Big 3-Non Clay Major meetings
- Thread starter Spencer Gore
- Start date
duaneeo
Legend
They didn't meet 2004 - 2007...Roger's peak years, and the years the AO was played on rebound ace. And though Nadal beat Federer in 2012 and 2014, he lost to Djokovic and Wawrinka in the final. So, the only really meaningful h2h AO statistic is that they are 1-1 in finals.
Spencer Gore
Legend
Please tell me you're joking?
duaneeo
Legend
The 2012 and 2014 AO wins over Federer didn't increase Nadal's AO titles, did they?
AO slow plexi favours Nadal in that match up. It’s slow enough that it means Nadal can regularly return winners.
Balanced slam matches would mean they had 1-2 more Wimbledon matches and 4-5 USO.
True Fanerer
G.O.A.T.
He just likes to lose the most important match between them ever in the history of tennis. No big deal right?
True Fanerer
G.O.A.T.
Oh yes all knowing Zagor
God of tennis forums... Let's build a monument to you oh great one
abmk
Bionic Poster
Nadal is actually 1-2 vs Muller at Wimbledon (he won their match in 2011). for the first 2 sets, Nadal had no clue on how to read/handle his first serve.
He eked out both sets in TBs. Then Muller crumbled in the 3rd set.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Oh yeah, forgot that match. Muller has come a long way since then mentally. For all the talk about players being better than ever at 30+, it might be true in his case because of his specific playing style and the degree to which the mental part was holding him back.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Oh yes all knowing Zagor
If you insist, make sure to get my good side.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
Seems reasonable enough to me as well. I don't worry about their 2012 and 2014 matches at the AO - Nadal was in his prime and Federer was not. So the expected result was delivered in both.
In 2009 they were both in their prime, and in 2017 they were both well past their prime. So when that's even they're 1-1. Simple enough.
You could use the same reasoning with the rest of their matches too. Past-prime Federer's results against peak Nadal and Djokovic still count obviously, but they don't bother me.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
What mystery?The book I have to read to figure out some of the comments of Fed fans.
Federer's prime was 2004-2009 and his peak was 2004-2007. All inclusive. We're not going to pretend that beating Federer in 2013 is the same as in 2005, are we? I'm sure we're all adult enough to realise it is not.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
ForumMember
Hall of Fame
haha.. prime/peak/top/supreme wonder how many categories would be created to justify some holes in the resume. It is absolutely rubbish argument to suggest that player necessarily go down with age. Ask Muller. Ask Wawrinka.
Outside Djokovic and Nadal, Fedrerer remained as dominant as earlier after 2007 as well.
Look at Federer's 2015 numbers. Outside Djokovic and clay Federer's numbers were somewhere 50-3 or 49-3. In 2017 outside Djokovic and clay his numbers are worse than his 2015 numbers. Yet he won 2 grand slams and 3 masters. Would you still like to claim that Federer's success in 2017 owe a lot to Djokovic absence? You may pretend to believe so but numbers and logical reasoning suggest otherwise.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
@ForumMember
@Spencer Gore
WWSFSFWWWFWWWFWWSFFFWFWWFW
Show me a player with a string half as good as that and I'll say they're the GOAT, switch to being a fan of them, and PayPal you $100.
@Spencer Gore
WWSFSFWWWFWWWFWWSFFFWFWWFW
Show me a player with a string half as good as that and I'll say they're the GOAT, switch to being a fan of them, and PayPal you $100.
Last edited by a moderator:
Spencer Gore
Legend
Exactly. There's no point arguing with these people. They are fanatics; blind to reason and facts.
Federer swept the board when the opposition was desperately poor, then struggled to win titles once Nadal and Djokovic came to maturity.
He has a 33% winning record against them in slams. The rest is noise.
abmk
Bionic Poster
Here's the reality , Spencer Bore.
You got bitchslapped, with the reality multiple times in this thread and in other places.
oh and finally,
19 slams, 300+weeks at #1, 5 or more slams at 3 venues>> 16 slams., ~150 weeks at #1, 5 or more slams at only one venue >> 12 slams , ~200 weeks at #1, 5 or more slams at only one venue.
game, set and match.
MasterZeb
Hall of Fame
Damn, two players. How about you ask every single other player ever, in every other sport in the history of man kind? I'm assuming then, that this is peak Nadal aswell, that has lost to Federer 5x in a row?
C
Charlie
Guest
That's rich coming from you.
Nadal won Majors during weak competition periods just as much as Federer did. After his first Slam win, they both won 15 each yet somehow Nadal had it so much tougher. You not rating Federer's competition in mid 00s just to suit your pathetic agenda doesn't make it truth, no matter how much you also try to convince us you followed tennis all the way from the 70s, phony.
He has the most total Slams, grass Slams, hard court Slams, WTFs and weeks at #1. The rest is noise.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Spencer Gore
Legend
"Bitchslapped"? Maybe you might wish to use less disgusting, offensive, misogynistic language when you are discussing tennis on an internet forum.
vanioMan
Legend
Shawn >>> Johnny. Young man might win on the abs, but he's nowhere near close to Shawn overall
I wouldn't mind to participate in such a challenge as well...
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
Are you sure about your present tense? Because he hasn't beaten Federer anywhere (big or small events, outdoor or indoor, HC or clay) in something like four years. Odd for someone who "very rarely loses", no?
Spencer Gore
Legend
3 defeats in 12 slam meetings says otherwise.
How do you explain these? Federer, 30-31 years old past his prime with 2-2 record vs peak 24-25 year old Djokovic, and 1 of those being a massive choke on Fed's part? This pretty much destroys your pathetic weak argument. As does Federer winning 2 slams in 2017, reaching number 1 in 2012 during everyone else's peak, winning WTF in 2010, 2011, numerous wins over Djokovic, Nadal, Murray etc.
Weak trolling.
Last edited:
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Shawn >>> Johnny. Young man might win on the abs, but he's nowhere near close to Shawn overall
I wouldn't mind to participate in such a challenge as well...
Been hitting the gym huh?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUrC8xr9b7E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFVJXSKtiv8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScsuEqOmq0s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw9QXuWRHqA
Damn look at Federer struggling to win matches and titles since Djokovic matured!!! And the 5-0 since Nadal declined physically says it all - his superior tennis skill comes through.
vanioMan
Legend
Been hitting the gym huh?
Oh, yeah. Shirts are getting tigher on me. Don't mind it, tho
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Pics or it ain't happening.Oh, yeah. Shirts are getting tigher on me. Don't mind it, tho
BurchBeer
Rookie
....Come on man give it a rest
What? What's the problem with anything I said?
killerboi2
Hall of Fame
Greatness is about beating your main rivals. Federer fans have moaned and groaned about Nadal beating them on clay but he has combined winning head to head over Djokovic and Federer in slams on other surfaces as well.
Pheasant
Legend
Greatness is not about beating one guy. It is about beating as much of the field as possible. It is about going as deep as possible into tourneys, especially slams.
But let’s pretend that greatness is about beating one guy
2006: Federer wins 3 slams, makes final of another en route to a stunning 92-5 record. Nadal wins 1 slam, 1 final, and a quarterfinal while going 59-12. Nadal was far greater because he was 4-2 vs Federer. Nadal thrashes Fed here using that criteria.
2004-2007:
Fed wins 11 slam titles, plays in 13 finals and 15 semis. He was 315-24, including 69-10 vs the top 10
2004-2007:
Nadal wins 3 slam titles, plays in 5 finals and 5 semis. He was 242-55, including 28-15 vs the top 10.
However: Nadal was 8-6 vs Federer. Ergo, Nadal was greater. Using HTH means we must toss out 95% of the season. Never mind that outside of their HTH, Federer was 63-2 vs the top 10 while Nadal was 20-9.
As I said, we must look at the overall body of work. Throwing the most emphasis on 5% of the season to me is absurd. It could be used as a potential tiebreaker down the road.
And lastly, this isn’t meant to punish Nadal. I am the one that mentioned that Nadal had a better year in 2017, despite his 0-4 record vs Federer. However, this case isn’t nearly as lopsided as the seasons above.
2017
Nadal: 2 slams, 1 final, 67-11 overall, 12-6 vs top 10, 6 titles won out of 18
Federer: 2 slams, 1 QF, 52-5 overall, 14-2 vs top 10, 7 titles won out of 12 played
Nadal played in 50% more tourneys. He played in 3 slam finals. Federer’s 3rd slam only resulted in a QF. And I don’t I don’t care that Fed had a bad back. Injuries are part of the game.
So even though Nadal was 0-4 vs Fed, I give Nadal the edge in 2017. However, this case is extremely close.
But let’s pretend that greatness is about beating one guy
2006: Federer wins 3 slams, makes final of another en route to a stunning 92-5 record. Nadal wins 1 slam, 1 final, and a quarterfinal while going 59-12. Nadal was far greater because he was 4-2 vs Federer. Nadal thrashes Fed here using that criteria.
2004-2007:
Fed wins 11 slam titles, plays in 13 finals and 15 semis. He was 315-24, including 69-10 vs the top 10
2004-2007:
Nadal wins 3 slam titles, plays in 5 finals and 5 semis. He was 242-55, including 28-15 vs the top 10.
However: Nadal was 8-6 vs Federer. Ergo, Nadal was greater. Using HTH means we must toss out 95% of the season. Never mind that outside of their HTH, Federer was 63-2 vs the top 10 while Nadal was 20-9.
As I said, we must look at the overall body of work. Throwing the most emphasis on 5% of the season to me is absurd. It could be used as a potential tiebreaker down the road.
And lastly, this isn’t meant to punish Nadal. I am the one that mentioned that Nadal had a better year in 2017, despite his 0-4 record vs Federer. However, this case isn’t nearly as lopsided as the seasons above.
2017
Nadal: 2 slams, 1 final, 67-11 overall, 12-6 vs top 10, 6 titles won out of 18
Federer: 2 slams, 1 QF, 52-5 overall, 14-2 vs top 10, 7 titles won out of 12 played
Nadal played in 50% more tourneys. He played in 3 slam finals. Federer’s 3rd slam only resulted in a QF. And I don’t I don’t care that Fed had a bad back. Injuries are part of the game.
So even though Nadal was 0-4 vs Fed, I give Nadal the edge in 2017. However, this case is extremely close.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
On the other hand Nadal might've won all them, and Federers H2H record would've been a lot worse
And your 2nd point, possibly because he has played on the tour a good few years more
Possible, but not likely. Federer probably wins every potential match at Wimbledon from 2014 onwards. I would also really like his chances at USO 2015, (and Djokovic would've beaten him for certain if he didn't lose to Fognini, that is basically NID type stuff). Federer would also be favoured in 2017 if healthy, but that one is more up in the air, admittedly. This doesn't even count the USO's Nadal didn't play in 2012 and 2014 or the numerous times in 2015 where Nadal lost the round before he had to play Federer (unlike 2013 for example), and was in terrible form the whole year.
Zetty
Hall of Fame
I'm a Fed fan but this is just lol
Spencer Gore
Legend
Pathetic isn't it.
duaneeo
Legend
Ok, so if Federer's 1-3 H2H vs Nadal at the AO is such an important non-clay slam statistic, so is Nadal's 0-2 non-clay slam H2H vs Ferrer.
Which stat is less GOAT-worthy?
Spencer Gore
Legend
duaneeo
Legend
That's the other thread you created. This one is non-clay major meetings, remember?
every7
Hall of Fame
2012 is always the one that still amazes me. The final was a heartbreaker for me (Djokovic too strong on the day) but yeah that SF match against Federer was brilliant. 2009 was different again because Rafa was coming off that extraordinary 2008 and seemed almost bulletproof. I was fully expecting him to do the impossible even after that epic SF against Verdasco.
Spencer Gore
Legend
Of course I remember. What you seem to have neglected is what I wrote in my OP. To talk about non-clay as Federer fanatics do, is absurd, but EVEN if we do, Nadal and Djokovic come top, and Federer trails in a poor third.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Your OP:
1. Does not include tour finals, Nadal's most obvious weakness.
2. Does not show that in majors and tour finals Fed was 6/0 through the end of 2007.
3. Does not begin to show that your W/L stats don't for one moment take into consideration that Fed is 5 years older than Nadal and 6 years older than Novak.
By the way, looking only at stats up to the end of 2007 is also highly unfair to Nadal and Novak, who were still very young back then.
Including majors and tour finals, through 2012, at the point Fed was 31, it was 7/7.
But this is all cherry-picking and pretty useless.
abmk
Bionic Poster
But the term is spot on when describing what happened. You don't have any reply to the actual points raised, Mr. Faker aka Spencer Bore ?
Stats that completely crush your bullsh*t.
And I wasn't even thinking about/pointing out the possible misogynistic connotation, just the actual meaning, but trust a faker like you to bring that up.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
Of course. Therefore Ferrer > Federer.
Case closed.
How is this thread still going?
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
Also @Spencer Gore you stopped replying to our debate the other day. Shall I presume to have won that?
killerboi2
Hall of Fame
If we are taking away wins for Nadal at his best slam then I think it's fair to take away wins for Djokovic and Federer a their best slam too. When we do that, 8-3 to Nadal.
Edit: forgot all about Djoko's FO win vs Nadal. So 8-4, still clear margin in Nadal's favor. Barely making up half the wins. Really hope that Nadal can put Fed back in his cage in 2018 so GOAT is decided once and for all, even though Nadal already has the edge in my opinion.
Edit: forgot all about Djoko's FO win vs Nadal. So 8-4, still clear margin in Nadal's favor. Barely making up half the wins. Really hope that Nadal can put Fed back in his cage in 2018 so GOAT is decided once and for all, even though Nadal already has the edge in my opinion.
Last edited:
TheGhostOfAgassi
Talk Tennis Guru
I just hope both of them plays well enough to have the possibility to play each other, and Rafa puts Fed back to where he belongs. The H2H still loopsided, but would be nice with a revenge. I bet Rafa is making plans and practising it with Moya.
Of course, every time Federer loses he was either injured, past his peak, had mono, or on clay courts. Clay has been a slam surface since 1925 and a major surface many years before that and Today, so to discredit Nadal's FO wins and other clay titles is stupid. How many grass court tournaments are played today? Only One that really counts.
Not every time but very often yeah
Similar threads
- Poll
