Nadal's Deceptive Head-to-Head Lead Over Federer
- Thread starter Texas Tennis Fan
- Start date
Wow absolute peak Nadal taken to 5th set tie break by 7th best mono Rogie who needed a doctor’s note just to play at Wimbledon 
Absolute PEAK Nadal also taken to 5 by 6th best Rogie at AO in his tightest/most nervous form ever LOL
Imagine what peak Fed does to this guy lol, clueless ******** propagandists
Absolute PEAK Nadal also taken to 5 by 6th best Rogie at AO in his tightest/most nervous form ever LOL
Imagine what peak Fed does to this guy lol, clueless ******** propagandists
Poisoned Slice
Bionic Poster
It's art.
ForehandRF
Legend
I agree that Fed let Rafa enter his head after those clay losses, especially the 2008 RG one, but so did Djokovic after the 2013 RG SF loss.At least Federer barely lost a few weeks later in the Wimbledon final, then in another 5 setter at the AO but what did Djokovic do ? He went down easier at the 2013 USO, in 4 sets.Fedovic's problem was that they couldn't defeat Nadat at RG when it mattered and the Bull gained momentum on it and that affected their slam rivalry on the other surfaces too.Djokovic was also 4-9 against Nadal in slams at one point, it just shows how they both let Nadal beat them on their turfs.In Djokovic's defence, he still beat Nadal later on on Chatrier
RS
Bionic Poster
What happened to your posting style these daysWow absolute peak Nadal taken to 5th set tie break by 7th best mono Rogie who needed a doctor’s note just to play at Wimbledon
Absolute PEAK Nadal also taken to 5 by 6th best Rogie at AO in his tightest/most nervous form ever LOL
Imagine what peak Fed does to this guy lol, clueless ******** propagandists
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
NAS
Hall of Fame
well Djokovic choked the third set, but Djokovic did defeat him latr in China open and Miami, rome but that is more so because of better bh.I agree that Fed let Rafa enter his head after those clay losses, especially the 2008 RG one, but so did Djokovic after the 2013 RG SF loss.At least Federer barely lost a few weeks later in the Wimbledon final, then in another 5 setter at the AO but what did Djokovic do ? He went down easier at the 2013 USO, in 4 sets.Fedovic's problem was that they couldn't defeat Nadat at RG when it mattered and the Bull gained momentum on it and that affected their slam rivalry on the other surfaces too.Djokovic was also 4-9 against Nadal in slams at one point, it just shows how they both let Nadal beat them on their turfs.In Djokovic's defence, he still beat Nadal later on on Chatrier
Problem with young Fed was bh.
But going to say that Rafa has always been awesome in defeating Fed and Novak in their den outside of Indoors
that is not entirely true. clay is 25% when it comes to slams but 33.3% when it comes to masters. 4/14 = 28.6% of big tournaments are on clay. so we can say that about 30% of the tour is on clay as the grass is actually a maximum of 2 tournaments.
rafa vs nole on slams (25% clay): 10-7 (9 on RG, 53% -> 28 percentage points above expectations or 112% more than expected)
rafa vs fed on slams (25% clay): 10-4 (6 on RG, 43% -> 18 percentage points above expectations or 72% more than expected)
rafa vs nole in masters (33.3% clay): 13-16 (17 on clay, 58.6% -> 25.3 percentage points above expectations or 76% more than expected)
rafa vs fed in masters (33.3% clay): 12-7 (10 on clay, 52.6% -> 19.3 percentage points above expectations or 58% more than expected)
rafa vs nole everywhere (about 30% clay): 28-30 (27 on clay, 46.6% about 16.6 percentage points above expectations or about 55% more than expected)
rafa vs fed everywhere (approx. 30% clay): 24-16 (16 on clay, 40% approx. 10 percentage points above expectations or approx. 33% more than expected)
so, it's skewed especially in noles case when it's really skewed!
rafa vs nole on slams (25% clay): 10-7 (9 on RG, 53% -> 28 percentage points above expectations or 112% more than expected)
rafa vs fed on slams (25% clay): 10-4 (6 on RG, 43% -> 18 percentage points above expectations or 72% more than expected)
rafa vs nole in masters (33.3% clay): 13-16 (17 on clay, 58.6% -> 25.3 percentage points above expectations or 76% more than expected)
rafa vs fed in masters (33.3% clay): 12-7 (10 on clay, 52.6% -> 19.3 percentage points above expectations or 58% more than expected)
rafa vs nole everywhere (about 30% clay): 28-30 (27 on clay, 46.6% about 16.6 percentage points above expectations or about 55% more than expected)
rafa vs fed everywhere (approx. 30% clay): 24-16 (16 on clay, 40% approx. 10 percentage points above expectations or approx. 33% more than expected)
so, it's skewed especially in noles case when it's really skewed!
Nothing is worth serious discussion until the 2022 season begins lol. Basically that’s it.What happened to your posting style these days
I agree with Red Rick’s post about the 8-2 outdoor HC record pre ‘14. the way Nadal’s achievements vs Fed are being swept to the wayside is something I didn’t think possible. That being said I still think Federer is the better player on all surfaces but clay, and that if Nadal had made it to more HC later rounds from ‘05-08 then Fed would have definitely taken care of him more often than not.
Can't agree more with this , just looking at the H2H and not seeing where the matches take place is usually what Nadal fanboys seem to always cling to . Of course when he plays majority of the time against his rivals especially Nole on clay that the H2H will be far more advantageous in his favor and nobody is saying that clay wins don't ,, matter ,, or aren't worth as ,, much ,, but the fact that they played so much more on clay compared to hard court considering the amount of big titles on hard court and grass combined compared to clay just proves this .
The last 10 matches Djokovic and Nadal played 7 have been on clay and clay is like 1/3 of the tour , yeah really not ,, skewed ,, at all lmao .
Last edited:
slams: 50% HC - 25% C - 25% G
rafa vs nole: 29% - 53% - 18%
rafa vs fed: 29% - 43% - 29%
fed vs nole: 65% - 12% - 24%
all tournaments apr: 65% HC - 30% C - 5% G
rafa vs nole: 47% - 47% - 7%
rafa vs fed: 50% - 40% - 10%
fed vs nole: 76% - 16% - 8%
it should be added that even when it comes to HC slams, rafa and nole have only met 2 times on nole's strongest slam. so 53% (9) of their slams were on rafa's strongest while only 12% were on nole's strongest slam.
rafa vs nole: 29% - 53% - 18%
rafa vs fed: 29% - 43% - 29%
fed vs nole: 65% - 12% - 24%
all tournaments apr: 65% HC - 30% C - 5% G
rafa vs nole: 47% - 47% - 7%
rafa vs fed: 50% - 40% - 10%
fed vs nole: 76% - 16% - 8%
it should be added that even when it comes to HC slams, rafa and nole have only met 2 times on nole's strongest slam. so 53% (9) of their slams were on rafa's strongest while only 12% were on nole's strongest slam.
Last edited:
zagor
Bionic Poster
Nadal didn't really play like a tired man in those finals. He had a full day rest before 2009 AO F and in 2007 he didn't have a tough semi, Novak was done after the 1st set and retired soon after. You wanna see a tired Nadal in that period? Look his match with Murray in 2008 USO QF, though Murray was playing great and might have beaten him regardless of course.
I mean Nadal might have beaten Fed in 2009 Wimbledon (if he got past the draw which I doubt) or in say 2008 USO but what is often lost in these discussions is that outside FO Nadal couldn't really just show up and beat (prime)Fed, he had to put up a great performance each time. Fed was out of sorts in 2008 overall but it still took 9-7 in the 5th to lose the Wimbledon final and that was Nadal's absolute best form on grass. Ditto for 2009 AO where Nadal played some of the best HC tennis of his career.
I mean you say Fed needed "everything" to win 2007 Wimbledon where Fed won 6-2 in the 5th set but you're sure Nadal was gonna win 2009 Wimbledon even though 2008 went to 9-7 and Fed was clearly fitter in 2009.
In short, yes Nadal was in Fed's head but there's a limit to cashing in on that, Nadal still had to play a heck of a match to beat prime Fed in a non-clay slam. I don't think he would be capable of doing it every time, they just didn't meet enough in AO/Wimbledon/USO during Fed's prime years.
NAS
Hall of Fame
You don't understand, tournament final is the only possible way Rafa and Fed will clash and I don't think Fed was defeating Rafa at that time in Slam finals, mental block maybe. If Rafa makes out of Wimbledon draw, he was winning the final like Wimbledon 2010 where he become unplayable after early rounds
Fed best chance always has been intial meeting but because of Ranking that was not possible.
Why do you think his fans has huge admiration for AO 2017 or even when question was asked between RG 2011 ( assuming Fed wins that match against anybody else) and AO 17, they all picked AO 2017 over double career grand slam.
Azure
G.O.A.T.
Rafa can’t win hypotheticals and actually lost matches where he, in reality, won. Amazing!
RS
Bionic Poster
I would make a new thread to test the theory more but cba.
It was not just him owning Roger mentally. Fed was only a couple of points (and questionable calls) away from going 0-2 against Nadal on HC in Miami 2005 to start with. Nadal was still eighteen then, and far from his HC best. Fed is actually lucky (not to have met him more times outside clay). The matchup was so unfavorable to him from the get-go, whatever happened past the AO2017 would have done little to redeem his legacy against Nadal had they met more often outside clay during 2005, 2006, 2007.
People like you tend to forget how quickly Nadal improved between 05 and 07. Even in the very first Wimbledon final, the deeper it went, the more trouble Rafa caused. He just kept getting better at an extreme rate. And he almost won the final the year after. Nadal beating Fed everywhere would have just happened sooner had they met more often outside clay, that is all. Because just as Federer was stagnating, Rafa kept learning.
zagor
Bionic Poster
I understand perfectly, I just disagree. I don't think Nadal would get prime Fed everytime in a non-FO slam final, yes despite Fed's mental block or whatever. As I said, Nadal still had to play out of his skin, it wouldn't happen everytime. i'm not even saying Nadal wouldn't even be favourite but I wouldn't pencil the win, 2008 Wimbledon and 2009 AO were way too close to do that.
Not sure what 2010 Wimbledon is even doing in the conversation, he beat Murray and Berdman in 2010 Wimbledon. I have no idea to what extent he was actually unplayable. 35 year old Fed beat Murray at Wimbledon in straights, it's hardly a litmus test for impervious form.
Now 2010 USO sure, he was in amazing form in later rounds. Don't think any Fed would beat that Nadal.
I don't care what other fans think and double career grand slam is a recent media invention (not a historic achievement).
2017 AO and 2019 Wimbledon to a lesser extent kinda prove my point. They played more often outside clay in that period, for once they played on a fast (-ish) surface in a slam, Nadal didn't play an amazing match each time and lo and behold Fed can actually beat Nadal despite Nadal being much closer to his prime in that period.
There are more factors in a match then just mental block. It doesn't happen in a vacuum, all factors are connected.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Miami is the slowest and highest bouncing court on tour and Fed did need time to adjust to Nadal's style. It was always a very tough match-up for him, especially in those conditions.
Things you only read on TTW. Quite the opposite, when they started meeting on HC almost exclusively Nadal was getting his teeth kicked in, against an ancient Fed who had a knee surgery.
RS
Bionic Poster
The Murray ripping carries on
zagor
Bionic Poster
The Murray ripping carries on
There are more than enough people kissing his "10 slam winner in another era" behind for my occasional bashing to be a problem.
Considering the expectations at the time, 2010 Wimbledon Nadal Murray was a dud and it ain't down to Nadal being unplayable any more than Fed was unplayable in 2010 AO final.
RS
Bionic Poster
Which match did you think was better quality the AO 10 F or the Wim 10 SF?
wangs78
Legend
The lefty topspin forehand to Federer's ohbh (and small 90sq inch racquet) is also a factor. I don't think Fed has lost to Nadal off clay since he switched to the RF97.
Texas Tennis Fan
Professional
He did need time to adjust.
13 years.
Which had little to do with the surface and everything to do with Nadal having lost his speed. It is almost embarrassing how quickly Fed fans forgot that they themselves were certain Fed would lose the AO17 final. And he very nearly did. He would have gotten his butt served to him like he usually did had it taken place 9 years earlier.
Texas Tennis Fan
Professional
I actually counted all the 2019 tournaments ATP 500 and above and added ATP Cup since you can win a maximum of 500 points. There were 28 tournaments and 7 of them were on clay, thus the 25% ration of clay to the rest of the tour. Some years may vary and obvious COVID changed these numbers dramatically in 2020. But whether it is 25% or 28%, the point remains the same.
By the way, the definition of troll here is often "Anyone who critiques my favorite and I have no real answer for." If you cannot answer my response, rather than calling me a troll, just say, "Yes, Nadal has an advantage here because of more clay matches." That is called integrity.
Texas Tennis Fan
Professional
True. Nadal has not beaten Nadal off clay since Jan, 2014.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Red Rick's post was stupid because he included Fed's worst stretch and excluded 2017-2019.
So now results after age 30 do matter?
it’s clear Nadal had a non-negligible H2H advantage over Federer when they played and it would take utter deception to deny this. However, it was never as lopsided as it was made out to be with the 23-10 stuff.
Texas Tennis Fan
Professional
And exactly how do you know that? That is subjective speculation. All we know objectively is that Federer has not lost to Nadal off clay since AO 2014 and Djokovic has not lost to Nadal since USO 2013. Has Nadal lost speed over this time? Sure. You think Federer who is 5 years older than Nadal also has not lost speed. This sort of "yes, but..." speculation is in denial of the objective reality.
ForehandRF
Legend
But some of his most biased fans say that's because Nadal lost speed as if Federer didn't lost any speed lol Things were evened out from that point of view and that if I am being generous, considering the difference in age
RaulRamirez
Legend
1 clay meeting in almost 9 years lol. Literally enough said
Of course, that's due to several "objective" factors:
Just getting a break point means you deserved to break. If you (especially for Swiss ATGs) get 3 break points in one game, that counts for three extra games for you.
Roger - due, I guess, to poverty - was forced to play with a smaller racquet head, and all Rafa did was loop balls crosscourt to Roger's little racquet head. He brought nothing else to those matches, and no sport should be about dictating one's style of play. That never happens in other sports.
Rafa benefitted from his injuries and from picking his butt between points. He cheated. Factoring all this in, Fed morally leads their H2H 25-15. No, that's not right. They should've met at least 4 times at the US Open, so I'll be generous and say Roger would've only won 3.
Roger's morally ahead 28-16, and since at least three of those were at slams, he morally leads that race 23-20 (Novak) to 17 for Rafa. But wait, versus Novak, he blew the 2010 and 2011 US Opens and Wimby19.
So, Fed 26, Rafa and Novak 17. And just imagine if he didn't have mono.
This really isn't directed at Fed (astonishingly great player) or his good fans.
But stop the hypothetical, one-sided BS...all fans!
All played matches count, break points don't mean squat if unconverted, injuries, gluten intolerance and mono are all part of the deal.
And stop calling Rafa the King of Clay in a way that somehow disqualifies him from being the overall "king". Right now, we have three goats of the OE, and in my opinion, Novak has the best overall resume. All are amazing, as are about 10% of their alleged fans.
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
You are right that Fed also lost speed maybe even more so than Nadal, however in this particular match up speed (or the lack thereof) is way more crucial for Nadal than for Fed.But some of his most biased fans say that's because Nadal lost speed as if Federer didn't lost any speed lol Things were evened out from that point of view and that if I am being generous, considering the difference in age
Federer was always better in terms of pure tennis ability while Nadal was the better athlete and his retrieving ability along with his mental edge let him win the close ones. Fed even said once something around the lines that against Nadal he would need to hit three shots that would be winners against everyone else to finally win the point.
Once their movement and speed deteriorated this hurt Nadal way more since Fed had other weapons to make up for this deficit (mainly an ATG serve which is among the last things that decline with age). If you removed 30% of Fed’s serving quality and 50% of Nadal’s this would also hurt Federer more since the serve is more crucial to his game than it is to Rafa’s.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
When Nadal is 5 years younger, why shouldn't results after 30 for him count? I mean, all of Fed's count apparently.So now results after age 30 do matter?
it’s clear Nadal had a non-negligible H2H advantage over Federer when they played and it would take utter deception to deny this. However, it was never as lopsided as it was made out to be with the 23-10 stuff.
NAS
Hall of Fame
Actually good point.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Athleticism and speed matter for Fed too on slower surfaces and he definitely lost a big part of them after 2010.
It's just funny how Fed was at his best when he lost to Nadal in his 30's, but Nadal dropped speed in his 30's so wins over him at that point matter less.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
NAS
Hall of Fame
I agree on that and fair point.
They should all count is the point
It’s clear that Nadal’s age advantage helped him but I also think he just causes match up issues that probably no other player in history could have done to Fed
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Well, they only count depending on certain narratives.They should all count is the point
But Fed's wins over Nadal in 2017-2019 not being considered, but all of Nadal's wins over Fed are is the most idiotic thing spouted by someone.
NAS
Hall of Fame
Not true, for example I don't give lot of importance to Novak win against Fed in AO 20 semi.They should all count is the point
It’s clear that Nadal’s age advantage helped him but I also think he just causes match up issues that probably no other player in history could have done to Fed
ForehandRF
Legend
I don't buy this with Nadal being hurt more with the loss of speed because, even as a shotmaker, Federer needed the timming to the ball, especially on the forehand side, so it's not like it's about only the defensive capabilities.5 years difference is also important, not to mention that Federer was coming back from his knee surgery.
For example, it's exactly the movement to the forehand side that Djokovic exploited better than anyone else later in his rivalry with Fed.
Back to the Fedal matchup, assuming it's true what you said above, it just means that Federer is the more skilled player, having more 'backup options' in his arsenal
zagor
Bionic Poster
Nah, he beat Nadal a couple of times soon after 2005 Miami, including 2 Wimbledon finals.
It has everything to do with the surface, as it often does with Nadal who depends on his CC momentum on damn near everything.
As for losing his speed BS excuse, he was playing a guy 5 years older who returned after a knee rehab and was ravaging the tour. He reached 3 slam finals and ended year #1 in 2017.
Heck following the logic of Nadal fans, I can't imagine what Fed would be doing to 30 year old Nadal if the roles were reversed, ie. if he was the one 5 years younger. He'd be triple bageling him or something.
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
Never said that Fed was at his best in his 30s, nor did I say his late wins matter less. Very good for Fed to turn around the H2H in recent years.
zagor
Bionic Poster
No, it's one of the biggest myths on this forum.
Fed losing speed hurt him severely, not just against Djokodal but the rest of the tour as well. He's not a Sampras and never has been, he has relied way more on defense and speed.
People act like post 2009 Fed was just losing to Djokodal in slams but the truth is the losses to Berdychs and Tsongas and Cilics and Soderlings were piling up too.
BorgTheGOAT
G.O.A.T.
Your last sentence is exactly what I say, he indeed is the more skilled player (if we are talking strictly about racket skill), where Nadal beat him is athleticism and mental strength. Once he declined in both (it is obvious that Nadal’s mental strength mit only against Federer but also against the rest of the field has deteriorated in recent years), Federer’s greater skill played a more important role and he started to beat him.I don't buy this with Nadal being hurt more with the loss of speed because, even as a shotmaker, Federer needed the timming to the ball, especially on the forehand side, so it's not like it's about only the defensive capabilities.5 years difference is also important, not to mention that Federer was coming back from his knee surgery.
For example, it's exactly the movement to the forehand side that Djokovic exploited better than anyone else later in his rivalry with Fed.
Back to the Fedal matchup, assuming it's true what you said above, it just means that Federer is the more skilled player, having more 'backup options' in his arsenal
zagor
Bionic Poster
Imagine if Fed was the same age or 5 years younger than Nadal.
According to Nadal fans, Fed would be running circles around him as soon as poor Rafito hit 30.
Are they're saying Nadal is lucky that Fed and him aren't exact peers?
RS
Bionic Poster
Would you give them anything higher than a 6/10?
