The often forgotten Fedal stat

Fedeonic

Fedeonic

Hall of Fame
While many laud the 23-15 H2H in Nadal's favour with Federer leading 13-10 in non-clay matches, but very few even mention that Federer leads 8-3 on non-clay finals and winning the last four, all of those 3 Nadal wins came in the deciding set.
Here's the breakdown:
Miami 2005: Federer d Nadal 26 67(4) 76(5) 63 61
Dubai 2006: Nadal d Federer 26 64 64
Wimbledon 2006: Federer d Nadal 60 76(5) 67(2) 63
Wimbledon 2007: Federer d Nadal 76(7) 46 76(3) 26 62
Wimbledon 2008: Nadal d Federer 64 64 67(5) 67(8) 97
Aus Open 2009: Nadal d Federer 75 36 76(3) 36 62
Masters 2010: Federer d Nadal 63 36 61
Basel 2015: Federer d Nadal 63 57 63
Aus Open 2017: Federer d Nadal 64 36 61 36 63
Miami 2017: Federer d Nadal 63 64
Shanghai 2017: Federer d Nadal 64 63
 
Last edited:
The phrases "non-clay" or "take away clay" always make me laugh hysterically. Yes, let's just negate one entire surface just so it favours federer. Should we take away grass when discussing Sampras' achievements? NADAL leads 9-2 in the slam h2h, and after Sunday, will likely lead federer 4-0 in hard-court slams, 10-2 in slams overall, and will have a whopping 12-year gap since he won his first slam (federer could only manage 9).

When NADAL reaches #18 soon it'll be "non-clay slams".
 
The only thing this stat is good for for me is realizing that Nadal has won all of their best of 5 matches since 2008

Those best of 3 matches won't give you any clue for Sunday
 
The mental block is already ingrained in Fed's mind... do you really believe he thinks about this sort of stat??? Nope, why dive into the minutiae... Fed knows damn well what's happened in the past, regardless of what stadium it was in and what surface it was on.
 
nadal_winning said:
The phrases "non-clay" or "take away clay" always make me laugh hysterically. Yes, let's just negate one entire surface just so it favours federer. Should we take away grass when discussing Sampras' achievements? NADAL leads 9-2 in the slam h2h, and after Sunday, will likely lead federer 4-0 in hard-court slams, 10-2 in slams overall, and will have a whopping 12-year gap since he won his first slam (federer could only manage 9).

When NADAL reaches #18 soon it'll be "non-clay slams".
Click to expand...


YdTC1Ei.gif


jVU0Ctu.gif
 
E36BMWM3 said:
The mental block is already ingrained in Fed's mind... do you really believe he thinks about this sort of stat??? Nope, why dive into the minutiae... Fed knows damn well what's happened in the past, regardless of what stadium it was in and what surface it was on.
Click to expand...

Yup, spot on. Just look at the pained expression in federer's face as he talked about Roland Garros 2008. There's a reason federer lost all their slam meetings since then- NADAL owned him mentally from that point onwards.
 
Fedeonic said:
While many laud the 23-11 H2H in Nadal's favour and the 10-9 in non-clay matches, but very few even mention that Federer leads 5-3 on non-clay finals and winning the last one, all of those 3 Nadal wins came in the deciding set.
Here's the breakdown:
Miami 2005: Federer d Nadal 26 67(4) 76(5) 63 61
Dubai 2006: Nadal d Federer 26 64 64
Wimbledon 2006: Federer d Nadal 60 76(5) 67(2) 63
Wimbledon 2007: Federer d Nadal 76(7) 46 76(3) 26 62
Wimbledon 2008: Nadal d Federer 64 64 67(5) 67(8) 97
Aus Open 2009: Nadal d Federer 75 36 76(3) 36 62
Masters 2010: Federer d Nadal 63 36 61
Basel 2015: Federer d Nadal 63 57 63
Click to expand...
That's what I'd keep an eye on. Huge advantage to the guy who wins the 1st set. Fed has to win the 1st set. He has to have a fast start, catch Nadal cold.
 
Gary Duane said:
That's what I'd keep an eye on. Huge advantage to the guy who wins the 1st set. Fed has to win the 1st set. He has to have a fast start, catch Nadal cold.
Click to expand...

He has to beat Nadal in 3 sets straight other than I can't see him beating him in 5. Maybe 4 if he is lucky.
 
Only one man has won a major past the age of Federer. Rosewall did it three times, but it could be debated that the AO in that era was not as tough as a modern major.

That's what Fed is up against trying to win this final. In contrast, Nadal is 2 months older than Laver was when he won the AO in '69 and started on his grand slam.

Anyone not taking age into consideration here is being highly unfair.

The advantage is ALWAYS to the younger player once both players have already reached their prime.
 
Fedeonic said:
While many laud the 23-11 H2H in Nadal's favour and the 10-9 in non-clay matches, but very few even mention that Federer leads 5-3 on non-clay finals and winning the last one, all of those 3 Nadal wins came in the deciding set.
Here's the breakdown:
Miami 2005: Federer d Nadal 26 67(4) 76(5) 63 61
Dubai 2006: Nadal d Federer 26 64 64
Wimbledon 2006: Federer d Nadal 60 76(5) 67(2) 63
Wimbledon 2007: Federer d Nadal 76(7) 46 76(3) 26 62
Wimbledon 2008: Nadal d Federer 64 64 67(5) 67(8) 97
Aus Open 2009: Nadal d Federer 75 36 76(3) 36 62
Masters 2010: Federer d Nadal 63 36 61
Basel 2015: Federer d Nadal 63 57 63
Click to expand...

Thank you for this. It is clear to me that Federer can't lose this one. KINGROGER told me and now you.
 
Gary Duane said:
It doesn't have to be in 3, but he has to get that first set.
Click to expand...

I agree but beating him in 3 implies getting the 1st set, because like I said, I don't think he can do it in 5 anyway. Federer is more likely to struggle mentally if he has to go the full distance.
 
Thetouch said:
I agree but beating him in 3 implies getting the 1st set, because like I said, I don't think he can do it in 5 anyway. Federer is more likely to struggle mentally if he has to go the full distance.
Click to expand...
I agree, but I think there are several scenarios where a win is possible in more sets. I would not rule out winning in 4, losing the 2nd set, or winning in 5, losing the 2nd and 3rd.

The only thing I'd bet on in this final is that most of us will be surprised in one way or another.
 
Gary Duane said:
I agree, but I think there are several scenarios where a win is possible in more sets. I would not rule out winning in 4, losing the 2nd set, or winning in 5, losing the 2nd and 3rd.

The only thing I'd bet on in this final is that most of us will be surprised in one way or another.
Click to expand...

Like I said somewhere else, logic says Nadal will beat Federer but I don't know, I believe in destiny, karma whatever you like to call it when it comes to sports.

Federer has not beaten Nadal for 10 freaking years in a Slam and he took his biggest loss right at the AO againt Nadal. It seems to me that destiny will give Federer his last shot right there in Melbourne against his most feared nightmare - somehow
 
Gary Duane said:
If Novak does not make a comeback and win at least one major this year it will be one of the most shocking declines we've ever seen in sport...
Click to expand...

Wining 1 major is a huge thing. Murray won 3 in his whole career, Federer and Nadal did not win any for years. Decline would be if Djokovic is out of top10 this year and shocking decline would be if he is out of top50.
 
nadal_winning said:
The phrases "non-clay" or "take away clay" always make me laugh hysterically. Yes, let's just negate one entire surface just so it favours federer. Should we take away grass when discussing Sampras' achievements? NADAL leads 9-2 in the slam h2h, and after Sunday, will likely lead federer 4-0 in hard-court slams, 10-2 in slams overall, and will have a whopping 12-year gap since he won his first slam (federer could only manage 9).

When NADAL reaches #18 soon it'll be "non-clay slams".
Click to expand...
I love when people discount his clay slams. Makes me laugh. What if 2 of the 4 slams were played on clay? That would make it more even as fed loves hard courts and grass so 3 of 4 are on his preferred surface.
 
Gary Duane said:
Only one man has won a major past the age of Federer. Rosewall did it three times, but it could be debated that the AO in that era was not as tough as a modern major.

That's what Fed is up against trying to win this final. In contrast, Nadal is 2 months older than Laver was when he won the AO in '69 and started on his grand slam.

Anyone not taking age into consideration here is being highly unfair.

The advantage is ALWAYS to the younger player once both players have already reached their prime.
Click to expand...
The younger player went through Hell and older player is more well rested....
 
Gary Duane said:
That's what I'd keep an eye on. Huge advantage to the guy who wins the 1st set. Fed has to win the 1st set. He has to have a fast start, catch Nadal cold.
Click to expand...
I've always thought that Nadal IS a slow starter, hence why Federer must win the 1st set in order to hold an early lead and force Nadal to come from behind.
 
Their hard court head to head is 7-6 in Nadal's favour too. Which isn't that big a gap.

nadal_winning said:
The phrases "non-clay" or "take away clay" always make me laugh hysterically. Yes, let's just negate one entire surface just so it favours federer. Should we take away grass when discussing Sampras' achievements?
Click to expand...

It gets brought up in non-clay events. It's not like people dismiss the record outright, it's that in this instance it is not so much a certainty because of the surface. Take Jimmy Connors against Borg, different generations in terms of age but did play roughly the same period of time. Borg lead the head to head 13-5, but that was aided by a 4-0 record on grass and 4-1 record on carpet. On hard courts their head to head was closer at 2-2. Then there was the blue clay at the US Open and that event in general where Connors went 3-0, two Finals and a Semi. And that's kind of the point here, surface and location.

The bottom line is, they have met 3 times previous in Australia and while Nadal has won all 3 meetings, you're looking at 5 and close 4 set victories in 2009, 2012 and 2014. Yes, it's an issue but it's not as big a sample size as their clay court meetings and considering Nadal's decline since 2014, it should be noted.

Connors had his last win against McEnroe at Wimbledon past prime.
 
Gary Duane said:
Only one man has won a major past the age of Federer. Rosewall did it three times, but it could be debated that the AO in that era was not as tough as a modern major.

That's what Fed is up against trying to win this final. In contrast, Nadal is 2 months older than Laver was when he won the AO in '69 and started on his grand slam.

Anyone not taking age into consideration here is being highly unfair.

The advantage is ALWAYS to the younger player once both players have already reached their prime.
Click to expand...

Both players are out of their primes but compare Nadal's last 2 seasons with Federer. Rosewall was 35 going on 36 when he won the 1970 US Open, this is who he faced:

F-Tony Roche (11 years younger)
S-John Newcombe (10 years younger)
Q-Arthur Ashe (9 years younger)

In the Wimbledon Final, 4 years later, he got destroyed in the Final by only Jimmy Connors who was an all-timer in his best season (won 3/4 Slams). Prior to that Final he had beaten Stan Smith, 12 years his junior coming back down 0-2 in the Semifinal, which may have tired him for Connors. So....yeah, Ken Rosewall was a boss.
 
BGod said:
Their hard court head to head is 7-6 in Nadal's favour too. Which isn't that big a gap.
Click to expand...

Most of those Federer HC wins are from indoor HC WTF. 4 to be exact.

Outdoor HC Rafa has a 7-2 record against him. And one of the 2 losses was Miami05 where he was up 2 sets and a break. Really the only bad match Rafa has played against him was IW12.
 
BGod said:
Both players are out of their primes but compare Nadal's last 2 seasons with Federer. Rosewall was 35 going on 36 when he won the 1970 US Open, this is who he faced:

F-Tony Roche (11 years younger)
S-John Newcombe (10 years younger)
Q-Arthur Ashe (9 years younger)

In the Wimbledon Final, 4 years later, he got destroyed in the Final by only Jimmy Connors who was an all-timer in his best season (won 3/4 Slams). Prior to that Final he had beaten Stan Smith, 12 years his junior coming back down 0-2 in the Semifinal, which may have tired him for Connors. So....yeah, Ken Rosewall was a boss.
Click to expand...
If you are impressed with Rosewall I'm right there with you. ;)
 
The reality is that after their FO 2008 fianl (and maybe even earlier), Fed has never played at his full potential against Nadal for an entire match. He was either tense when the match started or got tense on break point opportunities. Same problem for him with Djoker at the '15 Wimby and USO finals. If he is unable to calm his nerves and come out of the blocks in full flight, he's not going to win, even if he does mount a brave rally and wins a 3rd set after losing the first two or something like that. My head tells me that Fed will come out tense as he typically does against Rafa, but my heart tells me that this time will be different bc they havent played in so long, and Fed should feel he has nothing to lose given he has far exceeded expectations in this tournament already (I would have been happy with a QF showing!)
 
ABCD said:
Wining 1 major is a huge thing. Murray won 3 in his whole career, Federer and Nadal did not win any for years. Decline would be if Djokovic is out of top10 this year and shocking decline would be if he is out of top50.
Click to expand...
I don't see it that way for Novak. I don't like his playing style. I don't enjoy watching him. I always root against him. But I have huge respect for him as a player, and frankly I think it would be sad if he doesn't get back close to where he was. He's too young to be fading like this.

I also don't like one guy winning everything. I enjoy Fed much more now than I used to, maybe Nadal more. If "old Novak" gets his act together and goes up against some young whipper snapper with aggressive play, I may end up rooting for him in the future. I'm a sucker for comeback stories, which is why I enjoyed Murray a bit this year!
 
Last edited:
Rafa24 said:
I love when people discount his clay slams. Makes me laugh. What if 2 of the 4 slams were played on clay? That would make it more even as fed loves hard courts and grass so 3 of 4 are on his preferred surface.
Click to expand...

AO has been closer to clay since 2008. Hence why Rafa beat Fed often there and pushers like Murrovic dominated.

The_Order said:
Most of those Federer HC wins are from indoor HC WTF. 4 to be exact.

Outdoor HC Rafa has a 7-2 record against him. And one of the 2 losses was Miami05 where he was up 2 sets and a break. Really the only bad match Rafa has played against him was IW12.
Click to expand...

Most of Rafa's wins either came on slow HC (AO x3, 2 of which coming against old Federer when Rafa was prime) or came vs the worst version of Federer (08, 13) in most other years they we're pretty even except Rafa luckily avoided Fed a few times in late 09, 15 etc when he sucked and Fed was on fire.

PS - there's no such surface as outdoor/indoor.
 
KINGROGER said:
Most of Rafa's wins either came on slow HC (AO x3, 2 of which coming against old Federer when Rafa was prime) or came vs the worst version of Federer (08, 13) in most other years they we're pretty even except Rafa luckily avoided Fed a few times in late 09, 15 etc when he sucked and Fed was on fire.

PS - there's no such surface as outdoor/indoor.
Click to expand...

Which is why it was relevant for me to bring it up in the first place because guess where they're playing tomorrow? Roger's indoor HC wins are going to be very irrelevant to the discussion regarding the AO final.

PS - I never said any such thing about an outdoor/indoor SURFACE. I take it reading and comprehension is a challenge for you?
 
The_Order said:
Which is why it was relevant for me to bring it up in the first place because guess where they're playing tomorrow? Roger's indoor HC wins are going to be very irrelevant to the discussion regarding the AO final.

PS - I never said any such thing about an outdoor/indoor SURFACE. I take it reading and comprehension is a challenge for you?
Click to expand...

Indoor / outdoor is irrelevant. Last meeting Fed owned Rafa at Basel - a slow-medium surface plays similar to AO this year.
 
KINGROGER said:
Indoor / outdoor is irrelevant. Last meeting Fed owned Rafa at Basel - a slow-medium surface plays similar to AO this year.
Click to expand...

Plays nothing like AO and outdoor is relevant, particularly, Rafa is 3-0 v Fed at AO the most relevant of all stats. Nadal is playing a lot better than he was in 2015.
 
nadal_winning said:
The phrases "non-clay" or "take away clay" always make me laugh hysterically. Yes, let's just negate one entire surface just so it favours federer. Should we take away grass when discussing Sampras' achievements? NADAL leads 9-2 in the slam h2h, and after Sunday, will likely lead federer 4-0 in hard-court slams, 10-2 in slams overall, and will have a whopping 12-year gap since he won his first slam (federer could only manage 9).

When NADAL reaches #18 soon it'll be "non-clay slams".
Click to expand...
Bwhahahahahhahah "#18" you cannot be serious.
 
The_Order said:
Rosewall for sure was very impressive. But today's game is much more physical than back then especially if Nadal can play the match on his terms.
Click to expand...
It cuts both ways. Laver had to play 90 games at the AO to win it in '69. Shorter points, for sure, but less time between points, fewer 3 set matches, and so on. No tie breaks. So there are various factors that make it complicated.

Our view of old tennis is very skewed by mostly short videos allowing us to see too little. Most points even now are relatively short. The very long points are what we remember, and coming to the net after every serve is not less physical. It's just very different. We saw that with Mischa Zverev.
 
nadal_winning said:
The phrases "non-clay" or "take away clay" always make me laugh hysterically. Yes, let's just negate one entire surface just so it favours federer. Should we take away grass when discussing Sampras' achievements? NADAL leads 9-2 in the slam h2h, and after Sunday, will likely lead federer 4-0 in hard-court slams, 10-2 in slams overall, and will have a whopping 12-year gap since he won his first slam (federer could only manage 9).

When NADAL reaches #18 soon it'll be "non-clay slams".
Click to expand...

The reason we discuss 'non-clay' is that tomorrow's match is not on clay. Clearer now? :)

As for 18, yes.... Rafa shouldn't stop there. If I were Margaret Court I'd be very worried.
 
Gary Duane said:
I don't see it that way for Novak. I don't like his playing style. I don't enjoy watching him. I always root against him. But I have huge respect for him as a player, and frankly I think it would be sad if he doesn't get back close to where he was. He's too young to be fading like this.

I also don't like one guy winning everything. I enjoy Fed much more now than I used to, maybe Nadal more. If "old Novak" gets his act together and goes up against some young whipper snapper with aggressive play, I may end up rooting for him in the future. I'm a sucker for comeback stories, which is why I enjoyed Murray a bit this year!
Click to expand...

In my opinion, Djokovic did not decline much in terms of his game; he just lost mental edge in crucial moments. When played WTF, he beat all top10 players except Andy, was unbeaten in Doha, and lost against Istoimin who played incredible tennis. This is not that dissimilar even to good part of 2016 when he had problems with Fratangelo, was bageled by Bellucci and lost against Vasely.
 
ABCD said:
In my opinion, Djokovic did not decline much in terms of his game; he just lost mental edge in crucial moments. When played WTF, he beat all top10 players except Andy, was unbeaten in Doha, and lost against Istoimin who played incredible tennis. This is not that dissimilar even to good part of 2016 when he had problems with Fratangelo, was bageled by Bellucci and lost against Vasely.
Click to expand...
I don't agree. I think a lot of it IS mental edge, but he does not appear to me to be a guy who can shrug things off, and his personal life seems off. He has looked off physically to me, thinner, and I think he has been following some really bad advice.

I can only say that if anything was wrong between me and my wife at a time when I had a young kid it would destroy everything. I need peace at home. Home is my base. A lot of us are like that, so if that is what is wrong for Novak, it is huge.

Having a family while trying to stay the best in the world means juggling two very different priorities.
 
Gary Duane said:
I don't agree. I think a lot of it IS mental edge, but he does not appear to me to be a guy who can shrug things off, and his personal life seems off. He has looked off physically to me, thinner, and I think he has been following some really bad advice.

I can only say that if anything was wrong between me and my wife at a time when I had a young kid it would destroy everything. I need peace at home. Home is my base. A lot of us are like that, so if that is what is wrong for Novak, it is huge.

Having a family while trying to stay the best in the world means juggling two very different priorities.
Click to expand...

I was talking about his game in isolation. Overall, I believe that he is in big trouble; at best he has problems with his wife (who is not that supportive of his profession any more; many men have been there; you always work, you are not at home enough, you don't need to practice 24/7 to win etc.), at worst he has significant mental issues. He doesn't look healthy.
 
Fedeonic said:
While many laud the 23-11 H2H in Nadal's favour and the 10-9 in non-clay matches, but very few even mention that Federer leads 5-3 on non-clay finals and winning the last one, all of those 3 Nadal wins came in the deciding set.
Here's the breakdown:
Miami 2005: Federer d Nadal 26 67(4) 76(5) 63 61
Dubai 2006: Nadal d Federer 26 64 64
Wimbledon 2006: Federer d Nadal 60 76(5) 67(2) 63
Wimbledon 2007: Federer d Nadal 76(7) 46 76(3) 26 62
Wimbledon 2008: Nadal d Federer 64 64 67(5) 67(8) 97
Aus Open 2009: Nadal d Federer 75 36 76(3) 36 62
Masters 2010: Federer d Nadal 63 36 61
Basel 2015: Federer d Nadal 63 57 63
Click to expand...
 
Gary Duane said:
Having a family while trying to stay the best in the world means juggling two very different priorities.
Click to expand...

When a man start talking about family as a priority, you know that his wife is on his back. Of course that family is priority, but do you serve this family better by winning and earning a lot of money or by sitting at home and playing with a child? Or should you organise yourself to do both; that is not too difficult when you have all the money in the world. Kudos to Mirka in that respect.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Fedeonic
Some interesting Federer finals stats
Replies
5
Views
1K
Federer and Del Potro
Federer and Del Potro
The Grand Slam
  • Poll Poll
[TTWP] Most action-packed Masters Series final(s) in 2005?
Replies
2
Views
992
The Grand Slam
The Grand Slam
Fedeonic
Stan's victory has a record
Replies
8
Views
1K
thebigz
thebigz
Oceans II
Clutchokodal
Replies
3
Views
569
D.Nalby12
D
O
  • Poll Poll
Rank Djokodal's 7 victories over Federer at AO
2
Replies
72
Views
4K
nolefam_2024
nolefam_2024
Back
Top