Federer and Nadal Versus the Field 2005-2008 and 2009-Present

M

McEnroeisanartist

Hall of Fame
2005-2008
Federer 299-22 (93.15%)
Nadal - 279-42 (86.92%)

2009-Present (As of Right Now)
Federer 277-47 (85.49%)
Nadal 277-43 (86.56%)

Given how much more dominant Federer was against the field during his prime than Nadal (6.23%), I would have thought Nadal during his prime would be more dominant than Federer than just 1.07%.

Also amazing that Federer has won the same number of matches at 28-31 as Nadal has from 23-26.
 
J

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
McEnroeisanartist said:
2005-2008
Federer 299-22 (93.15%)
Nadal - 279-42 (86.92%)

2009-Present (As of Right Now)
Federer 277-47 (85.49%)
Nadal 277-43 (86.56%)

Given how much more dominant Federer was against the field during his prime than Nadal (6.23%), I would have thought Nadal during his prime would be more dominant than Federer than just 1.07%.

Also amazing that Federer has won the same number of matches at 28-31 as Nadal has from 23-26.
Click to expand...

So this means post prime Fed is as good as Nad in his prime?
 
J

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
El Diablo said:
Federer, versus Nadal
10-20 (33%)

Nadal, versus Federer
20-10 (67%)
Click to expand...

No, really? THAT IS BRAND NEW INFORMATION!
Thanks for telling me. I never knew this. It's shocking how everyday a person learns something new.

But this proves that Federer is the goat. He beat the clay goat 10 times across all the surfaces.
 
W

World Beater

Hall of Fame
PSNELKE said:
By that logic pre prime Nadal should be better than prime Fed as he was always leading their H2H.
Click to expand...

What?

In what world was nadal better than federer against the field during that time?

Nadal has always led their head-to-head, but that has never been the basis for concluding that nadal is a greater player than federer (at least for most reasonable people), so i'm not sure what your point is.
 
M

McEnroeisanartist

Hall of Fame
Obvious conclusions: Federer soared higher and for longer than Nadal ever did or will. Nadal has been a rock of consistency over the last eight years.

Over the last eight years, Federer has gone 576-69 (89.30%) against the field minus Nadal. Nadal has gone 556-85 (86.74%) against the field minus Federer. It will be interesting to see if and when Nadal closes this gap, as Federer gets older. Of course, Nadal is getting older as well. It will be interesting to compare the two again in another four years. Will Federer in the next four years see his winning percentage over that period drop to 80% and will Nadal keep his around 85-86%?
 
PSNELKE

PSNELKE

Legend
jg153040 said:
No pre-prime is not the same as post-prime. But if post-prime Nadal does the same as Federer in his prime it means Nadal is better.
Click to expand...

I'm gonna tell you what decides who's better.
At the moment H2H is irrelevant as obviously 17>>>>11.
If Nadal every wins another 6 majors to balance the major count, then the H2H comes into speech.

The H2H against the rest of the field definately ain't the subject to determine the winner of the "who is better" discussion.
 
J

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
PSNELKE said:
I'm gonna tell you what decides who's better.
At the moment H2H is irrelevant as obviously 17>>>>11.
If Nadal every wins another 6 majors to balance the major count, then the H2H comes into speech.

The H2H against the rest of the field definately ain't the subject to determine the winner of the "who is better" discussion.
Click to expand...

No, it's decided by voting. Since everyone has different metrics of who is better.
Like Obama for president. Some people didn't vote for him and don't agree, but they still accept him as president.

The same is for tennis.
 
PSNELKE

PSNELKE

Legend
jg153040 said:
No, it's decided by voting. Since everyone has different metrics of who is better.
Like Obama for president. Some people didn't vote for him and don't agree, but they still accept him as president.

The same is for tennis.
Click to expand...

It's decided by the DATA. STATS. When the more important stats and achievements favor one player, there's no need to fan them.

As for now it's without a question Federer>>>>>>Nadal>>>>>>Djokovic.
However this order can change by the end of their respective careers.
 
J

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
PSNELKE said:
It's decided by the DATA. STATS. When the more important stats and achievements favor one player, there's no need to fan them.

As for now it's without a question Federer>>>>>>Nadal>>>>>>Djokovic.
However this order can change by the end of their respective careers.
Click to expand...

Yes, people "vote" based on stats. Usually on the internet polls. And also by anecdotal evidence you see that most people regard Fed the best.

So to assume most people can count and that we have some reasoning skills this is accurate. You can extrapolate from poll results on the internet to see how things are.

Why doens't Agassi win most polls? Or Sampras? Or Roddick?
So given the nature of only using personal opinions of people based on the numbers we have to accept the general consensus.
 
PSNELKE

PSNELKE

Legend
jg153040 said:
Yes, people "vote" based on stats. Usually on the internet polls. And also by anecdotal evidence you see that most people regard Fed the best.

So to assume most people can count and that we have some reasoning skills this is accurate. You can extrapolate from poll results on the internet to see how things are.

Why doens't Agassi win most polls? Or Sampras? Or Roddick?
So given the nature of only using personal opinions of people based on the numbers we have to accept the general consensus.
Click to expand...

Don't evade man. Personal opinions don't matter in such a discussion.
I think we can all agree on the major count being the most important stat to determine the order of the Top Tier all time greats right?
Then you can come up with H2H, masters count, whether you got a CGS or not, weeks at #1 etc.
 
J

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
PSNELKE said:
Don't evade man. Personal opinions don't matter in such a discussion.
I think we can all agree on the major count being the most important stat to determine the order of the Top Tier all time greats right?
Then you can come up with H2H, masters count, whether you got a CGS or not, weeks at #1 etc.
Click to expand...

If it's not personal opinions based on numbers what is it then?
Like you said we can all agree on the major count. But we agree based on personal opinions that the major count is the most important. But even on this all people don't agree. But most agree that should be good enough.

Well I don't agree that when both have 18 slams that h2h alone should be enough. Also weeks at nr.1.

And h2h for me is flawed. Very flawed. Because in 16 Fed finals they didn't even meet. And the age gap.

But if the general consensus will be otherwise I will have to concede.

This is different than science. We have the data, but we can't agree in the interpretation of data.

When people thought earth was flat they didn't have the data.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JennyS
Nadal and Federer's records vs the field (since FO 2005)
Replies
22
Views
1K
ninman
ninman
M
Dominance at French Open - Federer and Nadal
Replies
31
Views
2K
Fiji
Fiji
M
Comparing the last 5 years of Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic
Replies
41
Views
5K
nithinsujir
N
M
Interesting Observations about Federer and Nadal at Grand Slams
Replies
6
Views
851
Sarc
S
abmk
Age by age comparision of the Federer Nadal forehands
2
Replies
50
Views
764
abmk
abmk
Top