H2H against top players more important than weeks at #1?

Crisstti

Legend
No this is not the same sample size, sorry. Since Fed has so much more matches. Same sample size is the same numbers of matches. I'm not against bringing the win rate. But you know Fed is older and when you are older, your rate drops a lot. Rafa will start to lose more too. Any player does. But what is strange is that you know this and still using it. I thought you wanted to be objective.

Btw, Fed is undefeated against Ferrer. Fed is dominating Ferrer more than Rafa.
Fed's career winning % isn't lower than Rafa's (and Borg's, and Connors') because he's older (until what age did Connors play again?). It's lower because he hasn't been consistently enough all throughout his career. He had comparatively poor results for several years early on.

AFAIK Fed has never had a better career winning % than Rafa has right now.

This has been explained several times, but some people (like you) try to keep on pretending Fed's winning % has just gone down now.

Which is my premise also. Rafa better on clay, Fed better on HC/grass.
Since HC/grass is about 70% of tennis, Fed is better overall.

Overall doesn't mean in every category.

Can't wait fans responding to this with a fallacy, but clay is only 30%, so Fed has more chances to win, it's not fair.
Lol, that's not a fallacy. It's a fact.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Lefties have no unfair advantage. There's nothing unfair about any possible advantage there might be.

They have no option but to admit Rafa is the superior clay courter. And that's still all they're willing to give him...

More like 3 times, at most. The fact is, Rafa also leads now Fed on hc, and the lead Fed has on grass is minimal. Or course, Nadal's on hc is minimal too. There are other ways to explain it. Higher peak level / more consistency. Level of opponents faced. Injuries. And you can add match up as well if you want :)

I do think Rafa should have won more on hc (especially) and grass, and he hasn't due to injuries. He still might though. Just last year/early this year he missed both hc slams when right on his hc prime.
fed >>> rafa on anything except clay.

slow HC
fast HC
grass
indoors

deal with it .....

If anything , he's very lucky with the conditions at wimbledon favoring him a lot more when compared to the previous decades ...
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
You lack some basic reading skills, don't you?.

Read my post again. I said there's no UNFAIR advantage. Not that there's no advantage at all. It's played up to no end by Fed fans though. Sure, he loses to Rafa because he doesn't get enough practice playing lefties. That's why he has such an awful record against Verdasco and all the other lefties as well.
It's not just not getting enough practice. It's that you need to learn other patterns as well in addition. You need more work for the same result. That is unfair to me.

Yes, Verdasco has the edge vs Fed as well. All lefties do. Doesn't mean he can beat Fed. I mean if a player is a lot better nothing helps. The edge is when two players are close in skills. But you should know this already.

But when we have two guys where winning is about 50-50, those little things are huge.
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
This seems like a separate point, but what I'm interested in is to see if others think starting from 0 at the beginning of each new season is a good idea, not as proof of right or wrong opinion but to see if further weight can be added to your idea with further insights that both you and me haven't thought of yet.

In short, I'm here to have a discussion, and I've already declared (in my opinion) that the proposition of some kind of league system, which would fall in line with your idea, is an interesting one.

I made many very logical and strongly argued points as to why it would probably not work as well and NatF further elaborated on some of the inferences and implications that arise from those points made. But that doesn't mean it is a worthless idea and that it shouldn't be further discussed, and hopefully by more people than just yourself and I.
NatF and I have disagreed in the past and then come to a consensus.

The same with JG. We rib each other all the time, and in the end we laugh.

I don't see what you were doing in the same way.

So, I'll make this my parting post to you.
 

TheTruth

G.O.A.T.
That's my goal. To make us all happy. If you laugh at me or with me, it's all good :).

I'm here to have fun. And listening to funny arguments on both sides is so funny. Better than a movie.

I believe Fed is goat. FAITH IS EVIDENCE!
I know. I feel the same way. It's mere fun. Nothing to get serious about.

I don't take anything you say seriously, we ironed this out the first time we talked, moved on, and laughed about it.

I think we've established an internet relationship where we can tease each other.

You like Federer and I like Rafa.

We're both happy, because we choose to be.

Catch you later, I have a ton of Judge Judy's on DVR that I need to deal with.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
NatF and I have disagreed in the past and then come to a consensus.

The same with JG. We rib each other all the time, and in the end we laugh.

I don't see what you were doing in the same way.

So, I'll make this my parting post to you.
I don't really see the point of this post, nor why it should be a parting post.

What does you and other users ribbing and laughing with each other have to do with the discussion or our particular thread of discourse?

Considerations for things like seedings are obvious extensions of the volatility regarding the bases 'start again' structure that you've proposed, hence why the points fit in very logically in with that line of argumentation.


I'm not here to laugh with you or rib you, these things haven't even crossed my mind. I'm here to have discussions and occasionally troll when I'm feeling quirky. Given that I enjoy having these discussions I find it slightly alarming that you'd respond with a post that seems like such a cut off, not to mention seems to refer to some unrelated things that I can't make full sense of in this context.

Rather than cutting off from the discussion, I'd like to hear your views on how a different sort of 'start again' season/tour structure could work. I'd also like to hear views from others on the idea.

I don't see the harm in you doing so, anyway.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
NatF and I have disagreed in the past and then come to a consensus.

The same with JG. We rib each other all the time, and in the end we laugh.

I don't see what you were doing in the same way.

So, I'll make this my parting post to you.
Rafa isn't very balanced. He has 8-2-2-1. He should give 5 RG trophies back.

That makes him 3-2-2-1. And gives his clay competition more credibility. Also makes him more versatile.

So with 8 majors and strong clay field, he can be the goat.
 
N

Nathaniel_Near

Guest
Perhaps after your glorious upcoming Judge Judy marathon you can chirp in with some more thoughts.

I'd certainly appreciate it. Have a good day.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Rafa isn't very balanced. He has 8-2-2-1. He should give 5 RG trophies back.

That makes him 3-2-2-1. And gives his clay competition more credibility. Also makes him more versatile.

So with 8 majors and strong clay field, he can be the goat.
Not if he gives those 5 trophies to Federer ;)
 

KillerServe

Banned
Big Judge Judy fan here. I wonder what she was like in bed when younger.

"Stop, go, wait, move there, now move there, stay there. Done. Now get off" :)
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
TheTruth.

All thoughts though are obviously welcomed.
Maybe something similar to your league system.

We have three SUPER MAJORS a year. Only top 8 qualify in the span of four moths.

And they have something similar like WTF format only 5 sets. This means no weak draws. And you can lose a match and still have a chance. This reduces luck even more, assuring that better player has even more chances to win.
And every match it's against the elite. That really has a feel of a heavy weight championship.
 

shakes1975

Semi-Pro
Come on, this is not the same and you know it. Nadal is not just another all-time great, like Agassi and Agassi was mentally weak and non existent in Pete's prime. Rafa is a fellow goat contender. It's first time in history two goat contenders are playing. And margins are low. Even 3% in form can make a difference.
I think you have this backwards. Agassi was non-existent for a period during Sampras' prime mainly because of Sampras. Further, Agassi's (and Nadal's) slam count are also influenced by their H2H. If Fed had beaten Nadal in those 2 5-setters, Federer would've had 19 slams while Nadal would've been at 11.

Similarly, if Agassi had beaten Sampras in 3 of their 6 meetings at Wim/USO (say, 1990 USO, 1995 USO, and 2002 USO or 1999 Wim), Agassi would've been at 11 slams and Sampras would've been at 11 slams. And then we would've put Agassi as an all-time great too and on par with Sampras. It is to Sampras' credit that he didn't allow Agassi to beat him in slams which he thought were his favourable grounds. And Sampras certainly didn't choke against Agassi or anybody.

The difference between Sampras and Agassi is also just as small as it is between Fed and Nadal. The difference between top players is always very small. And it usually comes down to who executes better on the key points. Agassi is a great player on Deco Turf II (just see his USO performances against Fed in 2004 and 2005 when Agassi was 34-35 yrs old). It's to Sampras' credit that he kept his cool and executed better.

OTOH, when you lose to a journeyman player, it doesn't indicate a mental weakness or lack of resolve. Most often, it just means that the player was in the zone on that day (see Berdych vs. Fed in the 2004 Olympics) and that he just played out of his mind. It happens.

Like you said champions are special because of their mentality, their mettle. And my overriding point is that Fed is lagging in this regard compared to other all-time greats.

Those guys are probably nr.1 and nr.2 in the open era. Or both nr.1. How can you compare Nadal with other rivals who were just all-time greats.
And Fed didn't choke. You have to lead first to choke. And Rafa is amazing at breaking players when they are ahead.
I just posted you two stats to show that Fed was leading first. Wim 2008: 2nd set, leading 4-1, choked. AO 2009, should've won the 1st set, he choked; and had many opportunities to break serve in the 2nd set and squandered them away.

Rome 2006 is another example.

Are you seriously denying that Fed has mental issues against Nadal ? Comon, I would say you are in denial. It's so easy to see.

Let me add that if Nadal had not reversed his H2H in slams against Djok after the 2011 0-7 slide, I would've had the same complaint against him. Thankfully, Nadal reversed it.

It's tough to say who is better. Fed is greater vs the field, Rafa seems to be able to beat Fed more. For now Fed has greater achievements.

And you know Rafa's h2h vs rivals is misleading cuz of clay. And Rafa doesn't have younger talents of his and Nole's caliber chasing him to beat him. So he has a bit easier.

I'm saying in the end maybe they will be considered equal. But please don't put Rafa on the level of Agassi, cuz it's not even close.

Agassi was the same age as Pete, so no advantage for Agassi. Agassi was mentally weak compared to Rafa. Agassi was not present for a lot of the time. And Rafa is way better than Agassi. And a lefty too. Rafa in a GS final is on a hole different level than any of the rivals. He is not even a rival, he is a goat contender.

And still Fed found a way to win so much. I mean if you just look the h2h and saying Rafa is better, you have some basis. But you have to look this in the context of their entire career. Like, surfaces, matchup, age...

With Rafa's current achievements I still don't see h2h being enough to put him on top of Fed overall. Those guys are just amazing. I believe both can win on other surfaces. Fed a bit more versatile. But peak vs peak I really think Fed has the edge on HC and grass, while Rafa on clay. To bad they didn't play peak vs peak.

It's just me, but I don't think Fed is that bad, just Rafa is that great. Both are from another planet. Very close in peak skills, but Fed can bring his best game a bit more consistently, that's why I give slight edge to him now.

They are a bit unlucky playing together. But Fed is a bit more unlucky because he didn't get a chance to play Rafa in decline and also surfaces slowed down to hurt his game a bit more. Experience doesn't help you vs Rafa, since you are too old to execute. I mean Fed was having problems to Nole and Murray too, not just Rafa. And started to lose to all sorts of people in 2008, not just Rafa. So, age matters. No way peak Fed loses to guys like Delpo, Tsonga, Berdych, Soderling at majors. He even lost to Nole in 2008 in straight sets.

You are just acting like bad h2h with Rafa throws away everything Fed has done. Why are you so against Fed anyway? Why the hate?
I never said that Nadal is, as of now, greater than Fed. The slam difference is too high. I'm just saying why H2H between rivals is important, and why it's certainly more important than the H2H between a top player and a fringe player. A rival brings a challenge that determines the mental strength, the resolve of a champion. It's easy to be cool and calm against someone who you know is not as good as you (either game wise or mentally)

And I'm pointing out that Fed is not mentally as strong as a GOAT player should be.

I certainly don't hate Fed, but I will say that I was disappointed in his response to Nadal's challenge. I can totally see the losses on clay. But on grass and even on HC, Fed should win. His game is better suited to both surfaces.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
I think you have this backwards. Agassi was non-existent for a period during Sampras' prime mainly because of Sampras.
no, it was more so because of agassi's own mental 'strength' or lack of it rather ....

And Sampras certainly didn't choke against Agassi or anybody.
of course he didn't, he only got straight-setted at the AO in 96, straight-setted at wimbledon in 96 , bagelled in the SF at the FO ( again straight-setted ) and was a point away from going slamless ( MP vs corretja in USO ) -- right in one of his peak years .....

or how about going down in the 5th set vs korda in USO 97 after being a break up ?

and of course, when he wasn't playing well, he usually got blown off court, didn't even get in position to choke away matches ....

OTOH, when you lose to a journeyman player, it doesn't indicate a mental weakness or lack of resolve. Most often, it just means that the player was in the zone on that day (see Berdych vs. Fed in the 2004 Olympics) and that he just played out of his mind. It happens.
actually it very much does. It means you weren't mentally and physically prepared. ability to get past a 'hot' opponent even when you aren't at your best ( in early rounds ) shows resolve

you don't think federer or borg ( esp at wimbledon ) faced in-zone players in early rounds at all ?

the ability to keep on going slam after slam is what made that 23 major SF streak and 18 out of 19 slam finals of federer that special


the berdych olympics match is a somewhat hilarious example, IMO, since it was a Bo3 match and lets not even get into Bo3 consistency/record comparision b/w fed and sampras ...

Like you said champions are special because of their mentality, their mettle. And my overriding point is that Fed is lagging in this regard compared to other all-time greats.
yeah, I suppose , failure to overcome a surface -- in the case of sampras - clay, which is 30-33% of the season shows his great mentality

I suppose borg quitting due to burnout showcased that very much as well ...

shall I go on ?


Let me add that if Nadal had not reversed his H2H in slams against Djok after the 2011 0-7 slide, I would've had the same complaint against him. Thankfully, Nadal reversed it.

yeah, but of course the fact that djokovic was well below par in 12 RG , not close to his best in 13 RG and completely sh*t in sets 1 and 4 in the USO 13 final can't have helped , can it ?

unlike federer who had to overcome an at his very best nadal in wimbledon 08, AO 09 ...
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
Correct. Esp. the way he lost them.
AO 09 maybe .... but I'd say its absolutely dumb to use 2008 wimbledon as mark against federer's mental strength.

If anything, coming back from 2 sets down to take it to 5 sets vs his greatest rival at his very best, though federer himself was not at his and was down on confidence , very much showcased the fight and mental strength, even in the eyes of many of those who disliked federer

contrast to sampras who went down meekly in straight sets vs krajicek in wimbledon 96
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
I certainly don't hate Fed, but I will say that I was disappointed in his response to Nadal's challenge. I can totally see the losses on clay. But on grass and even on HC, Fed should win. His game is better suited to both surfaces.
Fed did win on grass. I mean on HC he didn't get much chances. During Fed's prime they played only 1 match at HC majors.

It is only one GS match on HC. And it went to 5 sets. Fed was up in the first set, but Rafa just came with some incredible defensive shots.

I mean Fed also lost in the fifth vs Delpo in 2009 on HC. So I don't see any difference here. It's not mental. If it would be mental vs Rafa why did he have problems with all the guys?

What do you expect? Perfection? Fed responded in 2008 W final by winning USO. After 09 AO he defeated Rafa in a clay final and won RG.

After 09 USO loss Fed won AO. After tough 10/11, Fed won WTF, Wimbledon, masters beating all top 3 in the process. Oh, and regaining nr.1.

It's not about winning only. It's also about how you come back after a loss.
And Fed is great here.

I think you are grasping for straws here. You do know that Fed has more aggressive style and has less margins. So in tight points he will make more errors than Rafa. Rafa has higher spin and clearance, so in tight points he makes less mistakes. It's just a style, not some superior mental toughness.

You forget Fed is not even from Rafa's generation. Fed had to deal with a lot of guys of his own time. He reversed a lot of h2h vs his top rivals.

What we see is Fed being so great that he is hanging in with the greats of the next generation.

After some age, every champion starts to lose more close matches. During 2003-07, Fed won plenty of very close matches like a goat.

And Fed made more comebacks from 2 sets down than Rafa. And Fed has the best tie-break record. It's clutch.

There are a lot of things about being a champion and mentally tough. Like not getting blown of the court by lesser players early in majors.

Pete lost a lot of times early and to lesser players. Rafa too. Where is the superior mental tougness from Rafa and Pete here?

Oh, and Fed also edged Pete in close 5-setter who was defending champ. This was mental too.

You are so underrating Fed. You only see where he failed but forget how many times he succeeded.

I guess if the glass is 95% full you focus on 5%.

He won more than 1000 matches and you pick two matches he lost vs Rafa in close 5-sets and tear him apart.

I don't agree with you.
 
Last edited:

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
AO 09 maybe .... but I'd say its absolutely dumb to use 2008 wimbledon as mark against federer's mental strength.

If anything, coming back from 2 sets down to take it to 5 sets vs his greatest rival at his very best, though federer himself was not at his and was down on confidence , very much showcased the fight and mental strength, even in the eyes of many of those who disliked federer

contrast to sampras who went down meekly in straight sets vs krajicek in wimbledon 96
I saw AO 09. One of my favourite matches. I mean Rafa was just god mode that day. Fed had points won and on several occasions Rafa returned shots that would be winners vs anyone else.

Rafa was playing way above himself that match. Fed's level was pretty high that day too.

We also have to take into account that Fed is always playing with more pressure than Rafa. Fed was breaking records for history. And everybody expected Fed to win. That is important too.

Let us not forget what happened after that tough loss. Fed defeat Rafa in clay final, won RG and and W, breaking Petes record. Made USO final and won AO and in the process regained nr.1 from Rafa.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
I saw AO 09. One of my favourite matches. I mean Rafa was just god mode that day. Fed had points won and on several occasions Rafa returned shots that would be winners vs anyone else.

Rafa was playing way above himself that match. Fed's level was pretty high that day too.

We also have to take into account that Fed is always playing with more pressure than Rafa. Fed was breaking records for history. And everybody expected Fed to win. That is important too.

Let us not forget what happened after that tough loss. Fed defeat Rafa in clay final, won RG and and W, breaking Petes record. Made USO final and won AO and in the process regained nr.1 from Rafa.
agreed, but that in no way excuses fed's capitulation in the 5th set in AO 09 --- though I suppose major part of the reason was his serve going AWOL and him having to rely almost solely on his ground game for major part of 4 sets to go toe-to-toe vs rafa ... I don't think the serve going AWOL was something that wouldn't have happened at his peak ....
 

shakes1975

Semi-Pro
AO 09 maybe .... but I'd say its absolutely dumb to use 2008 wimbledon as mark against federer's mental strength.
Here is just one example of Fed's nerves against Nadal from the 2008 Wim match. Look at this approach shot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1yfWb0-jqQ&t=5m22s

It's sheer panic. He comes in off a topspin BH shot that lands near the service line and when Nadal is right in the middle of the court.

It's shots like these that he always plays against Nadal and causes him to lose important games.

If anything, coming back from 2 sets down to take it to 5 sets vs his greatest rival at his very best, though federer himself was not at his and was down on confidence , very much showcased the fight and mental strength, even in the eyes of many of those who disliked federer

contrast to sampras who went down meekly in straight sets vs krajicek in wimbledon 96
My point is he shouldn't even have been down 0-2 in sets in that Wim F.

At least Sampras didn't choke. Believe me, if you every played competitively, which I doubt, it's MUCH better to lose to a player who is "hot", than choking away important points. Nobody likes to choke. No champion likes to exhibit mental fragility against a rival.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
agreed, but that in no way excuses fed's capitulation in the 5th set in AO 09 --- though I suppose major part of the reason was his serve going AWOL and him having to rely almost solely on his ground game for major part of 4 sets to go toe-to-toe vs rafa ... I don't think the serve going AWOL was something that wouldn't have happened at his peak ....
But I don't think it's mental. He lost to a similar score that year to Delpo too.

Did he have a mental block vs Delpo too? It's just loss of form.
I mean in bad form you can't do anything even mentally strong.

It happens to all guys in decline. Djokovic lost a lot of close matches after he declined in 2011 too.

I mean Rafa too. He lost in a fifth set vs a journeymen. He got pushed to 5 on clay against Isner.

I think from now on Djokovic and Rafa will start to lose more of close matches.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Here is just one example of Fed's nerves against Nadal from the 2008 Wim match. Look at this approach shot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1yfWb0-jqQ&t=5m22s

It's sheer panic. He comes in off a topspin BH shot that lands near the service line and when Nadal is right in the middle of the court.

It's shots like these that he always plays against Nadal and causes him to lose important games.
I'm pretty well aware that federer blew the 2nd set. But he came back in the 3rd set ( saving 3 BPs in one game IIRC ) and then saved 2 MPs in the 4th set breaker (one ace and that BH passing shot ).. But you chose to focus only on the 2nd set ...

to say that hitting that BH passing shot when down MP requires mental strength would be an understament

My point is he shouldn't even have been down 0-2 in sets in that Wim F.

At least Sampras didn't choke. Believe me, if you every played competitively, which I doubt, it's MUCH better to lose to a player who is "hot", than choking away important points. Nobody likes to choke. No champion likes to exhibit mental fragility against a rival.
umm, interesting ... can we have a flashback of when sampras blew away multiple BPs vs krajicek in a single game in the very first set in wimbledon 96 QF ? I mean krajicek might not even have had the opportunity/mental strength to come up with that fantastic game to break in the 1st set had sampras himself broken first ........

and believe me, its much better to fight and win vs a hot player (like federer vs lopez in USO 07, tipsarevic in AO 08, andreev in USO 08, AO 10 etc ) than go down to them ( schallar in RG 95, delgado in RG 98 ,scud in AO 96, kucera in AO 98 etc etc ) ...
 
Last edited:

shakes1975

Semi-Pro
Fed did win on grass. I mean on HC he didn't get much chances. During Fed's prime they played only 1 match at HC majors. It is only one GS match on HC. And it went to 5 sets. Fed was up in the first set, but Rafa just came with some incredible defensive shots.
My point is he should never have lost on grass to Nadal. Most people here don't realize the psychological implications of holding on to your turf against all comers, esp. your rival.


I mean Fed also lost in the fifth vs Delpo in 2009 on HC. So I don't see any difference here. It's not mental. If it would be mental vs Rafa why did he have problems with all the guys?
I never bring that match up at all (loss to DelPo) precisely because it was a one-off, not a pattern. To me, it didn't indicate any thing. Against Nadal, it always has been a pattern. It's clearly mental. I'm surprised you are even denying it. It's one thing if you want to argue why Fed is greater inspite of his mental issues against Nadal, but you seem to be denying that Fed even has mental issues against Nadal.

And no, he didn't have problems against all guys in 2008-2009. He only lost that one-off to DelPo and to Djok in the 2008 AO SF. He made 3 Slam F's in 2008, all 4 F's in 2009. His performances were better in slams than in 2005.

FWIW, I even don't bring up his 5-set record.

What do you expect? Perfection? Fed responded in 2008 W final by winning USO. After 09 AO he defeated Rafa in a clay final and won RG.
No, I expect a GOAT level player to hold on to at least some ground where he is superior. Fed didn't do that against Nadal. I would say he was extremely lucky not to play Nadal again at Wim. The trend was clear there too: 4 set win in 2006, 5-set win in 2007, 5-set loss in 2008.

After 09 USO loss Fed won AO. After tough 10/11, Fed won WTF, Wimbledon, masters beating all top 3 in the process. Oh, and regaining nr.1.

It's not about winning only. It's also about how you come back after a loss.
And Fed is great here.
As is Nadal (see his comeback after losing to Djok in 2011-2012. As was Sampras after losing to Edberg in 1992/1993, losing to Agassi in 1995 etc. Fed is great in this regard, no question, but he's not the only one here either.

I think you are grasping for straws here. You do know that Fed has more aggressive style and has less margins. So in tight points he will make more errors than Rafa. Rafa has higher spin and clearance, so in tight points he makes less mistakes. It's just a style, not some superior mental toughness.
How come it most often happens on the tight points ? That is a clear indication of mental nerves. And it's not because of Nadal playing better either. It's how Fed makes mistakes he doesn't do against any other player, or when he's leading 40-0.

Berdych playing a brain dead drop shot from the baseline when having a set point against Fed in the 2009 AO is a sign of mental weakness as well. Big points are of course an indicator of mental strength or weakness. Likewise, Sampras serving a 119 mph ace at 30-40 on his 2nd serve against Agassi in a USO F is a sign of mental strength as well.

You forget Fed is not even from Rafa's generation. Fed had to deal with a lot of guys of his own time. He reversed a lot of h2h vs his top rivals.

What we see is Fed being so great that he is hanging in with the greats of the next generation.

After some age, every champion starts to lose more close matches. During 2003-07, Fed won plenty of very close matches like a goat.

And Fed made more comebacks from 2 sets down than Rafa. And Fed has the best tie-break record. It's clutch.

There are a lot of things about being a champion and mentally tough. Like not getting blown of the court by lesser players early in majors.

Pete lost a lot of times early and to lesser players. Rafa too. Where is the superior mental tougness from Rafa and Pete here?
No, losing early to lesser players is NOT a sign of mental weakness. It just means that when they are not at their best, their game is not as good as Fed's. That's a different issue from mental toughness.

Oh, and Fed also edged Pete in close 5-setter who was defending champ. This was mental too.
No it wasn't because Sampras didn't choke. Fed beat him by hitting winners. Once again, I'm talking about choking.

You are so underrating Fed. You only see where he failed but forget how many times he succeeded.

I guess if the glass is 95% full you focus on 5%.

He won more than 1000 matches and you pick two matches he lost vs Rafa in close 5-sets and tear him apart.

I don't agree with you.
I'm not underrating Fed at all, just preventing people from pushing his mental issues under the carpet of "match-up".
 
Last edited:

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
My point is he should never have lost on grass to Nadal. Most people here don't realize the psychological implications of holding on to your turf against all comers, esp. your rival.




I never bring that match up at all (loss to DelPo) precisely because it was a one-off, not a pattern. To me, it didn't indicate any thing. Against Nadal, it always has been a pattern. It's clearly mental. I'm surprised you are even denying it. It's one thing if you want to argue why Fed is greater inspite of his mental issues against Nadal, but you seem to be denying that Fed even has mental issues against Nadal.

And no, he didn't have problems against all guys in 2008-2009. He only lost that one-off to DelPo and to Djok in the 2008 AO SF. He made 3 Slam F's in 2008, all 4 F's in 2009. His performances were better in slams than in 2005.

FWIW, I even don't bring up his 5-set record.



No, I expect a GOAT level player to hold on to at least some ground where he is superior. Fed didn't do that against Nadal. I would say he was extremely lucky not to play Nadal again at Wim. The trend was clear there too: 4 set win in 2006, 5-set win in 2007, 5-set loss in 2008.



As is Nadal (see his comeback after losing to Djok in 2011-2012. As was Sampras after losing to Edberg in 1992/1993, losing to Agassi in 1995 etc. Fed is great in this regard, no question, but he's not the only one here either.



How come it most often happens on the tight points ? That is a clear indication of mental nerves. And it's not because of Nadal playing better either. It's how Fed makes mistakes he doesn't do against any other player, or when he's leading 40-0.

Berdych playing a brain dead drop shot from the baseline when having a set point against Fed in the 2009 AO is a sign of mental weakness as well. Big points are of course an indicator of mental strength or weakness. Likewise, Sampras serving a 119 mph ace at 30-40 on his 2nd serve against Agassi in a USO F is a sign of mental strength as well.



No, losing early to lesser players is NOT a sign of mental weakness. It just means that when they are not at their best, their game is not as good as Fed's. That's a different issue from mental toughness.



No it wasn't because Sampras didn't choke. Fed beat him by hitting winners. Once again, I'm talking about choking.



I'm not underrating Fed at all, just preventing people from pushing his mental issues under the carpet of "match-up".
Tennis is like 50% mental. Even with talents and the game you won't win without being mentally strong. It's impossible. So how do you explain it, since you can't win without being mentally strong.

I mean how can you call best GS champion in history mentally weak? This is like a contradiction. It's absurd.

I just don't agree with you. You know who is mentally weak? Guys who call champions mentally weak :).

I mean Rafa is afraid of the dark. He is afraid of lightning. He lives with his parents, mother cooks and washes his clothes. He said himself he is a coward off court. He said he can't be alone in the house, too afraid, has to turn TV on. He sleeps with a light on, for god's shake.

Fed on the other hand is his own man, has a wife, kids. So please, don't talk to me about tougness. Let's wrap this up.
 

sam_p

Professional
If fed won the 2008 W and 2009 AO final we would not be having this conversation
And if Nadal had beaten Fed those two times he lost to him in GS, then they'd be tied in titles now...

And if Soderling hadn't zoned in 2009, Federer would have no FO and Nadal would have 16 slams and Fed 14...

We could play this game all day!
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
And if Nadal had beaten Fed those two times he lost to him in GS, then they'd be tied in titles now...

And if Soderling hadn't zoned in 2009, Federer would have no FO and Nadal would have 16 slams and Fed 14...

We could play this game all day!
That's not fair. Fed has better numbers, so he is more likely to win in hypothetical scenarios.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Hypothetically speaking I slept with Jessica Alba last night. She won. Just saying. :)
That's not the same. Fed's scenarios are based on numbers.

I mean if I knew you slept with 17 hot Hollywood stars before, chances of you sleeping with Jessica Alba would increase a lot.

If you had those numbers and said to me that in hypothetical scenario she would go out with you, I wouldn't be that surprised and wouldn't bet against you.
 
That's not the same. Fed's scenarios are based on numbers.

I mean if I knew you slept with 17 hot Hollywood stars before, chances of you sleeping with Jessica Alba would increase a lot.

If you had those numbers and said to me that in hypothetical scenario she would go out with you, I wouldn't be that surprised and wouldn't bet against you.
Fair enough. Then, I think that due to the very favorable H2H advantage Nadal has, it makes those scenarios very plausible. Following the logic, and just in my opinion, of course.
 

jg153040

G.O.A.T.
Fair enough. Then, I think that due to the very favorable H2H advantage Nadal has, it makes those scenarios very plausible. Following the logic, and just in my opinion, of course.
Fed has children. Rafa doesn't have any children.

Using the h2h, Rafa wins at RG and AO, Fed wins WTF and W. USO = unknown.

Considering Fed's stats at USO, it's not crazy to give Fed the edge there.

Talking peak vs peak.

The thing is this. Fed has the records. We are only talking about Rafa hypothetically even breaking them.
 
Fed has children. Rafa doesn't have any children.

Using the h2h, Rafa wins at RG and AO, Fed wins WTF and W. USO = unknown.

Considering Fed's stats at USO, it's not crazy to give Fed the edge there.

Talking peak vs peak.

The thing is this. Fed has the records. We are only talking about Rafa hypothetically even breaking them.
Yes, but it is becoming a very real possibility now.
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
Then we disagree, because I think every year should start from ground zero, without taking in results from a previous year.

So, in January of 2014, you are still living off the points from the last eleven months that you played?

No. I don't think that's right at all.

But. that's why we're here, not to be right or wrong, but to have different perspectives and respect that other people's opinions will differ.
What about seedings in Australia? Based on Sydney, Auckland and Doha? Or no seedings at all?
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
Well, I'm not calling it conclusive evidence, but I think it's not an unreasonable argument to make either.
I don't think you can just brush it off with "match up" either. That does seem unreasonable to me.
Well, we'll have to disagree then. I've given as much 'proof' that I can that bad and good match up exists and are part of the sport. If you chose to not take that into account, fine by me.
Btw - I don't just brush it off. I have it as an extra explanation for the results, we've seen. But that doesn't seem that Federer cannot be criticized for not being able to handle the many defeats better mentally and coming up short at crucial moments (that drop shot a couple of mm out that threw him off in the FO 2011 final for example). And not edging out more of the close ones (Fed's win have - mainly - been quite clear, whereas Rafa has won the majority of the close ones they've fought).
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
Good points. I admit that I hadn't thought of the bolded.

But, I do like it when people can discuss and point things out, so I'll give you props for being right.

Excellent post.
And by you too - not often people change their views on this forum!
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
Lefties have no unfair advantage. There's nothing unfair about any possible advantage there might be.

They have no option but to admit Rafa is the superior clay courter. And that's still all they're willing to give him...

More like 3 times, at most. The fact is, Rafa also leads now Fed on hc, and the lead Fed has on grass is minimal. Or course, Nadal's on hc is minimal too. There are other ways to explain it. Higher peak level / more consistency. Level of opponents faced. Injuries. And you can add match up as well if you want :)

I do think Rafa should have won more on hc (especially) and grass, and he hasn't due to injuries. He still might though. Just last year/early this year he missed both hc slams when right on his hc prime.
He leads 7-2 on outdoor hard. Fed has 15 important HC titles, 9 of them outdoor. Nadal has 4 (counting the Olympics).
That's a very big anomaly for you right there. And I don't think even Rafa fans would claim Rafa was more consistent than Fed? Or had a higher peak level of play? (Fed has bagelled Rafa on every surface and can - when he's in the zone - hit Rafa off the court. Problem is, he almost always comes crashing down and then Rafa is playing well enough to stay in the match until that happens).
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
And by you too - not often people change their views on this forum!
Chanwan I have to tell you how much I enjoy reading your posts. You always put your point across in a well thought out, respectful manner, you take on board other peoples' point of view and you don't resort to trolling. In fact I almost find it quite a soothing experience reading what you have to say- a bit like listening to classical music lol! Keep up the good work Sir:)
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
Like you said champions are special because of their mentality, their mettle. And my overriding point is that Fed is lagging in this regard compared to other all-time greats....

Let me add that if Nadal had not reversed his H2H in slams against Djok after the 2011 0-7 slide, I would've had the same complaint against him. Thankfully, Nadal reversed it....
I certainly don't hate Fed, but I will say that I was disappointed in his response to Nadal's challenge. I can totally see the losses on clay. But on grass and even on HC, Fed should win. His game is better suited to both surfaces.
As to the bold: Correct. The interesting question then is: why does he lose?
I will say it's a combination of the following:
a) the many clay loses has taken their mental toll - especially a beating like the 6-3, 6-1, 6-0 just prior to the 08 Wimbledon - and added confidence to Nadal. Had they met on grass and fast hard court the majority of the first matches, Fed might have had more belief vs. Rafa. Or if he had managed to win a match like the Rome final (I met a journalist this year, who has covered tennis since Nastase and who thought that match was the key to their rivalry. Had Fed won it, he would also have won the FO 2006 (where he won the first set 6-1), he maintained.
b) I know, I know - match up. It's 1) simply harder to play a lefty, because you need to alter your normal game completely whereas the lefty almost always plays righties and 2) especially for the singlehanded onehander vs. the most topspin in history. See Rafa's 25-0 record vs. two very good players with world class ohb's like Wawrinka and Gasquet for proof.
c) b gives Nadal a safety zone mentally - he knows that if he sticks to gameplan: serve to the backhand, hit to the backhand and only hit to the forehand, when there's a big opening, he will eventually break Federer down - unless Federer has a really good day. Fed, on the other hand, knows he needs to press more and faster in order to avoid that pattern of play. So there's a lot more mental pressure for Federer as he knows the pattern of play does not favor him.
In relation to this, you mentioned Rafa vs. Nole in 2011. Nole stood up to Rafa's bread and butter CC forehand. And Rafa had no answers until they reached clay and Novak's level had dipped from the year before. But cudos to him for taking the opportunity and turning the rivalry again.

p.s. If it isn't clear, I completely agree that Fed has a mental problem against Nadal. I've just given reasons for why this is so.
 

Chanwan

G.O.A.T.
Chanwan I have to tell you how much I enjoy reading your posts. You always put your point across in a well thought out, respectful manner, you take on board other peoples' point of view and you don't resort to trolling. In fact I almost find it quite a soothing experience reading what you have to say- a bit like listening to classical music lol! Keep up the good work Sir:)
Wow! Thanks a lot. With that praise, I will go to sleep:) - (and I very much enjoy the posts, I've seen from you too).
 
Wow! Thanks a lot. With that praise, I will go to sleep:) - (and I very much enjoy the posts, I've seen from you too).
Like Djoko and TheTruth pointed out, you are a quality poster. Now I have to find out how hard I need to troll you in order to sway you into the dark side of the force. You goon. :)
 

Incognito

Legend
Yes H2H is extremely important, more important than weeks at number 1.. Just look at how much Federer and djokovic supporters brag about djokovic beating Nadal 7 straight times at one point. :)
 

Talker

Hall of Fame
Nadal already has a better record than Federer had at the same age, correlating WTF as 1.5 Masters titles. And that's even with the injury layoffs.
Fed probably had more weeks at #1.
More WTF's and already showed long term dominance.
More YE #1's.

Fed had better years at that time, maybe already three or four better than Nadal's best.

It isn't very close really.
 
Top