Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Yes. That is what he did.
Federer vs Nadal - the story. Direct matchup and instances when one couldn't make it
- Thread starter Russeljones
- Start date
Yes. That is what he did.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
:lol: that desperation.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
My only objection to this list is that it starts a bit early. Rafa did not break into the top 10 until the end of April in 2005.
Other than that the list gives rewards to Fed because of his consistency and over all good health.
Other than that the list gives rewards to Fed because of his consistency and over all good health.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Sure but it's a joke to award Federer all the matches because of Nadal losing to someone else. It has nothing to do with the entire point of discussion which is how Nadal actually matches up when he plays Federer. Losing to Blake, per say in 06 has no bearing on what would have happened against a more favorable opponent.... Federer. Desperation. We know Federer is more consistent than Rafa which is a different subject entirely, and the reason for the spread in accomplishments overall.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
In the future you might want to reorder by year starting with the first and moving to the last tournament each year.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
The concept behind this list is very logically flawed.
It is a good (but still flawed) representation of both players general performance barring injury.
It says absolutely nothing of their head to head in which Nadal dominates.
Are there instances where Nadal didn't reach Federer where he would probably have lost to Federer if he had? Sure. But I would argue there are quite a few where he would have won. To just award all of them to Federer is ridiculous. Again all you are doing by this is measuring overall performance or performance against the field. You just can't award every match Nadal didn't make it to Federer. Makes no sense.
It's all hypothetical but my guess is if they had coinciding primes and played 33 times over all surfaces Nadal would still lead something like 20-13, and have a sizable advantage in the big matches. All we can do is make educated guesses about how it would be like if age and surface were even and maybe it would shift a couple more matches in Fed's favor. But you can't give them all to Federer and we have to go by what we have seen. Nadal is simply better than Federer head to head, even allowing for variations in surface, age, and form and I believe that would still shine through.
The OP knows better than this, as "congenial" as he is, can you imagine his response if the shoe were on the other foot and someone were impuning R Fed with bizarre hypotheticals? :lol: :lol:
It is a good (but still flawed) representation of both players general performance barring injury.
It says absolutely nothing of their head to head in which Nadal dominates.
Are there instances where Nadal didn't reach Federer where he would probably have lost to Federer if he had? Sure. But I would argue there are quite a few where he would have won. To just award all of them to Federer is ridiculous. Again all you are doing by this is measuring overall performance or performance against the field. You just can't award every match Nadal didn't make it to Federer. Makes no sense.
It's all hypothetical but my guess is if they had coinciding primes and played 33 times over all surfaces Nadal would still lead something like 20-13, and have a sizable advantage in the big matches. All we can do is make educated guesses about how it would be like if age and surface were even and maybe it would shift a couple more matches in Fed's favor. But you can't give them all to Federer and we have to go by what we have seen. Nadal is simply better than Federer head to head, even allowing for variations in surface, age, and form and I believe that would still shine through.
The OP knows better than this, as "congenial" as he is, can you imagine his response if the shoe were on the other foot and someone were impuning R Fed with bizarre hypotheticals? :lol: :lol:
Last edited by a moderator:
While Blake was a very good player, Federer is on another level. If Nadal wasn't good enough to beat Blake on a certain HC at a certain time, it is very reasonable to think that he wouldn't have been good enough to beat Federer under those conditions. He certainly might have due to matchup issues, but I'd say the matchup differential between Nadal and Federer is far less than the tennis excellence differential between Federer and Blake.
The thread is simply creating a "tournament H2H", comparing how each player did in tournaments where both entered. It's an entirely reasonable thing to look at, although it is a very different thing from the direct H2H. It is essentially a different way to look at overall results.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
This thread is 5555 level bad. Russel should be ashamed.
beast of mallorca
G.O.A.T.
Hahaha.....epic. !!!:twisted:
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
While on the surface the thread is suggesting that Rafa lost to Blake, so he would lose to Fed as well , the real intent behind the thread IMO is to show the fact Federer leads 6-3 in the second half of the calendar and the h2h of 23-10 is a result of meeting predominantly on clay / slow surface.
Last edited:
We have no idea what the H2H would be if they had met in those tournaments where they didn't actually meet, but could have. Nor is speculation about this necessary, if we limit the analysis to merely looking at what this stat actually tells us: performance against the field.
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
We can speculate that is what a tennis message board is about. But I agree the facts state Nadal leads 9-2 in slams and 23-10. That is the "non hypothetical"
eldanger25
Hall of Fame
Irrespective of any agenda behind it, I think the list is an interesting blend of h2h and performance against the field. I actually expected Federer to be farther ahead than 50-48 given his 2 to 1 edge in weeks at #1. Definitely suggests to me that Nadal has had it tougher being sandwiched between Federer and Djokovic - the plight of the middle child in the Big 3.
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
It doesn't speak of h2h at all, at least not more than the one we already know.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Exactly. Only a Federer loon can see any rationality or objectivity in this thread.
Steffi-forever
Hall of Fame
If they had played all those matches, Nadal would be leading something like 69-29 since the % of matches wins for Nadal in the REAL HTH is ∼70%.
eldanger25
Hall of Fame
Fair enough. Among other things, I think it's interesting that each man has made it further into a tournament than the other about an equal amount of times - and when you incorporate h2h, it means that Nadal's had to go directly through Federer nearly half of the time among his 48, while Federer has gone through Nadal only 20 percent of the 50 times he made it farther into a draw.
If this list is intended as part of a pro-Federer, anti-Nadal agenda, I don't think it was too successful - I think it says good things about both men.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
It supports my POV. I keep saying these two men are so close in what they have achieved that it is pointless to get into a loop about who is better.
I simply say they are by far the best of post 2000. And if Novak is #3, he is about the strongest #3 we've seen in any era. The way these three guys have dominated tennis continues to be incredible.
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
I actually thought he might be trolling at first. :shock:
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
I agree and as you said previously I think it reflects well for Nadal that it is so close. Rather surprising actually.
However the OP definitely intended as part of a pro Federer hypothetical h2h. Both the wording "In the instances when one failed to make the meeting with the other, I have awarded the former with a win." and the way the list is laid out speak to that.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Fed's '6-3' lead in the second half of the calendar mainly comes from 1 tournament :lol:
smoledman
G.O.A.T.
Fed fans can't explain away 2-13 on clay so they start breaking up the H2H as though that means anything.
Instead Fed fans should be trumpeting the fact that he has a positive H2H on Djokovic and even H2H with Murray!
But they're all hung up on Nadal for some reason...
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Are you saying there is only 1 tournament in the tennis calendar past FO ?
Is it Fed's fault they had 24 matches in the first half and 9 matches in the second half ?
dpli2010
Semi-Pro
This thread is to the TT is as if Tolstoy's War and Peace to the world, I give you this, mate...
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
Yes, if one really has a look at it, there is a lot to take out of this. As I was compiling it, it really took me back in time. Nadal's surge is easy to see in the numbers. I think, as always, people will see what they want to see. I wanted to present something unique, but also something many of us know to be true. A very young Nadal rarely made it to the business end, where he would have played Federer. Now if we fast-forward to 2014, astonishingly, we see Federer is still there or there abouts, scrapping for top honours. It will be interesting to update this as both men fade out.
eldanger25
Hall of Fame
Yeah, really good stuff - I like that you gave the full sweep between 2003 and 2014. My guess is that Federer's thirtysomething results will exceed Nadal's, just like Nadal's teen years eclipsed Federer's. I bet they end their careers very close in the metric you've laid out.
Anti-Fedal
Professional
This man hits the nail on the head.
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Obviously not.
A word about your data: To me the rivalry between Nadal and Federer may be the hardest to analyze in terms of two top players who have more or less gone to war on the court for a number of years.
I wish a few people had not been so negative about your efforts. It takes a lot of hard work to put together such information.
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
Obviously not.
A word about your data: To me the rivalry between Nadal and Federer may be the hardest to analyze in terms of two top players who have more or less gone to war on the court for a number of years.
I wish a few people had not been so negative about your efforts. It takes a lot of hard work to put together such information.
Thanks for the kinds words. I was surprised by the number of occasions when Nadal was "waiting" for Federer on a hard court. I felt this approach would add depth to an otherwise very tired subject. Now we can talk about particular tournaments and say "look, I know he was nursing an injury of this or that type so if he had gone on to play him, his chances would have been dire"; or "you know this guy always posed a threat to my guy, if he wasn't there, the tournament would have unfolded differently". Just a different angle, that's all. It took time indeed.
eldanger25
Hall of Fame
By my count, Nadal leads 18-16 at the majors w/r/t h2h plus making the appointment. Fed leads 4-1 at the YEC.
Good stuff - lots here to look at.
Good stuff - lots here to look at.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
I think perhaps as someone who greatly likes the playing of Federer you get branded as a biased fan, and I don't see that as true.
The fact is that people think they "know" things to be "true" when in fact they have preconceived ideas and discard anything that challenges those ideas.
I've been playing with hold percentages and break percentages for games. We can only go back to 1991, unfortunately (ATP site), but I was shocked to find out how wrong I have been about:
1) Who has been serving the best.
2) Who has been returning the best.
3) Who has done both the best in the same year.
I may share some of the data in another thread. But I was making some very wrong assumptions/conclusions.
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
Wouldn't Roddick come out looking very strong in such an analysis? Also Nadal is almost underrated as a returner here (bizarre, I know).
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
Here was my assumption, and it is embarrassing to admit it. I figured that the two figures are going to add up to the same thing. Sort of A + B = C, and C is a constant.
In fact, both stats can be 100%. A bagel means 3 holds and 3 breaks, 100% on both return and service games. If you add the two together and drop the percent sign you get 200.
Obviously no one stays anywhere near that good for more than a set or two.
If you reach 6/6 in a set, at the point you can have 100% in holding but zero in breaking, or anything that adds up to 100. It doesn't matter how many breaks. The sum will always be 100.
We all know that the difference between 100 in the world and being number 1 is a matter of small differences in many different areas.
Kuerten 86/25 or a total of 111 in 2000. So he did not have much edge on his competition. People are making a big deal about Federer having a chance at number 1 this year with no slams, but think of Nadal and Novak each with on this year. Does Kuerten seem in the same league to you?
My answer, based on the numbers, is that Fed 90/27 117 is stronger even without a slam. I don't think you would disagree.
Nadal 85/35 120
Djokovic 87/33 120
That's this year. I would say both, even with only a slam each, even with injuries, are far better players.
The total edges up on clay and down on fast surfaces. That's not surprising.
This was:
84/51 135, Nadal on clay in 2008. That is absolutely frightening. He was winning more than 50% of his return games on that surface.
He was 88/34 122 that year on all surfaces. That's scary.
Now look at this:
Djokovic 87/35 122, 2012. Two things about that. First, he doesn't do better than Nadal on serve. He's about the same, with an amazing return percentage. No surprise there.
Now Joker, 2011:
Djokovic 86/39 125
So far he has the record. No surprise there. 2011 was an amazing year for him. He was 88/44 or 132 on clay.
That year Nadal was 83/43 or 126 on clay. If the two had met in the FO that year, Novak might have won. But he ran into a zoned Fed.
Usually 122 for the year means that someone is clearly #1
Fed was 122 in 2006 and 2004.
Agassi was 122 in 1999.
Earlier than that no one had such a high total, but high risk tennis and fast surfaces always score lower. Grass is always lower than clay, for instance.
So Edberg was at 118 in 1991, Courier at 117 in 1992. Sampras was at 117 in both 1993 and 1994. then 118 in 1997.
Roddick was fairly low at 91/21 112 .
In contrast, Isner is 93/10 or 103 this year. This is why he a servebot.
Karlovic this year is 92/9 (101) and was not much higher in his best years. Also a servebot who could never really challenge top players consistently.
Raonic this year is 91/18 or 109, which is very respectable. If he can improve his defense, he is a very good chance of getting into the top 5 in the world.
The total goes down for people who are most dominant on fast surfaces, which is why Fed often was behind Nadal on the total many years and yet won #1 for those years. It also reflects surfaces.
Murry this year is at a miserable 81% average on holding serve but is doing great holding at 32%. 81/32 113. He was at 80/36 116 in 2011. If he had a better serve - mostly a better 2nd serve - he'd be at least #2 in the world every year. Murray finally got his service game percentage up to 85% working with Lendl.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
You wrote "In the instances when one failed to make the meeting with the other, I have awarded the former with a win." You have created a head to head tally when we all know what the real one is. Furthermore, the premise you use to comprise this table is inherently flawed and also favors Federer considerably. Assuming player A would beat player B everytime player B couldn't reach him is a non-sequitur. (Waiting for you to tell me I don't know what "non-sequitur" means rather than addressing the meat of my argument).
We all know Federer is to date more accomplished, and Nadal owns him in the H2H. To assume each and every time Nadal couldn't make it to face Federer means he would lose straight up when he quite clearly has Fed's number in head to head combat is silly.
You didn't state your motivations but most people could see thru them quite easily. GaryDuane seems lost here; simply by awarding hypothetical "wins" to Federer to create a h2h where he leads vs the real 23-10 is a biased base to start with.
If you truly were interested in the stats, then why not just list overall tournaments won by both players or some variation of that. Why all this illogical conflation with head to head if you are not trying to prove some point? What sense does that make?
eldanger25
Hall of Fame
Looks pretty solid overall. All I caught so far was:
1. Fed and Nadal each should get an additional point in '07 - Fed for Madrid (now Shanghai), Nadal for Bercy. Both fell prey to Nalbandian's great fall run.
2. Nadal should indeed get the point for 2011 IW rather than Fed.
So 50-49 Nadal right now.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
I'm not lost. I've argued the matter from both sides.
The difference in age produced anomalies. Nadal's early exit in grass tournaments prevented them from meeting at times that greatly favored Fed.
Fed had no opportunity to win in those in a H2H. The same is true in indoor tournaments, but in reverse.
Fed was there to challenge, but also to be beaten in many clay matches. By nature of his consistency he was at a disadvantage.
There are an equal amount of counter-arguments that suggest Nadal's age worked against him, since he was a younger player who had to try to overcome Fed and then guard against Novak's increasing challenge.
Please do not confuse me with rabid fans. I get hit by both Fed-fanatics and Nadal-fanatics.
I would prefer to see each tournament that both players were competing in and then information as to who won, and in what round. But it is no easy thing to find all that information and then to present it, in a dispassionate way.
My perception:
H2H can be unfair because of surface and timing.
The data Russel presented is simply another view.
Who was there?
Who was left standing at the "business" end of a tournament?
Logically we know that if Nadal was clearly the best, he would not have ended up #2 so many years.
And we logically know that if Fed was clearly the best, he would not be on the end of a lopsided H2H.
That's why I always say it is complicated. In most historic rivalries it is pretty clear who is the best.
But not for these two guys. It's the reason why there are non-stop flame-wars over the matter!
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Not another Federer V Nadal thread....
vernonbc
Legend
The information is all in Tennis Abstract.
But hypothetical H2H is more fair????? C'mon Gary.
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
The fact that I penalize the one who fell early regardless of whether it was Federer or Nadal renders your point moot. To argue against the likelihood of the early loser being also the eventual loser in the hypothetical meeting is something you can do by all accounts. I am just simplifying it by throwing down all the potential meetings and saying whoever made it won. If I had said "whoever made the juncture in the draw where the two would have met, and the other didn't, the former gets a cookie", would that have been more okay for you? Is that the level of debate that you are comfortable with?
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
If anything this thread is patronizing to Rafa. Everyone keeps saying Rafa never did his part to meet at the business end of tournaments, whereas over the course of their long career the difference is just marginal.
It just shows Federer did marginally better than Rafa at tournaments both of them competed. In fact , Rafa will over take Fed by this logic soon.
It just shows Federer did marginally better than Rafa at tournaments both of them competed. In fact , Rafa will over take Fed by this logic soon.
sbengte
G.O.A.T.
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
sbengte
G.O.A.T.
Don't try using logic with the Nadal fangirls. It is too much for them.
Similar threads
