H2H was skewed during Fed's peak years by clay. If Fed tanked clay surface to make it look like he was bad as Pete on clay, the H2H would be close to even and your list changes.
You can't say that dude.
I say the H2H was skewed by HC in favor of Fed.
How bout that?
2011 Nadal was better than 2010 Nadal's IMO. He made the finals of just about everything but just kept running into Novak. If not for Novak, Nadal probably has a 75% shot at the GS. Nadal almost definitely beats Tsonga at WB and Fed at AO...the only question would have been Fed at USO. Nadal probably also has a clay court sweep and 2 more HC1000s. In short, Nadal would have had the greatest single season ever.
For that reason, you dont have to speculate about prime Novak and prime Nadal. Novak is clearly better at his peak on all surfaces.
Well let's compromise and say that they meet 10 times. 5 times on indoor hard and 5 times on clay. What would you predict the H2H will be then?
Honestly I would rate Nadal's chances on beating Fed on indoor HC higher than Fed beating Nadal on clay.
I would rate the whole thing at 5-5 though.
H2H was skewed during Fed's peak years by clay. If Fed tanked clay surface to make it look like he was bad as Pete on clay, the H2H would be close to even and your list changes.
It's difficult to compare. In 2004-7, Fed's peak years, he was dominant over Nadal on 2 of the 3 surfaces. But in Nadal's peak years which were a bit later, 2007-10 or thereabouts, he gets better on HC and grass and starts to dominate on those surfaces as well. So peak Nadal (2007-10) would still have the upper hand over peak Federer (2007-7) IMO.
Tanking the clay season wouldn't make Fed a better player. Yes, he'd have a better H2H with Nadal, but he would lose 3,000 points a season for not reaching the usual Monte Carlo, Rome and/or Hamburg finals, and the French Open.#1 ranking means you have to be better than the whole field.
Tanking the clay season wouldn't make Fed a better player. Yes, he'd have a better H2H with Nadal, but he would lose 3,000 points a season for not reaching the usual Monte Carlo, Rome and/or Hamburg finals, and the French Open.
Without those points, Fed wouldn't be #1. Logical phallacy.
Tanking the clay season wouldn't make Fed a better player. Yes, he'd have a better H2H with Nadal, but he would lose 3,000 points a season for not reaching the usual Monte Carlo, Rome and/or Hamburg finals, and the French Open.
Without those points, Fed wouldn't be #1. Logical phallacy.
Well really it comes down to comparing these two:
pre prime Nadal to peak Fed
post prime Fed to peak Nadal.
The data indicate that preprime Nadal was closer to his peak in terms of stats than postprime Fed is to his peak stats. So really you cannot mix the two.
In any case, the point of this thread is ranking, where one must dominate the entire field, not just one player. On that basis alone, it seems to me Fed far exceeds Nadal. Just compare their peak year losses to the field.
Honestly I would rate Nadal's chances on beating Fed on indoor HC higher than Fed beating Nadal on clay.
I would rate the whole thing at 5-5 though.
Well maybe Fed would have a better chance of beating Fed on indoor, notwithstanding the actual data do show instance of Fed beating Nadal on clay, but no instance of Nadal beating Fed on indoor HC.
But let's not even consider that. In any case you agree that the H2H would be 5-5 if their meetings were more evenly distributed on their best surfaces. Which was not the case in 2004-2007. Hence the skew.
How so? Nadal has never come close to beating Federer on indoor hard. Federer has beaten Nadal on clay.
As I understand it, the OP is asking us to compare them as if both were still playing at their respective peaks (whenever that happened to be). Its all very hypothetical and guessy of course, but IMO peak Nadal would edge peak Federer on ALL surfaces.
The H2H ain't scewd. Fed's best surface is HARDCOURT, you can't say let's compare the on clay and INDOOR HC.
As I said even with the IHC-CC stuff i would give Nadal the edge over 10 meetings.
Fed beat Nadal how many times in 18 occasions or so, they didn't play as much on IHC.
I don't know if Wawrinka should be listed so highly in your "God mode" list, but the rest of them can beat anyone on tour when they get hot!Best year's play?
1 Federer
2 Djokovic
3 Nadal
4 Hewitt
5 Roddick
6 Davydenko
7 Murray
8 Nalbandian
9 del Potro
10 Soderling
If they are all constantly in god mode
1 Federer
2 Davydenko
3 Nalbandian
4 Murray
5 Wawrinka
6 Tipsarevic
7 Djokovic
8 Nadal
9 Soderling
10 Tsonga
Fair point. I don't have the stats to hand to compare. Did Nadal lose to more players than Federer did in their peak years? I still think that the peak no.1 should be able to dominate the peak no.2 though. It looks a bit odd to me if he can't. But that's just my take.
Fair enough. But in his peak you could say Fed's best surface was grass, not HC. What was the distributions of their meetings on grass vs clay during those years?
We saw what Nadal was able to do when he matured as a player.
i.e Wimbledon 2007 he was well able to beat Fed who was at his peak.
#2 Nalbandian
Federer was also well able to beat Nadal on clay in 2006. In any case, the point is the # of meetings. on various surfaces. You say HC is Fed's best surface, well how many times did they meet on HC from 2004-2007? Compare that with clay and you will see a skew.
The H2H ain't scewd. Fed's best surface is HARDCOURT, you can't say let's compare the on clay and INDOOR HC.
As I said even with the IHC-CC stuff i would give Nadal the edge over 10 meetings.
Fed beat Nadal how many times in 18 occasions or so, they didn't play as much on IHC.
2004-2007 Nadal wasn't at his prime.
There is no skew man, the H2H just is how it is.
You like to do that prime, not prime stuff, with some Player1.0, Player 1.5, Player2.0 stuff which is nonsense to me.
Everytime you post the more i question your tennis knowledge.
We saw what Nadal was able to do when he matured as a player.
i.e Wimbledon 2007 he was well able to beat Fed who was at his peak.
We saw what Nadal was able to do when he matured as a player.
i.e Wimbledon 2007 he was well able to beat Fed who was at his peak.
No but what you can compare is the fact over 50% of their meetings have been on clay despite it being about 1/3 of the tournaments on the ATP tour.
Keep digging though. The more you say that Nadal would have a better chance of beating Federer on indoor hard just keeps reinforcing the fact that if a surface doesn't take Nadal's spin well he is vulnerable.
And also played to the best of their abilities
What would the top 10 look like?
Mine:
1. Petros
2. Federer
3. Djokovic
4. Nadal
5. Hewitt
6. Nalbandian
7. Roddick
8. Murray
9. Del Potro
10. Ferrero
Against the field no question, peak Fed is a lot better than peak Rafa. In fact post peak Fed still dismantles any one outside the top 4.
Against each other peak Rafa wins the majority. Although the H2H is skewed because of the predominance of clay meetings, an even surface distribution is illogical because the tour is not designed evenly. A logical surface meetings distribution would follow the year schedule. Basically something like 40% meetings on slow HC, 20% on fast HC, 30% on clay and 10% on grass.
Slow HC Rafa 3- Fed 1
Fast HC Fed 2, Rafa 0
Clay Rafa 3- Fed 0
Grass Fed 1 - Rafa 0
Overall 6-4 in favor of Rafa. So instead of 2:1 (current) it should be more like 1.5:1. That diversion aside I think the intent of this topic was performance against the field. And its really no contest there, Fed is just too good against the field.
You gotta be kidding me. 2007 Nadal has already won 3 slams by Wimby time, reaches the final, almost beats Fed, and he's not prime? What a joke. And you know it.
Nadal was at his prime in freakin 2007??
Sweet lord he had yet to reach a HC Semifinal and you think he was in his prime??
Holy fckin cow, this is ridiculous.
Dude, any 3 slam winner in his prime no matter how you slice it.
Nope, I think you know very well that you got caught on that point.
How so? Please explain.