The only players I can think of that Nadal has a slight losing record is 1-2 down against Nalbandian and 2-3 down as Blake. Are there any significantly greater head-to-head losses (> or equal to -2 differential) that Nadal has against other active players? I don't think so. Federer has 3 big negative head-to-head losses against Nadal, Murray and 0-2 down against Simon amongst active players.
Nadal's losing head-to-head?
- Thread starter ctbmar
- Start date
Just trying to verify some stats. That's all. Federer is not bothered by even his head-to-head against Murray, let alone Simon. I realized Nadal doesn't really have any detrimental losing record against anyone. I am not a fan of Nadal, just trying to find out from other tennis fanatics whether Nadal has a bad losing record against anyone.
haha true! I noticed Nadal made a lot of squeaking sounds when he shuffles his feet around the court. Federer, on the other hand, seems to be floating on his Nike Air shoes, even when he is standing still and walking slowly. Federer's Nike reminds me of Nike shoes in the late 80s, early 90s.
Vincescourt
New User
he probably also lost to a drug test
Here's what I don't get.
Rafa loses to guys like Del Potro, Monfils, Soderling, as well as losing to Federer, Murray and Djokovic. Federer loses JUST to great players (except for a bad monte Carlo) and is awful because of losing h2h's. I seriously rather lose to really good players than to avrage ones.
Rafa loses to guys like Del Potro, Monfils, Soderling, as well as losing to Federer, Murray and Djokovic. Federer loses JUST to great players (except for a bad monte Carlo) and is awful because of losing h2h's. I seriously rather lose to really good players than to avrage ones.
RoddickFan
Banned
viduka0101
Hall of Fame
oh yeah,these things can really be puzzling:-?
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Canas, Volandri, Wawrinka, Simon, Karlovic, Blake are better players than Delpotro, Soderling, Monfils? :shock:
As for Murray, Djoko, Nalby ,Tsonga, Fed loses to them as well and even more often in the case of Murray.
You really don't have a point at all.
The difference is that Nadal never loses lots of times to the same guy, Fed does.
tacou
G.O.A.T.
he beat him before the USO and at year end masters...quite a long slump, decorated with 2 titles including a grand slam crown....
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Nadal has been around for at least 6 seasons. Fed had been around for only 2 that he had already lost a whole bunch of matches to Henman, Nalbandian and Hewitt. It took him years to reverse his losing records to those guys. Nadal has never had to reverse anything as he has never lost a long string of matches to anyone.
JoshDragon
Hall of Fame
Nadal has a winning record against all of those players. Federer, does not.
veroniquem
Bionic Poster
Very true, particularly early Fed. He would have been a great #1 with more consistency. Shame.
drakulie
Talk Tennis Guru
because he sucked on every surface except for clay, and as a result, he wasn't making it deep in those tournament consistently.
~ZoSo~
Semi-Pro
You should know by now that the fed troll hyena pack is by far the funniest and most creative group on here
T
TheMagicianOfPrecision
Guest
Do some research, Mikhail Youzhny, James Blake.
Yes, and that is what I don't get. At this point in his career it's far from a bad thing to lose to prime guys Murray and Rafa. In his prime Fed didn't lose to anyone consistently outside the GOAT on clay.. Why do people make a fuzz about consistently losing to good players, but not if you lose a lot to different players. I think it's better to lose to the same guy twice, than to lose to different guys very often.
namelessone
Legend
Bloodshed
Professional
Add to that list:
Nicholas Mahut (0-1)
Paradorn Srichaphan (0-1)
Not exactly elite players as well veroniquem for Nadal to lose but those are pre 2004 matches so I guess it shouldn't be taking for granted.
Hrbaty has a better h2h record vs Fed and Nadal? Wow unbelievable lol
Nicholas Mahut (0-1)
Paradorn Srichaphan (0-1)
Not exactly elite players as well veroniquem for Nadal to lose but those are pre 2004 matches so I guess it shouldn't be taking for granted.
Hrbaty has a better h2h record vs Fed and Nadal? Wow unbelievable lol
Lol those stats are so pointless. You could have a positive H2H with every player without ever winning a tournament. You'd just need to be careful not to lose to the same player too many times, so you could tank loads against players you have a good H2H against. Tennis is about winning tournaments, not H2Hs.
And anyway, not that I think it matters at all, but when Nadal is 5 years older than the rest of the new upcomers (if he ever lasts on tour that long), then I'd imagine he'll get some negative H2Hs.
And anyway, not that I think it matters at all, but when Nadal is 5 years older than the rest of the new upcomers (if he ever lasts on tour that long), then I'd imagine he'll get some negative H2Hs.
Bloodshed
Professional
I agree with this.
The only reason why the h2h has a significant factor is the fact only Nadal can beat Federer when it trully matters: Grandslams and that might somewhat hurt his GOAT status (even Sampras believes so).
But little to no one cares Fed's negative h2h vs Murray nor Nadal negative h2h vs Blake.
Fedfan1234
Rookie
People forget this head to head
15 - 6
or
11 - 6
When they both were winning slams.
Furthermore Nadal is the king of clay, nobody is voting against that. The fact that he basicly wins every tournament on clay enables him to increase his head to heads against various players not just Federer. Look at the head to head against Djokovic 14-5, due to mostly clay wins. HC 3-5 for Djokovic.
It is not that it is not impressive, but just looking at the head to head is pointless.
Djokovic is better on HC
Blake is better on HC,
and others as well.
In fact he is manipulating the stats by winning all the clay tournaments
If you look on head to heads for all different surfaces we get a different picture. Don't use the head to head to discredit players. It does not seem fair to me to only look at Nadal's best surface and judge based on this whether Federer is a better player than Nadal or not.
15 - 6
or
11 - 6
When they both were winning slams.
Furthermore Nadal is the king of clay, nobody is voting against that. The fact that he basicly wins every tournament on clay enables him to increase his head to heads against various players not just Federer. Look at the head to head against Djokovic 14-5, due to mostly clay wins. HC 3-5 for Djokovic.
It is not that it is not impressive, but just looking at the head to head is pointless.
Djokovic is better on HC
Blake is better on HC,
and others as well.
In fact he is manipulating the stats by winning all the clay tournaments
If you look on head to heads for all different surfaces we get a different picture. Don't use the head to head to discredit players. It does not seem fair to me to only look at Nadal's best surface and judge based on this whether Federer is a better player than Nadal or not.
namelessone
Legend
People forget this head to head
15 - 6
or
11 - 6
When they both were winning slams.
Furthermore Nadal is the king of clay, nobody is voting against that. The fact that he basicly wins every tournament on clay enables him to increase his head to heads against various players not just Federer. Look at the head to head against Djokovic 14-5, due to mostly clay wins. HC 3-5 for Djokovic.
It is not that it is not impressive, but just looking at the head to head is pointless.
Djokovic is better on HC
Blake is better on HC,
and others as well.
In fact he is manipulating the stats by winning all the clay tournaments
If you look on head to heads for all different surfaces we get a different picture. Don't use the head to head to discredit players. It does not seem fair to me to only look at Nadal's best surface and judge based on this whether Federer is a better player than Nadal or not.
Last time I checked clay was a legitimate surface.And off-clay Nadal is very close to guys who are supposedly WAYYYYY better than him on their best surfaces.Looking at the stats you would think djoker would be something like 7-1 on HC but it's just 5-3 for him or that Fed would be 5-1 on HC but fact is they are 3-3.This surface crap has to stop.H2H matter as much as you want them to matter.This is why I don't understand why people make threads in order to disprove certain h2h,thus proving that they care about this argument somewhat.
And guys,please this Federer/Nadal comparing threads.Let their careers end first and then we can compare.
As I said, give it time. Wait until he's no longer prime and watch his records go bad. Fed is past his prime. When he's 28 (if he lasts that long) some new young gun like Murray will be 7-0 against Nadal. It's only a matter of time. But unlike Fed, Nadal won't continue to play, he'll retire.
Yes true, but Nadal loses to random nobody's more often when it counts the most. During Majors. This is not better. This is why Rafa will never be as great as Roger. Fact is, since 2004, there were 20 or so majors (too lazy to count exactly). Why haven't they met more than 8 times? Take away FO (I think everyone concedes Rafa is better at FO), why haven't they met more than 4 times??
What surface crap are you referring to? Do you truly ever read and understand posts? No one is saying clay is not a legitimate surface. What you need to understand is that everyone concedes Rafa is better on clay. End of story. So why consider clay anymore in comparing Roger and Rafa? Just subtract the clay results and focus on the others. Do you get it?
Fedfan1234
Rookie
Like I said, clay is a surface on which Nadal is obviously the best, if you compare people's best against people's worst it is never fair. It is not that clay is not a legitimate surface only when you clearly dominate one surface it does not prove you dominate all surfaces.
For instance if Bruguera (or whatever his name was) had played Sampras 18 times on clay and only 6 times on other surfaces what do you think the head to head would have been?
I would guess somthing like 18-6 for Bruguera. Would he be a better player than Sampras?
I did not want to discredit Nadal he deserves his head to head, but Federer is overall the better player because Federer has won more slams and all slams during the same period that Nadal was playing. Federer basicly has dominated all players on HC and grass where Nadal has not. You can ask yourself what is better?
namelessone
Legend
Ok,let's not go there again.I didn't think FedFan1234 said something bad about Nadal's clay merits.My point is why do some people try to focus on these surface discussion into the h2h discussion? Who gives a crap who is better on what surface and further more who gives a crap about h2h's? In the end these players will be remembered for their trophies.I also think the surface talk is irellevant in an era where there are very few specialists because 99% of players play from the baseline on all surfaces.Ok,certain players favor certain surfaces but it's not like they are utter crap on the other ones,unlike in the past when there were more specialist so this surface listing would have made more sense.
These discussion were interesting when they were just starting out but it is getting more and more stupid.If you don't believe go check out the gazillion threads dedicated to the famous 13-7 or the pre-prime/prime/peak/post-prime discussion in the Fed/Nadal rivalry.I for one will not be posting about Fed/Nadal h2h until both of their careers are over.And even then their h2h will be least interesting fact about their rivalry.
Actually I agree with you, players will only be remembered for their trophies, specifically, Slams. Head to head is essentially meaningless. But IF in the realm of H2H discussion you of course have to discuss surfaces. If a player is 4-5 on 3 of the surfaces and 20-0 on the 4th surface, that really says something. It's undeniable. It would make a huge difference for oddsmakers before a tournament to consider the type of surface being played on.
namelessone
Legend
I understand the points you are trying to make but as I have said before,I don't want to talk about h2h of players who are still active.When their careers are done we can make all the threads we want.We can get all the statistic,win record,percentage of wins on a particular surface,how many Slams and masters they ended up with,h2h's,who was better,whatever you like.What if Nadal becomes a HC monster and never wins anything on clay again for the next 3-4 years? How do we interpret the h2h's then? Or if Djoker suddenly beefs up his clay game and takes Nadal's place?What if Fed and Nadal never meet again? The scenarios we can come up with are almost endless,because in theory they could all happen.
Cheers.
ReturnWinner
Rookie
Roitman leads the h2h 2-0
namelessone
Legend
While there are differences between surfaces,mainly in their speed and bounce,the style of play is mainly the same on all surfaces.Sure,you still need great attacking skills on HC and grass and defense will be your main weapon on clay but in today's tennis you can survive on all surfaces with one style,calibrated to be a bit more defensive or offensive according to surface.
Nadal wins an HC slam with defence as his main weapon.In theory that's a bit weird to say the least.In RG 3 out of 4 semifinalists are ball-bashers(gonzales,soderling,delpotro),guys who hit flat,who should be more at home in HC or grass.Again,pretty weird.Ok,so AO was slower and RG was faster,but again that proves my point.If you can figure out how to move on a certain surface today and can learn to live with the bounce,whether good or bad,you can do well with one basic style,baseline play.
Really, if this were true, Nadal would not be so clearly dominating ONLY on clay. Why hasn't he won more slams on other surfaces and why hasn't Fed won more FO? Surfaces are clearly very different from one another, although not as different as they were in years past.
namelessone
Legend
Because Nadal doesn't have flat shots and he has the worst serve out of the top10.Nadal with a serve would have won a lot more free points and would have had a much better shot at AO and USO,even with topspin shots.
The federer/nadal situation is special because they have cancelled eachothers results a bit.If it were not for Nadal,Federer would have had 4 FO's on top of his 5 USO,6WB and 3 AO's.Without Fed,Nadal could have won another 2 WB besides his 4 RG,1 WB and 1 AO.
Federer is a complete player who varies his game according to the surface at hand but he also plays 90% baseline.Federer has a mix of flat and spinny shots,a great serve and good movement.Nadal has a more specialist game because he is all spin,all the time,and even with this game,he made at least semifinals in every GS,regardless of surface.
Murray can adapt as well to all surfaces,even though he hasn't really learned clay yet.He has a serve,a pretty flat BH,spinny FH,good serve and very good movement.Djokovic is pretty much the same build as Murray shot-wise,the main difference being that djoker likes to attack more.
All the top 4 guys have similar characteristics and all of them have had pretty strong performances regardless of surface.All of them are solid on both sides,have good movement and posess strong serves.The odd one out of the bunch is Nadal with his mega topsin and weak serve.And Federer because he has the most variety out of the 4.But even Nadal carried this game into grass and HC and has had success on these surfaces,even though not like on clay.And up and comers share these same characteristics as these 4.Delpo for example.Reached QF at AO at a young age.Made SF in RG.In wimbledon he bailed out early but once he learns how to move on grass he will go far.And I'm betting on good showing at the USO.But his game was been pretty much the same on all these surfaces,strong serve and pound with the FH,he didn't really have to adapt his game to suit one particular surface.
Last edited:
JoshDragon
Hall of Fame
So that's why Nadal won Wimbledon last year? Because he sucked on grass? :?
If Nadal keeps on playing until he is 34 or 35 years old, he'll most likely have a serious losing record against the number 1 player of that time (who may be 22 - 23 years old then).
There are times when head-to-head provides distorted meaning.
If Pete Sampras kept on playing up till now, it's most likely that he would have had a very bad losing record against Federer. It's no one's fault that Fed of 2004 could not travel back in time to start his career in 1995 to give Sampras a fair head-to-head record run.
Similar threads
