the more Fed wins the better it makes Nadal look?

Alchemy-Z

Hall of Fame
MtBrVl.jpg
 

JSummers

Rookie
Let me try some oxymoron logic and see if we can get to something:

Let's suppose Fed sucks at clay (aka Sampras) but everything else remaing the same. That means he would have bumped out in earlier rounds and would not have played Nadal for the titles.

--> the H2H will tip heavily the other way.

So by this logic, then a better, more rounded Fed is << an inferrior Fed simply because of H2H says so?

See this is the obscurity about looking at H2H number literally. For those of who are statistic/mathematically attuned, this is akin to the "the tyrany of averages" - where it tells certain aspect of a story, but not the complete story.
 

zanabel

Banned
Let me try some oxymoron logic and see if we can get to something:

Let's suppose Fed sucks at clay (aka Sampras) but everything else remaing the same. That means he would have bumped out in earlier rounds and would not have played Nadal for the titles.

--> the H2H will tip heavily the other way.

So by this logic, then a better, more rounded Fed is << an inferrior Fed simply because of H2H says so?

See this is the obscurity about looking at H2H number literally. For those of who are statistic/mathematically attuned, this is akin to the "the tyrany of averages" - where it tells certain aspect of a story, but not the complete story.

imagine if nadal and federer play 3 more times at the australian open or even the us open and its like 5-0 nadal on the hard court slams. How interesting! I think they will meet in more hard court slams, so might happen.
 

SLD76

G.O.A.T.
Let me try some oxymoron logic and see if we can get to something:

Let's suppose Fed sucks at clay (aka Sampras) but everything else remaing the same. That means he would have bumped out in earlier rounds and would not have played Nadal for the titles.

--> the H2H will tip heavily the other way.

So by this logic, then a better, more rounded Fed is << an inferrior Fed simply because of H2H says so?

See this is the obscurity about looking at H2H number literally. For those of who are statistic/mathematically attuned, this is akin to the "the tyrany of averages" - where it tells certain aspect of a story, but not the complete story.


sigh, most sane people already know this.

but we are in a den of ****s in this thread.
 
imagine if nadal and federer play 3 more times at the australian open or even the us open and its like 5-0 nadal on the hard court slams. How interesting! I think they will meet in more hard court slams, so might happen.

Better yet. Let us hope, that Federer will play well in to his 40 ies and the new 24 year old up and commers get to play him. Now that would be a H2H ownage. :shock:

:oops:
 

zanabel

Banned
Better yet. Let us hope, that Federer will play well in to his 40 ies and the new 24 year old up and commers get to play him. Now that would be a H2H ownage. :shock:

:oops:

i wonder if federer will be ranked number one in his 40s. I think agassi was really old when he was ranked one.
 

Sentinel

Bionic Poster
Just thinking about this 2 days ago,
Does Nadal look better and better every time Fed breaks a record?
Because of Nadal beating Fed every time they play at slams?
Is that why Toni Nadal and Nadal always talks up Fed?
Certainly, my dear. With Nadal getting out in Round 2, he certainly looks better each time Old Roger wins a slam. Good joke!
 

Doubles

Legend
Let's get this much straight: Fed is great, Nadal is great. Until both are finished with their careers one cannot make the argument as to who was better. As of now, Federer has more titles than Nadal, but he's also older. Had the two met up in finals at the same age the slam count could be totally different.
Either way, the fan boys need to stop acting like asses and turning any discussion into little more than a troll-fest.
With that said, to answer the question of the OP, no, Feds wins don't make Nadal look better.
 

DeShaun

Banned
I believe that Nadal looks only slightly better with each new record Roger breaks, but I am biased in that I have always suspected Rafa of trying to hitch his wagon to Roger's legacy, as though Rafa had concluded long ago that the very best that he could reasonably hope for in terms of him gaining the maximum favorable exposure in the historical annals of tennis would be to do his clay thing better than anyone else which he has managed to great success, while deferring to Roger in terms of their capacities for taming the field day in and day out, yet doing his best to amass a favorable H2H over Roger as a means of keeping himself in the all time great conversation when, otherwise, the scope of Rafa's all time greatness might have been limited to clay but this way he gets to just barely hang around in terms of being a multi-surface threat or at least he avoids the label of being only a clay-specialist--but Rafa cannot defend anything off of clay to save his life though he sure has figured out Federer in particular on almost every surface.
 

billnepill

Hall of Fame
I believe that Nadal looks only slightly better with each new record Roger breaks, but I am biased in that I have always suspected Rafa of trying to hitch his wagon to Roger's legacy, as though Rafa had concluded long ago that the very best that he could reasonably hope for in terms of him gaining the maximum favorable exposure in the historical annals of tennis would be to do his clay thing better than anyone else which he has managed to great success, while deferring to Roger in terms of their capacities for taming the field day in and day out, yet doing his best to amass a favorable H2H over Roger as a means of keeping himself in the all time great conversation when, otherwise, the scope of Rafa's all time greatness might have been limited to clay but this way he gets to just barely hang around in terms of being a multi-surface threat or at least he avoids the label of being only a clay-specialist--but Rafa cannot defend anything off of clay to save his life though he sure has figured out Federer in particular on almost every surface.

What a sentence! :)
 

DeShaun

Banned
What a sentence! :)
Yeah, it's one thing- a coincidence you could say, one happening to have the ground game that troubles another player, but when the one also happens to be the first guy to have come along in years with all of the answers suddenly to the other's service, then this suggests that there is a little more than mere coincidence going on, and the one apparently has put in some serious hours off court, dissecting the other's service in search of ways to exploit it. And Rafa was the first guy to come along who somehow seemed to have the answers to Roger's service, so I believe that Rafa put in an inordinate amount of time towards becoming Roger's kryptonite as opposed to Rafa simply developing all areas of his game in a balanced fashion--he developed those that would reap the fastest fruit against only Roger and this partly explains why such an incredible, one-in-a-million athletic talent in Rafa never truly materialized for very long into a legitimate all surface threat as much as he transformed himself into a narrowly focused threat to one man's game. What I have noticed in my limited experience is that, when I manage to get my teeth into an attacking player's service, then rest of his game really starts to crumble like dominoes, so dependent on whatever confidence he could make flow from his serve did the rest of his game seem--you take out his serve and you have cut the power supply to his whole game. I think Rafa knew this.
 
Last edited:

JustBob

Hall of Fame
Yes, the more slams Fed wins, the more it benefits Nadal's legacy. When Fed wins his 20th slam, Nadal will be crowned the undisputed GOAT.

Welcome to The Twilight Zone.
 
Top