.
I agree they are two of the best ever, giving the edge to Fed. I personally think Nadal's h2h over Federer is significant when it comes to comparing their careers/respective place in tennis history.
I'm also well aware that many people disagree, vehemently, with both/all 3 of those statements
 
tacou said:
No offense but you've brought nothing new to the discussion, just woken the lightly sleeping giant.
I agree they are two of the best ever, giving the edge to Fed. I personally think Nadal's h2h over Federer is significant when it comes to comparing their careers/respective place in tennis history.
I'm also well aware that many people disagree, vehemently, with both/all 3 of those statements
Click to expand...

Oh yeah I agree that this is fairly unoriginal, I was pretty sure someone would mention that lol, although I feel that it's at least better than all the "nadal owns fed" type threads that get created. It's more just how I feel about the h2h issue, I've been reading this forum for a while without making a thread and I just wanted to voice my opinion.
 
i dont see how rafa could be considered the greatest of all time considering his struggles as of late..
i think ppl assumed he would continue his dominance and overtake federer in gs titles, but hes now injury free, #10,
and rarely wins anything outside of clay
 
sureshs said:
No, it means precisely that. That is how tennis works.
Click to expand...

That's the biggest load of crap I've read on here. Tennis isn't entirely about head to head. If it was so then each player would have to play every single other person in every single tournament to work out who is the best. You're thinking is so narrow-minded and doesn't even apply to how tennis tournaments are conducted around the world lol. That being said, h2h is a decent indicator as to the outcome of a specific match.
 
HeadStart said:
That's the biggest load of crap I've read on here. Tennis isn't entirely about head to head. If it was so then each player would have to play every single other person in every single tournament to work out who is the best. You're thinking is so narrow-minded and doesn't even apply to how tennis tournaments are conducted around the world lol. That being said, h2h is a decent indicator as to the outcome of a specific match.
Click to expand...
Agreed, I wonder how many of those people that believe h2h is so important are actually decent tennis players. in my junior years, I routinely owned a mate of mine who had a higher national ranking than me.. Not once did I think I was a better tennis player than him. And guess what, when it comes to state team selection, he was always picked ahead of me, no one cared about our little h2h score
 
I've never seen a thread like this before.:rolleyes: Just kidding. I've seen it now at least 1456903498745324568098765 times.
 
I disagree that their levels are so close without the matchup. That would imply that had Nadal been a rightly the matches would be close. My bet is Nadal would be destroyed by Federer 90% of the time if he was a righty.
 
I disagree that their levels are so close without the matchup. That would imply that had Nadal been a rightly the matches would be close. My bet is Nadal would be destroyed by Federer 90% of the time if he was a righty.
 
Wow, just recently posted this in another thread:

I don't think Nadal is an issue when you consider the age gap and when Nadal became a force off clay.

Prior to the 2008 Wimbledon Final when Roger was weeks away from turning 27, now past his physical prime, the head to head looks like this:

Nadal 9-1 on Clay
Federer 2-0 on Grass
Federer 3-2 on Hard (One of Nadal's wins coming at 500 level Dubai)

As you can see, basically a one-sided affair on clay where Nadal is regarded as GOAT and Federer beating him outside of it 5-1 in Major tournaments (again, Dubai being 500).

Now the next three matches would be two Grand Slam 5 setters going to Nadal, on grass and hard and Federer getting a rare win on Clay at Madrid. They would not meet again until 2010.

What's interesting is that from 2010 to 2012, when Federer was no nearing and into his 30s, the breakdown came out like this:

Nadal 3-0 on Clay
Federer 3-2 on Hard

This is prime Nadal against past-prime Federer and frankly at age 30+ most players begin to drop off completely. Even Agassi was more prone to bad losses in his later years despite his Slam successes.

Now, as with the pre-2008 timeline, 2 of Federer's 3 wins came at the Tour Finals. Often considered the 5th biggest tournament of the season and given ATP points max 75% of a Slam victory (provided all RR games are won but winner is usually either 1300 or 1500 points more than a Masters win).

So basically, this "issues" is quite simply to address. Nadal was a superior clay court player to Federer and played him close off clay though ultimately below his level despite the 5 year youth advantage. That's the way it should be looked at and regardless of how Nadal supporters consider it, that is the logical conclusion.

Of the absurd counters I've heard to my assessment, the most popular is that Federer was a late bloomer. That theory is easily dismissed by his multiple Slam quarters prior to turning 20 and (a feat not achieved after him until Nick Kyrgios) only being less than 2 years older at his first Slam victory than players like Edberg, Sampras, Courier, etc. Nadal himself only had 3 Slam titles, all at the French, before reaching Federer's age at his first title.

It's a testament to Federer that he has been considered a rival to someone 5 years his junior, and his "other rivals" being 6 years younger in Murray and Djokovic.

Tennis eras are just shorter than in other major sports such as Basketball, especially for men and Federer's prime era did not coincide with the other Big Four, but because of Roger's stature in the sport, the public's desire to include him in a proceeding era was too strong to ignore and thus we got the debates. The reality is that in Federer's actual era to which he belonged to, he dominated completely. Some of his rivals like Hewitt, Nalbandian and Safin, were stifled due to injury and therefore did not challenge him as often or as aggressively as they could have, allowing some of his monstrous seasons, but at his peak he really was hard to bring down. Nalbandian and Safin had some famous victories nonetheless.

So the fact he was able to contend with Nadal/Djokovic/Murray and beat them several times at Major tournaments speaks volumes to his assertion as the greatest of the modern era.
 
Yeah it is an old topic. It should be revisited with new information, ie The Implosion, not explained by normal aging or injuries.
 
Wow, just recently posted this in another thread:

I don't think Nadal is an issue when you consider the age gap and when Nadal became a force off clay.

Prior to the 2008 Wimbledon Final when Roger was weeks away from turning 27, now past his physical prime, the head to head looks like this:

Nadal 9-1 on Clay
Federer 2-0 on Grass
Federer 3-2 on Hard (One of Nadal's wins coming at 500 level Dubai)

As you can see, basically a one-sided affair on clay where Nadal is regarded as GOAT and Federer beating him outside of it 5-1 in Major tournaments (again, Dubai being 500).

Now the next three matches would be two Grand Slam 5 setters going to Nadal, on grass and hard and Federer getting a rare win on Clay at Madrid. They would not meet again until 2010.

What's interesting is that from 2010 to 2012, when Federer was no nearing and into his 30s, the breakdown came out like this:

Nadal 3-0 on Clay
Federer 3-2 on Hard

This is prime Nadal against past-prime Federer and frankly at age 30+ most players begin to drop off completely. Even Agassi was more prone to bad losses in his later years despite his Slam successes.

Now, as with the pre-2008 timeline, 2 of Federer's 3 wins came at the Tour Finals. Often considered the 5th biggest tournament of the season and given ATP points max 75% of a Slam victory (provided all RR games are won but winner is usually either 1300 or 1500 points more than a Masters win).

So basically, this "issues" is quite simply to address. Nadal was a superior clay court player to Federer and played him close off clay though ultimately below his level despite the 5 year youth advantage. That's the way it should be looked at and regardless of how Nadal supporters consider it, that is the logical conclusion.

Of the absurd counters I've heard to my assessment, the most popular is that Federer was a late bloomer. That theory is easily dismissed by his multiple Slam quarters prior to turning 20 and (a feat not achieved after him until Nick Kyrgios) only being less than 2 years older at his first Slam victory than players like Edberg, Sampras, Courier, etc. Nadal himself only had 3 Slam titles, all at the French, before reaching Federer's age at his first title.

It's a testament to Federer that he has been considered a rival to someone 5 years his junior, and his "other rivals" being 6 years younger in Murray and Djokovic.

Tennis eras are just shorter than in other major sports such as Basketball, especially for men and Federer's prime era did not coincide with the other Big Four, but because of Roger's stature in the sport, the public's desire to include him in a proceeding era was too strong to ignore and thus we got the debates. The reality is that in Federer's actual era to which he belonged to, he dominated completely. Some of his rivals like Hewitt, Nalbandian and Safin, were stifled due to injury and therefore did not challenge him as often or as aggressively as they could have, allowing some of his monstrous seasons, but at his peak he really was hard to bring down. Nalbandian and Safin had some famous victories nonetheless.

So the fact he was able to contend with Nadal/Djokovic/Murray and beat them several times at Major tournaments speaks volumes to his assertion as the greatest of the modern era.
 
BGod said:
Wow, just recently posted this in another thread:

I don't think Nadal is an issue when you consider the age gap and when Nadal became a force off clay.

Prior to the 2008 Wimbledon Final when Roger was weeks away from turning 27, now past his physical prime, the head to head looks like this:

Nadal 9-1 on Clay
Federer 2-0 on Grass
Federer 3-2 on Hard (One of Nadal's wins coming at 500 level Dubai)

As you can see, basically a one-sided affair on clay where Nadal is regarded as GOAT and Federer beating him outside of it 5-1 in Major tournaments (again, Dubai being 500).

Now the next three matches would be two Grand Slam 5 setters going to Nadal, on grass and hard and Federer getting a rare win on Clay at Madrid. They would not meet again until 2010.

What's interesting is that from 2010 to 2012, when Federer was no nearing and into his 30s, the breakdown came out like this:

Nadal 3-0 on Clay
Federer 3-2 on Hard

This is prime Nadal against past-prime Federer and frankly at age 30+ most players begin to drop off completely. Even Agassi was more prone to bad losses in his later years despite his Slam successes.

Now, as with the pre-2008 timeline, 2 of Federer's 3 wins came at the Tour Finals. Often considered the 5th biggest tournament of the season and given ATP points max 75% of a Slam victory (provided all RR games are won but winner is usually either 1300 or 1500 points more than a Masters win).

So basically, this "issues" is quite simply to address. Nadal was a superior clay court player to Federer and played him close off clay though ultimately below his level despite the 5 year youth advantage. That's the way it should be looked at and regardless of how Nadal supporters consider it, that is the logical conclusion.

Of the absurd counters I've heard to my assessment, the most popular is that Federer was a late bloomer. That theory is easily dismissed by his multiple Slam quarters prior to turning 20 and (a feat not achieved after him until Nick Kyrgios) only being less than 2 years older at his first Slam victory than players like Edberg, Sampras, Courier, etc. Nadal himself only had 3 Slam titles, all at the French, before reaching Federer's age at his first title.

It's a testament to Federer that he has been considered a rival to someone 5 years his junior, and his "other rivals" being 6 years younger in Murray and Djokovic.

Tennis eras are just shorter than in other major sports such as Basketball, especially for men and Federer's prime era did not coincide with the other Big Four, but because of Roger's stature in the sport, the public's desire to include him in a proceeding era was too strong to ignore and thus we got the debates. The reality is that in Federer's actual era to which he belonged to, he dominated completely. Some of his rivals like Hewitt, Nalbandian and Safin, were stifled due to injury and therefore did not challenge him as often or as aggressively as they could have, allowing some of his monstrous seasons, but at his peak he really was hard to bring down. Nalbandian and Safin had some famous victories nonetheless.

So the fact he was able to contend with Nadal/Djokovic/Murray and beat them several times at Major tournaments speaks volumes to his assertion as the greatest of the modern era.
Click to expand...

The fact that he could beat a 20 and 21 year old Rafa at Wimbledon is a testament to his greatness? I think that's a stretch.
 
BringBackSV said:
The fact that he could beat a 20 and 21 year old Rafa at Wimbledon is a testament to his greatness? I think that's a stretch.
Click to expand...

Way to cherry pick?

A 29-31 year old Federer beat a 24-26 year old Nadal 3 out of 5 times at Major tournaments outside Clay. That's a testament to his greatness.

But frankly, since their primes did not cross paths it's impossible to judge correctly. Any way you dice it, Roger's 5 years older than Nadal. On the edge of Federer's prime years at age 26-28, the two met 11 times. 7 of those were on clay and Nadal won 5 of them. Off clay there were only 4 matches, with Roger winning both in his 26th year and losing both in his 27th. Then one needs to acknowledge both losses at Wimbledon and Australia were 5 set epics, so the margins were razor thin. I just don't see how Nadal beats Federer consistently off-clay prime for prime when he couldn't really do it against a near 30 Federer.
 
BGod said:
Way to cherry pick?

A 29-31 year old Federer beat a 24-26 year old Nadal 3 out of 5 times at Major tournaments outside Clay. That's a testament to his greatness.

But frankly, since their primes did not cross paths it's impossible to judge correctly. Any way you dice it, Roger's 5 years older than Nadal. On the edge of Federer's prime years at age 26-28, the two met 11 times. 7 of those were on clay and Nadal won 5 of them. Off clay there were only 4 matches, with Roger winning both in his 26th year and losing both in his 27th. Then one needs to acknowledge both losses at Wimbledon and Australia were 5 set epics, so the margins were razor thin. I just don't see how Nadal beats Federer consistently off-clay prime for prime when he couldn't really do it against a near 30 Federer.
Click to expand...

You claim somebody else is cherry picking yet you eliminate the clay major meetings for some odd reason. You also lumped the WTF in with Slams which is silly.
 
BringBackSV said:
You claim somebody else is cherry picking yet you eliminate the clay major meetings for some odd reason. You also lumped the WTF in with Slams which is silly.
Click to expand...

I'm not ignoring clay, it's just that it's a surface Nadal has quite clearly dominated over everybody. So it's not a debate issue. The debate is off-clay, where Roger really didn't play Nadal much in his best years but still able to defeat in his twilight years. The WTF is not a Slam but it's higher than a Masters.
 
HeadStart said:
That's the biggest load of crap I've read on here. Tennis isn't entirely about head to head. If it was so then each player would have to play every single other person in every single tournament to work out who is the best. You're thinking is so narrow-minded and doesn't even apply to how tennis tournaments are conducted around the world lol. That being said, h2h is a decent indicator as to the outcome of a specific match.
Click to expand...

It is not just a decent indicator, it is the only outcome of a match.
 
Betterer92 said:
I know this has been done to death, but I feel like it always gets too fan-boy and personal. I'm not fussed whether you think fed or nadal is the better player, but they're clearly both GOAT contenders. I happen to believe that fed has the better GOAT argument but I'm perfectly happy for anyone to favour nadal instead, I don't even think we'll ever have an agreed upon GOAT unless someone comes along and wins 25 plus slams and 150 plus tourneys in a strong era (although it would be criticised as a weak era given that one player dominated, funny how that works).

Anyway, my feeling is that the h2h is fairly explainable and shouldn't count against fed too much (although it's definitely a negative against him). You've got two GOAT contenders, very similar levels, one whose natural playing style matches up brilliantly for him against the other. When the difference in levels between players is so small, any little advantage is going to be huge, and that's where nadals lefty shots and high bounce to Feds bh come in. I think it's as simple as that, it doesn't mean that nadal is instantly better than fed because he can beat him more often than not, and nadal isn't just lucky or fed always plays badly against Rafa as some people use as an excuse. It's just, when these two particular players meet in isolation, they're very close and one player has some small advantages that over a match add up to a win more often than not. This all just seems pretty obvious to me.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with the above and it's amusing to hear the b/s and stats start rolling again.

There's no doubt Rafa on a pure H2H basis has Fed's measure....tennis is about more than just H2H though...hell in tennis it's even possible (although unlikely) that 2 greats could go their entire career without ever meeting, hence why I don't place a huge emphasis on H2H...even though I'm a big fan of both Rafa and Fed....just enjoy the contests.
 
tennisaddict said:
How about 6-1 HC that Davydenko owns over Rafa ? Significant enough ? :)-

Dustin Brown and Coric are undefeated against Rafa. Rafa has lost 10 times to Federer.
Click to expand...
Oh come on, you know fine well what sureshs is saying. You simply can't compare a 1-0 H2H or a 6-5 one to 23-10 and I say that as someone who far prefers Federer to Nadal.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
Oh come on, you know fine well what sureshs is saying. You simply can't compare a 1-0 H2H or a 6-5 one to 23-10 and I say that as someone who far prefers Federer to Nadal.
Click to expand...

Fedaddict is well aware of this but struggles to come up with a similar example because it's unprecedented for a GOAT contender. It's fair to note that h2h can't on it's own merit make Rafa better and that Fed has a better resume but their rivalry can't be dismissed as irrelevant either. Fed is a great player but a GOAT pretender, he is not the chosen one.
 
BringBackSV said:
Fedaddict is well aware of this but struggles to come up with a similar example because it's unprecedented for a GOAT contender. It's fair to note that h2h can't on it's own merit make Rafa better and that Fed has a better resume but their rivalry can't be dismissed as irrelevant either. Fed is a great player but a GOAT pretender, he is not the chosen one.
Click to expand...

Federer is 6-3 post FO, even as on date. The overall h2h is fully a function of surface / matches they played after Federer's prime. If they played 10 matches on clay and 23 matches on fast HC , I am pretty sure the h2h would be 10-23 and not 23-10.

Fed does not have to pretend or act. The records speaks for itself.
 
tennisaddict said:
Federer is 6-3 post FO, even as on date. The overall h2h is fully a function of surface / matches they played after Federer's prime. If they played 10 matches on clay and 23 matches on fast HC , I am pretty sure the h2h would be 10-23 and not 23-10.

Fed does not have to pretend or act. The records speaks for itself.
Click to expand...

There are no excuses.
 
I'm convinced that tennisaddict is a member of Roger's family. No way can there be any other explanation for him being so protective and devoted to someone he's never even met before. It really is unhealthy, not to mention a little bit creepy.
 
BringBackSV said:
What does that have to do with me? It's ok to acknowledge that Fed is flawed, they will not revoke your fan club membership.
Click to expand...

Yes, the h2h is lopsided and it is a flaw. But what needs realization is the context of those matches and relative age of the players / strength of the competitors.
 
Too bad Fed didn't learn to suck on clay and retire in his age 31 season like Pete. He would have been a worse and less accomplished player overall, but a better player in the all-important microcosm of having a winning 8-7 record against a guy whose peak followed his.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
I'm convinced that tennisaddict is a member of Roger's family. No way can there be any other explanation for him being so protective and devoted to someone he's never even met before. It really is unhealthy, not to mention a little bit creepy.
Click to expand...

Dude, I can assure you that I care about Fed's tennis and not his kits, holidays, sponsor meets, training rituals, celebrity meetings and the enchilada that gets discussed in player news threads.

His records are valuable to fans like me who have rode the journey from 2003. May not mean much to others. But don't preach. Different strokes for different folks.

And you really want me to comment on how many asinine threads we see about CYGS the moment Novak wins AO ?
 
sureshs said:
No, it means precisely that. That is how tennis works.
Click to expand...
Actually no, it can't mean that at all. There are many many instances of Player A dominating Player B who dominates Player C who dominates Player A. So who is the best player then? Think Nadal, Federer and Davydenko.
 
tennisaddict said:
Dude, I can assure you that I care about Fed's tennis and not his kits, holidays, sponsor meets, training rituals, celebrity meetings and the enchilada that gets discussed in player news threads.

His records are valuable to fans like me who have rode the journey from 2003. May not mean much to others. But don't preach. Different strokes for different folks.

And you really want me to comment on how many asinine threads we see about CYGS the moment Novak wins AO ?
Click to expand...
How did I know you were gonna bring up Novak in your post? And the funny thing is it's hardly ever Djokovic fans that create those type of threads in the first place so don't put the blame on us for it.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
I'm convinced that tennisaddict is a member of Roger's family. No way can there be any other explanation for him being so protective and devoted to someone he's never even met before. It really is unhealthy, not to mention a little bit creepy.
Click to expand...
Then again, to an extent, there is an underlying creepiness and vicarious motivation behind all fandom of this level around athletes.
 
Inanimate_object said:
Then again, to an extent, there is an underlying creepiness and vicarious motivation behind all fandom of this level around athletes.
Click to expand...
You've got us all worked out.
Never in doubt.

hi-res-f79f64ff6d413fc9c45bcdadead1362e_crop_north.jpg
 
Djokovic2011 said:
How did I know you were gonna bring up Novak in your post? And the funny thing is it's hardly ever Djokovic fans that create those type of threads in the first place so don't put the blame on us for it.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure it is a 'Smear Campaign' . Isn't that what is in vogue today ?
 
ledwix said:
Too bad Fed didn't learn to suck on clay and retire in his age 31 season like Pete. He would have been a worse and less accomplished player overall, but a better player in the all-important microcosm of having a winning 8-7 record against a guy whose peak followed his.
Click to expand...

No kidding.

Federer having a 5-1 record in 1000+ level tournaments off-clay prior to his 27th year is also indicative of Nadal's superiority to him.....

Their H2H is entirely based off more matches on Nadal's favorable surface (15 of 33) and majority of his matches played after Federer turned 26 (19 of 33).

Take the H2H between Ivan Lendl and Jimmy Connors, where there's a 7 and a half year difference. Lendl leads Connors 22-12. Sound familiar?
Well Jimmy won their first 7 mettings, 2 on clay. From then on, they split the next several matches before Lendl won their last 17 matches!
 
Betterer92 said:
I know this has been done to death, but I feel like it always gets too fan-boy and personal. I'm not fussed whether you think fed or nadal is the better player, but they're clearly both GOAT contenders. I happen to believe that fed has the better GOAT argument but I'm perfectly happy for anyone to favour nadal instead, I don't even think we'll ever have an agreed upon GOAT unless someone comes along and wins 25 plus slams and 150 plus tourneys in a strong era (although it would be criticised as a weak era given that one player dominated, funny how that works).

Anyway, my feeling is that the h2h is fairly explainable and shouldn't count against fed too much (although it's definitely a negative against him). You've got two GOAT contenders, very similar levels, one whose natural playing style matches up brilliantly for him against the other. When the difference in levels between players is so small, any little advantage is going to be huge, and that's where nadals lefty shots and high bounce to Feds bh come in. I think it's as simple as that, it doesn't mean that nadal is instantly better than fed because he can beat him more often than not, and nadal isn't just lucky or fed always plays badly against Rafa as some people use as an excuse. It's just, when these two particular players meet in isolation, they're very close and one player has some small advantages that over a match add up to a win more often than not. This all just seems pretty obvious to me.
Click to expand...

Shocker that a newbie would weigh in off the bat on a Super Well known topic, and disengenuously pick sides!

Fed fanatics are quite obvious!

Ironic how Nadal fans are slammed, when every non Nadal troll of the week entersthe Nadal Newsthread, but Nadal fans rarely enter the Fed and Novak fanfanatic threads.

Always ignored regarding trollness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Arguement as to why Fed v Rafa H2H proves Fed is GOAT
Replies
1
Views
818
Deleted member 3771
D
Gary Duane
The H2H between Nadal and Fed
3 4 5
Replies
233
Views
15K
Gary Duane
Gary Duane
T
Fed-Nadal H2H hybrid
Replies
4
Views
1K
aldeayeah
aldeayeah
MasterTS
  • Poll Poll
Fed H2H against Nadal, predictions 2008 eoy
Replies
2
Views
766
Grimjack
G
kraggy
Why I do not want Fed to win the FO!
2
Replies
66
Views
5K
BreakPoint
BreakPoint
Back
Top