Does the Fedal H2H strenghten Federer's GOAT claims?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FedererWinsWimbledon2014
  • Start date Start date
F

FedererWinsWimbledon2014

Guest
Nadal leads the slam H2H 8-2.

This shows what we already know, that Nadal is a nightmare match up for Roger.

Yet Federer still has won more slams than Nadal. Quite amazing really.

If for example both players won 17 slams would the H2H not sway the GOAT debate firmly in Federer's favour?
 
what a silly argument. so if indeed they finish equal on 17, that means they each won 7 other GS when they did not face each other. so they did as well as each other when they did not have to face each other. but if they did face each other, nadal won 80% of their encounters in grandslams.

that's the only way to interpret this statistic.
 
FedererWinsWimbledon2014 said:
Nadal leads the slam H2H 8-2.

This shows what we already know, that Nadal is a nightmare match up for Roger.

Yet Federer still has won more slams than Nadal. Quite amazing really.

If for example both players won 17 slams would the H2H not sway the GOAT debate firmly in Federer's favour?
Click to expand...

How so?

10confuseds:confused:.
 
Is Nadal the one who had to face players who were washed up at 23/24, injured all the time, not motivated and mentally weak between 2003 and 2007?
 
If Fed had developed a better BH and was mentally tougher, this bad match-up thing wouldn't have been there.

Fed lost a lot of their matches because he couldn't match Rafa's intensity and would give up when the going got tough.

Rafa is just different. Novak was dominating the 3rd set of the USO final. Federer in this situation would have surrendered. Not Rafa. He waited for his chance and when he got it, ran away with the set and a set later the match.
Great champion.

Big difference between Fed and Nadal is that with Rafa it's not over 'til it's over. With Fed, if you push him hard, you will most likely win than not.
 
Last edited:
10is said:
A 5-year age difference renders the H-H a meaningless statistic.
Click to expand...

Federer in his prime couldn't consistently beat Nadal, even though Nadal was not yet in his prime.

If they were the same age the H2H record would probably be even far more lopsided in Nadal's favor since Nadal was stronger at a younger age.

The real question is whether Federer would have even had a great career if he had been being squashed by Nadal from 2003-2007 (if they had come up together chronologically)...imagine the crushed spirit of Federer at age 21 having to deal with Nadal at age 21.
 
sam_p said:
Federer in his prime couldn't consistently beat Nadal, even though Nadal was not yet in his prime.
Click to expand...

The sheer domination of clay by between 2004-2007 implies otherwise. Furthermore as I have oft stated before:

The the H-H argument against Federer in the context of the Federer-Nadal rivalry is rather silly considering that:

1) Federer is 5 years OLDER than Nadal.

2) Nadal only started beating Federer "regularly" outside of clay when Federer had exited his prime.

3) Considering a majority of those losses were on clay against the greatest clay court player of all time in tournament Finals, criticizing Federer for the uneven H-H (especially during his prime 2004-2007) is therefore akin to criticizing him for being the second best player of his era on his weakest and least favorite surface.

4) Hence, critics/trolls are inadvertently saying that Federer would have more of a "legitimacy" to GOAT-hood had he been a worse clay court player and lost prior to facing Nadal on clay, thus ensuring that the H-H would not be as skewed as it currently is.

5) Finally, How many "tennis rivalries" (other than Fedal) have involved two "main rivals" being a WHOLE GENERATION APART in age from one another? Answer: NONE.

Main rivals have always historically been from ones own generation -- from that perspective Federer has a positive H-H record against all his main foes from his own generation. Particularly impressive is how he managed to turn around negative H-Hs against two of his fiercest peers, Hewitt and Nalbandian.

Hence, as far as I am concerned the "true" rivalry H-H ended at a respectable 6-8 (in favor of Nadal due to the clay skew) with the demise of Rogers prime in 2007.
 
Backspin1183 said:
If Fed had developed a better BH and was mentally tougher, this bad match-up thing wouldn't have been there.

Fed lost a lot of their matches because he couldn't match Rafa's intensity and would give up when the going got tough.

Rafa is just different. Novak was dominating the 3rd set of the USO final. Federer in this situation would have surrendered. Not Rafa. He waited for his chance and when he got it, ran away with the set and a set later the match.
Great champion.

Big difference between Fed and Nadal is that with Rafa it's not over 'til it's over. With Fed, if you push him hard, you will most likely win than not.
Click to expand...

BS. Federer has come back from 2 sets to love down many more times than Nadal has. This image of Federer not being a fighter is nonsense.
 
10is said:
The sheer domination of clay by between 2004-2007 implies otherwise. Furthermore as I have oft stated before:

The the H-H argument against Federer in the context of the Federer-Nadal rivalry is rather silly considering that:

1) Federer is 5 years OLDER than Nadal.

2) Nadal only started beating Federer "regularly" outside of clay when Federer had exited his prime.

3) Considering a majority of those losses were on clay against the greatest clay court player of all time in tournament Finals, criticizing Federer for the uneven H-H (especially during his prime 2004-2007) is therefore akin to criticizing him for being the second best player of his era on his weakest and least favorite surface.

4) Hence, critics/trolls are inadvertently saying that Federer would have more of a "legitimacy" to GOAT-hood had he been a worse clay court player and lost prior to facing Nadal on clay, thus ensuring that the H-H would not be as skewed as it currently is.

5) Finally, How many "tennis rivalries" (other than Fedal) have involved two "main rivals" being a WHOLE GENERATION APART in age from one another? Answer: NONE.

Main rivals have always historically been from ones own generation -- from that perspective Federer has a positive H-H record against all his main foes from his own generation. Particularly impressive is how he managed to turn around negative H-Hs against two of his fiercest peers, Hewitt and Nalbandian.

Hence, as far as I am concerned the "true" rivalry H-H ended at a respectable 6-8 (in favor of Nadal due to the clay skew) with the demise of Rogers prime in 2007.
Click to expand...

I maintain, and there is no way to prove me wrong, that had Federer had to play Nadal at the same age, on clay or hardcourts, that he would have been decimated before he ever even reached his "prime". He'd essentially be Richard Gasquet - a very talented guy beaten into submission by slightly better players who don't let him get a foothold. That Federer came along at the tail end of Sampras/Agassi dominance and only had to deal with talented headcases like Safin and grinders like Hewitt allowed him to win majors before a tougher guy came along. To infer that Federer at age 21 would have beaten age 21 Nadal ANYWHERE is to my mind silly. By the time Federer could grow into his prime game he would have been soulcrushed.

See, anybody can play at this idiotic game of "would have, could have". My scenario is as valid as yours...
 
I'm sorry, did you just claim that Federer's prime ended after 2007?? That is an insult to Federer, and you know it. The earliest you could possibly claim his prime ended would be after 2009.

10is said:
The sheer domination of clay by between 2004-2007 implies otherwise. Furthermore as I have oft stated before:

The the H-H argument against Federer in the context of the Federer-Nadal rivalry is rather silly considering that:

1) Federer is 5 years OLDER than Nadal.

2) Nadal only started beating Federer "regularly" outside of clay when Federer had exited his prime.

3) Considering a majority of those losses were on clay against the greatest clay court player of all time in tournament Finals, criticizing Federer for the uneven H-H (especially during his prime 2004-2007) is therefore akin to criticizing him for being the second best player of his era on his weakest and least favorite surface.

4) Hence, critics/trolls are inadvertently saying that Federer would have more of a "legitimacy" to GOAT-hood had he been a worse clay court player and lost prior to facing Nadal on clay, thus ensuring that the H-H would not be as skewed as it currently is.

5) Finally, How many "tennis rivalries" (other than Fedal) have involved two "main rivals" being a WHOLE GENERATION APART in age from one another? Answer: NONE.

Main rivals have always historically been from ones own generation -- from that perspective Federer has a positive H-H record against all his main foes from his own generation. Particularly impressive is how he managed to turn around negative H-Hs against two of his fiercest peers, Hewitt and Nalbandian.

Hence, as far as I am concerned the "true" rivalry H-H ended at a respectable 6-8 (in favor of Nadal due to the clay skew) with the demise of Rogers prime in 2007.
Click to expand...
 
chicagodude said:
I'm sorry, did you just claim that Federer's prime ended after 2007?? That is an insult to Federer, and you know it. The earliest you could possibly claim his prime ended would be after 2009.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry did you just claim that Federer's prime lasted "6" years - simply because it retroactively makes Nadal/Djokovic look better in comparision because they started being able to beat him on a more frequent basis after 2007?

That is an insult to Federer and his "performance/athletic peak", and you know it!
 
10is said:
The sheer domination of clay by between 2004-2007 implies otherwise. Furthermore as I have oft stated before:

(...)

Hence, as far as I am concerned the "true" rivalry H-H ended at a respectable 6-8 (in favor of Nadal due to the clay skew) with the demise of Rogers prime in 2007.
Click to expand...

Nadal at 17 years old beat Federer on hardcourt in straight sets
Nadal at 18 years old led 2 sets to love against Prime Federer in Miami (hardcourt)

Thinking the 5 years old difference favours Nadal in the H2H is just silly.

Anyway, right now in october 2013, it's 21/10.
Deal with it.
Thank you.
 
sam_p said:
I maintain, and there is no way to prove me wrong,
Click to expand...

There's no way to "prove" yourself right or "prove" me wrong either, unless you can "prove" yourself to be correct via some theorem. Which is what I maintain.
 
tipsa...don'tlikehim! said:
Nadal at 17 years old beat Federer on hardcourt in straight sets
Nadal at 18 years old led 2 sets to love against Prime Federer in Miami (hardcourt)


.
Click to expand...

Fact - Federer was ill during his Miami encounter. This is well documented.

As far as the Dubai encounter is concerned, one-off anomalous events can happen, similar to how Soderling defeated Nadal at the French in 2009.

Deal with it.

Thank you.
 
^ No only during the first half of 2008 - which accounts for his extreme, precipitous drop in form compared to 2007 accounting for more losses in that year than either "2004, 2005, 2006" or "2006 and 2007" combined.
 
10is said:
^ No only during the first half of 2008 - which accounts for his extreme, precipitous drop in form compared to 2007 accounting for more losses in that year than either "2004, 2005, 2006" or "2006 and 2007" combined.
Click to expand...

Oh OK
I thought he was sick during all year 2008 + january 2009

Remember he lost to Karlovic in august, and Simon i think 2 times ?
He was not sick ? I thought he was !
 
^ He acquired mono in January - and there's typically a 6-9 month recovery period cited for even relatively weaker strains.
 
10is said:
^ He acquired mono in January - and there's typically a 6-9 month recovery period cited for even relatively weaker strains.
Click to expand...

ok...
akula.gif
 
How could it strengthen his claims? It's a blotch. I don't think it's the ultimate foil like some but it certainly isn't good.
 
10is said:
The sheer domination of clay by between 2004-2007 implies otherwise. Furthermore as I have oft stated before:

The the H-H argument against Federer in the context of the Federer-Nadal rivalry is rather silly considering that:

1) Federer is 5 years OLDER than Nadal.

2) Nadal only started beating Federer "regularly" outside of clay when Federer had exited his prime.

3) Considering a majority of those losses were on clay against the greatest clay court player of all time in tournament Finals, criticizing Federer for the uneven H-H (especially during his prime 2004-2007) is therefore akin to criticizing him for being the second best player of his era on his weakest and least favorite surface.

4) Hence, critics/trolls are inadvertently saying that Federer would have more of a "legitimacy" to GOAT-hood had he been a worse clay court player and lost prior to facing Nadal on clay, thus ensuring that the H-H would not be as skewed as it currently is.

5) Finally, How many "tennis rivalries" (other than Fedal) have involved two "main rivals" being a WHOLE GENERATION APART in age from one another? Answer: NONE.

Main rivals have always historically been from ones own generation -- from that perspective Federer has a positive H-H record against all his main foes from his own generation. Particularly impressive is how he managed to turn around negative H-Hs against two of his fiercest peers, Hewitt and Nalbandian.

Hence, as far as I am concerned the "true" rivalry H-H ended at a respectable 6-8 (in favor of Nadal due to the clay skew) with the demise of Rogers prime in 2007.
Click to expand...

Good answer!!
 
10is said:
The sheer domination of clay by between 2004-2007 implies otherwise. Furthermore as I have oft stated before:

The the H-H argument against Federer in the context of the Federer-Nadal rivalry is rather silly considering that:

1) Federer is 5 years OLDER than Nadal.

2) Nadal only started beating Federer "regularly" outside of clay when Federer had exited his prime.

3) Considering a majority of those losses were on clay against the greatest clay court player of all time in tournament Finals, criticizing Federer for the uneven H-H (especially during his prime 2004-2007) is therefore akin to criticizing him for being the second best player of his era on his weakest and least favorite surface.

4) Hence, critics/trolls are inadvertently saying that Federer would have more of a "legitimacy" to GOAT-hood had he been a worse clay court player and lost prior to facing Nadal on clay, thus ensuring that the H-H would not be as skewed as it currently is.

5) Finally, How many "tennis rivalries" (other than Fedal) have involved two "main rivals" being a WHOLE GENERATION APART in age from one another? Answer: NONE.

Main rivals have always historically been from ones own generation -- from that perspective Federer has a positive H-H record against all his main foes from his own generation. Particularly impressive is how he managed to turn around negative H-Hs against two of his fiercest peers, Hewitt and Nalbandian.

Hence, as far as I am concerned the "true" rivalry H-H ended at a respectable 6-8 (in favor of Nadal due to the clay skew) with the demise of Rogers prime in 2007.
Click to expand...

If there is a desire to cut off Federer's horrible H2H with Nadal as of the end of 2007 at 6-8, then it seems reasonable to cut off Federer's Slam totals at the same point, so he has 12 I guess? If you want to credit him with another five slams after as part of his legacy, then he has to own his awful H2H with Nadal too...
 
TheTruth said:
How so?

10confuseds:confused:.
Click to expand...

Just putting a theory out there.

Nadal and Federer have contested 8 slam finals (we should probably count 2005 RG semi). Nadal leads 6-2.

Yet despite this slam final record they would both have 17 slams. Federer would have just as many slams despite the fact Nadal won 75% of these meetings.

The match up issue would then come to the fore, the match up would have greatly shaped both players slam counts.

The argument is that they would Nadal still wouldn't have more slams than Federer despite the H2H of 6-2.
 
objectivity said:
what a silly argument. so if indeed they finish equal on 17, that means they each won 7 other GS when they did not face each other. so they did as well as each other when they did not have to face each other. but if they did face each other, nadal won 80% of their encounters in grandslams.

that's the only way to interpret this statistic.
Click to expand...

What?

:confused:
 
10is said:
Hence, as far as I am concerned the "true" rivalry H-H ended at a respectable 6-8 (in favor of Nadal due to the clay skew) with the demise of Rogers prime in 2007.
Click to expand...

Your whole post is a laugher but this last part especialy. You deem a true H-H based on the supposed end of Federer's prime, yet count Federer's wins which were clearly not in Nadal's prime. Yet even doing that Federer still comes out the loser.
 
FedererWinsWimbledon2014 said:
Nadal leads the slam H2H 8-2.

This shows what we already know, that Nadal is a nightmare match up for Roger.

Yet Federer still has won more slams than Nadal. Quite amazing really.

If for example both players won 17 slams would the H2H not sway the GOAT debate firmly in Federer's favour?
Click to expand...

Nothing strengthens any claim ending with "Federer is a GOAT," as the claim was crumbling under the weight of truth long before any recent increase in the H2H discussion.
 
illusions30 said:
Your whole post is a laugher but this last part especialy. You deem a true H-H based on the supposed end of Federer's prime, yet count Federer's wins which were clearly not in Nadal's prime. Yet even doing that Federer still comes out the loser.
Click to expand...

I'm happy I was able to bring some joy into your rather sad, lonely existence. However, you do yourself an injustice -- you sir, are a true comic auteur, simply for implying that between 2004 and 2007, Rafael Nadal was "not" in his clay prime, unbeaten, record-setting streak and all. Bravo! :lol:
 
Having another great player like Nadal strengthen his goat claim. Sampras had Agassi in the 90s, Lendl has Jmac in the 80s, Borg had Connors in the 70s. None of them are as great as Nadal. Also, Fed has the clay goat, Sampras/Lendl/Borg never have a player as dominant as Nadal. Federer also played two AO goat candidate - Agassi and Nole.

So yeah, Federer adversaries help his claims, a lot!
 
10is said:
I'm happy I was able to bring some joy into your rather sad, lonely existence. However, you do yourself an injustice -- you sir, are a true comic auteur, simply for implying that between 2004 and 2007, Rafael Nadal was "not" in his clay prime, unbeaten, record-setting streak and all. Bravo! :lol:
Click to expand...

Typical agressive female Federer fan, insecurity = agressivity :lol: relax, have a beer, i don't know, just deal with 21/10 i'm sure you can do it, and please relax and start posting serious here ;)
 
10is said:
Hence, as far as I am concerned the "true" rivalry H-H ended at a respectable 6-8 (in favor of Nadal due to the clay skew) with the demise of Rogers prime in 2007.
Click to expand...

Lol. I like it how as far as your concerned we should only count prime Federer against pre-prime Nadal and ignore prime Nadal against post-prime Federer.

Also, the Fed-fans keeping on about Fed exiting his prime after '07 are not doing him any favours. They say this to justify his poor results against Nadal off clay in 08 and later, but all this actually does is denigrate Federer's legacy as it's essentially saying he had a very short prime and was not good enough as a player to be on the top of his game for more than a few years (as supposedly he was already past it at age 26).
 
Last edited:
H2H is a valid argument (in favour of Nadal), albeit a secondary one. I'd put it on a level with weeks at No. 1 actually. Slam count is ultimately what matters.
 
firepanda said:
H2H is a valid argument (in favour of Nadal), albeit a secondary one. I'd put it on a level with weeks at No. 1 actually. Slam count is ultimately what matters.
Click to expand...

Come on. Not one more. Trocki avatars should be banned. Already messed up due to 2 c a p y b a r a's. :mad:
 
FedererWinsWimbledon2014 said:
Nadal leads the slam H2H 8-2.

This shows what we already know, that Nadal is a nightmare match up for Roger.

Yet Federer still has won more slams than Nadal. Quite amazing really.

If for example both players won 17 slams would the H2H not sway the GOAT debate firmly in Federer's favour?
Click to expand...

wladimir klitschko does have more title defenses than Ali and tyson. Is he GOAT?
 
While I did at first dismiss this post as nonsense... I then though about it. And it's true. It is rather amazing that Roger has amassed 17 slams despite the existence of one Rafael Nadal, who has thoroughly beaten him on too many an occasion. However, I think it says more about Nadal's lack of consistency, injuries, and absences than anything. Or perhaps it reflects more on Roger's consistency than anything.

Or perhaps they are both great, and if both end up with 17, it will be amazing that two of the very best ended up with 17 slams even while dealing with each other. ...and that persistent Djokovic.
 
FedererWinsWimbledon2014 said:
Nadal leads the slam H2H 8-2.

This shows what we already know, that Nadal is a nightmare match up for Roger.

Yet Federer still has won more slams than Nadal. Quite amazing really.

If for example both players won 17 slams would the H2H not sway the GOAT debate firmly in Federer's favour?
Click to expand...

LOL. *******s really crack me up. Pathetic H2H against your main rival only reflects the fact that Federer is not the best of his era, let alone of all time. :lol:
 
FedererWinsWimbledon2014 said:
Just putting a theory out there.

Nadal and Federer have contested 8 slam finals (we should probably count 2005 RG semi). Nadal leads 6-2.

Yet despite this slam final record they would both have 17 slams. Federer would have just as many slams despite the fact Nadal won 75% of these meetings.

The match up issue would then come to the fore, the match up would have greatly shaped both players slam counts.

The argument is that they would Nadal still wouldn't have more slams than Federer despite the H2H of 6-2.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation.
 
As Federer declines, his fans get more and more desperate to explain away how Federer could be GOAT when he's so inferior to Nadal...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SummerBreeze
  • Poll Poll
If Novak overtakes Nadal in the slam count, does the H2H of Fedal become irrelevant?
2
Replies
63
Views
3K
moonballs
moonballs
Neptune
What are the good takeaways from Fedal H2H rivalry?
2 3 4
Replies
162
Views
5K
messiahrobins
M
F
If Nadal gets between 16 and 18 slams does that make Laver the GOAT?
Replies
41
Views
3K
Deleted member 743561
D
T
I still cannot get the fact that some people already think Nadal is GOAT
2 3 4
Replies
192
Views
9K
Federev
Federev
F
How much does Fed's H2H against the Big 4 matter?
2
Replies
71
Views
4K
monfed
monfed
Back
Top