Grand Slam Losses - Nadal and Federer Since Being #1

[McEnroeisanartist]

I think most agree that comparing Federer and Nadal's achievements since each won their first Grand Slam is unfair to Nadal because Nadal won his first Grand Slam at a very early age.

I think it is more fair to compare their careers since first becoming #1.

Looking at the average ranking of the opponent they lost to in Grand Slams from first becoming #1 to last being #1.

Federer - 2/2/04 - 11/4/12
30, 4, 5, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 1, 6, 7, 13, 3, 3, 1, 19, 1, 2, 1, 7
Average = 5.7

Nadal - 8/18/08 - Present
6, 25, 6, 4, 7, 2, 1, 1, 100, 135
Average = 28.7

 

[TheAnty-vic]

I think most agree that comparing Federer and Nadal's achievements since each won their first Grand Slam is unfair to Nadal because Nadal won his first Grand Slam at a very early age.

I think it is more fair to compare their careers since first becoming #1.

Looking at the average ranking of the opponent they lost to in Grand Slams from first becoming #1 to last being #1.

Federer - 2/2/04 - 11/4/12
30, 4, 5, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 1, 6, 7, 13, 3, 3, 1, 19, 1, 2, 1, 7
Average = 5.7

Nadal - 8/18/08 - Present
6, 25, 6, 4, 7, 2, 1, 1, 100, 135
Average = 28.7

What i read was, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah FedIsMyGod blah blah blah blah blah FedLoverForLife blah blah blah FedIsGoatSheepCattleCow blah blah blah blah FedRulezMyHeart blah blah blah

 

[TMF]

What i read was, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah FedIsMyGod blah blah blah blah blah FedLoverForLife blah blah blah FedIsGoatSheepCattleCow blah blah blah blah FedRulezMyHeart blah blah blah

How old are you ?

This is not a place for kindergarten.

 

[jg153040]

What i read was, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah FedIsMyGod blah blah blah blah blah FedLoverForLife blah blah blah FedIsGoatSheepCattleCow blah blah blah blah FedRulezMyHeart blah blah blah

Maybe you need glasses.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

...............

 

[TheAnty-vic]

How old are you ?

This is not a place for kindergarten.

Anyone can see, that the OP moulded the criteria for this thread so as to include Rafa's Wimby losses to no. 100 & 135.

Everyone can see, except the Fedanatics! :twisted:

Boy, i'm smarter than you'll ever be!

 

[TheAnty-vic]

...............

10terribles :twisted:

 

[MonkeyBoy]

Every post in this thread has made me lol thus far.

 

[chandu612]

I think most agree that comparing Federer and Nadal's achievements since each won their first Grand Slam is unfair to Nadal because Nadal won his first Grand Slam at a very early age.

I think it is more fair to compare their careers since first becoming #1.

Looking at the average ranking of the opponent they lost to in Grand Slams from first becoming #1 to last being #1.

Federer - 2/2/04 - 11/4/12
30, 4, 5, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 1, 6, 7, 13, 3, 3, 1, 19, 1, 2, 1, 7
Average = 5.7

Nadal - 8/18/08 - Present
6, 25, 6, 4, 7, 2, 1, 1, 100, 135
Average = 28.7

Lol..why not from the beginning of their careers..
And what the hell is the average of rankings mean?


Are you desperate and out of ideas to show Fed > Nadal.
This is heights and epic thread. Should be stickied.

 

[jg153040]

Every post in this thread has made me lol thus far.

Anyone can see Fed is superior, has better numbers.

Funny thing is why do people need to prove the sky is blue over and over again?

 

[jg153040]

Lol..why not from the beginning of their careers..
And what the hell is the average of rankings mean?


Are you desperate and out of ideas to show Fed > Nadal.
This is heights and epic thread. Should be stickied.

Come one this thread is very creative.

 

[Lips]

What a pointless statistic...the only thing that matters is their grand slam losses when facing the other...this wreaks of a desperate fan boy trying to prop their guy up to look better...sorry mate...fail

 

[TMF]

Anyone can see, that the OP moulded the criteria for this thread so as to include Rafa's Wimby losses to no. 100 & 135.

Everyone can see, except the Fedanatics! :twisted:

Boy, i'm smarter than you'll ever be!

Whether you like it or not, the OP is posting fact. If the stats are incorrect, then point him out, otherwise stop attacking him.

Fanatics are the one who say 13 >17, or H2H is the be-all and end-all debate. The OP have made good threads and praise other players too, not just his favorite player Federer.

Year End Tournament on Thanksgiving Weekend

Bjorn Borg - Dominance in French Open Semifinals

More Impressive Achievement of Nadal

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

What a pointless statistic...the only thing that matters is their grand slam losses when facing the other...this wreaks of a desperate fan boy trying to prop their guy up to look better...sorry mate...fail

How is this pointless?

It is amazing that in between the time Nadal first became number one and last became number one. He lost twice to players ranked 100 or lower. This is shocking and much worse than Federer losing so many times to Nadal.

 

[batz]

Whether you like it or not, the OP is posting fact. If the stats are incorrect, then point him out, otherwise stop attacking him.

Fanatics are the one who say 13 >17, or H2H is the be-all and end-all debate. The OP have made good threads and praise other players too, not just his favorite player Federer.

Year End Tournament on Thanksgiving Weekend

Bjorn Borg - Dominance in French Open Semifinals

More Impressive Achievement of Nadal

The OP can be factually correct but still be cherry picking to suit his agenda. It's convoluted rubbish. What conclusions are we supposed to draw from it other than the OP likes to cherry pick stats?

 

[batz]

How is this pointless?

It is amazing that in between the time Nadal first became number one and last became number one. He lost twice to players ranked 100 or lower. This is shocking and much worse than Federer losing so many times to Nadal.

And the agenda is revealed in all its glory: Nadal's 2 losses to players ranked 100 or higher whilst being ranked number 1 are of much greater importance than all those slam matches Roger lost to him.

Cringeworthy.

 

[Lips]

How is this pointless?

It is amazing that in between the time Nadal first became number one and last became number one. He lost twice to players ranked 100 or lower. This is shocking and much worse than Federer losing so many times to Nadal.

Really? You think that Nadal losing twice to players ranked 100 or lower is worse then a 8-2 grand slam match record!?!? Really? You need to get your priorities in check

 

[Lips]

The OP can be factually correct but still be cherry picking to suit his agenda. It's convoluted rubbish. What conclusions are we supposed to draw from it other than the OP likes to cherry pick stats?

This is why it's a pointless statistic

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

Really? You think that Nadal losing twice to players ranked 100 or lower is worse then a 8-2 grand slam match record!?!? Really? You need to get your priorities in check

Yes, I do. Federer losing to a current Tier 1 Great eight times is far less of a blemish his resume than Nadal losing twice to players ranked 100 or lower. Those were two of the most shocking losses of all time. Federer does not have those losses during his prime at all.

 

[TheAnty-vic]

Whether you like it or not, the OP is posting fact. If the stats are incorrect, then point him out, otherwise stop attacking him.

Fanatics are the one who say 13 >17, or H2H is the be-all and end-all debate. The OP have made good threads and praise other players too, not just his favorite player Federer.

Year End Tournament on Thanksgiving Weekend

Bjorn Borg - Dominance in French Open Semifinals

More Impressive Achievement of Nadal

And here we go again! :lol:

Your every thread has an agenda, no?
Federer is the GOATest GOAT. Ok? :-|

Incorrect.


Some of his threads are not about Federer or has an agenda.

Year End Tournament on Thanksgiving Weekend

Bjorn Borg - Dominance in French Open Semifinals

More Impressive Achievement of Nadal

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=7936747#post7936747

The OP said he doesn't know the record. Read his initial post before making a false accusation.

Plus, the OP isn't all about Federer. Below are some of his threads that are NOT about Federer.

Year End Tournament on Thanksgiving Weekend

Bjorn Borg - Dominance in French Open Semifinals

More Impressive Achievement of Nadal

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=7943058#post7943058

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

If I compared from first Grand Slam win to last Grand Slam win, it would make Nadal look even worse.

If anything I skewed the data to Nadal's favor in my post. You are welcome.

 

[TheAnty-vic]

 

[batz]

Yes, I do. Federer losing to a current Tier 1 Great eight times is far less of a blemish his resume than Nadal losing twice to players ranked 100 or lower. Those were two of the most shocking losses of all time. Federer does not have those losses during his prime at all.

So what? Is Roger picking up his 'didn't lose to low ranked guys in his prime in a slam' trophy in Australia?

There might be a universe where what you say is accepted by most people - but it ain't this one mate.

 

[Lips]

Yes, I do. Federer losing to a current Tier 1 Great eight times is far less of a blemish his resume than Nadal losing twice to players ranked 100 or lower. Those were two of the most shocking losses of all time. Federer does not have those losses during his prime at all.

Ok then...I would rather have wins over my biggest rival on the biggest stage ...then two losses that will have no significance when rafas career is finished...I mean imagine how many slams Fed would have if he just won half those grand slam matches:shock:

 

[batz]

If I compared from first Grand Slam win to last Grand Slam win, it would make Nadal look even worse.

If anything I skewed the data to Nadal's favor in my post. You are welcome.

again, so what? The metric that you are fixating about is a complete irrelevance.

 

[TMF]

Really? You think that Nadal losing twice to players ranked 100 or lower is worse then a 8-2 grand slam match record!?!? Really? You need to get your priorities in check

Depends on how you look at it. Losing in the final is tougher to take than in the first round. However, in terms of achievements, being a finalist is a lot better than a 1st round lost. Nadal was devastated after a loss in 2007 Wimbledon final than losing to Darcis in 2013. The same with Federer in 2009 AO, had he lost in the 1st round it wouldn't be that tough. I think anyone would rather be a finalist than being a 1st round exit. Wouldn't you ?

 

[McEnroeisanartist]

And no where in my initial post do I say that this is the metric to determine who has had the greater career or who is GOAT. I was merely presenting the rankings and average ranking of Federer and Nadal's opponents that each player lost to in Grand Slams between when they were first ranked number and last ranked number one.

Not that complicated or open to interpretation.

 

[batz]

Depends on how you look at it. Losing in the final is tougher to take than in the first round. However, in terms of achievements, being a finalist is a lot better than a 1st round lost. Nadal was devastated after a loss in 2007 Wimbledon final than losing to Darcis in 2013. The same with Federer in 2009 AO, had he lost in the 1st round it wouldn't be that tough. I think anyone would rather be a finalist than being a 1st round exit. Wouldn't you ?

Yep. I also think kittens are sweet and that world peace would be great - but like the questions you asked, none of that has anything to do with whether having a 2-8 slam H2H with your greatest rival is of lesser significance than said rival's pair of shock losses.

Let's stay focused on the point at hand and not get all strawmantastic.

 

[TMF]

And the agenda is revealed in all its glory: Nadal's 2 losses to players ranked 100 or higher whilst being ranked number 1 are of much greater importance than all those slam matches Roger lost to him.

Cringeworthy.

Again, being in the final is at a bigger stage than in a first round, so losing is tougher to deal with. Are you guys saying Nadal losing first round in 2013 Wimbledon is better off than Nole being a finalist? Geez !

 

[Lips]

Depends on how you look at it. Losing in the final is tougher to take than in the first round. However, in terms of achievements, being a finalist is a lot better than a 1st round lost. Nadal was devastated after a loss in 2007 Wimbledon final than losing to Darcis in 2013. The same with Federer in 2009 AO, had he lost in the 1st round it wouldn't be that tough. I think anyone would rather be a finalist than being a 1st round exit. Wouldn't you ?

Nobody remembers who came in second...just as nobody remembers who lost in the first round....all that matters is who is holding the trophy at the end.

 

[TMF]

And here we go again! :lol:

I don't want to waste my time rewriting them again. You know you're just cherry picking to criticize the OP.

 

[Lips]

Again, being in the final is at a bigger stage than in a first round, so losing is tougher to deal with. Are you guys saying Nadal losing first round in 2013 Wimbledon is better off than Nole being a finalist? Geez !

I'm saying it doesn't matter...holding the trophy is what matters

 

[TMF]

Nobody remembers who came in second...just as nobody remembers who lost in the first round....all that matters is who is holding the trophy at the end.

That wasn't my question. But I'm guessing you rather lose in the 1st round than being the runner-up. To each his/her own.

 

[batz]

And no where in my initial post do I saw that this is the metric to determine who has had the greater career or who is GOAT. I was merely presenting the rankings and average ranking of Federer and Nadal's opponents that each player lost to in Grand Slams between when they were first ranked number and last ranked number one.

Not that complicated or open to interpretation.

Again with the strawman. Your OP was followed up with a conclusion i.e.

It is amazing that in between the time Nadal first became number one and last became number one. He lost twice to players ranked 100 or lower. This is shocking and much worse than Federer losing so many times to Nadal.

Nadal's 2 losses, as shocking as they were. are absolutely unrelated to his slam H2H with Roger. They are nothing to do with each other in any way, shape or form.

 

[jg153040]

So what? Is Roger picking up his 'didn't lose to low ranked guys in his prime in a slam' trophy in Australia?

There might be a universe where what you say is accepted by most people - but it ain't this one mate.

Yes there is a trophy. As a result of Roger not losing to lower ranked guys, he has more year end trophies and major trophies.

 

[batz]

Again, being in the final is at a bigger stage than in a first round, so losing is tougher to deal with. Are you guys saying Nadal losing first round in 2013 Wimbledon is better off than Nole being a finalist? Geez !

Focus dude. Enough with the strawmen.

Rafa's 2 shock losses have no impact on his slam H2H with Roger. They are unrelated.

 

[Lips]

That wasn't my question. But I'm guessing you rather lose in the 1st round than being the runner-up. To each his/her own.

Sure I did...it doesn't matter when you lose...all that matters is who has the trophy...read between the lines

 

[batz]

Yes there is a trophy. As a result of Roger not losing to lower ranked guys, he has more year end trophies and major trophies.

Sweet baby jebus - I thought the OP was desperate. This takes the biscuit.

No, there really isn't a trophy mate.

Some of you Feddies are deliciously insecure. He's the GOAT - you really don't have to be spouting keech like this to bolster his position.

 

[jg153040]

Nobody remembers who came in second...just as nobody remembers who lost in the first round....all that matters is who is holding the trophy at the end.

I guess you are right. Nobody remembers the h2h either.

Let's use a sport you don't know much about. Table tennis Waldner. Do you remember what is his h2h vs his main rivals?

 

[TMF]

Focus dude. Enough with the strawmen.

Rafa's 2 shock losses have no impact on his slam H2H with Roger. They are unrelated.

This is not about H2H. The point is which is better....a finalist or a first round loss.
I suppose you think Murray's 2012 W finalist was bad that he's better off losing in the first round.

Sure I did...it doesn't matter when you lose...all that matters is who has the trophy...read between the lines

Would you rather be a Wimbledon finalist or lose in the 1st round?

 

[jg153040]

Sweet baby jebus - I thought the OP was desperate. This takes the biscuit.

No, there really isn't a trophy mate.

Some of you Feddies are deliciously insecure. He's the GOAT - you really don't have to be spouting keech like this to bolster his position.

Thanks for admitting it. Now I regained my self confidence back and will sleep like a baby. And the momentum from this will last at least a few days. Thanks for improving my life .

 

[TMF]

And for the folks who complain about the OP's threads, their own threads isn't winning any tt award either.

 

[Lips]

I guess you are right. Nobody remembers the h2h either.

Let's use a sport you don't know much about. Table tennis Waldner. Do you remember what is his h2h vs his main rivals?

What are you talking about? Nobody said anything about head-to-head...but if you'd like we can compare that too..

 

[jg153040]

What are you talking about? Nobody said anything about head-to-head...but if you'd like we can compare that too..

Yes, I said it.

 

[Lips]

This is not about H2H. The point is which is better....a finalist or a first round loss.
I suppose you think Murray's 2012 W finalist was bad that he's better off losing in the first round.



Would you rather be a Wimbledon finalist or lose in the 1st round?

Ok....I'll play..of course I'd rather be a finalist...more $$, more points...sure...but it kinda comes full circle when I say the statistics that the op started the thread with are pointless because all that matters and all that will be remembered is the winner..it's not significant...get it????

 

[chandu612]

10terribles :twisted:

Can we just report the OP and get done with him/her/it?

 

[batz]

This is not about H2H. The point is which is better....a finalist or a first round loss.
I suppose you think Murray's 2012 W finalist was bad that he's better off losing in the first round.



Would you rather be a Wimbledon finalist or lose in the 1st round?

Sorry - this is just absurd. Enough with refuting points I haven't made and tilting at windmills.

Read this slowly - the OP asserted that Nadal's shock losses were more significant than his head to head with Roger, therefore this is absolutely about their head to head. That is what is being discussed - not your vacuous point about what "which is better".

 

[TheAnty-vic]

Can we just report the OP and get done with him/her/it?

I'm afraid it won't work!
He's not breaking any TW rules.

LOL at the "it" :lol: