The Fedal Story: A look at the real (objective) numbers

illkhiboy

Hall of Fame
Even though the H2H stands at 17-9, we can discard some of those victories as not "legit." For instance, when Nadal played 4 hours the day before against Djokovic in Madrid. He was clearly out of gas.

1) Miami 2004: Sorry Nadal fans, Federer was sick and not at 100%. You can't beat a sick person and claim a legit victory.

H2H: 0-0

2) Miami 2005: Great comeback from Federer to win this in 5 though he got lucky with a couple line calls. Also, Nadal was tired towards the end but that's not an excuse since he won his semi in straights. Federer wore him out.

H2H: Fed 1-0

3) Roland Garros 2005: Clearly, Federer couldn't see in the dark in the 4th set. Also, it's possible that Toni Nadal had given Nadal X-Ray vision goggles which no one else could detect in the darkness. I'm not sure - the rumour was never confirmed.

H2H: Fed 1-0

4) Dubai 2006: Great victory for Nadal

H2H 1-1

5) Monte Carlo 2006: Nadal's banana trick took away Federer's momentum. Verdict: Nadal's a cheat. Also, Toni Nadal was coaching Rafa.
H2H: 1-1

6) Rome 2006: Great victory. No excuses.

H2H: Nadal 2-1

7) RG 2006: Nadal too good, no?

H2H: Nadal 3-1

8) Wimbledon 2006: Since the H2H was only 1-3 instead of "1-6" Federer was unaffected and bagelled Nadal in the first set. However, this was baby-Nadal on grass. He might even have been an infant (got to check with NadalAgassi). Can't beat up on a baby.

H2H: Nadal 3-1

9) TMC 2006: Again, Fed beating up on pre-pubescent Nadal (on hard he had aged a lot more). Can't take credit for that.

H2H: Nadal 3-1

10) Monte Carlo 2007: Good job Nadal.

H2H: Nadal 4-1

11) Hamburg 2007: The warrior was tired.

H2H: Nadal 4-1

12) RG 2007: No excuses.

H2H: Nadal 5-1

13) Wimbledon 2007: Great match until set 4 when Nadal's knees began to resemble those of a 87 year old. Can't take credit for beating half-legged man on crutches.

H2H: Nadal 5-1

14) TMC 2007: Nadal had matured. He was dominating the rallies but great play from Fed stole the initiative. Good job.

H2H: Nadal 5-2

15-18) Monte Carlo, Hamburg, RG, Wimbledon 2008: One word: Mono. Also, bad light at Wimbledon. Federer's style of play requires perfect conditions. No one plays in the dark except for grinders who prefer green clay.

H2H: Nadal 5-2

19) Australian Open 2009: Great match between both of them. I'm not buying the back excuse. Federer looked fine. Can't make dumb excuses. I mean, not THAT dumb!

H2H: Nadal 6-2

20) Madrid 2009: Obviously tired Nadal. Note, if Federer won at the Australian Open that may not count either. Especially if he won in straight sets.

H2H: Nadal 6-2

21) Madrid 2010: Fresh Nadal never loses on clay to ********.

H2H: Nadal 7-2

22) WTF London 2010: Fed was dominant. Nadal was a bit tired but looked o-kay.

H2H: 7-3

23) Miami 2011: Out out of sorts but healthy Fed loses.
H2H: Nadal 8-3

24) Madrid 2011: Great job, Nadal. Proving that 2009 was only because of fatigue.
H2H: Nadal 9-3

25) RG 2011: Nadal beats a choking Federer
H2H: Nadal 10-3

26) WTF 2011: Federer's too good.
H2H: Nadal 10-4

So as you can, if you look at it objectively, Nadal still has a substantial lead over Federer.
 
Nadal loses 8 wins and Fed loses 4? Huh? How is this in any way objective if you're placing subjective standards as to what counts as a non legit victory?
 

Sartorius

Hall of Fame
Agreed.

Also, if you look at life and universe objectively, you will see the one true god is The Flying Sphagetti Monster.



 

Babblelot

Professional
I've seen it broken out this way.

1. Throw out all clay matches because that's Rafa's best surface
2. Keep all grass and hard court matches because those are Roger's best surfaces
3. Count all imaginary matches that Roger would have won had Rafa reached the final.

I think the true, objective, and, alas, definitive H2H is: Roger leads something like 24-6.
 
1

1970CRBase

Guest
You've also got to toss out all the matches where opponents beat Roger using racquets with headsize over 90, since those are cheat racquets.

Thereby we see the true picture!
 

Bergboy123

Semi-Pro
You have revealed the truth. Thank you wise one for sharing this amazing newfound knowledge of the true Fedal story with us!
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
I've seen it broken out this way.

1. Throw out all clay matches because that's Rafa's best surface
2. Keep all grass and hard court matches because those are Roger's best surfaces
3. Count all imaginary matches that Roger would have won had Rafa reached the final.

I think the true, objective, and, alas, definitive H2H is: Roger leads something like 24-6.
Speaking seriously it's not that all clay matches don't count, it's that there are more matches on clay than there are on Grass and hardcourt COMBINED. Therefore, it's over represented. If Federer and Nadal met at the WTF 8 times and Federer had won all 8 and they had met 3 times on clay with Nadal winning those, it would be a deceptive 8-3 to Federer. Deceptive because he got to play nadal on the surface that gave him the edge more than Nadal got to play him on the surface that gave HIM the edge.

I've also seen it broken down this way.

1. All matches Nadal loses don't count because he was injured, tired etc.

Beautiful in its simplicity :lol:

I mean Nadal was tired in Hamburg 2007. Why? because he played MC, Barcelona, Rome and then Hamburg? Could he have been that tired that he lost the last 2 sets 6-2 6-0? When you consider that Djokovic played a similar amount of tennis in 2009 and still went to 4 hours and a 3rd set tiebreak with Nadal at Madrid, why was Nadal this tired?

Because he played a 3 hour match with Murray at last year's WTF, many say he was tired. Does anyone ever say Federer was tired in Rome 2006 when he played quarter and semi finals that lasted around 2 and a half hours to 2.45hrs while Nadal strolled by in straight sets in little over an hour, and then played a 5 set with Nadal where he lost in a 5th set tiebreak? No they don't. In most cases you either win or lose and that's it.
 

Bobby Jr

G.O.A.T.
3. Count all imaginary matches that Roger would have won had Rafa reached the final.
On a related note, I think matches where either player beat the person who beat the other in the previous round should count at least as half a win.

For example, where Federer was spanking people left, right and centre on hard-courts in 2006 while Nadal lost in the semis or early, Federer should be credited with another half win over Nadal. Apply also for the times when Federer was beaten earlier and Nadal beat the person who beat Federer.

The H2H in that case would be well in Federer's favour.

But of course this is total folly... we can sum up the importance of H2Hs in the bigger scheme of things by looking at the trophies and prize-money offered for having a positive H2H with a particular opponent.

Oh... wait... What do you mean they don't give trophies out for beating specific opponents? No-one cares? Yep... just partisan hacks who apparently can't count to 16, 237 or, as of yesterday, 6.
 

OddJack

G.O.A.T.
Quite understandable,

Only last night I was wondering what happened to all those Nadal fans blowing into their H2H trumpet.

One should expect after a 63 60 beat down they will go back to it and hang onto one last lifeline of their fandom.

And we thought they learnt something from that 0-6 ownage of their master this year, and their meaningless H2H.
 

vernonbc

Legend
^^That beat down is filed away in the annals of history along with Rafa's complete thrashing of Fed in Miami this year. One offsets the other but we'll still keep Rafa's other wins over Fed in 2011 handy for blowing the trumpet.

And the other H2H isn't meaningless because our master is still ahead regardless of how much many posters think the creation of the tennis universe only began in Indian Wells this spring.
 

aphex

Banned
^^That beat down is filed away in the annals of history along with Rafa's complete thrashing of Fed in Miami this year. One offsets the other but we'll still keep Rafa's other wins over Fed in 2011 handy for blowing the trumpet.

And the other H2H isn't meaningless because our master is still ahead regardless of how much many posters think the creation of the tennis universe only began in Indian Wells this spring.
Sorry, Ralph is 0-6 against Dkoko 2.0.
 

stringertom

Bionic Poster
H2H's are what they are...no excuses. I think it will even up a bit more in '12, but that's way down on Fed's wish list. It will be a byproduct of his quest for more trophies.
 

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
Hey, I found the OP hilarious.
Don't you guys get it ?

He's mocking the way fed and nad fans discredit each other's wins.

Good job, OP !!!! You da man !!!
 
I've seen it broken out this way.

1. Throw out all clay matches because that's Rafa's best surface
2. Keep all grass and hard court matches because those are Roger's best surfaces
3. Count all imaginary matches that Roger would have won had Rafa reached the final.

I think the true, objective, and, alas, definitive H2H is: Roger leads something like 24-6.
Yep, that sounds about right!
 

norbac

Legend
If we look at the Murray Federer rivalry there is an interesting pattern there as well. Let's say we take all of Murray's career wins and pit them against Fed's wins over Murray. If we look at it that way, Murray actually leads their H2H 323-6.
 

Cup8489

G.O.A.T.
If we look at the Murray Federer rivalry there is an interesting pattern there as well. Let's say we take all of Murray's career wins and pit them against Fed's wins over Murray. If we look at it that way, Murray actually leads their H2H 323-6.
hahaha, genius!
 

Crisstti

Legend
I've seen it broken out this way.

1. Throw out all clay matches because that's Rafa's best surface
2. Keep all grass and hard court matches because those are Roger's best surfaces
3. Count all imaginary matches that Roger would have won had Rafa reached the final.

I think the true, objective, and, alas, definitive H2H is: Roger leads something like 24-6.
:D

On a related note, I think matches where either player beat the person who beat the other in the previous round should count at least as half a win.

For example, where Federer was spanking people left, right and centre on hard-courts in 2006 while Nadal lost in the semis or early, Federer should be credited with another half win over Nadal. Apply also for the times when Federer was beaten earlier and Nadal beat the person who beat Federer.

The H2H in that case would be well in Federer's favour.

But of course this is total folly... we can sum up the importance of H2Hs in the bigger scheme of things by looking at the trophies and prize-money offered for having a positive H2H with a particular opponent.

Oh... wait... What do you mean they don't give trophies out for beating specific opponents? No-one cares? Yep... just partisan hacks who apparently can't count to 16, 237 or, as of yesterday, 6.
Sorry, but that is absurd. That is not what a head to head is.
 

illkhiboy

Hall of Fame
Hey, I found the OP hilarious.
Don't you guys get it ?

He's mocking the way fed and nad fans discredit each other's wins.

Good job, OP !!!! You da man !!!
Thanks - sorry for the late response, I had forgotten about this thread.

But yeah, that's exactly the purpose of this thread.
 
Top