An interesting parallel: Federer from 2004-2007 and Nadal on Clay

Revenant

Revenant

Banned
Federer's domination from 2004-2007 is unprecedented, just like Nadal's domination on clay. I can think of an interesting parallel between these two individual runs of utter domination.

Win-loss. Federer from 2004-2007 had a win-loss of 315-24. Nadal on clay has a win-loss of 318-24. Do you see how close they are? The same number of losses (24), and separated by just 3 wins (318-315).

Federer from 2004-2007: 315-24
Nadal on clay: 318-24


What's also interesting is that Federer from 2004-2007 lost just one Slam off clay. Nadal in his career has lost just one Slam on clay. In other words, Federer went 11/12 in Slams off clay from 2004-2007. Nadal is currently 9/10 in Slams on clay. Could Nadal win the next two French Open titles to also get to 11/12 like Federer? Sure will be interesting to see.
 
Revenant said:
Federer's domination from 2004-2007 is unprecedented, just like Nadal's domination on clay. I can think of an interesting parallel between these two individual runs of utter domination.

Win-loss. Federer from 2004-2007 had a win-loss of 315-24. Nadal on clay has a win-loss of 318-24. Do you see how close they are? The same number of losses (24), and separated by just 3 wins (318-315).

Federer from 2004-2007: 315-24
Nadal on clay: 318-24


What's also interesting is that Federer from 2004-2007 lost just one Slam off clay. Nadal in his career has lost just one Slam on clay. In other words, Federer went 11/12 in Slams off clay from 2004-2007. Nadal is currently 9/10 in Slams on clay. Could Nadal win the next two French Open titles to also get to 11/12 like Federer? Sure will be interesting to see.
Click to expand...

Funny and well-found parallel indeed.
 
The more one slices and dices the statistics, the more in awe I become of Federer's achievements. How anyone could not call him the GOAT is beyond me!
 
YetAnotherFedFan said:
The more one slices and dices the statistics, the more in awe I become of Federer's achievements. How anyone could not call him the GOAT is beyond me!
Click to expand...

You could also look at these statistics and see how underrated Nadal is. He's literally equaled the stats of Federer's 3 best years on just one surface. Not to mention everything he's achieved off clay. If you don't care about GOATs though, you won't really care who calls who what.
 
MichaelNadal said:
You could also look at these statistics and see how underrated Nadal is. He's literally equaled the stats of Federer's 3 best years on just one surface. Not to mention everything he's achieved off clay. If you don't care about GOATs though, you won't really care who calls who what.
Click to expand...


Nadal is clay GOAT, no arguements there!
 
YetAnotherFedFan said:
Nadal is clay GOAT, no arguements there!
Click to expand...

I'm just saying if I were a Federer fan, I wouldn't care what anyone thinks because his stats speak for themselves. People can say and/or argue what they want, but both Federer and Nadal have amazing achievements that may never be duplicated, and are two of the best players ever to hold a racquet.
 
MichaelNadal said:
I'm just saying if I were a Federer fan, I wouldn't care what anyone thinks because his stats speak for themselves. People can say and/or argue what they want, but both Federer and Nadal have amazing achievements that may never be duplicated, and are two of the best players ever to hold a racquet.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Why argue about petty statuses and titles that they couldn't care less about, when we can just enjoy the amazing tennis they give us?
 
MichaelNadal said:
I'm just saying if I were a Federer fan, I wouldn't care what anyone thinks because his stats speak for themselves. People can say and/or argue what they want, but both Federer and Nadal have amazing achievements that may never be duplicated, and are two of the best players ever to hold a racquet.
Click to expand...


I agree with your sentiments and admire watching both players too. I also happen to be interested in statistics of this nature. Statistically speaking I think Federer stands in a league of his own and I like to show my support to the person who put the statistics together, as well as my amazement of what they actually mean. I accept other people may not agree, though I feel there is no harm in trying to steer people in the right direction...
 
helloworld said:
So Nadal's career percentage equals Federer in his peak years? Wow, that's a fair comparison. :confused:
Click to expand...

Nadal's career percentage on one surface.

If you compare Federer's percentage in his peak years to Nadal's in his, Federer comes out ahead.

If you compare Federer's percentage on his best surface to Nadal's on his, Nadal comes out ahead.
 
Revenant said:
Nadal's career percentage on one surface.

If you compare Federer's percentage in his peak years to Nadal's in his, Federer comes out ahead.

If you compare Federer's percentage on his best surface to Nadal's on his, Nadal comes out ahead.
Click to expand...

But 70% of the time they play Nadal comes out ahead...on the biggest stages tennis has...no matter what surface they play on

But Fed is GOAT...:roll:
 
Lips said:
But 70% of the time they play Nadal comes out ahead...on the biggest stages tennis has...no matter what surface they play on

But Fed is GOAT...:roll:
Click to expand...


Because 60-70% of the time they have met on clay!

Here's a question for the Nadal GOAT pretenders, if Nadal's superior head to head against his peers actually meant anything, why wouldn't he have more weeks at No1?
 
Lips said:
But 70% of the time they play Nadal comes out ahead...on the biggest stages tennis has...no matter what surface they play on

But Fed is GOAT...:roll:
Click to expand...

That's because Nadal loses to 100+ ranked players on the biggest stage of all, and doesn't face Federer there. But hey, story of his life, right?
 
YetAnotherFedFan said:
Because 60-70% of the time they have met on clay!

Here's a question for the Nadal GOAT pretenders, if Nadal's superior head to head against his peers actually meant anything, why wouldn't he have more weeks at No1?
Click to expand...

Actually they have only met on clay 15 times...less then half of their over all matches...rafa has won 13 of those..hard courts...played each other 15 times..guess what smart guy rafa won 9 of those...nice try buddy boy
 
helloworld said:
Nadal vs Federer on outdoor hard court major. 3-0 Nadal. :lol:
Click to expand...


So what, two of those matches took place in the twilight of Fed's career. But Nadal, despite his imperious talents, doesn't play unless he is on top form (either that or serving covert PED bans?).

For all Nadal's remarkable talents, there are just too many holes in his resume. Deep down you know this, so all you can regurgitate is the same old tripe about H2H's.
 
Lips said:
Actually they have only met on clay 15 times...less then half of their over all matches...rafa has won 13 of those..hard courts...played each other 15 times..guess what smart guy rafa won 9 of those...nice try buddy boy
Click to expand...

When Fed was still not too old to compete with Rafa, the clay skew was significant: 60 % or so of their matches were on clay despite neither of them play more than 25 % of a year on it and Fed even less than that.

The last few years, Fed has lost quite a few HC matches to Rafa. Now you probably know all this, but simply don't care.
 
Chanwan said:
When Fed was still not too old to compete with Rafa, the clay skew was significant: 60 % or so of their matches were on clay despite neither of them play more than 25 % of a year on it and Fed even less than that.

The last few years, Fed has lost quite a few HC matches to Rafa. Now you probably know all this, but simply don't care.
Click to expand...

Was Fed too old when he lost to 17 years old baby Rafa as well? Whenever Fed lost to Rafa outside of clay, he is too old right? :confused:
 
helloworld said:
Was Fed too old when he lost to 17 years old baby Rafa as well? Whenever Fed lost to Rafa outside of clay, he is too old right? :confused:
Click to expand...

"But let us hearken back to March of 2004, when newly dominant 22-year-old Roger Federer, feeling ill and stripped of strength, struggled past Russian Nikolay Davydenko during the round of 64 at the NASDAQ-100 Miami Masters.

His next opponent was 17-year-old newcomer Rafael Nadal, ranked No. 36 in the world. Nadal was a hard-hitting left-hander from Spain, a country renowned for its prowess on clay. This, however, was a hardcourt event."
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...rs-birthplace-of-the-federer-vs-nadal-rivalry

Now I'll put you back on ignore where you belong.
 
MichaelNadal said:
You could also look at these statistics and see how underrated Nadal is. He's literally equaled the stats of Federer's 3 best years on just one surface. Not to mention everything he's achieved off clay. If you don't care about GOATs though, you won't really care who calls who what.
Click to expand...

Not sure I'd call Nadal underrated, but those are amazing stats. Easy to argue that we've been watching the two greatest players in tennis history for the past decade.
 
spinovic said:
Not sure I'd call Nadal underrated, but those are amazing stats. Easy to argue that we've been watching the two greatest players in tennis history for the past decade.
Click to expand...

Laver and Gonzalez make Fedal look tiny.

Nadal is actually underrated on these boards, especially compared to the most overrated player ever Roger Federer.
 
Chanwan said:
When Fed was still not too old to compete with Rafa, the clay skew was significant: 60 % or so of their matches were on clay despite neither of them play more than 25 % of a year on it and Fed even less than that.

The last few years, Fed has lost quite a few HC matches to Rafa. Now you probably know all this, but simply don't care.[/QUOTE




Not too old to compete? 60% or so??

Bottom line bud Nadal has owned Fed since he was 17 and Fed was prime, peaking or whatever you want to call it...

Tennis must be the only sport that can have the goatiest player of all time be utterly dominated by his main rival when it matters most...
Click to expand...
 
Nadal's clay career will never be matched. It's not just the stats, it's his clay court game that would be too good for anyone on most occasions.
 
Lips said:
But 70% of the time they play Nadal comes out ahead...on the biggest stages tennis has...no matter what surface they play on

But Fed is GOAT...:roll:
Click to expand...

Tennis is about winning titles. You think kids grow up with the goal of having a H2H advantage over another player or winning Wimbledon?

I look at it like this - it is staggering that Nadal has achieved as little as he has given his record against the player many consider to be the greatest to ever hold a racquet.

Nadal won the battle but Federer won the war.

Noone will care about or remember the H2H in 20 years time. What they will remember are Federers slam records.
 
Day Tripper said:
Tennis is about winning titles. You think kids grow up with the goal of having a H2H advantage over another player or winning Wimbledon?

I look at it like this - it is staggering that Nadal has achieved as little as he has given his record against the player many consider to be the greatest to ever hold a racquet.

Nadal won the battle but Federer won the war.

Noone will care about or remember the H2H in 20 years time. What they will remember are Federers slam records.
Click to expand...

Good point.
 
Lips said:
Chanwan said:
When Fed was still not too old to compete with Rafa, the clay skew was significant: 60 % or so of their matches were on clay despite neither of them play more than 25 % of a year on it and Fed even less than that.

The last few years, Fed has lost quite a few HC matches to Rafa. Now you probably know all this, but simply don't care.[/QUOTE

Not too old to compete? 60% or so??

Bottom line bud Nadal has owned Fed since he was 17 and Fed was prime, peaking or whatever you want to call it...

Tennis must be the only sport that can have the goatiest player of all time be utterly dominated by his main rival when it matters most...
Click to expand...

Fed was 5-1 vs. Rafa off clay in 2005-2007. I don't really care about the 2004-loss considering Fed was ill and almost pulled out of the tournament + almost lost to his pigeon Davydenko before.
Fed is not too old to compete, but given Rafa's massive match-up advantage, the odds are and have been in Rafa's favor for a while now.

And that's my last word on that.
Click to expand...
 
Revenant said:
Federer's domination from 2004-2007 is unprecedented, just like Nadal's domination on clay. I can think of an interesting parallel between these two individual runs of utter domination.

Win-loss. Federer from 2004-2007 had a win-loss of 315-24. Nadal on clay has a win-loss of 318-24. Do you see how close they are? The same number of losses (24), and separated by just 3 wins (318-315).

Federer from 2004-2007: 315-24
Nadal on clay: 318-24


What's also interesting is that Federer from 2004-2007 lost just one Slam off clay. Nadal in his career has lost just one Slam on clay. In other words, Federer went 11/12 in Slams off clay from 2004-2007. Nadal is currently 9/10 in Slams on clay. Could Nadal win the next two French Open titles to also get to 11/12 like Federer? Sure will be interesting to see.
Click to expand...

That's extremly dominant over a long period of time (in both cases, overall or career).
I don't know which one impresses me more, both of them outstanding indeed.
 
MichaelNadal said:
You could also look at these statistics and see how underrated Nadal is. He's literally equaled the stats of Federer's 3 best years on just one surface. Not to mention everything he's achieved off clay. If you don't care about GOATs though, you won't really care who calls who what.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that the meanest fans of each fanbase will understand how awesome it was to witness these too a few years after they will have retired, and finally when all the issues about who is the better of the two will lost their relevance (if they have any), they will able to respect the both of them.
 
Lips said:
Actually they have only met on clay 15 times...less then half of their over all matches...rafa has won 13 of those..hard courts...played each other 15 times..guess what smart guy rafa won 9 of those...nice try buddy boy
Click to expand...


"Buddy Boy" coming from a poster called 'Lips', sounds like a come on!

I may be irresistible, but try and restrain yourself!
 
Day Tripper said:
Tennis is about winning titles. You think kids grow up with the goal of having a H2H advantage over another player or winning Wimbledon?

I look at it like this - it is staggering that Nadal has achieved as little as he has given his record against the player many consider to be the greatest to ever hold a racquet.

Nadal won the battle but Federer won the war.

Noone will care about or remember the H2H in 20 years time. What they will remember are Federers slam records.
Click to expand...

They will remember also feddy getting dominated by his main rival on the biggest occasions for his entire career....goatiest of goats...
 
Federer's run is more impressive than Nadal because it was involved on different surfaces/conditions whereas Nadal was only on clay. Federer is more complete, has all-round player than Nadal.
 
TMF said:
Federer's run is more impressive than Nadal because it was involved on different surfaces/conditions whereas Nadal was only on clay. Federer is more complete, has all-round player than Nadal.
Click to expand...

So then, by that token, you must admit that Nadal's 3 majors in a row is more impressive than any of Federer's 3 majors in a row considering Nadal did it on clay, grass and HC whereas Fed only did it on grass and HC...
 
The_Order said:
So then, by that token, you must admit that Nadal's 3 majors in a row is more impressive than any of Federer's 3 majors in a row considering Nadal did it on clay, grass and HC whereas Fed only did it on grass and HC...
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Some would argue that winning Wimbledon + both HC majors is equally impressive if not more so given that the competition is tougher on hardcourts.
 
The_Order said:
So then, by that token, you must admit that Nadal's 3 majors in a row is more impressive than any of Federer's 3 majors in a row considering Nadal did it on clay, grass and HC whereas Fed only did it on grass and HC...
Click to expand...

Competition on hard court is more fierce due to the playing field is more adept on hard court than on clay. Plus, AO and USO has a different surface(plexi. & decoturf).
 
Djokovic2011 said:
Not necessarily. Some would argue that winning Wimbledon + both HC majors is equally impressive if not more so given that the competition is tougher on hardcourts.
Click to expand...

Only *******s and djokturds would do that.

If it is harder, why have more players done it before?

Laver and Nadal are the only ones in the open era to win RG+WIM+USO in a row...

Difference is though, Nadal did it when those 3 tournaments were all played on different surfaces. To adapt your game to win 3 majors in a row on different surfaces is far more difficult than winning a grass and then 2 hc majors...

Here's the guys that have done WIM + US + AO:

Sampras 93-94
Federer 05-06, 06-07
Djokovic 11-12

So it happened 4 times. RG+WIM+USO only twice and only once since USO changed to HC, and there's only 1 man that's done it :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Comparing Novak's 2011-2014 to Federer's 2004-2007
Replies
5
Views
1K
TMF
TMF
TheFifthSet
Federer from 2004-2007 at the 5 biggest tournaments in tennis
2 3 4
Replies
150
Views
9K
Federev
Federev
JennyS
Amazing Federer Grand Slam Achievements that get overlooked
Replies
12
Views
3K
Tennfan123
T
Towny
  • Poll Poll
Federer 2004 vs 2007
2 3
Replies
141
Views
10K
RS
RS
T
  • Poll Poll
Image Djokovic, Murray, Stan peaked during 2004-2007
2 3
Replies
136
Views
9K
MS_07
MS_07
Back
Top