Federer vs Nadal - the story. Direct matchup and instances when one couldn't make it
- Thread starter Russeljones
- Start date
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
There are several problems with such an approach. For one, the ATP introduced a major change in 2009 that leaves me uneasy about making direct points comparisons. Also, it will penalize the person who opted out of tournaments which, let's face it, would further inflame those who wish to see conspiracies. I am sure we can all come up with more angles for comparison, I just thought about this one and it came about with some difficulty.
eldanger25
Hall of Fame
I took a (relatively speaking) quick look at the Federer-Djokovic numbers. Looks to me like Fed is ahead 59-44 under these metrics, with a 22-14 gap in the majors, 3-3 tie at the YEC, 1-0 lead at the Olympics and 1-0 Davis Cup, 26-24 lead at MS1000 events, and 6-3 lead at 500 series events and smaller. As with Nadal-Djokovic, I might try to write out the specifics later this week.
Note that Federer went 20-1 against Djokovic under your metric through AO 2010 at the majors, and Novak's 13-2 since then (Roger's only points came at RG 2011 and SW19 2012). Pretty consistent with the age gap when you think about it.
Will be interesting to see to what extent Djokovic gains on Federer through the next few years. You'd think that Djokovic is poised to gain further on Federer in the coming years - and he likely will - but they're 5-5 in 2014 so far, so who knows?
Note that Federer went 20-1 against Djokovic under your metric through AO 2010 at the majors, and Novak's 13-2 since then (Roger's only points came at RG 2011 and SW19 2012). Pretty consistent with the age gap when you think about it.
Will be interesting to see to what extent Djokovic gains on Federer through the next few years. You'd think that Djokovic is poised to gain further on Federer in the coming years - and he likely will - but they're 5-5 in 2014 so far, so who knows?
If Nadal and Federer never played each other, you would predict that Federer would have owned Nadal.
Not on clay. But on other surfaces I wouldn't be far off.
Grass and indoor I would be spot on. I would probably give Fed the edge at AO though. But, peak Fed would probably beat Rafa if both the same age even at AO, like maybe 4-2.
I bet you would predict that Rafa would own Davy, Rosol, Darcis, Kyrgios if they never played too.
It's only AO that doesn't reflect their records well. Clay, it's fine. Grass, fine. Indoor fine. USO, they didn't play, so it's fine.
But AO doesn't reflect their h2h at all. 4 vs 1 titles.
Last edited:
beast of mallorca
G.O.A.T.
If Nadal and Federer never played each other, you would predict that Federer would have owned Nadal.
:twisted::twisted::twisted:
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
Brilliant! Roger can still bring it in best of 3, but the picture changes in best of 5. As expected really. Thanks for having a look!
That old washed up Federer can still hold his own vs prime Murray, Nole and Rafa is proof of his greatness.
And it's not like it's some match here and there. Fed is owning Murray and going toe to toe with Nole and is ranked nr.2. And vs all-time greats, it's not like Agassi who was nr.1 at that age without 5 years younger all-time greats on his back.
2012 and 2014 says it all. Rafa and Nole and Murray are struggling to win majors and they are prime and don't have all-time greats behind their back.
No, even guys like Cilic, Nishikori, Wawrinka are challenging them
.
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
That old washed up Federer can still hold his own vs prime Murray, Nole and Rafa is proof of his greatness.
And it's not like it's some match here and there. Fed is owning Murray and going toe to toe with Nole and is ranked nr.2. And vs all-time greats, it's not like Agassi who was nr.1 at that age without 5 years younger all-time greats on his back.
2012 and 2014 says it all. Rafa and Nole and Murray are struggling to win majors and they are prime and don't have all-time greats behind their back.
No, even guys like Cilic, Nishikori, Wawrinka are challenging them
Did you say Rafa?
Did you say Rafa?
Yeah, I did, he is ranked higher than Rafa. So, clearly he holds his owns vs Rafa too.
Oh, I see, you see tennis as 1v1 guys, I see it as vs the field. When I compare players vs each other, I mean how they do vs all the field.
I mean it would be illogical otherwise, because it would mean Djokovic can't hold his own vs Nishikori. So, clearly you agree when we compare them vs the field. That is rankings.
But, ok we can have it your way. In that case yes, Fed can't hold his own vs Rafa and Nole and Rafa can't hold their own vs Wawrinka, but Fed can.
helloworld
Hall of Fame
Old age? He was like 30, Fed is 33 lol. Plus Djokovic is a lot better than Hewitt.
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
Regardless of how I see tennis, it's about English language. I don't know if I would read it that way.
Point to be noted: "hold his own vs prime X" means to overtake him in ranking. Just wondering how is washed up Federer holding his own against Novak now. May be because he is soon to overtake?
Regardless of how I see tennis, it's about English language. I don't know if I would read it that way.
Point to be noted: "hold his own vs prime X" means to overtake him in ranking. Just wondering how is washed up Federer holding his own against Novak now. May be because he is soon to overtake?
What are you trying to say?
staceyliving
Banned
Silly logic as that would imply each time one failed to reach the other they were certain/likely to lose. It is probably a safe bet given the matchup in Nadal's favor already, that anytime Federer wasn't playing well enough to reach Nadal/beat the people Nadal beat he was going to lose everytime. However the reverse isn't true. Who really thinks Federer would have beaten Nadal at Roland Garros 2009 for instance, LOL! Nobody, despite that Nadal lost to the same player Federer beat. So as the breakdown has no basis in realism it means nothing ultimately.
Federer at this point is more accomplished but Nadal owns the matchup. Just accept it.
Federer at this point is more accomplished but Nadal owns the matchup. Just accept it.
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
I will quote you again:
What I'm trying to say is you can't say Fed is holding his own against Nadal and Djokovic. I would like to hear how you think that way. He is neither dominating Djokovic in ranking, nor beating Nadal in h2h. I hope it's clear what I was pointing. If you meant he is hanging with the top guys, that's fair, but not dominating.
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
"hold his own" in no way implies"dominating". What is your point?
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
So what does it mean? I dont care about the literal meaning. What does it mean in tennis context as far as Federer's accomplishments go?
Here's JG's own explanation and I quote:
Ranking was his idea. Roger is not above Novak. Do you have something to clarify on his part?
Last edited:
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
Go to school? The English dictionary is your friend?
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
School unfortunately doesn't teach about tennis, much less Federer and his 2014 exploits. That's why I'm asking you, what does it mean for Federer's 2014. Can you clarify JG's comment for me?
Algo
Hall of Fame
Either
- That he is a good competitor against them and is a contender in their matchs. - That he is capable of making the match be played to his terms and not what the other wants to make out of it.
Either way, it only sticks true against Nole. Nadal match up has always been lopsided
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
Ya ok. That's a case I presented myself. The original guy argues Federer holds his own against Nadal based on Federer's ranking. Fair enough.
kandamrgam
Hall of Fame
On what basis?
sportsfan1
Legend
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
It is logical that if he is not in good enough form to beat someone 50 places below him in the rankings, he will beat Federer? Yes, I can see how that would work.
Nadal: "Roger, mate, I stink but keep to the script, no?"
Roger: "The H2H, I know, you win!"
but Rafa's numbers are skewed because he takes time off from his least favorite section of the season.
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
One opportunity missed by both in 2015.
WhiskeyEE
G.O.A.T.
Two of those wins from Rafa were cheap as hell in 2013.
Finally meeting Federer between Wimbledon and WTF in his best HC season and Federer's worst. They met 5 times that year. Rafa couldn't have planned it better.
If Fed would've taken the year off like Rafa would've, the h2h would be 18-10.
Rafa's numbers are also skewed because he is almost 5 full years younger.
Rafa's numbers are also skewed because Federer got to finals of masters clay court tourneys and RG early in his career while Rafa could not get to Federer in finals on Federer's best surfaces. If there were 3 or 4 more big tournaments on grass and Rafa got to finals of these and American hard court in Federer's prime years, the H2H would be significantly different.
The bottom line is slams count the most. Then WTF and masters. Federer has the best numbers where it matters the most. Rafa's numbers are heavily concentrated on clay because Rafa is either the clay goat.
Basel 2014 and IW 2015 should be added to this list.
I agree with most of this list, but I don't think 2003 should count. He didn't establish himself as a top player until mid 2004.
And yes, IW 2015 goes to Fed. We were so close but Nadal didn't have what it takes to finish off Milos, ergo he would have lost to Fed in his current form.
And yes, IW 2015 goes to Fed. We were so close but Nadal didn't have what it takes to finish off Milos, ergo he would have lost to Fed in his current form.
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
After all this time, this will get an update.
HewittAlwaysDisappoints
Professional
what do these numbers mean, and how do I interpret them?
chjtennis
G.O.A.T.
This thread is not really a blind attempt to discredit Nadal but rather it shows how H2H should be viewed in context. It also shows why H2H in some special cases cannot determine who is above the other on hypothetical all time list. I think when it comes to Fedal rivalry, there certainly is more than just the face value in their H2H and we have to see where that heavy 'imbalance' comes from. It is a fact no matter how you spin it that Nadal is a tough match up for Federer, but it wasn't supposed to be this one-sided and there are reasons for that one-sidedness.
D
Deleted member 733170
Guest
There is no denying that Nadal has 'owned' Federer as you smugly put it.
The only fantasy is yours where you conclude that Nadal is a better player as a consequence of this.
NatF
Bionic Poster
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Where is Nadal?
In Finland.
Feather
Legend
I thought Roger was there in 2013 but he came back in 2014-2015.
Don't lose hope bro, hope Rafa will be back to playing well and winning a slam
NatF
Bionic Poster
Do you think Nadal would have beaten Federer if they met in the QF?
I think Nadal will win slams again. I don't think he's going to have another 08/10/13 style season though. Could definitely see a Federer 2012 run though.
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
2015 is looking quite good for Federer in the context of this system. He gets points for Wimbledon and now Cincinnati.
Feather
Legend
I kinda feel he finish number two year end unlesss Murray wins US Open. I hope these two play a sf on saturday night.
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
I am not sure if I share your optimism
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
I will again attempt to state my position clearly, perhaps this time with a cooler head and more respect for the OP
I think a logic-class style numbered approach will suffice:
1. Federer is undoubtedly more accomplished and a greater played to date than Nadal
2. Nadal is undoubtedly "better" than Federer mano a mano (i.e. H2H)
3. These are the cold, hard facts about the H2H with no interpretation: Nadal leads 23-10 and 9-2 in grand slams. He leads Federer off clay (not that clay isn't a surface, but this is a common criticism.) He also leads Federer off clay in slams; Federer's only slam wins both came at Wimbledon. He beat Federer in 3 slam meetings between the two men in a row(and 3 out of 4 slams in a row overall) on all 3 slam surfaces when Roger was 26 to 27 years old.
4. Here are 2 common criticisms of the H2H's validity and their counter points: the age difference, especially as of late before Nadal's decline this year. The counter argument would be that this favored Federer in the beginning, and Nadal beat Roger in their first ever meeting. In fact in their 2nd meeting again at Miami the next year, even Fed fans agree that Roger benefitted from a blown call and quite likely would have lost the match without it. (Nadal was up 2-0 sets and about to break to serve for the match...he would have had triple break point if the right call was made.) So, Rafa was beating Roger from the beginning and even at Wimbledon was getting really close at only age 21 in 2007, before finally doing it the next year. The 2 were basically even off clay, with Rafa totally dominating on clay since the beginning of their rivalry. The only area where Federer has been clearly superior is indoors at the WTF. Many try to suggest a fast hard court favors Rafa and that it's a "shame" Roger never got to "beat" Rafa in Flushing; but Rafa seems actually better at the US than AO...I would argue the disparity between levels at the 2 tournaments is at least equal for Rafa if not more than Roger (both guys being better in NY than Melbourne). Rafa also beat Roger in Dubai on a fast court at age 19 in Roger's best ever season.
5. It is true that there are quite a few occasions where Rafa "didn't make it" to Federer and that these are more numerous than vice versa; also it is true that they tend to be in conditions or on surface (or due to age) that it would be reasonable to surmise Roger would have a better shot at winning those meetings than a match say on clay.
6. To automatically award those meetings to Roger (even if nominally or with some couched statement) though is an error in logic that I can't agree with. Even if one does the reverse for Rafa as the OP did, this does not make it "fair" or the premise valid.
7. To wrapup the last point and really the whole post: It is obvious that there are more times that Rafa has "ducked" Roger than vice versa. Roger is more accomplished and tends to go further in his career on 2 of the 3 surface and in 3 of the 4 slams. The 2 men being, by luck of the draw, in the same bracket where they might meet would do nothing to change this fact, so logically it would be more likely that Rafa would be the one to "duck" Federer. This says NOTHING about whether Nadal would actually win those matches. If we are going to hypothesize anyway; considering Nadal's sizeable H2H lead starting from the beginning and the "matchup", one would have to assume that Nadal would likely be the victor in at least SOME of these matches. To assume not is to say that there is NO H2H or "matchup" advantage for Rafa, it's simply ALL a matter of Nadal ducking Fed. Fed fans themselves don't believe this because they offer other reasons as well such as those listed earlier. It's no accident that their "hyopethical H2H" is now 50-50 because it is an essential equalizer; i.e. Nadal is about as "less good" than Roger is at making it to where he "should" to meet Roger as he is better H2H when going up against Roger. This makes perfect sense to me and it really tells us nothing since we always knew Roger is better against the field and Rafa is better H2H. The error is in conflating issues so that we award Roger with make believe H2H wins (and illogically claim that this is "consistent" since we do the same vice versa) yet no one is challenging the fact that Roger is better overall. So is is a case of trying to have your cake and eat it too! If one wants to make the argument that the H2H might be a little less one-sided due to Roger's age, surface, or consistency (really another way of saying Rafa doesn't make it to Roger when Roger night be favored and that Roger is more accomplished overall ), then one could do that and we could maybe for hypothetical fun guess at what the H2H might look like in that case. I admit it might not be so one sided. I do think it would still considerably be in Nadal's favor. The point however is the metric applied in the OP is logically inconsistent and unfair. I still think it's a cool list overall, though.
I think a logic-class style numbered approach will suffice:
1. Federer is undoubtedly more accomplished and a greater played to date than Nadal
2. Nadal is undoubtedly "better" than Federer mano a mano (i.e. H2H)
3. These are the cold, hard facts about the H2H with no interpretation: Nadal leads 23-10 and 9-2 in grand slams. He leads Federer off clay (not that clay isn't a surface, but this is a common criticism.) He also leads Federer off clay in slams; Federer's only slam wins both came at Wimbledon. He beat Federer in 3 slam meetings between the two men in a row(and 3 out of 4 slams in a row overall) on all 3 slam surfaces when Roger was 26 to 27 years old.
4. Here are 2 common criticisms of the H2H's validity and their counter points: the age difference, especially as of late before Nadal's decline this year. The counter argument would be that this favored Federer in the beginning, and Nadal beat Roger in their first ever meeting. In fact in their 2nd meeting again at Miami the next year, even Fed fans agree that Roger benefitted from a blown call and quite likely would have lost the match without it. (Nadal was up 2-0 sets and about to break to serve for the match...he would have had triple break point if the right call was made.) So, Rafa was beating Roger from the beginning and even at Wimbledon was getting really close at only age 21 in 2007, before finally doing it the next year. The 2 were basically even off clay, with Rafa totally dominating on clay since the beginning of their rivalry. The only area where Federer has been clearly superior is indoors at the WTF. Many try to suggest a fast hard court favors Rafa and that it's a "shame" Roger never got to "beat" Rafa in Flushing; but Rafa seems actually better at the US than AO...I would argue the disparity between levels at the 2 tournaments is at least equal for Rafa if not more than Roger (both guys being better in NY than Melbourne). Rafa also beat Roger in Dubai on a fast court at age 19 in Roger's best ever season.
5. It is true that there are quite a few occasions where Rafa "didn't make it" to Federer and that these are more numerous than vice versa; also it is true that they tend to be in conditions or on surface (or due to age) that it would be reasonable to surmise Roger would have a better shot at winning those meetings than a match say on clay.
6. To automatically award those meetings to Roger (even if nominally or with some couched statement) though is an error in logic that I can't agree with. Even if one does the reverse for Rafa as the OP did, this does not make it "fair" or the premise valid.
7. To wrapup the last point and really the whole post: It is obvious that there are more times that Rafa has "ducked" Roger than vice versa. Roger is more accomplished and tends to go further in his career on 2 of the 3 surface and in 3 of the 4 slams. The 2 men being, by luck of the draw, in the same bracket where they might meet would do nothing to change this fact, so logically it would be more likely that Rafa would be the one to "duck" Federer. This says NOTHING about whether Nadal would actually win those matches. If we are going to hypothesize anyway; considering Nadal's sizeable H2H lead starting from the beginning and the "matchup", one would have to assume that Nadal would likely be the victor in at least SOME of these matches. To assume not is to say that there is NO H2H or "matchup" advantage for Rafa, it's simply ALL a matter of Nadal ducking Fed. Fed fans themselves don't believe this because they offer other reasons as well such as those listed earlier. It's no accident that their "hyopethical H2H" is now 50-50 because it is an essential equalizer; i.e. Nadal is about as "less good" than Roger is at making it to where he "should" to meet Roger as he is better H2H when going up against Roger. This makes perfect sense to me and it really tells us nothing since we always knew Roger is better against the field and Rafa is better H2H. The error is in conflating issues so that we award Roger with make believe H2H wins (and illogically claim that this is "consistent" since we do the same vice versa) yet no one is challenging the fact that Roger is better overall. So is is a case of trying to have your cake and eat it too! If one wants to make the argument that the H2H might be a little less one-sided due to Roger's age, surface, or consistency (really another way of saying Rafa doesn't make it to Roger when Roger night be favored and that Roger is more accomplished overall ), then one could do that and we could maybe for hypothetical fun guess at what the H2H might look like in that case. I admit it might not be so one sided. I do think it would still considerably be in Nadal's favor. The point however is the metric applied in the OP is logically inconsistent and unfair. I still think it's a cool list overall, though.
Russeljones
Talk Tennis Guru
@125downthemiddle I think you'll find it is entirely logical and consistent as it awards points without discrimination. This is the caveat to the rebuke of "assumption of victor". There is no statement in that post, only a chronological ordering of the possible matches between the two. The only point this post makes is that Federer has been beaten in roughly 2 out of every 3 matches played with Nadal and carries the stigma for that while Nadal is Teflon clean of negatives for failing to reach a meeting with Federer. To me, this was always an unfair state of affairs which I thought such an "analysis" would do well to put into context.
You can disagree with the implications this scoring has, but you cannot fault my logic.
You can disagree with the implications this scoring has, but you cannot fault my logic.
Jaitock1991
Hall of Fame
Let's just face it, guys. Fed would have struggled to beat Rafa on any surface, in any tournament, even back in his prime. That is simply the nature of the match-up advantage that Rafa holds on him.
No matter how fast & low bouncing the surface that they play on might be, Nadal will always impact the match much harder than his fairly limited game would suggest. Again, because of the match-up.
But the fact that Rafa didn't get to him in so many of those tournaments, is proof that Roger dominated THE ENTIRE FIELD better than Nadal has ever done, which is, at the end of the day, the only thing that matters. People look way too much into small pieces, when the big picture is clear as day. Roger Federer is the greatest.
No matter how fast & low bouncing the surface that they play on might be, Nadal will always impact the match much harder than his fairly limited game would suggest. Again, because of the match-up.
But the fact that Rafa didn't get to him in so many of those tournaments, is proof that Roger dominated THE ENTIRE FIELD better than Nadal has ever done, which is, at the end of the day, the only thing that matters. People look way too much into small pieces, when the big picture is clear as day. Roger Federer is the greatest.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
I agree with you that 23 to 10 perhaps overstates how well Nadal would do h2h in totally even and fair citcumstances, but your logic I feel understates it and I disagree with the methodology of assuming not making it equals a"default" or loss in the h2h. Clearly as jaitlock said Federer is better overall, and a part of that is exactly the reason why Nadal didn't make it to face him. But it's also clear that Nadal has a significant h2h edge and while as I said I concede it is of note to point out instances where Roger had good chances to beat him and Nadal didn't make it, this doesn't change the fact that simply awarding Roger wins is a conflation of 2 separate things.
D
Deleted member 733170
Guest
I will again attempt to state my position clearly, perhaps this time with a cooler head and more respect for the OP
I think a logic-class style numbered approach will suffice:
1. Federer is undoubtedly more accomplished and a greater played to date than Nadal
2. Nadal is undoubtedly "better" than Federer mano a mano (i.e. H2H)
3. These are the cold, hard facts about the H2H with no interpretation: Nadal leads 23-10 and 9-2 in grand slams. He leads Federer off clay (not that clay isn't a surface, but this is a common criticism.) He also leads Federer off clay in slams; Federer's only slam wins both came at Wimbledon. He beat Federer in 3 slam meetings between the two men in a row(and 3 out of 4 slams in a row overall) on all 3 slam surfaces when Roger was 26 to 27 years old.
4. Here are 2 common criticisms of the H2H's validity and their counter points: the age difference, especially as of late before Nadal's decline this year. The counter argument would be that this favored Federer in the beginning, and Nadal beat Roger in their first ever meeting. In fact in their 2nd meeting again at Miami the next year, even Fed fans agree that Roger benefitted from a blown call and quite likely would have lost the match without it. (Nadal was up 2-0 sets and about to break to serve for the match...he would have had triple break point if the right call was made.) So, Rafa was beating Roger from the beginning and even at Wimbledon was getting really close at only age 21 in 2007, before finally doing it the next year. The 2 were basically even off clay, with Rafa totally dominating on clay since the beginning of their rivalry. The only area where Federer has been clearly superior is indoors at the WTF. Many try to suggest a fast hard court favors Rafa and that it's a "shame" Roger never got to "beat" Rafa in Flushing; but Rafa seems actually better at the US than AO...I would argue the disparity between levels at the 2 tournaments is at least equal for Rafa if not more than Roger (both guys being better in NY than Melbourne). Rafa also beat Roger in Dubai on a fast court at age 19 in Roger's best ever season.
5. It is true that there are quite a few occasions where Rafa "didn't make it" to Federer and that these are more numerous than vice versa; also it is true that they tend to be in conditions or on surface (or due to age) that it would be reasonable to surmise Roger would have a better shot at winning those meetings than a match say on clay.
6. To automatically award those meetings to Roger (even if nominally or with some couched statement) though is an error in logic that I can't agree with. Even if one does the reverse for Rafa as the OP did, this does not make it "fair" or the premise valid.
7. To wrapup the last point and really the whole post: It is obvious that there are more times that Rafa has "ducked" Roger than vice versa. Roger is more accomplished and tends to go further in his career on 2 of the 3 surface and in 3 of the 4 slams. The 2 men being, by luck of the draw, in the same bracket where they might meet would do nothing to change this fact, so logically it would be more likely that Rafa would be the one to "duck" Federer. This says NOTHING about whether Nadal would actually win those matches. If we are going to hypothesize anyway; considering Nadal's sizeable H2H lead starting from the beginning and the "matchup", one would have to assume that Nadal would likely be the victor in at least SOME of these matches. To assume not is to say that there is NO H2H or "matchup" advantage for Rafa, it's simply ALL a matter of Nadal ducking Fed. Fed fans themselves don't believe this because they offer other reasons as well such as those listed earlier. It's no accident that their "hyopethical H2H" is now 50-50 because it is an essential equalizer; i.e. Nadal is about as "less good" than Roger is at making it to where he "should" to meet Roger as he is better H2H when going up against Roger. This makes perfect sense to me and it really tells us nothing since we always knew Roger is better against the field and Rafa is better H2H. The error is in conflating issues so that we award Roger with make believe H2H wins (and illogically claim that this is "consistent" since we do the same vice versa) yet no one is challenging the fact that Roger is better overall. So is is a case of trying to have your cake and eat it too! If one wants to make the argument that the H2H might be a little less one-sided due to Roger's age, surface, or consistency (really another way of saying Rafa doesn't make it to Roger when Roger night be favored and that Roger is more accomplished overall ), then one could do that and we could maybe for hypothetical fun guess at what the H2H might look like in that case. I admit it might not be so one sided. I do think it would still considerably be in Nadal's favor. The point however is the metric applied in the OP is logically inconsistent and unfair. I still think it's a cool list overall, though.
I think people take umbrage wth remarks in your point 2 that Nadal is better. I would grant you that, if there were only two players in the field named Federer and Nadal. The more painful reality is that the h2h is an accrued statistic against the field and not very relevant in the grand scheme of things.
Djokovic will likely end with a positive h2h against Federer too yet Federer could have retired or not have reached him in finals in recent years. Instead are you going to play the line Djokovic is better man to man too?
I mean really? It's the same as pretending Davydenko is better than Nadal!
Similar threads
