Looking at past Rivalries through Nadal/Federer surface matchups

[timnz]

I wondered what historical rivalries would have looked like if the two players involved would have played against each other on the same surfaces, the same number of times that Nadal and Federer have played. Nadal and Federer surface stats are:

Clay - 14 times
Grass - 3 times
Hard Outdoor - 5 times
Hard Indoor - 3 times


McEnroe/Borg - was 7 matches all. My prediction would be:

Clay - Borg 13 wins to 1 win for McEnroe
Grass - McEnroe ahead 2 wins to 1
Hard Outdoor - McEnroe ahead 3 wins to 2
Hard Indoor - Borg ahead 2 wins to 1 (remember that Borg was ahead on indoor carpet against McEnroe from 1979 to 1981 - 5 matches to 3)

So instead of 7 wins each it would be 18 wins to Borg and 7 to McEnroe. (Not a lot different than Federer/Nadal really).

--------------------------------------------

McEnroe/Connors - was 20 to McEnroe and 14 to Connors. My prediction would be:

Clay - 10 wins to Connors to 4 wins for McEnroe
Grass - McEnroe ahead 2 wins to 1
Hard Outdoor - McEnroe ahead 3 wins to 2
Hard Indoor - McEnroe ahead 3 wins to 0 (Maybe I am being a bit hard on Jimmy - he did after all beat Mac at the WCT finals in 1980)

So instead of 20/14 it would be 13 to Connors and 12 to McEnroe

----------------------------------------------

Lendl/McEnroe - was 21 to Lendl, 15 to McEnroe. My prediction would be:

Clay - 11 Wins to Lendl to 3 wins for McEnroe
Grass - McEnroe ahead 2 wins to 1 (really we are comparing their whole career - Lendl was a ahead of McEnroe in Grass strength in the late 80's and early 90's)
Hard Outdoor - Lendl ahead 3 wins to 2
Hard Indoor - Lendl ahead 2 wins to 1

So instead of 21/15 it would be 17 to Lendl, 8 wins to McEnroe (same as Nadal/Federer)

-----------------------------------------------------
Do people think I got the stats right in my predictions? Yes, they are just predictions - but when you look at the numbers, I don't think I would be far wrong in these counts.

It's amazing how surface changes completely who is perceived as 'Dominant' in the rivalry.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Connors was only that strong on green clay. On red clay he wasnt that good. He never made a French Open final even though he came back to play it for many years still at or near his prime, losing to not so imposing people in the semis or quarters often. The tennis McEnroe played at the 84 French was far and away better than Connors ever produced on red clay.

 

[timnz]

Not just one year

Connors was only that strong on green clay. On red clay he wasnt that good. He never made a French Open final even though he came back to play it for many years still at or near his prime, losing to not so imposing people in the semis or quarters often. The tennis McEnroe played at the 84 French was far and away better than Connors ever produced on red clay.

We are comparing over whole careers not just 1984. (Just like Federer and Nadal's matches have been over time - not just restricted to their 'peaks' on each surface) So my estimates were based on Connors/McEnroe from 1977 to 1992. McEnroe only played really well on clay in 1984. Hence, I think the 10 to 4 estimate is about right. Regarding green clay versus red - yes Connors was better on green - but that's not the point, the question is what was his relative strength on clay over a whole rivalry period with McEnroe (15 years). I estimate over that 15 year period Connors would have been the dominant player on that surface

 

[urban]

I am not so sure about the imagined lopsided Borg-Mac results on clay. Serve-and volley players could Borg challenge on clay (see Pecci or Panatta). Even at Borgs best tournament ever, the RG 1978, where he lost no sets at all, Tanner - no clay courter by any means -took him to 3 quite close sets. I would agree, that in a best of 5 match, Borg would normally prevail, but in best of 3, i would give Mac more than a handful of wins. On grass, prime Mac would beat Lendl every time.

 

[timnz]

Mac Lendl grass

I am not so sure about the imagined lopsided Borg-Mac results on clay. Serve-and volley players could Borg challenge on clay (see Pecci or Panatta). Even at Borgs best tournament ever, the RG 1978, where he lost no sets at all, Tanner - no clay courter by any means -took him to 3 quite close sets. I would agree, that in a best of 5 match, Borg would normally prevail, but in best of 3, i would give Mac more than a handful of wins. On grass, prime Mac would beat Lendl every time.

But it's not just prime Mac -it is over a career. Lendl wouldn't get beaten by Mac on grass from 1986 to 1992 I would say. Anyway I only had Lendl down for one win

 

[fed_rulz]

Great thread. The one aspect that is being missed here is the mental advantage the rival would carry with a lopsided h2h on clay? That would be especially pertinent in the Sampras - Agassi rivalry.

Here's what I think of Sampras/Agassi rivalry, if you factor in the mental edge:

Clay: Agassi 13 - 1
Grass: Sampras 2 - 1
Hard outdoor - Agassi 3 - 2
Hard Indoor - Sampras 2 - 1

Agassi: 18 - 7

If you don't factor in mental edge, then :

Grass: Sampras 3 - 0
Hard outdoor: Sampras 3 - 2

Agassi: 16 - 9

 

[abmk]

Great thread. The one aspect that is being missed here is the mental advantage the rival would carry with a lopsided h2h on clay? That would be especially pertinent in the Sampras - Agassi rivalry.

Here's what I think of Sampras/Agassi rivalry, if you factor in the mental edge:

Clay: Agassi 13 - 1
Grass: Sampras 2 - 1
Hard outdoor - Agassi 3 - 2
Hard Indoor - Sampras 2 - 1

Agassi: 18 - 7

If you don't factor in mental edge, then :

Grass: Sampras 3 - 0
Hard outdoor: Sampras 3 - 2

Agassi: 16 - 9

huh ? sampras was 2-3 vs agassi on clay ... no way in hell does it go 13-1 in favour of agassi

I'd say 9-5 or 10-4 to agassi

 

[timnz]

Agassi still ahead

huh ? sampras was 2-3 vs agassi on clay ... no way in hell does it go 13-1 in favour of agassi

I'd say 9-5 or 10-4 to agassi

That would still make Agassi at least equal head to head, though I really think that in the early 90's especially Agassi would really dominant Sampras on clay if they played 14 matches on it - I wonder how Pete would feel knowing that 'he wasn't able to beat his main rival, more often than not'. Again, it shows the importance of breaking the H2H down by surface.

 

[pc1]

That would still make Agassi at least equal head to head, though I really think that in the early 90's especially Agassi would really dominant Sampras on clay if they played 14 matches on it - I wonder how Pete would feel knowing that 'he wasn't able to beat his main rival, more often than not'. Again, it shows the importance of breaking the H2H down by surface.

It's very interesting timnz and I like the idea.

That's why we have to look at head to heads and see how they would fare against each other on all surfaces at their peaks.

For example if Nadal and Federer were both 25 and played each other on all surfaces, bearing in mind Nadal is far stronger than when he first starting playing Federer, how would he do if they played a long tour, 100 matches, with 25 on the Australian Open surface, 25 on the French Open surface, Wimbledon and the US Open?

Any opinions on this timnz? Remember same age so you can't go by past results on surfaces head to head. You have to judge the strength of Nadal today versus Federer a few years ago.

Any opinions by others?

 

[krosero]

I am not so sure about the imagined lopsided Borg-Mac results on clay. Serve-and volley players could Borg challenge on clay (see Pecci or Panatta). Even at Borgs best tournament ever, the RG 1978, where he lost no sets at all, Tanner - no clay courter by any means -took him to 3 quite close sets. I would agree, that in a best of 5 match, Borg would normally prevail, but in best of 3, i would give Mac more than a handful of wins.

I think that's certainly true, SV players could challenge Borg on clay. And Tanner did push him harder than any other man at the '78 RG (though he still went down 2, 4 and 6; the match was not really close).

But in that 1977-81 period when Borg and Mac were both playing on tour, Borg was extremely consistent from match to match. I can see McEnroe, like Tanner, pushing Borg -- but it's still hard to picture him actually pulling out a win. Maybe Mac would have a greater chance in '81 when Borg was less consistent (the year that Pecci beat him). But in '77-80 Borg won nearly every match he played on clay.

And even against an inconsistent Borg, I have a difficult time seeing McEnroe pull out the win -- in those years. When he lost to Lendl at '81 RG he seemed unsure how to play and how to attack. So yes, he was a SV player, I'm just not sure how true that was in '77-81, on clay.

Now '84 Mac is a different story. By then he was sure how to play on clay, and it was his peak year. But Borg was no longer playing then and I think Timnz is sticking to the actual years of activity and simply changing up the surfaces in those years.

 

[krosero]

I wondered what historical rivalries would have looked like if the two players involved would have played against each other on the same surfaces, the same number of times that Nadal and Federer have played. Nadal and Federer surface stats are:

Clay - 14 times
Grass - 3 times
Hard Outdoor - 5 times
Hard Indoor - 3 times


McEnroe/Borg - was 7 matches all. My prediction would be:

Clay - Borg 13 wins to 1 win for McEnroe
Grass - McEnroe ahead 2 wins to 1
Hard Outdoor - McEnroe ahead 3 wins to 2
Hard Indoor - Borg ahead 2 wins to 1 (remember that Borg was ahead on indoor carpet against McEnroe from 1979 to 1981 - 5 matches to 3)

So instead of 7 wins each it would be 18 wins to Borg and 7 to McEnroe. (Not a lot different than Federer/Nadal really).

--------------------------------------------

McEnroe/Connors - was 20 to McEnroe and 14 to Connors. My prediction would be:

Clay - 10 wins to Connors to 4 wins for McEnroe
Grass - McEnroe ahead 2 wins to 1
Hard Outdoor - McEnroe ahead 3 wins to 2
Hard Indoor - McEnroe ahead 3 wins to 0 (Maybe I am being a bit hard on Jimmy - he did after all beat Mac at the WCT finals in 1980)

So instead of 20/14 it would be 13 to Connors and 12 to McEnroe

----------------------------------------------

Lendl/McEnroe - was 21 to Lendl, 15 to McEnroe. My prediction would be:

Clay - 11 Wins to Lendl to 3 wins for McEnroe
Grass - McEnroe ahead 2 wins to 1 (really we are comparing their whole career - Lendl was a ahead of McEnroe in Grass strength in the late 80's and early 90's)
Hard Outdoor - Lendl ahead 3 wins to 2
Hard Indoor - Lendl ahead 2 wins to 1

So instead of 21/15 it would be 17 to Lendl, 8 wins to McEnroe (same as Nadal/Federer)

-----------------------------------------------------
Do people think I got the stats right in my predictions? Yes, they are just predictions - but when you look at the numbers, I don't think I would be far wrong in these counts.

It's amazing how surface changes completely who is perceived as 'Dominant' in the rivalry.

Well Connors has a 4-3 edge over Mac lifetime on grass. We need to stick to 3 matches, but their first 3 meetings went to Jimmy 2-1. So I would give him a slight edge there.

Connors had a 3-1 edge over Mac on clay: 3 wins in the '77-79 period, and of course that quick loss at '84 RG when he was past his prime and McEnroe at his peak. So the 10-4 edge you gave him makes sense.

Lendl was 5-2 over McEnroe on clay, and you gave him 11-3, which again makes sense (again Mac's only wins were in '84).

I think this a great idea for a thread, by the way. It was a real eye-opener to see the H2H for Borg-Mac and Lendl-Mac nearly identical to Nadal-Federer. In all three cases the big lead goes to the great claycourter, the guy who has a clear and consistent edge over his rival on that surface.

It would be a less dramatic change in a case like Agassi-Sampras, because Agassi is not an alltime great on clay. You'd have to say he was a better claycourter than Sampras, for sure, but historically as ABMK pointed out his edge was only 3-2. Maybe you can put that down to a combination of Agassi being inconsistent from match to match (or year to year), and his belonging to a lower tier of claycourters. Borg, Lendl and Nadal were all much better: they consistently put in great performances on clay year after year and their skill level on clay was alltime great.

 

[krosero]

Lendl and Becker met 21 times but only once on clay.

Lendl has an 11-10 edge over Becker historically. Changing it up:

Clay - Lendl ahead 12 to 2 (historically it was 1-0)
Grass - Becker ahead 3 to 0 (historically it was 3-1)
Hard Outdoor - Becker ahead 3 to 2 (historically it was 2-2)
Hard Indoor - Becker ahead 2 to 1 (historically it was 1-0)

Lendl ahead 15-10 overall.

So Lendl would widen his lead this way, but not by much. That's partly because historically he had a 7-4 edge over Becker on indoor carpet, and that surface is not being counted here since Federer and Nadal have never played on it.

The really big change for this rivalry would be in the Slam H2H, which Becker actually leads 5-1. None of those meetings were at the French, but with 14 meetings on clay you'd have to figure on 3 or 4 meetings at Roland Garros, with Lendl probably taking all of them.

And that might have some psychological impact on the other meetings.

 

[Datacipher]

It's very interesting timnz and I like the idea.

That's why we have to look at head to heads and see how they would fare against each other on all surfaces at their peaks.

For example if Nadal and Federer were both 25 and played each other on all surfaces, bearing in mind Nadal is far stronger than when he first starting playing Federer, how would he do if they played a long tour, 100 matches, with 25 on the Australian Open surface, 25 on the French Open surface, Wimbledon and the US Open?

Any opinions on this timnz? Remember same age so you can't go by past results on surfaces head to head. You have to judge the strength of Nadal today versus Federer a few years ago.

Any opinions by others?

AO: 16-9 Nadal
FO: 21-4 Nadal
W: 13-12 Nadal
USO: 17-8 Nadal

It bothers me a bit to make it this lopsided for Nadal, but in fact, I may already be generous to Fed with these numbers. It's Fed's head that is the problem....even in his prime, he's just not going to win many slams if he has to play Nadal in each one.

 

[fed_rulz]

It's very interesting timnz and I like the idea.

That's why we have to look at head to heads and see how they would fare against each other on all surfaces at their peaks.

For example if Nadal and Federer were both 25 and played each other on all surfaces, bearing in mind Nadal is far stronger than when he first starting playing Federer, how would he do if they played a long tour, 100 matches, with 25 on the Australian Open surface, 25 on the French Open surface, Wimbledon and the US Open?

Any opinions on this timnz? Remember same age so you can't go by past results on surfaces head to head. You have to judge the strength of Nadal today versus Federer a few years ago.

Any opinions by others?

AO: Fed 20-5
FO: Nadal 23-2
Wimb: Fed 17-8
USO: Fed 23-2

 

[abmk]

It's very interesting timnz and I like the idea.

That's why we have to look at head to heads and see how they would fare against each other on all surfaces at their peaks.

For example if Nadal and Federer were both 25 and played each other on all surfaces, bearing in mind Nadal is far stronger than when he first starting playing Federer, how would he do if they played a long tour, 100 matches, with 25 on the Australian Open surface, 25 on the French Open surface, Wimbledon and the US Open?

Any opinions on this timnz? Remember same age so you can't go by past results on surfaces head to head. You have to judge the strength of Nadal today versus Federer a few years ago.

Any opinions by others?

AO: 16-9 fed
FO: 20-5 nadal
Wimbledon: 15-10 fed
USO: 18-7 fed

so overall 54-46 fed

 

[abmk]

AO: 16-9 Nadal
FO: 21-4 Nadal
W: 13-12 Nadal
USO: 17-8 Nadal

It bothers me a bit to make it this lopsided for Nadal, but in fact, I may already be generous to Fed with these numbers. It's Fed's head that is the problem....even in his prime, he's just not going to win many slams if he has to play Nadal in each one.

yes, because nadal was dominating fed in his prime off clay, being 2-5 vs him, oh wait

to put 17-8 to nadal at the uso and 13-12 at wimbledon is downright laughable* , nadal has a better chance at wimbledon vs fed than at the USO


* so is 16-9 at the AO

 

[abmk]

AO: Fed 20-5
FO: Nadal 23-2
Wimb: Fed 17-8
USO: Fed 23-2

you are stretching quite a bit on either side IMO

 

[fed_rulz]

you are stretching quite a bit on either side IMO

pc1 asked for Fed @ 25 vs Nadal @ 25. without Nadal's mental advantage due to clay. I do think Federer, if he plays his best game (which he did @ 25) would blow Nadal out of water on hard and grass. IMO, fed's best on grass and hard is better than Nadal's by some distance.

 

[NadalAgassi]

AO: 16-9 fed
FO: 20-5 nadal
Wimbledon: 15-10 fed
USO: 18-7 fed

so overall 54-46 fed

ROTFL at thinking Nadal would beat Federer at Roland Garros 20% of the time when even in his prime he beat then up and coming Nadal on clay 10% of the time and has never even taken him to a 5th set at Roland Garros in 5 tries. Or thinking Federer would do nearly as well vs Nadal at the U.S Open as Federer vs Nadal at Roland Garros. Truly delusional.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Mine would be:

Australian Open: 14-11 Nadal
French Open: 25-0 Nadal
Wimbledon: 16-9 Nadal
U.S Open: 13-12 Federer

So overall 67-33 Nadal

 

[NadalAgassi]

yes, because nadal was dominating fed in his prime off clay, being 2-5 vs him, oh wait

Nadal was not in his prime when Federer was in his prime. Nadal in his prime is 3-1 vs Federer on non clay surfaces, which is actually a slightly better ratio than when it was the other way around.

And even prime Federer had a losing record vs Nadal on outdoor hard courts, of course there are no slams played indoors. Peak Federer played 17-19 year old Nadal 3 times on outdoor hard courts, lost 2 of the 3, and had to recover from 2 sets to 0 and 5-3 in the 3rd in his biggest ever comeback vs Nadal to win the other.

 

[abmk]

pc1 asked for Fed @ 25 vs Nadal @ 25. without Nadal's mental advantage due to clay. I do think Federer, if he plays his best game (which he did @ 25) would blow Nadal out of water on hard and grass. IMO, fed's best on grass and hard is better than Nadal's by some distance.

yeah, but he's not going to play his best every time, is he ? ( Neither is Nadal )

 

[fed_rulz]

yeah, but he's not going to play his best every time, is he ? ( Neither is Nadal )

@25, Fed most often than not did.

 

[abmk]

ROTFL at thinking Nadal would beat Federer at Roland Garros 20% of the time when even in his prime he beat then up and coming Nadal on clay 10% of the time and has never even taken him to a 5th set at Roland Garros in 5 tries. Or thinking Federer would do nearly as well vs Nadal at the U.S Open as Federer vs Nadal at Roland Garros. Truly delusional.

or maybe you are too dull enough to even think that fed winning more at the other slams would give him more confidence vs nadal at the FO ? bah !

Try to think and post rather than spending most of your time posting using different profiles and different points of view from each of them :lol:

 

[abmk]

And even prime Federer had a losing record vs Nadal on outdoor hard courts, of course there are no slams played indoors. Peak Federer played 17-19 year old Nadal 3 times on outdoor hard courts, lost 2 of the 3, and had to recover from 2 sets to 0 and 5-3 in the 3rd in his biggest ever comeback vs Nadal to win the other.

Miami 2004 - fed was sick and had just recovered ( was even contemplating on skipping Miami ) - that was in no way representative of peak fed

You conveniently mention fed's comeback at miami 2005 but forget to mention @ dubai, nadal got thrashed in the first set when fed was in form and just escaped when fed's level came down

 

[abmk]

Nadal was not in his prime when Federer was in his prime. Nadal in his prime is 3-1 vs Federer on non clay surfaces, which is actually a slightly better ratio than when it was the other way around.

Miami match this year was a shocker from fed - absolute cr*p tennis. I can't recall him playing such a crappy match ever in his prime . Wonder why someone would even consider such a match that seriously

After 2007, on non-clay surfaces , Nadal won 2 close matches ( 5-setters ) and fed won one at the YEC in 3 . These matches are worth considering, not the Miami one

 

[abmk]

@25, Fed most often than not did.

more often than not, yeah. But nadal has this capability of bringing down federer's level , so I wouldn't go that extreme ....

 

[NadalAgassi]

LOL what a load of pointless excuses. Level fell down, didnt play well, was sick, blah blah. You are worse than the Nadal fans you accuse of using an injury for every loss. The fact is Nadal often makes Federer's level go down or look bad. He is just a bad matchup for him and is mentally much tougher than even peak Roger was.

And if you want to stupidly say Miami this year doesnt count since Roger played bad, Nadal played very bad for him in both his losses to Federer on clay. So I guess those dont count either, Nadal is now 12-0 vs Federer on clay.

PS- the Dubai match in 2006 only looks worse for Federer. Federer despite winning 78 points to only 70 for Nadal, and despite so easily winning the first set, still lost, showing Nadal's complete mental mastery of Federer that Daticipher spoke of. Federer was on fire, playing by far better than any of his Australian Open matches, and still lost to a 19 year old Nadal who had not yet even make it past the round of 16 of a hard court slam, and who had missed the start of the year with injury. Yeah I didnt specifically point out the Dubai match, and I was being kind not to.

 

[abmk]

LOL what a load of pointless excuses. Level fell down, didnt play well, was sick, blah blah. You are worse than the Nadal fans you accuse of using an injury for every loss.

what I said was for one loss - Miami 2004. Want me to bring up the proof for that ?

The fact is Nadal often makes Federer's level go down or look bad. He is just a bad matchup for him and is mentally much tougher than even peak Roger was.

the bad matchup is exaggerated by the mental block caused due to clay. Fact is federer is a a far superior player on hard and a superior player on grass. While nadal's matchup problems does reduce the gap, doesn't mean prime-to-prime with matches evenly distributed across the surfaces, nadal is going to go something like 16-9 vs fed on grass , LOL !

You'd notice I already pointed out Nadal bringing down fed's level before you did. But that is going to be less frequent if matches were evenly distributed across the surfaces, instead of majority of them being on clay

And if you want to stupidly say Miami this year doesnt count since Roger played bad, Nadal played very bad for him in both his losses to Federer on clay. So I guess those dont count either, Nadal is now 12-0 vs Federer on clay.

yeah, he played very bad at madrid, which is why the no of points was so close ! Difference was fed was 2/2 in BPs converted, nadal was 0/3. That's why fed won.

Hamburg last 2 sets was federer playing his best tennis on clay and nadal playing a bit sub-par, but nadal wasn't terrible unlike fed at miami this year

Anyways I'm not saying those Miami sort of matches don't count in the end tally, but that they should not be considered seriously for hypothetical matchup in their primes.

 

[Datacipher]

yes, because nadal was dominating fed in his prime off clay, being 2-5 vs him, oh wait

I trust I don't need to point out the absurdity and irrelevance of this statement. I think you are aware of it ABMK, if you want to argue, at least do it with a modicum of intellectual honesty. Your statement isn't even true to the spirit of the question PC1 posed...he even talked explicitly about it....have some respect for that.

 

[abmk]

PS- the Dubai match in 2006 only looks worse for Federer. Federer despite winning 78 points to only 70 for Nadal, and despite so easily winning the first set, still lost, showing Nadal's complete mental mastery of Federer that Daticipher spoke of. Federer was on fire, playing by far better than any of his Australian Open matches, and still lost to a 19 year old Nadal who had not yet even make it past the round of 16 of a hard court slam, and who had missed the start of the year with injury. Yeah I didnt specifically point out the Dubai match, and I was being kind not to.

complete metal mastery off clay - you mean like Miami 2005 finals or wimbledon 2007 finals , oh wait !

 

[abmk]

I trust I don't need to point out the absurdity and irrelevance of this statement. I think you are aware of it ABMK, if you want to argue, at least do it with a modicum of intellectual honesty. Your statement isn't even true to the spirit of the question PC1 posed...he even talked explicitly about it....have some respect for that.

yes, it isn't. ( MY H2H estimate however was )

That was in response to the absurd statement

"I may already be generous to Fed with these numbers."

when putting nadal at 17-8 vs fed at the USO

Of course that is almost totally ignoring the fact that a large part of Federer's mental block is due to clay being such a predominant part of their rivalry.

 

[piece]

AO 14-11 to Federer
FO 20-5 to Nadal
W 15-10 to Federer
USO 18-7 to Federer

Federer leads overall 52-48

 

[timnz]

Yep

AO 14-11 to Federer
FO 20-5 to Nadal
W 15-10 to Federer
USO 18-7 to Federer

Federer leads overall 52-48

That's about right. Though i think FO would be 21 to 4 in favor of nadal - but these are all estimates right?

 

[piece]

That's about right. Though i think FO would be 21 to 4 in favor of nadal - but these are all estimates right?

maybe for you guys. Me, I've got insider knowledge

 

[pc1]

That's about right. Though i think FO would be 21 to 4 in favor of nadal - but these are all estimates right?

Of course unless we had some magical tennis matchup machine.

 

[zagor]

That's about right. Though i think FO would be 21 to 4 in favor of nadal - but these are all estimates right?

No,we're just in the process of sending Nadal back through time to 2005 so he and Fed can duke it out in 25 matches in all slams .

 

[pc1]

Delete post.

 

[World Beater]

AO 14-11 to Federer
FO 20-5 to Nadal
W 15-10 to Federer
USO 18-7 to Federer

Federer leads overall 52-48

interesting..sounds about right..i would probably go with the following.


AO 14-11 to Nadal
FO 23-2 to Nadal
W 18-7 to Federer
USO 20-5 to Federer

couple matches here or there could go in either favor..but the bottom line is that federer would be more even in the h-h.

i would heavily favor federer at both wimbledon and the usopen..though it wouldnt be as lopsided as at the french.

the australian is the most interesting. i think nadal gets federer from the baseline over 5 sets, but if federer serves well he can beat nadal. I just dont think federer serve well all the time on a slower hardcourt surface against nadal.

 

[World Beater]

pc1 asked for Fed @ 25 vs Nadal @ 25. without Nadal's mental advantage due to clay. I do think Federer, if he plays his best game (which he did @ 25) would blow Nadal out of water on hard and grass. IMO, fed's best on grass and hard is better than Nadal's by some distance.

i think the mental advantage is really overblown.

nadal took federer to 5 sets in miami and beat him there before he even had any kind of mental advantage. on slower hardcourt - australian open...nadal is very strong against federer.

its really about the surface more than anything.

Federer has proved this at the WTF, which is the closest to the usopen surface.

 

[Datacipher]

i think the mental advantage is really overblown.

nadal took federer to 5 sets in miami and beat him there before he even had any kind of mental advantage. on slower hardcourt - australian open...nadal is very strong against federer.

its really about the surface more than anything.

Federer has proved this at the WTF, which is the closest to the usopen surface.

I wrote a lengthy response about the mental advantage last night that did not go through.

I do think the mental advantage is huge...NOW, but I don't think it was the result of surface.

Nadal won 2 of the first 4 meetings off clay, and one of the others was a 5 setter on grass.

Fed always had problems with Nadal's game, and Nadal's mental strength. He was so used to being dominate over his opponents in both those ways.

The sheer lack of mental respect Nadal gives Fed (on court), as well as the bad match-up, and Nadal's own mental toughness, as well as sheer physicality (which I believe also intimidates Fed slightly), mean that in my opinion, Fed would have a mental block regardless of surface. It's really a bad combination for Fed.

I absolutely did not take into account any surface-based mental block Fed may or may not have now (again, i don't think it's based on all the clay-court matches), but I did factor in the fact that I think another would quickly develop, under just about any circumstance.

 

[World Beater]

I wrote a lengthy response about the mental advantage last night that did not go through.

I do think the mental advantage is huge...NOW, but I don't think it was the result of surface.

Nadal won 2 of the first 4 meetings off clay, and one of the others was a 5 setter on grass.

Fed always had problems with Nadal's game, and Nadal's mental strength. He was so used to being dominate over his opponents in both those ways.

The sheer lack of mental respect Nadal gives Fed (on court), as well as the bad match-up, and Nadal's own mental toughness, as well as sheer physicality (which I believe also intimidates Fed slightly), mean that in my opinion, Fed would have a mental block regardless of surface. It's really a bad combination for Fed.

I absolutely did not take into account any surface-based mental block Fed may or may not have now (again, i don't think it's based on all the clay-court matches), but I did factor in the fact that I think another would quickly develop, under just about any circumstance.

I beg to differ. I dont think federer has a mental block against nadal now actually. He struggled early on against nadal because of his game, and nadal's natural mental toughness affected him. But i dont think this is something that happened only to federer. Nadal is just mentally tough against everyone, and this is a by product of his game - extremely consistent, high margin, easier to reproduce this game under pressure.

Currently, federer just has big problems with nadal's game. But so does almost everyone else. Djokovic arguably had a bigger mental block against nadal than federer, because he clearly matches up better, and with added maturity he seems to have found a winning pattern against nadal. That to me is more a sign of mental block because djokovic has now overcome his finals demons with nadal, which he admitted to after defeating him in several finals this year.

Federer has always had trouble with nadal's game though. On the faster surfaces - WTF. Federer has proven his superiority. So i dont think the mental issue is as big as it is made. If federer were to have lost indoors to nadal often, then yes. But the surface issue is the bigger factor in their matchups as reflected by the results. But federer, has always had issues with rafa's game on the slower surfaces.

Nadal is also a pretty good grass player. he destroyed both murray and berdych when federer went out last year. So its not as if nadal is this poor player that federer struggles with or that the mental issue was the reason federer took 5 sets to defeat nadal. Federer has beaten nadal handily indoors.

So to say that federer has a mental block against nadal, imo, is not correct. I dont think he particularly stands out as being weak against nadal. Nadal is just strong against everyone.

This is more a credit to nadal than a discredit to federer.

 

[krosero]

I know we've been doing 25 matches at each Slam, but if this is about surface then we've left out one: indoor hard. And it happens to be Federer's largest advantage over Nadal (3-0). On outdoor hard the edge is practically reversed in Nadal's favor, so it's been a big difference historically and it can't be overlooked.

So I'd put it this way:

AO 14-11 to Nadal (some matches on R. Ace, some on Plexicushion)
FO 20-5 to Nadal
W 14-11 to Federer
USO 15-10 to Federer
WTF 20-5 to Federer

Federer leads overall 65-60

I gave Federer a massive margin at WTF, but I have not seen anything to suggest that Nadal can play to Federer's peak level indoors, or even to play at his own best at that time of the year since he often seems to be run down by then. Plus, the WTF is not a best-of-five match which throws out any edge in mental toughness that Nadal might gain in a long five-set match (I think he has an edge but it can be exaggerated). So really I might be generous giving Nadal 5 wins there. But Federer won't always be healthy or play his best there (see '05).

(It's the same idea at the French: Federer would catch Nadal injured or run down some times.)

I'm sure Nadal can get some wins at WTF if he improves on indoor hard and as Federer continues declining, but as of now those are the numbers I would give.

 

[krosero]

It's funny, I put up those peak-to-peak numbers, but I felt it was a completely different thing from what Timnz did. With his idea, you can take the actual H2H numbers that older players put up on various surfaces, and from there just multiply them according to the surface ratios taken from the Federer/Nadal rivalry. I did that with Lendl/Becker. Those estimates can be tightly anchored to actual H2H numbers.

And we've all reached general agreement on the numbers -- the only disagreements have been where we have little or nothing to go on and we have no choice but to speculate from scratch (no clay matches in Borg-Mac, for instance).

Contrast that with the numbers and huge discrepancies we had in the peak-to-peak comparisons. They might be right or wrong, our numbers; might be informed or misinformed; but they can't be anchored tightly to anything, when the ages of the players and their actual histories are thrown out.

It's still fun to do peak-to-peak comparisons, but the method (if there is any!) is very different. And so is the idea behind it, I think. In a peak-to-peak scenario, the two players have presumably never met each other, have no history with each other, and they just set out to play 100 or 125 matches. The progress of the historical rivalry has no impact on the numbers -- which is an interesting idea, for sure. At the very least it brings up interesting questions like whether the mental edge in the historical rivalry had anything to do with the surfaces they played on.

One moment in the actual rivalry that always comes to mind was in June '06. Nadal had started out something like 6-1 in their rivalry. Federer said he would finally like to get a chance to play him on grass. And Nadal luckily obliged him.

It's somewhat similar to 1980 when McEnroe had been saying that he really relished the opportunity to face Borg on grass (though it didn't turn out the way he had hoped until the following year).

 

[urban]

I think in those speculative matchups the surface question is a bit overrated. Honestly i think, on slower hardcourts, Federer will do not as good vs. Nadal, as he can do on clay. Clay is lower bouncing, and gives Fed more options on the backhand return, because the ball comes more into his comfort zone. See the Miami and Madrid/RG results this year. If we include indoor matches, it is to be calculated, that this surface is no main surface any more, and players are not focussing on it. Feds own record on indoor is not that good, he never won the Bercy event for instance.
It was always so, that players had good or bad luck in head to heads, regarding surfaces. Gonzalez was the uncrowned pro king of the 50s, but he dominated on fast courts. In 1956, Trabert had the bad luck, that he faced Pancho ever on carpet, and not on cement or clay, where he was at home. On the other side, great players always find a way to win anyway, on all surfaces. Rosewall for instance, bettered his volley and half-volley, in order to compete with Gonzalez on fast indoor courts.

 

[jrepac]

Well Connors has a 4-3 edge over Mac lifetime on grass. We need to stick to 3 matches, but their first 3 meetings went to Jimmy 2-1. So I would give him a slight edge there.

Connors had a 3-1 edge over Mac on clay: 3 wins in the '77-79 period, and of course that quick loss at '84 RG when he was past his prime and McEnroe at his peak. So the 10-4 edge you gave him makes sense.

Lendl was 5-2 over McEnroe on clay, and you gave him 11-3, which again makes sense (again Mac's only wins were in '84).

I think this a great idea for a thread, by the way. It was a real eye-opener to see the H2H for Borg-Mac and Lendl-Mac nearly identical to Nadal-Federer. In all three cases the big lead goes to the great claycourter, the guy who has a clear and consistent edge over his rival on that surface.

It would be a less dramatic change in a case like Agassi-Sampras, because Agassi is not an alltime great on clay. You'd have to say he was a better claycourter than Sampras, for sure, but historically as ABMK pointed out his edge was only 3-2. Maybe you can put that down to a combination of Agassi being inconsistent from match to match (or year to year), and his belonging to a lower tier of claycourters. Borg, Lendl and Nadal were all much better: they consistently put in great performances on clay year after year and their skill level on clay was alltime great.

Interesting thread here; was shocked to see that CLAY was the surface that Fed & Nadal have met the most on. When you look at these other rivalries, it's hard to allocate the wins and losses precisely, so you kind of look at career success on the surface. For example, on grass, I always felt Mac was the very best...but on an off day, Connors could catch him--shockingly so on a few occasions. And, Lendl, well Mac could beat him with a hockey stick on grass, sorry. Similarly, on clay, Mac had one very, very fine year on the surface---green or red, no matter how you slice it. But, overall, was he better than Lendl or even Connors on the surface? No, not really. And Borg, would pretty much trump all these guys on clay, but be threatened by Mac on grass.

 

[jrepac]

Well Connors has a 4-3 edge over Mac lifetime on grass. We need to stick to 3 matches, but their first 3 meetings went to Jimmy 2-1. So I would give him a slight edge there.

Connors had a 3-1 edge over Mac on clay: 3 wins in the '77-79 period, and of course that quick loss at '84 RG when he was past his prime and McEnroe at his peak. So the 10-4 edge you gave him makes sense.

Lendl was 5-2 over McEnroe on clay, and you gave him 11-3, which again makes sense (again Mac's only wins were in '84).

I think this a great idea for a thread, by the way. It was a real eye-opener to see the H2H for Borg-Mac and Lendl-Mac nearly identical to Nadal-Federer. In all three cases the big lead goes to the great claycourter, the guy who has a clear and consistent edge over his rival on that surface.

It would be a less dramatic change in a case like Agassi-Sampras, because Agassi is not an alltime great on clay. You'd have to say he was a better claycourter than Sampras, for sure, but historically as ABMK pointed out his edge was only 3-2. Maybe you can put that down to a combination of Agassi being inconsistent from match to match (or year to year), and his belonging to a lower tier of claycourters. Borg, Lendl and Nadal were all much better: they consistently put in great performances on clay year after year and their skill level on clay was alltime great.

Interesting thread here; was shocked to see that CLAY was the surface that Fed & Nadal have met the most on. When you look at these other rivalries, it's hard to allocate the wins and losses precisely, so you kind of look at career success on the surface. For example, on grass, I always felt Mac was the very best...but on an off day, Connors could catch him--shockingly so on a few occasions. And, Lendl, well Mac could beat him with a hockey stick on grass, sorry. Similarly, on clay, Mac had one very, very fine year on the surface---green or red, no matter how you slice it. It was the excellence of his S&V game, much more than the surface in any way. But, overall, was he better than Lendl or even Connors on the clay surface? No, not really as it tended to blunt his game. And Borg, would pretty much trump all these guys on clay, but be threatened by Mac on grass.

And Agassi, even if not a "great" clay courter, was generally more capable than Sampras on the surface. Certainly the red clay...not sure if they ever met on Har Tru. I do think Sampras would be at a significant disadvantage. Much like Mac, he'd need to have his S&V really cooking.

 

[pc1]

It's funny, I put up those peak-to-peak numbers, but I felt it was a completely different thing from what Timnz did. With his idea, you can take the actual H2H numbers that older players put up on various surfaces, and from there just multiply them according to the surface ratios taken from the Federer/Nadal rivalry. I did that with Lendl/Becker. Those estimates can be tightly anchored to actual H2H numbers.

And we've all reached general agreement on the numbers -- the only disagreements have been where we have little or nothing to go on and we have no choice but to speculate from scratch (no clay matches in Borg-Mac, for instance).

Contrast that with the numbers and huge discrepancies we had in the peak-to-peak comparisons. They might be right or wrong, our numbers; might be informed or misinformed; but they can't be anchored tightly to anything, when the ages of the players and their actual histories are thrown out.

It's still fun to do peak-to-peak comparisons, but the method (if there is any!) is very different. And so is the idea behind it, I think. In a peak-to-peak scenario, the two players have presumably never met each other, have no history with each other, and they just set out to play 100 or 125 matches. The progress of the historical rivalry has no impact on the numbers -- which is an interesting idea, for sure. At the very least it brings up interesting questions like whether the mental edge in the historical rivalry had anything to do with the surfaces they played on.

One moment in the actual rivalry that always comes to mind was in June '06. Nadal had started out something like 6-1 in their rivalry. Federer said he would finally like to get a chance to play him on grass. And Nadal luckily obliged him.

It's somewhat similar to 1980 when McEnroe had been saying that he really relished the opportunity to face Borg on grass (though it didn't turn out the way he had hoped until the following year).

The other thing about the Nadal and Federer rivalry is that when Nadal first faced Federer on grass at Wimbledon, he did win a set and was serving for another set so it wasn't exactly a slaughter although Federer won comfortably. Nadal was much more inexperienced on grass and a lesser player than he is now. So how do you measure how a Nadal at the peak of his powers would do against a Federer at the peak of his powers on grass? A lesser Nadal faced Federer at his peak and gave a good account of himself.

It's tough and you can argue in so many ways. The only clear cut superiority is Nadal on red clay at the French. I don't know if it's as simple as Federer is better on fast surfaces and Nadal on slower.

 

[fed_rulz]

The other thing about the Nadal and Federer rivalry is that when Nadal first faced Federer on grass at Wimbledon, he did win a set and was serving for another set so it wasn't exactly a slaughter although Federer won comfortably. Nadal was much more inexperienced on grass and a lesser player than he is now. So how do you measure how a Nadal at the peak of his powers would do against a Federer at the peak of his powers on grass? A lesser Nadal faced Federer at his peak and gave a good account of himself.

It's tough and you can argue in so many ways. The only clear cut superiority is Nadal on red clay at the French. I don't know if it's as simple as Federer is better on fast surfaces and Nadal on slower.

Nadal at the "peak of his powers" got pushed to 2 5-setters last year against no-namers -- he fared much better in 2006. Nadal was already a 2-time slam champion when he met Federer on grass. I don't buy the "inexperienced Nadal on grass" story. Nadal had nothing to lose, and it was more of Federer letting Nadal get to his head in 2006, after his losses in Rome 2006 and FO final (where he won the first set 6-1, up a break @ 1-0 and serving 40-0). If anything, you could argue that it not a Federer at his "peak". However, I believe this thread asked to remove those "mental edges" and purely focus on levels of play?

 

[timnz]

My point

I wondered what historical rivalries would have looked like if the two players involved would have played against each other on the same surfaces, the same number of times that Nadal and Federer have played. Nadal and Federer surface stats are:

Clay - 14 times
Grass - 3 times
Hard Outdoor - 5 times
Hard Indoor - 3 times


McEnroe/Borg - was 7 matches all. My prediction would be:

Clay - Borg 13 wins to 1 win for McEnroe
Grass - McEnroe ahead 2 wins to 1
Hard Outdoor - McEnroe ahead 3 wins to 2
Hard Indoor - Borg ahead 2 wins to 1 (remember that Borg was ahead on indoor carpet against McEnroe from 1979 to 1981 - 5 matches to 3)

So instead of 7 wins each it would be 18 wins to Borg and 7 to McEnroe. (Not a lot different than Federer/Nadal really).

--------------------------------------------

McEnroe/Connors - was 20 to McEnroe and 14 to Connors. My prediction would be:

Clay - 10 wins to Connors to 4 wins for McEnroe
Grass - McEnroe ahead 2 wins to 1
Hard Outdoor - McEnroe ahead 3 wins to 2
Hard Indoor - McEnroe ahead 3 wins to 0 (Maybe I am being a bit hard on Jimmy - he did after all beat Mac at the WCT finals in 1980)

So instead of 20/14 it would be 13 to Connors and 12 to McEnroe

----------------------------------------------

Lendl/McEnroe - was 21 to Lendl, 15 to McEnroe. My prediction would be:

Clay - 11 Wins to Lendl to 3 wins for McEnroe
Grass - McEnroe ahead 2 wins to 1 (really we are comparing their whole career - Lendl was a ahead of McEnroe in Grass strength in the late 80's and early 90's)
Hard Outdoor - Lendl ahead 3 wins to 2
Hard Indoor - Lendl ahead 2 wins to 1

So instead of 21/15 it would be 17 to Lendl, 8 wins to McEnroe (same as Nadal/Federer)

-----------------------------------------------------
Do people think I got the stats right in my predictions? Yes, they are just predictions - but when you look at the numbers, I don't think I would be far wrong in these counts.

It's amazing how surface changes completely who is perceived as 'Dominant' in the rivalry.

My point is that head to head records not broken down by surface are an almost totally irrelevant statistic. As you can see from the above estimates, the mixture of surfaces completely changes these historical head to heads with Lendl having more than double mac's wins and Borg absolutely dominating Mac. I wonder if those matchups were on the same surfaces/frequency as federer/nadal would be perceive mac as a far lesser player than he deserves?

The only relevant head to heads are by surface.