You think what was Nadal?
1 slam match would have helped, thats all I can say. I think thats reasonable.
So I guess Dustin Brown > Rafael Nadal on grass.
He was better head to head at doha, we can conclude that, haha. The implications are just really meaningless in comparison to fed nadal. Hard to co conclude anything.
Today he was, haha, is that arguable?
Davydenko also beat Nadal at Miami and Shanghai. Not just Doha.
No, their grass H2H is 2-0.
You can ignore the difference between 23-10 (11 slam meetings) and 5-6 (0 slam meetings). I choose not to.
A lot of people are better on grass than nadal of 2014 and 2015.
No, we're talking about 4-0 outdoor hardcourt H2H. Is Davydenko the better outdoor hardcourt player?
2 times at doha, once at miami, and once at shanghai, davydenko was better. I think nadal retired from one of them?
I'm not arguing that Federer isn't a better grass player than Nadal, he clearly is, I'm just saying you aren't giving enough credit to the H2H.
By the same token, Nadal was better than Federer the 23 times he beat him. That's it. Not any other time.
I wasn't replying to you. You're taking my quote out of context.
8-2 is the outdoor hardcourt H2H. The outdoor hardcourt H2H between Nadal-Davydenko is 0-4. 4-0 is more dominant than 8-2.
No idea. According to them, Federer would be a greater player if he lost 1 round prior to each of those 23 losses.
So it says nothing about them as players, outside of those 23 days. Glad to have that established.
How do you know that? Maybe Nadal would have won both those tournaments if it weren't for Brown. You're speculating here.
Once.
just off the top of my head, US Open 2013, Federer loses to Robredo in the 4th round to avoid a quarter-final against Nadal, in what would have been their first match ever at the US Open.
2 of those 4 wins came from Doha, so no one cares about that. At least with Nadal's 8-2 outdoor hard H2H, they were very important matches which have gone some way to defining the careers of Fedal.
Yeah you are crazy. Else Dusty brown is a better player than Nadal just because he was not good enough to meet Nadal on clay.
This is nothing new; it was the norm in hardcourt slams during Fed's peak years.
It's still 4-0, whatever mental gymnastics you try.
If you think the more accomplished player and the better play can be different, especially according to you their five year difference is nothing, then you are saying the sport as it is set up in the current system is not rewarding the players fairly.
Over their careers?
But you cannot penalize Fed here. Rafa loses to Kyrgios, Brown, Rosol and Darcis and does not make it to Federer on grass. Federer makes it on clay every time.
Let us add Darcis and Kyrgios as well while we are there.
Those 23 days were some of the biggest in Federer's career. Namely the 8 slam finals, and 3 other slam meeting. He failed 9 out of 11 against his most accomplished rival, and I think that says something about his career.
By arguing that, you are supporting H2h as being meaningful. Anytime you say that the draw affects the outcome, you are supporting the importance of h2h because you are saying that who you play is important. I happen to agree with that statement, so sure it could have been different if he didnt draw brown. He also has losses to kyrgios and dolgopolov though.
So at any of those other tournaments he could have beaten fed as well, who knows. It happened twice.
From what we've seen, dustin troubles nadal from 2014 and 2015 on grass. It wouldnt make sense to draw conclusions about other surfaces, or other years. Fed and nadal have played on all surfaces over 10 years. Again, bad analogy.
We may have a better idea if they haved played idk, 30+ matches over 10 years at the business end of major tournaments.
Yes, poor declined fed, who finds himself at number 2 eight years later.
Clearly I think it has implications, why else would I be discussing it? I'm saying that it is a separate stat from number of titles. So, titles were not relevant in the h2h discussion.
It was said that fed declined after 2007. I simply disagree as to what degree that happened. Where is the contradiction?
I think rafa still has a better win loss than federer at slams, so he cant have been losing to more mugs than fed.
