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

NadalAgassi said:
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.
Click to expand...

most here at this site are ignorant. nadalwon2012 being a prime example.

and secondly even nadal himself said the h2h was skewed because most of their matches were on clay so......

ETA: he didnt actually use the word skewed. but in an interview regarding the head to head he said directly, alot of the matches
were played on clay. draw conclusions as you will.
 
Last edited:
tennis_pro said:
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.
Click to expand...

like I said, 16 majors or no, nadal has never and will never and can never domiante like Fed, as evidence by the records. Case closed.

And with Djoker's emergence, he'll be lucky to see 13 majors.
 
SLD76 said:
like I said, 16 majors or no, nadal has never and will never and can never domiante like Fed, as evidence by the records. Case closed.

And with Djoker's emergence, he'll be lucky to see 13 majors.
Click to expand...

Guys like you deny facts and numbers and worship at the altar or Federer.

Nadal's 81 masters shields and longest time at No.2 prove his longevity. If you focus purely on numbers, Nadal's 714 days at number 1 is a bigger number than Roger's 285 weeks.

People like you also deny that the numbers work in favor of Nadal when it comes to slams. If he wins like 3 slams in 2012 and 3 more in 2013, then he is already at 16 slams, and that was just simple addition. You probably wouldn't be able to handle it if those numbers were multiplied.
 
nikdom said:
Guys like you deny facts and numbers and worship at the altar or Federer.

Nadal's 81 masters shields and longest time at No.2 prove his longevity. If you focus purely on numbers, Nadal's 714 days at number 1 is a bigger number than Roger's 285 weeks.

People like you also deny that the numbers work in favor of Nadal when it comes to slams. If he wins like 3 slams in 2012 and 3 more in 2013, then he is already at 16 slams, and that was just simple addition. You probably wouldn't be able to handle it if those numbers were multiplied.
Click to expand...

comedy gold! You sir, are on a roll!

Speaking of multiplication..hmm, I wonder, how much is 285 x 7..???
 
Given Nadal being the GOAT, it's sort of sad that he never made a hard court slam before 2009. I mean to only make a hard court slam your fourth year of winning slams is suspect if you are to be considered the GOAT
 
nadalwon2012 said:
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?
federer-makes-a-backhand-return-to-nadal-in-their-mens-singles-finals-clash2.jpg
Click to expand...

At the same age as Federer is now, in 2002 Sampras lost in R16 at AO to Safin. If Federer even gets to semi to face Nadal he is just proving further how much better he is than Sampras. Also, Sampras retired after 2002 USO.

In 2007 when Fed was the same age as Nadal is now, Fed won AO in straight sets. I don't see how peak Nadal beating a nearly retired Fed means anything. Actually, it would quite embarrassing if this peak Nadal couldn't beat old man back problems Federer in straight sets.
 
tennis_pro said:
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?
Click to expand...

If Djokovic ends up taking a huge lead in H2H on Nadal like Nadal has on Federer (one often forgets at this point Djokovic is still behind in fact) and wins the same # of majors, of course Djokovic will be considered better by most, by all but the most biased *********s. That is a no brainer, just as Nadal being considered better than his lapdog Federer with the same # of majors is a no brainer.

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.
Click to expand...

The debate in the real World would be over. Maybe not on planet TW where the current GOAT debate is Federer vs Nalbandian vs Safin, with Laver and Sampras somewhere out of the top 20.
 
NadalAgassi said:
If Djokovic ends up taking a huge lead in H2H on Nadal like Nadal has on Federer (one often forgets at this point Djokovic is still behind in fact) and wins the same # of majors, of course Djokovic will be considered better by most, by all but the most biased *********s. That is a no brainer, just as Nadal being considered better than his lapdog Federer with the same # of majors is a no brainer.



The debate in the real World would be over. Maybe not on planet TW where the current GOAT debate is Federer vs Nalbandian vs Safin, with Laver and Sampras somewhere out of the top 20.
Click to expand...

But you're forgetting something:

Federer leads the H2H, 2 surfaces to 1.
 
NadalAgassi, H2H doesn't mean much. I mean, remember Davydenko H2H against Rafa. Federer might have a losing H2H against Nadal, who is a multiple slam winner, probably the best in the history on clay, etc. On the other side, Nadal has a losing H2H to Davydenko.. a player who barely won a few masters, and wasn't even in a slam final.
At the same time, Federer owns Davydenko, badly. What is the conclution? is Federer way better than Nadal because of that? no.. match ups interfere with match results. Overall achievements is what is important to judge how great a player is/was.
I'm not even taking into account the fact that more than 50% of the matches between Federer and Nadal where on clay.

At this point, Nadal is a player that has lots of slams won, and lots of masters series tournaments. But, 60% of his slams are on clay. And 75% of his masters are on clay. He could not even win one World tour final.

The fairest conclution is that he is a clay monster. All time top 2 or top 1.

Overall he is not as great as Federer, who is/was great on all surfaces, and dominated much more than Nadal. Even if Nadal wins 18 slams, with the help of 9 or 10 french opens (unlikely but "possible"), to many people he won't be as great as Federer. Because he wasn't as versatile, as complete, as Federer, who could be great on all surfaces, slow or fast.
 
Last edited:
nadalwon2012 said:
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.
Click to expand...

So I guess that not making a final is better than making a final? I wonder if the ATP agrees..... oh wait.
 
aphex said:
It's also better to have a losing record to a 0 slam winner than a 10 slam winner.

Get with the program!
Click to expand...

It all makes sense now! Because Nadlito is the GOAT everything he does is the best. McEnroe is lucky that Nadal never played him. Nadal's percentage at the net would make McEroe go cray cray.
 
Well, if they *do* meet in the semis (and they both have four more matches to win first), I guess Nadal should really consider winning this one, even if that means getting yet another spanking from Djokovic in the final (which could hurt him seriously, true), because a second loss in a row to a 30+ year-old in a best of five format after the WTF drubbing wouldn't do wonders for his confidence either, I guess.

So, before considering how this one would go down for their respective legacies (the impact would probably be nil or close to anyway), maybe you should think of the psychological impact for the year 2012, and it looks like Nadal has much more to lose on this score. But hey, we'll see when (or if) they get to play each other. ;)
 
I tried to copy+paste the list of Federer's achievements from Wikipedia into this thread (not including the awards he's won or the footnotes at the bottom of the page). My post was 36,000 characters too long.
 
Ico said:
I tried to copy+paste the list of Federer's achievements from Wikipedia into this thread (not including the awards he's won or the footnotes at the bottom of the page). My post was 36,000 characters too long.
Click to expand...

Oh, you went for the abridged version? ;)
 
YEC? Does it count? I guess not, because Rafa hasn't won it. GOAT seems to be judged by the number of Monte-Carlo and Barcelona titles one has won.
 
Last edited:
Ico said:
I tried to copy+paste the list of Federer's achievements from Wikipedia into this thread (not including the awards he's won or the footnotes at the bottom of the page). My post was 36,000 characters too long.
Click to expand...
Why not just copy TMF's epic post and be done with it.
 
Federer has won a pretty impressive 9 HC slams.

Nadal's won over Federer at the point he had won 8 of those 9 hardcourt slams. If he beats him here he will have beaten him AFTER he had won 9 and quite possibly all of his HC slams.

So it'll mean he's beaten him twice when he was past his best. Not like it was twice in the 2004-2007 period when he did the vast majority of his HC slam winning.

I mean, if someone beats Nadal at the French Open this year and next year after Nadal has won 6 French Opens, does that mean they are better than him? Considering that he's has probabaly won most of the RG titles he will ever win, I would say it has little meaning, it only means they played him at the right time.
 
DjokovicForTheWin said:
Bullizlla aka nadalwon2012 is mentally unstable. Don't push him guys.
Click to expand...
So do you suggest Clarky21, instead ?

nikdom said:
Guys like you deny facts and numbers and worship at the altar or Federer.

Nadal's 81 masters shields and longest time at No.2 prove his longevity. If you focus purely on numbers, Nadal's 714 days at number 1 is a bigger number than Roger's 285 weeks.

People like you also deny that the numbers work in favor of Nadal when it comes to slams. If he wins like 3 slams in 2012 and 3 more in 2013, then he is already at 16 slams, and that was just simple addition. You probably wouldn't be able to handle it if those numbers were multiplied.
Click to expand...
Great post, Sir. Tips hat.
 
nadalwon2012 said:
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.
Click to expand...

on the other hand Federer has

total slams record

YEC record

which is bigger than the first 2 records you mentioned.

Federer also held slams on 3 different surfaces at the same time, not in a calendar year but within a 12 month period, and managed a final in the slam he did not win, where as nadal could only manage a quarter final.

Federer's grass streak is also as impressive as Nadal's clay streak given the lack of grass tournaments, meaning that Federer had to remain unbeaten for over 5 years, compared to 3 with nadal. Let's not forget Nadal's streak ended with him getting bagelled by Federer, Federer's ended with a very close loss to Nadal who was the man of the moment.
 
NadalAgassi said:
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.
Click to expand...

ROFL !

So much utter nonsense coming from a troll who got banned 20+ times.

An objective way to use a tie-breaker are number of year end ranking, weeks at #1, number of WTF, total titles, level of dominant, total MS titles, accomplished on all surfaces(grass, hc, clay, indoor), or even records/streaks.

Anyone with a half a brain wouldn't use the h2h as a tie-breaker.
Sampras wouldn't mind exchange Agassi a 20-14 win/loss record for a FO title except our delusional NadalAgassi.
 
NadalAgassi said:
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.
Click to expand...

Have to agree, if Nadal equals Fed's slam record I'll consider him to be a better player overall.
 
if those dumarse man crush arguments are not coming from Harker Heights, i might as well come out and assume that in fact i am Napoleon Bonapart...
 
jackson vile said:
That is obviously a sensitive spot :)
Click to expand...

vile jackson, vile jackson, where have you been?

vj: I have been to Melbourne to look at the queen

vile jackson, vile jackson, what did you do there?

vj: I exploded her knee from under the chair
 
nadalwon2012 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but this is a long ways away, no?

nadalwon2012 said:
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.
Click to expand...

There are other players who can knock Nadal out of hard court slams. Federer can definitely do it, Murray can do it, Ferrer can do it, and don't forget about Djokovic. Please don't act like he's a lock for every final.

nadalwon2012 said:
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).
Click to expand...

Federer has the record for most consecutive weeks at No.1 and the second most weeks at No. 1 (2 weeks from the record). How will Nadal compensate for the lack of this?

nadalwon2012 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Federer owns both the semi streak and the slam record. It would be one thing if he only owned the semi streak, but because he's also the most successful player in the slams, you have no point. Nadal has never and probably will never show this kind of consistency.

nadalwon2012 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You mean statistical records like the great 81-match streak on clay?

nadalwon2012 said:
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.
Click to expand...

YEC is a much bigger event than the Masters, and this is reflected in both ranking points, prize money, and prestige. If Nadal never wins this, what will his legacy look like then, seeing as how the great champions of the past, even Djokovic, have at least won this event once.

nadalwon2012 said:
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.
Click to expand...

But when the player who owns those records also has the most wins, you have no case.

nadalwon2012 said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is entirely hypothetical. If slams are as easy to win as you say they are, then the record shouldn't mean anything. Nadal is 6 slams away. Federer, in addition to the 16 slams, has numerous other records which trump most of Nadal's.
 
Last edited:
NadalAgassi dissappeared after my post. Answer back!

_maxi said:
NadalAgassi, H2H doesn't mean much. I mean, remember Davydenko H2H against Rafa. Federer might have a losing H2H against Nadal, who is a multiple slam winner, probably the best in the history on clay, etc. On the other side, Nadal has a losing H2H to Davydenko.. a player who barely won a few masters, and wasn't even in a slam final.
At the same time, Federer owns Davydenko, badly. What is the conclution? is Federer way better than Nadal because of that? no.. match ups interfere with match results. Overall achievements is what is important to judge how great a player is/was.
I'm not even taking into account the fact that more than 50% of the matches between Federer and Nadal where on clay.

At this point, Nadal is a player that has lots of slams won, and lots of masters series tournaments. But, 60% of his slams are on clay. And 75% of his masters are on clay. He could not even win one World tour final.

The fairest conclution is that he is a clay monster. All time top 2 or top 1.

Overall he is not as great as Federer, who is/was great on all surfaces, and dominated much more than Nadal. Even if Nadal wins 18 slams, with the help of 9 or 10 french opens (unlikely but "possible"), to many people he won't be as great as Federer. Because he wasn't as versatile, as complete, as Federer, who could be great on all surfaces, slow or fast.
Click to expand...
 
Nadal has the most powerful records in tennis-

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

Longest surface streak of 81 matches (a streak that makes a mockery of a QF and SF streak)

Masters Shield record.

Apart from Federer's weeks ranked number one, there is no record Federer owns which can compete with the above 3 records, except for of course the total slams record which really is the purpose of Nadal's existence and will decide the 'media GOAT'.

I've said enough about this, it is somewhat off-topic or a sub-topic at best. This thread is supposed to simply highlight next week's Fedal meeting. The rest, will be settled in the near future as 2012-13 unravels.
 
nadalwon2012 said:
Nadal has the most powerful records in tennis-

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

Longest surface streak of 81 matches (a streak that makes a mockery of a QF and SF streak)

Masters Shield record.

Apart from Federer's weeks ranked number one, there is no record Federer owns which can compete with the above 3 records, except for of course the total slams record which really is the purpose of Nadal's existence and will decide the 'media GOAT'.

I've said enough about this, it is somewhat off-topic or a sub-topic at best. This thread is supposed to simply highlight next week's Fedal meeting. The rest, will be settled in the near future as 2012-13 unravels.
Click to expand...

Again, YEC doesn't count?
 
what a troll thread:) What Fed did vs the field when both were in their primes or a few years off trumped Rafa's feats by miles. Rafa would have been spanked in 5 straight US open finals if they both faced off at Rafa's current age of 24. Fed has never had is rear end handed to him 7 (going on >15) times straight on 3 surfaces by anyone let alone in his prime. Roger has nothing to prove at close to 31, his GOAT legacy will stay intact esp. against a phony one dimensional player like Nadal. If anyone has a chance and is in pace to eclipse Roger its Novak. Novak will need to stay consistent enough over 3-4 season to pull it off. You can bank on Rafa not reaching 16.
 
nadalwon2012 said:
Nadal has the most powerful records in tennis-

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

Longest surface streak of 81 matches (a streak that makes a mockery of a QF and SF streak)

Masters Shield record.

Apart from Federer's weeks ranked number one, there is no record Federer owns which can compete with the above 3 records, except for of course the total slams record which really is the purpose of Nadal's existence and will decide the 'media GOAT'.


Most no. of Slams cover everything ..means everything .!!
I've said enough about this, it is somewhat off-topic or a sub-topic at best. This thread is supposed to simply highlight next week's Fedal meeting. The rest, will be settled in the near future as 2012-13 unravels.
Click to expand...

Tell dirt-baller to win 3 different slams 4 times each(or may be 5 after this AO). till then be happy in your nadal bubble.
 
Last edited:
Difficult to argue with that.

nadalwon2012 said:
Nadal has the most powerful records in tennis-

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

Longest surface streak of 81 matches (a streak that makes a mockery of a QF and SF streak)

Masters Shield record.

Apart from Federer's weeks ranked number one, there is no record Federer owns which can compete with the above 3 records, except for of course the total slams record which really is the purpose of Nadal's existence and will decide the 'media GOAT'.

I've said enough about this, it is somewhat off-topic or a sub-topic at best. This thread is supposed to simply highlight next week's Fedal meeting. The rest, will be settled in the near future as 2012-13 unravels.
Click to expand...
 
Lame thread. Federer has 9 HC slams, as many as Graf, the record for HC slams. Nadal only has 2.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think Nadal will ever get to 16 or 17 GS.

6 or 7 more GS is just too much. ( I don't think Djokovic will get to 10 GS either).

Even if Nadal ends with 17 GS, it is not that simple. Nadal (until now) has only been the best (the nº1 player in the rankings) for 102 weeks, whereas Sampras, Federer, Lendl....were the best of their eras during much more time ( 286, 285 and 270 total weeks) and that is almost as much important (to be nº1 in the rankings everything counts: GS, YEC, M-1000, ATP-500, ATP-250...you have to be just better than all the other players, and not only here and there, but in all the year average).

To be the nº1 in the rankings for many years takes its toll, it is a constant pressure, a constant wear and tear, everybody expects you to win everything, every loss is huge news.... It is much more easy and less debilitating, less pressure, to be just the nº2 or nº3 in the world.

At the end of the day, I couldn't care less about these things. And probably players themselves care little about this GOAT non-sense (it is a media hyped thing to try to bring more interest to the game). Every GS win is an amazing feeling, and the few players fortunate enough to have felt it, want to feel it again, and again, and again...it is like a drug, all them want to feel it one more time.

Federer wants to feel it one more time, Nadal wants to feel it one more time, Djokovic wants to feel it one more time, and in those glorious moments they are lifting the precious trophy, they don't give a damn (about how many GS in total have they won or will they end).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JennyS
What would the Nadal/Federer h2h be if 11 were indoors/2 on clay?
2
Replies
88
Views
4K
Baikalic
Baikalic
NADALRECORD
Nadal reaching slam title #13 in his hardcourt prime. Unprecedented? Implications?
Replies
27
Views
2K
DRII
DRII
S
why is djokovic trailing nadal 7-11 in slam h2h even after winning 23 slams?
5 6 7
Replies
304
Views
7K
Mark Anderson
M
Forehand Of Doom
The clay skew in the Fed/Nadal H2H is a blessing for Federer
4 5 6
Replies
273
Views
13K
Povl Carstensen
P
N
  • Poll Poll
When Nadal wins on Sunday, what will be the implications of a 4-0 hard court slam h2h?
2
Replies
65
Views
5K
Dilexson
Dilexson
Back
Top