Federer vs Nadal - the story. Direct matchup and instances when one couldn't make it

[Russeljones]

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.

I really would have expected Murray to score higher. You're right about the faster surfaces putting a big dent in those numbers. Perhaps the players opting for slower tournaments would score higher without that translating into anything meaningful but it's a great analysis nevertheless!

 

[The_Order]

Don't try using logic with the Nadal fangirls. It is too much for them.

So it's logic that Federer would automatically beat Nadal in those tournaments?

Hahaha, I really shouldn't expect more...

 

[tennisaddict]

So it's logic that Federer would automatically beat Nadal in those tournaments?

Hahaha, I really shouldn't expect more...

That is not what the OP said. You just assume that is what it is since you hold dearly the concept of h2h and you know well that is what defines Nadal's career, apart from his 9 FO.

If you look beyond the h2h for a moment, it is very easy to see what the true intent is - how many times that each of them fell to players below their calibre.

You say Fed is lucky that he didnt get to meet Rafa 98 times, but i can turn it around and say Nadal was lucky that Blake, Gonzalez and Davydenko ended their careers soon. But that would not be a sensible argument.

 

[The_Order]

That is not what the OP said. You just assume that is what it is since you hold dearly the concept of h2h and you know well that is what defines Nadal's career, apart from his 9 FO.

If you look beyond the h2h for a moment, it is very easy to see what the true intent is - how many times that each of them fell to players below their calibre.

You say Fed is lucky that he didnt get to meet Rafa 98 times, but i can turn it around and say Nadal was lucky that Blake, Gonzalez and Davydenko ended their careers soon. But that would not be a sensible argument.

LOL what are you on about? Obviously he's saying that because he's awarding wins to Federer when Nadal lost to different players, therefore making the assumption that Federer would beat Nadal since those other players did.

And of course your last sentence would not be a sensible argument. Once Nadal improved his HC game he took care of Blake and Gonzalez. Even when Nadal was playing crap in Beijing and Shanghai in 09 he still beat Blake lol. Gonzalez was the same, couldn't beat Rafa once he improved his HC game.
Davydenko was never good enough to reach Nadal in a major so he's a non factor.

 

[tennisaddict]

LOL what are you on about? Obviously he's saying that because he's awarding wins to Federer when Nadal lost to different players, therefore making the assumption that Federer would beat Nadal since those other players did.

And of course your last sentence would not be a sensible argument. Once Nadal improved his HC game he took care of Blake and Gonzalez. Even when Nadal was playing crap in Beijing and Shanghai in 09 he still beat Blake lol. Gonzalez was the same, couldn't beat Rafa once he improved his HC game.
Davydenko was never good enough to reach Nadal in a major so he's a non factor.

How many more times do we have to tell you that the intent is not that Fed would have actually led the h2h 50-48 ?

It is to say that Fed was the better player on 50 occasions . Plain and Simple.

If Davydenko was not good enough to reach Nadal, by the same token, Nadal was not good enough to meet Fed.

 

[The_Order]

How many more times do we have to tell you that the intent is not that Fed would have actually led the h2h 50-48 ?

It is to say that Fed was the better player on 50 occasions . Plain and Simple.

If Davydenko was not good enough to reach Nadal, by the same token, Nadal was not good enough to meet Fed.

LMFAO really?

Maybe you missed the mistakes he made. It's actually Nadal who leads...

He gave Federer the win in IW11, despite the fact that Rafa made the final and Fed didn't. It should read 39-36 at that point. Instead it reads 40-35...

Of course, he won't edit that because it goes to show Fed wasn't good enough more often than Nadal (even though in his edit comments he says he did fix it) :lol:

 

[tennisaddict]

LMFAO really?

Maybe you missed the mistakes he made. It's actually Nadal who leads...

He gave Federer the win in IW11, despite the fact that Rafa made the final and Fed didn't. It should read 39-36 at that point. Instead it reads 40-35...

Of course, he won't edit that because it goes to show Fed wasn't good enough more often than Nadal (even though in his edit comments he says he did fix it) :lol:

If after correcting the stats, it turns out that Nadal is the better player , then so be it.

And that would be the case anyways when Fed continues to play on the tour and being 5 years older.

 

[Russeljones]

If after correcting the stats, it turns out that Nadal is the better player , then so be it.

And that would be the case anyways when Fed continues to play on the tour and being 5 years older.

The stats don't have a bearing on who the better player is. The stats can't show intangibles. Remember, if one wasn't involved, the other could not record a point against him. In this manner the one who missed the most tournaments is benefiting from that in this analysis. If I were to somehow include the projected calendar for Nadal, as regards tournaments he actually missed, it would significantly boost Federer's numbers. I chose, instead, to only show tournaments where both showed up. Unsurprisingly, this concept has proven to be too abstract for some.

 

[objectivity]

The stats don't have a bearing on who the better player is. The stats can't show intangibles. Remember, if one wasn't involved, the other could not record a point against him. In this manner the one who missed the most tournaments is benefiting from that in this analysis. If I were to somehow include the projected calendar for Nadal, as regards tournaments he actually missed, it would significantly boost Federer's numbers. I chose, instead, to only show tournaments where both showed up. Unsurprisingly, this concept has proven to be too abstract for some.

yes but even after accepting all your projections, the combined total of projected and actual still has federer trailing nadal, to the tune of 11 losses.
so case closed. man to man, nadal is the better player.

note: career achievements wise, federer is still the greatest player of all time.

 

[tennisaddict]

The stats don't have a bearing on who the better player is. The stats can't show intangibles. Remember, if one wasn't involved, the other could not record a point against him. In this manner the one who missed the most tournaments is benefiting from that in this analysis. If I were to somehow include the projected calendar for Nadal, as regards tournaments he actually missed, it would significantly boost Federer's numbers. I chose, instead, to only show tournaments where both showed up. Unsurprisingly, this concept has proven to be too abstract for some.

I get that. I only meant that "in the tournaments both of them played" who emerges as the better player.

Federer plays a full calendar while Nadal plays only the first half and we know the result will be skewed. The surprise is there is no skew even then.

 

[Backspin1183]

Federer is ahead of Nadal in the era of the biological passport.

But Federer has 0 Slam in the era of biological passport.

 

[csmoove899]

.

 

[TMF]

In a way it is Federer' s fault because he was good enough to make it to the finals of clay tournaments whereas Nadal could not get past journeymen in non-clay tournaments until Federer became a grandfather.

Yeah, it's Federer fault since he should have skipped those events instead of making the finals.

 

[eldanger25]

2003
1-0 (ATP Masters Series Madrid, Spain; 13.10.2003; SU; Indoor: Hard; Draw: 48 )
2-0 (Wimbledon, England; 23.06.2003; GS; Outdoor: Grass; Draw: 128 )

2004
3-0 (US Open, NY, U.S.A.; 30.08.2004; GS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 128 )
4-0 (ATP Masters Series Canada, Toronto, Canada; 26.07.2004; SU; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 64)
4-1 (ATP Masters Series Miami, FL, U.S.A.; 22.03.2004; SU; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 96)
5-1 (ATP Masters Series Indian Wells, California, USA; 08.03.2004; SU; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 96)
6-1 (Dubai, U.A.E.; 01.03.2004; CS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 32)
7-1 (Australian Open, Australia; 19.01.2004; GS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 128 )

2005
8-1 (US Open, NY, U.S.A.; 29.08.2005; GS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 128 )
9-1 (ATP Masters Series Cincinnati, Ohio, USA; 15.08.2005; SU; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 64)
10-1 (Wimbledon, England; 20.06.2005; GS; Outdoor: Grass; Draw: 128 )
11-1 (Halle, Germany; 06.06.2005; WS; Outdoor: Grass; Draw: 32)
11-2 (Roland Garros, France; 23.05.2005; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128 )
11-3 (ATP Masters Series Monte Carlo, Monaco; 11.04.2005; SU; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 64)
12-3 (ATP Masters Series Miami, FL, U.S.A.; 21.03.2005; SU; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 96)
13-3 (Doha, Qatar; 03.01.2005; WS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 32)

2006
14-3 (Tennis Masters Cup, China; 13.11.2006; WC; Indoor: Hard; Draw: 8 )
15-3 (ATP Masters Series Madrid, Spain; 16.10.2006; SU; Indoor: Hard; Draw: 48 )
16-3 (US Open, NY, U.S.A.; 28.08.2006; GS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 128 )
17-3 (ATP Masters Series Canada, Toronto, Canada; 07.08.2006; SU; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 64)
18-3 (Wimbledon, England; 26.06.2006; GS; Outdoor: Grass; Draw: 128 )
18-4 (Roland Garros, France; 29.05.2006; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128 )
18-5 (ATP Masters Series Rome, Italy; 08.05.2006; SU; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 64)
18-6 (ATP Masters Series Monte Carlo, Monaco; 17.04.2006; SU; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 64)
19-6 (ATP Masters Series Miami, FL, U.S.A.; 20.03.2006; SU; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 96)
20-6 (ATP Masters Series Indian Wells, CA, U.S.A.; 06.03.2006; SU; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 96)
20-7 (Dubai, U.A.E.; 27.02.2006; CS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 32)

2007
21-7 (Tennis Masters Cup, China; 12.11.2007; WC; Indoor: Hard; Draw: 8 )
21-8 (ATP Masters Series Paris, France; 28.10.2007; SU; Indoor: Hard; Draw: 48 )
22-8 (ATP Masters Series Madrid, Spain; 15.10.2007; SU; Indoor: Hard; Draw: 48 )
23-8 (US Open, NY, U.S.A.; 27.08.2007; GS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 128 )
24-8 (ATP Masters Series Cincinnati, OH, U.S.A.; 13.08.2007; SU; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 56)
25-8 (Wimbledon, Great Britain; 25.06.2007; GS; Outdoor: Grass; Draw: 128 )
25-9 (Roland Garros, France; 28.05.2007; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128 )
26-9 (ATP Masters Series Hamburg, Germany; 14.05.2007; SU; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56)
26-10 (ATP Masters Series Rome, Italy; 07.05.2007; SU; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56)
26-11 (ATP Masters Series Monte Carlo, Monaco; 15.04.2007; SU; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56)
26-12 (ATP Masters Series Indian Wells, CA, U.S.A.; 05.03.2007; SU; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 96)
27-12 (Dubai, U.A.E.; 26.02.2007; CS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 32)
28-12 (Australian Open, Australia; 15.01.2007; GS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 128 )

2008
29-12 (US Open, NY, U.S.A.; 25.08.2008; GS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 128 )
29-13 (Beijing Olympics, China; 11.08.2008; OL; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 64)
29-14 (ATP Masters Series Canada, Toronto, Canada; 21.07.2008; SU; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 56)
29-15 (Wimbledon, Great Britain; 23.06.2008; GS; Outdoor: Grass; Draw: 128 )
29-16 (Roland Garros, France; 25.05.2008; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128 )
29-17 (ATP Masters Series Hamburg, Germany; 11.05.2008; SU; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56)
29-18 (ATP Masters Series Monte Carlo, Monaco; 20.04.2008; SU; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56)

2009
30-18 (US Open, NY, U.S.A.; 31.08.2009; GS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 128 )
31-18 (ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Cincinnati, OH, U.S.A.; 16.08.2009; 1000; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 56)
32-18 (Roland Garros, France; 25.05.2009; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128 )
33-18 (ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Madrid, Spain; 10.05.2009; 1000; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56)
33-19 (ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Rome, Italy; 27.04.2009; 1000; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56)
33-20 (ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Monte Carlo, Monaco; 12.04.2009; 1000; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56)
33-21 (ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Indian Wells, CA, U.S.A.; 12.03.2009; 1000; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 96)
33-22 (Australian Open, Australia; 19.01.2009; GS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 128 )

2010
34-22 (Barclays ATP World Tour Finals, London, England; 21.11.2010; WC; Indoor: Hard; Draw: 8 )
35-22 (ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Shanghai, China; 10.10.2010; 1000; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 56)
35-23 (US Open, NY, U.S.A.; 30.08.2010; GS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 128 )
36-23 (ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Cincinnati, OH, U.S.A.; 15.08.2010; 1000; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 56)
37-23 (ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Canada, Toronto, Canada; 09.08.2010; 1000; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 56)
37-24 (Wimbledon, Great Britain; 21.06.2010; GS; Outdoor: Grass; Draw: 128 )
37-25 (Roland Garros, France; 24.05.2010; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128 )
37-26 (ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Madrid, Spain; 09.05.2010; 1000; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56)
37-27 (ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Rome, Italy; 25.04.2010; 1000; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56)
38-27 (Australian Open, Australia; 18.01.2010; GS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 128 )
38-28 (Doha, Qatar; 04.01.2010; 250; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 32)

2011
39-28 (Barclays ATP World Tour Finals, Great Britain; 20.11.2011; WC; Indoor: Hard; Draw: 16)
39-29 (US Open, NY, U.S.A.; 29.08.2011; GS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 128 )
39-30 (Wimbledon, Great Britain; 20.06.2011; GS; Outdoor: Grass; Draw: 128 )
39-31 (Roland Garros, France; 22.05.2011; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128 )
39-32 (ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Rome, Italy; 08.05.2011; 1000; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56)
39-33 (ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Madrid, Spain; 01.05.2011; 1000; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56)
39-34 (ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Monte Carlo, Monaco; 10.04.2011; 1000; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56)
39-35 (ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Miami, FL, U.S.A.; 23.03.2011; 1000; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 96)
39-36 (ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Indian Wells, CA, U.S.A.; 10.03.2011; 1000; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 96)
40-36 (Doha, Qatar; 03.01.2011; 250; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 32)

2012
41-36 (Wimbledon, Great Britain; 25.06.2012; GS; Outdoor: Grass; Draw: 128 )
42-36 (Halle, Germany; 11.06.2012; 250; Outdoor: Grass; Draw: 28 )
42-37 (Roland Garros, France; 27.05.2012; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128 )
42-38 (ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Rome, Italy; 13.05.2012; 1000; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56)
43-38 (ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Madrid, Spain; 06.05.2012; 1000; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56)
44-38 (ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Indian Wells, CA, U.S.A.; 08.03.2012; 1000; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 96)
44-39 (Australian Open, Australia; 16.01.2012; GS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 128 )

2013
44-40 (Barclays ATP World Tour Finals, Great Britain; 04.11.2013; WC; Indoor: Hard; Draw: 8 )
44-41 (US Open, NY, U.S.A.; 26.08.2013; GS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 128 )
44-42 (ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Cincinnati, OH, U.S.A.; 11.08.2013; 1000; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 56)
44-43 (Roland Garros, France; 27.05.2013; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128 )
44-44 (ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Rome, Italy; 12.05.2013; 1000; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56)
44-45 (ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Madrid, Spain; 05.05.2013; 1000; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56)
44-46 (ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Indian Wells, CA, U.S.A.; 07.03.2013; 1000; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 96)

2014
45-46 (ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Shanghai, Shanghai, China; 05.10.2014; 1000; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 56)
46-46 (Wimbledon, Great Britain; 23.06.2014; GS; Outdoor: Grass; Draw: 128 )
47-46 (Halle, Germany; 09.06.2014; 250; Outdoor: Grass; Draw: 28 )
47-47 (Roland Garros, France; 26.05.2014; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128 )
47-48 (ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Rome, Italy; 11.05.2014; 1000; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56)
48-48 (ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Monte Carlo, Monaco; 13.04.2014; 1000; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56)
48-49 (ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Miami, FL, U.S.A.; 19.03.2014; 1000; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 96)
49-49 (ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Indian Wells, CA, U.S.A.; 06.03.2014; 1000; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 96)
49-50 (Australian Open, Australia; 13.01.2014; GS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 128 )

I highlighted the events where they played each other - thought it might be interesting to see how the 23-10 h2h blended with Federer's 39-27 advantage when one made their appointment in a given draw that the other missed.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

I'm really getting sick and tired of Russel acting like he is intellectually superior to everyone and all his caustic remarks assuming that if one doesn't agree with him they are somehow lacking. He truthfully should have been banned when he created that infantile, vulgar thread calling me out, but I decided not to press it.

Anyways, just because a metric is applied evenly does not make it "fair". There were more instances where Nadal didn't meet Federer than vice versa, which shows Federer was more consistent not that he is better head to head. And even if they were equal in that regard, Nadal leads the h2h by a significant margin, so logic would dictate he would win at least SOME of the imaginary head to head battles.

You can't just award an imaginary h2h victory and the fact that the real h2h is 23-10 and your made up one has the guy who has 10 leading shows that it is not "fair". It's really as simple as that.

 

[torpantennis]

Yeah, it's Federer fault since he should have skipped those events instead of making the finals.

Exactly like Nadal will now do for 2014 World Tour Finals! :evil:

 

[Gary Duane]

If I were to somehow include the projected calendar for Nadal, as regards tournaments he actually missed, it would significantly boost Federer's numbers. I chose, instead, to only show tournaments where both showed up. Unsurprisingly, this concept has proven to be too abstract for some.

The problem is that you are not allowed to have a point of view here.

But I do have a question:

2003
1-0 (ATP Masters Series Madrid, Spain; 13.10.2003; SU; Indoor: Hard; Draw: 48 )
2-0 (Wimbledon, England; 23.06.2003; GS; Outdoor: Grass; Draw: 128 )

Didn't he lose in Madrid that year in the semis?

Are you listing all tournaments that both Nadal and Fed were in together, then giving a point to the guy who got the farthest in that tournament even when one or the other did not win?

I'm a bit confused.

 

[Gary Duane]

I highlighted the events where they played each other - thought it might be interesting to see how the 23-10 h2h blended with Federer's 39-27 advantage when one made their appointment in a given draw that the other missed.

I like that.

 

[eldanger25]

I'm really getting sick and tired of Russel acting like he is intellectually superior to everyone and all his caustic remarks assuming that if one doesn't agree with him they are somehow lacking. He truthfully should have been banned when he created that infantile, vulgar thread calling me out, but I decided not to press it.

Anyways, just because a metric is applied evenly does not make it "fair". There were more instances where Nadal didn't meet Federer than vice versa, which shows Federer was more consistent not that he is better head to head. And even if they were equal in that regard, Nadal leads the h2h by a significant margin, so logic would dictate he would win at least SOME of the imaginary head to head battles.

You can't just award an imaginary h2h victory and the fact that the real h2h is 23-10 and your made up one has the guy who has 10 leading shows that it is not "fair". It's really as simple as that.

I understand your point, but I think of the list not as awarding victories, but combining their h2h encounters with instances where one or the other but not both turned up for their scheduled match at each tournament both entered throughout their careers.

In that sense, it's a pretty interesting roadmap for two inextricably linked careers.

 

[eldanger25]

Inspired by Russel's list, I did a little back of the envelope calculations for a Nadal-Djokovic companion list:

Looks to me that Nadal would be ahead 53-36 when you combine h2h with one or the other making their appointment at a given draw. So 23-19 h2h for Nadal; 30-17 Nadal w/r/t making appointments.

Here's an early breakdown by tournament type:

17-8 Nadal at the majors
2-2 at the YEC
1-0 Nadal at the Olympics
30-22 Nadal at the MS1000s
4-3 Djokovic at 500 series, 250 series, and Davis Cup events

Might try to work it up in a similar format to Russel's, if folks are interested.

 

[tennisaddict]

If you look at the year end picture, it is very telling how much Fed has declined since 2011.

Fed was leading 38-28 with a +10 differential. In 2013, Nadal wiped almost the whole deficit.

2003 : 2-0
2004 : 7-1
2005 : 13-3
2006: 20-7
2007: 28-12
2008 : 29-18
2009 : 33-22
2010: 38-28

2011: 40-36
2012: 44-39
2013: 44-46
2014: 49-50

 

[eldanger25]

If you look at the year end picture, it is very telling how much Fed has declined since 2011.

Fed was leading 38-28 with a +10 differential. In 2013, Nadal wiped almost the whole deficit.

2003 : 2-0
2004 : 7-1
2005 : 13-3
2006: 20-7
2007: 28-12
2008 : 29-18
2009 : 33-22
2010: 38-28

2011: 40-36
2012: 44-39
2013: 44-46
2014: 49-50

Yep - though Fed certainly rallied in 2012 (particularly given that Nadal missed the second half of the year, when Federer is usually stronger).

Interestingly, Fed had that same 10 match lead after 2005, suggesting that they were pretty much dead even in these metrics b/w 2006-10 (the 5 year period when it was the preeminent rivalry in the game).

They're also pretty damn close if you widen it out to encompass Nadal's first GS win in 2005 to Fed's last one in 2012.

 

[Russeljones]

The problem is that you are not allowed to have a point of view here.

But I do have a question:

Didn't he lose in Madrid that year in the semis?

Are you listing all tournaments that both Nadal and Fed were in together, then giving a point to the guy who got the farthest in that tournament even when one or the other did not win?

I'm a bit confused.

No, I am following a single rule throughout. If one arrives at a juncture in the draw where he can meet the other and the latter does not make it, the first is awarded a point (the less controversial word substituting "win"). Nadal lost to Corretja who, in turn, then faced Federer.

 

[Russeljones]

Inspired by Russel's list, I did a little back of the envelope calculations for a Nadal-Djokovic companion list:

Looks to me that Nadal would be ahead 53-36 when you combine h2h with one or the other making their appointment at a given draw. So 23-19 h2h for Nadal; 30-17 Nadal w/r/t making appointments.

Here's an early breakdown by tournament type:

17-8 Nadal at the majors
2-2 at the YEC
1-0 Nadal at the Olympics
30-22 Nadal at the MS1000s
4-3 Djokovic at 500 series, 250 series, and Davis Cup events

Might try to work it up in a similar format to Russel's, if folks are interested.

I was thinking (after I was done with Roger-Nadal) how Nadal - Djokovic would pan out, but I have to admit the amount of work is prohibiting. Every correction takes me ages. Maybe someone more nifty with Vlookup or something can make it a lot quicker, but I have my limitations

Would be nice to see the trends in the years.

 

[TMF]

If you look at the year end picture, it is very telling how much Fed has declined since 2011.

Fed was leading 38-28 with a +10 differential. In 2013, Nadal wiped almost the whole deficit.

2003 : 2-0
2004 : 7-1
2005 : 13-3
2006: 20-7
2007: 28-12
2008 : 29-18
2009 : 33-22
2010: 38-28

2011: 40-36
2012: 44-39
2013: 44-46
2014: 49-50

The trends is also affected by the courts slowing down over the years. Of course that's an advantage for Nadal.

 

[Gary Duane]

No, I am following a single rule throughout. If one arrives at a juncture in the draw where he can meet the other and the latter does not make it, the first is awarded a point (the less controversial word substituting "win"). Nadal lost to Corretja who, in turn, then faced Federer.

Thank you.

In this case A (Corretja) beats B (Nadal) and C (Fed) beats A.

How about when Nadal or Fed get taken out by someone, then that player is eliminated before the other meets him?

An example would be that someone like Karlovic has a hot day, smokes either one of them, then Karlovic is out in the next match. Whoever is left faces a completely different opponent.

I'll have to recheck your list later. Long day at work.

 

[Russeljones]

Thank you.

In this case A (Corretja) beats B (Nadal) and C (Fed) beats A.

How about when Nadal or Fed get taken out by someone, then that player is eliminated before the other meets him?

An example would be that someone like Karlovic has a hot day, smokes either one of them, then Karlovic is out in the next match. Whoever is left faces a completely different opponent.

I'll have to recheck your list later. Long day at work.

The outcome of the match with the eliminator does not matter in this analysis. It is purely about who arrives at that particular point in the draw and who fails to do so. You can see that both were awarded points on numerous occasions despite also losing to the person who defeated the other. The deciding factor is 'when'.

 

[Gary Duane]

The outcome of the match with the eliminator does not matter in this analysis. It is purely about who arrives at that particular point in the draw and who fails to do so. You can see that both were awarded points on numerous occasions despite also losing to the person who defeated the other. The deciding factor is 'when'.

Got it. The way you totaled it makes me dizzy because you have each year starting at the end of the year, moving to the beginning, but you are adding points in the opposite direction, from beginning of the year to the end.

It certainly is another view of their rivalry. It's not surprising that a very young Nadal would not normally have a very good chance in tournaments where Fed was also playing, not because of Fed but because of his youth.

Nadal started 2003 ranked 203 in the world. He only made it to 49 at the end of that year.

Fed start 2003 at 6 and ended at 2.

Nadal started 2005 at 50 and ended at 2.

I would say from this that Nadal edged toward his prime only 2 years after Fed, which means that they actually shared primes more than most players. It's not all about age. This actually gave Nadal in edge while they were both younger.

This has been a horrible year for Nadal and a great year for 33 year-old Fed. The next 5 years are going to be very interesting. If Fed keeps going for a couple more years and has a Tommy Haas run in his middle 30s, that will boost his "claim" to be GOAT. If Nadal is forced to retire soon, that will be a knock against him, in the long run. JMacs sudden fall at an earlier age has hurt his rep, and we both know it hurt Borg when he suddenly disappeared at about age 26. Players like Conners, Agassi and Rosewall get extra respect for what they did later in their careers. When these guys were way past their primes, they still excited us on special days. The old guys could still beat anyone in the world. They just could not do it consistently. (Think of Gonzales...)

I want Roger to keep going to at least 35, and I would be thrilled to see him win another slam.

But I also hope Nadal will surprise us all, get healthy, and have a 2015 that may not be as good as 2013 but that will still be very good.

 

[Russeljones]

Yeah, it has been an exhilarating ride for all tennis fans. The only reason why the tournaments are in reverse is because I used the information from the playing activity tab on the atpworldtour website. It looks awkward but I thought that for our purpose it didn't really make a difference.

I think of Nadal as a textbook early bloomer, like a Michael Owen in English football. It seems that, like the latter, his body may be failing him at a similar age too - the peak of most people's powers.

 

[Backspin1183]

By the way, this is one of the most interesting and funniest threads I've seen on this forum.

 

[Gary Duane]

I think of Nadal as a textbook early bloomer, like a Michael Owen in English football. It seems that, like the latter, his body may be failing him at a similar age too - the peak of most people's powers.

I see the whole idea of "peak" or "prime" as being related to:

1) Emotional maturity.
2) Growth cycle.
3) Playing style (surface).

The great clay court players seem to rely on speed, reflexes and physical recovery. I wish we had the same kind of in depth statistics for players from decades ago, but to me it is important that Borg also peaked very early and retired early. He won the FO two years before Wimbledon. That reminds me a lot of Nadal. So in general I think that FO is won before Wimbledon. That said, Becker might negate that. Perhaps he is an outlier in all ways.

As for growth, Becker, Nadal and Fed all looked like adults when they were quite young. Other players look almost frail in their early years.

In general I would say that very talented players with a lot of choices take longer to adopt a successful game plan. In that category I would put Fed, Dimitrov and others.

 

[Russeljones]

I see the whole idea of "peak" or "prime" as being related to:

1) Emotional maturity.
2) Growth cycle.
3) Playing style (surface).

The great clay court players seem to rely on speed, reflexes and physical recovery. I wish we had the same kind of in depth statistics for players from decades ago, but to me it is important that Borg also peaked very early and retired early. He won the FO two years before Wimbledon. That reminds me a lot of Nadal. So in general I think that FO is won before Wimbledon. That said, Becker might negate that. Perhaps he is an outlier in all ways.

As for growth, Becker, Nadal and Fed all looked like adults when they were quite young. Other players look almost frail in their early years.

In general I would say that very talented players with a lot of choices take longer to adopt a successful game plan. In that category I would put Fed, Dimitrov and others.

You raise an interesting point. Something I think I touched on in a conversation with someone earlier today. In some regards, talent is a burden. The person constantly labours under the perceived expectation of what he should be achieving. This awareness that accompanies the individual in every step of his way must surely place a lot of weight on him/her. So yes, I agree wholeheartedly that it takes some longer to develop for exactly that reason.

In terms of Becker, I find that an amusing paradox. Everything I know about the game tells me a quick game of tennis where reflexes and natural ability should outweigh experience and physical prowess. This would translate into many young Wimbledon champions. On the other hand, slow and punishing exchanges on clay should favour the experienced and physically mature players. This should preclude numerous young Roland Garros champions. Odd right?

 

[Aggasirules5]

I like the idea by Russel Jones. Clearly a lot of thought and effort has been put into compiling this list. Two pertinent points accentuated are:

1)Tennis is a game of match ups
2)Federer should not be penalised for making finals and not getting knocked out in earlier rounds.

However, one thing is undeniable. Nadal has totally had the better of Federer in HTH matches. You could point towards mitigating factors (age difference, the points put forward by OP, surface disparity, match up problem etc) but all said and done 23-10 is a little too much. Ifs and buts are unimportant in the grand scheme of things in the real world but if Federer had not choked Rome 2006, Wimbledon 2008(mono), Australian Open 2009 and if he had taken 2013 off when he was clearly injured(they played 4 times that year alone, it was 18-10 prior to 2013 with Federer leading on grass and hards, Nadal leading on clay), then the HTH would be far more even.

I think YE rankings are a corollary of the data presented in the OP. The fact that Federer has finished on top of Nadal many more times than the other way around definitely negates them HTH by a fair margin.

 

[Gary Duane]

In terms of Becker, I find that an amusing paradox. Everything I know about the game tells me a quick game of tennis where reflexes and natural ability should outweigh experience and physical prowess. This would translate into many young Wimbledon champions.

I think that grass tennis demands a very definite plan. In general we expect older players to dominate far longer in doubles, and doubles demands incredibly fast reactions.

On the other hand, slow and punishing exchanges on clay should favour the experienced and physically mature players. This should preclude numerous young Roland Garros champions. Odd right?

Physical maturity in tennis is a bit hard to define. I was watching young Rublev last night, and he game surprisingly close to winning that match against Groth, who edged him out in a TB and then 7:5 in the 2nd set. The kid has not even come close to fully growing into his body. Even so, I'd wager the reason he lost was lack of experience.

I would say that Becker was an outlier because he was such a big kid. He didn't need to get bigger or stronger, and he was probably very precocious in terms of "tennis IQ".

On clay I would call Ferrer an outlier. He continues to use the kind of brute strength that Nada uses, but that (along with his will power) is not enough to dominate on any surface.

At the moment I think that the skills for winning on grass are closer to those needed in doubles, where ending points fast and going for angles favors slightly older players. Frankly, I thought Fed had a good chance at Wimbledon this year just because of that.

 

[Russeljones]

I think that grass tennis demands a very definite plan. In general we expect older players to dominate far longer in doubles, and doubles demands incredibly fast reactions.

Physical maturity in tennis is a bit hard to define. I was watching young Rublev last night, and he game surprisingly close to winning that match against Groth, who edged him out in a TB and then 7:5 in the 2nd set. The kid has not even come close to fully growing into his body. Even so, I'd wager the reason he lost was lack of experience.

I would say that Becker was an outlier because he was such a big kid. He didn't need to get bigger or stronger, and he was probably very precocious in terms of "tennis IQ".

On clay I would call Ferrer an outlier. He continues to use the kind of brute strength that Nada uses, but that (along with his will power) is not enough to dominate on any surface.

At the moment I think that the skills for winning on grass are closer to those needed in doubles, where ending points fast and going for angles favors slightly older players. Frankly, I thought Fed had a good chance at Wimbledon this year just because of that.

And your last paragraph begs the question, could Federer have a second career in doubles with the right partner? In mixed doubles, particularly, I could see him play on into his late 40's maybe.

 

[Russeljones]

I like the idea by Russel Jones. Clearly a lot of thought and effort has been put into compiling this list. Two pertinent points accentuated are:

1)Tennis is a game of match ups
2)Federer should not be penalised for making finals and not getting knocked out in earlier rounds.

However, one thing is undeniable. Nadal has totally had the better of Federer in HTH matches. You could point towards mitigating factors (age difference, the points put forward by OP, surface disparity, match up problem etc) but all said and done 23-10 is a little too much. Ifs and buts are unimportant in the grand scheme of things in the real world but if Federer had not choked Rome 2006, Wimbledon 2008(mono), Australian Open 2009 and if he had taken 2013 off when he was clearly injured(they played 4 times that year alone, it was 18-10 prior to 2013 with Federer leading on grass and hards, Nadal leading on clay), then the HTH would be far more even.

I think YE rankings are a corollary of the data presented in the OP. The fact that Federer has finished on top of Nadal many more times than the other way around definitely negates them HTH by a fair margin.

Thanks for having a look. It's very interesting to see the fluctuations in form, in terms of going deep in tournaments. If I had more time, I would have maybe plotted the other tournaments the two played in the respective years. That might have given a fuller picture of their form in the corresponding period.

 

[dpli2010]

Thanks for having a look. It's very interesting to see the fluctuations in form, in terms of going deep in tournaments. If I had more time, I would have maybe plotted the other tournaments the two played in the respective years. That might have given a fuller picture of their form in the corresponding period.

Looking forward to that...

 

[kandamrgam]

Inspired by Russel's list, I did a little back of the envelope calculations for a Nadal-Djokovic companion list:

Looks to me that Nadal would be ahead 53-36 when you combine h2h with one or the other making their appointment at a given draw. So 23-19 h2h for Nadal; 30-17 Nadal w/r/t making appointments.

Here's an early breakdown by tournament type:

17-8 Nadal at the majors
2-2 at the YEC
1-0 Nadal at the Olympics
30-22 Nadal at the MS1000s
4-3 Djokovic at 500 series, 250 series, and Davis Cup events

Might try to work it up in a similar format to Russel's, if folks are interested.

Go ahead, post for us. Give us a link here. Appreciate it.

 

[kandamrgam]

Russel Jones, Good work. Tells us something. I don't know what's wrong with haters, but may be you could have worded better to convey you're not making up some artificial h2h..

Two things.

1. Rafa leads the Slam results 18 to 16 which would be more important. And Masters should be even more in favour of Rafa.

2. Did you miss the Wimbledon for 2013? Rafa lost in first round and Roger in 2nd.

 

[Russeljones]

Russel Jones, Good work. Tells us something. I don't know what's wrong with haters, but may be you could have worded better to convey you're not making up some artificial h2h..

Two things.

1. Rafa leads the Slam results 18 to 16 which would be more important. And Masters should be even more in favour of Rafa.

2. Did you miss the Wimbledon for 2013? Rafa lost in first round and Roger in 2nd.

2013 is an example of a tournament that does not meet the conditions of this comparison. Neither got into a position where they would have been "waiting" for the other.

 

[kandamrgam]

^^ Ok thanks

 

[Gary Duane]

And your last paragraph begs the question, could Federer have a second career in doubles with the right partner? In mixed doubles, particularly, I could see him play on into his late 40's maybe.

My answer: Absolutely yes. Just look at Paes.

I think doubles is great for older players. Less pressure, more fun. They can balance a far easier schedule against the rest of their lives.

JMac was still a threat as late as 93, already then older than Fed. So yes, a healthy Fed can still be dangerous in doubles for at least a few more years.

 

[eldanger25]

Nadal-Djokovic

2005
1-0 (Roland Garros, France; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128 )
2-0 (ATP Masters Series Canada, Toronto, Canada; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 64)
3-0 (ATP Masters Series Madrid, Spain; Indoor: Hard; Draw: 48 )

2006
4-0 (ATP Masters Series Monte Carlo, Monaco; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 64)
5-0 (ATP 500 Series Barcelona, Spain; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56)
6-0 (ATP Masters Series Rome, Italy; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 64)
7-0 (Roland Garros, France; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128 )
8-0 (Wimbledon, England; GS; Outdoor: Grass; Draw: 128 )

2007
9-0 (ATP Masters Series Indian Wells, CA, U.S.A.; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 96)
9-1 (ATP Masters Series Miami, FL, U.S.A.; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 96)
10-1 (ATP Masters Series Monte Carlo, Monaco; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56)
11-1 (ATP Masters Series Rome, Italy; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56)
12-1 (ATP Masters Series Hamburg, Germany; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56)
13-1 (Roland Garros, France; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128 )
14-1 (Wimbledon, Great Britain; GS; Outdoor: Grass; Draw: 128 )
14-2 (ATP Masters Series Canada, Toronto, Canada; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 56)
14-3 (US Open, NY, U.S.A.; GS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 128 )
14-4 (ATP Masters Series Madrid, Spain; Indoor: Hard; Draw: 48 )
15-4 (ATP Masters Series Paris, France; Indoor: Hard; Draw: 48 )
16-4 (Tennis Masters Cup, China; Indoor: Hard; Draw: 8 )

2008
16-5 (Australian Open, Australia; GS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 128 )
16-6 (Dubai, U.A.E.; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 32)
16-7 (ATP Masters Series Indian Wells, CA, U.S.A.; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 96)
17-7 (ATP Masters Series Miami, FL, U.S.A.; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 96)
18-7 (ATP Masters Series Monte Carlo, Monaco; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56)
18-8 (ATP Masters Series Rome, Italy; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56)
19-8 (ATP Masters Series Hamburg, Germany; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56)
20-8 (Roland Garros, France; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128 )
21-8 (ATP 250 Series London/Queens Club, Great Britain; Outdoor: Grass; Draw: 56)
22-8 (Wimbledon, Great Britain; GS; Outdoor: Grass; Draw: 128 )
23-8 (ATP Masters Series Canada, Toronto, Canada; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 56)
23-9 (ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Cincinnati, OH, U.S.A.; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 56)
24-9 (Beijing Olympics, China; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 64)
25-9 (ATP Masters Series Madrid, Spain; Indoor: Hard; Draw: 48 )

2009
26-9 (Australian Open, Australia; GS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 128 )
27-9 (Davis Cup, ESP v. SRB, WG 1st Round, Spain; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 4)
28-9 (ATP Masters Series Indian Wells, CA, U.S.A.; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 96)
28-10 (ATP Masters Series Miami, FL, U.S.A.; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 96)
29-10 (ATP Masters Series Monte Carlo, Monaco; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56)
30-10 (ATP Masters Series Rome, Italy; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56)
31-10 (ATP Masters Series Madrid, Spain; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56)
31-11 (ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Cincinnati, OH, U.S.A.; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 56)
31-12 (ATP 500 Series Beijing, China; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 32)
32-12 (ATP Masters Series Shanghai, China; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 56)
32-13 (ATP Masters Series Paris, France; Indoor: Hard; Draw: 48 )
32-14 (Barclays ATP World Tour Finals, London, England; Indoor: Hard; Draw: 8 )

2010
33-14 (ATP Masters Series Indian Wells, CA, U.S.A.; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 96)
34-14 (ATP Masters Series Miami, FL, U.S.A.; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 96)
35-14 (ATP Masters Series Monte Carlo, Monaco; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56)
36-14 (ATP Masters Series Rome, Italy; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56)
37-14 (Roland Garros, France; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128 )
38-14 (Wimbledon, Great Britain; GS; Outdoor: Grass; Draw: 128 )
39-14 (US Open, NY, U.S.A.; GS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 128 )
40-14 (Barclays ATP World Tour Finals, London, England; Indoor: Hard; Draw: 8 )

2011
40-15 (Australian Open, Australia; GS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 128 )
40-16 (ATP Masters Series Indian Wells, CA, U.S.A.; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 96)
40-17 (ATP Masters Series Miami, FL, U.S.A.; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 96)
40-18 (ATP Masters Series Madrid, Spain; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56)
40-19 (ATP Masters Series Rome, Italy; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56)
41-19 (Roland Garros, France; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128 )
41-20 (Wimbledon, Great Britain; GS; Outdoor: Grass; Draw: 128 )
41-21 (ATP Masters Series Canada, Toronto, Canada; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 56)
41-22 (ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Cincinnati, OH, U.S.A.; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 56)
41-23 (US Open, NY, U.S.A.; GS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 128 )

2012
41-24 (Australian Open, Australia; GS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 128 )
41-25 (ATP Masters Series Miami, FL, U.S.A.; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 96)
42-25 (ATP Masters Series Monte Carlo, Monaco; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56)
43-25 (ATP Masters Series Rome, Italy; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56)
44-25 (Roland Garros, France; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128 )

2013
45-25 (ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Indian Wells, CA, U.S.A.; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 96)
45-26 (ATP Masters Series Monte Carlo, Monaco; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56)
46-26 (ATP Masters Series Madrid, Spain; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56)
47-26 (ATP Masters Series Rome, Italy; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56)
48-26 (Roland Garros, France; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128 )
48-27 (Wimbledon, Great Britain; GS; Outdoor: Grass; Draw: 128 )
49-27 (ATP Masters Series Canada, Toronto, Canada; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 56)
50-27 (ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Cincinnati, OH, U.S.A.; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 56)
51-27 (US Open, NY, U.S.A.; GS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 128 )
51-28 (ATP 500 Series Beijing, China; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 32)
51-29 (ATP Masters Series Shanghai, China; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 56)
51-30 (ATP Masters Series Paris, France; Indoor: Hard; Draw: 48 )
51-31 (Barclays ATP World Tour Finals, London, England; Indoor: Hard; Draw: 8 )

2014
52-31 (Australian Open, Australia; GS; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 128 )
52-32 (ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Indian Wells, CA, U.S.A.; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 96)
52-33 (ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Miami, FL, U.S.A.; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 96)
52-34 (ATP Masters Series Rome, Italy; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 56)
53-34 (Roland Garros, France; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128 )
53-35 (Wimbledon, Great Britain; GS; Outdoor: Grass; Draw: 128 )
53-36 (ATP 500 Series Beijing, China; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 32)

By season:

2005: Nadal 3-0
2006: Nadal 5-0
2007: Nadal 8-4
2008: Nadal 9-5
2009: Nadal 7-5
2010: Nadal 8-0
2011: Djokovic 9-1
2012: Nadal 3-2
2013: Nadal 7-6
2014: Djokovic: 5-2

Note: Basically, they're dead even since 2010.

By event category:

Grand Slams: Nadal 17-8 (Djokovic 3-2 AO; Nadal 9-0 RG; Nadal 4-3 SW19; tied 2-2 Open)
YEC: tied, 2-2
Olympics: Nadal 1-0
Davis Cup: Nadal 1-0
MS 1000s: Nadal 30-22
ATP 500 & 250 series: Djokovic 4-2

By surface:

Clay: Nadal 27-5
Grass: Nadal 5-3
Outdoor Hard: Djokovic 23-16
Indoor Hard: tied, 5-5

 

[Gary Duane]

Nadal-Djokovic

Be prepared for attacks by rabid fans on both sides!

I find all this very interesting, just food for thought.

Thanks for taking the time to do this.

 

[Russeljones]

eldanger, I just want to say I have seen it and I will comment on this. I've just been very busy with the kids and work. Surprised there's no one to comment on your work. I know what an effort that took.

 

[eldanger25]

eldanger, I just want to say I have seen it and I will comment on this. I've just been very busy with the kids and work. Surprised there's no one to comment on your work. I know what an effort that took.

No worries - get caught up in real life myself from time to time.

I actually created a standalone thread on it here - http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=515536 - got a few early comments, including the predictable full-blown sh*t fit from Chico about the results. Can't imagine how he'd handle a Federer-Djokovic version - almost tempts me to take a swing at one later in the week.

Looking forward to your thoughts.

 

[SpinToWin]

I think people are misinterpreting the list. The way I understand it, the list signifies that when Fed was at his strongest, Rafa often avoided a meeting with him on Fed's preferred surfaces, whereas that was not the case with Fed, who often met Nadal on his preferred surface(s). What influence this would have on their H2H we can only guess, but it would be a fairly educated guess to say that the gap between the two would be slightly less extreme. Nobody's trying to say their H2H is even or in Fed's favor even...

 

[dh003i]

I can see why people would get confused about what this list is trying to do, but it really needn't say anything about what their H2H would be or could have been. Had they met more on Federer's preferred surfaces, maybe the H2H would be the same; maybe it'd be more even because of Fed being better on those surfaces and racking up wins that could get in Rafa's head; maybe it'd be worse as Nadal would have developed faster on those surfaces, or if Fed lost to him earlier on his favored surfaces in Major finals (Wimby, USO, AO), that'd have altered his confidence. Who knows. That's an unanswerable question.

The list does show who won or went further in tournaments both players entered. It is essentially a simple measure of strength against the field.

However, I'd say why not just add up all ranking points both players accumulated throughout their joint years on the tour? That would calculate their "cummulative ranking" over the totality of years both have been on the tour.

 

[helloworld]

It doesn't matter where and when Fed meets Nadal. Nadal is going to beat Federer much more often than not. Even at his worst slam(AO), Nadal still leads Federer 3-0... Fed is pretty lucky that Nadal doesn't get the chance to beat him at the USO, not yet.

 

[TMF]

It doesn't matter where and when Fed meets Nadal. Nadal is going to beat Federer much more often than not. Even at his worst slam(AO), Nadal still leads Federer 3-0... Fed is pretty lucky that Nadal doesn't get the chance to beat him at the USO, not yet.

If Hewitt and Sampras have never played each other, you would predict that Sampras would have owned Hewitt.