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

[Enigma_87]

Now that is a really great point!!

A whole freaking lot better than Hrbaty, and Krajcek.

Edberg is freaking 2-0 against Pete at the slams.

The only thing however is the Edberg has a losing record of 6-8 against Sampras overall whereas Roger is at 7-13.

Buy I do agree with you!! That's a terrible blemish on the Sampras record .

On the other hand I think i remember that Edberg also beat Roger Federer on Stefans worst surface at the freaking French Open. Maybe someone can check that one out?

Edberg is 5 years older than Pete and was leading him 5-4 till 93. It's the exact opposite in Nadal vs Federer, as Nadal is 5 years younger and is expected to better his H2H with Federer, when age catches up with Fed.


And I think you are wrong with Edberg vs Federer? Edberg called it a day before Federer even turned pro. Do you mean Rafter in Roger's debut RG?

 

[lessthanjake]

Now that is a really great point!!

A whole freaking lot better than Hrbaty, and Krajcek.

Edberg is freaking 2-0 against Pete at the slams.

The only thing however is the Edberg has a losing record of 6-8 against Sampras overall whereas Roger is at 7-13.

Buy I do agree with you!! That's a terrible blemish on the Sampras record .

On the other hand I think i remember that Edberg also beat Roger Federer on Stefans worst surface at the freaking French Open. Maybe someone can check that one out?

...are you being sarcastic? Edberg and Federer never played a match against each other

 

[THE HEAD HUNTER]

I'm wrong ....edberg never played federer...sorry!!

But federer did lose to a serve and volleyr at the FO.....I just forget who?? Maybe Pat Cash??? I can't remember ....someone help me out.

 

[thejoe]

I'm wrong ....edberg never played federer...sorry!!

But federer did lose to a serve and volleyr at the FO.....I just forget who?? Maybe Pat Cash??? I can't remember ....someone help me out.

Pat Rafter?

 

[THE HEAD HUNTER]

Pat Rafter?

That's it!! Pat rafter is 3-0 against Roger !!
Year Tournament & City Surface Round Winner & Score
2001 Halle
Germany Grass Q Rafter, Patrick
4-6, 7-6(6), 7-6(4) Stats
2001 ATP Masters Series Miami
FL, U.S.A. Hard Q Rafter, Patrick
6-3, 6-1 Stats
1999 Roland Garros
France Clay R128 Rafter, Patrick
5-7, 6-3, 6-0, 6-2 Stats

 

[ChanceEncounter]

That's it!! Pat rafter is 3-0 against Roger !!
Year Tournament & City Surface Round Winner & Score
2001 Halle
Germany Grass Q Rafter, Patrick
4-6, 7-6(6), 7-6(4) Stats
2001 ATP Masters Series Miami
FL, U.S.A. Hard Q Rafter, Patrick
6-3, 6-1 Stats
1999 Roland Garros
France Clay R128 Rafter, Patrick
5-7, 6-3, 6-0, 6-2 Stats

Yes, Pat Rafter is a better player than Federer. Clearly.

 

[THE HEAD HUNTER]

Yes, Pat Rafter is a better player than Federer. Clearly.

I never said such a thing .

 

[Rippy]

Yes, Pat Rafter is a better player than Federer. Clearly.

Lol he didn't say that; he just posted some stats.

 

[lessthanjake]

Dude, 1999 was Federer's first real year as a pro, and that was his first grand slam match. Federer was ranked 64th in the world that year and needed a wild card to get into the French Open, while Rafter was ranked #3 in the world at the time of the French Open. Federer still managed to take a set on Rafter. Are you really trying to say that that match means anything?

 

[THE HEAD HUNTER]

Dude, 1999 was Federer's first real year as a pro, and that was his first grand slam match.

How did 17 year old Nadal do as his first year as a pro against Roger Federer?

Also wasn't Rafter a server and volleyer? Did he beat Roger at the FO.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

How did 17 year old Nadal do as his first year as a pro against Roger Federer?

Different players progress at different times in their careers. 16 year old Lleyton Hewitt beat Andre Agassi en route to his 1st title. Does this make him greater than Agassi?

 

[Lifted]

Did Blake and Nadal ever meet on grass or Clay? Who do you think would win those matches?

Nadals record solely on hard courts against Blake is 2-3 but I believe Federers grand slam record against Nadal is 2-6 on ALL surfaces. Do you think that Blake is therefore an accurate comparison?

As far as H2h receords what do you think of what Matt Cronin of tennis magazine has to say:

"That means he's the best player of all time, with one major caveat -- his record against Nadal. All the top five guys have positive records against all their peers. Federer doesn't."
Matt Cronin, Inside Tennis magazine

How is it possible that all the other top 5 player have positive records against their peers? That statement just created a black hole.

Does he mean a positive record with peers outside the top 5? If so, Federer's got this in spades.

The article makes some great points.

And, I can agree that Nadal's 13--7 H2H can be a bit "misleading."

But, I don't agree with the fact because Nadal has a far superior clay H2H as compared to other surfaces, and because he has not returned the favor of meeting Fed in more non-clay tourneys, that the H2H is somehow totally negated, as some on these boards posit.

The idea that a H2H is completely non-legit because Nadal and Fed have often met on Nadal's best surface and Nadal has not reached enough finals with Fed on other surfaces to improve Fed's record in the H2H, is baffling.

It's basically saying that no H2H's between any players are completely legit unless there are an equal number of matches under conditions that suit each player the best. The likelihood of that happening are minimal.

At some level, a match is just a match. Fed had many opportunities to improve his clay record against Nadal. He was "in" most of the clay matches he lost to Nadal. The H2H didn't have to be that bad for Fed, even without additional hard court, indoor, or grass court matches

Don't get me wrong. I fully understand the surface analysis and believe it has some merit. But, the idea that it completely negates what Nadal has accomplished H2H with Fed is ridiculous.

And, in the end, all the dominant H2H against Fed says is that Nadal was a great player who matched up well with Fed. It doesn't make Nadal "better" in the context of their entire career acheivement, and it doesn't suddenly make Nadal (with only 6 Slams to date) the GOAT, or (so far) even a legit GOAT candidate.

I agree with this.

Now that is a really great point!!

A whole freaking lot better than Hrbaty, and Krajcek.

Edberg is freaking 2-0 against Pete at the slams.

The only thing however is the Edberg has a losing record of 6-8 against Sampras overall whereas Roger is at 7-13.

Buy I do agree with you!! That's a terrible blemish on the Sampras record .

On the other hand I think i remember that Edberg also beat Roger Federer on Stefans worst surface at the freaking French Open. Maybe someone can check that one out?

Wow. That's a big faux pas. Edberg retired 2 years before Roger turned pro. Makes me wonder about you...

 

[Talker]

The H2H seems to be accurate,
Nadal IS better on clay,
most of the matches have been on clay.
With Fed a slight edge elsewhere.

What's the big deal here? The H2H comes out like it should???

This conversation is happening on a lot of boards, it looks like Fed fans are worried that Fed will lose some prestige. But it only shows what everyone knows already. Nadal is better on clay and tough elsewhere.

And it was 6-8 Nadal not long ago, then Fed went into a slump for a year or so. One year of being in a slump won't hurt Fed's legacy. But it did make the H2H look bad.

 

[ChanceEncounter]

I never said such a thing .

But I did.

Pat Rafter is clearly better than Federer because his H2H says so.

 

[Lifted]

The H2H seems to be accurate,
Nadal IS better on clay,
most of the matches have been on clay.
With Fed a slight edge elsewhere.

What's the big deal here? The H2H comes out like it should???

This conversation is happening on a lot of boards, it looks like Fed fans are worried that Fed will lose some prestige. But it only shows what everyone knows already. Nadal is better on clay and tough elsewhere.

And it was 6-8 Nadal not long ago, then Fed went into a slump for a year or so. One year of being in a slump won't hurt Fed's legacy. But it did make the H2H look bad.

This is a sensible way of looking at it.

 

[lessthanjake]

How did 17 year old Nadal do as his first year as a pro against Roger Federer?

Also wasn't Rafter a server and volleyer? Did he beat Roger at the FO.

Nadal's first year as a pro was 2003. He didnt play Federer that year. Try again.

Anyways, players progress at different rates. Specifically, players who play a defensive style tend to hit their prime years at a younger age (and they usually break down earlier). This is true of Nadal, Borg, Wilander, and Chang, some of the very best purely defensive players ever. Players with other styles tend to hit their prime later. That is what happened with Federer. He did not get very good until he was well out of his teens. Therefore, taking losses from his teen years to mean something is silly.

Yes, Rafter was a serve and volleyer and he beat Roger at the FO. But didn't Roger need a wild card to even be allowed into the French Open that year? Yes. Wasn't he ranked well outside the top 100 at the time of that tournament? Yes. Didn't he lose 57% of the matches he played that year? Yes. Because of all those things, wasn't the Roger Federer of 1999 RG, CLEARLY not anywhere near the same player he would become? YES.

Your argument is just stupid. Federer was a BAD player way back when he lost to Rafter. That is why he lost. Not because he can't deal with serve and volleyers.

 

[Gen]

One thing the author of this article never bothered to mention is that Nadal is 23 and Federer is 28. Federer had 5 more years to collect his tropheys. Nobody knows how many of them Nadal gets when he is 28. The time is working for Nadal now. And till both careers are over long, boring and badly written articles are irrelevant.

BTW if the author can read no worse than write, he should read Raymond Lee's previous articles, really informative and with a lot of statistics and calculations.

 

[JennyS]

Here's an interesting stat in Grand Slams starting with the 2005 French Open:

In Slams that both players played, Federer did better 9 times and Nadal did better 6 times. They had one equal result (both lost in the 2008 AO SF). And Federer won two Slams in which Nadal did not play (06 AO and 09 W).

So in same Slams played, Fed is 9-6.

A more detailed look would be:

AO: tied 1-1-1 (Nadal didn't play in 06 when Fed won)
FO: Nadal 4-1
Wimbledon: Federer 3-1 (Nadal didn't play this year)
US Open: Federer 4-0.

 

[THE HEAD HUNTER]

Nadal's first year as a pro was 2003. He didnt play Federer that year.

and Federers first year was 1998 and rafter beat him on clay , grass and hard after ! He is 3-0 against Federer. And as bad as you think Federer was ( he did beat Sampras but lost to edberg on grass)....rafter was TERRIBLE on clay but did beat Roger .

It should also be noted that although Nadal was enrolled in 2003 he stopped playing due to injury. His first real year on the tour was at the age if 17.

Compare Rafa to Rogers first three years. I beleibe it's 6 grand slams to 0?

But more importantly Rafters dominance of Roger on all three surfaces may indictae that besides Rafa an Rafter ,,,,,, Roger never really faced a true challenge.....what do you think ?



Anyways, players progress at different rates. Specifically, players who play a defensive style tend to hit their prime years at a younger age (and they usually break down earlier). This is true of Nadal, Borg, Wilander, and Chang, some of the very best purely defensive players ever. Players with other styles tend to hit their prime later. That is what happened with Federer. He did not get very good until he was well out of his teens. Therefore, taking losses from his teen years to mean something is silly.

Yes, Rafter was a serve and volleyer and he beat Roger at the FO. But didn't Roger need a wild card to even be allowed into the French Open that year? Yes. Wasn't he ranked well outside the top 100 at the time of that tournament? Yes. Didn't he lose 57% of the matches he played that year? Yes. Because of all those things, wasn't the Roger Federer of 1999 RG, CLEARLY not anywhere near the same player he would become? YES.

Your argument is just stupid. Federer was a BAD player way back when he lost to Rafter. That is why he lost. Not because he can't deal with serve and volleyers.[/QUOTE]

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

and Federers first year was 1998 and rafter beat him on clay , grass and hard after ! He is 3-0 against Federer. And as bad as you think Federer was ( he did beat Sampras but lost to edberg on grass)....rafter was TERRIBLE on clay but did beat Roger .

It should also be noted that although Nadal was enrolled in 2003 he stopped playing due to injury. His first real year on the tour was at the age if 17.

Compare Rafa to Rogers first three years. I beleibe it's 6 grand slams to 0?

But more importantly Rafters dominance of Roger on all three surfaces may indictae that besides Rafa an Rafter ,,,,,, Roger never really faced a true challenge.....what do you think ?

Oh be quiet. Fed's 2-0 vs Ivanisevic, w/ one of those wins coming in 2001 AFTER Goran had won Wimbledon. Does this mean that Goran was totally worthless when it comes to Sampras' contemporaries? No, b/c both guys were at different parts of their careers. Same w/ his record vs Agassi (8-3). Does the fact that Fed did better against Agassi than Sampras did prove Fed is better? No, of course not.

And as I mentioned before, Lleyton Hewitt beat Andre Agassi when he was only 16. Does this make him a better player all time than Agassi? No, of course not, but by your logic that one match proves Hewitt is greater than Agassi.

And get your facts right. Nadal's never won 6 slams in 3 years. If his 'true' first 3 years were 2004-2006, that would make only 2 slams, which still proves nothing. So many guys progress at differing stages of their careers, the age argument is one of the weakest ones you can use to try and discredit Roger. Pointing out the h2h of an 18 y.o. Roger, 5 years from his 1st slam title, against a top 5 Rafter is just a joke.

 

[lessthanjake]

and Federers first year was 1998 and rafter beat him on clay , grass and hard after ! He is 3-0 against Federer. And as bad as you think Federer was ( he did beat Sampras but lost to edberg on grass)....rafter was TERRIBLE on clay but did beat Roger .

It should also be noted that although Nadal was enrolled in 2003 he stopped playing due to injury. His first real year on the tour was at the age if 17.

Compare Rafa to Rogers first three years. I beleibe it's 6 grand slams to 0?

But more importantly Rafters dominance of Roger on all three surfaces may indictae that besides Rafa an Rafter ,,,,,, Roger never really faced a true challenge.....what do you think ?

Your argument is idiotic.

It doesnt matter how bad Rafter is on clay. FEDERER WAS A WILD CARD. HE BARELY QUALIFIED FOR THE TOURNAMENT. He was NOT expected to beat the #3 seed.

And again, FEDERER NEVER PLAYED EDBERG!

And even if you say Nadal's first year was 2004, which is not the case, Nadal still had 2 slams in his first 3 years, not 6. And that doesn't make him better than Federer. He plays a style in which players peak earlier in their lives and break down earlier. Federer got good a lot later, but will last longer. Therefore, comparing players at a given age is just silly.

The last time Rafter beat Federer was 2001. It would be two more years until Federer won a slam, or even made a semifinal. He was nowhere near his peak. And a loss when someone is nowhere near their peak really doesn't mean much because there is NO way of knowing if the player would have won the match had they been at their peak.

Lastly, yes, I know you are just kidding around. No one is as stupid as you are acting.

 

[kanamit]

The logical flaw is that people keep conflating the GOAT with the GCCOAT (Greatest Clay Courter of All Time). It's perfectly reasonable to claim that Federer is the greatest of all time while still acknowledging that Nadal is better than Federer on one surface (hence the lopsided h2h). Because the Greatest of All Time doesn't mean the absolute best in every single statistic, the holder of every single record, etc, etc. It means that, in terms of OVERALL career performance, the player is the best ever even in spite of not holding all the records (does Federer not holding the record for fastest ever serve undermine his GOAT status?) or dominating all players on every surface (did Sampras ever dominate ANYBODY on clay?). Having said that, I don't think it's ever possible to reach a conclusion about something as abstract as the GOAT. It's just a time-killer for the discussion board between tournaments.

 

[THE HEAD HUNTER]

Your argument is idiotic.

It doesnt matter how bad Rafter is on clay. FEDERER WAS A WILD CARD. HE BARELY QUALIFIED FOR THE TOURNAMENT. He was NOT expected to beat the #3 seed.

And even if you say Nadal's first year was 2004, which is not the case, Nadal still had 2 slams in his first 3 years, not 6. And that doesn't make him better than Federer. He plays a style in which players peak earlier in their lives and break down earlier. Federer got good a lot later, but will last longer. Therefore, comparing players at a given age is just silly.

The last time Rafter beat Federer was 2001. It would be two more years until Federer won a slam, or even made a semifinal. He was nowhere near his peak. And a loss when someone is nowhere near their peak really doesn't mean much because there is NO way of knowing if the player would have won the match had they been at their peak.

Lastly, yes, I know you are just kidding around. No one is as stupid as you are acting.

I dont have an argument at all. I was just stating facts. I never judged those facts...apparently you howvever did.

I never said that Federer did not have an excuse for losing 3-0 to Rafter on all surfaces. His reason may be very valid...Im not saying one way ot the other.

According to you Federers excuse for losing those early matches to Rafter were because he was just startting. So I merely asked you whether Nadal was entitled to the same excuses for his losses to Federer at Wimbledon?

Finally many experts have in fact found the 3 beatings Rafter gave to Federer very important:


" While Federer's brilliance is undeniable, his losing streak to Nadal makes me wonder: was his genius magnified by the fact he was playing people like Hewitt and Roddick in major finals who could not take advantage of his vulnerabilities the way Rafael Nadal can?"... (or Rafter can?)

"That's one of the challenges of rating players beyond their generation as I did in statistically examining the greatest players of all time: Federer is unquestionably a great champion, but was his dominance due in part to the fact that there was no one to push him except Nadal?" (Or Rafter?)

Sampras, for example, had Andre Agassi at his best (at least most years), Boris Becker, Jim Courier, Stefan Edberg, Gustavo Kuerten, Richard Krajicek, Michael Stich, Goran Ivanisevic, Michael Chang, Marcelo Rios, Ivan Lendl, Petr Korda and Thomas Muster.

It seems to me that the competition was a lot stronger than the competition Federer has played over the years. Now I think it's changing with Nadal pursuing his own career Grand Slam and Andy Murray, Novak Djokovic and Roddick all improving. Federer's foes in the top four are all quick and Nadal, Murray and Djokovic all have better backhands.

Sampras and Andre Agassi are two of the greatest Grand Slam champions of all time and over the years their riveting rivalry has produced some timeless tennis — and tireless debate among fans over which will own the more prominent place in history.

The archrivals began the 2002 U.S. Open as the two oldest seeded players in the draw and concluded it with a climactic clash that saw Sampras capture his 14th and final career Grand Slam crown with a 6-3, 6-4, 5-7, 6-4 victory over archrival Agassi. It was the 34th and final professional meeting between the old rivals with Sampras holding a 20-14 career edge.

Recalling his rivalry with Agassi, Sampras said if Agassi had led their head-to-head series, it would have caused the 14-time Grand Slam champion to question his own status as his generation's top player."
Raymond Lee


Raymond Lee is a tennis historian and Tennis Week contributing writer from New York. His recent features include Greatest Of All Time: A Statistical Analysis; Best Ever: A Statistical Case For McEnroe In 1984; The Rivalry To Remember and Flash Points: Matches That Changed The Course Of Tennis History.

 

[lessthanjake]

According to you Federers excuse for losing those early matches to Rafter were because he was just startting. So I merely asked you whether Nadal was entitled to the same excuses for his losses to Federer at Wimbledon?

It is completely different. Nadal was #2 in the world when he lost to Federer at Wimbledon. He may not have been at his absolute peak (which was 2008 ), but he was clearly close given his #2 ranking and the fact that he was in the finals of a slam. Federer was not even in the top 100 in the world when he lost to Rafter in the French Open and was not even in the top 10 in the world when he lost to Rafter in 2001. He had never made it to a slam final and wouldnt do so for another two years. He was CLEARLY way further away from his absolute peak than Nadal was when he lost at Wimbledon. Comparing the two situations is idiotic. The only similarity is the age the two players were, but you have had it explained to you time and time again that different players hit their prime in different years. Nadal's style of play lends itself to hitting one's prime earlier.

Finally many experts have in fact found the 3 beatings Rafter gave to Federer very important:

HAHAHA okay, I'll give it to you. That made me burst out laughing when I saw your added comments of "(Or Rafter?)" in the article. I know you're not serious because that is just so comical. I enjoyed it though, honestly, I laughed quite hard.

 

[Lion King]

Suppose Sampras had a losing H2H against Agassi, something like 20-10, but everything else was unchanged (the number of slams, the number of titles won, the number of weeks at #1, etc). Would you then say that this negative H2H seriously damages Sampras's claim at being one of the GOATs?

 

[NamRanger]

Suppose Sampras had a losing H2H against Agassi, something like 20-10, but everything else was unchanged (the number of slams, the number of titles won, the number of weeks at #1, etc). Would you then say that this negative H2H seriously damages Sampras's claim at being one of the GOATs?

No, it only proves that Delgado and Blanco were giants of the 90s.

 

[TMF]

I dont have an argument at all. I was just stating facts. I never judged those facts...apparently you howvever did.

I never said that Federer did not have an excuse for losing 3-0 to Rafter on all surfaces. His reason may be very valid...Im not saying one way ot the other.

According to you Federers excuse for losing those early matches to Rafter were because he was just startting. So I merely asked you whether Nadal was entitled to the same excuses for his losses to Federer at Wimbledon?

Finally many experts have in fact found the 3 beatings Rafter gave to Federer very important:


" While Federer's brilliance is undeniable, his losing streak to Nadal makes me wonder: was his genius magnified by the fact he was playing people like Hewitt and Roddick in major finals who could not take advantage of his vulnerabilities the way Rafael Nadal can?"... (or Rafter can?)

"That's one of the challenges of rating players beyond their generation as I did in statistically examining the greatest players of all time: Federer is unquestionably a great champion, but was his dominance due in part to the fact that there was no one to push him except Nadal?" (Or Rafter?)

Sampras, for example, had Andre Agassi at his best (at least most years), Boris Becker, Jim Courier, Stefan Edberg, Gustavo Kuerten, Richard Krajicek, Michael Stich, Goran Ivanisevic, Michael Chang, Marcelo Rios, Ivan Lendl, Petr Korda and Thomas Muster.

It seems to me that the competition was a lot stronger than the competition Federer has played over the years. Now I think it's changing with Nadal pursuing his own career Grand Slam and Andy Murray, Novak Djokovic and Roddick all improving. Federer's foes in the top four are all quick and Nadal, Murray and Djokovic all have better backhands.

Sampras and Andre Agassi are two of the greatest Grand Slam champions of all time and over the years their riveting rivalry has produced some timeless tennis — and tireless debate among fans over which will own the more prominent place in history.

The archrivals began the 2002 U.S. Open as the two oldest seeded players in the draw and concluded it with a climactic clash that saw Sampras capture his 14th and final career Grand Slam crown with a 6-3, 6-4, 5-7, 6-4 victory over archrival Agassi. It was the 34th and final professional meeting between the old rivals with Sampras holding a 20-14 career edge.

Recalling his rivalry with Agassi, Sampras said if Agassi had led their head-to-head series, it would have caused the 14-time Grand Slam champion to question his own status as his generation's top player."
Raymond Lee


Raymond Lee is a tennis historian and Tennis Week contributing writer from New York. His recent features include Greatest Of All Time: A Statistical Analysis; Best Ever: A Statistical Case For McEnroe In 1984; The Rivalry To Remember and Flash Points: Matches That Changed The Course Of Tennis History.

I take Rafter’s opinion with a grain of salt. He never played prime Federer in his career, let alone the players in this generation. So is he to say the TMF’s competition is weaker than the 90s. Fact is Henman, Santoro, Bjorkman had played both in the 90’s and 00’s, and most importantly, they played against both peak Sampras and Federer. They all said TMF is a better player. Agassi has the most accurate and insightful understand of both Sampras/TMF games, as well as the strength of the playing field in both generations. Rafter or Raymond’s credibility doesn’t even comes close in compare to Agassi’s pinky!!!!

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=274867&highlight=agassi

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

I dont have an argument at all. I was just stating facts. I never judged those facts...apparently you howvever did.

I never said that Federer did not have an excuse for losing 3-0 to Rafter on all surfaces. His reason may be very valid...Im not saying one way ot the other.

According to you Federers excuse for losing those early matches to Rafter were because he was just startting. So I merely asked you whether Nadal was entitled to the same excuses for his losses to Federer at Wimbledon?

Finally many experts have in fact found the 3 beatings Rafter gave to Federer very important:


" While Federer's brilliance is undeniable, his losing streak to Nadal makes me wonder: was his genius magnified by the fact he was playing people like Hewitt and Roddick in major finals who could not take advantage of his vulnerabilities the way Rafael Nadal can?"... (or Rafter can?)

"That's one of the challenges of rating players beyond their generation as I did in statistically examining the greatest players of all time: Federer is unquestionably a great champion, but was his dominance due in part to the fact that there was no one to push him except Nadal?" (Or Rafter?)

Sampras, for example, had Andre Agassi at his best (at least most years), Boris Becker, Jim Courier, Stefan Edberg, Gustavo Kuerten, Richard Krajicek, Michael Stich, Goran Ivanisevic, Michael Chang, Marcelo Rios, Ivan Lendl, Petr Korda and Thomas Muster.

It seems to me that the competition was a lot stronger than the competition Federer has played over the years. Now I think it's changing with Nadal pursuing his own career Grand Slam and Andy Murray, Novak Djokovic and Roddick all improving. Federer's foes in the top four are all quick and Nadal, Murray and Djokovic all have better backhands.

Sampras and Andre Agassi are two of the greatest Grand Slam champions of all time and over the years their riveting rivalry has produced some timeless tennis — and tireless debate among fans over which will own the more prominent place in history.

The archrivals began the 2002 U.S. Open as the two oldest seeded players in the draw and concluded it with a climactic clash that saw Sampras capture his 14th and final career Grand Slam crown with a 6-3, 6-4, 5-7, 6-4 victory over archrival Agassi. It was the 34th and final professional meeting between the old rivals with Sampras holding a 20-14 career edge.

Recalling his rivalry with Agassi, Sampras said if Agassi had led their head-to-head series, it would have caused the 14-time Grand Slam champion to question his own status as his generation's top player."
Raymond Lee


Raymond Lee is a tennis historian and Tennis Week contributing writer from New York. His recent features include Greatest Of All Time: A Statistical Analysis; Best Ever: A Statistical Case For McEnroe In 1984; The Rivalry To Remember and Flash Points: Matches That Changed The Course Of Tennis History.

Patrick Rafter is a good man also a smart man, he knows Sampras played in a tougher era.

 

[zagor]

Patrick Rafter is a good man also a smart man.

You sure about that? Because he was quoted saying Fed's a more complete player than Sampras

I never saw Federer in his prime. I think Sampras and Roger would have had a really good battle. Pete’s serve was just sensational and I don’t think there was anyone on tour who had a serve as good as he did. But Federer has the complete game and that’s what Pete lacked. Serve is a great weapon but Federer seems to be very strong everywhere. It certainly would have been a good battle

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/te...fter-Goran-Federer-Murrays-better-Henman.html

 

[Lifted]

I dont have an argument at all. I was just stating facts. I never judged those facts...apparently you howvever did.

I never said that Federer did not have an excuse for losing 3-0 to Rafter on all surfaces. His reason may be very valid...Im not saying one way ot the other.

According to you Federers excuse for losing those early matches to Rafter were because he was just startting. So I merely asked you whether Nadal was entitled to the same excuses for his losses to Federer at Wimbledon?

Finally many experts have in fact found the 3 beatings Rafter gave to Federer very important:


" While Federer's brilliance is undeniable, his losing streak to Nadal makes me wonder: was his genius magnified by the fact he was playing people like Hewitt and Roddick in major finals who could not take advantage of his vulnerabilities the way Rafael Nadal can?"... (or Rafter can?)

"That's one of the challenges of rating players beyond their generation as I did in statistically examining the greatest players of all time: Federer is unquestionably a great champion, but was his dominance due in part to the fact that there was no one to push him except Nadal?" (Or Rafter?)

Sampras, for example, had Andre Agassi at his best (at least most years), Boris Becker, Jim Courier, Stefan Edberg, Gustavo Kuerten, Richard Krajicek, Michael Stich, Goran Ivanisevic, Michael Chang, Marcelo Rios, Ivan Lendl, Petr Korda and Thomas Muster.

It seems to me that the competition was a lot stronger than the competition Federer has played over the years. Now I think it's changing with Nadal pursuing his own career Grand Slam and Andy Murray, Novak Djokovic and Roddick all improving. Federer's foes in the top four are all quick and Nadal, Murray and Djokovic all have better backhands.

Sampras and Andre Agassi are two of the greatest Grand Slam champions of all time and over the years their riveting rivalry has produced some timeless tennis — and tireless debate among fans over which will own the more prominent place in history.

The archrivals began the 2002 U.S. Open as the two oldest seeded players in the draw and concluded it with a climactic clash that saw Sampras capture his 14th and final career Grand Slam crown with a 6-3, 6-4, 5-7, 6-4 victory over archrival Agassi. It was the 34th and final professional meeting between the old rivals with Sampras holding a 20-14 career edge.

Recalling his rivalry with Agassi, Sampras said if Agassi had led their head-to-head series, it would have caused the 14-time Grand Slam champion to question his own status as his generation's top player."
Raymond Lee


Raymond Lee is a tennis historian and Tennis Week contributing writer from New York. His recent features include Greatest Of All Time: A Statistical Analysis; Best Ever: A Statistical Case For McEnroe In 1984; The Rivalry To Remember and Flash Points: Matches That Changed The Course Of Tennis History.

I fail to see where these "many experts" find Federer's H2H against Rafter important in the quotes above. All I see is you appending Rafter's name to every quote. Looking at Nadal's H2H with Federer is fine and warranted, but Rafter's?

Also, are all these quotes from Lee, because that makes only one expert, who, by the way, never mentions Rafter.

Patrick Rafter is a good man also a smart man, he knows Sampras played in a tougher era.

Rafter didn't say any of those things.

 

[THE HEAD HUNTER]

I fail to see where these "many experts" find Federer's H2H against Rafter important in the quotes above. All I see is you appending Rafter's name to every quote. Looking at Nadal's H2H with Federer is fine and warranted, but Rafter's?
.

Well you are correct. I came up with the Rafter analogy , but only as a question,,,,but you are right and I admit it.

On the other hand all the experts do in fact find Federers loss' to Nadal extremely important....here is just a few:

Mary Carillo

Bud Collins

Matt Cronin

Anacone

Raymond Lee

Andre Agassi

Pete Sampras.

I have looked all pver th internet and I cannot actually find anyone who says that the head to head record of Federer and Nadal is unimportant.....mayb I missed it...but I have not found it.

 

[Lifted]

Well you are correct. I came up with the Rafter analogy , but only as a question,,,,but you are right and I admit it.

On the other hand all the experts do in fact find Federers loss' to Nadal extremely important....here is just a few:

Mary Carillo

Bud Collins

Matt Cronin

Anacone

Raymond Lee

Andre Agassi

Pete Sampras.

I have looked all pver th internet and I cannot actually find anyone who says that the head to head record of Federer and Nadal is unimportant.....mayb I missed it...but I have not found it.

Well, if I were Federer, I would look to close the H2H gap, because it is a blemish on his record...GOAT or not. Now, whether the H2H is as important as some make it out to be, well...you'll find some great comments concerning that above (specifically those of Talker and bluetrain4).

 

[NamRanger]

Well you are correct. I came up with the Rafter analogy , but only as a question,,,,but you are right and I admit it.

On the other hand all the experts do in fact find Federers loss' to Nadal extremely important....here is just a few:

Mary Carillo

Bud Collins

Matt Cronin

Anacone

Raymond Lee

Andre Agassi

Pete Sampras.

I have looked all pver th internet and I cannot actually find anyone who says that the head to head record of Federer and Nadal is unimportant.....mayb I missed it...but I have not found it.

20 years down the road, will anyone really care? Probably not.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

"Roger Federer will undoubtedly become the greatest tennis player to have graced the sport if he wins the French Open. It ends the discussion of where he fits in the history of the game. If it wasn't for (four-times champion Rafael) Nadal, he probably would have won a handful of these things. So nobody would underestimate where he deserves to fit in this game. He's extraordinarily talented and talk about grace on court, watching him play is something special to see and if he does it tomorrow, he'll know what an accomplishment it was."
-Andre Agassi, the day before Federer winning 2009 French Open Final

For me Roger is the greatest player ever who played the tennis game.
-Bjorn Borg, after Federer winning 2009 French Open Final

"The body of work is phenomenal and now he has got that French Open and I think he can just go on and sip Margaritas for the rest of his life."
-Martina Navratilova, winner of 18 Grand Slams

"His win today at the French Open, tying Pete Sampras’s record for major titles and the completion of a career grand slam firmly places him in a special place as the greatest player of all time. He has earned his place and he has proven he belongs. Roger is a champion for the ages."
-Billie Jean King, after Federer winning 2009 French Open Final

 

[The-Champ]

Different players progress at different times in their careers. 16 year old Lleyton Hewitt beat Andre Agassi en route to his 1st title. Does this make him greater than Agassi?

He has never beaten Andre at a slam, actually he was crushed at the USO.


Nadal and Federer are totally different.

 

[AAAA]

He has never beaten Andre at a slam, actually he was crushed at the USO.


Nadal and Federer are totally different.

6-4, 7-6(5), 6-7(1), 6-2 in a match 3 minutes under 3 hours is not a crushing defeat.

 

[THE HEAD HUNTER]

"Roger Federer will undoubtedly become the greatest tennis player to have graced the sport if he wins the French Open. It ends the discussion of where he fits in the history of the game. If it wasn't for (four-times champion Rafael) Nadal, he probably would have won a handful of these things. So nobody would underestimate where he deserves to fit in this game. He's extraordinarily talented and talk about grace on court, watching him play is something special to see and if he does it tomorrow, he'll know what an accomplishment it was."
-Andre Agassi, the day before Federer winning 2009 French Open Final

"Roger's numbers are hard to disagree with,And then you have a guy who's beaten him almost twice as much. Sounds like an Achilles' heel." Andre Agassi;s entire statetment

 

[Tennis_Goodness]

There head to head record is really decieving.

Nadal is probablly the best clay court player of all time. Federer is so good on every surface out there that he has met this young great player on this surface and has lost to him. Nadal on the other hand has not been good enough to make it to the finals of the US Open and other tournaments to meet Federer in the final. Sampras never made it anywhere close to winning the French Open Final and he also never had to deal with Nadal who I think will probablly go down as the greatest clay court player of all time. You can't put Sampras or any other player on a higher pedisistal because Roger had trouble beating this man on this particular surface. They would have got eatan alive by Nadal on clay, while Federer has been competitive and beaten Nadal on this surface.

Also Federer's not in his prime and Nadal is. Nadal is going to be a great player but as of right now if he doesn't get 15 slams, he will not be as good as Roger, plain and simple! He couldn't make it to the finals at Cincy and Federer beat the man who had eliminated him. That's nobodies fault but Nadal's. No fault or blame put on Federer, he was just that much better than Nadal during this tournament!

There head to head would only matter if Nadal equals or beats Federer's grand slam record at the end of his career. Until than it's a mute point!

 

[Borgforever]

That article an OP is bs -- there's no explanation that works AT ALL for Roger Federer's awful H2H against his closest rival Rafael Nadal during prime/peak.

Roger Federer's H2H against Rafa is THE WORST H2H between main GOAT-contenders in the entire history of tennis and if he doesn't change this around NOW -- he'll never be a GOAT-contender:

Borg, for example, was 7-7 (10-7 all inclusve in Borg's favor 1978-1981) against his closest rival John McEnroe ONLY MEETING ON MAC'S FAVE SURFACES, super-fast grass, Deco Turf II and indoor carpet -- THEY NEVER MET ON CLAY and Borg still dominated Mac with 10-7 in H2H including all meeting up until Björn's retirement in 1981.

That's like Federer being 10-7 or 7-7 against Rafa only meeting on clay, Rafa's strongest surface -- like Mac for Borg.

Federer's H2H against Rafa is the single worst stat working against him. With all that beautiful technique and skill but still he burned match-points against Rafa at ROME 2006 and Roger got a stake run through his heart by the Matador both at RG -- 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 (also the worst loss of any world no. 1 in a major final in the entire history of tennis bar none futher undermining his case for GOAT), at Wimby on grass 9-7 in the 5th and then on hardcourt cement by Rafa with 6-2 in the 5th.

Rafael Nadal with all his "homspun", bad technique, dominates Roger Federer to such a degree that there's no argument to redeem Roger from this predicament unless he starts beating Rafa severely from now on including beating Rafa at RG.

Only then we can talk about Roger being a serious GOAT-contender...

Roger Federer has the worst clutch and main rival H2H of all GOAT-contenders -- BAR NONE...

Just pure fact and inarguable...

Records don't lie...

Sorry...

 

[fps]

That article an OP is bs -- there's no explanation that works AT ALL for Roger Federer's awful H2H against his closest rival Rafael Nadal during prime/peak.

Roger Federer's H2H against Rafa is THE WORST H2H between main GOAT-contenders in the entire history of tennis and if he doesn't change this around NOW -- he'll never be a GOAT-contender:

Borg, for example, was 7-7 (10-7 all inclusve in Borg's favor 1978-1981) against his closest rival John McEnroe ONLY MEETING ON MAC'S FAVE SURFACES, super-fast grass, Deco Turf II and indoor carpet -- THEY NEVER MET ON CLAY and Borg still dominated Mac with 10-7 in H2H including all meeting up until Björn's retirement in 1981.

That's like Federer being 10-7 or 7-7 against Rafa only meeting on clay, Rafa's strongest surface -- like Mac for Borg.

Federer's H2H against Rafa is the single worst stat working against him. With all that beautiful technique and skill but still he burned match-points against Rafa at ROME 2006 and Roger got a stake run through his heart by the Matador both at RG -- 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 (also the worst loss of any world no. 1 in a major final in the entire history of tennis bar none futher undermining his case for GOAT), at Wimby on grass 9-7 in the 5th and then on hardcourt cement by Rafa with 6-2 in the 5th.

Rafael Nadal with all his "homspun", bad technique, dominates Roger Federer to such a degree that there's no argument to redeem Roger from this predicament unless he starts beating Rafa severely from now oninluding beating at RG.

Roger Federer has the worst clutch and main rival H2H of all GOAT-contenders -- BAR NONE...

Just pure fact and inarguable...

Records don't lie...

Sorry...

someone else will argue that this shows borg was in a weak era

i will yawn and change thread cos these kinds of ones are incredibly boring and go round in circles. why does there have to be only one great tennis player, and everyone else gets pulled down? do you not enjoy the game of tennis, only sparse individuals?

 

[Tennis_Goodness]

That article an OP is bs -- there's no explanation that works AT ALL for Roger Federer's awful H2H against his closest rival Rafael Nadal during prime/peak.

Roger Federer's H2H against Rafa is THE WORST H2H between main GOAT-contenders in the entire history of tennis and if he doesn't change this around NOW -- he'll never be a GOAT-contender:

Borg, for example, was 7-7 (10-7 all inclusve in Borg's favor 1978-1981) against his closest rival John McEnroe ONLY MEETING ON MAC'S FAVE SURFACES, super-fast grass, Deco Turf II and indoor carpet -- THEY NEVER MET ON CLAY and Borg still dominated Mac with 10-7 in H2H including all meeting up until Björn's retirement in 1981.

That's like Federer being 10-7 or 7-7 against Rafa only meeting on clay, Rafa's strongest surface -- like Mac for Borg.

Federer's H2H against Rafa is the single worst stat working against him. With all that beautiful technique and skill but still he burned match-points against Rafa at ROME 2006 and Roger got a stake run through his heart by the Matador both at RG -- 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 (also the worst loss of any world no. 1 in a major final in the entire history of tennis bar none futher undermining his case for GOAT), at Wimby on grass 9-7 in the 5th and then on hardcourt cement by Rafa with 6-2 in the 5th.

Rafael Nadal with all his "homspun", bad technique, dominates Roger Federer to such a degree that there's no argument to redeem Roger from this predicament unless he starts beating Rafa severely from now on including beating Rafa at RG.

Only then we can talk about Roger being a serious GOAT-contender...

Roger Federer has the worst clutch and main rival H2H of all GOAT-contenders -- BAR NONE...

Just pure fact and inarguable...

Records don't lie...

Sorry...

Your an idiot lmao!

 

[Borgforever]

I am not for Borg or one as a GOAT-contender. Just facts.

Serious GOAT-contenders for me: H. L. Doherty, Tilden, Pancho Gonzalez, Rod Laver, Ken Rosewall, Björn Borg and (counting fast surfaces Sampras).

I still see Roger Federer as GOAT-contender though and dominating his era overall -- but the others mentioned don't have the awful blotches in their records like Roger.

Also I love Roger Federer -- and I, more than anyone, want to point this out so that IT CAN BE CHANGED, rather than sweeping it under the carpet like the OP and do the ostrich...

 

[Borgforever]

I am sorry for not IV-ing the Federer Kool Aid like some you guys.

You never improve at all if you don't question honestly -- everything.

Didn't like the truth -- so to just insult the messenger makes you feel better -- go ahead -- be my guest -- and make... my... day...

I can take anything you dish out and then some, I'll then yawn for five minutes and then blow you all to smithereens...

Adios!

 

[THE HEAD HUNTER]

Is Federer the only goat contender to be dominated NY the #2 player

 

[Borgforever]

USO is Federer's jewel. His really true masterpiece. if he gets it, which I think he will, going 6 straight USO I will crown him as the greatest on USO in the history of tennis BAR NONE -- even bigger than Tilden.

Six times in a row at USO is beyond belief and strengthens Roger's GOAT-contender status.

Go Roger! Do it! I WANT TO SEE IT...

FYI -- last years USO-final with Murray, this years Cincy against Djokovic and the several other USO-finals of Federer are the finest USO-finals and most supreme hardcourt cement displays I have ever witnessed in the history of tennis. Maybe even stronger than Borg at RG.

I so look forward to this years USO -- man what a tourney with Fed having chances of going six in row -- first in the open era -- in a super-major tourney as the first since H. L. a million years ago...

Federer is KING KONG ast the USO IMO...

 

[THE HEAD HUNTER]

There's a story going around that the "beast" Rafael Nada was able to bet Pat Rafter or Pat Cash when he was only like 13 years old. Does anyone know the story?

 

[Borgforever]

Rafa beat Pat Cash in an exxo, around 2001-2002, shocking Cash to no little a degree. A 16-year old schooling the Wimby champ who's still in fine form even when he's 76 years old...

Rafter and Rafa? never heard about it. Don't say it couldn't be true -- but at least I've never heard about it...

 

[THE HEAD HUNTER]

Rafa beat Pat Cash in an exxo, around 2001-2002, shocking Cash to no little a degree. A 16-year old schooling the Wimby champ who's still in fine form even when he's 76 years old...

Rafter and Rafa? never heard about it. Don't say it couldn't be true -- but at least I've never heard about it...

What surface was it on?

 

[Borgforever]

Red clay of course. Cash, IMO, even 97 years old wouldn't lose to 16-year old Rafa on anything other than dirt.

Still Cash should clip a young teen even on dirt -- but he didn't...

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

That article an OP is bs -- there's no explanation that works AT ALL for Roger Federer's awful H2H against his closest rival Rafael Nadal during prime/peak.

Roger Federer's H2H against Rafa is THE WORST H2H between main GOAT-contenders in the entire history of tennis and if he doesn't change this around NOW -- he'll never be a GOAT-contender:

Borg, for example, was 7-7 (10-7 all inclusve in Borg's favor 1978-1981) against his closest rival John McEnroe ONLY MEETING ON MAC'S FAVE SURFACES, super-fast grass, Deco Turf II and indoor carpet -- THEY NEVER MET ON CLAY and Borg still dominated Mac with 10-7 in H2H including all meeting up until Björn's retirement in 1981.

That's like Federer being 10-7 or 7-7 against Rafa only meeting on clay, Rafa's strongest surface -- like Mac for Borg.

Federer's H2H against Rafa is the single worst stat working against him. With all that beautiful technique and skill but still he burned match-points against Rafa at ROME 2006 and Roger got a stake run through his heart by the Matador both at RG -- 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 (also the worst loss of any world no. 1 in a major final in the entire history of tennis bar none futher undermining his case for GOAT), at Wimby on grass 9-7 in the 5th and then on hardcourt cement by Rafa with 6-2 in the 5th.

Rafael Nadal with all his "homspun", bad technique, dominates Roger Federer to such a degree that there's no argument to redeem Roger from this predicament unless he starts beating Rafa severely from now on including beating Rafa at RG.

Only then we can talk about Roger being a serious GOAT-contender...

Roger Federer has the worst clutch and main rival H2H of all GOAT-contenders -- BAR NONE...

Just pure fact and inarguable...

Records don't lie...

Sorry...

Excellent post borgforever! Its good to see you posting in here.