Fed's Legacy in light of the H2H with Rafa, Murray

[FedNad316]

Just a thought......most of the discussions on this forum seem to center around either how Fed is the GOAT or how Fed is not the GOAT using Nadal's H2H (13-7) against Fed or for that matter Murray's H2h against fed in the recent past......

My question is that since fed is already 28 years old and may be on his way out of his Prime (already is post prime Fed) but based on his fluid style of play, will potentially keep playing till he is 34-35 (a la Agassi)......dont you think he could end up with much worse H2H's against younger players and the stats could get even more skewed against fed's claim to GOAThood.....that is his H2H against key players like Rafa/Murray/Del P / Djokovic may potentially become worse.....this will give all the naysayers and fedbashers even more fuel to how fed is not the GOAT.......it just doesnt seem fair.........:twisted:

 

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

Just a thought......most of the discussions on this forum seem to center around either how Fed is the GOAT or how is not using Nadal's H2H (13-7) against Fed or for that matter Murray's H2h against fed in the recent past......

My question is that since fed is already 28 years old and mey be on his way out of his Prime and based on his fluid style of play, will potentially keep playing till he is 34-35 (a la Agassi)......dont you think he will end up with much worse H2H's against younger players.....that is his H2H against key players like Rafa/Murray/Del P / Djokovic may potentially become worse.....this will give all the naysayers and fedbashers even more fuel to how fed is not the GOAT.......it just doesnt seem fair.........:twisted:

Your theory is very possible and likely to happen, although i dont think Fed could possibly care less if he ends up with 7-20 to Nadal and 3-20 to Murray, as long as he stands alone with the most GS.

 

[FedFan_2009]

Just a thought......most of the discussions on this forum seem to center around either how Fed is the GOAT or how Fed is not the GOAT using Nadal's H2H (13-7) against Fed or for that matter Murray's H2h against fed in the recent past......

My question is that since fed is already 28 years old and may be on his way out of his Prime (already is post prime Fed) but based on his fluid style of play, will potentially keep playing till he is 34-35 (a la Agassi)......dont you think he could end up with much worse H2H's against younger players and the stats could get even more skewed against fed's claim to GOAThood.....that is his H2H against key players like Rafa/Murray/Del P / Djokovic may potentially become worse.....this will give all the naysayers and fedbashers even more fuel to how fed is not the GOAT.......it just doesnt seem fair.........:twisted:

It's all nonsense of course. What matters is how he does against the entire field. HOWEVER, and this is a big caveat, if the big rivals(Murray, Nadal) always make it to the semis/finals of the same events then Federer HAS to beat them to win the titles. I don't think he'll get so lucky as he did in French Open/Wimbledon to play neither one.

 

[Nadalfan89]

That's why I think he should retire soon.

Leave at the top of the bell curve.

 

[bolo]

Chances are both of those h-h are going to get worse. The fact that nadal has been able to do it in GS also seems to be bothering some pros.

The most interesting thing imo about nadal and murray's h-h versus federer is that we know there exists a clear style of play/player than can beat federer. If you are a good gambler you can make some money in the future with this information.

 

[FedFan_2009]

Your theory is very possible and likely to happen, although i dont think Fed could possibly care less if he ends up with 7-20 to Nadal and 3-20 to Murray, as long as he stands alone with the most GS.

There is no way that he will continue losing to Murray several times a year without a victory. It's interesting that Nadal and Murray racked up all those 9 wins in a period that Fed was struggling with post-mono recovery issues and bad back. Now that he's 100% I would find it difficult to believe they will dominate him.

 

[Rippy]

Yeah, they'll both get worse.

But as Federer is getting older, I think that's to be expected, and shouldn't be held against him. I mean, the younger players are EXPECTED to beat him. He can't keep beating players much younger than him for the rest of his career.

 

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

Chances are both of those h-h are going to get worse. The fact that nadal has been able to do it in GS also seems to be bothering some pros.

The most interesting thing imo about nadal and murray's h-h versus federer is that we know there exists a clear style of play/player than can beat federer. If you are a good gambler you can make some money in the future with this information.

Noticed!
10 elefants

 

[FedFan_2009]

Chances are both of those h-h are going to get worse. The fact that nadal has been able to do it in GS also seems to be bothering some pros.

The most interesting thing imo about nadal and murray's h-h versus federer is that we know there exists a clear style of play/player than can beat federer. If you are a good gambler you can make some money in the future with this information.

OTOH, if Federer can lose less easily against the entire field then Nadal/Murray he's better then them. Remember ATP events are not round-robin of the top 4 except for the YEC.

 

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

There is no way that he will continue losing to Murray several times a year without a victory. It's interesting that Nadal and Murray racked up all those 9 wins in a period that Fed was struggling with post-mono recovery issues and bad back. Now that he's 100% I would find it difficult to believe they will dominate him.

I agree, i didnt say it WILL happen, but if it does (in MS etc) i dont think Fed really cares, as long as he stands alone with the most GS.

 

[bolo]

Noticed!
10 elefants

I think nishikori can beat fed. in the future, what do you think magician?

 

[FedNad316]

Yeah, they'll both get worse.

But as Federer is getting older, I think that's to be expected, and shouldn't be held against him. I mean, the younger players are EXPECTED to beat him. He can't keep beating players much younger than him for the rest of his career.

I agree

I hope the fans are able to assess fed's career objectively taking into account his overall accomplishments rather than just taking H2H's into account......

 

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

I think nishikori can beat fed. in the future, what do you think magician?

Well sure, Nishikori is 20 and Fed 28, so in 2-3 years,absolutely.

 

[bolo]

Well sure, Nishikori is 20 and Fed 28, so in 2-3 years,absolutely.

when you put it that way! No i mean I think nishikori will do relatively better than say cilic, gulbis or some of the other young guys versus fed.

 

[JennyS]

Good thread. Part of the reason why Nadal and Murray's h2h are so good is because they have played a significant number of matches against Fed during his post peak years. Just consider Nadal's h2h against Fed during certain stages of their careers:

Prime Fed vs pre-prime Nadal (04 Miami-05 French)
Tied 1-1 on hard
Nadal 1-0 on clay
Nadal 1-0 in Slams
H2h: Nadal 2-1

Prime Fed vs Prime Nadal (06 Dubai-07 Masters Cup)
Fed 4-1 on non clay surfaces
Nadal 6-1 on clay
Tied 2-2 in Slams
h2h: Nadal went 7-5 during this period

Post Prime Fed vs Prime Nadal (08-present)
Nadal: 2-0 on non clay surfaces
Nadal: 3-1 on clay
Nadal: 2-0 in Slams
h2h: Nadal 5-1 during this period.

Meanwhile, Fed has played all but 2 of his matches against Murray after his prime.

 

[TheMagicianOfPrecision]

when you put it that way! No i mean I think nishikori will do relatively better than say cilic, gulbis or some of the other young guys versus fed.

He might, its really hard to tell imo...Cilic has got game as well

 

[フェデラー]

Nishikori is going nowhere fast. He is sure to be the next donald young. He isnt even going to the us open. He hasnt been to any slams this year.

 

[broxi51]

Good thread. Part of the reason why Nadal and Murray's h2h are so good is because they have played a significant number of matches against Fed during his post peak years. Just consider Nadal's h2h against Fed during certain stages of their careers:

Prime Fed vs pre-prime Nadal (04 Miami-05 French)
Tied 1-1 on hard
Nadal 1-0 on clay
Nadal 1-0 in Slams
H2h: Nadal 2-1

Prime Fed vs Prime Nadal (06 Dubai-07 Masters Cup)
Fed 4-1 on non clay surfaces
Nadal 6-1 on clay
Tied 2-2 in Slams
h2h: Nadal went 7-5 during this period

Post Prime Fed vs Prime Nadal (08-present)
Nadal: 2-0 on non clay surfaces
Nadal: 3-1 on clay
Nadal: 2-0 in Slams
h2h: Nadal 5-1 during this period.

Meanwhile, Fed has played all but 2 of his matches against Murray after his prime.

you can argue that nadal and murray have still not peaked or primed as murray is still improving and nadal had his best 6 months to date before the injury so your argument does not hold water.

federer might be the best agaisnt all the field but when it come to playing agaisnt his peers, the top players of this generation nadal is the best by far.

 

[Rippy]

you can argue that nadal and murray have still not peaked or primed as murray is still improving and nadal had his best 6 months to date before the injury so your argument does not hold water.

federer might be the best agaisnt all the field but when it come to playing agaisnt his peers, the top players of this generation nadal is the best by far.

That's because these top players now are barely part of Federer's generation. They are 5 years younger than him. Anything Federer does over them is a bonus.

 

[broxi51]

That's because these top players now are barely part of Federer's generation. They are 5 years younger than him. Anything Federer does over them is a bonus.

he is of this generation, he plays this generation, is the most successful of this generation agaisnt all the field which is what tennis is all about but when you compare him his record is not compariable to nadal.

i am not a nadal or federer fan, but if it came down to it i think nadal would do better agaisnt other greats of tennis of past generations, laver, lendl, agassi, sampras, becker than federer would.

 

[Rippy]

he is of this generation, he plays this generation, is the most successful of this generation agaisnt all the field which is what tennis is all about but when you compare him his record is not compariable to nadal.

i am not a nadal or federer fan, but if it came down to it i think nadal would do better agaisnt other greats of tennis of past generations, laver, lendl, agassi, sampras, becker than federer would.

OK. But we can never know.

 

[bruce38]

H2H's of Djoker, Murray and Nadal may improve and most likely will against Fed. But the most interesting part is that their tally of Majors may not. Precisely because Fed is so consistent against everyone else, while those guys are not. This is what makes Fed better than all of them. They get knocked out quite often in earlier rounds. Just look at this year's FO and W. This increases the probability that Fed may end up with even more total Majors starting from now with everyone set to zero. I would bet on it.

 

[JennyS]

If h2h is that important then Fed should just try to lose to a different player at each tournament, so he doesn't get a bad/worse h2h against them. That's what Sampras did in his later years.

(posted this in another thread but it definitely fits here too!)

Sampras's losses from 1998 on (walkovers NOT included)

1998:
1. Karol Kucera
2. Andre Agassi
3. Thomas Muster
4. Wayne Ferreira
5. Fabrice Santoro
6. Michael Chang
7. Ramon Delgado
8. Mark Woodforde
9. Andre Agassi
10. Patrick Rafter
11. Leander Paes
12. Patrick Rafter
13. Wayne Ferreira
14. Richard Krajicek
15. Greg Rusedski
16. Alex Corretja:
So he lost to 13 different players: 10 players once and 3 players twice.

1999:
1. Jan-Michael Gambill
2. Felix Mantilla
3. Richard Krajicek
4. Fernando Meligeni
5. Patrick Rafter
6. Andrei Medvedev
7. Vince Spadea (retired during match)

7 different players!

2000:
1. Andre Agassi
2. Alex Corretja
3. Thomas Enqvist
4. Jiri Novak
5. Arnaud Di Pasquale
6. Dominik Hrbaty
7. Tommy Haas
8. Mark Philippoussis
9. Lleyton Hewitt
10. Marat Safin
11. Tim Henman
12. Marat Safin
13. Lleyton Hewitt
14. Gustavo Kuerten
Lost to 12 different players, 10 once and 2 twice.

2001:
1. Todd Martin
2. Chris Woodruff
3. Andrew Ilie
4. Andre Agassi
5. Andy Roddick
6. Harel Levy
7. Alex Calatrava
8. Marat Safin
9. Galo Blanco
10. Lleyton Hewitt
11. Roger Federer
12. Andre Agassi
13. Alberto Martin
14. Tommy Haas
15. Lleyton Hewitt
16. Max Mirnyi

So that's 14 different players: 12 once and 2 twice

2002:
1. Todd Martin
2. Marat Safin
3. Wayne Ferreira
4. Lleyton Hewitt
5. Fernando Gonzalez
6. Alex Corretja
7. Andy Roddick
8. Felix Mantilla
9. Max Mirnyi
10. Nicholas Escude
11. Thomas Johansson
12. Andrea Gaudenzi
13. Nicholas Kiefer
14. George Bastl
15. Tommy Haas
16. Wayne Arthurs
17. Paul Henri-Matthieu (last player to beat Sampras!)

Wow, how did he manage to lose to 17 different players?!

 

[Al Czervik]

If h2h is that important then Fed should just try to lose to a different player at each tournament, so he doesn't get a bad/worse h2h against them. That's what Sampras did in his later years.

(posted this in another thread but it definitely fits here too!)

Sampras's losses from 1998 on (walkovers NOT included)

1998:
1. Karol Kucera
2. Andre Agassi
3. Thomas Muster
4. Wayne Ferreira
5. Fabrice Santoro
6. Michael Chang
7. Ramon Delgado
8. Mark Woodforde
9. Andre Agassi
10. Patrick Rafter
11. Leander Paes
12. Patrick Rafter
13. Wayne Ferreira
14. Richard Krajicek
15. Greg Rusedski
16. Alex Corretja:
So he lost to 13 different players: 10 players once and 3 players twice.

1999:
1. Jan-Michael Gambill
2. Felix Mantilla
3. Richard Krajicek
4. Fernando Meligeni
5. Patrick Rafter
6. Andrei Medvedev
7. Vince Spadea (retired during match)

7 different players!

2000:
1. Andre Agassi
2. Alex Corretja
3. Thomas Enqvist
4. Jiri Novak
5. Arnaud Di Pasquale
6. Dominik Hrbaty
7. Tommy Haas
8. Mark Philippoussis
9. Lleyton Hewitt
10. Marat Safin
11. Tim Henman
12. Marat Safin
13. Lleyton Hewitt
14. Gustavo Kuerten
Lost to 12 different players, 10 once and 2 twice.

2001:
1. Todd Martin
2. Chris Woodruff
3. Andrew Ilie
4. Andre Agassi
5. Andy Roddick
6. Harel Levy
7. Alex Calatrava
8. Marat Safin
9. Galo Blanco
10. Lleyton Hewitt
11. Roger Federer
12. Andre Agassi
13. Alberto Martin
14. Tommy Haas
15. Lleyton Hewitt
16. Max Mirnyi

So that's 14 different players: 12 once and 2 twice

2002:
1. Todd Martin
2. Marat Safin
3. Wayne Ferreira
4. Lleyton Hewitt
5. Fernando Gonzalez
6. Alex Corretja
7. Andy Roddick
8. Felix Mantilla
9. Max Mirnyi
10. Nicholas Escude
11. Thomas Johansson
12. Andrea Gaudenzi
13. Nicholas Kiefer
14. George Bastl
15. Tommy Haas
16. Wayne Arthurs
17. Paul Henri-Matthieu (last player to beat Sampras!)

Wow, how did he manage to lose to 17 different players?!

Game Sampras and Cesc, step to this.

 

[pame]

As we consider the inevitable increase of Fed's losses to the new generation of players now hitting their stride, I must ask once again: To be considered equal to, or better than Fed, do they not have to match or surpass all, or at least most, of the numerous records he has set? Or does the equation of achievement conveniently lie only in one single aspect of the game?

 

[pame]

JennyS, let's face it: if Fed had lost to so many different players instead of losing to one player, there would be no ongoing discussion about H2H's. Instead the conversation would be all about how could he be GOAT if he lost to so many different players.

 

[Talker]

Rog Rafa
Grandslams 15 6
H2H + 7 13
------------------------------------
add them 22 > 19

Even making each win in the H2H count as much as a grandslam Rog still has the advantage.

And no one would count 1 H2H win on the same level as a GS.

But in saying the H2H shows Rafa is better, it is saying each H2H win is MORE important than a GS. :-?

 

[FedNad316]

With all this focus on the h2h nonsense, the answer to this question
should be very simple. Which crystal ball would Federer prefer:

A: 17 slams. He can't handle other, newer players in the field.
However he defeated Nadal to win his two extra slams.


B: 21 slams. He continues his overall mastery of the field, even
against younger, newer players. However, his struggles vs. Nadal
continue, goes 1-3 in slam finals against the Mallorcan from now until
the end of his career.


Which finish would YOU prefer, if you were in his shoes?

 

[mandy01]

he is of this generation, he plays this generation, is the most successful of this generation agaisnt all the field which is what tennis is all about but when you compare him his record is not compariable to nadal.

i am not a nadal or federer fan, but if it came down to it i think nadal would do better agaisnt other greats of tennis of past generations, laver, lendl, agassi, sampras, becker than federer would.

No he wouldnt.Nadal is simply a bad match-up for Federer,which dosent mean he's a better player overall.Besides you have no substantiated argument to prove your point.On the contrary so many of the past greats themselves say that if there's any player that would've been successful in those times and with the technology then available it would be Fed.

 

[Rippy]

JennyS, let's face it: if Fed had lost to so many different players instead of losing to one player, there would be no ongoing discussion about H2H's. Instead the conversation would be all about how could he be GOAT if he lost to so many different players.

But that's what Sampras did. And people had no problem calling him the GOAT.

 

[FedNad316]

But that's what Sampras did. And people had no problem calling him the GOAT.

That is why Sampras is not a True GOAT candidate......He is a Great and a legend.....but not GOAT by any means atleast imo

 

[Terr]

I for one hope he's not going to play into his 30s. That's bad fatherhood! Think of the twins!

But then again, I certainly feel like it marrs his squeaky shiney 15 GS record and legendary status to have a bad H2H against a main rival.

But come on, Fed fans. Being a fan is easy if he's always winning. You can't have it all.

 

[rwn]

Just a thought......most of the discussions on this forum seem to center around either how Fed is the GOAT or how Fed is not the GOAT using Nadal's H2H (13-7) against Fed or for that matter Murray's H2h against fed in the recent past......

My question is that since fed is already 28 years old and may be on his way out of his Prime (already is post prime Fed) but based on his fluid style of play, will potentially keep playing till he is 34-35 (a la Agassi)......dont you think he could end up with much worse H2H's against younger players and the stats could get even more skewed against fed's claim to GOAThood.....that is his H2H against key players like Rafa/Murray/Del P / Djokovic may potentially become worse.....this will give all the naysayers and fedbashers even more fuel to how fed is not the GOAT.......it just doesnt seem fair.........:twisted:

One more time: H2H's are meaningless. Does anybody care that the H2H between Becker and Edberg is 25-10 ? Nobody does.

 

[JennyS]

History shows that a big age difference DOES make a difference in the later stages of a rivalry:

Jimmy Connors vs John McEnroe (Connors is 7 1/2 years older)
McEnroe won 12 of the last 14 meetings (11 in a row)

Boris Becker vs Pete Sampras (Becker is 4 years older)
Sampras won 7 out of the last 9 meetings
(but Becker won 3 of the first 4)

Stefan Edberg vs Pete Sampras (Edberg is 5 years older)
Sampras won 5 out of the last 6 meetings

Bjorn Borg vs John McEnroe (Borg is 3 years older)
McEnroe won 4 out of the last 6 meetings.

 

[NamRanger]

History shows that a big age difference DOES make a difference in the later stages of a rivalry:

Jimmy Connors vs John McEnroe (Connors is 7 1/2 years older)
McEnroe won 12 of the last 14 meetings (11 in a row)

Boris Becker vs Pete Sampras (Becker is 4 years older)
Sampras won 7 out of the last 9 meetings
(but Becker won 3 of the first 4)

Stefan Edberg vs Pete Sampras (Edberg is 5 years older)
Sampras won 5 out of the last 6 meetings

Bjorn Borg vs John McEnroe (Borg is 3 years older)
McEnroe won 4 out of the last 6 meetings.

You forgot Becker and Agassi. Becker won the first 3, Agassi won the last 9 out of 10. That was a total obliteration of a H2H.

 

[FedNad316]

You forgot Becker and Agassi. Becker won the first 3, Agassi won the last 9 out of 10. That was a total obliteration of a H2H.

Wow.......Nice stats....am just imagining what the Fed bashers will be saying 4 years from now........when his H2H may worsen significantly against his younger opponents.....

I guess 10 - 15 years on, what people will really remember Fed for will be his all round performance, his slam performance and his records.......H2H's will be just for the Record......just like non one cares for the H2H's between all the greats mentioned in this post and in the post by Jenny

 

[JennyS]

You forgot Becker and Agassi. Becker won the first 3, Agassi won the last 9 out of 10. That was a total obliteration of a H2H.

That's a great statistic.

How about Federer vs Agassi:

Agassi won the first three, Federer won the last 8.

 

[FedNad316]

That's a great statistic.

How about Federer vs Agassi:

Agassi won the first three, Federer won the last 8.

I have a feeling Murray will improve his H2H with Nadal as well now......would be nice to see the fan reaction from Nadal fans if that were to happen:shock: