Analysis: The Big Three h2h in slams

nadalfan2013

nadalfan2013

Professional
The slams are where history is written and the iconic matches happen. Here's an analysis of the slam meetings between the 3 biggest icons of modern tennis: Nadal, Djokovic & Federer.

Djokovic leads Federer 9-6

2016 AO - SF - Djokovic 6-1 6-2 3-6 6-3
2015 US - F - Djokovic 6-4 5-7 6-4 6-4
2015 WB - F - Djokovic 7-6(1) 6-7(10) 6-4 6-3
2014 WB - F - Djokovic 6-7(7) 6-4 7-6(4) 5-7 6-4
2012 WB - SF - Federer 6-3 3-6 6-4 6-3
2012 FO - SF - Djokovic 6-4 7-5 6-3
2011 UO - SF - Djokovic 6-7(7) 4-6 6-3 6-2 7-5
2011 FO - SF - Federer 7-6(5) 6-3 3-6 7-6(5)
2011 AO - SF - Djokovic 7-6(3) 7-5 6-4
2010 US - SF - Djokovic 5-7 6-1 5-7 6-2 7-5
2009 US - SF - Federer 7-6(3) 7-5 7-5
2008 US - SF - Federer 6-3 5-7 7-5 6-2
2008 AO - SF - Djokovic 7-5 6-3 7-6(5)
2007 UO - F - Federer 7-6(4) 7-6(2) 6-4
2007 AO - R16 - Federer 6-2 7-5 6-3

The Djokovic/Federer rivalry is the closest... Although some may argue that Federer isn't in his prime anymore and therefore losing more, it becomes a little irrelevant when you realize that even during Federer's prime and Djokovic not being a dominant champion yet, Djokovic still managed to beat Federer from time to time. In fact Federer has never been able to beat Djokovic more than 2 times in a row in slams, even when Federer was in his prime.

Nadal leads Federer 9-2

2014 AO - SF - Nadal 7-6(4) 6-3 6-3
2012 AO - SF - Nadal 6-7(5) 6-2 7-6(5) 6-4
2011 FO - F - Nadal 7-5 7-6(3) 5-7 6-1
2009 AO - F - Nadal 7-5 3-6 7-6(3) 3-6 6-2
2008 WB - F - Nadal 6-4 6-4 6-7(5) 6-7(8) 9-7
2008 FO - F - Nadal 6-1 6-3 6-0
2007 WB - F - Federer 7-6(7) 4-6 7-6(3) 2-6 6-2
2007 FO - F - Nadal 6-3 4-6 6-3 6-4
2006 WB - F - Federer 6-0 7-6(5) 6-7(2) 6-3
2006 FO - F - Nadal 1-6 6-1 6-4 7-6(4)
2005 FO - SF - Nadal 6-3 4-6 6-4 6-3

The Nadal-Federer rivalry is the most one-sided. A stunning domination, in fact Federer has not been able to beat Nadal outside of Wimbledon, and the last time he beat him in a slam was in 2007. Nadal simply laid down the law and Federer who was so dominant for a long time was not able to solve the puzzle and make a rivalry out of his #1 rival. In the eyes of many including Sampras, Agassi and McEnroe, this has hurt his claim at GOAT.

Nadal leads Djokovic 9-4

2015 FO - QF - Djokovic 7-5 6-3 6-1
2014 FO - F - Nadal 3-6 7-5 6-2 6-4
2013 US - F - Nadal 6-2 3-6 6-4 6-1
2013 FO - SF - Nadal 6-4 3-6 6-1 6-7 9-7
2012 FO - F - Nadal 6-4 6-3 2-6 7-5
2012 AO- F - Djokovic 5-7 6-4 6-2 6-7(5) 7-5
2011 US - F - Djokovic 6-2 6-4 6-7(3) 6-1
2011 WB - F - Djokovic 6-4 6-1 1-6 6-3
2010 US - F - Nadal 6-4 5-7 6-4 6-2
2008 FO - SF - Nadal 6-4 6-2 7-6(3)
2007 WB - SF - Nadal 3-6 6-1 4-1 Retired
2007 FO - SF - Nadal 7-5 6-4 6-2
2006 FO - QF - Nadal 6-4 6-4 0-0 Retired

Again, an easy domination by Rafa in the big matches. Although some people keep bringing up the run Djokovic had against Nadal starting in 2011 when he beat him in 3 grandslams in a row, when you actually look at the fact that Nadal won their following 4 grandslam meetings it shows that Nadal DID turn it around. Djokovic has been a difficult opponent for Rafa over the years and was able to finally take the lead in their overall h2h this year at a ATP 250 event, but when you look at the slam meetings Rafa reigns supreme. Even after 2011 which is Djokovic's peak, Rafa had a lot of success in the slams vs Djokovic and has nothing to prove, something that Federer has failed in both rivalries.
 
Ha! And if Nadal starts losing his ever-so-precious slam h2h to Djokovic, how will you change the goalposts again?
"Analysis: the big 3 h2h on red clay above 100 degrees F" ?
 
Tenez! said:
Ha! And if Nadal starts losing his ever-so-precious slam h2h to Djokovic, how will you change the goalposts again?
"Analysis: the big 3 h2h on red clay above 100 degrees F" ?
Click to expand...

So you are disagreeing that slams are by far the most important events in tennis???
 
snow-white-clapping.gif
 
There is no chance of Djokovic changing any of the H2H's because he will only make one more slam final and neither Fed nor Nadal will play him. I honestly think that Fed will reach more slam SFs from now on than Djokovic will.
 
Heavily RG-skewed, of course...
Let's play a game and remove the two majors dominant for either player from the equation. In this case,

Nadal-Federer
3-0 AO (adv Nadal)
0-0 USO (draw, but look who's been more successful there)

Nadal-Djokovic
1-1 Wim (Djokovic won the bigger match, adv Djokovic),
2-1 USO (adv Nadal)

Great that Nadal was able to keep it even regarding who's better at which majors rather than only dominating RG, and that's it, simple.
 
nadalfan2013 said:
Rafa met Novak & Federer at RG a total of 12 times (leads 11-1). He has met them OUTSIDE of RG a total of 13 times (STILL leads 7-5). You were saying?
Click to expand...
How can there be 13 meetings but a 7-5 H2H?

You just proved my point. Same number of meetings at RG (1 Slam) as at AO+W+USO (3 Slams) and an obviously big difference between those two H2Hs. While Federer and Djokovic have been constantly reaching final stages even when not being at the very peak of their powers, Nadal has been quite upset-prone outside of his pet Slam over the years. Him exiting early is the reason he didn't meet the other two more often at other 3 Majors and why it's a skewed H2H stat (no H2H is really important anyway, everyone sane knows titles are bigger than match wins).
 
Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil said:
Pity Nadal didn't meet Fedovic at the other Slams as often as he did at his beloved Roland Garros though. ;)
Click to expand...

In fairness when it comes to Roger he probably would have done well even.

U.S Open- Federer was a point away from very likely losing to Nadal in 2010 and 2011. He would have had an outside shot in 2011, but no chance in 2010. He was one match from a likely drubbing in 2013. Nadal was one match away from likely losing in 2009. Those were the times they were closest to meeting there. Despite that Fed beat both Murray and Djokovic, and Nadal lost to Murray and probably would have lost to Djokovic, I suspect Nadal would have won in 2008 too. The head to head was just that deeply entrenched to Nadal in that period, and if Fed couldnt beat him on grass or a dead tired Nadal in the AO final, his chances here would be less than either of those, even if Nadal was a bit fatigued and worn by the Open and not at his best. Fed would have a pretty good shot in 05, 06, 07 I guess, but it isnt a slam dunk in any of those like some think it is. If Nadal is playing well enough to reach the final he always has a good shot vs Fed in fact.

Wimbledon- Fed likely would have lost to Nadal if they met in 2009, 2010, or 2011, with 2009 probably his best shot. Speculating post 2012 is hard as that would require Nadal being much better on grass than he was at that point.

Nadal's head to head ownage of Federer outside of indoors is fully legit. He is the much better player in head to head, but is still the weaker player overall inspite of that.

Djokovic has basically pulled atleast equal with Nadal even as far as head to head goes, as well as everything else IMO.
 
Yes the dominance is strong in Favour of Nadal 18 : 6 Federer/Djokovic = 75% match wins

The only complaint can be Nadal has never beaten Djokovic at the AUS with non meetings mostly being Nadal's fault for failing to reach Djokovic with the exception of 2014 Novak's fault which is incidental because WaWa was equally too good for both
 
Great,another thread of an overdiscussed subject.
Federer and Djokovic are tbe most consistent players ever.
Consistency>meeting rivals in favourable circumstances.
End of...
 
The point is if Djokovic & Federer are soooo great on hardcourt & grass, and Rafa is a one dimensional clay court player then in those 12 meetings OUTSIDE of clay they should have been 11-1 against him instead of 5-7. Stop giving excuses.
 
Another part of the dominance is Nadal only losing 0 : 3 ONCE, and that was the last match he played Djokovic/Federer

Federer has lost 0 : 3 FIVE times
Djokovic has lost 0 : 3 SIX times
 
nadalfan2013 said:
The slams are where history is written and the iconic matches happen. Here's an analysis of the slam meetings between the 3 biggest icons of modern tennis: Nadal, Djokovic & Federer.

Djokovic leads Federer 9-6

2016 AO - SF - Djokovic 6-1 6-2 3-6 6-3
2015 US - F - Djokovic 6-4 5-7 6-4 6-4
2015 WB - F - Djokovic 7-6(1) 6-7(10) 6-4 6-3
2014 WB - F - Djokovic 6-7(7) 6-4 7-6(4) 5-7 6-4
2012 WB - SF - Federer 6-3 3-6 6-4 6-3
2012 FO - SF - Djokovic 6-4 7-5 6-3
2011 UO - SF - Djokovic 6-7(7) 4-6 6-3 6-2 7-5
2011 FO - SF - Federer 7-6(5) 6-3 3-6 7-6(5)
2011 AO - SF - Djokovic 7-6(3) 7-5 6-4
2010 US - SF - Djokovic 5-7 6-1 5-7 6-2 7-5
2009 US - SF - Federer 7-6(3) 7-5 7-5
2008 US - SF - Federer 6-3 5-7 7-5 6-2
2008 AO - SF - Djokovic 7-5 6-3 7-6(5)
2007 UO - F - Federer 7-6(4) 7-6(2) 6-4
2007 AO - R16 - Federer 6-2 7-5 6-3

The Djokovic/Federer rivalry is the closest... Although some may argue that Federer isn't in his prime anymore and therefore losing more, it becomes a little irrelevant when you realize that even during Federer's prime and Djokovic not being a dominant champion yet, Djokovic still managed to beat Federer from time to time. In fact Federer has never been able to beat Djokovic more than 2 times in a row in slams, even when Federer was in his prime.

Nadal leads Federer 9-2

2014 AO - SF - Nadal 7-6(4) 6-3 6-3
2012 AO - SF - Nadal 6-7(5) 6-2 7-6(5) 6-4
2011 FO - F - Nadal 7-5 7-6(3) 5-7 6-1
2009 AO - F - Nadal 7-5 3-6 7-6(3) 3-6 6-2
2008 WB - F - Nadal 6-4 6-4 6-7(5) 6-7(8) 9-7
2008 FO - F - Nadal 6-1 6-3 6-0
2007 WB - F - Federer 7-6(7) 4-6 7-6(3) 2-6 6-2
2007 FO - F - Nadal 6-3 4-6 6-3 6-4
2006 WB - F - Federer 6-0 7-6(5) 6-7(2) 6-3
2006 FO - F - Nadal 1-6 6-1 6-4 7-6(4)
2005 FO - SF - Nadal 6-3 4-6 6-4 6-3

The Nadal-Federer rivalry is the most one-sided. A stunning domination, in fact Federer has not been able to beat Nadal outside of Wimbledon, and the last time he beat him in a slam was in 2007. Nadal simply laid down the law and Federer who was so dominant for a long time was not able to solve the puzzle and make a rivalry out of his #1 rival. In the eyes of many including Sampras, Agassi and McEnroe, this has hurt his claim at GOAT.

Nadal leads Djokovic 9-4

2015 FO - QF - Djokovic 7-5 6-3 6-1
2014 FO - F - Nadal 3-6 7-5 6-2 6-4
2013 US - F - Nadal 6-2 3-6 6-4 6-1
2013 FO - SF - Nadal 6-4 3-6 6-1 6-7 9-7
2012 FO - F - Nadal 6-4 6-3 2-6 7-5
2012 AO- F - Djokovic 5-7 6-4 6-2 6-7(5) 7-5
2011 US - F - Djokovic 6-2 6-4 6-7(3) 6-1
2011 WB - F - Djokovic 6-4 6-1 1-6 6-3
2010 US - F - Nadal 6-4 5-7 6-4 6-2
2008 FO - SF - Nadal 6-4 6-2 7-6(3)
2007 WB - SF - Nadal 3-6 6-1 4-1 Retired
2007 FO - SF - Nadal 7-5 6-4 6-2
2006 FO - QF - Nadal 6-4 6-4 0-0 Retired

Again, an easy domination by Rafa in the big matches. Although some people keep bringing up the run Djokovic had against Nadal starting in 2011 when he beat him in 3 grandslams in a row, when you actually look at the fact that Nadal won their following 4 grandslam meetings it shows that Nadal DID turn it around. Djokovic has been a difficult opponent for Rafa over the years and was able to finally take the lead in their overall h2h this year at a ATP 250 event, but when you look at the slam meetings Rafa reigns supreme. Even after 2011 which is Djokovic's peak, Rafa had a lot of success in the slams vs Djokovic and has nothing to prove, something that Federer has failed in both rivalries.
Click to expand...
Too bad tennis isnt about H2H, and your post proves exactly that. If Federer had lost in earlier rounds at all those FO's and 3 Aussie's, that would make him stronger, because his H2H vs Nadal would be better?!? The logic is; its better to go out in R2 or R3 than in SF or final, because your H2H would be better? The absurdity of that statement is :confused::confused::confused::confused:. As i have said a lot of times; it isnt Federer's fault that Nadal only reached far enough to meet him once on HC in Feds prime 2003-2010. On grass its 2-1 H2H and 7-2 in titles. On clay Rafa is the king:)
 
Last edited:
nadalfan2013 said:
The point is if Djokovic & Federer are soooo great on hardcourt & grass, and Rafa is a one dimensional clay court player then in those 12 meetings OUTSIDE of clay they should have been 11-1 against him instead of 5-7. Stop giving excuses.
Click to expand...

No, Nadal won when playing well on his worse surfaces while Djokovic and Federer kept reaching the latter stages of RG and other tournaments whether playing well or not. If Nadal reached Fed/Djok when playing badly, it certainly would not be '7-5' to Nadal.
 
slatersleuth said:
In fairness when it comes to Roger he probably would have done well even.

U.S Open- Federer was a point away from very likely losing to Nadal in 2010 and 2011. He would have had an outside shot in 2011, but no chance in 2010. He was one match from a likely drubbing in 2013. Nadal was one match away from likely losing in 2009. Those were the times they were closest to meeting there. Despite that Fed beat both Murray and Djokovic, and Nadal lost to Murray and probably would have lost to Djokovic, I suspect Nadal would have won in 2008 too. The head to head was just that deeply entrenched to Nadal in that period, and if Fed couldnt beat him on grass or a dead tired Nadal in the AO final, his chances here would be less than either of those, even if Nadal was a bit fatigued and worn by the Open and not at his best. Fed would have a pretty good shot in 05, 06, 07 I guess, but it isnt a slam dunk in any of those like some think it is. If Nadal is playing well enough to reach the final he always has a good shot vs Fed in fact.

Wimbledon- Fed likely would have lost to Nadal if they met in 2009, 2010, or 2011, with 2009 probably his best shot. Speculating post 2012 is hard as that would require Nadal being much better on grass than he was at that point.

Nadal's head to head ownage of Federer outside of indoors is fully legit.
Click to expand...

Thank you for proving that it's Federer who failed to reach Rafa.
 
H_Richardson said:
No, Nadal won when playing well on his worse surfaces while Djokovic and Federer kept reaching the latter stages of RG and other tournaments whether playing well or not. If Nadal reached Fed/Djok when playing badly, it certainly would not be '7-5' to Nadal.
Click to expand...

Excuses again. :rolleyes:
 
slatersleuth said:
In fairness when it comes to Roger he probably would have done well even.

U.S Open- Federer was a point away from very likely losing to Nadal in 2010 and 2011. He would have had an outside shot in 2011, but no chance in 2010. He was one match from a likely drubbing in 2013. Nadal was one match away from likely losing in 2009. Those were the times they were closest to meeting there. Despite that Fed beat both Murray and Djokovic, and Nadal lost to Murray and probably would have lost to Djokovic, I suspect Nadal would have won in 2008 too. The head to head was just that deeply entrenched to Nadal in that period, and if Fed couldnt beat him on grass or a dead tired Nadal in the AO final, his chances here would be less than either of those, even if Nadal was a bit fatigued and worn by the Open and not at his best. Fed would have a pretty good shot in 05, 06, 07 I guess, but it isnt a slam dunk in any of those like some think it is. If Nadal is playing well enough to reach the final he always has a good shot vs Fed in fact.

Wimbledon- Fed likely would have lost to Nadal if they met in 2009, 2010, or 2011, with 2009 probably his best shot. Speculating post 2012 is hard as that would require Nadal being much better on grass than he was at that point.

Nadal's head to head ownage of Federer outside of indoors is fully legit. He is the much better player in head to head, but is still the weaker player overall inspite of that.

Djokovic has basically pulled atleast equal with Nadal even as far as head to head goes, as well as everything else IMO.
Click to expand...
In Feds prime, 2003- early 2010, Fed won 9 HC-slams and Rafa 1. Its pretty rough to blame Federer for not reaching Rafao_O
 
Nadal obviously got a lot of confidence in beating Federer/Djokovic RG which would have helped him in the other GS's to an extent
But that also shows the greatness of Federer/Djokovic making SF/F minimum at RG everytime, because they were good enough

Looking at Borg's career he rolled RG the same way Nadal did BUT he never gained extra confidence in beating Connors/McEnroe at RG because they always failed to reach him also resulting in Borg's HtH v Connors/McEnroe not becoming even more convincing. As it was he finished 6 : 6 Connors/McEnroe. That certainly could have been a lot more in his favour if Connors/McEnroe had been GOOD ENOUGH to reach Borg at RG
 
slatersleuth said:
In fairness when it comes to Roger he probably would have done well even.

U.S Open- Federer was a point away from very likely losing to Nadal in 2010 and 2011. He would have had an outside shot in 2011, but no chance in 2010. He was one match from a likely drubbing in 2013. Nadal was one match away from likely losing in 2009. Those were the times they were closest to meeting there. Despite that Fed beat both Murray and Djokovic, and Nadal lost to Murray and probably would have lost to Djokovic, I suspect Nadal would have won in 2008 too. The head to head was just that deeply entrenched to Nadal in that period, and if Fed couldnt beat him on grass or a dead tired Nadal in the AO final, his chances here would be less than either of those, even if Nadal was a bit fatigued and worn by the Open and not at his best. Fed would have a pretty good shot in 05, 06, 07 I guess, but it isnt a slam dunk in any of those like some think it is. If Nadal is playing well enough to reach the final he always has a good shot vs Fed in fact.

Wimbledon- Fed likely would have lost to Nadal if they met in 2009, 2010, or 2011, with 2009 probably his best shot. Speculating post 2012 is hard as that would require Nadal being much better on grass than he was at that point.

Nadal's head to head ownage of Federer outside of indoors is fully legit. He is the much better player in head to head, but is still the weaker player overall inspite of that.

Djokovic has basically pulled atleast equal with Nadal even as far as head to head goes, as well as everything else IMO.
Click to expand...
Nadal definitely has that match up advantage over Federer but not to such an extent that the H2H shows IMO.

I just think it's better to show up and lose than not show up at all, that when not winning it's better to collect a runner up plate than exit before the 2nd week of a Major.
 
nadalfan2013 said:
The point is if Djokovic & Federer are soooo great on hardcourt & grass, and Rafa is a one dimensional clay court player then in those 12 meetings OUTSIDE of clay they should have been 11-1 against him instead of 5-7. Stop giving excuses.
Click to expand...

Add Nadal's relatively short tenure at #1 and his inability to defend any title off the dirt! :rolleyes: :p ;)
 
Ah, the typical slam h2h argument from the Nadal fanatic. Like we haven't seen this a million times.
 
nadalfan2013 said:
So you would rather the ATP 250 h2h argument? :rolleyes: Everyone knows that the slams are by far what matter most so of course it's also true for the H2H. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Obviously it's Nadal's h2h record in the majors that gave moniker of GOAT life! Players like McEnroe and Wilander lauded Rafa for years until Nole came along and put all that talk to a screeching halt and revived Fed's claim since he's been more competitive with the current #1! :rolleyes: :p ;)
 
Jonas78 said:
In Feds prime, 2003- early 2010, Fed won 9 HC-slams and Rafa 1. Its pretty rough to blame Federer for not reaching Rafao_O
Click to expand...

I am not blaming him, I am saying I think Rafa would win the majority of meetings overall even had they met more here or there, less here or there, etc... I mean most of the meetings that were even close to happening (granted some of that is Rafa is weaker overall on non clay courts and more prone to very early losses) seem likely to have been a Nadal win as I broke down well I think. The only way I see any chance for prime Fed having a winning record vs prime or over any time period Rafa is if 75% of their matches were indoors maybe. So I do think Rafa is legitimately the better player in their head to head, and would always be regardless. Anyone who denies this is spinning their wheels. I likewise acknowledge it is clear he is the weaker player overall inspite of that, which shows that yes to a point anyway head to head is overrated.

Rafa's prime on hard courts would definitely be 2008-2013 also, so it is hard to blame him for not making hard court finals in 2005-2007 too, just as it would be to blame Federer for not reaching more finals vs Rafa from 2011 onwards. However it is impossible to not see comments like "Rafa was lucky they didnt meet at the Open" and not point out Fed was literally a point away twice from probably losing twice in a row in 2010 and 2011, so it is hard to say Rafa is the lucky one in head to head there, LOL! Not a fan of either guy btw so no horse in this race.
 
Last edited:
slatersleuth said:
I am not blaming him, I am saying I think Rafa would win the majority of meetings overall even had they met more here or there, less here or there, etc... I mean most of the meetings that were even close to happening (granted some of that is Rafa is weaker overall on non clay courts and more prone to very early losses) seem likely to have been a Nadal win as I broke down well I think. The only way I see any chance for prime Fed having a winning record vs prime or over any time period Rafa is if 75% of their matches were indoors maybe. So I do think Rafa is legitimately the better player in their head to head, and would always be regardless. Anyone who denies this is spinning their wheels. I likewise acknowledge it is clear he is the weaker player overall inspite of that, which shows that yes to a point anyway head to head is overrated.

Rafa's prime on hard courts would definitely be 2008-2013 also, so it is hard to blame him for not making hard court finals in 2005-2007 too, just as it would be to blame Federer for not reaching more finals vs Rafa from 2011 onwards. However it is impossible to not see comments like "Rafa was lucky they didnt meet at the Open" and not point out Fed was literally a point away twice from probably losing twice in a row in 2010 and 2011, so it is hard to say Rafa is the lucky one in head to head there, LOL! Not a fan of either guy btw so no horse in this race.
Click to expand...
Problem is that H2H really is irrelevant. One can speculate as much as one wants, and i really like Rafa, but the man has won "only" 3 slams on HC from 2005-2016. If some Rafa-fans find so much comfort in throwing the H2H over and over again, be my guest. But Rafa can only blame himself for not winning more HC titles in all those years, no matter his record vs Djoker or Fed.
 
Jonas78 said:
Problem is that H2H really is irrelevant. I like Rafa, but the man has won "only" 3 slams on HC from 2005-2016. If some Rafa-fans find so much comfort in throwing the H2H over and over again, be my guest. But Rafa can only blame himself for not winning more HC titles in all those years, no matter his record vs Djoker or Fed.
Click to expand...

I dont know if I would say irrelevant. It doesnt make Nadal a better player than Fed, on that I 100% agree. It does cast some doubt on those who claim Fed being GOAT though (there would be doubt anyway but it is some additional doubt).
 
slatersleuth said:
I dont know if I would say irrelevant. It doesnt make Nadal a better player than Fed, on that I 100% agree. It does cast some doubt on those who claim Fed being GOAT though (there would be doubt anyway but it is some additional doubt).
Click to expand...
I see your point, and the 11-23 speak for itself. But as i have mentioned before, the problem is that if the slam-H2H make Fed weaker, its a paradox that he would be considered stronger by losing earlier in the tournament (before reaching Rafa).
 
Jonas78 said:
I see your point, and the 11-23 speak for itself. But as i have mentioned before, the problem is that if the slam-H2H make Fed weaker, its a paradox that he would be considered stronger by losing earlier in the tournament (before reaching Rafa).
Click to expand...

That is true, but if he were reaching less finals I doubt they would be all finals he lost to Nadal anyway (that would be an amazing piece of coincidence and unlikely luck). In that scenario he probably would not be reaching some finals he won too, and if that is the case he has fewer slams than he has now, and might not even be considered over Sampras, Nadal, Borg, Djokovic anymore. If he werent reaching those RG finals his ground game would probably be weaker, and since he doesnt have the serve or volleys of Sampras (maybe even quite the athleticsm) he wouldnt win 7 Wimbledons anymore, and wouldnt be able to hold off Rafa in the 06 and 07 finals, or perhaps for that matter Roddick in the 06 U.S Open, 04 Wimbledon, and 09 Wimbledon finals.
 
nadalfan2013 said:
So you are disagreeing that slams are by far the most important events in tennis???
Click to expand...
If that's so, let's have another "analysis".

Number of slam defeats to player outside of Top20 since first slam final (italics means rank 21-30) :

Murray : 1 (Wawrinka '10)
Federer : 3 (Stakhovsky, Seppi, Robredo)
Wawrinka : 3 (GGL, Gasquet, Delpo)
Djokovic : 5 (Safin, Melzer, Haas, Kohlschreiber, Querrey)
Nadal : 12 (Müller, Blake, Youzhny, Tsonga, Söderling, Rosol, Darcis, Kyrgios, Brown, Fognini, Verdasco, Pouille)

Nadal counts as many as all the others together. Need any more be said about weakness at slams?
Or do you now understand the flaws of cherry-picking?
 
Last edited:
Nadal can win the 'I have a winning h2h vs the Top 3 in Majors' achievement for all I care but it's not going to mean much in the grand scheme of things just like Connors or Rosewall playing in their late 30s.
 
Tenez! said:
If that's so, let's have another "analysis".

Number of slam defeats to player outside of Top20 since first slam final (italics means rank 20-30) :

Murray : 1 (Wawrinka '10)
Federer : 3 (Stakhovsky, Seppi, Robredo)
Wawrinka : 3 (GGL, Gasquet, Delpo)
Djokovic : 5 (Safin, Melzer, Haas, Kohlschreiber, Querrey)
Nadal : 12 (Müller, Blake, Youzhny, Tsonga, Söderling, Rosol, Darcis, Kyrgios, Brown, Fognini, Verdasco, Pouille)

Nadal counts as many as all the others together. Need any more be said about weakness at slams?
Or do you now understand the flaws of cherry-picking?
Click to expand...

That stat balances the H2H out which means the more consistent player is better because he has won more matches
Djokovic already has reached more GS finals than Nadal 21 : 20
Federer 27 GS finals but he has played more but all three are better than the previous best Lendl 19 and Sampras 18

Also Federer was 0 slam defeats to player outside Top 20 until 2013 WIM/31yrs 11 months old
Nadal was 11 slam defeats to player outside Top 20 whilst he was still in his twenties...

Nadal's 'B' game is not on a par with Federer's or Djokovic's at GrandSlams
Also; Nadal's 'A' game in Masters/WTF is not on a par with Djokovic's in Masters/WTF and Federer's at WTF

That leaves only Nadal's 'A' game on a par with Federer/Djokovic at Grand Slams and Djokovic at least potentially might be surpassing that as well
 
S'in-net said:
That stat balances the H2H out which means the more consistent player is better because he has won more matches
Click to expand...
You misread me. I clearly stated "since reaching first final".

Please refrain from using my post aimed at criticising stat twisting, to further your personal stat-twisting agenda.
 
Tenez! said:
You misread me. I clearly stated "since reaching first final".

Please refrain from using my post aimed at criticising stat twisting, to further your personal stat-twisting agenda.
Click to expand...

Nadal's 'B' game is not on a par with Federer's or Djokovic's at grand slams since Nadal first reached his 'A' game standard in grand slams, 2005
Nadal's 'A' game at grand slams, is however, on a par with Federer/Djokovic at grand slams
 
Short version: Fed - Nadal is bad match up for Fed, but the 11-23 is skewed because almost 50% of the matches are on clay, and because Nadal has been much more inconsistent than Fed (when he didnt play his A-game, he went out way before he got to Fed). Fed was the better one vs the field, which his insane number of reaching 40 slam SF's or higher shows. Nadal in comparison has 23. Djoker has 31 i think.
 
Last edited:
Nadal stats are ridiculously skewed by his tendency to lose early when he wasn't playing well and his total domination on clay. The only notable thing is that he's 3-0 vs Fed on Aussie Open, of which only in 2009 Fed was playing very good tennis. Off RG, Nadal leads Fed 4-2, and off RG, he's 3-3 vs Djokovic.

Fed comes out so badly because most of the matches here are way after his peak, even though he could still be competitive.
 
Red Rick said:
Nadal stats are ridiculously skewed by his tendency to lose early when he wasn't playing well and his total domination on clay. The only notable thing is that he's 3-0 vs Fed on Aussie Open, of which only in 2009 Fed was playing very good tennis. Off RG, Nadal leads Fed 4-2, and off RG, he's 3-3 vs Djokovic.

Fed comes out so badly because most of the matches here are way after his peak, even though he could still be competitive.
Click to expand...

As I've been saying, players like Connors in the past and Roger now, hurt their legacy and overall record on court when they "hang on" much, much too long! Obviously Federer's being quite competitive, still making major finals and taking a Masters 1000 here and there, but sooner or later it's gotta come to a close! The longer he stays, the worse it will look with losses occurring against this new generation of Thiem, Zverev, & Poulle among others really making their mark winning their 1st titles! It's about time with me totally giving up on Gasquet, Berdych, Ferrer, Dimitrov, & Tsonga! They have woefully underachieved IMO and should have made at least one good run to take a major and not just play one over their extensive careers! Kei and Milos still have a chance and Cilic finally got "his" out of the way! :rolleyes: :p ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jm1980
Is Djokovic a bigger threat to Fed than Nadal nowadays?
Replies
17
Views
3K
Deleted member 688153
D
triforce defender
Most beautiful scores in tennis
2
Replies
63
Views
6K
lud
lud
N
Top-ten wins for Djokovic in Slams from 2011-2015
Replies
19
Views
798
Nathaniel_Near
N
A
Fed and Rafa losses in slams (resharing)
Replies
0
Views
1K
Agassifan
A
Atennisone
Rank your 10 best Grand Slam matches of 2010's
Replies
10
Views
1K
DSH
DSH
Back
Top