If they meet at AO12, implications of Nadal leading Fed 2-0 in hardcourt slam h2h?

[nadalwon2012]

Given Federer's amazing success in hardcourt slams, it is staggering to think that Nadal may lead Federer 2-0 in their hardcourt slams h2h after this fortnight. It locks up Nadal's ownership of their hardcourt rivalry, regardless of whether Federer leads their overall hardcourt h2h. The slams count for so much more than a slender Federer lead in non-slam hardcourt meetings. Plus it can be picked apart by showing that Federer has only beaten Nadal once in outdoor hardcourt meetings. Does anyone else see this meeting as being especially significant?

 

[kishnabe]

Depends on Nadal's state of knees.

 

[aphex]

Given Nadal's success in hardcourt slams, it is staggering to think Davydenko leads 6-1 on hard courts blablabla

 

[SLD76]

I need a dead horse gif.

 

[monfed]

Given Federer's amazing success in hardcourt slams, it is staggering to think that Nadal may lead Federer 2-0 in their hardcourt slams h2h after this fortnight. It locks up Nadal's ownership of their hardcourt rivalry, regardless of whether Federer leads their overall hardcourt h2h. The slams count for so much more than a slender Federer lead in non-slam hardcourt meetings. Plus it can be picked apart by showing that Federer has only beaten Nadal once in outdoor hardcourt meetings. Does anyone else see this meeting as being especially significant?

No, it will set you and your fellow fanatics's tongue wagging. And TW will be overloaded with your Fed-putdown threads.

 

[nadalwon2012]

Depends on Nadal's state of knees.

Knees are perfect so far. I don't think Nadal's knees or Federer's back are any excuse for either losing. Breaking down with injury is part of being a tennis player. If a player is prone to that so much that it will determine a big match result, that is the player's fault/shortcoming. That's how I see it anyway. A loss is a loss. A win is a win.

 

[nadalwon2012]

The h2h in my opinion, as far as their legacies go, will only come into play if both finish with the same number of other achievements. If Nadal finishes with more slams and masters shields, and Federer finishes with more weeks ranked number one, I think the h2h would become a bit of a tie-breaker.

 

[nadalwon2012]

Given Nadal's success in hardcourt slams, it is staggering to think Davydenko leads 6-1 on hard courts blablabla

But would Davy ever beat Nadal in a hardcourt slam? I doubt it. Davy is one of the worst slam players I've ever seen (of players who win titles and are regularly ranked high on tour).

 

[SLD76]

The h2h in my opinion, as far as their legacies go, will only come into play if both finish with the same number of other achievements. If Nadal finishes with more slams and masters shields, and Federer finishes with more weeks ranked number one, I think the h2h would become a bit of a tie-breaker.

which is impossible, hence my need for a dead horse gif.

If by "achievments" you mean slam count, which definitely wont happen, not to mention all of fed's other records.

 

[nadalwon2012]

which is impossible, hence my need for a dead horse gif.

If by "achievments" you mean slam count, which definitely wont happen, not to mention all of fed's other records.

You'll probably know after this year. If Nadal has a big year (and he's only one player away from winning 3-4 slams this year, since Djokovic is the only guy showing balls vs Nadal at slams), and takes his slam tally to 13, then he would only need Roland Garros each year for another 3 years. And that would be ignoring the possibility of him winning Wimbledon again. I also don't expect Tomic and Raonic to make a whole lot of difference down the line on clay. So Nadal has the chance to win Roland Garros several years removed from his prime. The countdown will definitely be on if Nadal wins this AO, knowing that his best slam is next.

 

[SLD76]

In what universe would rafa be able to equal half of roger's records and achievments?

His has no chance.

Again, this is assuming that you mean the totality of Roger's achievments and not just 'slam tally'

and even if Rafa managed to tie the slam count ( which he wont), he is still nowhere near all of Roger's other records.

Hence, he has no chance of ever equalling roger, slam count or no.

hence, I need a dead horse gif.

 

[nadalwon2012]

And Nadal already has the masters shields record, and can add to that by winning his pet events.
Nadal also has the surface streak record of 81.
Nadal is the only man in world history to win slams on clay, grass, hardcourt in a calendar year.

And a record he may soon add to those: The Sampras-Federer-Borg record of winning a slam 8 years in a row (2012 is Nadal's 8th straight year, if he wins a slam).

 

[nikdom]

Given Federer's amazing success in hardcourt slams, it is staggering to think that Nadal may lead Federer 2-0 in their hardcourt slams h2h after this fortnight. It locks up Nadal's ownership of their hardcourt rivalry, regardless of whether Federer leads their overall hardcourt h2h. The slams count for so much more than a slender Federer lead in non-slam hardcourt meetings. Plus it can be picked apart by showing that Federer has only beaten Nadal once in outdoor hardcourt meetings. Does anyone else see this meeting as being especially significant?

It is amazing indeed. As a Nadal fan, I'm so happy Nadal never had to face Roger at the USO during his peak years! Vamos!

Now I just hope that cvac doesn't beat Rafa more often on clay.

 

[nadalwon2012]

So the h2h will become a tie-beaker if Nadal keeps the records he currently has, and adds the total slams record. Most of Federer's records are about Semis and Quarter-final appearances, which pale when compared to Nadal's records which are more about actual victories.

 

[nikdom]

So the h2h will become a tie-beaker if Nadal keeps the records he currently has, and adds the total slams record. Most of Federer's records are about Semis and Quarter-final appearances, which pale when compared to Nadal's records which are more about actual victories.

Yeah like the one in majors. These stupid Fed fans don't understand math.

 

[SLD76]

So the h2h will become a tie-beaker if Nadal keeps the record he currently has, and adds the total slams record. Most of Federer's records are about Semis and Quarter-final appearances, which pale when compared to Nadal's records which are more about actual victories.

in a word no: as I said, the totality of Roger's records and legacy far eclipses the totality of what Rafa has done.

In other words, Rafa has had the upper hand on Roger. Roger has had the upper hand on the field.

what you do vs the field> what you did to one player.

But of course, you will purposely ignore reality and cling to the h2hand a slam tally which Rafa is not even close to tying, much less breaking.

not to mention, record number of finals made, semifinals made consecutively, weeks at number, consecutive weeks at number one, tour finals championships, 5 slam wins in a row and two concurrent slams etc etc etc.

 

[nadalwon2012]

The only other big time record up for grabs, is the player who can win all 4 slams TWICE each. Federer would need one more Roland Garros. Nadal would need one more US Open and one more Australian Open. That would be an extremely telling accomplishment.

 

[SLD76]

Yeah like the one in majors. These stupid Fed fans don't understand math.

roflmao!

And yeah, dont u have to win matches to make the semis and finals?

didnt he have to win like, 60 or so matches in a row for that streak???

but it doesnt matter, because rafa couldnt do it.

 

[SLD76]

The only other big time record up for grabs, is the player who can win all 4 slams TWICE each. Federer would need one more Roland Garros. Nadal would need one more US Open and one more Australian Open. That would be an extremely telling accomplishment.

meaning the only one rafa has a remote chance of ever attaining. Rofl

dont embarass yourself further, just stop.

 

[nadalwon2012]

Yeah, statistical records like semis streaks, quarters streaks, finals reached, aren't very impressive compared to Nadal taking the total slams and total masters shields records. Those are obviously the big 2 record. But if we are talking streaks, then consecutive years winning slam would be the ultimate, and Nadal can tie that this year, and has a good shot at taking it next year, given his RG dominance.

 

[nikdom]

Yeah, statistical records like semis streaks, quarters streaks, finals reached, aren't very impressive compared to Nadal taking the total slams and total masters shields records. Those are obviously the big 2 record.

exactly. when will people understand 10 > 16??

 

[nadalwon2012]

meaning the only one rafa has a remote chance of ever attaining. Rofl

dont embarass yourself further, just stop.

Don't forget these records-

Nadal already has the masters shields record, and can add to that by winning his pet events.

Nadal also has the surface streak record of 81.

Nadal is the only man in world history to win slams on clay, grass, hardcourt in a calendar year.

Those 3 are obviously bigger records than Federer's semis streaks and quarters streaks.

 

[SLD76]

Don't forget these records-

Nadal already has the masters shields record, and can add to that by winning his pet events.

Nadal also has the surface streak record of 81.

Nadal is the only man in world history to win slams on clay, grass, hardcourt in a calendar year.

Those 3 are obviously bigger records than Federer's semis streaks and quarters streaks.

ok, so rafa has like 5 impressive records, meanwhile roger has like 30.

again, stop.

 

[Ico]

Don't forget these records-

Nadal already has the masters shields record, and can add to that by winning his pet events.

Nadal also has the surface streak record of 81.

Nadal is the only man in world history to win slams on clay, grass, hardcourt in a calendar year.

Those 3 are obviously bigger records than Federer's semis streaks and quarters streaks.

In what universe? Also, don't forget 10 straight finals.

 

[nadalwon2012]

exactly. when will people understand 10 > 16??

Like I said, 2012 will be the key year. It's either Djokovic's year or Nadal's year. If it's Nadal's year and he goes up to 13. 16 looks extremely close for a player still in his prime. So as I said before, you'll know after this year what's likely to happen regarding the total slams record.

 

[nikdom]

Don't forget these records-

Nadal already has the masters shields record, and can add to that by winning his pet events.

Nadal also has the surface streak record of 81.

Nadal is the only man in world history to win slams on clay, grass, hardcourt in a calendar year.

Those 3 are obviously bigger records than Federer's semis streaks and quarters streaks.

Dont forget rafa's injury streak. Its the biggest in the sport. Roger will never be able to match it. even if he fakes them.

 

[SLD76]

In what universe? Also, don't forget 10 straight finals.

pssst. the only records that matter are the ones rafa already has or has a chance of tying/breaking.

the ones impossibly out of reach are abstract and dont matter. pass it on.

 

[nikdom]

Like I said, 2012 will be the key year. It's either Djokovic's year or Nadal's year. If it's Nadal's year and he goes up to 13. 16 looks extremely close for a player still in his prime. So as I said before, you'll know after this year what's likely to happen regarding the total slams record.

Absolutely! I'm with you brother. Records are records whether they exist in reality or in our imaginations. Don't let these Fed ****s destroy our sweet daydreams.

 

[nadalwon2012]

In what universe? Also, don't forget 10 straight finals.

Well, QFs and SFs aren't wins. They aren't titles. You can't compare eliminations to wins, regardless of the longevity it represents. The 3 big records I showed that Nadal has are all about winning.

 

[SLD76]

Well, QFs and SFs aren't wins. They aren't titles. You can't compare eliminations to wins, regardless of the longevity it represents. The 3 big records I showed that Nadal has are all about winning.

cool story, bro.

Hmm, rafa also has the dubious record of losing 6 times across all surfaces to one player in a calendar year.

and a record 7 losses in finals this year.

 

[monfed]

Don't forget these records-

Nadal already has the masters shields record, and can add to that by winning his pet events.

Nadal also has the surface streak record of 81.

Nadal is the only man in world history to win slams on clay, grass, hardcourt in a calendar year.

Those 3 are obviously bigger records than Federer's semis streaks and quarters streaks.

"Obviously bigger" according to who, you?

Each record is different and significant in its own way,kiddo.

 

[nadalwon2012]

Absolutely! I'm with you brother. Records are records whether they exist in reality or in our imaginations. Don't let these Fed ****s destroy our sweet daydreams.

I never said Nadal had the slam record. I'm talking about the AO 2012 and asking what implications the Fedal meeting would have on their legacies comparatively. It would tip the scales to Nadal in 2 of the 3 surfaces, making their h2h indisputably in Nadal's favor. And my point was, that the h2h would only be relevant if Nadal passes Federer's 16 slams. I never said Nadal had the total slams record.

 

[SLD76]

I never said Nadal had the slam record. I'm talking about the AO 2012 and asking what implications their the Fedal meeting would have. It would tip the scales to Nadal in 2 of the 3 surfaces, making their h2h indisputably in Nadal's favor. And my point was, that the h2h would only be relevant if Nadal passes Federer's 16 slams. I never said Nadal had the total slams record.

exquisite trolling my friend.

 

[nadalwon2012]

"Obviously bigger" according to who, you?

Each record is different and significant in its own way,kiddo.

So are you saying a semis an quarters record is more valuable than-

Nadal already has the masters shields record, and can add to that by winning his pet events.

Nadal also has the surface streak record of 81.

Nadal is the only man in world history to win slams on clay, grass, hardcourt in a calendar year.

Certainly not even close.

 

[tennis_pro]

And Nadal already has the masters shields record, and can add to that by winning his pet events. Nadal also can beat the Sampras record of winning a slam 7 times. And the Sampras-Federer-Borg record of winning a slam 8 years in a row (2012 is Nadal's 8th straight year, if he wins a slam). Nadal also has the surface streak record of 81. And Nadal has a big chance at becoming the first man ever to win 2 singles golds. Nadal is already the only man in world history to win slams on clay, grass, hardcourt in a calendar year.

You see, you needed 4 sentences to type out everything that Nadal achieved and Federer hasn't. If you wanted to show all of Federer's achievements, you would need a seperate thread for it.

I need a dead horse gif as well.

 

[nadalwon2012]

You see, you needed 4 sentences to type out everything that Nadal achieved and Federer hasn't. If you wanted to show all of Federer's achievements, you would need a seperate thread for it.

I need a dead horse gif as well.

Federer has a lot of statistical longevity records, he is after all 5 years older than Nadal. Nadal only must stick around into his late 20s/early30s to also gain those longevity stat records. Again, Nadal's records of winning clay, grass, hardcourt slams in a calendar year (the only man ever to do so), winning 81 straight matches on one surface, and owning the masters shields record, are far grander than any of the longevity stat records.

 

[monfed]

So are you saying a semis an quarters record is more valuable than-

Nadal already has the masters shields record, and can add to that by winning his pet events.

Nadal also has the surface streak record of 81.

Nadal is the only man in world history to win slams on clay, grass, hardcourt in a calendar year.

Certainly not even close.

No, I'm saying each record is significant in its own way as it demonstrates a unique attribute.

For example- Fed's semi streak indicates his phenomenal consistency.Nadal's 81 streak on clay indicates his prowess on clay. They're both unique and impressive in their own way. Apples and oranges, bullzilla.

And LOL@3rd point. If he did that in the 90s it would be worth something when surfaces were polarised. Now the USO plays like AO. :lol:.

PS - Fed's 285 weeks at number 1 and Nadal's 102 weeks. That is a chasm.

 

[SLD76]

Federer has a lot of statistical longevity records, he is after all 5 years older than Nadal. Nadal only must stick around into his late 20s/early30s to also gain those longevity stat records. Again, Nadal's records of winning clay, grass, hardcourt slams in a calendar year (the only man ever to do so), winning 81 straight matches on one surface, and owning the masters shields record, are far grander than any of the longevity stat records.

meaning he was consistently better than everybody else

poor rafa, if only he could be consistent...outside of clay.

 

[SLD76]

No, I'm saying each record is significant in its own way as it demonstrates a unique attribute.

For example- Fed's semi streak indicates his phenomenal consistency.Nadal's 81 streak on clay indicates his prowess on clay. They're both unique and impressive in their own way. Apples and oranges, bullzilla.

And LOL@3rd point. If he did that in the 90s it would be worth something when surfaces were polarised. Now the USO plays like AO. :lol:.

please, this guy is trolling. dont even bother.

or better yet, point out Rafa's record 7 finals losses this year.

 

[nadalwon2012]

I don't agree at all that SF and QF streak records are as good as-

Masters shields record.

Surface streak record of 81.

Only man in world history to win slams on clay, grass, hardcourt in a calendar year.

It defies logic to suggest a set of stats regarding QF and SF streaks are as impressive as Nadal's achievements. They are so trivial by comparison.

Either way, the total slams record is the only thing stopping Nadal from passing Federer in history. We'll finish this in September when Nadal has either made significant steps toward 16, or not.

 

[SLD76]

I don't agree at all that SF and QF streak records are as good as-

Masters shields record.

Surface streak record of 81.

Only man in world history to win slams on clay, grass, hardcourt in a calendar year.

It defies logic to suggest a set of stats regarding QF and SF streaks are as impressive as Nadal's achievements. They are so trivial by comparison.

Either way, the total slams record is the only thing stopping Nadal from passing Federer in history. We'll finish this in September when Nadal has either made significant steps toward 16, or not.

cool story bro.

 

[Sentinel]

I need a dead horse gif.

At your service, Sir.

 

[tennis_pro]

Federer has a lot of statistical longevity records, he is after all 5 years older than Nadal. Nadal only must stick around into his late 20s/early30s to also gain those longevity stat records. Again, Nadal's records of winning clay, grass, hardcourt slams in a calendar year (the only man ever to do so), winning 81 straight matches on one surface, and owning the masters shields record, are far grander than any of the longevity stat records.

I didn't know 2 x 5 consecutive majors won has anything to do with longevity, but hey, one learns all the time.

 

[SLD76]

I didn't know 2 x 5 consecutive majors won has anything to do with longevity, but hey, one learns all the time.

Nadal only must stick around into his late 20s/early30s to also gain those longevity stat records.

yup, thats all nadal has to do , just stick around and he will magically break those records. who knew it was that easy? Hell, if its that easy, one wonders why he hasnt done it already???

 

[Sentinel]

Face it. Rafa is clearly a superior player to Roger in all respects. Roger was just a transitional champion between Sampras and Nole.

 

[tennis_pro]

I don't agree at all that SF and QF streak records are as good as-

Masters shields record.

Surface streak record of 81.

Only man in world history to win slams on clay, grass, hardcourt in a calendar year.

It defies logic to suggest a set of stats regarding QF and SF streaks are as impressive as Nadal's achievements. They are so trivial by comparison.

Either way, the total slams record is the only thing stopping Nadal from passing Federer in history. We'll finish this in September when Nadal has either made significant steps toward 16, or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_career_achievements_by_Roger_Federer

thanks for playing

 

[SLD76]

At your service, Sir.

thank you kind sir. Now all I need is to put nadalwon2012's name on the guy's shirt and we are all done here.

 

[SLD76]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_career_achievements_by_Roger_Federer

thanks for playing

pfffft. dont you know, the ones rafa hasnt/cant do dont count!

 

[NadalAgassi]

In what universe would rafa be able to equal half of roger's records and achievments?

His has no chance.

Again, this is assuming that you mean the totality of Roger's achievments and not just 'slam tally'

and even if Rafa managed to tie the slam count ( which he wont), he is still nowhere near all of Roger's other records.

Hence, he has no chance of ever equalling roger, slam count or no.

hence, I need a dead horse gif.

I dont think Nadal will catch Federer in slam wins at this point but if he does nearly everyone will consider Nadal better due to his head to head dominance over Federer. Even the majority of Federer fans on this site of Federer worshipping and excessively biased ****s have conceded this. The few of you who wouldnt would just will just be spitting in the wind of reality at that point. There was even a thread earlier this year if Nadal would be considered better if he won 14-15 slams since his being considered better if he also had 16 (or more) was such a foregone conclusion.

 

[tennis_pro]

I dont think Nadal will catch Federer in slam wins at this point but if he does nearly everyone will consider Nadal better due to his head to head dominance over Federer. Even the majority of Federer fans on this site of Federer worshipping and excessively biased ****s have conceded this. The few of you who wouldnt would just will just be spitting in the wind of reality at that point. There was even a thread earlier this year if Nadal would be considered better if he won 14-15 slams since his being considered better if he also had 16 (or more) was such a foregone conclusion.

By the same token if Djokovic continues to dominate Nadal for the next 3 years and has a commanding h2h lead BUT less majors, who will be better en general?

Unless Nadal actually surpasses Federer, he won't be considered better. By surpassing I don't mean winning 16 majors cause if somehow both end up with 16 grand slam tournaments, the debate will never end.