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

[Russeljones]

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.

But this is entirely a matter of perception. If you wish to see this as an attempt to rewrite the history of the rivalry, you will disagree and fervently so. If you see it for what it is intended to be, an account of what could have been that should have served as the backdrop to the actual discussion of why are we jumping on Federer's back for losing but never a word is said about Nadal losing a round or two earlier, then I think you will find there is nothing dishonest about it. I have also not taken the liberty to underline the fact that career-wise Federer has virtually never 'shirked from duty' and used the absence of Nadal somewhere to award Federer phantom points.

The truth is some people will always deride Federer for the losses but they will never give credit for the fact that he was in the match to lose it.

 

[Chicharito]

23-10 clearly flatters Nadal but he was always going to be a tough match up for Fed, felt 18-10 was 'fairer'.

Had they had 4 meetings in 2015 and 0 in 2013 it would probably look different.

 

[Jaitock1991]

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!

Exactly. By the same token, Federer's claycourt resumé is by some people talked down "because he lost so many finals there to the same guy". This is redicilous!! By that logic, it's better to lose to a nobody in R1 of a tournament if the alternative is to lose in SF/F to one of your "rivals". Absolutely crazy.

 

[D.Nalby12]

WTF RR match seems to be only realistic opportunity for Federer facing Nadal.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

But this is entirely a matter of perception. If you wish to see this as an attempt to rewrite the history of the rivalry, you will disagree and fervently so. If you see it for what it is intended to be, an account of what could have been that should have served as the backdrop to the actual discussion of why are we jumping on Federer's back for losing but never a word is said about Nadal losing a round or two earlier, then I think you will find there is nothing dishonest about it. I have also not taken the liberty to underline the fact that career-wise Federer has virtually never 'shirked from duty' and used the absence of Nadal somewhere to award Federer phantom points.

The truth is some people will always deride Federer for the losses but they will never give credit for the fact that he was in the match to lose it.

The problem is they are two separate issues. Not the same issue. That's the problem with all of the last 4 posts here. And it does frustrate me because we can agree to disagree but I don't like when people change the argument midstream. Or argue points I agree with as if I disagree (strawman). And that seems to happened repeatedly in these debates. It's like so, so predictable where some of the responses will go.[/QUOTE]

 

[Russeljones]

The problem is they are two separate issues. Not the same issue. That's the problem with all of the last 4 posts here. And it does frustrate me because we can agree to disagree but I don't like when people change the argument midstream. Or argue points I agree with as if I disagree (strawman). And that seems to happened repeatedly in these debates. It's like so, so predictable where some of the responses will go.

I don't think we can separate the two. I also don't think you should feel obliged to speak for those who motivated me to make the original post.

 

[HewittAlwaysDisappoints]

what do these numbers mean, and how do I interpret them?

 

[Deleted member 716271]

I don't think we can separate the two. I also don't think you should feel obliged to speak for those who motivated me to make the original post.

Nadal isn't good enough to reach Federer is a reflection that Federer is more accomplished and consistent. It does not necessarily mean Federer would win those matches.

 

[Omega_7000]

I think the way some Fed fans try to justify Nadal's domination of Fed is hilarious.

News flash..the real world doesn't work like this..hypotheticals and what if's are cute and all but it just doesn't cut it..here in reality

here in reality loses to 100+ ranked players four years in a row on the biggest stage of tennis.

 

[Russeljones]

Nadal isn't good enough to reach Federer is a reflection that Federer is more accomplished and consistent. It does not necessarily mean Federer would win those matches.

It doesn't but the record of reaching those junctions in the draws is indisputable and I wanted to make it clearly visible. If this grates with some, it is something I am going to have to live with.

 

[Omega_7000]

This is how he protects his H2H stat. Always goes out early when not in form. The H2H would've been much closer if was going deep in every tournament.

The H2H against Djokovic would've been completely lopsided if he was consistent.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Nadal isn't good enough to reach Federer is a reflection that Federer is more accomplished and consistent. It does not necessarily mean Federer would win those matches.

So much sense. Not that I'm surprised, look who's speaking

 

[chjtennis]

The truth is some people will always deride Federer for the losses but they will never give credit for the fact that he was in the match to lose it.

This one sentence sums it up nicely, I think.

 

[Russeljones]

Nadal gets a point for Madrid and Roger one for IW. Will look at this again.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

So much sense. Not that I'm surprised, look who's speaking

I'm not exactly known for common sense IRL, but when it comes to matter of tennis, I spout only unfiltered wisdom and sense.

 

[augustobt]

WTF RR match seems to be only realistic opportunity for Federer facing Nadal.

if Nadal qualifies/is fit by then.

 

[The_Order]

Do you think Nadal would have beaten Federer if they met in the QF?

Yeah probably.

 

[The_Order]

@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.

It's a fantasy designed by Fed fans to help them sleep better at night. I think they lay in bed and imagine how these fantasy matches would've played out with Roger winning. Then they visit this site and post about it.

Good for a laugh even after all these years...

 

[beast of mallorca]

It's a fantasy designed by Fed fans to help them sleep better at night. I think they lay in bed and imagine how these fantasy matches would've played out with Roger winning. Then they visit this site and post about it.

Good for a laugh even after all these years...

RusselJane is a fan girl, what can you do ?

 

[Tennisanity]

Wow, Nadal fans are getting so bitter now that the biological passport is in effect.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Yeah probably.

Don't be shy.

Say that it would have 100% happened.

I know that you want to say it.

 

[Kalin]

Rentoutua, kaverit, se on OK. Et voi voittaa ikuisesti.

 

[The_Order]

Don't be shy.

Say that it would have 100% happened.

I know that you want to say it.

It's never 100% unless they're playing at RG.

But I think Rafa would've most likely won. The odds wouldn't be in his favor as much as the past, but still he would've won imo.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

It's never 100% unless they're playing at RG.

But I think Rafa would've most likely won. The odds wouldn't be in his favor as much as the past, but still he would've won imo.

You are almost there.

Just do it.

 

[billnepill]

Nadal is probably going to end up with inferior record to a guy that he clearly owns in h2h. Why? He is often described as a warrior and he is, for a match or a tournament but not year in and year out. He would fall to unknowns, even in his best years. He was never truly dominant in the sense for extended periods which comes with psychology to be the best throughout the year, not just to prime yourself for the clay season and occossional match or tournament off clay to beat the best guy with well practiced strategy. That's where he fails and cannot be seriously considered better than Federer who played full schedule all these years going deep in tournaments and giving his best shot whether he was at his best or not.

 

[billboard]

fred was never devastatingly injured or sick and then ridiculed for being sick with allergies. if anything, novak should have wins added to his column against fedal. fred conveniently got credit for being the lucky nadal doormat. of course ,no one believes fred is the best player ever, except arrogant ex-players and muppets that spent money to see him lose.

 

[90's Clay]

"Matchup issue" was a term coined by Fed fans to rationalize and accept their hero's failure against Nadal

A true GOAT would find ways to make adjustments I think especially after a DECADE of match opportunities I thought


Come on now.. Fed had 33 tries to make adjustments to turn the h2h around and start gaining momentum to overcome Nadal


Thats a lot of damn tries and time to make adjustments guys. Hes been playing Nadal since 2004 people!!!

Its not like Fed was 10 years older than Nadal and happen to run into him at the end of his career. He's been playing Nadal since his prime started


Its a sore subject I know.

 

[moonballs]

So nothing in it really. I wonder how this will go down with H2H cheerleaders?

I'm sure others beyond myself appreciate the efforts you have gone to in compiling this list.

True till 2014. But in 2015 the bio passport era the true H2h is becoming lopsided like the early years again.

 

[moonballs]

"Matchup issue" was a term coined by Fed fans to rationalize and accept their hero's failure against Nadal

A true GOAT would find ways to make adjustments I think especially after a DECADE of match opportunities I thought


Come on now.. Fed had 33 tries to make adjustments to turn the h2h around and start gaining momentum to overcome Nadal


Thats a lot of damn tries and time to make adjustments guys. Hes been playing Nadal since 2004 people!!!

Its not like Fed was 10 years older than Nadal and happen to run into him at the end of his career. He's been playing Nadal since his prime started


Its a sore subject I know.

As Fed said himself, he focused on beating the field during him prime. Winning three slams and making all the finals during those years is among the greatest achievements in open era tennis.

Compare that with Nadal's career you can easily see Fed did the right thing. Nadal honed his game to beat single handed BH of Fed's. But after he finally rose to the top and manged a three slam year he got owned by a younger rival 0:7 on all surfaces. I don't believe another no 1 in tennis was ever owned by a rival so thoroughly at his peak. Only till much later Nadal perfected the down the line FH to deal with Djokovic. If he hadn't been single mindedly focusing on the CC moonballs before he wouldn't have had the longest losing streak in finals against his main rival at his own best years. Those peak/prime years are precious.

 

[billboard]

Fred now acts like he owns the tour because his turkeys have retired and his trophies are worthless. The lonely Fred fans are desperate to give each other pats on the backs. There isn't arrogance in the forums. That is just too bad because Novak has the sense of humor and brains to shake this fly off his butt cheek.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Fred now acts like he owns the tour because his turkeys have retired and his trophies are worthless. The lonely Fred fans are desperate to give each other pats on the backs. There isn't arrogance in the forums. That is just too bad because Novak has the sense of humor and brains to shake this fly off his butt cheek.

Didn't he just own on court the world #1?

 

[Russeljones]

I am thinking it's time to add someone else in this.

 

[Russeljones]

Anyone got the numbers for 2015?

 

[xFedal]

Anyone got the numbers for 2015?

any updates russel jone?

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

"Matchup issue" was a term coined by Fed fans to rationalize and accept their hero's failure against Nadal

A true GOAT would find ways to make adjustments I think especially after a DECADE of match opportunities I thought


Come on now.. Fed had 33 tries to make adjustments to turn the h2h around and start gaining momentum to overcome Nadal


Thats a lot of damn tries and time to make adjustments guys. Hes been playing Nadal since 2004 people!!!

Its not like Fed was 10 years older than Nadal and happen to run into him at the end of his career. He's been playing Nadal since his prime started


Its a sore subject I know.

How do you know what a 'true GOAT' would do? Do you have any other examples of someone overcoming Kryptonite levels of mechanical disadvantage against another ATG? Maybe there is a little bit more to it than just some 'adjustments' that you seem to take for granted as an ill defined solution.

Maybe a true GOAT would still win substantially more than anyone DESPITE such a poor H2H matchup against a particular ATG with a kryptonite game.

 

[Steve0904]

Anyone got the numbers for 2015?

By my count the tournament based H2H is now 56-52 in Federer's favour (including Basel 2014 from last year)

50-50 Basel 2014
51-50 IW 2015
51-51 Madrid
52-51 Rome
53-51 Wimbledon
54-51 Cincy
55-51 USO
55-52 Shanghai
56-52 Basel 2015

 

[ForumMember]

OP.. Why did you leave out contests for tournaments between 99 to 03. Clearly it was Nadal's failure that he couldn't make these contests. Federer shouldn't be penalized for Nadal not making to main draw of various tournaments which Federer participated.

 

[Tenez!]

Things have moved around a little since the last posts!
What is it now, 65-55?

 

[Tenez!]

Would enjoy an update, @Russeljones

(also, could you reverse the order of matches within a year, this December to January thing is bewildering)

 

[chjtennis]

We should never forget the matches from 2014 to 2015 happened when Federer was making comeback and was not sharp and was insecure. Those 5 wins were gifts to Nadal.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Anyone got guesses on how many direct meetings we'll have between the 2 before 1 hangs it up? I'm guessing around 5

 

[Jonas78]

We should never forget the matches from 2014 to 2015 happened when Federer was making comeback and was not sharp and was insecure. Those 5 wins were gifts to Nadal.

I guess you mean 2013-2014?

 

[ZiggyStardust]

Anyone got guesses on how many direct meetings we'll have between the 2 before 1 hangs it up? I'm guessing around 5

15. None on clay. 27-23 .

 

[chjtennis]

I guess you mean 2013-2014?

Yeah, I guess I have the years wrong but you know what I mean.

 

[Jonas78]

Yeah, I guess I have the years wrong but you know what I mean.

Yeah 2013 is his worst year ever, not in any way representative for the rest of his career. Of course that had to be the only year Rafa managed to reach the final at "the real slam".

 

[Russeljones]

Would enjoy an update, @Russeljones

(also, could you reverse the order of matches within a year, this December to January thing is bewildering)

Hi Tenez, it is something I thought about as recently as 2 days ago. I cannot seem to find the time, though.

 

[Russeljones]

Surely someone has the time to update this..

 

[chjtennis]

Anyone got guesses on how many direct meetings we'll have between the 2 before 1 hangs it up? I'm guessing around 5

Sounds about right. And I don't think Federer can win all of it.

 

[KingKyrgios]

Update please !!

 

[Russeljones]

What would the numbers be today, if updated? Not very complimentary to Nadal, I reckon.