Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Ok guys work with me on this one. For so many years now I've noticed how vociferous many Nadal fans become when Federer's name gets mentioned as the greatest ever and the first thing they do is bring up the H2H against Nadal as a way of tearing that concept down. I believe however that they are shooting themselves in the foot by saying this and these are the chief reasons why:
H2H gets mentioned rather than an actual title that Federer is lacking in his resume. Just think how great a feeling this must be if you're Roger. People can say that Nadal has a hole in his CV by not winning WTF, Borg never won US Open, Sampras never won RG, Lendl never won Wimbledon etc but as far as Federer is concerned he's won every big title there is to win. Of course Agassi should also be given credit for winning all the major titles as well but the fact that he never reached double digit slams and spent 200 weeks less than Fed at number 1 immediately puts him on a lower tier. So like I say, Nadal fans constantly bringing up the H2H is actually a huge compliment to Federer as it shows there is nothing left to cling to.
The second point is the distribution of surfaces that both have played on. Had Fed been a worse clay court player[like Sampras for instance] the chances are that the H2H would be much more even as they would have barely ever met on the dirt. Why should Roger be punished for being good enough to reach Nadal in the first place? The idea that he'd be a better player for losing earlier on just seems absolutely crazy and yet had he gone out to random mugs instead of fighting like a tiger to meet Nadal in the final despite the matchup issue it's debatable he'd be seen as an even greater player but personally I believe losing in an earlier round is far worse than losing in the final.
Finally the issue of main rival. It could be argued that Federer and Nadal aren't actually one another's main rivals at all. Perhaps a true rival is only someone from the same generation as you and Nadal is not from the same one as Fed so it seems absurd that people expect Roger to have a winning record against someone who is 5 years younger than him and one of the fittest players ever to play the game. Federer has leading H2Hs against Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, Davydenko- you know the guys that actually WERE from his generation and you can't ask for more than that.
In conclusion it seems to me that rather than seeing it as a stain on his legacy, Federer and his fans should actually view his losing H2H against Rafa as something to be proud of rather than embarrassed. Be proud that he was always there to compete and never ran away from his worst surface against probably the best ever on that surface. Be proud that a H2H record which no one will even care about in a few years time is all his detractors can highlight rather than any missing trophy from his cabinet. And be proud that he took care, in devastating fashion, of all the main rivals from HIS generation. As strange as it may seem to some, Fed's negative H2H against Nadal is actually a positive thing and after both their careers have come to an end I sense that more and more people will also see it from the same perspective.
H2H gets mentioned rather than an actual title that Federer is lacking in his resume. Just think how great a feeling this must be if you're Roger. People can say that Nadal has a hole in his CV by not winning WTF, Borg never won US Open, Sampras never won RG, Lendl never won Wimbledon etc but as far as Federer is concerned he's won every big title there is to win. Of course Agassi should also be given credit for winning all the major titles as well but the fact that he never reached double digit slams and spent 200 weeks less than Fed at number 1 immediately puts him on a lower tier. So like I say, Nadal fans constantly bringing up the H2H is actually a huge compliment to Federer as it shows there is nothing left to cling to.
The second point is the distribution of surfaces that both have played on. Had Fed been a worse clay court player[like Sampras for instance] the chances are that the H2H would be much more even as they would have barely ever met on the dirt. Why should Roger be punished for being good enough to reach Nadal in the first place? The idea that he'd be a better player for losing earlier on just seems absolutely crazy and yet had he gone out to random mugs instead of fighting like a tiger to meet Nadal in the final despite the matchup issue it's debatable he'd be seen as an even greater player but personally I believe losing in an earlier round is far worse than losing in the final.
Finally the issue of main rival. It could be argued that Federer and Nadal aren't actually one another's main rivals at all. Perhaps a true rival is only someone from the same generation as you and Nadal is not from the same one as Fed so it seems absurd that people expect Roger to have a winning record against someone who is 5 years younger than him and one of the fittest players ever to play the game. Federer has leading H2Hs against Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, Davydenko- you know the guys that actually WERE from his generation and you can't ask for more than that.
In conclusion it seems to me that rather than seeing it as a stain on his legacy, Federer and his fans should actually view his losing H2H against Rafa as something to be proud of rather than embarrassed. Be proud that he was always there to compete and never ran away from his worst surface against probably the best ever on that surface. Be proud that a H2H record which no one will even care about in a few years time is all his detractors can highlight rather than any missing trophy from his cabinet. And be proud that he took care, in devastating fashion, of all the main rivals from HIS generation. As strange as it may seem to some, Fed's negative H2H against Nadal is actually a positive thing and after both their careers have come to an end I sense that more and more people will also see it from the same perspective.
