Biggest hole in a players resume?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chadillac
  • Start date Start date
Donnie Brasco said:
And Davydenko is 0-4 against Nadal on clay you can't just disregard clay it's a major surface. Nadal also leads Federer on hardcourts so you can't just assume that Federer would rack up wins left and right it would be closer than their clay court matches, but history has show us Nadal still gets the better of Fed on hardcourts. Fed also barely manged to beat Nadal on grass his best surface. Davydenko gave Nadal problems, but Nadal kept it respectable. Nadal is just Federer's kryptonite.
Click to expand...
Clay is a major surface, but it's still barely 30% of tour. Fed-Nadal h2h doesn't have a normal match distribution. PERIOD. Almost 50% of their matches were played on clay, and that certainly isn't normal.
The fact remains, Nadal only showed up to play Federer in ultra slow conditions (clay and clay like AO, IW amd Miami). They barely played any matches (9/33) in faster conditions (any tournament after FO), which nulify Nadal's matchup advantage.
 
And grass is like less than 5% of the tour. Like I said you can't go by hypothetical assumptions Nadal leads Federer on clay and hard courts. Nadal showed up to play Federer plenty of times on faster surfaces, and Federer struggled more to beat Nadal on his favorite surfaces compared to Nadal who had a much easier time beating Federer on his favorite surfaces. Nadal would get the better of Federer on faster surfaces more often than Federer would beat Nadal on slow surfaces.PERIOD.
 
Federer is a better Australian open player than Nadal, the titles prove it, 4 titles vs 1, so he should lead the H2H there, and yet he is 0-3 there against Nadal.
Federer is also a much better player than Nadal in Dubai, no need to prove it with numbers and yet he could not beat him in 2006.
Federer also is a much better player than Nadal in Miami (remind you Nadal never won the title there), and yet Nadal is 2-1 there against Federer.

All these conditions, Australian, Dubai and Miami should favour Federer more than Nadal.
Federer was the favourite of at least 75% of these matches I mentioned. (just check the bookies odds)
 
TommyA8X said:
Wow, you must have a phd in maths or something. :rolleyes:
The point was that Nadal has a much worse h2h against a "nobody" like Davydenko than he has against the open era GOAT.
Click to expand...

To quote someone: "I'm sorry, I must have missed the official coronation."

Wait--there was no coronation, because he's not the GOAT.
 
Fed leads Rafa 6-3 post FO.

24 of 33 meetings occurred on slow courts.

Rafa did not meet his end of the bargain the second half of the year.

It is not complicated logic.
 
tennisaddict said:
Davydenko humiliated Rafa on HC. There is no twisting around that. if they met 10 more times on clay, it would have been 15-6 Rafa. If there were 10 more HC meetings , it would be 16-5 Davydenko
Click to expand...
And Nadal humiliated Davydenko on clay. You also don't know that Davy would win 10 more matches on hard. Nadal beat Davy before on hard so he could do it again.
 
tennisaddict said:
Fed leads Rafa 6-3 post FO.

24 of 33 meetings occurred on slow courts.

Rafa did not meet his end of the bargain the second half of the year.

It is not complicated logic.
Click to expand...
You have to compete the entire year so it shouldn't matter when they meet. Anyway Nadal beat Fed at Dubai and Wimbledon aka faster surfaces.
 
THUNDERVOLLEY said:
Irrelevant. Again some post fantasy, when all are trained to excel on every surface available to them, so there is no surface disadvantage. If one cannot master the sport by winning the Grand Slam, it is due to not having the master's level of talent/court insight necessary to master it all with the four majors in the accepted framework of the calendar year. No excuses.
Click to expand...
You're right. It IS irrelevant because it's not an apple to apple comparison. Laver GS on 2 surfaces is not the same as the modern GS having 3 surfaces, and with a full 128-man draw. Laver can only be compare to his peers.

As of today, no player has ever won a GS on 3 different surfaces.
 
TMF said:
A 7 match losing streak against his main rival is a big hole.
Click to expand...
Lew Hoad beat Laver 7 straight times I guess that disqualifies him for GOAT status :rolleyes:. Nadal also had periods of dominance against Djokovic. It does matter how many times in a row it was as Nadal still leads this match up.
 
Again, the biggest hole in a players resume (one of significance) is Djokovic's and Sampras's no FO title. Saying anything else just shows how bitter you are with their accomplishments and place in history. For example, Federer is and will continue to be regarded as one of, if not the greatest player of all time by majority of people. Some obviously have trouble dealing with this.
 
TMF said:
You're right. It IS irrelevant because it's not an apple to apple comparison. Laver GS on 2 surfaces is not the same as the modern GS having 3 surfaces, and with a full 128-man draw. Laver can only be compare to his peers.

As of today, no player has ever won a GS on 3 different surfaces.
Click to expand...

I'm correct because there is no excuse regarding surface...

all are trained to excel on every surface available to them, so there is no surface disadvantage. If one cannot master the sport by winning the Grand Slam, it is due to not having the master's level of talent/court insight necessary to master it all with the four majors in the accepted framework of the calendar year. No excuses because a certain ATP player was incapable of winning the Grand Slam.
Click to expand...
 
Nadal vs Davydenko comparison, even on hard courts, is not fair. Please, Nadal has 3 HC slams which is the ultimate objective of any tennis player. Davy, as much as like him, does not even have a HC slam final.
 
tipsa...don'tlikehim! said:
Federer is a better Australian open player than Nadal, the titles prove it, 4 titles vs 1, so he should lead the H2H there, and yet he is 0-3 there against Nadal.
Federer is also a much better player than Nadal in Dubai, no need to prove it with numbers and yet he could not beat him in 2006.
Federer also is a much better player than Nadal in Miami (remind you Nadal never won the title there), and yet Nadal is 2-1 there against Federer.

All these conditions, Australian, Dubai and Miami should favour Federer more than Nadal.
Federer was the favourite of at least 75% of these matches I mentioned. (just check the bookies odds)
Click to expand...

What are the conditions at the AO like again?

The fact that Nadal started dominating Federer there is a combination between the changed surface and the age advantage. The only match where the second was not particularly pronounced was in 2009 and Nadal won that match by the slightest of margins.

What are the conditions in Miami like again?

Despite of that the distribution of their results was like 1st win - to Nadal: this could be said to have been a surprise for Federer. First time opponent on the surfacel, favourable conditions. 2nd win Federer: despite trailing and the conditions manages to turn the tables and beat Nadal in the final in a best of 5 (in case you didn't know). 3rd win: we all know when and why

So, the only one that is remaining from your list is Dubai. The match that so many ************* members cling to.

Federer was coming off of injury layoff(he skipped Rotherdam). He appeared in the final without being forced to play anyone of significance and despite of that had to play two tie-breaks. On top of that Dubai is not exactly the most important tournament and having in mind the upcoming M1000 events I would imagine that his motivation wouldn't have been sky high. On the other hand Nadal was going after Federer. He also pulled from Rotherdam, quoting a thigh problem, that he got in Marseille. We saw in the final with Federer how hampereed Nadal was. This is not to say that the hitting that Nadal showed wasn't fabulous or his defence wasn't unreal. They were. This is to say that Federer and Nadal were coming into that match from differernt places and the match certainly wasn't what some people are trying to make it out to be. Nadal was never to be seen in the final of that tournament again and this says A LOT about his preparation and his particular motives to go into that particular tournament.

Anyway, I write this not because of you, because you have been here long enough to know, if you wanted to, what you are talking about. Picking two venues with favourable for Nadal conditions, failing to comment on them and then cherry picking a single match without even trying to give some objective estimate about it says all there needs to be said.

And you are right. Titles speak better than anything about the quality of the player on a particular venue and Federer is the better player both at the AO ( on the surface before 2009) in Dubai and in Miami).

Also, as of today we know that the bolded part is simply not true.

:cool:
 
About the matches I mentioned:

Federer was favourite in Miami 2004, Miami 2005, Dubai 2006, Australian open 2009, Australian open 2012: 2 won, 3 lost
Nadal was favourite in Miami 2011, Australian open 2014: 2 won, 0 lost.

Only at the World tour finals, Federer managed to win everytime he was the favourite and lost the only match he was the underdog (2013)
(Indian wells nothing to see here, Nadal was slight favourite when he lost in 2012, Federer was slight favourite when he lost in 2013).

On grass, he was the favourite of the match he lost (2008),
On clay he was the favourite of French open 2005 semi final, lost... overall he won 2 times as the underdog, for 13 losses (at least one of them being favourite the 2005 match).
By the way let's not forget in 2006 on clay, Federer was supposed to have a big shot at beating Nadal in some of the matches they play, every experts believe he had a good chance.


PS: Miami 2005 I know it was in 5 and I know Nadal got robbed a point by the umpire that would have given him 3 break points (0-40) at 4-4 in the third set.
 
tipsa...don'tlikehim! said:
Federer is a better Australian open player than Nadal, the titles prove it, 4 titles vs 1, so he should lead the H2H there, and yet he is 0-3 there against Nadal.
Federer is also a much better player than Nadal in Dubai, no need to prove it with numbers and yet he could not beat him in 2006.
Federer also is a much better player than Nadal in Miami (remind you Nadal never won the title there), and yet Nadal is 2-1 there against Federer.

All these conditions, Australian, Dubai and Miami should favour Federer more than Nadal.
Federer was the favourite of at least 75% of these matches I mentioned. (just check the bookies odds)
Click to expand...
Miami isn't a good argument. Roddick leads Fed 2-1 at Miami as well.

Fed' favorite part is post FO. That's where he won 12 out of his 17 slams. And they only played 9 matches.

IW 2012 nulifies Dubai 2006.

IW 2013 Fed had a back injury.

As for AO, only in 2009 they were both in their prime and Nadal won by the slimmest of margins. In 2012 and 2014 Federer was already past 30. So they only played once in a HC slam when both were in their prime.
 
Donnie Brasco said:
Lew Hoad beat Laver 7 straight times I guess that disqualifies him for GOAT status :rolleyes:. Nadal also had periods of dominance against Djokovic. It does matter how many times in a row it was as Nadal still leads this match up.
Click to expand...

Nadal is 8-16 or 7-17 something against adult Novak.

Nadal is losing all these matches in his peak and prime years of age 24-29.
 
tipsa...don'tlikehim! said:
Federer is a better Australian open player than Nadal, the titles prove it, 4 titles vs 1, so he should lead the H2H there, and yet he is 0-3 there against Nadal.
Federer is also a much better player than Nadal in Dubai, no need to prove it with numbers and yet he could not beat him in 2006.
Federer also is a much better player than Nadal in Miami (remind you Nadal never won the title there), and yet Nadal is 2-1 there against Federer.

All these conditions, Australian, Dubai and Miami should favour Federer more than Nadal.
Federer was the favourite of at least 75% of these matches I mentioned. (just check the bookies odds)
Click to expand...
Just because Fed won more titles in some tournaments doesn't mean he's automatically the favorite against Nadal there. Nadal is a bad matchup for Fed, and surfaces which help Nadal's patterns against him even more (like slow and high bouncing courts in Melbourne and IW) make things even harder for Federer. I don't care what bookies say, I (and everyone here) know the dynamics of Fed-Nadal matchup too well to claim Fed is the favorite on slow hardcourts.
Was Nadal a humongous favorite against Djokovic in this year's FO (after all, he has 9 titiles there and Djokovic zero).
Was Fed the favorite against Nole in IW 2014/15 finals? He had more titles there than Djokovic at that point?

PS

Lets not even mention Nadal picking and choosing when to play Fed all the time. They played 4 times in 2013 for ex. How many times have they played this year so far?
 
Prabhanjan said:
Nadal vs Davydenko comparison, even on hard courts, is not fair. Please, Nadal has 3 HC slams which is the ultimate objective of any tennis player. Davy, as much as like him, does not even have a HC slam final.
Click to expand...
And Fed has 9 HC slams compared to Nadal's 3. It's even less fair to compare them.
 
TommyA8X said:
And Fed has 9 HC slams compared to Nadal's 3. It's even less fair to compare them.
Click to expand...
Obviously, there is no comparison between Fed and Nadal at 3 of the 4 slams. Ask Nadal if we wants a winning 3-0 over Fed with 1 AO or 1-2 losing with 2AO. He would anyday take the later. Moreover, if I want to be really fair with slam performance, look at it this way. Fed lost 09 finals in 5 sets while Nadal lost in 4 to Wawrinka in 14. Fed lost semis in 2012 and 14. If Nadal loses before semis in 2017 and 19, who did better at AO? Fed or Nadal? In a similar way, if some Pete fan wants to slam Fed for the 0-3 loss against Nadal, how does Pete stack up in 99, 02, and 04 at AO. Slam performance should be the criteria and not some lame H2H.
 
Prabhanjan said:
Obviously, there is no comparison between Fed and Nadal at 3 of the 4 slams. Ask Nadal if we wants a winning 3-0 over Fed with 1 AO or 1-2 losing with 2AO. He would anyday take the later. Moreover, if I want to be really fair with slam performance, look at it this way. Fed lost 09 finals in 5 sets while Nadal lost in 4 to Wawrinka in 14. Fed lost semis in 2012 and 14. If Nadal loses before semis in 2017 and 19, who did better at AO? Fed or Nadal? In a similar way, if some Pete fan wants to slam Fed for the 0-3 loss against Nadal, how does Pete stack up in 99, 02, and 04 at AO. Slam performance should be the criteria and not some lame H2H.
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more.
 
tipsa...don'tlikehim! said:
About the matches I mentioned:

Federer was favourite in Miami 2004, Miami 2005, Dubai 2006, Australian open 2009, Australian open 2012: 2 won, 3 lost
Nadal was favourite in Miami 2011, Australian open 2014: 2 won, 0 lost.

Only at the World tour finals, Federer managed to win everytime he was the favourite and lost the only match he was the underdog (2013)
(Indian wells nothing to see here, Nadal was slight favourite when he lost in 2012, Federer was slight favourite when he lost in 2013).

On grass, he was the favourite of the match he lost (2008),
On clay he was the favourite of French open 2005 semi final, lost... overall he won 2 times as the underdog, for 13 losses (at least one of them being favourite the 2005 match).
By the way let's not forget in 2006 on clay, Federer was supposed to have a big shot at beating Nadal in some of the matches they play, every experts believe he had a good chance.


PS: Miami 2005 I know it was in 5 and I know Nadal got robbed a point by the umpire that would have given him 3 break points (0-40) at 4-4 in the third set.
Click to expand...


What is your point?

That the matching bookies' odds and the actual result decide who the better player is on a particular surface?

What crazy **** is that?

Do you realize that the bookies live off such things?
 
tennisaddict said:
Nadal is 8-16 or 7-17 something against adult Novak.

Nadal is losing all these matches in his peak and prime years of age 24-29.
Click to expand...
Novak was a top 3 player since 2007. He made back to back slam finals and won his first slam at 20 so he was already in his prime during these years. You're just cherry picking at this point. It's nonsense to say that Nadal is 8-16 against "adault" Novak when Novak has been in his prime since 2007. Novak has also won matches against a severely declined Rafa, but they still count. At the end of the day you have to look at their entire careers and Nadal still leads that H2H as of now.
 
It is just to point that Federer had no excuse losing these matches

If you compare their H2H which is 23-10 you will notice Nadal lost a very few matches to Federer when being favourite, but the opposite is not true.
It's just to reply to the " Nadal had the match up advantage and played on slow conditions that favour his game more" argument, and yet the odds showed that this is partly wrong since Federer was favourite of lots of these matches on hardcourt that he lost. So you can't say "it was easy for Nadal he played on slow conditions it was obvious he would beat Federer on thse conditions".
 
tipsa...don'tlikehim! said:
It is just to point that Federer had no excuse losing these matches

If you compare their H2H which is 23-10 you will notice Nadal lost a very few matches to Federer when being favourite, but the opposite is not true.
It's just to reply to the " Nadal had the match up advantage and played on slow conditions that favour his game more" argument, and yet the odds showed that this is partly wrong since Federer was favourite of lots of these matches on hardcourt that he lost. So you can't say "it was easy for Nadal he played on slow conditions it was obvious he would beat Federer on thse conditions".
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

What people put as odds for whatever reason, has no importance in the match-up advantage Nadal has when playing against Federer.

What an absurd metric.
 
Tennis_Hands said:
What are you talking about?

What people put as odds for whatever reason, has no importance in the match-up advantage Nadal has when playing against Federer.

What an absurd metric.
Click to expand...
The best metric and most importantly the most objective one.
Also you really think odds don't take into account the match up? If they didnt you and me would be rich lol
 
tipsa...don'tlikehim! said:
It is just to point that Federer had no excuse losing these matches

If you compare their H2H which is 23-10 you will notice Nadal lost a very few matches to Federer when being favourite, but the opposite is not true.
It's just to reply to the " Nadal had the match up advantage and played on slow conditions that favour his game more" argument, and yet the odds showed that this is partly wrong since Federer was favourite of lots of these matches on hardcourt that he lost. So you can't say "it was easy for Nadal he played on slow conditions it was obvious he would beat Federer on thse conditions".
Click to expand...

Whose fault is it if they call Fed as the favorite for a match on slow surface ? All you have to ask yourself is whether they faced 24 times after FO.
 
Donnie Brasco said:
Novak was a top 3 player since 2007. He made back to back slam finals and won his first slam at 20 so he was already in his prime during these years. You're just cherry picking at this point. It's nonsense to say that Nadal is 8-16 against "adault" Novak when Novak has been in his prime since 2007. Novak has also won matches against a severely declined Rafa, but they still count. At the end of the day you have to look at their entire careers and Nadal still leads that H2H as of now.
Click to expand...

Novak achieved less than one tenth of his career achievements before 2011.

Once Novak got serious, 17-7 happened.
 
tennisaddict said:
Whose fault is it if they call Fed as the favorite for a match on slow surface ? All you have to ask yourself is whether they faced 24 times after FO.
Click to expand...
If they didn't face then we don't know?
Tennis_Hands said:
Actually the opposite is true for anyone not being in the business of organizing betting (i.e. those who bet)

Can you guess why that is and what is the relevance to what you are trying to imply?

:)
Click to expand...
Sorry i didn't understand what you mean.
 
So? He was already playing prime tennis in 2007. He then went AWOL in 09-10 that's his problem. And most of this wins in his prime according to you came in 2011 after that their rivalry went back and forth until this year. You could pick any point in their careers and then start counting the matches to give either player the advantage. That's why you gave to go by their career H2H which Nadal still leads.
 
Donnie Brasco said:
It would be closer for sure, but it also shows us that Rafa gets the better of Fed on his preferred surfaces than vice versa.
Click to expand...

"His preferred surfaces" were drifting away from Federer and going in Nadal's favour for the entirety of their up-to-date careers.

There is maybe one venue, where Federer gets to use in full his playing advantages and there he crushes Nadal (or was crushing him untill he got too old to maintain his advantage solely based on his trademark game). Compare that to everywhere else and you will get the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
  • Poll Poll
Biggest 'gaping' hole in their career
2
Replies
72
Views
7K
blarvitread
B
D
Biggest hole in All-time Great Resumes
2
Replies
74
Views
7K
Anti-Fedal
A
M
Nadal vs Federer - head to head at biggest tournaments and titles won
Replies
2
Views
754
Jackuar
Jackuar
T
Great Players - what are their biggest achievements and biggest gaps in their Resumes?
Replies
16
Views
2K
Smasher08
Smasher08
Djokovic2011
What's the one hole/stain in Djokovic's resume?
11 12 13
Replies
626
Views
36K
thrust
T
Back
Top