All matches count. Maybe with different significance, but all matches count.
A reasonable take on the fed-nadal h2h
- Thread starter Betterer92
- Start date
That makes zero sense, we are talking about slam h2h, not non clay slam h2h.
Besides fed, nadal is the only player to make 3 finals at all slams. So nadal is good overall, whether you want to admit it or not.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Are you saying Rafa's win-loss is not padded on account of FO ?
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
If all matches count , shouldn't the focus be more on Rafa losing to mugs in early rounds than Federer losing to a great in the finals ?
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
I have to correct you there drm as Djokovic has also made 3 finals at all the slams.
Shaolin
Talk Tennis Guru
The idea that Fed lost intentionally to Boredo is ridiculous. Fed had the balls to work his ass off for years to face Nadal in the finals of RG where he knew he stood little chance but still did all he could to get there.
Nadal's worst surface is obviously anything indoor, where he can't manage to reach Fed at any tournament, much less the WTF. Grass is becoming a pretty bad surface for him now that any journeyman can beat him at W.
The_18th_Slam
Hall of Fame
Yes, draws can affect the outcome. I thought that was obvious. But seeing as how draws are random, they even out over time, so it doesn't matter at the end of the day.
The_18th_Slam
Hall of Fame
Nope, it says nothing except that Nadal was better than Federer on those 23 days. Just like Federer has been better than Nadal everytime Nadal lost to someone that Federer in turn defeated in the tournament, directly or by another proxy.
At the end of the day, it's just 23 days. They don't define Federer's career of nearly 20 years. His 17 Slams, 8 runners-up, 6 WTF, 302 weeks at #1, 5 YE#1, and 86 titles do that.
Haha true, djokovic just got there. Well then ill say 3 finals and a title at each slam. Hopefully djokovic gets there.I have to correct you there drm as Djokovic has also made 3 finals at all the slams.
Its a nice way to look at it, but no other great has had this sort of weakness against their rival. So, in context, thats why it stands out. Again, the 2-9 slam h2h is the most lopsided in tennis history between all time great rivals.
There is no padding from any specific slam cause they are all included. It is overall, meaning every slam. If someone comes out on top they are better overall. Doesnt matter where the strength is if the weaknesses are not enough to pull the overall number down.
Not in my opinion, because slam finals are bigger matches than second rounds. You dont peak for the second round, you peak for the final.
Theorerically, but not in reality. The biggest example being the big 4 semis with djokovic always drawing federer. If draws matter, then the only statistic where the draw is accounted for is the h2h.
The_18th_Slam
Hall of Fame
So?
The_18th_Slam
Hall of Fame
You don't make the final if you lose the 2nd round.
Its a negative against federer....
The_18th_Slam
Hall of Fame
No, in reality. You can't isolate a series of semifinals and ignore everything else.
You also dont lose when playing your absolute best.
The_18th_Slam
Hall of Fame
No, it isn't. He still has 17 Slams.
The_18th_Slam
Hall of Fame
What do you mean?
No other open era great has also had Federer's level of consistency in slams so your point is moot. Are you actually saying that it would have been better for Federer to lose in the semi final of every single slam he ended up losing to Nadal in the final instead?
What? Of course weighting comes into consideration. Hey may have an overall higher % (only just) however the fact is, it is significantly skewed to clay. Federer leads at Wimbledon, US Open and the Australian. There are also other factors:
- Federer is further into his decline so obviously his percentage is lowering. Nadal's is only going to keep getting worse. His GS W% was once higher than Borg's but not anymore.
- Nadal has not played a full season in three years and has skipped several slams, something Federer doesn't do even if he is not playing well. Nadal preserves his H2H's and W%'s.
Are you honestly telling me it is better to lose in a second round than in a final? This is where H2H arguments are based on fallacy.
What? Draws are always accounted for no matter what. Have you ever though about the fact that Federer's H2H has already been accounted for in his achievements. In other words, instead of winning 23 slams, he has only won 17. Its already factored into his statistics in the sense they are not better than they already are.
Nadal proponents love to pick out the H2H blemish on Federer's resume. I would agree it is a blemish, if not for any other reason, at least symbolically. I feel there were at least two or three matches that Federer should have beaten Nadal in. Regardless, it doesn't erase his other achievements. It simply means, he has won less than he could have. Now, lets look at some of Nadal's career blemishes...
- Never defended a non-clay title. Never.
- Never won the year end championship
- Never held the No #1 spot for a full season
- Has not played a full tennis season since 2011 [these have all helped him maintain his H2H and W% stats]
- Has lost at Wimbledon before the 2nd week for four consecutive years from age 26-29 (and counting)
- Lost 7 consecutive finals (4 masters and 3 slams across all surfaces) to his main rival during his prime.
Other interesting facts:
- His last wins in two different slams came before Federer's last wins in those slams (AO & Wimbledon)
- Has never beaten Djokovic as a defending champion at a slam
- Has lost to Djokovic at 13 of the 14 biggest tennis tournaments
- Never defended a non-clay title. Never.
- Never won the year end championship
- Never held the No #1 spot for a full season
- Has not played a full tennis season since 2011 [these have all helped him maintain his H2H and W% stats]
- Has lost at Wimbledon before the 2nd week for four consecutive years from age 26-29 (and counting)
- Lost 7 consecutive finals (4 masters and 3 slams across all surfaces) to his main rival during his prime.
Other interesting facts:
- His last wins in two different slams came before Federer's last wins in those slams (AO & Wimbledon)
- Has never beaten Djokovic as a defending champion at a slam
- Has lost to Djokovic at 13 of the 14 biggest tennis tournaments
Last edited:
The_18th_Slam
Hall of Fame
Djokovic has beaten Nadal at:
Wimbledon
US Open
French Open
Australian Open
World Tour Finals
Indian Wells
Miami
Monte Carlo
Madrid
Rome
Canada
Cincinnati
Paris
So, basically, everywhere except Shanghai, where they haven't met. Djokovic, however, has beaten Nadal at Beijing, where they have met. So Djokovic beat Nadal at 13/14 big tournaments. The only place he hasn't beaten Nadal is where they have never met.
Yes sorry I had edited my post right after I posted it. Indeed 13/14.
This one amazes me.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
I mentioned this before and was ignored:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer
That's 12 slams between 2003 and 2007. Age 22-26
4 slams between 2008 and so far in 2015. Age 27-33. Still impressive, but nothing like his peak.
There are other stats that show that Fed was at his absolute peak before 2007. So in 2008 he ran into the wall that all great players run into.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Nadal#Grand_Slam_tournament_performance_timeline
Arguably the greatest clay court player of all time has three FOs by 2008, nothing else. 6 more from 2008-2014.
But all non-clay slams were won between 2008-2013, age 22 to 27.
Two great players with two different peaks, both from 22-27 or 28.
The five year difference in age explains most of it. The fact that the two excelled on opposite surfaces explains alot of the rest.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
federer peaked in finals better than Rafa as evidenced by more finals and major wins. Is it not ?
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Come on. This is being dense. Rafa's win loss at majors drops from 87.5% for career to 81.5% for non clay majors if you remove the 70-2 record at FO.
Federer is not behind in career win loss as much as you think . He is at 86% for his career even though it started at 22 for all practical purposes
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Then Stan and Delpo should be better than Rafa as they have a 100% record in finals
Tennisanity
Legend
Everyone said Nadal in 2011 was also declined compared to 2008, yet he made the most consecutive finals across all surfaces he has ever made in his career. Same thing in 2012, 2013, Nadal is declined, yet finished #1. Now just because he's lost a few more this year, declined again. It never ends. Fact is if you want to be consistent and go by results, well sure Nadal's 2015 is one of his worst ever. Well 2008 was also one of Fed's worst ever since becoming a champion.
BGod
G.O.A.T.
It's no use laddy! People just like the numbers!
Just like the arguments that Federer was still in his prime because he was in the Top 3. Because it sure can't be the transitional era and playing more lower level tournaments that allows a 33 year old to pile up the points.
