Federer's Same tournaments played h2h vs Nadal: 36-24 and 14-6 in Slams

JennyS

JennyS

Hall of Fame
Here's how each player got point:
A. Any time a player beat another head to head
B. any time a player failed to meet another in a draw when the other one made it to that spot, the other player got a point towards the h2h:

the breakdown:

Tournaments where Nadal failed to meet Federer

2003 Wimbledon
2003 Madrid
2004 Australian Open
2004 Dubai
2004 Indian Wells
2004 Canada
2004 US Open
2005: Doha
2005: Halle
2005: Wimbledon
2005: Cincinnati
2005: US Open
2006: Indian Wells
2006: Miami
2006: Canada
2006: US Open
2006: Madrid
2007: Australian Open
2007: Dubai
2007: Canada
2007: Cincinnati
2007: US Open
2007: Madrid
2008: US Open
2009: French Open
2009: Cincinnati
2009: US Open
2009: World Tour Finals (Fed and Nadal could have met in semis so I count this)
2010: Australian Open

Tournaments where Federer failed to meet Nadal:
2005: Monte Carlo
2007: Indian Wells
2007: Rome
2007: Paris
2008: Miami
2008: Canada
2008: Olympics
2009: Indian Wells
2009: Monte Carlo
2009: Rome
2010: Doha

overall:
Non slams:
Federer: 7 wins h2h vs Nadal, plus 29 times where Nadal failed to meet Federer
Nadal: 13 h2h wins vs Federer, plus 11 times where Federer failed to meet Nadal

Slams:
Federer: 2 wins h2h, plus 12 times where Nadal failed to meet him (6 of them at US Open)
Nadal: 7 wins h2h. Federer never failed to meet him.
 
I like this analysis, but unfortunately most ppl just focus on the h2h and don't care enough to look at it as you have where it becomes clear that Fed is hands down the better player and that Nadal is just a bad match up for him and of course by the time of Wimby '08 and AO '09 Nadal had a huge mental edge over Roger that Roger couldn't even win on the two surfaces where he is undisputably the stronger player.
 
wangs78 said:
I like this analysis, but unfortunately most ppl just focus on the h2h and don't care enough to look at it as you have where it becomes clear that Fed is hands down the better player and that Nadal is just a bad match up for him and of course by the time of Wimby '08 and AO '09 Nadal had a huge mental edge over Roger that Roger couldn't even win on the two surfaces where he is undisputably the stronger player.
Click to expand...

possibly, but read what you've just said. Roger is better, Nadal is only mentally tougher and has a more effective game plan in their head to head...?
tennis is a game of match ups. it is also a game of one person vs. one person. clearly Nadal is struggling at the moment but for many years Nadal has been superior to Federer in their matches.
clearly Roger is more accomplished and is 99% likely to remain that way, but you can't say Roger is "better" than Rafa when Rafa has beaten Roger more times including the biggest stages the sport has to offer.
 
tacou said:
possibly, but read what you've just said. Roger is better, Nadal is only mentally tougher and has a more effective game plan in their head to head...?
tennis is a game of match ups. it is also a game of one person vs. one person. clearly Nadal is struggling at the moment but for many years Nadal has been superior to Federer in their matches.
clearly Roger is more accomplished and is 99% likely to remain that way, but you can't say Roger is "better" than Rafa when Rafa has beaten Roger more times including the biggest stages the sport has to offer.
Click to expand...

This is so dumb to say the least.. u cant say roger is better than rafa can u??? do u watch tennis?? or even heard of federer... nadal got absolutely SPANKED on his favorite surface in a 4th round.. federer wouldnt even bow out in a semi final even when he is sick..and nadal gets spanked in cincinnati, montreal, us open,,world tour finals, now AO and next what?

before this AO began every body was like this is the toughest slam ever and roger cannot win and all.. but what happened?? nadal couldnt defend his title..

BOTTOM LINE: nadal can be federer because he is bad match up does not in any way make him a better player.. and u cant take the achievements of federer just because a guy like nadal has winnning h2h against him who by the way in the process got burned out at the age of 25 yrs..
 
JennyS said:
Here's how each player got point:
A. Any time a player beat another head to head
B. any time a player failed to meet another in a draw when the other one made it to that spot, the other player got a point towards the h2h:

the breakdown:

Tournaments where Nadal failed to meet Federer

2003 Wimbledon
2003 Madrid
2004 Australian Open
2004 Dubai
2004 Indian Wells
2004 Canada
2004 US Open
2005: Doha
2005: Halle
2005: Wimbledon
2005: Cincinnati
2005: US Open
2006: Indian Wells
2006: Miami
2006: Canada
2006: US Open
2006: Madrid
2007: Australian Open
2007: Dubai
2007: Canada
2007: Cincinnati
2007: US Open
2007: Madrid
2008: US Open
2009: French Open
2009: Cincinnati
2009: US Open
2009: World Tour Finals (Fed and Nadal could have met in semis so I count this)
2010: Australian Open

Tournaments where Federer failed to meet Nadal:
2005: Monte Carlo
2007: Indian Wells
2007: Rome
2007: Paris
2008: Miami
2008: Canada
2008: Olympics
2009: Indian Wells
2009: Monte Carlo
2009: Rome
2010: Doha

overall:
Non slams:
Federer: 7 wins h2h vs Nadal, plus 29 times where Nadal failed to meet Federer
Nadal: 13 h2h wins vs Federer, plus 11 times where Federer failed to meet Nadal

Slams:
Federer: 2 wins h2h, plus 12 times where Nadal failed to meet him (6 of them at US Open)
Nadal: 7 wins h2h. Federer never failed to meet him.
Click to expand...



Amazing compilation.. makes things so clear now... if may be nadal met federer in the US open federer would have beaten nadal and wouldnt have had a mental block so serious.. :shock: who knows,... h2h reveals nothing.. when will these people learn..
 
JennyS said:
Here's how each player got point:
A. Any time a player beat another head to head
B. any time a player failed to meet another in a draw when the other one made it to that spot, the other player got a point towards the h2h:
Click to expand...

surely there must be tournaments where they both bailed out at the same time, did u just cancel this out?
 
tacou said:
possibly, but read what you've just said. Roger is better, Nadal is only mentally tougher and has a more effective game plan in their head to head...?
tennis is a game of match ups. it is also a game of one person vs. one person. clearly Nadal is struggling at the moment but for many years Nadal has been superior to Federer in their matches.
clearly Roger is more accomplished and is 99% likely to remain that way, but you can't say Roger is "better" than Rafa when Rafa has beaten Roger more times including the biggest stages the sport has to offer.
Click to expand...

Roger is better than Rafa, because tennis "betterness" is not about only beating one player.
 
JennyS said:
Here's how each player got point:
A. Any time a player beat another head to head
B. any time a player failed to meet another in a draw when the other one made it to that spot, the other player got a point towards the h2h:

the breakdown:

Tournaments where Nadal failed to meet Federer

2003 Wimbledon
2003 Madrid
2004 Australian Open
2004 Dubai
2004 Indian Wells
2004 Canada
2004 US Open
2005: Doha
2005: Halle
2005: Wimbledon
2005: Cincinnati
2005: US Open
2006: Indian Wells
2006: Miami
2006: Canada
2006: US Open
2006: Madrid
2007: Australian Open
2007: Dubai
2007: Canada
2007: Cincinnati
2007: US Open
2007: Madrid
2008: US Open
2009: French Open
2009: Cincinnati
2009: US Open
2009: World Tour Finals (Fed and Nadal could have met in semis so I count this)
2010: Australian Open

Tournaments where Federer failed to meet Nadal:
2005: Monte Carlo
2007: Indian Wells
2007: Rome
2007: Paris
2008: Miami
2008: Canada
2008: Olympics
2009: Indian Wells
2009: Monte Carlo
2009: Rome
2010: Doha

overall:
Non slams:
Federer: 7 wins h2h vs Nadal, plus 29 times where Nadal failed to meet Federer
Nadal: 13 h2h wins vs Federer, plus 11 times where Federer failed to meet Nadal

Slams:
Federer: 2 wins h2h, plus 12 times where Nadal failed to meet him (6 of them at US Open)
Nadal: 7 wins h2h. Federer never failed to meet him.
Click to expand...

But Nadal wasn't in his prime during those first few years. I mean nobody expected him to go far in Wimbledon 2003 or win Halle 2005. He didn't reach his prime until 2005 and wasn't a good grass court player until 06.

This chart would only work if Federer and Nadal had both hit their primes at the same time. Then you could directly compare them.
 
Last edited:
tacou said:
possibly, but read what you've just said. Roger is better, Nadal is only mentally tougher and has a more effective game plan in their head to head...?
tennis is a game of match ups. it is also a game of one person vs. one person. clearly Nadal is struggling at the moment but for many years Nadal has been superior to Federer in their matches.
clearly Roger is more accomplished and is 99% likely to remain that way, but you can't say Roger is "better" than Rafa when Rafa has beaten Roger more times including the biggest stages the sport has to offer.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "many years"?
 
You should only count tournaments that either Fed or Nadal won AND the other guy lost early. oh wait.. I guess that's what you're doing.
 
14-6 in Slams is interesting since I expect Federer to win 8 more slams than Rafa in his career.
 
Andres said:
Absolutely irrelevant and pointless.
Click to expand...

Absolutely relevant and to the point.

Great stats by OP.

The matador fails most often than not to get deep enought to meet Federer.

It clearly and beautifuly points out how one dimentional he was during most of that 13-7 H2H time.

It leaves no doubt he was not good enough to meet Roger in the final of HD matches the H2H would be completely different.

Great point.
 
fed_is_GOD said:
This is so dumb to say the least.. u cant say roger is better than rafa can u??? do u watch tennis?? or even heard of federer... nadal got absolutely SPANKED on his favorite surface in a 4th round.. federer wouldnt even bow out in a semi final even when he is sick..and nadal gets spanked in cincinnati, montreal, us open,,world tour finals, now AO and next what?

before this AO began every body was like this is the toughest slam ever and roger cannot win and all.. but what happened?? nadal couldnt defend his title..

BOTTOM LINE: nadal can be federer because he is bad match up does not in any way make him a better player.. and u cant take the achievements of federer just because a guy like nadal has winnning h2h against him who by the way in the process got burned out at the age of 25 yrs..
Click to expand...

yes I watch and tennis and know who Federer is...Roger is a more accomplished player, a more dominant player, and has a career with much more longevity than Nadal's, but how can you say he's better when he loses more often than not?
 
No offense but these are not really useful stats because everybody and their mom knows that Fed has been FAR more successful than Nadal. Except for a few *******s, the rest of us Nadal fans are aware of Fed's vastly superior accomplishments. You don't need to prove anything to us.
 
These stats are not just for the *******s, but also for Fed haters who keep using H2H as the argument to end all arguments. This analysis quantifies that H2H cannot be used as a knock against someone. Tennis is all about matchups.

I wonder what the same analysis would show, if it were done for Agassi v/s Sampras.

kraggy said:
No offense but these are not really useful stats because everybody and their mom knows that Fed has been FAR more successful than Nadal. Except for a few *******s, the rest of us Nadal fans are aware of Fed's vastly superior accomplishments. You don't need to prove anything to us.
Click to expand...
 
Nadal will not fail to meet Federer in the future tournaments,

His ranking will do the job for him.

If Andreav can do it, He can do it.
 
DoubleDeuce said:
Absolutely relevant and to the point.

Great stats by OP.

The matador fails most often than not to get deep enought to meet Federer.

It clearly and beautifuly points out how one dimentional he was during most of that 13-7 H2H time.

It leaves no doubt he was not good enough to meet Roger in the final of HD matches the H2H would be completely different.

Great point.
Click to expand...



+1. Well done OP. I'll never understand these people that think Nadal's h2h vs Federer actually means something, or hurts Fed's status somehow. It's incredibly simple. Nadal is not good enough to meet up with Fed on Fed's best surface most of the time, but Fed is good enough to meet Nadal on Nadal's best surface.
 
Shaolin said:
+1. Well done OP. I'll never understand these people that think Nadal's h2h vs Federer actually means something, or hurts Fed's status somehow. It's incredibly simple. Nadal is not good enough to meet up with Fed on Fed's best surface most of the time, but Fed is good enough to meet Nadal on Nadal's best surface.
Click to expand...

Fed's best surface=HC and grass
Nadal's best surface=Clay.

Clay meeting between them=11,Nadal leads 7-2
Non-clay meetings between them=9,Fed leads 5-4

The difference is not that big(2 matches) and it is caused by Fed having problems with Rafa on his best surfaces(3-3 on HC,2-1 on grass) whereas Rafa had more success against Fed on his.
 
namelessone said:
Fed's best surface=HC and grass
Nadal's best surface=Clay.

Clay meeting between them=11,Nadal leads 7-2
Non-clay meetings between them=9,Fed leads 5-4

The difference is not that big(2 matches) and it is caused by Fed having problems with Rafa on his best surfaces(3-3 on HC,2-1 on grass) whereas Rafa had more success against Fed on his.
Click to expand...

The relative difference is big considering how short the clay season is. The grass season in basically Wimbledon as they never play in the same warm-up events.
 
Jenny: my final reply to your constant fed *** kissing new thread of the week:

no matter how you twist it..

Fed is still the most achieved singles player ever with 16 slams
Fed is still Nadal's lap dog


Fed is still cheesy and uses frutty bags

ps: if i find any of these posters who agree with Jenny's OP putting down Agassi vs Sampras because of head to head, Hell will break loose in TW...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why are people so obsessed to prove a point that Federer is the better player? All of us know that. His accomplishments speak for itself, it doesn't have to be highlighted each time.

Of course you'll have some who would like to put down Federer (perhaps it is more so because of constant threads like these than because of the man himself).

He is greatest ever but do we need another thread to prove it?
 
I wonder if any of these threads meant to turn the fans of player A into the fans of player B with some geek stats have ever turned anyone into anything. I also don't understand why people try to mess with other people's opinions.
Not that this is a very bad thread. The stats are interesting. It gets a lot worse than this.
 
Last edited:
namelessone said:
Fed's best surface=HC and grass
Nadal's best surface=Clay.

Clay meeting between them=11,Nadal leads 7-2
Non-clay meetings between them=9,Fed leads 5-4

The difference is not that big(2 matches) and it is caused by Fed having problems with Rafa on his best surfaces(3-3 on HC,2-1 on grass) whereas Rafa had more success against Fed on his.
Click to expand...

You forgot to mention an out of form 2008 Roger lost to him 4 times. He also lost to Karlovic, Fish, Blake, Stepanek, Roddick. Roger owned them before 208, but all of these players snapped out their losing streak against Roger! It was a perfect year for Rafa to improve his h2h against a weakling Roger, let alone the other players.
 
TMF said:
You forgot to mention an out of form 2008 Roger lost to him 4 times. He also lost to Karlovic, Fish, Blake, Stepanek, Roddick. Roger owned them before 208, but all of these players snapped out their losing streak against Roger! It was a perfect year for Rafa to improve his h2h against a weakling Roger, let alone the other players.
Click to expand...

Yes, out of form thanks to Nadal.
In 2009 he lost to Tsonga, Del Potro (twice), Benneteau, Davydenko, Wawrinka - players that he used to own. Does this mean that he was out of form?
No, because 2009 was excellent for him and the only difference between 2008 and 2009 is that Nadal dropped his level. If Nadal wouldn't have played that great in 2008, you wouldn't have said that Fed was out of form.
 
CMM said:
Yes, out of form thanks to Nadal.
In 2009 he lost to Tsonga, Del Potro (twice), Benneteau, Davydenko, Wawrinka - players that he used to own. Does this mean that he was out of form?
No, because 2009 was excellent for him and the only difference between 2008 and 2009 is that Nadal dropped his level. If Nadal wouldn't have played that great in 2008, you wouldn't have said that Fed was out of form.
Click to expand...

How many times had Federer played Nadal in 2008 when he lost to Djokovic, Fish and Nole?
 
Guy who wins against another is the better player among the two. Don't fool yourself with meaningless statistics.
 
CMM said:
Yes, out of form thanks to Nadal.
In 2009 he lost to Tsonga, Del Potro (twice), Benneteau, Davydenko, Wawrinka - players that he used to own. Does this mean that he was out of form?
No, because 2009 was excellent for him and the only difference between 2008 and 2009 is that Nadal dropped his level. If Nadal wouldn't have played that great in 2008, you wouldn't have said that Fed was out of form.
Click to expand...

he was still struggling in the early 2009. See the match against Nole in Miami, his forehand was so bad he couldn't even hit the ball in the ocean just to save his life! He was still an UFEs machine. He finally got out of that slump in May.

If Rafa wasn't around in 2008, Roger is the #1, no question. But as many have said in here already, an out form Roger is better than anyone except Rafa.
 
TMF said:
You need to watch those matches in the early 2009. You think Roger today would lose to Murray or Nole that easy? Or to Wawrinka straight set? Come on!
Click to expand...

His matches against Benneteau, Djokovic (in Basel) and Davydenko (in Doha and WTF), show you that he can lose that easy.
Only Grand Slams count and at Wimbledon 2008 Federer played great. In my opinion, better than he did it at Wimbledon 2009.
 
Last edited:
tacou said:
possibly, but read what you've just said. Roger is better, Nadal is only mentally tougher and has a more effective game plan in their head to head...?
tennis is a game of match ups. it is also a game of one person vs. one person. clearly Nadal is struggling at the moment but for many years Nadal has been superior to Federer in their matches.
clearly Roger is more accomplished and is 99% likely to remain that way, but you can't say Roger is "better" than Rafa when Rafa has beaten Roger more times including the biggest stages the sport has to offer.
Click to expand...

Actually, yes you can. Federer has also beaten Nadal, and Federer has won more slams over the same time-period. He's accomplished more. Head-to-head matchups don't determine who the better player is. It is results versus the field, slam wins, and ultimately ranking that determine who a "better player" is.
 
dh003i said:
Actually, yes you can. Federer has also beaten Nadal, and Federer has won more slams over the same time-period. He's accomplished more. Head-to-head matchups don't determine who the better player is. It is results versus the field, slam wins, and ultimately ranking that determine who a "better player" is.
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying, really. I guess I'm just interpreting the word "better" differently. I'm not arguing that overall Nadal is a better player, I'm saying at their peaks I would take Nadal over Fed just about any tournament in the world outside a few fast hard courts. I hope they play at the USO before it's too late.
 
tacou said:
I see what you're saying, really. I guess I'm just interpreting the word "better" differently. I'm not arguing that overall Nadal is a better player, I'm saying at their peaks I would take Nadal over Fed just about any tournament in the world outside a few fast hard courts. I hope they play at the USO before it's too late.
Click to expand...

Well, you have your opinion. But Federer is 2-1 vs. Nadal on grass. It took Nadal's best-ever performance on grass to beat Federer at Wimbledon, and that was during a relatively down-year for him (the main thing was his lowered break-percentage). Federer did play well at Wimbledon 2008, but he played much better in prior Wimbledon finals, and also in the 2009 final. (I argue that when you account for serving, Roddick played just as good if not better in his losing 2009 Wimbledon final than Nadal did in the W '08 final). Likewise with the AO 2009. It took Nadal's best-ever level on HC to beat Federer serving about 50%. If Federer had served even average for his standard in that match, he would have won it in 3 or 4. (similar story also for USO 2009).

Note, I'm not saying Federer played better than his opponent in any match that he lost; absent a few very rare and unfortunate exceptions, the player who won played better. However, I am saying that in just about every occasion (except facing Nadal at the FO) where Federer hasn't won a slam since 2004, it has been because he didn't play his best while his opponent played at pretty-much their best-ever level on that surface. I.e., Safin AO '05, Djokovic AO '08, Nadal '08 W, Nadal AO '09, Del Potro USO '09. With the exception of the AO in 2008, when Federer was still clearly affect by mono, all of those losses were in 5 sets too. It's pretty incredible to think that with the exception of the FO in 2004 where Federer was beaten by Kuerten, every time Federer hasn't won a slam, he lost to the guy who did win it.

Now, when I talk about better, I'm talking about who has been a better player over a year. There has only been one year so-far where Nadal has been a better player than Federer: 2008. Every other year, Federer has been the better player without question. Now a new generation of players are arising, and Federer is still clearly in the mix. It isn't so clear with Nadal. He is probably closer to the end of his career than is Federer, or he'll probably fall out of the top 10 before Federer.

The thing is, we can say that over a 7-year period, Federer has been the best-player overall. I think it pretty much goes without question that we're not going to be able to say that about Nadal when he is done playing. There isn't even a 2-year period over which we can say he was the best player (not 2008 & 2009, he'd be tied with Federer there, with each having 3 slams over those 2 years and each both having the #1 and #2 ranking; but mind you, Federer never dropped below #3).

You really can't use H2H to say who the better player is, unless we're talking about a tour of 2 players. But the tour has hundreds of players. Trying to use H2H would lead to all kinds of confusion and circularity and logical errors; i.e., A > B, A < C, B > C, ergo B > A and B < A.
 
LameTennisPlayer said:
surely there must be tournaments where they both bailed out at the same time, did u just cancel this out?
Click to expand...

Any tournament where neither player got to the point in the draw they would have met, I didn't count it. Example: Federer did better at the 05 Australian Open than Nadal (SF vs 4R),but I didn't count it, because they were on opposite sides of the draw.
 
JoshDragon said:
But Nadal wasn't in his prime during those first few years. I mean nobody expected him to go far in Wimbledon 2003 or win Halle 2005. He didn't reach his prime until 2005 and wasn't a good grass court player until 06.

This chart would only work if Federer and Nadal had both hit their primes at the same time. Then you could directly compare them.
Click to expand...

Nadal beat Federer in March 2004, so I thought all of these results were relevant.
 
If we only count tournaments with a direct h2h OR when a player won the tournament, it would be Federer 32-21 and 13-6 in Slams.
 
endbegin said:
These stats are not just for the *******s, but also for Fed haters who keep using H2H as the argument to end all arguments. This analysis quantifies that H2H cannot be used as a knock against someone. Tennis is all about matchups.

I wonder what the same analysis would show, if it were done for Agassi v/s Sampras.
Click to expand...

In Grand Slams, the tournament h2h was Sampras 16-6!

Here is the rundown of Agassi vs Sampras from 1990 through 2002

Australian Open: Agassi 3-0 (Agassi had two wins vs Sampras, Sampras did not make 2001 QF to face Agassi, Agassi did not play the two years Sampras won)

French Open: Agassi 4-1
(Agassi beat Sampras in 1992. Sampras failed to meet Agassi in 1991, 1999 and 2001)
Agassi failed to meet Sampras in 1996)

Wimbledon: Sampras 6-1
(Sampras had two wins vs Sampras, Agassi failed to meet Sampras in 1994, 1995, 1998 and 2000, Sampras failed to meet Agassi in 1992)

US Open: Sampras 9-1
(Sampras def Agassi 4 times. Agassi failed to meet Sampras in 1992, 1993, 1996, 1998 and 2000. Sampras failed to meet Agassi in 1994 and did not play in 1999 when Agassi won).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
Big Titles 2005-2018: the others
2
Replies
94
Views
6K
duaneeo
duaneeo
JennyS
Federer has beaten at least one top 10 player in 15 of his 16 Masters Series wins
Replies
12
Views
2K
viduka0101
viduka0101
Hitman
Most iconic match win in your opinion for each of the big 3 at all the big title tournaments
Replies
41
Views
2K
nolefam_2024
nolefam_2024
M
Comparing Multisurface Tournament Wins in a Year
Replies
11
Views
2K
jokinla
J
M
Where would you predict Federer wins his 100th Tournament
Replies
14
Views
887
fmdlnt_tennis
F
Back
Top