How much does Fed's H2H against the Big 4 matter?

[helloworld]

Only H2H in slams matter. H2H is mickey mouse tourneys is what it is, mickey mouse.

 

[Candide]

I would like to respond to your post...but I honestly have no clue what exactly you are trying to say or how it relates to my post that you quoted. I don't want to misinterpret what you wrote, so if you would like me to respond, please be more clear with what you are asking.

Ah, that's just me expressing myself poorly. Just pointing out that the apparent reason that Nadal hasn't won every tennis competition he ever entered is solely because he has some physical problem. This has led to the creation of a fun new pursuit called asterisking. If all the asterisked finals by other players were added to Nadal's total (FO 2009, AO 2014 to name a few) he would be by far the most dominant player who ever lived - as he clearly is for those who dwell in their alternative universe.

 

[merlinpinpin]

Fact is, neither Fed or Pete were anything to write home about on clay.

One French Open title between them.

Please don't try and hype up Sampras' non-existent clay record by bundling him up with a much better player. They don't have "one French Open title between them". Federer has one, Sampras has zilch. Big difference. Cause a million times zero is still much less than one.

 

[peakofthebounce]

Only H2H in slams matter. H2H is mickey mouse tourneys is what it is, mickey mouse.

Ok so if Murray starts meeting a very declining Federer in enough Slams to win the Slam h2h against Federer, yet Murray himself wins no more than 4 slams, does that mean Murray is more of a GOAT candidate than Federer, and equally as much of a GOAT candidate as Nadal?

Also Rosol and Darcis lead the Slam h2h against Nadal - does that mean Nadal cannot be ranked higher than them in the GOaT debate?

 

[merlinpinpin]

Also Rosol and Darcis lead the Slam h2h against Nadal - does that mean Nadal cannot be ranked higher than them in the GOaT debate?

Ah, no. You have a good argument there, but there's a caveat, you see. As the VB and their Samptard helpers will tell you, H2H is the most important metric ever in tennis, but *only* if one of the players involved is Swiss and the other is Spanish. Otherwise, it's achievements that count, so Rosol and Darcis are obviously out.

 

[abmk]

The marriage of (un?)intentional irony and self annihilation in this dude's avatar, name, professed fandom and postings is truly postmodern. Credit where credit is due. I'm consistently at a loss to know if he's a comic genius, completely deluded or just immune to a single instant of personal reflection. Sampras was like a buffalo on an ice rink on clay but apparently that's not a issue for his totality as a player. Federer on the other hand is a mug because he's good enough to make a mountain of finals against Nadal but Nadal can't make most finals off clay to play Federer. The logic is torturous.

the ownage is strong with this one !

 

[Candide]

Please don't try and hype up Sampras' non-existent clay record by bundling him up with a much better player. They don't have "one French Open title between them". Federer has one, Sampras has zilch. Big difference. Cause a million times zero is still much less than one.

I earn $1 a year and my next door neighbour $2,000,000. Our average income per year is ONE MILLION DOLLARS! Yah, we're both rich! There are a couple of budding economists around here.

 

[helloworld]

Whatever makes you sleep at night.

While the rest of the real world, like experts and pros know Fed is the goat making all those extra finals being 2nd on clay.

Sampras would be lucky to make 1 RG finals losing to Rafa.

The problem is Fed lost every time he played Nadal in hard court slam. It's not just clay that Nadal owns Federer. Nadal has already conquered Federer pretty much everywhere.

 

[NatF]

The problem is Fed lost every time he played Nadal in hard court slam. It's not just clay that Nadal owns Federer. Nadal has already conquered Federer pretty much everywhere.

Federer was over 30 for 2/3 times...There records on hard courts are incomparable.

 

[mike danny]

The problem is Fed lost every time he played Nadal in hard court slam. It's not just clay that Nadal owns Federer. Nadal has already conquered Federer pretty much everywhere.

Yet he only has 3 HC slams to his name. Fed has 9.

This is why H2H means squat.

 

[helloworld]

Yet he only has 3 HC slams to his name. Fed has 9.

This is why H2H means squat.

Fed has 9, but how many of those were obtained during the weakest era in men's tennis?

 

[merlinpinpin]

Fed has 9, but how many of those were obtained during the weakest era in men's tennis?

None. He didn't win any during 2012-2014.

 

[mike danny]

Fed has 9, but how many of those were obtained during the weakest era in men's tennis?

These are just excuses. Facts say Federer has 9 HC slams.

Others are just excuses by butthurt fans.

And i doubt that is the weakest era in mens tennis. 1996-1998 seems also a valid choice for weakest ever.

Marcelo Rios was Sampras's main competition for no.1 ranking and he never won a slam? Come on.... Federer would have ended 2008 no.1 if he had Marcelo Rios instead of Nadal

 

[jg153040]

Fed has 9, but how many of those were obtained during the weakest era in men's tennis?

Fed beat tons of HC GS champions.

How many RG champions did Nadal beat? Only Fed in 2011. But you say Fed is a weak era champ, so that doesn't even count.

If Fed won in weak era Nadal won even in weaker clay era.

And that hurts because 90% of his greatness is based only on clay. And you Nadal fans know this, that's why you need to inflate the clay era.

On grass and HC and indoor Rafa is not even top 10 in history .

Actually h2h, records streaks are only based on clay with Rafa.

 

[tennis_pro]

Shows your knowledge::shock:

Wins over the following on clay:

Bruguera
Agassi
Courier
Kafelnikov
Muster

etc.

Thats a far cry from being unable to beat anyone on a certain surface. In fact, minus Kuerten those are the BEST dirt ballers of the 90s.

Fantastic. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Just like it took Sampras 13 years to gather a handful of decent clay wins.

 

[spinovic]

Oh Blahh blah... Yea I forgot Fed has dominated the French and clay too right? :shock:

You act as if Fed has MULTIPLE French Open crowns and is one of the greatest ever on clay, Fact is, neither Fed or Pete were anything to write home about on clay.

One French Open title between them. You talk about "consistency" Fed was a consistent LOSER to Nadal at the French (and pretty much everywhere really) . No one remembers 2nd place

Then I guess its good that Federer is #1 on many lists. He is likely to be remembered.

 

[spinovic]

These are just excuses. Facts say Federer has 9 HC slams.

Others are just excuses by butthurt fans.

And i doubt that is the weakest era in mens tennis. 1996-1998 seems also a valid choice for weakest ever.

Marcelo Rios was Sampras's main competition for no.1 ranking and he never won a slam? Come on.... Federer would have ended 2008 no.1 if he had Marcelo Rios instead of Nadal

He'd end this year #1 if that was his competition.

 

[merlinpinpin]

He'd end this year #1 if that was his competition.

Funnily enough, he may still do it with the curent competition, the way things are going atm...

 

[jhhachamp]

Ah, that's just me expressing myself poorly. Just pointing out that the apparent reason that Nadal hasn't won every tennis competition he ever entered is solely because he has some physical problem. This has led to the creation of a fun new pursuit called asterisking. If all the asterisked finals by other players were added to Nadal's total (FO 2009, AO 2014 to name a few) he would be by far the most dominant player who ever lived - as he clearly is for those who dwell in their alternative universe.

I thought you were trolling, but I didn't want to jump to that conclusion until I was sure. I am sure now. You are looking to start some sort of flame war with Nadal fans...I'm not interested in these sorts of discussions. I'm no Nadal fan, but his accomplishments speak for themselves.

 

[jhhachamp]

Fed has 9, but how many of those were obtained during the weakest era in men's tennis?

I guess you could consider 2000 to early 2003 the weakest era. Federer won 1 of his 17 grand slams during this era.

 

[NatF]

I guess you could consider 2000 to early 2003 the weakest era. Federer won 1 of his 17 grand slams during this era.

Whats really funny is that Sampras won 2 in that same period :lol:

 

[monfed]

For all of Pete's explosive prowess and invincible serve, he has 0 RGs(not even a final) and just 2 AO even though AO was on Rebound Ace which is way better for attackers than plexi. Couldn't Pete get the job done with his immaculate serve and volleying skills even once at RG? No Nadal,no Borg stopping him from doing it. Ok Kuerten was there but Pete never played him on clay,ever. I mean Edberg reached the final and almost beat Chang so what was holding Pete back? I mean I know noone cared about the dirtball in the 90s but atleast the career slam should've motivated him to get 1. :lol: