Stats on the lack of hardcourt meetings between Federer and Nadal

[bruce38]

And yet he is still quadrupling federer in terms of going deep in slams. That's domination right there.

Not in the last 20 slams.

 

[bolo]

Not in the last 20 slams.

lol. Well if you don't feel bad about comparing fed's peak prime stats. to nadal's baby stats., not much I can do. You get the cake bruce.

 

[bruce38]

lol. Well if you don't feel bad about comparing fed's peak prime stats. to nadal's baby stats., not much I can do. You get the cake bruce.

Haha, Nadal is already past his prime. His knee has taken care of that. Those baby stats were his prime. This is the best he will put out. Just wait and see .

 

[kraggy]

Haha, Nadal is already past his prime. His knee has taken care of that. Those baby stats were his prime. This is the best he will put out. Just wait and see .

C'mon man, it's not cool to wish a players career ends in injury just to prove a point.

 

[bruce38]

C'mon man, it's not cool to wish a players career ends in injury just to prove a point.

I wasn't really doing that - just playing around. I hope Nadal does get back to playing 100% so Fed can take him down at his best. But I do believe Nadal won't have Fed's longevity due to his playing style. Not that I wish it, I just see it happening.

 

[kraggy]

I wasn't really doing that - just playing around. I hope Nadal does get back to playing 100% so Fed can take him down at his best. But I do believe Nadal won't have Fed's longevity due to his playing style. Not that I wish it, I just see it happening.

Cool np. I don't think Nadal will have Feds longevity either but I do think Nadal still has at least 2-3 yrs of very high level tennis left in him.

 

[jukka1970]

These stats cover the years 2006-2007, the two years that both players were 1-2 the entire time and both were in peak form.

During this period:

-Federer and Nadal appeared in the same claycourt tournament 8 times. They wound up playing each other in 7 of the 8 events, with Nadal winning 6. The only other player Federer lost to was Filippo Volandri.

-They played the same hardcourt tournament 18 times (Federer won 11 of those tournaments), but wound up playing each other in only 3 of them. Roger wound up winning 2 out of the 3 matches. Rafa beat Roger in Dubai in 2006.

-in the tournaments that Roger won, these are the players Rafa lost to
2006:
Indian Wells: James Blake, semifinals
Miami: Carlos Moya, 2nd round
Rogers Masters: Tomas Berdych, 3rd round
US Open: Mikhail Youzhny, quarterfinals
Madrid Masters: Tomas Berdych, quarterfinals
Masters Cup: James Blake, RR
Masters Cup: Roger Federer, semifinals

2007:
Ausralian Open: Fernando Gonzalez, quarterfinals
Dubai: Mikhail Youzhny, quarterfinals
Cincinnati: Juan Monico, 2nd round (retired with injury)
US Open: David Ferrer, 4th round
Masters Cup: David Ferrer, 4th round
Masters Cup: Roger Federer, semifinals

It's amazing that these top two players have played each other so little on hardcourts during their prime.

Thanks for the stats Jenny. It is amazing, and does show a reason as to why the head to head is a bit skewed.

And I do realize that we don't know what the outcomes would have been, but one has to at the very least agree that Rafa's strongest surface is Clay.

 

[Winners or Errors]

Also, LOL @ people using court surface as an excuse!! Tennis is tennis.

Do you think Nadal cared that he was playing on a hardcourt when he beat Federer in their first ever meeting, in straight sets mind you, in 2004?

Please, tennis is tennis regardless of the surface. Soderling proves this.

If Federer is truly the GOAT, court surface should not be enough to make him lose. A GOAT should be the greatest at tennis, not grass-court tennis + hard-court tennis only!!

Right, which is why Federer is among the GOAT candidates. He is one of the best all-surface players in the history of the game. Name another player who has his major tournament record who has his winning percentage on all surfaces. There are several who are close in terms of winning percentage, such as Ivan Lendl, who's worst surface was grass (still won over 76% of his career matches). There are some who come close to his prowess in winning major tournaments, like Pete Sampras with 14. There are none who have both.

 

[DownTheLine]

BTW, why is Nadal's 2004 year completely overlooked?

In 2004, Nadal actually played MORE matches on hard-courts than on clay (not playing the French or any of the clay masters!!!!). His only GS appearances in 2004 were at the Australian and US Opens!!

It was all the luck of the draw, and they only ended meeting once in 2004 but as I recall the reigning Australian Open champ couldn't get through the #32 seed 17 year old. He lost 6-3, 6-3.

Yeah.

And Fed had his chance at the 2009 Australian Open. Nadal had just played an epic semi and Fed was the overwhelming favorite (yes he was don't deny it, just a quick search on the forums will show you this!!!). Fed didn't win.

Maybe if they had met more often Nadal would have more HC wins in h2h. Who knows? Maybe Fed is the lucky one that they didn't end up meeting more often.

It's conjecture to say that Nadal couldn't have beaten Fed on Hardcourts more often.

Looking at who Nadal lost to takes away the fact that one of the biggest reasons Fed lost to Nadal so many times was mental, and not so much about Nadal's hardcourt prowess.

It can go either way.

There is a huge difference between people that acutally know what there talking about and just some randoms, so you can not say Federer was the favorite. He probably was yes but to use that as an example is just stupid.

I really don't think Federer is that freeked out by Nadal, Nadal just has the type of game that exploits Federers weaknesses. BTW didn't Murray pretty much man handle Nadal last year in the USO and Federer walked all over Murray in the finals?

If Nadal is so good on hard courts then why wasn't he in the finals? O wait he got beat out the 1st round my bad.

 

[zagor]

The USO surface, btw is not Nadal's huge weakness. He's quite adept on the surface, actually. He's won 3 tournaments (2 Canada Masters and the Beijing Olympics) on the exact same surface (DecoTurf). He's clearly adept at that surface and it was more the situation of him being not as physically fit due to playing the Olympics before the USO and losing to an on-fire Murray who he beat before that, on the exact same surface mind you, earlier in the year in Canada.

So USO's surface is not actually Nadal's weakness it's just that he's always exhausted when he plays and that's why he loses? Isn't Nadal supposedly the most fit player on tour? Cause sometimes people here make him come off as a bit of a wuss as he obviously can't even make it to the last slam of the year without being exhausted,but yeah I'm sure it has nothing to do with the surface.

It was all the luck of the draw, and they only ended meeting once in 2004 but as I recall the reigning Australian Open champ couldn't get through the #32 seed 17 year old. He lost 6-3, 6-3.

Since you like to make excuses for Nadal's shortcomings(so far) at USO,here's one for that match.Fed was sick and probably shouldn't have even played at all but let's disregard that.The excuses are valid for Nadal's matches only while every other player on tour is always playing at 100%.

 

[zagor]

It wasn't their prime, it was Roger's prime. Also many confuse being a better HC player and being better H2H.

Nadal I've said many times will always get the better of Roger H2H, and that's due to styles making fights. If one understands the nuances of players' games and styles, this would be apparent.

Federer is the better overall hardcourt player. His game is more suited for hardcourts, he's proven, and against a myriad of players he'd fir better than Nadal would, or at least I think he would.

How Federer does vs ABC (on hard) and how Nadal does vs ABC (on hard), really has no bearing on a Fed vs Rafa (on hard) match up.

Although the first sentence I disagree with the rest of the post I well agree with. Rafa=death matchup for Fed we have gone over this..it was the same reason Canas started to get the best of him that year he was playing similar to Nadal it is that style that will hurt Fed. Fed needs to find a way to beat that style and he can do better against Nadal. However this thread is absurd as Nadal is not close to the hardcourt player Fed is and may never get there which is fine because Fed is not close to the clay courter Nadal is. Last time I checked 8 was still a much larger number than 1.

Yet as veroniquem said as long as a player is 1 or 2 in the world the declining argument can not be used than the same logic should be applied if a player is 2 in the world then they are well in their prime.

Agreed,Nadal is a bad match-up for Fed regardless of the surface.Although obviously he has a better shot against Nadal on HC,just like other players on tour.

 

[TheTruth]

Sorry, this is extremely goofy. Why would anyone expect Nadal, at five years younger to be able to blast past Fed's five extra years in age?

Who else is held to that standard?

The lengths some people go to, to prove Fed is god is ridiculous.

Regardless of what each player does, seriously it does not reflect on us as fans.

STOP THE MADNESS!

 

[380pistol]

Although the first sentence I disagree with the rest of the post I well agree with. Rafa=death matchup for Fed we have gone over this..it was the same reason Canas started to get the best of him that year he was playing similar to Nadal it is that style that will hurt Fed. Fed needs to find a way to beat that style and he can do better against Nadal. However this thread is absurd as Nadal is not close to the hardcourt player Fed is and may never get there which is fine because Fed is not close to the clay courter Nadal is. Last time I checked 8 was still a much larger number than 1.

Yet as veroniquem said as long as a player is 1 or 2 in the world the declining argument can not be used than the same logic should be applied if a player is 2 in the world then they are well in their prime.

I get what your saying but certain things have to be considered. Becker was still top 10 in 1997, seeded #8 at Wimbledon, and still formidable when healthy, but are you gonna tell me that was his prime?? The last of Becker was the 1996 YEC.

Nadal 04-07 didn't even play single slam SF on hardcourt, but in the 3 since has a title and 2 SF. I mean only time will tell when Nadal's prime was and how long. But Lenld played great in 1981-83. He reached 4 slam finals won 10 titles a year, but looking bakc we see the best of Lendl was 1984-89. 2008 surpasses 2005,06 or 07 for Nadal. And the start of 2009 did 'til French and supposed nownow knee injuries.

Federer can beat Nadal but he not only needs a coach, but needs to listen. There's no overhaul that needs to be done, just some tweaks and an understanding. This isn't Roddick, Hewitt, Blake, Gonzalez, Davydenko etc. where he can just go out and beat then cuz he's better. Nadal is too good and is a match up problem. Being stubborn is a great attribute for an athlete, being able to go out there and know your best is better, or I don't have to change cuz you're that good. But it's bad when it prevents you from evolving. And Fed has not evolved. His statements to in an interview to Endberg after the French Open tells me that.

 

[valiant]

Off topic. I just came to know that Mcenroe and Borg never played on clay. THis rivalry which is 7-7 could have been in favour of borg if Mcenroe played borg on clay.