moonballs
Hall of Fame
Actually the only problem is people extrapolate from the h2h to hypothetical matches that didn't happen.
The H2H between Nadal and Fed
- Thread starter Gary Duane
- Start date
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
moonballs
Hall of Fame
That is not extrapolating the h2h, because federer "would have lost" based on 23-10.You mean like matches where Federer "would have won"
Rusty Shackleford
G.O.A.T.
But when people complain about a skewed H2H they are still extrapolating on the partial H2H on particular surfaces where Fed "would have won".
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
Is there something new that was added to their h2h story after the Basel final?
Same old, Nadal is 5 years younger, they played a lot more on surfaces/in conditions that favor Nadal, they play a lot even when Federer is sick or injured (2013) compared to only 1 measly time in 2015 when it's the other way round. Same story in 2008 when Federer was hindered by mono for the first half of the season, missed out on entire days of preparation, lost lots of matches to guys he owned just months prior. And what, they play 4 times including 3 on clay.
Even if Federer won the matches that he really should've won he'd still trail the h2h by some margin. And if you consider the fact that there are some matches that Nadal should've won (like Hamburg 2007 or Madrid 2009) it basically evens out. Almost everything in the h2h went Nadal's way, that's why it's so skewed.
Same old, Nadal is 5 years younger, they played a lot more on surfaces/in conditions that favor Nadal, they play a lot even when Federer is sick or injured (2013) compared to only 1 measly time in 2015 when it's the other way round. Same story in 2008 when Federer was hindered by mono for the first half of the season, missed out on entire days of preparation, lost lots of matches to guys he owned just months prior. And what, they play 4 times including 3 on clay.
Even if Federer won the matches that he really should've won he'd still trail the h2h by some margin. And if you consider the fact that there are some matches that Nadal should've won (like Hamburg 2007 or Madrid 2009) it basically evens out. Almost everything in the h2h went Nadal's way, that's why it's so skewed.
Last edited:
torpantennis
Legend
Take into account the age difference and skewed surface distribution during Federer's best years, and this match up is dead even.
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
RG 2008-AO 2009 3 GS finals on 3 surfaces Federer at or under the age of Nadal in his 2013 season.
Results?
Rafa 3
Roger 0
torpantennis
Legend
Nadal at his peak, Federer on decline and getting back from confidence low due to mono == Nadal ought to win them all, and he did. Read again: Age difference!
And on exactly how many fast HC or indoors matches could Nadal get to during Federer's best years? Compare that to number of matches on clay, and drop all the excess matches on clay for the comparison to remain fair. Then take into account that Nadal had the age advantage from early 2008 on, and Federer is actually slightly ahead on the age/surface-adjusted H2H. Slam count and weeks #1 doesn't lie!
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
That's true but in the same time, people extrapolate from the H2H that Nadal is the better player of the two, which isn't true. The H2H only tell us that Nadal has been very good at beating Federer when they played (including after taking into account surface distribution, age, what else). However achievement list tell us that Federer has been better than Nadal at competing with the other players.
Here's a hypothetical that proves your statement "speed of the court is irrelevant" makes absolutely no sense.
Let's say Federer and Nadal are going to play a best of 3 set match and if Federer wins this match you, Gary20, will win $1,000,000 US dollars. And, you Gary20 get to pick the surface from Wimbledon 1st week grass, Cincy Hard Court, WTF Indoor, US Open hard court, AO hard court or RG red clay. What would you pick? Any one that knows these players would pick Wimbledon 1st week grass or Cincy Hard Court because these surfaces are best for Federer and not as good for Nadal. If you got $1,000,000 if Nadal won and you could pick the court, you would pick RG red clay. All I can say is I certainly would pick the courts as I indicated if I could win a $1,000,000.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
I don't understand why people continue to debate this issue really. There are 100's of threads already on this topic and there is going to be no change of opinion from anyone. Everybody has their mind already made up one way or the other. Does anybody honestly think that some hard headed Federer fan is going to change the opinion of a hard headed Nadal fan or vice versa. It will never happen! That's why these threads almost always eventually get deleted. Stupid fan wars between stubborn, biased people, and even if they don't it doesn't matter because nobody adds anything new. No offence to the OP, but the only way this thread even slightly works in context is if Nadal had won on Sunday, and slightly changed the story, and I don't mean the straight up numbers 24-10. I mean surface wise.
Federer lost the H2H battle when he lost the AO in 2009 and then couldn't beat Nadal at RG 2011 (although he was never favoured to make that final in the first place, right Djokovic fans
). He's in a solid first place in the war right now though.
Federer lost the H2H battle when he lost the AO in 2009 and then couldn't beat Nadal at RG 2011 (although he was never favoured to make that final in the first place, right Djokovic fans
). He's in a solid first place in the war right now though.
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
OMG, and to the last poster, this type of post is why. Saying Federer is better overall but Nadal is better head to head is totally fair. People who come with stuff like this...it's just too much for me man it really is
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
But why do you care that much? Just why? Seriously, if it annoys you so much just put the poster on ignore. Too many people on here act like this is a life and death debate when it's really not. Going around with their pants up their ass crack like it makes a difference. 99% of the time, I'm only looking for posts from the posters that I like. I don't even read half the garbage posted here.
xFedal
Legend
davedenko is older than federer. Nadal has a losing h2h with davedenko becuase of age, and davednko is older than federer.
is this a joke, rafa owns federer period. Looks look at where it really matters:
laker take a look at slams, where it really matters
hard- nadal wins
clay nadal wins
grasss- federer wins but by only 1 lol
pretty sure rafa leads on hard even outside slams. And then nadal owns fed on clay
laker take a look at slams, where it really matters
hard- nadal wins
clay nadal wins
grasss- federer wins but by only 1 lol
pretty sure rafa leads on hard even outside slams. And then nadal owns fed on clay
torpantennis
Legend
I have no problems accepting the fact that some people have brain capacity problems.
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
Why do you care that much? is a cop out type attitude imo. Im glad you're chill, but it's just changing the subject. What I'm frustrated with is a general pattern of attitude not a specific poster. I don't care that much overall in life, just in the context of the argument.
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
The type of bias you showed in the previous post makes me question the jury system
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Why is it a cop out though? The H2H is what it is. Minds are made up. It's been rehashed a thousand times. It was a good topic 8-9 years ago. Now it's just old and let's be honest, irrelevant until such time that Nadal at least ties Federer in Grand Slam total IF that happens. We know that Nadal is better than Federer in a H2H match up just like we know the sun will rise tomorrow. It's not a new thing at this point. How many times do you have to beat a dead horse to know it's dead?
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
There have been several people in this thread that clearly do not know that. It would be like if people started saying the sky is green, you would say wait a minute. If it was one loon, you might ignore him...several people and we have a problem...
Because a majority of people could care less about clay since it is the ******* stepchild of all the surfaces.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Am I a "loon" then for believing that this rivalry is mostly surface based, hence the disparity? Look, it's not uncommon for a younger ATG to lead a H2H over a consistent older one. Connors has a couple of those. His H2H with Lendl is 13-22. He led 8-0 to start it, but ended up losing 17 (that's right 17) straight to finish it. Connors-Borg is much the same. H2H is 15-8 Borg. Connors won 6 of the first 7, but lost 10 in a row to finish it.
But of course, nobody cares about those because none of them are really in the running for the greatest ever (except maybe Borg). Yet we're all ready with our pitchforks to roast Federer over the coals.
Gary20
Banned
What double talking nonsense is that? Ask Nadal what he prefers playing on, FO when it hot and dry, or FO when it cold and damp? He prefers the high bounce even though it is much quicker!! If you play tennis you would understand my point.
PeterHo
Hall of Fame
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
He also has never let Nadal win more than 5 matches in a row against him. Meanwhile Nadal has lost 7 straight times to a player that's only 1 year younger than him.
PeterHo
Hall of Fame
The Connors argument can be applied to nadal however, as he has dominated Nole initially, and Nole will most likely catchup and overtake him.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
If Nadal allows it, sure.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Agreed.I don't understand why people continue to debate this issue really. There are 100's of threads already on this topic and there is going to be no change of opinion from anyone. Everybody has their mind already made up one way or the other. Does anybody honestly think that some hard headed Federer fan is going to change the opinion of a hard headed Nadal fan or vice versa. It will never happen! That's why these threads almost always eventually get deleted. Stupid fan wars between stubborn, biased people, and even if they don't it doesn't matter because nobody adds anything new. No offence to the OP, but the only way this thread even slightly works in context is if Nadal had won on Sunday, and slightly changed the story, and I don't mean the straight up numbers 24-10. I mean surface wise.
Federer lost the H2H battle when he lost the AO in 2009 and then couldn't beat Nadal at RG 2011 (although he was never favoured to make that final in the first place, right Djokovic fans
I personally believe Federer is the best player I've ever had the privilege of watching and the H2H isn't enough for me to say Nadal is better because, to me, at least he just doesn't seem as good when they are pitted against other people.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
The Connors argument can't be applied to Nadal.
I highly doubt he's even going to be playing when he's 39, when it's more conceivable Federer will be.
Your rose-tinted glasses seem to be obscuring the fact that Federer dominated Djokovic about as much, if not more than Nadal did. And the AO 2008 is hardly proof against it, I bet anything if Nadal played your hero at the AO in 2008 he'd also lose.
D
Deleted member 716271
Guest
Wait I thought you agreed it was clear Nadal is better head to head. So clear, that it's beating a dead horse to mention it, right? Now youre arguing not really, save for mitigating factors like age and surface. This is another quality of the H2H denialists, constant position shifting. That and made up straw men like saying "it doesn't matter because Nadal isn't as good vs. the field"
Seriously man..
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
That's been proven time and time again over their careers. Who won the title when Nadal lost at USO 05, 06, 07, and 08? Federer. Who won the title when Nadal lost at AO 07 and 10? Federer. Who won the title at RG 09 and Wimbledon 2012? You get the point. Who won the title when Nadal beat Federer at AO 12 and 14. Not Nadal.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
And to counter weak era claims, if the period was as weak as it's made out to be, why couldn't even a teenager Nadal win slams left and right?
The guy is touted as the GOAT, yet people make excuses for even his failures. That's right, Nadal has also failed. More than Federer has, actually.
PeterHo
Hall of Fame
Yes, nadal might not be playing for much longer, then he will end up having a good h2h against Nole.
The problem with Connors is he played way longer than he shouLD be. What's the point for playing so long and keep losing to players who you used to beat? Just to have a chance to get another major??
And fed is taking that path.
N
Nachiket Nolefam
Guest
The point is they don't care about H2H like their fans. They play because there is nothing else they are good at and they are really good at the thing they love.
Connors won a title at age of 41 I think..
PeterHo
Hall of Fame
Tbh, nadal has always faced the strongest competition, think about it.
In almost his whole career, he either needed to beat a peak federer, or a peak Djokovic, to win his slams.
Now if you look at 04~07, nadal wasn't even good enough to reach hard court slam finals. Federer was the only outlier, and took full advantage of it. The difference was fed was at his absolute peak, while nadal was not.
Federer of 04~07 is much like what Nole is doing in 2015. Dominating a relatively week competition.
When you have 3 atgs in the same era, 1 of them will have a peak that coincide the peaks of the other 2. Nole and fed never really played peak to peak. Nadal is the unlucky one not to have his peak against weak competition, because his peak coincided with either feds or noles peAK.
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
It is clear, "Seriously man." On the face it's 23-11, but that doesn't mean a surface breakdown will favour Nadal AS much. Age and surface are VERY important factors in a H2H. Only the most biased tennis fans would disagree. That is often a quality of people that give far too much credence to a H2H match up so don't talk to me about "denialists" or straw men. I admit that Nadal has 2 huge wins over Federer. Those being Wimbledon 2008 and AO 2009 where Federer was favoured. Other than that I don't see why the H2H is as big a talking point as it is, tbh. The other AO wins came on a slow as a molasses HC (favours Nadal) with Federer at age 30 and 32 respectively. Not only that, but Nadal didn't cash in with a title in either year. Almost every other match that Federer lost was either on clay or in 2013 when Federer was injured. And you know that as well as I do. If I had a dollar for every time I heard "Nadal is injured" I'd be rich right now. As such I think it's prudent to point out that they played 4 times in 2013 and only once so far in 2015. And before you get too far ahead of yourself, yes I know Nadal has beaten Federer in Dubai, and Miami in 2004. Federer has beaten Nadal on clay a couple times, too.
The grass H2H is still 2-1 Federer (all Wimbledon finals) and it would most likely be worse for Nadal if there more were more events on grass. And the indoor H2H is 5-1 Federer which includes 4 YEC wins (of the whole tournament) where he beat Nadal (and only 1 of those was a final).
It's like another poster already said. The H2H between McEnroe and Borg is 7-7, but if all 14 matches were on clay is it still 7-7? If Federer and Nadal played 15 matches indoors and only 6 on clay is the H2H still 23-11?
And if you still think age doesn't matter after what I just posted about Connors, then I can't help you. This discussion is quite simply over if you can't/don't want to grasp those 2 things.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Yeah but why couldn't a Nadal who wasn't at his peak win slams everywhere though? You say the competition at the time sucked and acknowledge Nadal is one of the greatest ever, so why couldn't he do that?
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
I don't think players even care about H2H. They play because they love the game.
I mean, how would you like it if you were the second best in the world at darts, but people told you to retire because you are too old?
PeterHo
Hall of Fame
And why federer wasn't able to win slams during 2000~2003 when the competition was even weaker?
The difference, as mentioned, is fed was peak and nadal was not, during 04~07. If fed was 20 years old in that period, and nadal 24, then nadal would have dominated the weak competition, and fed would have been acheiving what he did between 00~03.
Peak fed dominated the competition. I don't think non peak fed <22 yrs old would have dominated 04~07.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
This head to head shows that Federer has mentally crumbled to Nadal in the past. Both are enormously talented but one is much tougher mentally and just grinds down the other one. We even saw it in Basel. Federer should have rolled over Nadal 3 and 3 but he collapsed when he got close to the finish line and it had to go to a 3rd. He was blowing Nadal off the court for a set and a half and still found a way to let him in the match. Nadal is definitely his Kryptonite and has been in Federer's head for basically his entire career.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Had trouble with Hewitt, which most Fed fans freely admit. Also had trouble with Agassi. These two ruled the top of the game from 2000-2003.. and along with guys like Sampras, Kuerten and Safin, it made it tough to make it to the top. His confidence also wasn't what it is today and that's a huge thing, especially to a guy like Federer who performs well when he feels well.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Also, the field and draws were deeper back in 2000-2003, with more dangerous players in earlier rounds and unexpected upsets due to them pulling off an awesome win over a good player.. and in retrospect the "good player" is seen as a clown or weak.. Maybe the same will be said of upsets in today's game.
PeterHo
Hall of Fame
This goes back to the definition of a weak era.
And since my definition of a weak era is a period with no outliers, then 2000~03 is weak.
I know that there are a lot of upsets. And thats because the top guys aren't good enough to win consistently, which is exactly why it is a weak era.
More depth, no. I do not think the top 100 players in 00~03 is better than 04~07, or any other era.
In an era, it is much more likely to have a different no. Of outstanding players, rather than the whole field being better than other eras.
Consider
1. Level of top player
2. Level of top 20
3. level of top 100
When comparing eras, It is much more likely That 1) is different, rather than 2). And to have a difference in 2), is more likely than 3).
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
I think 2000-2003 is comparable to today, difference is today has Djokovic.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Also you neglected to answer my question. If you believe Nadal is a better player and from a stronger era than Fed (don't mask your true beliefs) than why couldn't he win slams over Fed on all surfaces between 2004-2007? I mean come on, surely 19 year old Nadal is better than prime Roddick or Hewitt, right? No. 2 but couldn't perform well outside clay? Then why was he No. 2?
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Hey I don't have a problem admitting Nadal owns the H2H. It tells us that he would be the favorite in a match-up with Federer.
But it doesn't say he is greater. That's the difference. But some people just extrapolate and say the H2H would put him above in the GOAT debate, when he doesn't have the achievements to show for it.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
To me the strangest thing is that people say it is a weak era when you do NOT have one or two dominant players, then they say it is a weak era when only one player is winning almost everything, true pretty much in an 3 slam year.
I suppose as soon as Novak starts winning less, the era will suddenly be stronger!
PeterHo
Hall of Fame
No, I don't believe nadal is better than fed.
In my view, the big 3 are the same calibre. Guys like Borg and sampras are also in the same calibre. You could even make a good argument with mac, lendl and others. The common theme is, they all dominate their era.
The reason why some players achieve more or less depends on the competition. If they happen to face fellow great players, slams are shared.
While I do not see nadal winning more than fed has, their achievements will be similar if nadal had faced easier competition. And Nole I believe will achieve as much as fed has if he faces more weak competition next few yrs.
Going back to ur question, no nadal is not as good as roddick Hewitt on hard CRTs, during 04~07. Otherwise he would have won more slams. Simple.his ability on those courts during that time was insufficient to beat the weak era competitors. While he was no.2, most of his points were coming from clay.
PeterHo
Hall of Fame
Djokovic has made this era stronger than 00~03. This era is more comparable to 04~07.
Ie. There is one outlier vs the rest.
Gary Duane
Talk Tennis Guru
One great player does not make an era stronger. He just makes everyone else look weaker.
I will never understand why there is an assumption that 00-03 was "weak" just because there was no totally dominant player. That does not prove that everyone else was weak...
Similar threads
