Nadal wins head to head against all the TOP 10 players!!!

[veroniquem]

t'was from late 2003 until safin stops it in 2005 ao semis. so he's undefeated in the whole year of 2004 vs top 10 players. oh well to each his own i guess.

Really? Interesting. But now you said it , of course, it had to be before Nadal emerged, I should have thought about that!

 

[veroniquem]

Federer averaged more then 2 slams a year over six years, and was #1 for the majority of that stretch, and you are saying that he had a "couple amazing years"? You would take Nadal's career over Fed's? If I didn't know better, I would think you were joking.

We'll have to wait a few more years for me to answer your question (hey I wouldn't spit on Federer's career no matter what!!) but right now sure it's a no brainer because at 22 Federer had achieved much less than Nadal (fewer slams, fewer titles, no prestigious feats like RG-W back to back, fewer weeks at #1). So I would be crazy to choose to be 22 year old Federer vs being 22 year old Nadal. (I cannot say about 27 year old Nadal as I don't know yet what that will be like). On a more subjective note, I would choose Nadal because I find him more charismatic than Federer (as a young male I'm sure I would want to be as popular as possible with the female crowd!), less "bottled up" emotionally and more fairplay.

 

[luckyboy1300]

Really? Interesting. But now you said it , of course, it had to be before Nadal emerged, I should have thought about that!

still, if nadal is to be said as "dominant" against top 10 players, he should at least get close to beating that record. top 10 players change every now and then, as i've said. therefore h2hs against current top 10 players does not show overall dominance. nadal has only been beating most of those players before they hit their top 10 spots (murray, monfils, simon, del potro etc.), so yeah h2h will be misleading. the consecutive streak, however, clearly shows a player beating another player while "exactly" being in the top 10, clearly showing more of a "dominance".

 

[koalakoala]

I am new to this forum but I think people here are just getting bored with Roger and Nadal resting.

Hey, guys, get better and come out to play. So we can have real matches to talk about.

 

[veroniquem]

still, if nadal is to be said as "dominant" against top 10 players, he should at least get close to beating that record. top 10 players change every now and then, as i've said. therefore h2hs against current top 10 players does not show overall dominance. nadal has only been beating most of those players before they hit their top 10 spots (murray, monfils, simon, del potro etc.), so yeah h2h will be misleading. the consecutive streak, however, clearly shows a player beating another player while "exactly" being in the top 10, clearly showing more of a "dominance".

There are a few changes in the top 10 but also players who stay there for a long time (like Djoko and Federer). Also I'm not sure what you're driving at with the "wins before they reached top 10" accusation as Nadal has beaten a lot of those top 10 players very recently ( Monfils, Simon, Federer) and even Murray and Djokovic, Nadal beat them in the summer of 2008, it's not that long ago frankly.

 

[edmondsm]

We'll have to wait a few more years for me to answer your question (hey I wouldn't spit on Federer's career no matter what!!) but right now sure it's a no brainer because at 22 Federer had achieved much less than Nadal (fewer slams, fewer titles, no prestigious feats like RG-W back to back, fewer weeks at #1). So I would be crazy to choose to be 22 year old Federer vs being 22 year old Nadal. (I cannot say about 27 year old Nadal as I don't know yet what that will be like). On a more subjective note, I would choose Nadal because I find him more charismatic than Federer (as a young male I'm sure I would want to be as popular as possible with the female crowd!), less "bottled up" emotionally and more fairplay.

Fairplay? You don't think Fed plays fair?

Anyway, you weren't talking about Federer at 22. You said Federer had "a couple amazing years" and you would rather take Nadal's career over his because he was "more consistant." Federer hardly had a couple amazing years by 22, so you were obviously referring to his slam winning years. (Somehow clumping 6 years into 2).

All that is personality aside. I guess if you put alot of weight on the stuff the players say then you could conjur a way to want to be Nadal over Federer. And if we look at things your way, yes at 22 I would rather be Nadal then Fed. But we can't really do that because we know that after 22, Federer won 13 slams.

So in hindsight there is pretty much no way that I could take Nadal's career over Fed's. Federer is 27 and still playing in slam finals. If Nadal is playing in slam finals at 27, I'll admit I was wrong.

 

[veroniquem]

Fairplay? You don't think Fed plays fair?

Anyway, you weren't talking about Federer at 22. You said Federer had "a couple amazing years" and you would rather take Nadal's career over his because he was "more consistant." Federer hardly had a couple amazing years by 22, so you were obviously referring to his slam winning years. (Somehow clumping 6 years into 2).

All that is personality aside. I guess if you put alot of weight on the stuff the players say then you could conjur a way to want to be Nadal over Federer. And if we look at things your way, yes at 22 I would rather be Nadal then Fed. But we can't really do that because we know that after 22, Federer won 13 slams.

So in hindsight there is pretty much no way that I could take Nadal's career over Fed's. Federer is 27 and still playing in slam finals. If Nadal is playing in slam finals at 27, I'll admit I was wrong.

Hey I'll let you be Federer and I'll be Nadal, no problem. I totally respect your preference. Now we just have to play each other and see who wins
(I meant fairplay as in more gracious in defeat, I find both of them fairplay on the court)

 

[edmondsm]

Hey I'll let you be Federer and I'll be Nadal, no problem. I totally respect your preference. Now we just have to play each other and see who wins

It's on. For realism, you have to play lefty. Are you lefty?

 

[veroniquem]

It's on. For realism, you have to play lefty. Are you lefty?

I'm not but that's perfect, I'll just have to switch like Nadal did, then I'll be exactly like him, a righty playing lefty! (I'd better start practising now, I might be ready in 10 years or so :-?)

 

[luckyboy1300]

There are a few changes in the top 10 but also players who stay there for a long time (like Djoko and Federer). Also I'm not sure what you're driving at with the "wins before they reached top 10" accusation as Nadal has beaten a lot of those top 10 players very recently ( Monfils, Simon, Federer) and even Murray and Djokovic, Nadal beat them in the summer of 2008, it's not that long ago frankly.

whatever. still i don't think this is a nadal-only feat. pretty sure federer, as well as other former number 1s, had a positive h2h against their top 10 oppositions before at some point during their number 1 stay. for me the true meaning of domination against top 10 players is the winning streak against them.

 

[rubberduckies]

whatever. still i don't think this is a nadal-only feat. pretty sure federer, as well as other former number 1s, had a positive h2h against their top 10 oppositions before at some point during their number 1 stay. for me the true meaning of domination against top 10 players is the winning streak against them.

After looking into it a little, it seems that Federer may actually never have achieved this feat. In fact, it seems he lost out on attaining this distinction by the very narrowest of margins on multiple occasions.

I looked at the 3 players most relevant to Fed's h2h against the top 10: Hewitt, Nalbandian, and Nadal.

Federer gained winning h2h against Hewitt at the TMC 2004, which happened around Nov 15. Before that, Hewitt had an equal or better h2h.
Federer gained winning h2h against Nalbandian in Madrid 2006.
Federer has never had a winning h2h against Nadal.

Federer entered top 10 on May 20, 2002 (he dropped out and re-entered permanently later that year, but that isn't relevant to this).
Hewitt was already in top 10 with a winning h2h against Roger.
Hewitt drops out of top 10 intermittently from Nov 2003 to May 2004.
During this time, Nalbandian is always in the top 10 (always ranked 8th or 9th, to be precise, and he had only re-entered the top 10 on Sep 3 of that year, exactly two months prior to when Hewitt dropped out).
Hewitt would not leave the top 10 again until 2006, but Fed gains winning h2h against him in Nov 2004.
At the time, Nalbandian is in the top 10 and has a winning h2h against Fed.
Nadal entered the top 10 on April 25, 2005. Since that time, Roger has never held a winning h2h against all of the top 10.
Two weeks later, on May 9 2005, Nalbandian drops out of the top 10 after having been at the 9th or 10th spot from Nov 2004 to May 2005.


So that covers all of Federer's stay in the top 10 up to this point. Indeed, he missed the boat by the very narrowest of margins.

 

[Spider]

After looking into it a little, it seems that Federer may actually never have achieved this feat. In fact, it seems he lost out on attaining this distinction by the very narrowest of margins on multiple occasions.

I looked at the 3 players most relevant to Fed's h2h against the top 10: Hewitt, Nalbandian, and Nadal.

Federer gained winning h2h against Hewitt at the TMC 2004, which happened around Nov 15. Before that, Hewitt had an equal or better h2h.
Federer gained winning h2h against Nalbandian in Madrid 2006.
Federer has never had a winning h2h against Nadal.

Federer entered top 10 on May 20, 2002 (he dropped out and re-entered permanently later that year, but that isn't relevant to this).
Hewitt was already in top 10 with a winning h2h against Roger.
Hewitt drops out of top 10 intermittently from Nov 2003 to May 2004.
During this time, Nalbandian is always in the top 10 (always ranked 8th or 9th, to be precise, and he had only re-entered the top 10 on Sep 3 of that year, exactly two months prior to when Hewitt dropped out).
Hewitt would not leave the top 10 again until 2006, but Fed gains winning h2h against him in Nov 2004.
At the time, Nalbandian is in the top 10 and has a winning h2h against Fed.
Nadal entered the top 10 on April 25, 2005. Since that time, Roger has never held a winning h2h against all of the top 10.
Two weeks later, on May 9 2005, Nalbandian drops out of the top 10 after having been at the 9th or 10th spot from Nov 2004 to May 2005.


So that covers all of Federer's stay in the top 10 up to this point. Indeed, he missed the boat by the very narrowest of margins.

This is interesting, thanks for doing this research.

It looks like Nadal has always been a nightmare for Federer in every aspect now, never really allowed him to get the winning head to head with his closest rivals

 

[veroniquem]

After looking into it a little, it seems that Federer may actually never have achieved this feat. In fact, it seems he lost out on attaining this distinction by the very narrowest of margins on multiple occasions.

I looked at the 3 players most relevant to Fed's h2h against the top 10: Hewitt, Nalbandian, and Nadal.

Federer gained winning h2h against Hewitt at the TMC 2004, which happened around Nov 15. Before that, Hewitt had an equal or better h2h.
Federer gained winning h2h against Nalbandian in Madrid 2006.
Federer has never had a winning h2h against Nadal.

Federer entered top 10 on May 20, 2002 (he dropped out and re-entered permanently later that year, but that isn't relevant to this).
Hewitt was already in top 10 with a winning h2h against Roger.
Hewitt drops out of top 10 intermittently from Nov 2003 to May 2004.
During this time, Nalbandian is always in the top 10 (always ranked 8th or 9th, to be precise, and he had only re-entered the top 10 on Sep 3 of that year, exactly two months prior to when Hewitt dropped out).
Hewitt would not leave the top 10 again until 2006, but Fed gains winning h2h against him in Nov 2004.
At the time, Nalbandian is in the top 10 and has a winning h2h against Fed.
Nadal entered the top 10 on April 25, 2005. Since that time, Roger has never held a winning h2h against all of the top 10.
Two weeks later, on May 9 2005, Nalbandian drops out of the top 10 after having been at the 9th or 10th spot from Nov 2004 to May 2005.


So that covers all of Federer's stay in the top 10 up to this point. Indeed, he missed the boat by the very narrowest of margins.

Amazing research, thanks for the effort, it's very interesting.

 

[rubberduckies]

This is interesting, thanks for doing this research.

It looks like Nadal has always been a nightmare for Federer in every aspect now, never really allowed him to get the winning head to head with his closest rivals

Amazing research, thanks for the effort, it's very interesting.

No prob. ATP site is pretty good with this info.

 

[devila]

Federer was beaten by a self-destructive Roddick, who gained 10 kilograms and injured his muscles and neck spinal disk because of the bad fatty food intake (4-year-long embarrassment).
Blake, Simon, Murray and Nadal were all top 10 winners.
Tsonga was gifted by the wrong umpiring in Paris Masters Series against
Roddick. He was serving 2-1 30-40 against Tsonga. Otherwise, Roddick would have wins over 6 top ten players. Roddick also withdrew from 2 tournaments with Murray in his draw and 2007 match.
He withdrew from Rome semifinal , along with Stepanek and Almagro's illnesses helping Djokovic.