MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Lol that article was SO written by a *******. He sounded like he could have cried over the Wimby and Australian Open victories.
Great Article on Fed-Nadal Rivalry
- Thread starter mcenroefan
- Start date
muzza123
Banned
Cyborg is something special. Not only does he boast the highest ever Major w/l %, but also the highest ever career w/l % at 82.7% (Nadal is currently 2nd at 82.35%)
You know Fed fans and Nad fans will always be arguing over the smallest details to try and prove their guy is superior!
Lets hope they both get to the final or at least meet each other this year so we have a little more information to include or discredit (depending on who you are a fan of) to make our biased opinions lol!
Lets hope they both get to the final or at least meet each other this year so we have a little more information to include or discredit (depending on who you are a fan of) to make our biased opinions lol!
tennis_guru
Banned
Yes I agree, they have not all been on clay. But, hypothetically speaking, if they had been on clay would it be skewed or not? I think the reason you don't answer is because you are letting your ego get in the way. Just answer honestly.
It's true that the H2H record is skewd on slow courts, but look at it this way. Federer before Nadal beat him at Wimbledon, it was said that it was his best surface. When Nadal started to make it to the finals of Wimbledon everyone started to cry that the court is too slow. Federer has more AO titles than Nadal, but when Nadal made it to the final and beat Federer it was said that the court is too slow (Nadal also played a grueling 5 setter Verdasco and had not as much rest as Federer going into the final).
Everyone will make a case for the reason why their favorite player lost. When Nadal wins it's because the courts are slow, when Federer loses it's he's old, injured or sick. When Nadal loses it's because he's injured, or the guy is playing out of their mind. I'd like to point out in the majors the guys who beat Nadal made it to the final. Tsonga beat Nadal but faced Djokovic in the final. Here are some guys who wooped Nadal and went on to face Federer in the final Gonzalez, Soderling, Murray (USO and AO), Delpotro. This is to say that Federer would beat Nadal in those finals which account for 5 wins over Nadal, but that still wouldn't even up his H2H with Nadal, but it wouldn't look as one sided as it is now.
I'm a Nadal fan, and I love seeing a Federer v. Nadal final. I think it produces some of the greatest tennis we get to see. The only regret we have is that, Nadal and Federer's primes weren't at the same time. We can say, "Nadal got lucky he didn't have to face Federer in his prime years," but the reverse can be said about Federer. Federer didn't win his first major until he was 21, think about how many majors Nadal already had at the same age. As tennis fans we enjoyed seeing great tennis from Federer who accumulated 16 majors and potentially could still win 1 or 2 more, but let's also appreciate great tennis from Nadal and not say the courts or slow and make excuses. A true competitor shouldn't make excuses for losing. Federer and Nadal don't cry about their losses as much as the people who cheer for them do.
Everyone will make a case for the reason why their favorite player lost. When Nadal wins it's because the courts are slow, when Federer loses it's he's old, injured or sick. When Nadal loses it's because he's injured, or the guy is playing out of their mind. I'd like to point out in the majors the guys who beat Nadal made it to the final. Tsonga beat Nadal but faced Djokovic in the final. Here are some guys who wooped Nadal and went on to face Federer in the final Gonzalez, Soderling, Murray (USO and AO), Delpotro. This is to say that Federer would beat Nadal in those finals which account for 5 wins over Nadal, but that still wouldn't even up his H2H with Nadal, but it wouldn't look as one sided as it is now.
I'm a Nadal fan, and I love seeing a Federer v. Nadal final. I think it produces some of the greatest tennis we get to see. The only regret we have is that, Nadal and Federer's primes weren't at the same time. We can say, "Nadal got lucky he didn't have to face Federer in his prime years," but the reverse can be said about Federer. Federer didn't win his first major until he was 21, think about how many majors Nadal already had at the same age. As tennis fans we enjoyed seeing great tennis from Federer who accumulated 16 majors and potentially could still win 1 or 2 more, but let's also appreciate great tennis from Nadal and not say the courts or slow and make excuses. A true competitor shouldn't make excuses for losing. Federer and Nadal don't cry about their losses as much as the people who cheer for them do.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
As I said, head-to-heads are only a part of determing a person's career. Federer is considered the GOAT by a lot of people, and yet some of those same people want to reduce the significance of Nadal's wins over Federer on clay.
Leaving reality and entering the realm of fantasy with head-to-heads is pretty pointless since head-to-heads are not the be-all and end-all anyway.
tennis_guru
Banned
This is a good post. I agree that even if Federer did get those meetings on fast HC, the H2H would not be evened up. And that's because Nadal is better on his best surface Federer, than Federer is on his best surface versus Nadal. The problem is the Nadal fans don't want to give it all.
Nadalfan89
Hall of Fame
I don't think anyone claimed that Nadal is better than Federer on fast hardcourts. Federer is obviously better on fast hardcourts. The point is that their are 3 other surfaces to take into account.
tennis_guru
Banned
Hey I agree with all of that. I'm just saying the H2H includes more clay (Nadal's best) than fast HC (Fed's best) and that skews the H2H somewhat. Nadal would still lead the H2H even if there were more fast HC. But some people just want to look at H2H without any analysis. And my point is that looking at it blindly like that is like taking a 14-0 H2H all on clay and not acknowledging that.
tennis_guru
Banned
Yes I agreed with you H2H are only a part of it, you keep repeating it! I agree. But why don't you answer the question of skewed H2H? Is 14-0 skewed or not? FOr get about Nadal and Federer for a moment, is it skewed in general?
Mustard
Bionic Poster
But Federer is considered the GOAT and Nadal is his biggest rival. How can Federer having a 7-14 head-to-head against Nadal not be considered a big negative?
Federer's only wins over Nadal in slams have been at Wimbledon, while Nadal has beaten Federer at the Australian Open, French Open and Wimbledon. Nadal has beaten Federer on hardcourt, clay and grass in slam finals.
Federer's only wins over Nadal in slams have been at Wimbledon, while Nadal has beaten Federer at the Australian Open, French Open and Wimbledon. Nadal has beaten Federer on hardcourt, clay and grass in slam finals.
tennis_guru
Banned
Screw GOAT and what not. We all know that is subjective anyways. Forget Fed and Nadal as I said. Just consider a hypothetical H2H of two players one who's best surface is clay and another fast HC. 14-0, skewed or not?
p.s. 7-14 is a negative, I AGREE! The question is the degree of that negativity - hence the skew analysis. How could Federer wins or losses to Nadal come at USO with 0 attempts?
Mustard
Bionic Poster
The point is more why do you assume Federer would beat Nadal if they did meet at the US Open?
TheTruth
G.O.A.T.
What if the h2h was 14-7 in Fed's favor on hard courts? Would there be any debate? I don't think so.
What if it was any other surface other than clay, where Nadal is excruciatingly dominant? Would there be a problem? Again, no.
It doesn't matter where they met, because Fed was the 2nd best claycourter, and still out of 12 meetings he only won 2.
So, the h2h is even more valid because Fed was able, and had the opportunity to even it up by his own play. He didn't. That's on him. In these instances, Fed failed, although he too was good on clay.
I think if Fed led the h2h, there wouldn't be a debate at all.
But, for all of Fed's achievements, (which some of his fans still aren't satisfied with), we are also supposed to somehow add in awards, clothing contracts, hairstyles, outfits. It's beginning to border on crazy.
Djoker, Del Potro, and Murray have great hard court results against Nadal. Do Nadalfans say the h2h is skewed because they don't meet Nadal on clay? That's an illogical argument. It is what it is, and we have to accept that. The hope is that Nadal will rise to the challenge, not that the challenge is skewed against him.
It's flawed logic no matter how you look at it.
What if it was any other surface other than clay, where Nadal is excruciatingly dominant? Would there be a problem? Again, no.
It doesn't matter where they met, because Fed was the 2nd best claycourter, and still out of 12 meetings he only won 2.
So, the h2h is even more valid because Fed was able, and had the opportunity to even it up by his own play. He didn't. That's on him. In these instances, Fed failed, although he too was good on clay.
I think if Fed led the h2h, there wouldn't be a debate at all.
But, for all of Fed's achievements, (which some of his fans still aren't satisfied with), we are also supposed to somehow add in awards, clothing contracts, hairstyles, outfits. It's beginning to border on crazy.
Djoker, Del Potro, and Murray have great hard court results against Nadal. Do Nadalfans say the h2h is skewed because they don't meet Nadal on clay? That's an illogical argument. It is what it is, and we have to accept that. The hope is that Nadal will rise to the challenge, not that the challenge is skewed against him.
It's flawed logic no matter how you look at it.
Bud
Bionic Poster
Hit the nail on the head.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Hopefully they'll meet this year and the question will be settled once and for all.
TheTruth what a brilliant post!
Last edited:
tennis_guru
Banned
Well be honest, wouldn't you assume Nadal would win at a clay tournament in Russia if they met there? Based on previous results. Now this is of course more sure in Nadal's case given the numbers. In Fed's case, less so but still it's an edge to Fed based on previous fast HCs. That's why. But you still haven't answered the question, is 14-0 skewed or not?
M
meg0529
Guest
Lets not forget that Fed had the sniffles ^.^
tennis_guru
Banned
I think your #2 depends on when they met on fast HC. If it was 2007 or before, I would say Fed wins them all. If it after 2007 then yes Nadal would take more. But that's a function of their primes not lining up. It's the same thing with Wimbledon, the first time they met was 2006. What about 2003-2005? That was when Fed started getting really good. Yes it's asking a lot of baby Nadal to make those finals, but no different than expecting geriatric Fed to make finals now and still beat Nadal in his prime now.
The only reason people would say the H2H is skewed towards clay (which it is) is when Nadal fans try to say the H2H proves Nadal is the superior player.
Yeah, the H2H is in Nadal's favour, and is a negative for Federer. But the fact is, you can't extrapolate from it that Nadal is the better player overall, given the only surface he has a massive lead on is clay. And he is, of course, a far superior clay courter to Federer.
You see, you say this is "flawed logic", but the fact is, the Nadal-Fed H2H is called upon far more often than other H2Hs. No others are analysed so much, or have so much supposed significance projected upon them. So whenever some Nadal fans say "lol Nadal is better 14-7!!!!111", it requires some deeper analysis to see if that claim can actually be justified.
So, your post may have been reasonable if all H2Hs were given the same significance. But they aren't. Certain Nadal fans try to build the H2H statistic to be something that it's not, and therefore, it's natural that people point out the flaws in doing so. Other H2Hs are not used in the same way by fans, so less people will be pointing out the flaws in using them.
There probably wouldn't be any debate if Federer led the H2H, but that's because we wouldn't have *******s saying "lol the H2H means Nadal is the GOAT", where the Federer fans would refer to the slam count, rather than the H2H to try to prove Federer's superiority. This would then mean people would focus less on the H2H, so there would obviously be less debate and less analysis of it.
Last edited:
rh310
Hall of Fame
It's probably because this one single negative is leveraged by Nadal fans to negate Fed's GOAT status.
My take is that we just enjoy the tennis and screw the fanboy stuff, regardless of who you're a fanboy for.
Omega_7000
Legend
How many times has Nadal face Fed in USO? How many times has Fed played nadal @ FO?
Nadal has an obvious match-up advantage over Fed, which is amplified on slow courts. The only place Fed would have an advantage over the past 5 -6 years would be the USO...So yes the H2H is skewed.
kraggy
Banned
Hence over the next few years there might come a time when Nadal is still in his prime and making finals and Fed isn't and they don't even get to meet! Wouldn't you then say that this will allow the H2H to be less worse than it could be? Would you favor 32 yr Fed over 27 yr old Nadal at Wimby? In fact Fed might retire early and Nadal might not even have the opportunity to face an old Fed!
My entire point is that WHAT-IF scenarios don't really make sense if you only choose to look at one aspect.
Also I think 'geriatric' is a bit too much lol. Fed didn't enter his prime until 22-23 so he has only being playing at the top level for 6-7 yrs. Sampras won his first slam in 1990 and was still playing at a very high level 7-8 yrs later. Fed is also more than capable of extremely high level tennis as seen earlier this year at AO. Maybe he has lost motivation recently but that's his fault not the opponents.
Last edited:
tennis_guru
Banned
Bolded: Yes EXACTLY! you've proven my point precisely. A young Nadal not reaching the USO during Fed's prime makes the H2H in favor of Nadal, i.e. better than it would be otherwise. Just like now Fed not reaching finals now in Nadal's prime will keep the H2H from getting worse for Fed. But it got worse in the first place by the majority of meetings being on non fastHCs and Nadal not going deep into fast HCs.
Last edited:
Nadal is superior at Federer everywhere but in the USO? That's what you are saying?
The H2H is perfect.
If Federer was up 8-1 in their non clay meeting you may have a point.
But this is 5-4.
tennis_guru
Banned
It is 5-4 true. And so you proved that if there were fewer clay meetings and it was more evenly distributed, the H2H would not be as bad as it is now. If there we no clay meetings, the H2H would favour Fed and *********s would be up in arms about skew - and they would have a point.
Nadal is way above Federer on clay and the H2H on other surface is very close and contested.
Overall, Nadal is above and it's perfectly fine.
Nadalfan89
Hall of Fame
A 5-4 lead over someone is not dominance. One more grass tournament could easily even it out. That mean's Federer is just slightly more dominant on non-slow surfaces (all of grass matches have gone the the maximum number of sets) where as the slow surfaces, Nadal completely dominates (to the point of bageling and breadsticking Federer in a final). So that means Federer is not nearly as dominant on his best surface as Nadal is on his own best surface.
That's not making a very good case for Federer.
A 1 vs 1 matchup says nothing about dominance.
Nadal is better at beating Federer on clay surfaces than Federer is at beating Nadal on non-clay surfaces.
tennis_guru
Banned
Definitely agreed 5-4 is not dominance. But it is a bit telling in how things might go especially given that very few of the 5-4 are on fast HC where Fed has done a lot better. MOst of the 5-4 are still considered relatively slow surfaces, especially given how W has been slowed down. Yes Nadal completely dominates on the very slow surfaces, because those surfaces rely more on athletic ability and less on pure tennis skill per se.
kraggy
Banned
Precisely. If this were a world of only Federer and Nadal, you would then have to admit that Nadal is the better player. But since it is a world of 100s of other players, you have to look at them against the field too. Clearly Fed has done better here THUS FAR.
That is why there is a case to be made IF AND ONLY IF Nadal gets close to Fed's other achievements that Nadal is the superior player in light of their H2H.
I disagree with Nadal fans who want to make the H2H the headline. But I also disagree with Fed fans who think the H2H should only be a small footnoote. I think its true importance is somewhere in between as one of the 5 or 6 parameters that will be used ultimately to measure greatness.
ThreadintheNeedle
Banned
I love you..
Federer fans just can't handle that Nadal has superior abilities.
Exactly. What a bunch of bull***. Nadal has been beating TMF since he was 17(1st meeting on hard). TMF being a GOAT(or so claim his worshippers) should have found a way to even things out not matter the surfaces he plays Nadal on. Btw we wouldn't be having this debate if it was the other way around.
Sartorius
Hall of Fame
Good post.
Their age difference has played a huge role in this rivalry; gets overlooked very often.
From now on (or perhaps even since a couple of years) Federer will always be at a disadvantage, because it's quite possible we've seen the best of him while Nadal is still very young.
tennis_guru
Banned
If the tennis world were only Nadal and Federer then Nadal might be better assuming they continue to play as they do. I don' think it's a given that if more fast HC's were played that Nadal would even get any of them. It's possible, but certainly not a given. Moreover, Fed's game is such that is developed to beat a field of players, not just one. If these were the only 2 guys then they both might develop different games altogether aimed at beating there one and only opponent.
tennis_guru
Banned
What a ********* would argue here is that even when Fed was at his best Nadal beat him handily. But they fail to realize that from 2004-2007 (Fed's prime) there were no slam wins for Nadal off of clay.
T
TennisandMusic
Guest
Federer's best surface is grass. Nadal has beaten Federer at Miami and Dubai, and the Australian is certainly a hard court. He did not beat him on rebound ace. Kinda ignorant article.
M
meg0529
Guest
That is very true! In fact he is the only tennis player in history to do that. One more reason Nadal should be considered goat! >.<
Bud
Bionic Poster
Nadal's been beating Federer since 2004 and throughout his 'prime'.
Stop with the desperate, silly excuses.
J
Jchurch
Guest
I agree. Nadal is much more dominating than Federer :???:
Wilander Fan
Hall of Fame
The rivalry almost doesnt even matter now. Federer is riding into the sunset and Nadal is busy fending off a bunch of other guys like Soderling and Murray.
It seems like everyone was able to snap long losing streaks against Fed the last year or so but no one else really thinks of these new wins as the beginning of a new rivalry but the decline of the old champion. Soderling, Berdych...Del Potro... You can bet these guys are not thinking of themselves as the new guy to hold back Fed. They are probably thinking they are getting some shots in at the guy before he finally packs it in. Only Nadal fans seem to obsess over recent wins over Federer and that is because he is the only link to some obscure GOAT claim based on a scewed H2H.
If Nadal wants to be considered a GOAT, he has to win another 8 GSs including a USO and he really only has a couple of years to do most of the damage. It has little to do with H2H with Fed because as Nadal gets older, your going to see new young guys trouncing him. 24-25 is middle aged for a tennis player. Nadal is deep into his prime now and will be declining after this year. After that..who knows if there is anyone special out there that can push Nadal but there almost always is someone waiting.
I like Istoman with his deceptively fast movement and solid all court game. I think Roddick knows he has alot to prove and he can have a resurgence like many Americans do. I woulndt even worry about Fed in the USO if I were Nadal. Fed is completely unmotivated and Nadal has to figure out a way to get to the final himself.
OTOH, a final between Nadal and Fed is going to be very interesting. A win by Fed would pretty much kill this fantasy about H2H but a loss would just reinforce the notion that Fed is in decline.
It seems like everyone was able to snap long losing streaks against Fed the last year or so but no one else really thinks of these new wins as the beginning of a new rivalry but the decline of the old champion. Soderling, Berdych...Del Potro... You can bet these guys are not thinking of themselves as the new guy to hold back Fed. They are probably thinking they are getting some shots in at the guy before he finally packs it in. Only Nadal fans seem to obsess over recent wins over Federer and that is because he is the only link to some obscure GOAT claim based on a scewed H2H.
If Nadal wants to be considered a GOAT, he has to win another 8 GSs including a USO and he really only has a couple of years to do most of the damage. It has little to do with H2H with Fed because as Nadal gets older, your going to see new young guys trouncing him. 24-25 is middle aged for a tennis player. Nadal is deep into his prime now and will be declining after this year. After that..who knows if there is anyone special out there that can push Nadal but there almost always is someone waiting.
I like Istoman with his deceptively fast movement and solid all court game. I think Roddick knows he has alot to prove and he can have a resurgence like many Americans do. I woulndt even worry about Fed in the USO if I were Nadal. Fed is completely unmotivated and Nadal has to figure out a way to get to the final himself.
OTOH, a final between Nadal and Fed is going to be very interesting. A win by Fed would pretty much kill this fantasy about H2H but a loss would just reinforce the notion that Fed is in decline.
bluetrain4
G.O.A.T.
The article has some good points IMO, such as the fact that Fed clearly would have a better H2H with Nadal had they met on fast hardcourts during Fed's prime (though I'm not sure we can assume Fed would win every single time, even if he would have won the majority), but the author goes too far, and it ends up reading like a smart explanation of the H2H in the rivalry, followed by blatant excuse making.
Of course we wouldn't be having the debate if Federer led the H2H.
If Federer was leading the H2H, the *******s wouldn't continually refer to the H2H as their "proof" that Nadal is superior.
If Federer led the H2H it would never be mentioned.
Nadalfan89
Hall of Fame
Why did tennis guru get banned? He seemed like a rational poster to me...
Yeah, you could, and that's pretty much valid. If there were 2 clay slams, Nadal would have lots more slams.
Similar threads
- Poll
