My detailed analysis on why Nadal's h2h over Federer seems so dominant

[fed_rulz]

LOL. My reply was to the OP. All those crappy excuses people come up with to defend Federers poor h2h are sh1te. Any unbiased person will tell you that Nadal dominates Federer in their matchups most the time. All these cries about too many clay court meetings etc are just excuses.

That's because most of their matches are on clay, where clearly Rafa is the better player. Also, i wouldn't use the word "dominate" when talking about Fed Vs Nadal.. Of their 20 meetings, very few have been one-sided.

Nadal clearly has Federer's number NOW - however it wasn't always like that; at the end of 2007, their h2h was 8-6 in nadal's favor. Fed lost 4 matches in 2008, which also happens to be Fed's worst year since his dominance began (you may or may not buy the mono theory; but I'm sure as an "unbiased" person, you could see that Fed wasn't playing as well as we're used to him playing). 2009 wasn't Rafa's best year; but he didn't repay the favor of meeting Fed (obviously in the finals) when he's not playing his best, except for the AO.

 

[All-rounder]

Yet, they have to add DETAILS to excuse Rafa for having a losing h2h records against other players.:roll:

Basically in order for a win to count as legit against rafa you need to beat him in a best of 5 or in a MS event.

But guess what happens when they do beat rafa in either of those situations???.........Oh rafa was injured, he was tired, he needs match practice, his opponent played the best match of their lives where rafa wasn't even close to his best..........and so on

 

[LiveForever]

That's because most of their matches are on clay, where clearly Rafa is the better player. Also, i wouldn't use the word "dominate" when talking about Fed Vs Nadal.. Of their 20 meetings, very few have been one-sided.

Nadal clearly has Federer's number NOW - however it wasn't always like that; at the end of 2007, their h2h was 8-6 in nadal's favor. Fed lost 4 matches in 2008, which also happens to be Fed's worst year since his dominance began (you may or may not buy the mono theory; but I'm sure as an "unbiased" person, you could see that Fed wasn't playing as well as we're used to him playing). 2009 wasn't Rafa's best year; but he didn't repay the favor of meeting Fed (obviously in the finals) when he's not playing his best, except for the AO.

I agree 2008 wasnt Federers best year but he played 100% at Wimbledon. He reached the final without dropping a single set. The problem was that Nadal had been knocking on the door for the past 2 years and he finally succeeded in beating Federer after 3 years. Same with AO, Nadal found a way to take Federer out at the AO. These are big matches, Fedrulez. People cant simply sweep them under the rug and forget about them like many people attempt to.

 

[Rippy]

I agree 2008 wasnt Federers best year but he played 100% at Wimbledon. He reached the final without dropping a single set. The problem was that Nadal had been knocking on the door for the past 2 years and he finally succeeded in beating Federer after 3 years. Same with AO, Nadal found a way to take Federer out at the AO. These are big matches, Fedrulez. People cant simply sweep them under the rug and forget about them like many people attempt to.

He makes a fair point though. In 08, when Fed wasn't playing well, he made all 4 slam finals. From around March 09, when Nadal started to slip, he made no slam finals. Now tell me who that will favour in the H2H?

 

[LiveForever]

Basically in order for a win to count as legit against rafa you need to beat him in a best of 5 or in a MS event.

But guess what happens when they do beat rafa in either of those situations???.........Oh rafa was injured, he was tired, he needs match practice, his opponent played the best match of their lives where rafa wasn't even close to his best..........and so on

2005 Barcelona
Spain Clay R16 Nadal, Rafael
6-1, 6-2 Stats
2005 Auckland
New Zealand Hard R32 Hrbaty, Dominik
6-3 RET Stats
2004 Auckland
New Zealand Hard F Hrbaty, Dominik
4-6, 6-2, 7-5 Stats
2003 Lyon
France Carpet R32 Hrbaty, Dominik
6-3, 7-5 Stats

. OMG! Amazing wins by Domink! 2003 and 2004! Nadal was at tip top form!

Nalbandian has some great wins over Nadal from those master series in 2007. He was in top form but 2 matches are not enough to tell the story. If Nalbandian had 10 plus wins over Nadal, then I would consider it to be on the same page as the 13-7 h2h between federer and Nadal.

 

[Rippy]

2005 Barcelona
Spain Clay R16 Nadal, Rafael
6-1, 6-2 Stats
2005 Auckland
New Zealand Hard R32 Hrbaty, Dominik
6-3 RET Stats
2004 Auckland
New Zealand Hard F Hrbaty, Dominik
4-6, 6-2, 7-5 Stats
2003 Lyon
France Carpet R32 Hrbaty, Dominik
6-3, 7-5 Stats

. OMG! Amazing wins by Domink! 2003 and 2004! Nadal was at tip top form!
Nalbandian has some great wins over Nadal from those master series in 2007. He was in top form but 2 matches are not enough to tell the story. If Nalbandian had 10 plus wins over Nadal, then I would consider it to be on the same page as the 13-7 h2h between federer and Nadal.

Erm... Fed was hardly in tiptop form in 08, when the real damage to the H2H occurred.

 

[LiveForever]

He makes a fair point though. In 08, when Fed wasn't playing well, he made all 4 slam finals. From around March 09, when Nadal started to slip, he made no slam finals. Now tell me who that will favour in the H2H?

I would assume Federer would win but then again, people assumed Federer would beat Nadal many times before but that just wasnt the case. We have to wait for more match ups! I love the match ups! Even if they dont play great, there is some intense drama.

 

[LiveForever]

Erm... Fed was hardly in tiptop form in 08, when the real damage to the H2H occurred.

WTF? What kind of a comparision is that? Federer made every slam final in 2008 and won a freakin slam title! Are you seriously comparing him to a 17 year old Nadal who was just entering the tour. Even if Fed wasnt top form, he was still playing a very high level as evidenced by his performance at slams.

 

[Rippy]

WTF? What kind of a comparision is that? Federer made every slam final in 2008 and won a freakin slam title! Are you seriously comparing him to a 17 year old Nadal who was just entering the tour. Even if Fed wasnt top form, he was still playing a very high level as evidenced by his performance at slams.

Remember their opponents though. Fed was against Nadal, much tricker than Hrbaty.

 

[All-rounder]

Bottom line is, When federer's game is on in a tournament nadal is nowhere to be found in the final. When nadal's game is on.........Federer is always their in the final. There is nothing we can do about it but to just accept it and enjoy the tennis. This is why I believe h2h arguments have too many flaws

 

[TMF]

Comparing Nadal's H2H record with Nalby or Hrbaty with his H2H record with Federer is like comparing apples and oranges.

Doesn't matter...it's a negative h2h record. You can't have one way and not the other.

 

[Blinkism]

Bottom line is, When federer's game is on in a tournament nadal is nowhere to be found in the final. When nadal's game is on.........Federer is always their in the final. There is nothing we can do about it but to just accept it and enjoy the tennis. This is why I believe h2h arguments have too many flaws

That's not really fair.

You're saying that Federer's game was never on when he faced Nadal, but somehow it's always on when they don't face each other?

What a miracle that Federer even won 7 matches in poor form.

 

[TMF]

Exactly! TMF thinks it is a valid to compare 13-7 h2h in which epic matches were played on grand stages to lousy little 2-1 h2hs which really dont prove anything. :lol:

calling Fed's fans making excuses about Fed's h2h but you are exactly doing the same thing with nalbandian and Hrbaty. Again, adding details to an argument only when it suits you.:roll:

 

[Rippy]

Bottom line is, When federer's game is on in a tournament nadal is nowhere to be found in the final. When nadal's game is on.........Federer is always their in the final. There is nothing we can do about it but to just accept it and enjoy the tennis. This is why I believe h2h arguments have too many flaws

It's more just that Federer is always in the final, but Nadal can only get there when he's playing his best.

 

[All-rounder]

That's not really fair.

You're saying that Federer's game was never on when he faced Nadal, but somehow it's always on when they don't face each other?

What a miracle that Federer even won 7 matches in poor form.

Not poor form but enough to make into finals. Do you consider federer in form when he played rafa at RG 2008?

 

[Blinkism]

calling Fed's fans making excuses about Fed's h2h but you are exactly doing the same thing with nalbandian and Hrbaty. Again, adding details to an argument only when it suits you.:roll:

Oh, yeah, while we're discussing really MEANINGFUL H2H's why don't we bring up Federer's 2-4 H2H with Kafelnikov? Or his really MEANINGFUL 0-3 H2H with Pat Rafter? Or his epic H2H 0-2 with Gilles Simon.

Please, learn the meaning of "context".

 

[All-rounder]

Oh, yeah, while we're discussing really MEANINGFUL H2H's why don't we bring up Federer's 2-4 H2H with Kafelnikov? Or his really MEANINGFUL 0-3 H2H with Pat Rafter? Or his epic H2H 0-2 with Gilles Simon.

Please, learn the meaning of "context".

I don't think those a meaningful they are good players so how would they be meaningful exactly?

 

[TMF]

Oh, yeah, while we're discussing really MEANINGFUL H2H's why don't we bring up Federer's 2-4 H2H with Kafelnikov? Or his really MEANINGFUL 0-3 H2H with Pat Rafter? Or his epic H2H 0-2 with Gilles Simon.

Please, learn the meaning of "context".

So we are getting nowhere with discussion about players' h2h records across the playing field. H2H doesn't say anything abourt who's a better player, so lets forget about discussion h2h, and just focus on accomplishment(which is the be-all and end-all here).

 

[Tennis_Monk]

I would have loved to see Federer play against a stronger field though. There have been examples of a good Federer being pushed aside by better playing opponents, not only Nadal. Safin did it in the AO semis, Kuerten did it at RG, when Federer was already in his prime and before Nadal emerged.

In my mind, Fed is a fantastic player, but really his opposition has been too weak and intermittent.

I do think that with a couple more real contenders in the mix, people who have the drive and the belief to win a GS, Fed's GS count would be lower.

Some people make it sound as if he was invincible. Well, he is not, and Nadal has proven it. It is such a shame that there were too few contenders, at least until this year. Someone like Delpo is a relief for tennis, you could really see over the past year how he was improving. At RG he played a terrific match against Fed too.

That is what tennis is about: watching close matches, seeing how the rivalries develop.

At many occasions in the past people have looked just as dominant as Fed now for a while. Mc Enroe played an almost flawless Wimbledon, yet short time later his prime was over as a new generation took over and all of a sudden his perfect play was not enough anymore.

Once again i disagree with your view point but i understand that there are some people who subscribe to your view point. I strongly believe that Most federer opponents today, if played in another era (past ones that is), would easily have a better record than they have today.

Yes. No tennis player is invincible. But Federer is probably the highest bar we got at this time.

may be i will see if there is an objective basis. Most people seem to agree that Federer's game has very few "Exploitable" weaknesses if any. His game is well rounded than most people that preceded him. That is probably why he is so dominant.

It wouldnt do justice to compare McEnroe's peak to Federer's. McEnroe's tennis resume is filled with great accomplishments but he is not in the same league as Federer. To use his "prime" as an example isnt a good example.

 

[Blinkism]

I don't think those a meaningful they are good players so how would they be meaningful exactly?

My point exactly.

 

[Rippy]

I don't think those a meaningful they are good players so how would they be meaningful exactly?

 

[dh003i]

I agree 2008 wasnt Federers best year but he played 100% at Wimbledon. He reached the final without dropping a single set. The problem was that Nadal had been knocking on the door for the past 2 years and he finally succeeded in beating Federer after 3 years. Same with AO, Nadal found a way to take Federer out at the AO. These are big matches, Fedrulez. People cant simply sweep them under the rug and forget about them like many people attempt to.

No-one is forgetting about it. It was spectacular form from Nadal. But the idea that Federer was in top form in 2008, except at the USO, is ludicrous. Yes, he got to the Wimbledon final without losing a set, but his return of serve was still far less than it had been years before; that and a few lapses on his serve, with Nadal being in his best-ever form, was why he lost. It doesn't take anything away from Nadal, but it is quite clear that Federer is both a better and a greater grass-court player. There really isn't an argument here. 2 Wimbledons to 1 since Nadal won his first slam at he FO in 2004. 2 Wimbledons to 1 since Nadal got to his first Wimbledon. And if you think Nadal is getting anywhere near Federer's 6 Wimbledons, you aren't living in reality.

Also, the other point is that if not for Federer's negative H2H vs. Nadal in slam finals (and arguably the FO SF in 2005), Federer could have had 7 more slams (4 FO, 1 W, 1 AO)...that would give him 22 titles at the Majors. So basically, you're faulting him for not having more than 15 GS wins. That is a ridiculous standard that only Federer is compared to. He's already arguably the greatest ever with 15 GS.

So we are getting nowhere with discussion about players' h2h records across the playing field. H2H doesn't say anything abourt who's a better player, so lets forget about discussion h2h, and just focus on accomplishment(which is the be-all and end-all here).

Yea, but if you just focus on accomplishment, even if only counting years after Nadal entered his prime and comparing those years, or comparing so-many years into their primes, there can be no argument that Nadal is a greater or better player. Couldn't have that.

 

[LiveForever]

Oh, yeah, while we're discussing really MEANINGFUL H2H's why don't we bring up Federer's 2-4 H2H with Kafelnikov? Or his really MEANINGFUL 0-3 H2H with Pat Rafter? Or his epic H2H 0-2 with Gilles Simon.

Please, learn the meaning of "context".

lol. Well said. I would like to add the extremely meaningful rafter-federer h2h in which rafter leads 3-0. Despite all meetings being from 1998-2001 when fed was teenager, this is a very meaningful head 2 head. Clearly shows that Rafter owns Federer. I am sure tmf would agree.:lol:

EDIT: Looks like you have that covered, Blink. Sorry.:lol:

 

[JennyS]

BTW, here are Fed and Nadal's win loss records in Grand Slams since the 2005 French Open:

Federer: 123-8 (.94 win %)
Nadal: 86-11 (.887 win %)

In SAME SLAMS PLAYED (2006 AO and 2009 Wimbledon omitted), their records are:
Federer: 109-8 (.932 win %)
Nadal: 86-11 (.887 win %)

Federer's record in Slams that Nadal won: 35-6 (.854)
Nadal's record in Slams that Federer won: 34-9 (.791)

 

[Dimension]

BTW, here are Fed and Nadal's win loss records in Grand Slams since the 2005 French Open:

Federer: 123-8 (.94 win %)
Nadal: 86-11 (.887 win %)

In SAME SLAMS PLAYED (2006 AO and 2009 Wimbledon omitted), their records are:
Federer: 109-8 (.932 win %)
Nadal: 86-11 (.887 win %)

Federer's record in Slams that Nadal won: 35-6 (.854)
Nadal's record in Slams that Federer won: 34-9 (.791)

That explains why Federer won more slams than Nadal and how he is a better overall player.

 

[fed_rulz]

I agree 2008 wasnt Federers best year but he played 100% at Wimbledon. He reached the final without dropping a single set. The problem was that Nadal had been knocking on the door for the past 2 years and he finally succeeded in beating Federer after 3 years. Same with AO, Nadal found a way to take Federer out at the AO. These are big matches, Fedrulez. People cant simply sweep them under the rug and forget about them like many people attempt to.

I don't dispute that. Fed played quite well at Wimby 08 - rafa was the better player (i don't know how you measure 100%; perhaps you mean all parts of his game were clicking? he wasn't converting BPs and his return was sub-standard, so certainly he wasn't 100% IMO -- however, his overall level of play at wimby was higher than the level he displayed in 2008; would have been sufficient to win the match in straight sets against any one else). Having said that, 3 of the 4 meetings were on clay in 2008.

At AO-09 finals, Fed wasn't playing at "100%" (served horrendously, plus tons of missed BP), BUT neither was Rafa who was exhausted from the SF. When both aren't playing at 100%, I'd favor Rafa to win on clay and slow HC. Both are fair wins, though.

If you consider these as "excuses", then they are no different from the "excuses" made for why Rafa is almost a non-factor after July.

To me, the h2h simply tells this:
- when they both meet, Rafa is more likely to win than Federer.

Does this imply that Nadal is better than Fed? Certainly NO. The operative word here is "when". Their meetings mostly happen under conditions favorable for Nadal, and seldom for Federer.

 

[LiveForever]

I don't dispute that. Fed played quite well at Wimby 08 - rafa was the better player (i don't know how you measure 100%; perhaps you mean all parts of his game were clicking? he wasn't converting BPs and his return was sub-standard, so certainly he wasn't 100% IMO -- however, his overall level of play at wimby was higher than the level he displayed in 2008; would have been sufficient to win the match in straight sets against any one else). Having said that, 3 of the 4 meetings were on clay in 2008.

At AO-09 finals, Fed wasn't playing at "100%" (served horrendously, plus tons of missed BP), BUT neither was Rafa who was exhausted from the SF. When both aren't playing at 100%, I'd favor Rafa to win on clay and slow HC. Both are fair wins, though.

If you consider these as "excuses", then they are no different from the "excuses" made for why Rafa is almost a non-factor after July.

To me, the h2h simply tells this:
- when they both meet, Rafa is more likely to win than Federer.

Does this imply that Nadal is better than Fed? Certainly NO. The operative word here is "when". Their meetings mostly happen under conditions favorable for Nadal, and seldom for Federer.

LOL! I said the exact same thing in my very first post.

no need for all the details. Nadal>Federer when they play each other.

 

[Blinkism]

To me, the h2h simply tells this:
- when they both meet, Rafa is more likely to win than Federer.

Exactly right.

 

[Davy_for _GOAT]

I don't dispute that. Fed played quite well at Wimby 08 - rafa was the better player (i don't know how you measure 100%; perhaps you mean all parts of his game were clicking? he wasn't converting BPs and his return was sub-standard, so certainly he wasn't 100% IMO -- however, his overall level of play at wimby was higher than the level he displayed in 2008; would have been sufficient to win the match in straight sets against any one else). Having said that, 3 of the 4 meetings were on clay in 2008.

At AO-09 finals, Fed wasn't playing at "100%" (served horrendously, plus tons of missed BP), BUT neither was Rafa who was exhausted from the SF. When both aren't playing at 100%, I'd favor Rafa to win on clay and slow HC. Both are fair wins, though.

If you consider these as "excuses", then they are no different from the "excuses" made for why Rafa is almost a non-factor after July.

To me, the h2h simply tells this:
- when they both meet, Rafa is more likely to win than Federer.

Does this imply that Nadal is better than Fed? Certainly NO. The operative word here is "when". Their meetings mostly happen under conditions favorable for Nadal, and seldom for Federer.

What exactly do you mean by the bolded part?

Is it that they haven't played US Open or something else?

 

[fed_rulz]

What exactly do you mean by the bolded part?

Is it that they haven't played US Open or something else?

Not just the US open, but they've only played TWICE after wimbledon -- usually the time for fast HC/ indoor tournaments. That's roughly 40% of the tennis season each year.

 

[Davy_for _GOAT]

Not just the US open, but they've only played TWICE after wimbledon -- usually the time for fast HC/ indoor tournaments. That's roughly 40% of the tennis season each year.

Before SW, there 3 slams and 5 Masters. After SW, there is 1 slam and 4 Masters, and YEC. It's not exactly 40%. Maybe a little less, but it's a good point you made.

But Nadal is not completely absent in the late season. He won Montreal 07 and 05, Madrid 05, and reached finals in Shanghai 09 Paris 07. Why didn't Federer reach those finals, and what would the score be if he did?

Federer in the late season has the following: wins in Cinci 05 and 07 and 09, Toronto and Madrid 06, and finals in Montreal 07 and Madrid 07.

It's not like Federer's been making hell in late season either.

 

[fed_rulz]

Before SW, there 3 slams and 5 Masters. After SW, there is 1 slam and 4 Masters, and YEC. It's not exactly 40%. Maybe a little less, but it's a good point you made.

But Nadal is not completely absent in the late season. He won Montreal 07 and 05, Madrid 05, and reached finals in Shanghai 09 Paris 07. Why didn't Federer reach those finals, and what would the score be if he did?

Federer in the late season has the following: wins in Cinci 05 and 07 and 09, Toronto and Madrid 06, and finals in Montreal 07 and Madrid 07.

It's not like Federer's been making hell in late season either.

I'm pretty certain Djokovic won montreal 07.

you forgot the 4 slams and 2 YECs that Fed won in that period from 05-09. I came up with 40% based on the # points available - 11000 in the period before july, 7500 after that (7500/18500 = 40.5%); in terms of potential opportunities to meet, it's 6 after july out a total of 14 total (6/14 = 42.5%)
(only considering master's or better)

Regardless, the point still stands.

 

[JennyS]

Not just the US open, but they've only played TWICE after wimbledon -- usually the time for fast HC/ indoor tournaments. That's roughly 40% of the tennis season each year.

It's really amazing that only two of their meetings have been after the first week of July!

 

[clayman2000]

It's really amazing that only two of their meetings have been after the first week of July!

And they were both in the YEC

 

[Davy_for _GOAT]

I'm pretty certain Djokovic won montreal 07.

you forgot the 4 slams and 2 YECs that Fed won in that period from 05-09. I came up with 40% based on the # points available - 11000 in the period before july, 7500 after that (7500/18500 = 40.5%); in terms of potential opportunities to meet, it's 6 after july out a total of 14 total (6/14 = 42.5%)
(only considering master's or better)

Regardless, the point still stands.

I was saying Federer reached the finals of Montreal 07.

So, if they played 18 matches in early season, then they should have about 12 matches in late season. They already have 2, so add 10 more.

How many wins for each of them in 10 late season matches?

 

[TMF]

LOL! I said the exact same thing in my very first post.

LOL....and I said the same thing about Nalbandian/Hrbaty > Rafa b/c of their positive h2h, but you quickly jump in to dismiss it(after saying there's "no need for all the details").

 

[fed_rulz]

I was saying Federer reached the finals of Montreal 07.

So, if they played 18 matches in early season, then they should have about 12 matches in late season. They already have 2, so add 10 more.

How many wins for each of them in 10 late season matches?

You had mentioned that nadal won montreal 07; I was responding to that.

Of the 10 matches, I'd say its 7-3 or 6-4 in federer's favor. It would not be as bad as Fed vs nadal on clay because IMO Nadal is more "unbeatable" on clay than Fed is on HCs.

However, if the hypothetical scenario had happened, then it's not a stretch to imagine that Fed would have carried the confidence (resulting from more wins over nadal) into his weaker part of the tennis season (clay) -- confidence that nadal ALREADY enjoys over Federer.

Back to reality: It hasn't happened, and the h2h is what it is now. For all that we know, Nadal might kick fed's butt in the latter half too -- it's possible, but highly unlikely, given that Nadal loses to a pretty mediocre players in the latter half. He has the potential to get better on faster surfaces, but unfortunately Fed does not have the luxury of time on his side to make an interesting match up.

I simply do think that the h2h would be much more even if they played more often during the latter half of the season. Nadal would have the upper hand on clay, Fed on HC. Since both surfaces have roughly the same # of potential matches to offer, it'd be an even split.

 

[clayman2000]

You had mentioned that nadal won montreal 07; I was responding to that.

Of the 10 matches, I'd say its 7-3 or 6-4 in federer's favor. It would not be as bad as Fed vs nadal on clay because IMO Nadal is more "unbeatable" on clay than Fed is on HCs.

However, if the hypothetical scenario had happened, then it's not a stretch to imagine that Fed would have carried the confidence (resulting from more wins over nadal) into his weaker part of the tennis season (clay) -- confidence that nadal ALREADY enjoys over Federer.

Back to reality: It hasn't happened, and the h2h is what it is now. For all that we know, Nadal might kick fed's butt in the latter half too -- it's possible, but highly unlikely, given that Nadal loses to a pretty mediocre players in the latter half. He has the potential to get better on faster surfaces, but unfortunately Fed does not have the luxury of time on his side to make an interesting match up.

I simply do think that the h2h would be much more even if they played more often during the latter half of the season. Nadal would have the upper hand on clay, Fed on HC. Since both surfaces have roughly the same # of potential matches to offer, it'd be an even split.

1. Grammar is wrong.

2. Since when are JMDP, Djokovic and Davydenko mediorcre players?

 

[fed_rulz]

1. Grammar is wrong.

2. Since when are JMDP, Djokovic and Davydenko mediorcre players?

1. Spelling is wrong
2. Berdych, Blake, youzhny are pretty mediocre when compared to Federer