A reasonable take on the fed-nadal h2h

[drm025]

But you have to factor in most of Nadal/Federer's matches were played on clay which is Nadal's best surface and Federer's worst. And met the least amount of times on Federer's best environment(indoor). There's no distinct advantage for either Connors/Lendl since they were all great on hard court and carpet.

In the end, no one cares about H2H except only you and a few Nadal fans.

No, most of their matches were off clay.

I think people need to at least acknowledge the H2H, but thats just my opinion.

The most direct comparison between 2 players is when they are across the net from each other, playing on the same court, exact same conditions. Call me crazy, just my opinion.

 

[TMF]

No, most of their matches were off clay.

I think people need to at least acknowledge the H2H, but thats just my opinion.

The most direct comparison between 2 players is when they are across the net from each other, playing on the same court, exact same conditions. Call me crazy, just my opinion.

You are wrong.

Most of the meeting were on clay. Only 3 were on grass and 5 indoor(WTF) which is Federer's favorite place.

 

[drm025]

You are wrong.

Most of the meeting were on clay. Only 3 were on grass and 5 indoor(WTF) which is Federer's favorite place.

Must be just the wording that was confusing. I meant the majority are off of clay, 18 matches. They played on clay 15 times. Nadal leads federer off of clay as well.

 

[tennisaddict]

Federer has 1 RG title from 5 finals. Nadal has 2 Wimby titles from 5 finals, and 2 USO titles from 3 finals. Therefore -> capable on all surfaces. I didn't say their level was the same on every surface.

Compared to 9 RG titles, 4 finals and 1 title is nothing.

Compared to 9 Wimb finals including 7 titles, 2 titles is a fraction.

 

[drm025]

Compared to 9 RG titles, 4 finals and 1 title is nothing.

Compared to 9 Wimb finals including 7 titles, 2 titles is a fraction.

Yet nadal still beat federer at wimbledon, so clearly he has more than a fraction of fed's capability on grass. I stand by what I said, theyre capable on all surfaces.

 

[tennisaddict]

Yet nadal still beat federer at wimbledon, so clearly he has more than a fraction of fed's capability on grass. I stand by what I said, theyre capable on all surfaces.

No one is saying Nadal is not capable on grass. His achievements pale in comparison with Federer's. Thus h2h needs context.

 

[drm025]

No one is saying Nadal is not capable on grass. His achievements pale in comparison with Federer's. Thus h2h needs context.

I think you're trying to say that federer isnt one of the best players on the clay, though. Most agree he is. So he is not incapable of beating nadal on clay, many have done it. He doesn't get a pass, just like Nadal wouldnt get a pass elsewhere.

Either way, Nadal leads off of clay as well.

 

[tennisaddict]

I think you're trying to say that federer isnt one of the best players on the clay, though. Most agree he is. So he is not incapable of beating nadal on clay, many have done it. He doesn't get a pass, just like Nadal wouldnt get a pass elsewhere.

Either way, Nadal leads off of clay as well.

I am not trying to say anything. I am saying there is huge gap in terms of achievements by surface.

 

[drm025]

I am not trying to say anything. I am saying there is huge gap in terms of achievements by surface.

I can't disagree.

 

[tennisaddict]

I can't disagree.

Thus it implies that h2h should be analyzed by surface

 

[drm025]

Thus it implies that h2h should be analyzed by surface

It tells you more about the H2H definitely, but I don't know what difference in makes in this context when Nadal leads off of clay... So you also want to analyze by age and when each player was theoretically peaking. Nadal held the lead at every period of time. So again, you really need to just take it for what it is.

I can better understand when people say it isnt significant to them, but to deny it makes no sense.

 

[tennisaddict]

It tells you more about the H2H definitely, but I don't know what difference in makes in this context when Nadal leads off of clay... So you also want to analyze by age and when each player was theoretically peaking. Nadal held the lead at every period of time. So again, you really need to just take it for what it is.

I can better understand when people say it isnt significant to them, but to deny it makes no sense.

Federer leads h2h on fast court and grass. They just have not played enough times like on clay

 

[Gary Duane]

Oh please!

Federer was not 27 when they played at Wimbledon in 2008. He was still a month shy and was still 26. Regardless, age was not a factor. That is a prime age for any tennis player today. On another day, Federer could have won that match and Nadal could have won the 2007 final (remember he had 4 break points early in the 5th set in two different games). So both those matches were that close.

Federer did not lose a single set from Halle to the Wimbledon final in 2008 and was in excellent form coming in to that final. He then went on to win the US open where he did not have to face Nadal, lost the Aus Open final (played great again) to guess who? Nadal, did not face Nadal and won 3 of the next 4 slams and went to the final of the other where he was undone by some serious tennis from Del Potro. So the age excuse for the 2008 final is very lame.

 

[La Grande]

"A reasonable take"

It is simple. Nadal leads the head to head, fair and square. Federer is more accomplished, clearly.

The end.

 

[Vrad]

The simple explanation is (as we saw in Wimbledon the past few years) Off-form Nadal was very capable of losing early to journeymen. Federer's variety meant that even when he wasn't playing his best, he'd make it to the later stages off the tournament (you only need to look up all his consecutive QFs, SFs and Finals records to recognize his ability to beat the field).

Nadal almost always only played Federer when he was in form, while Federer frequently played Nadal out of form.

Add to that the slowing of the courts, the age gap and the Lefty topspin forehand to Fed's backhand and the discrepancy in H2H is completely explained.

 

[drm025]

Federer leads h2h on fast court and grass. They just have not played enough times like on clay

By fast HC do you mean indoors? The only outdoor HC matches Fed was won were at Miami and IW, or slow courts. So the better separation is indoor vs. outdoor. Nadal leads on outdoor hard 8-2 and he leads on clay 13-2. Outdoor hard and clay make up the majority of the tour. It makes sense that they have played there most.

Im cool with ending this, though, its becoming the same discussion thats been had many times. We clearly dont agree.

 

[Tennisanity]

Must be just the wording that was confusing. I meant the majority are off of clay, 18 matches. They played on clay 15 times. Nadal leads federer off of clay as well.

Yeah but an even greater majority off grass. If you consider off-any surface, off clay is the lowest

 

[The_18th_Slam]

By fast HC do you mean indoors? The only outdoor HC matches Fed was won were at Miami and IW, or slow courts. So the better separation is indoor vs. outdoor. Nadal leads on outdoor hard 8-2 and he leads on clay 13-2. Outdoor hard and clay make up the majority of the tour. It makes sense that they have played there most.

Im cool with ending this, though, its becoming the same discussion thats been had many times. We clearly dont agree.

Federer leads 6-3 post-FO.

 

[Gary Duane]

Oh please!

Federer was not 27 when they played at Wimbledon in 2008. He was still a month shy and was still 26.

I'm just talking about history here.

For instance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy...nd_Year-End_Championship_performance_timeline

Connors lost his #1 ranking in 1979, at age 28. The difference between 1978 and 1979 is night and day.

John McEnroe:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_...nd_Year-End_Championship_performance_timeline

For him it was 1985, the cliff.

So all I am suggesting is that the greatest players have just a 4-5 year window where they dominate. That window can be a bit wider, but usually not. And sometimes after this peak-window players get back close to the top again, but it's never the same.

Regardless, age was not a factor. That is a prime age for any tennis player today. On another day, Federer could have won that match and Nadal could have won the 2007 final (remember he had 4 break points early in the 5th set in two different games). So both those matches were that close.

Don't make this about me trying to cut down Nadal. I'm not doing that. I am merely suggesting that there is an absolutely peak for each player, and where that peak starts and stops is different for each. Nadal and Fed both peaked early, as did Connors and Mac and Borg. Novak is peaking later, as did Lendl. But Lendl his his wall at in 1988, at 28.

Federer did not lose a single set from Halle to the Wimbledon final in 2008 and was in excellent form coming in to that final. He then went on to win the US open where he did not have to face Nadal, lost the Aus Open final (played great again) to guess who? Nadal, did not face Nadal and won 3 of the next 4 slams and went to the final of the other where he was undone by some serious tennis from Del Potro. So the age excuse for the 2008 final is very lame.

It's not just one factor. I believe this cycle goes on for all players.

Age is always relevant.

 

[drm025]

Federer leads 6-3 post-FO.

And they are tied 2-2 outside of WTFs. WTFs does not equal the entire second half of the year. So, its pretty inconclusive. We know Fed is better at the WTFs.

 

[Gary Duane]

No, most of their matches were off clay.

I think 15 clay, 15 HC, 3 grass...

 

[The_18th_Slam]

And they are tied 2-2 outside of WTFs. WTFs does not equal the entire second half of the year. So, its pretty inconclusive. We know Fed is better at the WTFs.

A breakdown of their rivalry:

Clay: 13-2 to Nadal
We know Nadal is clay GOAT, so nothing to see here

Grass: 2-1 to Federer
We know Federer is grass GOAT, so nothing to see here

Indoor Hard: 4-1 to Federer
We know Federer is much better than Nadal on Indoor Hard, so nothing to see here

Outdoor Hard: 8-2 to Nadal
This is the only surface where the H2H doesn't match up with their achievements. But if you look at it closer, 8 of these 10 matches happened on slower surfaces, and only 2 happened on faster surfaces. Either way, Federer has 9 Outdoor Hardcourt Slams and Nadal has 3 Outdoor Hardcourt Slams. Are you seriously arguing Nadal is better than Federer on Outdoor Hardcourts?

So, tell me, how exactly does this H2H cut against Federer? I don't get it.

 

[drm025]

A breakdown of their rivalry:

Clay: 13-2 to Nadal
We know Nadal is clay GOAT, so nothing to see here

Grass: 2-1 to Federer
We know Federer is grass GOAT, so nothing to see here

Indoor Hard: 4-1 to Federer
We know Federer is much better than Nadal on Indoor Hard, so nothing to see here

Outdoor Hard: 8-2 to Nadal
This is the only surface where the H2H doesn't match up with their achievements. But if you look at it closer, 8 of these 10 matches happened on slower surfaces, and only 2 happened on faster surfaces. Either way, Federer has 9 Outdoor Hardcourt Slams and Nadal has 3 Outdoor Hardcourt Slams. Are you seriously arguing Nadal is better than Federer on Outdoor Hardcourts?

So, tell me, how exactly does this H2H cut against Federer? I don't get it.

Clay 13-2 to nadal, 5-0 at french, 4-0 in french final, utter domination

Grass 2-1 to fed, 2-1 at wimby, 2-1 in wimby final, not easy to predict what would have happened next, fed gets to final without nadal in 09, nadal makes the final without fed in 10 and 11. The difference from clay, nadal needed just 3 matches to get a win, nadal took fed to 5 in the second match.

Indoor hard - self explanatory to Fed, theyve only met at the WTFs though, and no slam on indoor hard, less significant

Outdoor hard - they both peaked at different times, especially with respect to the USO, fed makes 6 straight finals, then nadal makes 3 of the next 4. At AO, nadal beat a pretty good fed in 2009, and beat fed during good runs, in 12 and 14. Other circumstances lead to the disparity in titles. Its a fact that fed never went through nadal to win a HC slam though.

Maybe unlucky for fed, but hes had his share of luck in other places. He couldn't get it done against nadal a majority of the time. He had plenty of opportunities when playing well. The only place where fed could consistently beat nadal is the WTFs, thats it. He is not a victim of the H2H, it was in his capability to win more of those matches.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Clay 13-2 to nadal, 5-0 at french, 4-0 in french final, utter domination

Grass 2-1 to fed, 2-1 at wimby, 2-1 in wimby final, not easy to predict what would have happened next, fed gets to final without nadal in 09, nadal makes the final without fed in 10 and 11. The difference from clay, nadal needed just 3 matches to get a win, nadal took fed to 5 in the second match.

Indoor hard - self explanatory to Fed, theyve only met at the WTFs though, and no slam on indoor hard, less significant

Outdoor hard - they both peaked at different times, especially with respect to the USO, fed makes 6 straight finals, then nadal makes 3 of the next 4. At AO, nadal beat a pretty good fed in 2009, and beat fed during good runs, in 12 and 14. Other circumstances lead to the disparity in titles. Its a fact that fed never went through nadal to win a HC slam though.

Maybe unlucky for fed, but hes had his share of luck in other places. He couldn't get it done against nadal a majority of the time. He had plenty of opportunities when playing well.

You didn't address my points at all:

1. Clay, Nadal is GOAT. He dominated. Nothing to be said.
2. Grass, Federer is GOAT. Federer has the edge. Nothing to be said.
3. Indoor Hards, Federer>>>Nadal. Nothing to be said.

That leaves Outdoor Hards. Are you saying Nadal is better than Federer on Outdoor Hards? If you are, then Davydenko is better than Nadal on Outdoor Hards. If you're not, of what relevance is the H2H?

 

[drm025]

You didn't address my points at all:

1. Clay, Nadal is GOAT. He dominated. Nothing to be said.
2. Grass, Federer is GOAT. Federer has the edge. Nothing to be said.
3. Indoor Hards, Federer>>>Nadal. Nothing to be said.

That leaves Outdoor Hards. Are you saying Nadal is better than Federer on Outdoor Hards? If you are, then Davydenko is better than Nadal on Outdoor Hards. If you're not, of what relevance is the H2H?

I did address these.

Clay is obvious.

Nadal beat federer in a wimbledon final... That means something if fed is the grass GOAT, as you say. Conclusion, nadal wins the H2h battle on natural surfaces.

When it comes to hard courts, they had different competition when in their top form. The significance of the h2h to me is that had they met more, nadal would have had a chance to win, regardless of how fed did against other players. Fed is more successful on HCs. Nadal could have had a say if they were making HC finals at the same time.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

I did address these.

Clay is obvious.

Okay.

Nadal beat federer in a wimbledon final... That means something if fed is the grass GOAT, as you say. Conclusion, nadal wins the H2h battle on natural surfaces.

I don't understand this. Nadal is better on clay, Federer is better on grass. End of. What the hell is "natural surface H2H"? Who cares?

When it comes to hard courts, they had different competition when in their top form. The significance of the h2h to me is that had they might more, nadal would have had a chance to win, regardless of how fed did against other players. Fed is more successful on HCs. Nadal could have had a say if they were making HC finals at the same time.

Again, this doesn't make any sense. If you're gonna argue Nadal deserves more Slams because of his H2H, you might as well say Davydenko deserves Slams because of his H2H with Nadal. Which is completely ridiculous.

 

[drm025]

Okay.

I don't understand this. Nadal is better on clay, Federer is better on grass. End of. What the hell is "natural surface H2H"? Who cares?

Again, this doesn't make any sense. If you're gonna argue Nadal deserves more Slams because of his H2H, you might as well say Davydenko deserves Slams because of his H2H with Nadal. Which is completely ridiculous.

Im not talking about overall achievements. You dont seem to be able to separate the H2H. It has nothing to do with performance against other players. Nothing to do with 7 wimbledon titles vs. 2. Its fine, we arent going to get anywhere. We look at it from different perspectives.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Im not talking about overall achievements. You dont seem to be able to separate the H2H. It has nothing to do with performance against other players. Nothing to do with 7 wimbledon titles vs. 2. Its fine, we arent going to get anywhere.

But you're just jumping from one thing to the other. Let's try this again:

Clay: Nadal is better in the H2H, which makes sense
Grass: Federer is better in the H2H, which makes sense

Clay + Glass: Nadal is better in the H2H, which makes sense, because Nadal has 11 Slams on Clay + Grass, while Federer has 8 Slams on Clay + Grass

Indoor Hards: Federer is better in the H2H, which makes sense.

And this leaves Outdoor Hards, which is the only anomaly. Nadal leads 8-2. But this is completely meaningless, because Davydenko leads Nadal 4-0 on Outdoor Hards. Is Davydenko > Nadal on outdoor hardcourts?

 

[drm025]

But you're just jumping from one thing to the other. Let's try this again:

Clay: Nadal is better in the H2H, which makes sense
Grass: Federer is better in the H2H, which makes sense

Clay + Glass: Nadal is better in the H2H, which makes sense, because Nadal has 11 Slams on Clay + Grass, while Federer has 8 Slams on Clay + Grass

Indoor Hards: Federer is better in the H2H, which makes sense.

And this leaves Outdoor Hards, which is the only anomaly. Nadal leads 8-2. But this is completely meaningless, because Davydenko leads Nadal 4-0 on Outdoor Hards. Is Davydenko > Nadal on outdoor hardcourts?

Really, the 2 of us arent going to get anywhere. I said you arent able to separate overall achievements from H2H and your response is all about overall achievements. We just have different perspectives. I think beating someone on a tennis court has value. You value beating the field to win a tournament, so H2H means nothing to you. Its fine.

 

[Tennisanity]

Really, the 2 of us arent going to get anywhere. I said you arent able to separate overall achievements from H2H and your response is all about overall achievements. We just have different perspectives. I think beating someone on a tennis court has value. You value beating the field to win a tournament, so H2H means nothing to you. Its fine.

Who cares if you lead someone 50-0 if you have 0 achievements?

 

[drm025]

Who cares if you lead someone 50-0 if you have 0 achievements?

Who would claim to be a better tennis player than someone who has beaten them all 50 times they have played? Again, we have different perspective.

Either way, on the atp you wouldn't be able to play one specific player 50 times without racking up many achievements.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Really, the 2 of us arent going to get anywhere. I said you arent able to separate overall achievements from H2H and your response is all about overall achievements. We just have different perspectives. I think beating someone on a tennis court has value. You value beating the field to win a tournament, so H2H means nothing to you. Its fine.

What? In the post you quoted, I spoke only about the H2H.

Going by their H2Hs:

Clay: Nadal is better
Grass: Federer is better
Clay+Grass: Nadal is better
Indoor Hards: Federer is better

I doubt anyone would disagree with any of the above.

That leaves Outdoor Hards, where Nadal leads 8-2. So, here, Nadal is better in the H2H, just like Davydenko is better than Nadal.

See? I didn't say anything about achievements. I was talking solely about the H2Hs. So, again, what seems to be the issue here? There is nothing really weird about the H2H.

 

[Shaolin]

Fed/Nad H2H is extremely skewed. Fed was good enough to meet Nadal on Fed's worst surface many many times but Nadal was nowhere good enough to meet Fed on Nadal's worst surface, where he would've gotten crushed, but some people are just too ignorant to understand this.

 

[drm025]

What? In the post you quoted, I spoke only about the H2H.

Going by their H2Hs:

Clay: Nadal is better
Grass: Federer is better
Clay+Grass: Nadal is better
Indoor Hards: Federer is better

I doubt anyone would disagree with any of the above.

That leaves Outdoor Hards, where Nadal leads 8-2. So, here, Nadal is better in the H2H, just like Davydenko is better than Nadal.

See? I didn't say anything about achievements. I was talking solely about the H2Hs. So, again, what seems to be the issue here? There is nothing really weird about the H2H.

13-2 on clay is very different from 2-1 on grass. So, drawing the same conclusion makes no sense. Thats my issue.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

13-2 on clay is very different from 2-1 on grass. So, drawing the same conclusion makes no sense. Thats my issue.

Nadal is closer to Federer on Grass than Federer is to Nadal on clay. That is the conclusion. This matches up with their achievements as well:

(7-2) = 5 < 8 = (9-1)

Again, what's your issue?

 

[Tennisanity]

Who would claim to be a better tennis player than someone who has beaten them all 50 times they have played? Again, we have different perspective.

Either way, on the atp you wouldn't be able to play one specific player 50 times without racking up many achievements.

Ok so who is better on HC? Davydenko or Nadal?

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Ok so who is better on HC? Davydenko or Nadal?

LOL, OWNED!

 

[Tennisanity]

13-2 on clay is very different from 2-1 on grass. So, drawing the same conclusion makes no sense. Thats my issue.

Yes Nadal is 'more better' on clay over Fed, than Fed is better than Nadal on grass. But you seem to think Nadal would somehow dominate Fed on grass had they met more. There is no basis for saying this especially given that Nadal could barely beat a low confidence Fed 9-7 in the 5th at the zenith of his abilities.

 

[Tennisanity]

What would be the Fed Nad H2H on grass had their been 3 grass master's from 2005 to 2010?

 

[drm025]

Ok so who is better on HC? Davydenko or Nadal?

H2h davy was better than nadal, but I would have liked to see some more matches in general and more matches on a bigger stage. That would give it more implications. As ive stated, 33% of the times davy beat nadal, was at a tournament he also beat fed. So, its not so much an issue of nadal not being able to davy, as it is an issue of no one being able to beat him.

 

[chjtennis]

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.

What a solid post from a new comer. Welcome!

 

[chjtennis]

4

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.

This newbie Fed fanatic(according to your allegation) sound million times better than fanatics of other players so I don't know what your problem is. Forum is for a discussion and this person is addressing his/her points in a gentle and good manner. Do you think you can do any better?

 

[Tennisanity]

H2h davy was better than nadal, but I would have liked to see some more matches in general and more matches on a bigger stage. That would give it more implications. As ive stated, 33% of the times davy beat nadal, was at a tournament he also beat fed. So, its not so much an issue of nadal not being able to davy, as it is an issue of no one being able to beat him.

Fed-Davy H2H is 19-2. That 33% you mention is too low, it's completely meaningless. If might have some meaning if it 66%. If Davy and Nadal met more on big stages, and Davy had won a couple of them then you'd simply move the bar higher and say 2 is not enough. It will never end until you get your desired result.

 

[Tennisanity]

What you're missing is that 66% of the time Davy beat Nadal, he lost to Fed.

 

[chjtennis]

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!

Absolutely. Fedal H2H should always be considered in the right context. A lot of people cannot handle just one more wrinkle to the story, however, and just easily make conclusions at the surface level.

 

[drm025]

Nadal is closer to Federer on Grass than Federer is to Nadal on clay. That is the conclusion. This matches up with their achievements as well:

(7-2) = 5 < 8 = (9-1)

Again, what's your issue?

My issue is really as simple as fed being considered a better player than nadal when he has lost 23 of 33 matches, 9 of 11 slam matches, and 6 of 8 slam finals to him. That's really what it comes down to.

Its clear that fed is more accomplished. I just dont think it makes him a better player than nadal when hes lost to him that many times.

 

[drm025]

What you're missing is that 66% of the time Davy beat Nadal, he lost to Fed.

I dont think so, they certainly werent all at the same tournaments. How many times did davy beat nadal and then lose to fed? I actually dont know.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

H2h davy was better than nadal, but I would have liked to see some more matches in general and more matches on a bigger stage. That would give it more implications. As ive stated, 33% of the times davy beat nadal, was at a tournament he also beat fed. So, its not so much an issue of nadal not being able to davy, as it is an issue of no one being able to beat him.

Of Nadal's 23 wins against Federer, Nadal went on to win the tournament 17 times. That is 74%. So it wasn't that Federer wasn't able to beat Nadal. It was that no one was able to beat him.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

My issue is really as simple as fed being considered a better player than nadal when he has lost 23 of 33 matches, 9 of 11 slam matches, and 6 of 8 slam finals to him. That's really what it comes down to.

Its clear that fed is more accomplished. I just dont think it makes him a better player than nadal when hes lost to him that many times.

So you're saying Davydenko is a better player than Nadal on Outdoor Hardcourts? The H2H is 4-0.

 

[drm025]

Of Nadal's 23 wins against Federer, Nadal went on to win the tournament 17 times. That is 74%. So it wasn't that Federer wasn't able to beat Nadal. It was that no one was able to beat him.

fed in slam finals without nadal: 15-2
Against nadal: 2-6. I think it was nadal.