Rafael Nadal-Roger Federer: Logical Flaw Interpreting Rafa's 13-7 H2H Margin

[フェデラー]

No the Miami where Nadal beat Federer.

that was the year prior, Federer's career was barely budding, as was nadals. Fed's comeback the year after has much more relevance.

Didnt Nadal beat Federer at the Australian Open?

That isnt actually hard court

 

[THE HEAD HUNTER]

Jake

Thats a whole lot of explaining ......I just dont get it.

Didnt Federer lose three slams in a row on every surface to Nadal?

 

[lessthanjake]

Whats Federers chances at winning at the USO or AO?....Feds percentage on grand slams hard courts is 0% while Nadal is 100%.

Don't kid yourself. Federer would likely never have lost to Nadal at the US Open had they played there a lot. It is a VERY different surface from the Australian Open.

Even there, Federer may have lost this year, but I think chances are about 50/50 between them on the slow hard courts of the Australian Open. Maybe Nadal has a higher than 50% chance of winning nowadays, but Federer would have had a higher than 50% chance of winning during his peak years.

 

[THE HEAD HUNTER]

that was the year prior, Federer's career was barely budding, as was nadals. Fed's comeback the year after has much more relevance.

So Nadals win over Federer in Miami was "bullspit"?

That isnt actually hard court

Nadals victory at the AO was "bullspit" because that was not a hardcourt?

 

[lessthanjake]

Jake

Thats a whole lot of explaining ......I just dont get it.

Didnt Federer lose three slams in a row on every surface to Nadal?

Yep, sorta, though it wasnt three slams in a row. Federer won the US Open in between.

But anyways, he lost on clay which is no surprise because Nadal is better on clay.

Nadal got reasonably lucky and beat Federer on grass at Wimbledon. Kudos to him, but let's be honest: Federer will win the majority of grass matches between the two of them, even if Nadal is obviously good enough to beat him there sometimes.

He then beat Federer on the slow hard courts of the Australian Open, a surface that I see as about 50/50 between the two, maybe even 60/40 to Nadal now that Nadal is at his peak and Federer is slightly past his peak.

This is great for Nadal. But what is your point? Oh yeah, you don't really have one.

 

[THE HEAD HUNTER]

he lost on clay which is no surprise because Nadal is better on clay.

Nadal got reasonably lucky and beat Federer on grass at Wimbledon.

He then beat Federer on the slow hard courts of the Australian Open, a surface that I see as about 50/50 between the two.

So you think Nadals five set win in the longest Wimbledon in history was pure luck?

 

[lessthanjake]

So you think Nadals five set win in the longest Wimbledon in history was pure luck?

Are you an idiot? I said he was reasonably lucky, not that it was all luck.

 

[THE HEAD HUNTER]

Are you an idiot? I said he was reasonably lucky, not that it was all luck.

I stand corrected.....

So you think Nadals five set win in the longest Wimbledon in history was reasonable luck?

 

[lessthanjake]

I stand corrected.....

So you think Nadals five set win in the longest Wimbledon in history was reasonable luck?

Yes. Federer did not play as well as he could have. He played better this year in the finals, and I think in 2008 Nadal was reasonably lucky to not run into him playing as well as he did this year. I do not think he would have beaten 2009 Wimbledon Federer playing as he did. Federer's serve was WAY more on in 2009 than 2008. That alone would have won him the 2008 match

 

[mandy01]

We will never know because the reigning champion was injured and could not play in this years wimbledon.

Being healthy is part of the game.If Nadal was injured its his problem..and Roger being the five time Champion and barely losing last year I have no reason to believe he'd have the advantage regardless of whether Nadal played there or not.Plus,he was carrying the confidence of winning the RG regardless of whom the victory came against.

 

[THE HEAD HUNTER]

Yes. Federer did not play as well as he could have.

Was Rogers five set wimbeldon win over Nadal in 2007 "reasonably" lucky as well? Didnt Nadal get hurt during that match?

 

[THE HEAD HUNTER]

Being healthy is part of the game.If Nadal was injured its his problem..and Roger being the five time Champion and barely losing last year I have no reason to believe he'd have the advantage regardless of whether Nadal played there or not.Plus,he was carrying the confidence of winning the RG regardless of whom the victory came against.

Then is it fair to bring up Federers "Mono"?

 

[lessthanjake]

Was Rogers five set wimbeldon win over Nadal in 2007 "reasonably" lucky as well? Didnt Nadal get hurt during that match?

I believe he took a medical timeout. That is different BY FAR than an injury.

So you used a bad example. But I am sure that Federer has had some reasonably lucky victories against Nadal too. What's your point?

 

[THE HEAD HUNTER]

I believe he took a medical timeout. That is different BY FAR than an injury.

so Nadal was "reasonably lucky " in his win at wimbledon against federer but on the other hand federers win had nothing to with luck when Nadal was injured?

Did Nadal ever beat Federer other than clay?

 

[lessthanjake]

.

Are you an idiot? Medical timeouts are frequently used strategically to screw with other player's rhythms. They are also used to give a player time to deal with a non-medical issue. They are also used to give them time to tape up something or do something else so that something doesnt BECOME a medical issue. By no means does taking a medical timeout mean that someone was definitely injured. Nadal was not injured in that match. And besides, Federer outplayed Nadal before he took the medical timeout anyways, so your argument was a fail regardless.

 

[mandy01]

so Nadal was "reasonably lucky " in his win at wimbledon against federer but on the other hand federers win had nothing to with luck when Nadal was injured?

Did Nadal ever beat Federer other than clay?

Nadal won fair and square.I dont think he got lucky at all.

 

[mandy01]

Then is it fair to bring up Federers "Mono"?

Of course not..I dont think Federer himself brought it up as an excuse either.He openly said that mono or not Djokovic would've beaten him ,the way he was playing.He admitted he got outplayed.
I dont think any sane Federer fan would bring up mono as an excuse for his loss either.

 

[Turning Pro]

Are you an idiot? Medical timeouts are frequently used strategically to screw with other player's rhythms. They are also used to give a player time to deal with a non-medical issue. They are also used to give them time to tape up something or do something else so that something doesnt BECOME a medical issue. By no means does taking a medical timeout mean that someone was definitely injured. Nadal was not injured in that match. And besides, Federer outplayed Nadal before he took the medical timeout anyways, so your argument was a fail regardless.

What the hell? In this case, he was DESTROYING federer in the 4th set with 2 breaks. He fell and injured his knee and had it taped up, are you blind or just delusional? What an idiot, Federer even started crying about hawkeye when a call went against him.

 

[mandy01]

What the hell? In this case, he was DESTROYING federer in the 4th set with 2 breaks. He fell and injured his knee and had it taped up, are you blind or just delusional? What an idiot, Federer even started crying about hawkeye when a call went against him.

Oh that call was ridiculously controversial.Even the umpire said he couldnt believe what he saw.So stop blowing that incident out of proportion.
And Nadal did not look impaired after the time-out at all.He had two15-40s on Federer's serve and everytime Federer came up with bombs to save them.
There was just one shot which Nadal missed but even there Roger was on the offensive.

 

[Rippy]

What the hell? In this case, he was DESTROYING federer in the 4th set with 2 breaks. He fell and injured his knee and had it taped up, are you blind or just delusional? What an idiot, Federer even started crying about hawkeye when a call went against him.

Winning set 4 doesn't mean you'll win set 5 aswell if you remain uninjured...

 

[THE HEAD HUNTER]

.
I dont think any sane Federer fan would bring up mono as an excuse for his loss either.

trust me....you are very wrong.

 

[darthpwner]

This is an excellent article. It exposes the flaw in the 13-7 H2H of Nadal vs. Federer and proposes that 29-20 STE (same tournaments entered) or 35-23 TTAT (titles in total fvailable tournaments) are what should really be looked at when comparing a "head to head" of Nadal vs. Federer. The author goes back to 2003 when using these.

I think that what really should be used, quite simple, is ranking. It is a long-term reliable measure, and really incorporates and accounts for everything. Or you could just use slams won out of slams entered, which also favors Federer, even since Nadal won his first slam in 2004 (since Nadal won his first slam at the FO in 2004, Federer has won 13 slams, Nadal 6).

In response to those always arguing about the age differences, etc, I say, so what? Players don't peak at the same time; some come into their own very young, some later on. That would only be a reasonable argument if Nadal was a player like Federer, who you'd expect to have a very long career. Unless people think Nadal is going to get to 15 slams -- which I think is a real stretch, 11 is more reasonable -- that isn't a valid argument.

But even if you accept that, it is pretty difficult to say that a player isn't at or near his best after he has won his first slam.

Nadal won the French in 05

 

[OTMPut]

Yeah H2H, whatever.

I will start comparing Nadal to Federer only when when reaches at least 1 USO finals. Till then he is not even in Federer's league. He can look menacing, pump his fist after every point, dress like a jungle boy, chase down crazy balls and win a dozen french open titles. If he cannot make it to one of the GS finals, he will always be one league below Federer's.

 

[THE HEAD HUNTER]

Yeah H2H, whatever.

I will start comparing Nadal to Federer only when when reaches at least 1 USO finals..

How long did it take Federer to win a FO?

 

[THE HEAD HUNTER]

Are you an idiot? Medical timeouts are frequently used strategically to screw with other player's rhythms. Nadal was not injured in that match.

So Nadal purposely faked an injury in his loss to Federer at Wimbledon?

So far I believe that You have said that outside of clay Nadal has never really beaten Federer.....because Nadal was just lucky or Federer was playing poorly.

On the other hand all of Federers wins over Nadal were completely legitimate?

Is that a tad biased?

 

[lessthanjake]

So Nadal purposely faked an injury in his loss to Federer at Wimbledon?

So far I believe that You have said that outside of clay Nadal has never really beaten Federer.....because Nadal was just lucky or Federer was playing poorly.

On the other hand all of Federers wins over Nadal were completely legitimate?

Is that a tad biased?

You are acting like an idiot again.

1. You misquoted me. I gave 2 or 3 OTHER reasons why players use medical timeouts. The point was that taking a medical timeout really does not mean a player is injured.

2. I did not say that outside of clay Nadal has never really beaten Federer. Certainly, Federer not playing his best has contributed to some of Nadal's wins, but that is is still a legitimate win. Someone not playing their best is part of the game. Nadal hasn't played his best in every match against Federer, I can assure you. And I am sure that has contributed to some of Federer's wins. When players are THIS good, it frequently comes down to who is more 'on' or less 'off' on the given day.

3. Again, I have SPECIFICALLY said that I am sure many of Federer's wins over Nadal had something to do with Nadal not playing his best. You know I said that; I do not know why you insist on saying idiotic things and twisting my words.

Try again.

What the hell? In this case, he was DESTROYING federer in the 4th set with 2 breaks. He fell and injured his knee and had it taped up, are you blind or just delusional? What an idiot, Federer even started crying about hawkeye when a call went against him.

Federer was up 2 sets to 1 at the time and behind in the fourth set. I'd say that Federer was slightly ahead given that he had already iced up 2 sets and Nadal had not yet finished off his 2nd.

 

[THE HEAD HUNTER]

I did not say that outside of clay Nadal has never really beaten Federer.

Try again.

.

Which Grand slam did Nadal win outside of clay that according to you Federer played his best ?

 

[lessthanjake]

Which Grand slam did Nadal win outside of clay that according to you Federer played his best ?

There were only 2 slam wins outside of clay. I don't think Federer played his best in either of those matches, though he played better in 2008 Wimbledon than 2009 AUstralian Open. But you are narrowing down the head to head to just slams, where there are only two relevant matches. Nadal has beaten Federer 2 other times off of clay. I did not watch those matches, but it is possible Federer played reasonably well in at least one of those matches.

This is just being realistic about things though. I am not making excuses for Federer. I also don't think that Nadal played his best in the 2 matches that Federer beat him on clay.

This is just being logical. Nadal is a better clay court player. Federer is a better grass/hard court player. Thus, if one of them played their BEST on the surface that they are better on, then they should win every time. If they don't win, then they probably weren't playing their best.

 

[THE HEAD HUNTER]

There were only 2 slam wins outside of clay. I don't think Federer played his best in either of those matches.

Do you think Nadal has ever beaten Federer outside of clay without some sort of an excuse such as luck or playing poorly?

 

[TennisVeritas]

There were only 2 slam wins outside of clay. I don't think Federer played his best in either of those matches, though he played better in 2008 Wimbledon than 2009 AUstralian Open. But you are narrowing down the head to head to just slams, where there are only two relevant matches. Nadal has beaten Federer 2 other times off of clay. I did not watch those matches, but it is possible Federer played reasonably well in at least one of those matches.

This is just being realistic about things though. I am not making excuses for Federer. I also don't think that Nadal played his best in the 2 matches that Federer beat him on clay.

This is just being logical. Nadal is a better clay court player. Federer is a better grass/hard court player. Thus, if one of them played their BEST on the surface that they are better on, then they should win every time. If they don't win, then they probably weren't playing their best.

Agree: great post, all in all too few "BIG" matches outside clay to have a clear vision IMO..Besides, now it will be too late to properly judge: Fed is no more at his peak, when Rafa will be back there (hopefully)...So, why not stop all this, in circle, stuff and just appreciate these two great champions: One a GOAT candidate the other, already now, GOAT on clay candidate (and might be more)...

 

[OTMPut]

How long did it take Federer to win a FO?

How many finals did Federer make at RG?
How many finals did Nadal make at USO? Federer has an RG title. How many USO titles does Nadal have? Forget titles, i am asking about finals appearances.

The guy is an unknown at one of the majors and people compare him with Federer? Rubbish.