understanding Fed vs Nadal H2H !

[FederErizeD]

so, I spent a while looking at the h2h of these guys and came up with a extraordinary facts .. "remain facts though"

on clay: 12-2 rafa leads .. 5 of them in RG
on grass: 2-1 Fed leads .. all in Wimbly
on hard: 6-5 Fed leads 4-0 indoors (the furthest Rafa could get in those was only 1 set) ..

so, going in percentages :

- on clay: 86% for Rafa
- on grass: 66% for Fed
- on outdoors: 71% for Rafa
- on indoors: 100% for Fed

so basically, it's 2-2 considering the type of courts

actually if it wasn't for the clay, Fed would have gone far in this ..
it's not Fed's fault that he was good enough on clay to meet Rafa in the finals and still gets beaten by him .. just goes to show u how good he was on clay, while Rafa was losing to guys like Youzny, Blake, Ferrer and Gonzalez in AO and USO 2006 and 2007 evading inevitable losses to Fed had he met him in the finals !

then came 2008 when Federer was at his "great depression" .. a depression almost all players benefited from ..

AO 2008: Fed loses to Nole in straight sets .. something didn't happen since 2004!
Olympics: Blake gets his 1st and last win over Fed .. something never happened ever after!
cincy 2008: Karlovic gets his 1st and last win over Fed .. again something never happened ever after!
Toronto and MC 2008: Fed suffers 2 consecutive losses against Simon .. never happened again
RG 2008: Fed loses in straight sets to Nadal and even bagelled in one of them .. never happened before nor after!

and so on ..

Federer lost in 11 consecutive matches against (Nadal - Nole - Murray) from Jan 2008 to May 2009 (before Madrid) !

on the other hand .. take a look at Rafa's "great depression" .. from RG 2009 to Monte Carlo 2010 ..

Nadal loses to Soderling, Davy, Delpo, Novak, Murray

where was Federer? sadly, he never met him once in his "depression" !

the only player who didn't benefit from it was Federer !

why?

cuz Rafa was weak enough to not be able to make it to the final of "Federer superiority tournament"

- Wimbly 2009: pulled out
- USO 2009: Rafa loses in the semi to Delpo in straight sets: 2-6 2-6 2-6 !
- WTF 2009: couldn't even get a set from his 3 RR matches
- AO 2010: loses to Murray in the quarters in straight sets

so what do u think would've happened of Rafa could make it to the finals in those occasions and others and met Fed?

what's the difference?!

Fed during his "great depression" was still good enough to make to the finals .. something Rafa didn't even get close to during his "great depression" ..

what I wanna say is that H2H isn't that big thing .. let alone being a factor in deciding who the GOAT is ..

 

[Russeljones]

The fact that you think this topic deserves yet another thread is disturbing.

 

[Leto]

so, I spent a while looking at the h2h of these guys and came up with a extraordinary facts .. "remain facts though"

on clay: 12-2 rafa leads .. 5 of them in RG
on grass: 2-1 Fed leads .. all in Wimbly
on hard: 6-5 Fed leads 4-0 indoors (the furthest Rafa could get in those was only 1 set) ..

so, going in percentages :

- on clay: 86% for Rafa
- on grass: 66% for Fed
- on outdoors: 71% for Rafa
- on indoors: 100% for Fed

so basically, it's 2-2 considering the type of courts

actually if it wasn't for the clay, Fed would have gone far in this ..
it's not Fed's fault that he was good enough on clay to meet Rafa in the finals and still gets beaten by him .. just goes to show u how good he was on clay, while Rafa was losing to guys like Youzny, Blake, Ferrer and Gonzalez in AO and USO 2006 and 2007 evading inevitable losses to Fed had he met him in the finals !

then came 2008 when Federer was at his "great depression" .. a depression almost all players benefited from ..

AO 2008: Fed loses to Nole in straight sets .. something didn't happen since 2004!
Olympics: Blake gets his 1st and last win over Fed .. something never happened ever after!
cincy 2008: Karlovic gets his 1st and last win over Fed .. again something never happened ever after!
Toronto and MC 2008: Fed suffers 2 consecutive losses against Simon .. never happened again
RG 2008: Fed loses in straight sets to Nadal and even bagelled in one of them .. never happened before nor after!

and so on ..

Federer lost in 11 consecutive matches against (Nadal - Nole - Murray) from Jan 2008 to May 2009 (before Madrid) !

on the other hand .. take a look at Rafa's "great depression" .. from RG 2009 to Monte Carlo 2010 ..

Nadal loses to Soderling, Davy, Delpo, Novak, Murray

where was Federer? sadly, he never met him once in his "depression" !

the only player who didn't benefit from it was Federer !

why?

cuz Rafa was weak enough to not be able to make it to the final of "Federer superiority tournament"

- Wimbly 2009: pulled out
- USO 2009: Rafa loses in the semi to Delpo in straight sets: 2-6 2-6 2-6 !
- WTF 2009: couldn't even get a set from his 3 RR matches
- AO 2010: loses to Murray in the quarters in straight sets

so what do u think would've happened of Rafa could make it to the finals in those occasions and others and met Fed?

what's the difference?!

Fed during his "great depression" was still good enough to make to the finals .. something Rafa didn't even get close to during his "great depression" ..

what I wanna say is that H2H isn't that big thing .. let alone being a factor in deciding who the GOAT is ..

Nice effort, but I don't think there's anything new here that most haven't seen in hundreds of threads before.

But at the very least, you did interject your opinion that H2H isn't a big deal.

I agree that it is not a big deal right now, because Rafa is nowhere close, IMO, to challenging Fed's GOATliness at the moment. But if Rafa gets to 16 or 17 slams (maybe even just 15) slams, the H2H will DEFINITELY become a big deal (i.e. not just here at crazy TTW, but in a lot of discussions in the mainstream/casual sports circles).

 

[tusharlovesrafa]

Here;s a theory I have formulated after spending hours and hours.This is known as "My Three Balls theory". According to this hypothesis Rafa should technically have a H2H of 28-0,and the only reason he has lost 10 matches is due to Mirka.Actually,Mirka kneeled in front of rafa and begged to show some mercy on her husband,Rafa being such a humble guy obliged and lost 10 matches.Hence proven Rafa is the Goat.

 

[joeri888]

Federer lost in 11 consecutive matches against (Nadal - Nole - Murray) from Jan 2008 to May 2009 (before Madrid)

Maybe I misunderstand, but Roger beat both Djokovic and Murray at the 2008 US Open, no?

 

[Emet74]

Maybe I misunderstand, but Roger beat both Djokovic and Murray at the 2008 US Open, no?

He also beat Djoko in Monte Carlo 2008 in the infamous "sore throat" match.

 

[Zarfot Z]

Another thread about Fed/Nadal rivalry. Moving on.

 

[ZeroSkid]

8-2 h2h at slams says it all

 

[timnz]

8-2 h2h at slams says it all

any head to head quoted statistic that doesn't mention surface is inadequate.

To prove my point simply state what the borg to mcenroe head to head would have been if they played all their matches on clay.

 

[ZeroSkid]

any head to head quoted statistic that doesn't mention surface is inadequate.

To prove my point simply state what the borg to mcenroe head to head would have been if they played all their matches on clay.

except nadal leads on hard courts an clay, where as Federer leads by 1 on his favorite surface

 

[timnz]

Arbitary

except nadal leads on hard courts an clay, where as Federer leads by 1 on his favorite surface

Sorry, i dont buy into this whole only slams count thing. I havent seen any signs that federer and nadal have taken their non slam matches any less seriously than their slam matches.

So overall then

Clay - nadal leads
Outdoor hard - nadal leads
Indoor hard - federer leads
Grass - federer leads

So 2 all then

Now if you dont like the break down between indoor hard and outdoor hard (i do however think they are significantly different), then it is

Clay - nadal
Hard - federer
Grass - federer

So federer leads 2 to 1

It really is that simple.

I think the 4 surface way is the correct way to judge it however

 

[RF-17-GOAT]

The fact that you think this topic deserves yet another thread is disturbing.

Can we all fking agree with this?

 

[ZeroSkid]

Sorry, i dont buy into this whole only slams count thing. I havent seen any signs that federer and nadal have taken their non slam matches any less seriously than their slam matches.

So overall then

Clay - nadal leads
Outdoor hard - nadal leads
Indoor hard - federer leads
Grass - federer leads

So 2 all then

Now if you dont like the break down between indoor hard and outdoor hard (i do however think they are significantly different), then it is

Clay - nadal
Hard - federer
Grass - federer

So federer leads 2 to 1

It really is that simple.

I think the 4 surface way is the correct way to judge it however

well you should, it is the hard truth for a Fed fan

 

[timnz]

well you should, it is the hard truth for a Fed fan

And yet here is Federer at number 1 having less achievements than djokovic in slams over the last 12 months. So obviously the atp count non slams. Seriously it is completely arbitary to not include non slams. What if i say, 'well only the wtf counts' when discussing the head to head count?

 

[MTF07]

Ah slams only count.... good to know.

17 >>> 11

 

[Federererer]

Tennis is played against the field, not just one person. Tennis greatness is beating the field no just one player.

 

[Leto]

Tennis is played against the field, not just one person. Tennis greatness is beating the field no just one player.

Perhaps...

But the ULTIMATE tennis greatness would be beating the field AND beating any major player rival, in one-on-one H2H.

End of the day, Fed's achievements vs. the field are so astounding, that they are more than enough for me to call him GOAT at this time. But there's a DEFINITE opening for somebody else to come along and achieve not only field dominance, but also a clear H2H dominance over all of their closest adversaries.

 

[Federererer]

Perhaps...

But the ULTIMATE tennis greatness would be beating the field AND beating any major player rival, in one-on-one H2H.

End of the day, Fed's achievements vs. the field are so astounding, that they are more than enough for me to call him GOAT at this time. But there's a DEFINITE opening for somebody else to come along and achieve not only field dominance, but also a clear H2H dominance over all of their closest adversaries.

Answer me this. Is it worse to have a losing H2H against a fellow great or a nobody?

 

[kishnabe]

You wasted your time researching this. You could easily search this type of thread....I bet there is 50 of this. mcenroeassailant has like 230 threads just on this.

Just copy and paste next time.

 

[Leto]

Answer me this. Is it worse to have a losing H2H against a fellow great or a nobody?

Worse would be to a nobody...easy answer!

All I'm saying is that as great as Fed is, there would be absolutely NO question marks from anybody, if he also had a dominant H2H record against all of his major rivals.

Not sure why this is so hard to comprehend/understand?

In the (increasingly) unlikely event that Rafa was able to win 17 slams or whatever exact number that Fed ends up with, do you really think his H2H advantage over Fed wouldn't become a HUGE discussion point, primarily in Rafa's favor?

 

[Federererer]

Worse would be to a nobody...easy answer!

All I'm saying is that as great as Fed is, there would be absolutely NO question marks from anybody, if he also had a dominant H2H record against all of his major rivals.

Not sure why this is so hard to comprehend/understand?

In the (increasingly) unlikely event that Rafa was able to win 17 slams or whatever exact number that Fed ends up with, do you really think his H2H advantage over Fed wouldn't become a HUGE discussion point, primarily in Rafa's favor?

Ummm, it's not hard to comprehend at all. But what you're saying is obvious, so why belabour. Obviously having $2 is better than $1.

And yes of course if Nadal ties Fed for slams, then H2H does become relevant. But so does Nadal's losing H2H's against nobodies.

 

[Leto]

Ummm, it's not hard to comprehend at all. But what you're saying is obvious, so why belabour. Obviously having $2 is better than $1.

And yes of course if Nadal ties Fed for slams, then H2H does become relevant. But so does Nadal's losing H2H's against nobodies.

I didn't mean to belabor anything, but at least we're getting somewhere in terms of a prospective H2H analysis in future if Rafa were to equal Fed's slam count.

If that ever happened, I think their direct H2H would FAR outweigh any discussion regarding H2H's they had against anybody else in the field, whether they were nobodies or not.

It's all just speculation, but my crystal ball says that if:

Fed has 17 and Rafa has 17, then Fed vs Rafa H2H will be the MOST immediate tiebreaker for the vast majority. No doubt there will be endless discussions on other factors, such as weeks at #1, H2H by surface, and yes....even H2H's vs Nobodies, but I somehow doubt that this will carry anywhere close to the same weight in the overall debate.

 

[Federererer]

I didn't mean to belabor anything, but at least we're getting somewhere in terms of a prospective H2H analysis in future if Rafa were to equal Fed's slam count.

If that ever happened, I think their direct H2H would FAR outweigh any discussion regarding H2H's they had against anybody else in the field, whether they were nobodies or not.

It's all just speculation, but my crystal ball says that if:

Fed has 17 and Rafa has 17, then Fed vs Rafa H2H will be the MOST immediate tiebreaker for the vast majority. No doubt there will be endless discussions on other factors, such as weeks at #1, H2H by surface, and yes....even H2H's vs Nobodies, but I somehow doubt that this will carry anywhere close to the same weight in the overall debate.

I disagree, yes H2H will become a factor, but will not be the major thing. The major thing in fact will be H2H against nobodies which will be implicitly represented in the time at #1.

 

[tennisaddict]

........

It's all just speculation, but my crystal ball says that if:

Fed has 17 and Rafa has 17, then Fed vs Rafa H2H will be the MOST immediate tiebreaker for the vast majority. No doubt there will be endless discussions on other factors, such as weeks at #1, H2H by surface, and yes....even H2H's vs Nobodies, but I somehow doubt that this will carry anywhere close to the same weight in the overall debate.

This is a major fail post..

H2H is not relevant at all ; Your overall win-loss record, WTF records where you play the best of best , number of overall titles, top 10 H2H, YE number 1's are better reflection of the players careers when the slam counts are equal.

H2H is a major fail comparison when

- most matches are played on all surfaces , not predominantly on a surface favorable to 1 player

- players not reach their peaks in the same timelines

- losing H2H against 1 player does not in any way diminish your status as No 1 over the whole field.

In any case, Rafa will never match on the slam count.

 

[Leto]

This is a major fail post..

H2H is not relevant at all ; Your overall win-loss record, WTF records where you play the best of best , number of overall titles, top 10 H2H, YE number 1's are better reflection of the players careers when the slam counts are equal.

H2H is a major fail comparison when

- most matches are played on all surfaces , not predominantly on a surface favorable to 1 player

- players reach their peaks in the same timelines

- losing H2H against 1 player does not in any way diminish your status as No 1 over the whole field.

In any case, Rafa will never match on the slam count.

Call it a fail all you like...

But I'm not defining what I think is important, I'm just being realistic as to what MOST people (even the so-called experts) will immediately look at first, if both Fed and Rafa had the same number of slams.

I'm simply guessing that it would be their direct H2H based on my sense of the general public and articles I've already seen in the press that question Fed's greatness due to the H2H with Rafa. I think overall weeks at #1 could be a VERY CLOSE second, but somehow I think that if Rafa really got to 17, he'd probably would have racked up a lot more weeks at #1, by default. Who knows...it's all just speculation.

 

[Federererer]

Even if H2H is brought up with equal slams, the first thing immediately following that which people will discuss is that the majority of H2H meetings on clay. Why should they have been? This is a big negative on Nadal's resume, the sheer number of clay meetings.

 

[Leto]

Even if H2H is brought up with equal slams, the first thing immediately following that which people will discuss is that the majority of H2H meetings on clay. Why should they have been? This is a big negative on Nadal's resume, the sheer number of clay meetings.

A perfectly legitimate argument, but it still only comes into play as a counter argument AFTER the primary topic of just straight H2H is looked at first.

By that time, half the audience and media will have lost any further interest, but rest assured...I for one will still be paying attention and keeping detailed notes

 

[Federererer]

A perfectly legitimate argument, but it still only comes into play as a counter argument AFTER the primary topic of just straight H2H is looked at first.

By that time, half the audience and media will have lost any further interest, but rest assured...I for one will still be paying attention and keeping detailed notes

I don't think so, because the value of the primary topic is COMPLETELY dependent on the clay skew, hence the primary topic then becomes, why were the majority on clay DESPITE equal number of slams. One must delve into the reasons behind arguments, not simply look at their surface value.

 

[rofl_copter3]

Rafa is the best clay courted of all times and probably always will be, that makes this very hard... Federer is the best all surface player of all times but probably not the greatest on any one surface, tho any surface with a roof maybe... But what it comes down to is outside of clay these two have been so close over the years that clay unfairly obscures how great this rivalry has truly been...