Nadal 3 big titles away from matching Federer

drm025 said:
You're talking about comparing weeks at number 1, and I'm talking about Sampras, the guy who finished 6 straight years as number 1, being declined because he dropped out of the top 15. How are these related? I don't understand, you won't even admit that Sampras in 2002 was declined....
Click to expand...

What? Sampras was declined, and that's my point. Age is a bigger factor than your opposition in a certain round of a Slam. If ranking is not a direct comparison because you play against different players of the field throughout the year, neither is H2H because you don't play someone of the same age evenly across all surfaces.
 
drm025 said:
Now you're reaching, dude. Yes, it is a different stat for sure. Meaningful? I guess it can be if you want....
Click to expand...

The same can be said for H2H. It's just a stat that people use to bolster Nadal's deficiencies in his resume compared to Federer. The fact is that it is already accounted for in terms of tournament results, just like ace-count is accounted for in terms of match results.
 
Mayonnaise said:
What? Sampras was declined, and that's my point. Age is a bigger factor than your opposition in a certain round of a Slam. If ranking is not a direct comparison because you play against different players of the field throughout the year, neither is H2H because you don't play someone of the same age evenly across all surfaces.
Click to expand...

Ok, we're getting somewhere, so if Sampras was declined, his tennis is not the same. This has no relevance to saying that Fed at different ages is playing different tennis BEFORE he declines. Age is a big factor when you are too old to be consistent anymore. Hasn't happened to Fed yet, though, to his credit.

You are assuming that all players achieve the same level at the same age, which is not true. Wawrinka is playing his best tennis at 29. Nadal playing his best hard court tennis at 27. Age will be a factor if a H2H does not encompass a wide range of time. For Federer and Nadal, they have played over 11 years, both of their levels going up and going down, both of their rankings going up and going down, surfaces have changed, etc. These issues become less relevant the longer the 2 players play and the more matches they play. You can't call the H2H between them an anomaly when it is has stayed the same over 11 years.

I am not making a blanket statement that every single H2H is significant. You guys don't seem to understand that. Fed and Nadal's though...... very much significant.
 
Mayonnaise said:
The same can be said for H2H. It's just a stat that people use to bolster Nadal's deficiencies in his resume compared to Federer. The fact is that it is already accounted for in terms of tournament results, just like ace-count is accounted for in terms of match results.
Click to expand...

How come we don't see hoards of people arguing that Isner is the GOAT because of his ace count? Aces don't win you matches, the bigger acer does not always win. It's a silly analogy.
 
drm025 said:
Ok, we're getting somewhere, so if Sampras was declined, his tennis is not the same. This has no relevance to saying that Fed at different ages is playing different tennis BEFORE he declines. Age is a big factor when you are too old to be consistent anymore. Hasn't happened to Fed yet, though, to his credit.
Click to expand...
Saying Federer hasn't declined makes you lose your credibility completely. Did you start watching Tennis last year? :lol:

You are assuming that all players achieve the same level at the same age, which is not true. Wawrinka is playing his best tennis at 29. Nadal playing his best hard court tennis at 27. Age will be a factor if a H2H does not encompass a wide range of time. For Federer and Nadal, they have played over 11 years, both of their levels going up and going down, both of their rankings going up and going down, surfaces have changed, etc. These issues become less relevant the longer the 2 players play and the more matches they play. You can't call the H2H between them an anomaly when it is has stayed the same over 11 years.
Click to expand...
Look, I don't care what the H2H is. It could be 40-10 for all I care. It's the titles that matter. Tennis is played for titles, not H2H records.

Fed and Nadal's though...... very much significant.
Click to expand...
It is less significant than ranking, because the ATP actually awards the YE#1 player. Did the ATP ever award Nadal for his H2H? No.
 
"Saying Federer hasn't declined makes you lose your credibility completely. Did you start watching Tennis last year? :lol:"

I said Fed hasn't declined to the point that he has lost his consistency. At number 3 in the world, I would say I am correct.

"Look, I don't care what the H2H is. It could be 40-10 for all I care. It's the titles that matter. Tennis is played for titles, not H2H records."

You are allowed to not care. That's fine. I (and many others) do care. That's just how it is.

"It is less significant than ranking, because the ATP actually awards the YE#1 player. Did the ATP ever award Nadal for his H2H? No."

ATP doesn't award a lot of things that many people value. Doesn't make them less valuable. My favorite one is defending titles... Ever seen people talk about that one?
 
Mayonnaise said:
Probably because not everyone is as senseless as Nadal fans?

H2H doesn't win you matches, either. It's a perfect analogy.
Click to expand...

H2H is recognized by more than just Nadal fans, sorry.

And yes, you have to win matches to have a winning H2H. What does "H2H doesn't win you matches" even mean? Being number 1 for 302 weeks or winning 17 slams doesnt win you matches either. Case in point, Fed losing the Wimby final to Djokovic.
 
drm025 said:
I said Fed hasn't declined to the point that he has lost his consistency. At number 3 in the world, I would say I am correct.
Click to expand...
To his credit. Perhaps Federer's peak level was so great that even a highly diminished Federer is ranked #3 in the world? Think about it.

You are allowed to not care. That's fine. I (and many others) do care. That's just how it is.
Click to expand...
I see that you still haven't addressed the fact that H2H is double-counting. Have you admitted defeat? :)

ATP doesn't award a lot of things that many people value. Doesn't make them less valuable. My favorite one is defending titles... Ever seen people talk about that one?
Click to expand...
Yes, but that's just trivia. Nadal's second USO is as worthy and valuable as Federer's second USO, even though Federer's was a successful defense and Nadal's was not. Why bring up what other people value? Address the facts, and the fact is that H2H is double-counting.
 
Hey Mayo,

Did Fed get an award for getting to number 1 in 2012 at 31 years of age? Being ranked above a 26 year old Nadal, a 25 year old Djokovic, and a 25 year old Murray? No? I guess it means nothing.
 
drm025 said:
Hey Mayo,

Did Fed get an award for getting to number 1 in 2012 at 31 years of age? Being ranked above a 26 year old Nadal, a 25 year old Djokovic, and a 25 year old Murray? No? I guess it means nothing.
Click to expand...

He got Wimbledon 2012 and further separated himself from tier 1 , and equalled Sampras at Wimbedon , earned bragging rights for max weeks at Number 1.
 
drm025 said:
H2H is recognized by more than just Nadal fans, sorry.
Click to expand...
And ranking is valued by more than just Federer fans. Heck, the ATP even has a trophy for it :)

And yes, you have to win matches to have a winning H2H. What does "H2H doesn't win you matches" even mean? Being number 1 for 302 weeks or winning 17 slams doesnt win you matches either. Case in point, Fed losing the Wimby final to Djokovic.
Click to expand...
Nadal has a winning H2H against Djokovic but lost to him 6 times in 2011. That's what I mean by "H2H doesn't win you matches". The fact is, each match win Nadal has over Federer is accounted for in his tournament results. Why double-count it as a separate achievement? If you want to double-count H2H, it's okay to double-count ranking as well, particularly because there is a trophy for it. No trophies for H2H.
 
Mayonnaise said:
To his credit. Perhaps Federer's peak level was so great that even a highly diminished Federer is ranked #3 in the world? Think about it.

I see that you still haven't addressed the fact that H2H is double-counting. Have you admitted defeat? :)

Yes, but that's just trivia. Nadal's second USO is as worthy and valuable as Federer's second USO, even though Federer's was a successful defense and Nadal's was not. Why bring up what other people value? Address the facts, and the fact is that H2H is double-counting.
Click to expand...

I addressed it in post #195 and probably other places. Stop saying I'm not addressing it.
 
drm025 said:
Hey Mayo,

Did Fed get an award for getting to number 1 in 2012 at 31 years of age? Being ranked above a 26 year old Nadal, a 25 year old Djokovic, and a 25 year old Murray? No? I guess it means nothing.
Click to expand...

Well, Federer has 5 trophies for being being the YE#1 for 5 years. Nadal has just 3. Now, show me what Nadal got for his H2H against Federer? :)
 
tennisaddict said:
He got Wimbledon 2012 and further separated himself from tier 1 , and equalled Sampras at Wimbedon , earned bragging rights for max weeks at Number 1.
Click to expand...

All true. But, that doesn't answer the question. Did he receive an award for getting the number 1 ranking? Did he receive an award for passing Sampras's weeks at No.1? No and no.
 
Mayonnaise said:
And ranking is valued by more than just Federer fans. Heck, the ATP even has a trophy for it :)

Nadal has a winning H2H against Djokovic but lost to him 6 times in 2011. That's what I mean by "H2H doesn't win you matches". The fact is, each match win Nadal has over Federer is accounted for in his tournament results. Why double-count it as a separate achievement? If you want to double-count H2H, it's okay to double-count ranking as well, particularly because there is a trophy for it. No trophies for H2H.
Click to expand...

Did I say somewhere not to count ranking? I'm confused... Is this what the whole argument is about?

All I said was that I felt H2H was a more direct comparison. I think it all counts, Mayo.
 
drm025 said:
All true. But, that doesn't answer the question. Did he receive an award for getting the number 1 ranking? Did he receive an award for passing Sampras's weeks at No.1? No and no.
Click to expand...

Federer was #1 for 5 years, and he got 5 trophies for it. Where is Nadal's trophy for his H2H against Federer? :)
 
Mayonnaise said:
Well, Federer has 5 trophies for being being the YE#1 for 5 years. Nadal has just 3. Now, show me what Nadal got for his H2H against Federer? :)
Click to expand...

Again, I've shown that a lot of things you value about Federer do not get awards. In the same vein, I value things that do not get awards.
 
drm025 said:
Did I say somewhere not to count ranking? I'm confused... Is this what the whole argument is about?

All I said was that I felt H2H was a more direct comparison. I think it all counts, Mayo.
Click to expand...

And I'm saying ranking is more relevant than H2H because Tennis is played against the field. It's not a H2H sport like boxing.
 
drm025 said:
All true. But, that doesn't answer the question. Did he receive an award for getting the number 1 ranking? Did he receive an award for passing Sampras's weeks at No.1? No and no.
Click to expand...

Nike Commemorated Fed's achievement and released Nike Zoom Vapor RF 287, which was sold out immediately. Does that count ?
 
Mayonnaise said:
And I'm saying ranking is more relevant than H2H because Tennis is played against the field. It's not a H2H sport like boxing.
Click to expand...

And I'm saying that because it is a 1v1 sport, the H2H can be pretty significant.

Would you really let me tell you that I am a better player than you when I lose to you 70% of the time but perform better against all of your friends than you do?
 
tennisaddict said:
Nike Commemorated Fed's achievement and released Nike Zoom Vapor RF 287, which was sold out immediately. Does that count ?
Click to expand...

Not if it wasn't from the ATP.

Listen, I think it counts. But others are saying the only things that count are things that merit awards from the ATP.
 
drm025 said:
And I'm saying that because it is a 1v1 sport, the H2H can be pretty significant.

Would you really let me tell you that I am a better player than you when I lose to you 70% of the time but perform better against all of your friends than you do?
Click to expand...

If we played 10 tournaments, and I beat you every time we faced each other, but you won the tournament more times than I did, then yes, I'd admit you are the better player. It's common sense. Is Davydenko a better player than Nadal?
 
Mayonnaise said:
You haven't address the fact that H2H is double-counting. Why is it an achievement? You have not answered this question.
Click to expand...

I have explained to you multiple times why H2H is separate from titles and rankings. H2H is the only stat dependent upon who you play.

Why is it an achievement? Because you lead in the most direct comparison between you and the other player. When this other player is the most accomplished in history that means a lot. When you have achieved this against all top-50 players, it means even more.
 
drm025 said:
I have explained to you multiple times why H2H is separate from titles and rankings. H2H is the only stat dependent upon who you play.

Why is it an achievement? Because you lead in the most direct comparison between you and the other player. When this other player is the most accomplished in history that means a lot. When you have achieved this against all top-50 players, it means even more.
Click to expand...

Again, you fail to address the main point of contention. Is it double-counting or not?
 
Mayonnaise said:
If we played 10 tournaments, and I beat you every time we faced each other, but you won the tournament more times than I did, then yes, I'd admit you are the better player. It's common sense. Is Davydenko a better player than Nadal?
Click to expand...

Then you see things a little differently than me and thats ok. I'd have a hard time saying that you were better than me if I beat you more often than not. And if you continued to argue that you were better, I'd say lets settle it on the tennis court. I would suggest just playing a match between the 2 of us. I guess you would suggest a tournament. Whatever floats your boat.

Davydenko has not beaten nadal 70% of the times they've played.
 
Mayonnaise said:
I brought up the weeks at #1 because your brought up H2H. They're both trivia. I also brought up the ace-count, does that mean I value it? :)
Click to expand...

Ok you are a rare Fed fan that admits that Sampras is a better number 1 then? He has received more trophies for number 1 than Fed.

You say they're both trivia, and I say they are both factors in a player's overall greatness.
 
drm025 said:
I'd have a hard time saying that you were better than me if I beat you more often than not. And if you continued to argue that you were better, I'd say lets settle it on the tennis court. I would suggest just playing a match between the 2 of us. I guess you would suggest a tournament.
Click to expand...

No, I'd ask, "if you're better, why couldn't you win the tournament as many times as I did?"
 
drm025 said:
Ok you are a rare Fed fan that admits that Sampras is a better number 1 then?
Click to expand...
Well, I'd say, rankings wise, Sampras was better. But Federer was #1 for longer.

You say they're both trivia, and I say they are both factors in a player's overall greatness.
Click to expand...
And you haven't given me one good reason why that is. H2H is double-counting, and you know it.
 
Mayonnaise said:
No, I'd ask, "if you're better, why couldn't you win the tournament as many times as I did?"
Click to expand...

I'd say that I wasn't as consistent as you. Would you refuse a match with me? If I won that match, would you say, but I beat X and Y more times than you did. That argument wouldn't hold up for me.
 
Mayonnaise said:
Well, I'd say, rankings wise, Sampras was better. But Federer was #1 for longer.

And you haven't given me one good reason why that is. H2H is double-counting, and you know it.
Click to expand...

But, Federer receives no award for being number 1 longer so that is irrelevant, according to you.

You keep accusing me of not answering questions before I get the chance to.
 
drm025 said:
I'd say that I wasn't as consistent as you.
Click to expand...
Which more than offsets my H2H record against you, considering I won more titles.

Would you refuse a match with me?
Click to expand...
Not unless I hated playing you ;)

If I won that match, would you say, but I beat X and Y more times than you did.
Click to expand...
No, I'd say, "where was this level of play when it really mattered? In a tournament when we were contending for the championship?"
 
drm025 said:
But, Federer receives no award for being number 1 longer so that is irrelevant, according to you.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is as irrelevant as Nadal's H2H against Federer. They're trivia. However, Federer's two additional YE#1 trophies over Nadal are relevant, because it is an officially acknowledged achievement.
 
drm025 said:
You keep accusing me of not answering questions before I get the chance to.
Click to expand...

How is H2H not double-counting? Isn't each win Nadal has against Federer accounted for in terms of tournament results? Why are you counting them again as an achievement? You are not answering this question of mine.
 
veroniquem said:
OK. How about we count 1 point for masters, 1 point and a half for WTF and 2 points for slams.
Then, Fed is at 64 and Nadal at 55 but maybe Nadal deserves a point for the Olympics, so 56. Just a little effort Rafa! Still close.
Click to expand...

Kudos for this. I started doing the math using the ATP points and noticed that you already did it. It should be noted that the Olympic gold medal is actually worth 750 ATP points which means if is worth 3/4 of a Masters 1000 title. But sure, let's round up and give Rafa a full Master equivalent point for a grand total of 56 Master's equivalent points (or 55.75 points if you want to nitpick).

OTOH, the winner of the WTF can garner between 1100 and 1500 ATP points. The later is for an undefeated WTF champ. However, a player can lose 1 or 2 rounds and still win the WTF -- giving them 1300 or 1100 ATP points. If we take this into account then Roger's 6 WTF wins would give him somewhere around 7-9 Master's equivalent points. This would put his grand total at 62-64 points.
 
Mayonnaise said:
Which more than offsets my H2H record against you, considering I won more titles.

Not unless I hated playing you ;)

No, I'd say, "where was this level of play when it really mattered? In a tournament when we were contending for the championship?"
Click to expand...

I'd say when we (meaning you and I) were contending, I beat you more often than not. Im glad that you beat X and Y who are clearly inferior to the both of us, but I just couldn't bring my game against them. I still lead them in the H2H,though, so I'll get them next time. You would get all of the praise for winning the tournaments. But I'll still be thinking I was better than you.
 
Mayonnaise said:
Yes, it is as irrelevant as Nadal's H2H against Federer. They're trivia. However, Federer's two additional YE#1 trophies over Nadal are relevant, because it is an officially acknowledged achievement.
Click to expand...

Well then your comments in this forum should be pretty standard. I would assume then that the majority of your comments on here are telling people that this and that don't count because there aren't awards for that. I don't think that's the case though.
 
drm025 said:
I'd say when we (meaning you and I) were contending, I beat you more often than not. Im glad that you beat X and Y who are clearly inferior to the both of us, but I just couldn't bring my game against them.
Click to expand...
Just like I couldn't bring my game against you ;)

You would get all of the praise for winning the tournaments. But I'll still be thinking I was better than you.
Click to expand...
Perhaps Davydenko is better than Nadal? At least Nadal is more sensible, because he has always called Federer the better player.
 
drm025 said:
Well then your comments in this forum should be pretty standard. I would assume then that the majority of your comments on here are telling people that this and that don't count because there aren't awards for that. I don't think that's the case though.
Click to expand...

My comments on this forum are irrelevant. You have not explained how H2H is an achievement, while I have explained how YE#1 is an achievement.
 
Mayonnaise said:
How is H2H not double-counting? Isn't each win Nadal has against Federer accounted for in terms of tournament results? Why are you counting them again as an achievement? You are not answering this question of mine.
Click to expand...

No, because he beat Fed in 2004 Miami then lost the next round. His tournament result is 4R. He beat Fed in 2013 Cincy and went on to win the title. The result is different, but the H2H result is the same.

Isn't every tournament result accounted for in your ranking?
 
Mayonnaise said:
Just like I couldn't bring my game against you ;)

Perhaps Davydenko is better than Nadal? At least Nadal is more sensible, because he has always called Federer the better player.
Click to expand...

I'd say after you beating you so many times that I don't believe you. Remember I lead the H2H with X and Y too, so I know that I lost because I wasn't playing my best.

Nadal could never call himself better than Federer in the public eye. It would be a PR nightmare.
 
Last edited:
drm025 said:
No, because he beat Fed in 2004 Miami then lost the next round. His tournament result is 4R. He beat Fed in 2013 Cincy and went on to win the title. The result is different, but the H2H result is the same.
Click to expand...
4th round is also a result. Nadal's win against Federer in Miami 2004 made the difference of 3rd round and 4th round. Which means that win was accounted for. It didn't mean nothing. If it meant nothing, why did Nadal progress to the next round? His progression was his reward for that win.

Isn't every tournament result accounted for in your ranking?
Click to expand...
Ranking is double-counting. I've already acknowledged that. H2H is also double-counting. It's an undeniable fact. And yet, you refuse to accept that. But then, refusing to accept facts is second-nature to Nadal fans :)
 
Mayonnaise said:
My comments on this forum are irrelevant. You have not explained how H2H is an achievement, while I have explained how YE#1 is an achievement.
Click to expand...

Your argument is whether there is a trophy for it or not. It is an opinion whether that is the final decision as to what is valuable and what is not.
 
drm025 said:
I'd say after you beating you so many times that I don't believe you. Remember I lead the H2H with X and Y too....
Click to expand...
And I'd say 10 tournaments are more than enough to prove your capability, and that you failed where I succeeded.

Nadal could never call himself better than Federer in the public eye. It would be a PR nightmare.
Click to expand...
He doesn't have to. But he has repeatedly called Federer better, even when not asked. Why is that? Because he is sensible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mainad
50th big title for Djokovic
Replies
5
Views
878
MasturB
MasturB
WhiskeyEE
Novak trails Nadal by just one Big 5 title
Replies
34
Views
2K
G A S
G A S
DIMI_D
Current Big Title Holders (active players only)
Replies
41
Views
1K
DIMI_D
DIMI_D
D
Race to Most "Big" Title Wins
Replies
13
Views
791
nolefam_2024
nolefam_2024
K
Djokovic 2018-2023 vs Federer 2004-2009
2 3 4
Replies
157
Views
5K
Dropshot777
Dropshot777
Back
Top