Who was close at beating 2 top dogs in a row in 2013?
David Ferrer, the greatest non-slam winner?
- Thread starter RF-18
- Start date
Who was close at beating 2 top dogs in a row in 2013?
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Murray had strong chances to win the first 2 sets in the 2013 AO final until he mentally imploded after the feather incident in the 2nd set tiebreak and in the final of 2015 AO he also should have gone up 2 sets and a break (had break points in the 1st set tie-break he could have converted) until he underwent another mental implosion in the 3rd (after going up an early break) and especially 4th sets.
Murray won W 2013, so he beat two top players for the title.
You can't win a slam without beating guys who are in top form. On paper it doesn't matter if you are top dog or not, cuz top dog can play badly.
Sampras was top dog on clay. Top dog is about current form, so I claim Murray did beat top dogs in a row.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Sorry, I assumed we were talking about members of Fedalovic only, not just any top 10 player! In which case, I completely agree with you!
-snake-
Hall of Fame
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
2-5 Mainad. Nole has beaten Andy 4 times at the AO and last year at the USO. :wink:
Mustard
Bionic Poster
A lot of people forget that US Open match. Firstly, because it was as early as a quarter final, and secondly because Djokovic then lost his next match to Nishikori.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Just testing you D2011!
No seriously, I completely forgot about that one. Maybe a bit of wishful thinking?
:wink:
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Yes you're right. Sorry, I forgot '07 AO, '08 and '10 Wimbledon.
Their actual H2H in Slams is 7-2 to Nadal in 9 Slam meetings:
2007 Australian Open (4th r): Nadal
2008 Wimbledon (Qtr final): Nadal
2008 US Open (Semi-final): Murray
2010 Australian Open (Qtr final): Murray
2010 Wimbledon (semi-final): Nadal
2011 French Open (semi-final) : Nadal
2011 Wimbledon (semi-final): Nadal
2011 US Open (semi-final): Nadal
2014 French Open (semi-final): Nadal
Last edited:
Berasategui94
Semi-Pro
Nope. Christo van Rensburg.
Yes you're right. Sorry, I forgot '07 AO, '08 and '10 Wimbledon.
Their actual H2H in Slams is 7-2 to Nadal in 9 Slam meetings:
2007 Australian Open (4th r): Nadal
2008 Wimbledon (Qtr final): Nadal
2008 US Open (Semi-final): Murray
2010 Australian Open (Qtr final): Murray
2010 Wimbledon (semi-final): Nadal
2011 French Open (semi-final) : Nadal
2011 Wimbledon (semi-final): Nadal
2011 US Open (semi-final): Nadal
2014 French Open (semi-final): Nadal
It is amazing the head to heads Nadal's has vs the other members of the big 4 in slams:
vs Federer- 9-2
vs Djokovic- 8-3
vs Murray- 7-2
I know the Nadal haters will whine about a clay skew but Nadal leads Fed 4-2 off clay and 3-0 on hard courts to go along with his 5-0 at Roland Garros. While leading Djokovic 6-0 on clay, he is 2-2 on Djokovic's surface (hard courts). Murray he owns at both Roland Garros and Wimbledon, while being even at hard court slams.
You have to admit that is very impressive. It also shows Nadal is by far the hardest of anyone to beat if he reaches a slam semi or final, including Federer, despite Federer having more slams right now. Unfortunately Nadal is more vurnerable than Federer and Djokovic to bad losses much earlier than the semis as well.
Last edited:
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Against the current top 10:
Nadal is 124-46 (73.4%)
Federer is 101-63 (61.6%)
Djokovic is 118-64 (64.8%)
Nadal is the only one of the top 10 with positive H2Hs against everybody else!
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Why only the current top 10 ? Not fair when comparing players who came on tour 6-8 years apart
SLD76
G.O.A.T.
Well it doesn't hurt that he barely plays now in the summer and fall. And when he does play bed taken out early by journeyman
Mainad
Bionic Poster
I've been keeping records of all the current top ten players for several years now and I've never come across a negative H2H for Nadal with anyone!
NatF
Bionic Poster
Bukmeikara
Legend
Watch Djokovic at Monte Carlo 12 when his grandparent died, he played mediocre almost the entire tournament and still managed to reach the final and play with Rafa. Both Novak and Federer have such tournaments in which even not at their best they reach Nadal in the draw while the later one often fall early or withdrawns from the event. This fact + that he is a clay god are the main reason for his incredible H2H record with the top players. Here is another stat:
Federer is better than Nadal in 3/4 Slams and 6-7/9 Masters + WTF
Djokovic is better than Nadal in 1/4 Slams, being close to equal in another 2(Wimb, New York), in 6/9 Masters + WTF
Soon Nadal would be behind in weeks as number 1 against both of his main rivals Djokovic and Federer and somehow his fans still bring up the "amazing" H2H.
If Nadal played with Novak, Federer and Murray at Australia 15, WTF 14, Basel 14, Paris 14, Shanghai 14, summer hard court 14, Wimbledon 14 he would have most likely lose but he didnt and now his H2H is untouched.
Federer is better than Nadal in 3/4 Slams and 6-7/9 Masters + WTF
Djokovic is better than Nadal in 1/4 Slams, being close to equal in another 2(Wimb, New York), in 6/9 Masters + WTF
Soon Nadal would be behind in weeks as number 1 against both of his main rivals Djokovic and Federer and somehow his fans still bring up the "amazing" H2H.
If Nadal played with Novak, Federer and Murray at Australia 15, WTF 14, Basel 14, Paris 14, Shanghai 14, summer hard court 14, Wimbledon 14 he would have most likely lose but he didnt and now his H2H is untouched.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Davydenko?
Bait successful
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Davydenko?
He was last in the top 10 in October 2010. My records don't go back quite that far (only joined this forum in 2011)! :wink:
N
Nathaniel_Near
Guest
Mainad, it sounds like you have a lot of great stats that you could introduce to us. Gonna start more threads?
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Always happy to share stats. I'm a real stats nerd although not in the same league as Mustard of course (sorry Mustard, wasn't meaning to call you a nerd)!
NatF
Bionic Poster
The most telling stat is that Nadal has a 20-28 record against top 5 players on hard court and a barely positive ratio against top 10 players.
In form he can beat anyone, but he doesn't meet the top players much when he's out of it.
Nadal is the Serena of mens tennis in that he gets up for the other top players and is nearly unbeatable when he faces them. Usually you have to hope he loses in an earlier round, or he will probably win the tournament.
Gazelle
G.O.A.T.
This. Thank you for writing this, saves me the effort to do it.
While if Federer had played Nadal at Wimbledon 2010 and Wimbledon 2011 he would have a losing record to Nadal at Wimbledon and on all surfaces now. Had he played him at the 2010 or/and 2011 U.S Opens he would have a complete slam of slam losses to Nadal already.
I wouldn't be sure Federer loses to said players at the event you mentioned either. Especialy not Federer or Murray. When Nadal reaches that far of an event he is usually playing well enough to find a way to beat Federer or Murray almost everytime.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
This is one of those rare posts on TTW that makes me want to jump up and cheer - each and every word is so full of truth. Kudos to you. :smile:
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
This reason alone is enough to show h2h information should be used just for context and not for evaluating career accomplishments
Like it or not how you do against the best players will always be something most people will look at when evaluating ones career. It is hilarious to see the delusional Nadal haters/butthurt Fed fanboys act like this is suddenly something that was just brought up for Nadal. However people like myself who didn't only follow tennis from 2004-2007 when Federer was on top, or only since 2011 in the case of the Nadal hating/Djokvoic fanboys, but have followed it for 30+ years, knows this is not at all the case.
People ALWAYS looked at your records against the best players and your primary opponents when evaluating you. The main reason nearly everyone ranks Navratilova above Evert, is Navratilova made a fool of her for literally 3 years when Evert was still near her prime, even if the final H2H tally is close. The reason Rosewall isn't ranked highly, despite his achievements being arguably the best of anyone (it is generally believed evaluating pro majors he would have the most majors of anyone had Open Era been place, and factoring in pro majors has the most majors of anyone in history), is his poor record vs both Laver and Gonzales. The examples could go on forever. So no delusional Nadal haters, this isn't a new phenomen that was just introduced for Nadal, or to devalue your mancrush Federer. It always existed. Since most of this forum are racially motivated Serena haters too, and this also is a factor that builds Serena up and strengthens her GOAT case, it is another reason people here love their lala land denial head to head vs the best opposition is meaningless.
People ALWAYS looked at your records against the best players and your primary opponents when evaluating you. The main reason nearly everyone ranks Navratilova above Evert, is Navratilova made a fool of her for literally 3 years when Evert was still near her prime, even if the final H2H tally is close. The reason Rosewall isn't ranked highly, despite his achievements being arguably the best of anyone (it is generally believed evaluating pro majors he would have the most majors of anyone had Open Era been place, and factoring in pro majors has the most majors of anyone in history), is his poor record vs both Laver and Gonzales. The examples could go on forever. So no delusional Nadal haters, this isn't a new phenomen that was just introduced for Nadal, or to devalue your mancrush Federer. It always existed. Since most of this forum are racially motivated Serena haters too, and this also is a factor that builds Serena up and strengthens her GOAT case, it is another reason people here love their lala land denial head to head vs the best opposition is meaningless.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
So much of Verbose does not help.
Everyone knows that the "h2h" was to a large extent a function of preserving himself / clay skew.
Rafa is a good player and can beat the others on any surface. But just going based on h2h without looking beyond the numbers is plain hollow.
Probably you can pass of those stats to Coric and Zverev fans. Not for people who follow tennis for a long time .
Nadal has proven to be a little less consistent across the board, a little more vulnerable to upset, than Federer and Djokovic specifically.
But, he has completely and totally dominated his favorite surface while finding patches of success elsewhere. He is undoubtedly the best single big-match player I've ever seen.
It is almost more surprising to see Nadal lose in the last three rounds of a slam than to see him lose early.
Similar threads
