That 6-3 is only due to indoors where Federer leads 4-1. Other than that it is still 2-2. Indoors is a very small part of the calendar and 5 matches on it are a fair representation of it.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
If the rivalry goes back and forth like you claim, it will not be 17-7 or something.
Take out clay and the situation is more dire.
If Rafa ends up with 0-5 against Kyrgios, does it matter ? Or does it matter only if Kyrgios becomes No 1 ? Or should all the 5 losses occur when Rafa and Kyrgios are no 1 and 2 ? See the flaw ?
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Donnie Brasco
Rookie
If you're talking about the WTF that is one event and about half of Federer's wins have come from there. Tennis is primarily an outdoor sport and even on faster surfaces like Dubai and Cincinnati Nadal still is able to beat Fed there.
Nadal also leads Federer 8-2 (3-0 slams) on outdoor hard courts which dominates the tour. So if you replace those few extra matches on clay by outdoor hard courts, the net result would not be too different.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Yeah 2013 Fed.
Donnie Brasco
Rookie
You clearly didn't read my post carefully. I said if you start after 2011 their rivalry goes back and forth. Nadal won 3 times in 2012. They were 3-3 in 2013, 1-1 in 2014. That's a back and forth rivalry, and why would you take out clay? They have play about 50% on hard and 50% on clay. Nadal has done better agaisnt Novak on hard than Novak has done against Nadal on clay. What does Kyrgios have to do with Rafa and Novak? Your're talking about a hypothetical situation that will never happen.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
If it went back and forth, why is the h2h lop sided after Novak became a force ?
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Of course I did!
OK. Let us see what you said:
So your premise is that the odds are a real representation of the players' chances to win a certain match (and somehow Federer failed to live up to those "expectations", while Nadal has).
Since people bet on the sure win
they would be making a ton of money just picking the odds favourite.Are you following?
Then you asked:
Ok, so I guess you are making lots of money by betting on tennis, shoud be easy no?
Now, you didn't specify in which favour you should be betting, but since you see such a strong correlation between the betting odds for the favourite (in all those matches Federer) and the actual result (the main claim you are making), then we can assume that you think it is a safe bet to bet on the favourite (since the link between the odds in his favour and the actual result is so obvious).
In fact exactly the opposite happened in all those matches precisely because the betting odds are not nearly as representative of the reality as you are trying to make them out to be. Otherwise, in your own words "someone would be making a lot of money betting on tennis".
If that was the case there wouldn't be any betting houses as everybody would be winning by just sticking to the odds favourite and they would go bust in no time.
That is why I asked you the things I asked and you didn't answer what I asked you.
Donnie Brasco
Rookie
He was still developing his game. Federer won his first USO at 23 Nadal at 24. Not a huge difference.
Donnie Brasco
Rookie
...It's not, Nadal leads 23-21. most of Novak's wins came in 2011. After that year it went back and forth. I even posted their H2H for every year except this year because the season is not over yet. How is that going over you're head?
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Rafa was not good enough to meet Fed in non clay majors consistently till 2010. Fed stopped being a force after AO 2010.
if he was not good enough to beat the field and make it to Fed, that is his problem.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Novak leads Rafa 17-8 or 17-7, I forget, in the last 25 matches.
That is a huge sample set. There is no back and forth. It seems like a one way street
Donnie Brasco
Rookie
Why are you going by their last 25 matches? They have played 44 times, and Nadal leads that.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Rafa made just 1 HC final till 2010. Don't we give benefit to Rafa and say he matured late ?
Same way , it took time for Novak to mature. Once he did, there was no looking back.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
It's weird to think that Djokovic reached his first USO final three years before Nadal did.
Donnie Brasco
Rookie
Novak was playing prime tennis in 2007. You can't make back to back slam finals and win the WTF at 20-21 and not be playing prime tennis. Novak had step backs with changes in his serve and racket so he wasn't winning slams in 09-10. Your're trying to say that Novak started his prime in 2011. when his results in 2007 and onward show that that is not the case.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Yep. He is not a one surface specialist. Rafa is a clay court player, who was able to use that strength and homogenous condition to achieve moderate success in other tournaments.
Novak has shown enough by dominating multiple surfaces.
Nadal isn't as consistent as Federer and Nole so naturally he doesn't let them beat him when he isn't good enough to make the deep round. He also made sure that most of the meeting are on clay to give him the best chance.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Even Murray reached his first HC slam final before Nadal did! 
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Novak was a decent player even then. But just not comparable to Novak of 2011 and later.
Point remains, Rafa has not found a way to figure out Novak, something which he was always admired for in the past.
Donnie Brasco
Rookie
Novak doesn't even have a FO and Nadal has won on all surfaces. The only place Novak has dominated is the AO. Nadal dominated the FO and Fed dominated at Wimbledon and the USO.
Donnie Brasco
Rookie
Except he has your'e isolating their rivalry in 2011 only. Nadal won all their matches in 2012 and since then it's been back and forth.
Donnie Brasco
Rookie
True but Fed,Murray,and Nole started out better hard court players.Even Murray reached his first HC slam final before Nadal did!
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Novak has 3 Wimbledon titles and 1 more final. That is Becker and McEnroe level. If you think that is not domination what else is ? And he is not fluffing out in the first week like Rafa has been the last 5 years.
Novak has been super impressive on both HC and Grass.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
TommyA8X
Hall of Fame
On which courts did Nadal win those 8 matches?
Vast majority of those wins came on slow, high bouncing hard courts of AO (3), IW (1) and Miami (2), which favor Nadal. How many times have they played on faster courts (Dubai, Cincy, USO, Shanghai etc.)?
We also must take Nadal's "pick and choose when to play Fed" tactics into consideration . In Federer's worst season (2013), they played 4 times (including once on fast hard courts, surprise, surprise!).
How many times have they played in 2015 so far??
Donnie Brasco
Rookie
and Nadal has 2 Wimbledon titles not a huge difference. The point still stands that Nadal and Djokovic have both been in their primes since 2007.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
You forget who won AO 2012 ? Not the one known for grinding.
Donnie Brasco
Rookie
WHOOPS my bad forgot AO12 I lumped that in with 2011 my mistake.Well, I never ......
Donnie Brasco
Rookie
I just realized I left that out since it was at the beginning of the year. Nadal Would still have the advantage 3-1.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
There is a difference though.
Nadal was in his third year winning Majors while Djokovic was yet to win one. That is undeniable.
I personally think that a player has entered his prime when he wins his first Major title. Other people have other metrics but the best of 5 format is the concrete proof of whether you are capable of winning consistently.
Donnie Brasco
Rookie
Djokovic won his first slam in 08 at the AO at age 20. He was also in the 07 USO final that's back to back slam final at 20 he was in his prime in 07 as he was also the #3 player in the world behind Fedal.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Like I said, people will have different metrics.
The main idea behind what you are implying with that "both were in their primes" is that they were on the same level of competitive ability (mental, physical and skillwise), which is something I disagree with.
Donnie Brasco
Rookie
You just said in you're post above that you consider a player in their prime when they win their first major title(as do I). Well for Novak that was in 08. And players can't be on the same level all the time then no one would hold the advantage. Someone has to have an advantage no matter how slight to win. Novak clearly held the advantage in 2011 and early 2012. While Nadal has had the slight advantage throughout their respective careers.
Dedans Penthouse
Legend
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Nadal has 2 titles but he is equally famous for losing 4 times to 100-150 ranked players and never making the second week outside of the 5 attempts
Donnie Brasco
Rookie
And Federer lost to a dirtball clay court specialist(according to you that's all Nadal is) at his favorite slam. And Novak has lost 4 slam finals at the USO. We could go back and forth all day on this.Each player has holes in their resume no one is perfect. The whole reason I'm evening talking about this because fans on both sides like to smear each others favorite players to elevate their own guy. Personally I think the GOAT debate has positive and negative side effects. The positives are that it gets people talking about tennis and it shows how passionate we are about our sport. On the other hand it divides us into crazed internet people who seem to enjoy arguing instead of enjoying the game.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
True. No player resume is perfect.
Even if resume was greatest, Rafa plays a style of tennis that I can never get myself to like. His physical brand of tennis and time wasting tactics are too much for me to ignore
Dedans Penthouse
Legend
Not to mention the meaningless variables he attempts to galvanize his arguments with......
.
And let's not even get started on Serena!
I've thought about that too. And I think there's some internal conflct going on inside him regarding not only Serena in particular but women in general. And to that end, TMF if you're reading this....some supportive, encouraging advice to you:
One day, your clearly latent homosexuality will finally cease to be masked by a burning hatred for women as you find yourself waking up next to some large black man, clothes strewn across the floor and a feeling of freedom and pride in your chest. On that day, you'll emerge with a fresh outlook on life. Maybe a little less of a jerk toward women, suddenly realizing that your desire to belittle and objectify them constantly simply arose from a baffling sense of an inability to find them truly desirable.
And when that day comes TMF, you'll finally realize that women were never the enemy, but rather the enemy was fear. Fear of coming out to an intolerant family, to a fast paced world of business, to friends who you knew would be less than understanding, and even to yourself. On that day, though, you'll stop caring. You'll embrace the 'wang' and in turn, yourself.
One day, you'll finally be free to be the open gay man who lurks inside, not the giant flaming queen you currently appear to be. That'll be a good day for TMF, and I hope for your sake that day comes soon.
Until then, stay thirsty my friend.
Donnie Brasco
Rookie
That's fine you don't have to like him. It's impossible to have a perfect record and it's impossible to have everyone like one. If everyone like Fed or Everyone liked Rafa then that would be a pretty boring fan base and a boring world. I personally don't have anything against Fed. I prefer Rafa because of his physical style and his never say die attitude. I also liked players like Borg,Chang,Hewitt(when he wasn't making racially ambiguous comments),and Ferrer(when he's not pushing linesmen). I play more like Rafa so I have more in common with him. I love his hustle. And I get annoyed when people bad mouth him like you get annoyed with people who bad mouth Fed.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Well, that is why Nadal has more Majors than Nole, isn't it?
The thing is that what you are saying cannot be taken as a general rule, because Djokovic is clearly the better player at some venues and that cannot be attributed to only certain years. It is more complicated than that, while Nadal has pretty much made his reputation and dominance at the same venues.
You are making the mistake of judging their respective careers to date on Nadal's terms and that is the problem.
EDIT: There is one more flaw in your argument. You are basically saying that they would be at the same level on all courts if they are to play their best tennis (by saying that there cannot be an advantage if they are basically in optimal prime condition). I disagree with this as a general premise, regardless of the fact that they have very similar styles.
Last edited:
That why Nadal fans should avoid talking about H2H or bad losses, because that only makes Nadal looks worse.
millicurie999
Semi-Pro
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Agree. Variety makes it more interesting, though I will always root for players who play to win - like Pete, Stan, Delpo, Tsonga
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Similar threads
