And this is why slam H2H is not the be all end

[mahatma]

Yes He and Fed made the most of 2017 just like Novak made the most of 2015-16. I think all 3 have had their share of lucky breaks.

Fair point.

 

[Hitman]

In pro tennis, with very clear differences across surfaces, overall h2h has no meaning. And I say that as a Novak fan where Novak is ahead in the h2h.

the Nadalovic h2h yields very different results depending on which surface they play


and outside places like TTW the h2h is not much discussed and slam h2h even less so

It only became a 'thing' after Doha 2016. But have to agree with you here on your first statement.

 

[Spencer Gore]

H2H isn't the be-all and end-all. It becomes the tie-breaker when people are level on slams. I think we can all agree that if you are behind on both slam count AND h2h then you are the inferior player.

 

[Nadal_Django]

The last six slams in which Djokodal were both in the draw

AO 2020 - Djokovic waiting in the final, Nadal out by end of the quarters
RG 2020 - Djokovic plays Nadal, Nadal in the final crushes him for the title
AO 2021 - Djokovic waiting in the final, Nadal out by end of the quarters
RG 2021 - Djokovic plays Nadal in the semi final, Djokovic outlasts Nadal in an epic for the win
RG 2022 - Djokovic plays Nadal in the quarter final, Nadal overwhelms Djokovic for the win
W 2022 - Djokovic waiting in the final, Nadal out after withdrawing with injury in his semi

The only times they played each other in the last three seasons, was at RG. Yet, each time both were in the draw together, in non clay slams, Djokovic was always waiting in the final. This is why I don't put too much stock in slam H2H, if one guy simply doesn't make it to the other outside of a particular surface, it skews things. Nadal sadly was injured in his semi at Wimbledon, and I was hoping we would get Djokodal here, would have been great to see it, but it doesn't change the point that we only got these two playing at RG and on clay, when Novak was waiting in numerous other non-clay finals for Rafa these past few seasons.

Yep Hitman, Nadal running away from Djokovic off clay like a chicken, must be incorporated as a Olympic discipline of its own.

 

[The_Order]

Well I didn't take out RG. All I'm saying is 10 matches at one slam is absurd and it happens to be on clay. They have met a combined 8 times on the three other majors with Wimbledon 07 being a retirement when they were 1 set all.

Ahh well... Novak's just as much to blame for that as Nadal really...

 

[paolo2143]

Well said as always.

Nadal is ahead by simple virtue of 22 slams to Djokovic's 21 slams as it stand right now.

While i can see where your coming from I don't necessarily agree Hitman.

AS i said Novak has so much else over Rafa i think it more than compensates for 1 slam of a difference.

Let's be honest most people put Laver ahead of Sampras even though Laver has 11 slams to Pete's 14, because Laver has lot else going for him.

There are many people who still put McEnroe ahead of Connors and Lendl even though he has 1 slam less than both.

It is not just as simple as the slams, let's put a scenario in place.

Player A: Player B:
23 slams 24 slams
45 ATP1000 Masters 42 ATP 100O Masters
90 overall titles 85 overall titles
5 End of year Masters titles 0 End of Year Masters
8 year ending World No 1's 6 year ending No 1's
390 weeks World No 1 240 weeks World No1
leads h2h against main two rivals losing h2h against closest rival
held all 4 slams at one time never held all 4 slams at same time
won nearly 60% of slams outside favourite slam only won 38% of slams outside favourite slam

Now i know most of the above figures are just made up but i am just trying to paint a picture and a scenario, and i am also allowing for possible future wins as well.

If that was how say Player A and B end their careers, then are we seriously saying that Player A would be behind Player B because he is one slam down.

In my mind the above starts are so overwhelmingly in favour of player A that regardless of him being one slam behind player B, that overall he is the better player as all the other stats combines weigh so much for him.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Well said as always.

Nadal is ahead by simple virtue of 22 slams to Djokovic's 21 slams as it stand right now.

 

[mahatma]

While i can see where your coming from I don't necessarily agree Hitman.

AS i said Novak has so much else over Rafa i think it more than compensates for 1 slam of a difference.

Let's be honest most people put Laver ahead of Sampras even though Laver has 11 slams to Pete's 14, because Laver has lot else going for him.

There are many people who still put McEnroe ahead of Connors and Lendl even though he has 1 slam less than both.

It is not just as simple as the slams, let's put a scenario in place.

Player A: Player B:
23 slams 24 slams
45 ATP1000 Masters 42 ATP 100O Masters
90 overall titles 85 overall titles
5 End of year Masters titles 0 End of Year Masters
8 year ending World No 1's 6 year ending No 1's
390 weeks World No 1 240 weeks World No1
leads h2h against main two rivals losing h2h against closest rival
held all 4 slams at one time never held all 4 slams at same time
won nearly 60% of slams outside favourite slam only won 38% of slams outside favourite slam

Now i know most of the above figures are just made up but i am just trying to paint a picture and a scenario, and i am also allowing for possible future wins as well.

If that was how say Player A and B end their careers, then are we seriously saying that Player A would be behind Player B because he is one slam down.

In my mind the above starts are so overwhelmingly in favour of player A that regardless of him being one slam behind player B, that overall he is the better player as all the other stats combines weigh so much for him.

Loved the 38% vs 60% stat.Insightful.

 

[Backspin1183]

In fairness slam h2h is a pretty silly concept mostly used by to troll. it has practically zero analytical value

So is the head to head in non Slams.

 

[Hitman]

While i can see where your coming from I don't necessarily agree Hitman.

AS i said Novak has so much else over Rafa i think it more than compensates for 1 slam of a difference.

Let's be honest most people put Laver ahead of Sampras even though Laver has 11 slams to Pete's 14, because Laver has lot else going for him.

There are many people who still put McEnroe ahead of Connors and Lendl even though he has 1 slam less than both.

It is not just as simple as the slams, let's put a scenario in place.

Player A: Player B:
23 slams 24 slams
45 ATP1000 Masters 42 ATP 100O Masters
90 overall titles 85 overall titles
5 End of year Masters titles 0 End of Year Masters
8 year ending World No 1's 6 year ending No 1's
390 weeks World No 1 240 weeks World No1
leads h2h against main two rivals losing h2h against closest rival
held all 4 slams at one time never held all 4 slams at same time
won nearly 60% of slams outside favourite slam only won 38% of slams outside favourite slam

Now i know most of the above figures are just made up but i am just trying to paint a picture and a scenario, and i am also allowing for possible future wins as well.

If that was how say Player A and B end their careers, then are we seriously saying that Player A would be behind Player B because he is one slam down.

In my mind the above starts are so overwhelmingly in favour of player A that regardless of him being one slam behind player B, that overall he is the better player as all the other stats combines weigh so much for him.

I know and understand your position.

It's just my personal opinion, but I am fully aware that for many, a one slam difference cannot make up for the signifcant lack of numbers elsewhere.

 

[Moon Shooter]

I know the abdominal tear can possibly get bigger if nadal played. But I have never heard of any pro athlete having a career ending abdominal muscle tear injury. In other words I’m wondering if it really matters if it gets a bit bigger. Lots of players have played on with bigger tears - although we don’t know the placement. A 7mm tear is tiny. And it does seem like the doctors were at least open to nadal giving it a try. Anyone with a med background have a view on this? Anyone know of an abdominal muscle tear getting so bad it had a permanent effect on a pro players game?

 

[Hitman]

I know the abdominal tear can possibly get bigger if natal played. But I have never heard of any pro athlete having a career ending abdominal muscle tear injury. In other words I’m wondering if it really matters if it gets a bit bigger. Lots of players have played on with bigger tears - although we don’t know the placement. A 7mm tear is tiny. And it does seem like the doctors were at least open to nasal giving it a try. Anyone with a med background have a view on this? Anyone know of an abdominal muscle tear getting so bad it had a permanent effect on a pro players game?

 

[Moon Shooter]

Im thinking it is due to apple auto-jibberish I mean auto-correct.

 

[DariaGT]

I know the abdominal tear can possibly get bigger if nadal played. But I have never heard of any pro athlete having a career ending abdominal muscle tear injury. In other words I’m wondering if it really matters if it gets a bit bigger. Lots of players have played on with bigger tears - although we don’t know the placement. A 7mm tear is tiny. And it does seem like the doctors were at least open to nadal giving it a try. Anyone with a med background have a view on this? Anyone know of an abdominal muscle tear getting so bad it had a permanent effect on a pro players game?

Could it be Maria is not the pregnant one? but seriously many activities can cause such injury outside of tennis.

 

[TMF]

Ok, Nadal leads Federer in every criteria from the Tennis Channel...

1 - Number of slams: 22 > 20
2 - Overall performance at majors: Double Career Grand Slam
3 - Performance at other events: Federer has 6 YEC, Nadal has 8 more Masters, OSG
4 - Rankings: 5 YE#1 each, Federer more weeks at #1, Nadal top 10 for 17 consecutive years and counting... likely to get 6th YE #1 this year too
5 - Records: They both have a **** load.
6 - Intangibles (contribution to tennis): Nadal built a freaking academy and we already see great results from it...



Ok, Nadal has 83.4% career win percentage. Federer 82%.

Disagree.

Federer is greater at 3 out of the 4 slam
Federer won 5 straight Wimbledon and USO and only member to have the 5-5-5
6 WTF > 0 WTF. Olympic was never part of the GOAT criteria. Having 3 MS on clay and 0 on grass, it's easy for have to have this lead
Federer 5 YE #1: 3 times with 3 slams won + WTF; 2 times with 2 slams won; 3 years he made all 4 slam finals.
Federer has WAY more open-era records than Nadal
For over 18 years, Roger Federer Foundation working to improve the quality of education in Limpopo, South Africa in order to prevent dropouts and increase enrolment of out of school children. Federer spent millions,
is an active philanthropist who collaborates with Bill Gates and others to educate children and assist those affected by natural disasters.

I'm surprise that the percentage is so close depsite Federer is still active at 41.
But peak and prime dominance still say Federer. Nadal invested so much playing time on play every clay, still couldn't sustain a 90+ annual winning percentage as often as other players could.

 

[The_Order]

Disagree.

Federer is greater at 3 out of the 4 slam
Federer won 5 straight Wimbledon and USO and only member to have the 5-5-5
6 WTF > 0 WTF. Olympic was never part of the GOAT criteria. Having 3 MS on clay and 0 on grass, it's easy for have to have this lead
Federer 5 YE #1: 3 times with 3 slams won + WTF; 2 times with 2 slams won; 3 years he made all 4 slam finals.
Federer has WAY more open-era records than Nadal
For over 18 years, Roger Federer Foundation working to improve the quality of education in Limpopo, South Africa in order to prevent dropouts and increase enrolment of out of school children. Federer spent millions,
is an active philanthropist who collaborates with Bill Gates and others to educate children and assist those affected by natural disasters.

I'm surprise that the percentage is so close depsite Federer is still active at 41.
But peak and prime dominance still say Federer. Nadal invested so much playing time on play every clay, still couldn't sustain a 90+ annual winning percentage as often as other players could.

Ummm...

Answer the tennis channel criteria mate...

Number of slams won?

Overall performance at ALL slams ... double career slam > single career slam

IF there were MS on grass? LMFAO IF there were 2 clay slams your boy wouldn't even be in the conversation...

WAY more open era records? Doubtful.

Federer's foundation does great work... but what contribution is that to tennis compared to Nadal's academy?

Federer has 5 YE#1... SAME AS Nadal... by end of this year Nadal will pull ahead that's as clear as daylight.

Nadal has 17 consecutive years in top 10 and that'll last through to 18 guaranteed...

Nadal has greater overall win percentage...

Disagree all you want the facts are there to prove you wrong.

 

[jm1980]

But that one trick is a show-stealer when it’s 14-7 in slams Rafa vs Novak… 2:1 ratio. That’s just undeniable.

Except that's not even remotely accurate, it's 11-7 and they played 10 of those matches at the French

 

[Spencer Gore]

Let's be honest most people put Laver ahead of Sampras even though Laver has 11 slams to Pete's 14, because Laver has lot else going for him.

The reason people put Laver ahead of Sampras is that Laver won the Grand Slam twice while Sampras failed to win all four tournaments at any point, plus -just as importantly- Laver wasn't allowed to play in 21 slams in a row during his peak years. Take the equivalent years from Sampras's record and he has 7 slams.

In contrast, Nadal and Djokovic are in a much more level playing field.