What if Nadal and Federer played more grass court matches?

[SABRvolley]

I always wondered what the H2H would have been if these 2 played the same amount of matches on grass as they did on clay (ie. 16 matches).

I think Nadal would still lead the overall H2H slightly as he was much more dominant on clay than Federer was on grass.

If these 2 played 16 matches on grass, I would guess that Federer would lead something like 11-5 or so, compared to Nadal’s 14-2 lead on clay.

If that’s the case, the overall H2H would be something like this:

- Overall H2H: Nadal 28 - 24 Federer
- Clay: Nadal 14 - 2 Federer
- Hard: Federer 11 - 9 Nadal
- Grass: Federer 11 - 5 Nadal

What are your thoughts?

 

[Sport]

Yes, Federer would win more matches against Nadal on grass than vice versa, reducing the H2H difference. 11-5.

Just like Nadal would win more matches against Federer on indoor clay than vice versa, expanding the H2H difference. 5-1.

So, instead of 28-24, we'd get 33-25.

I have always maintained that he who defends a more varied surfaces' distribution (more tournaments being played in other surfaces than hard), should not only defend it with grass, but also with clay, to avoid a double standard where the surfaces' distribution argument is only applied to grass. Hard is more played on the tour than both clay and grass, and while grass is more underrepresented, clay is also less represented than hard. A more equalitarian surfaces' distribution requires of adding many more tournaments on grass, and a few more on clay. If we can conceive a scenario where the ATP hypothetically adds Masters 1000 on grass, we can also imagine hypothetically a scenario whete the ATP finals were to rotate surfaces (not condition) each year and be played alternatively on indoor clay, indoor grass and indoor hard.

At the end of the day, we'll never know, as this is an untestable, therefore irrelevant scenario.

 

[objection_]

I always wondered what the H2H would have been if these 2 played the same amount of matches on grass as they did on clay (ie. 16 matches).

I think Nadal would still lead the overall H2H slightly as he was much more dominant on clay than Federer was on grass.

If these 2 played 16 matches on grass, I would guess that Federer would lead something like 11-5 or so, compared to Nadal’s 14-2 lead on clay.

If that’s the case, the overall H2H would be something like this:

- Overall H2H: Nadal 28 - 24 Federer
- Clay: Nadal 14 - 2 Federer
- Hard: Federer 11 - 9 Nadal
- Grass: Federer 11 - 5 Nadal

What are your thoughts?

IMO depends on what years they face each other and how often they face, whether it's just at Wimbledon or at Halle as well, best case scenario it isn't inconceviable Fed also leads 14-2, but he could go down 10-6 if they play multiple times in 2008/2010 or even 2018.

 

[ibbi]

I'm sure he'd have won more and closened it up (what year is this that we're talking about the Federer/Nadal h2h? ) but it depends when they played them too, right? They played those three matches three years in a row on the surface, and the trajectory went noticeably one way.

 

[RS]

Expecting them to play 16 grass matches is a stretch though.

 

[fedfan24]

15 is too many. 2 more at W is realistic plus say 4 Halle matches if they both played there.

5-2 W
4-0 Halle.

9-2 most likely.

More fast HC matches would’ve boosted the h2h for Federer too. Cincy, USO, Madrid indoors, Shanghai, Paris, Basel. As it stands they only played about 9 matches on fast HC, with Federer leading 6-3 (3 being Cincy + YEC in 2013 + Dubai in 06)

16 matches there ends with 11-5 to Federer at worst.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Yes, Federer would win more matches against Nadal on grass than vice versa, reducing the H2H difference. 11-5.

Just like Nadal would win more matches against Federer on indoor clay than vice versa, expanding the H2H difference. 5-1.

So, instead of 28-24, we'd get 33-25.

I have always maintained that he who defends a more varied surfaces' distribution (more tournaments being played in other surfaces than hard), should not only defend it with grass, but also with clay, to avoid a double standard where the surfaces' distribution argument is only applied to grass. Hard is more played on the tour than both clay and grass, and while grass is more underrepresented, clay is also less represented than hard. A more equalitarian surfaces' distribution requires of adding many more tournaments on grass, and a few more on clay. If we can conceive a scenario where the ATP hypothetically adds Masters 1000 on grass, we can also imagine hypothetically a scenario whete the ATP finals were to rotate surfaces (not condition) each year and be played alternatively on indoor clay, indoor grass and indoor hard.

At the end of the day, we'll never know, as this is an untestable, therefore irrelevant scenario.

I am sorry but I didn't get this at all.

What is 11-5

Also there is nothing special about indoor clay. Clay by itself is very slow surface. Does indoor make clay behave differently? How many indoor clay tournaments are there.
Indoor clay is like blue clay.

 

[nolefam_2024]

Expecting them to play 16 grass matches is a stretch though.

Exactly why h2h is bs thing. Fed won 18 titles on grass and just 10 or so on clay despite clay having 3 times more.

Clay was feds worst surface by far. He played 16 times vs nadal because his floor is so epicly high.

 

[jl809]

I think the overall H2H between Fedal should be balanced in an ideal world. Nadal was always closer to Federer on grass than vice versa on clay, but Fed also dominated on indoor HC, so between the two of those it would balance out the clay. Then HC, Nadal takes slow and Fed takes fast

 

[nighthawkrr]

I wonder if Nadal wins more Wimbledon’s if grass comes before clay season in the summer. Those clay seasons I think took the energy out in later years.

 

[Pheasant]

Time travel tennis. Let's take a look here:

Let's look at Wimbledon
2010: Nadal-- best version of Nadal ever. Nadal wins in straight sets
2011: Nadal-- Nadal had lost his killer serve from 2010. But he's still taking out Fed in 4 sets.
2012: Fed...Fed beat Djoker and Murray back-to-back. Nadal lost Rosol. Fed in 5
2013: Nadal, although this is close. Nadal was dumped in the 1st round in straights to Darcis. But Fed lost to Stak. Nadal in 5
2014: don't play, due to Rafa being injured
2015: Fed. Nadal lost to Dustin rather easily. 2015 was simply a huge down year for Rafa.
2016: don't play, due to Rafa being injured
2017: Fed, due to not losing a set for the entire tourney. Nadal lost to Muller. Fed in 4.
2018: Nadal easily. If Fed can blow a match point while being up 2-0 to Kandy, then he can lose to Nadal. I'm taking Nadal in 4
2019: Nadal. Nadal is now in Fed's head, due his struggle with Nadal during the previous years. Nadal wins 6-7, 5-7, 7-6, 7-6, 7-6 while Fed blows 17 match points, including triple match point in the 3rd set while serving for the match at 5-4, 40-0. Fed is a pathetic 2/30 on break point opportunities while committing 17 double faults and 104 unforced errors.


2010, 2011, and 2018 Fed failed to make it to Nadal.
2013: Both Nadal and Fed sucked, dumped in early rounds
2014, 2016: Nadal is injured.
2012, 2015, 2017 Nadal failed to make it to Fed.

Note: After Fed blows triple championship point on his own serve to Nadal in 2019, he hires Davydenko to learn how to play against Rafa off of clay. Nadal learns about this, then punches Federer in the face. Rafa was about to get banned, but Federer begs for Rafa to stay. Rafa stays, but Fed then blows out his knee. Rafa then punched Federer in the face again, then retired before getting banned permanently.

 

[Racquet_smash]

Federer would likely lead but 11-5 seems completely irrealistic from what we saw in 2006-2008.

 

[SABRvolley]

Time travel tennis. Let's take a look here:

Let's look at Wimbledon
2010: Nadal-- best version of Nadal ever. Nadal wins in straight sets
2011: Nadal-- Nadal had lost his killer serve from 2010. But he's still taking out Fed in 4 sets.
2012: Fed...Fed beat Djoker and Murray back-to-back. Nadal lost Rosol. Fed in 5
2013: Nadal, although this is close. Nadal was dumped in the 1st round in straights to Darcis. But Fed lost to Stak. Nadal in 5
2014: don't play, due to Rafa being injured
2015: Fed. Nadal lost to Dustin rather easily. 2015 was simply a huge down year for Rafa.
2016: don't play, due to Rafa being injured
2017: Fed, due to not losing a set for the entire tourney. Nadal lost to Muller. Fed in 4.
2018: Nadal easily. If Fed can blow a match point while being up 2-0 to Kandy, then he can lose to Nadal. I'm taking Nadal in 4
2019: Nadal. Nadal is now in Fed's head, due his struggle with Nadal during the previous years. Nadal wins 6-7, 5-7, 7-6, 7-6, 7-6 while Fed blows 17 match points, including triple match point in the 3rd set while serving for the match at 5-4, 40-0. Fed is a pathetic 2/30 on break point opportunities while committing 17 double faults and 104 unforced errors.


2010, 2011, and 2018 Fed failed to make it to Nadal.
2013: Both Nadal and Fed sucked, dumped in early rounds
2014, 2016: Nadal is injured.
2012, 2015, 2017 Nadal failed to make it to Fed.

Note: After Fed blows triple championship point on his own serve to Nadal in 2019, he hires Davydenko to learn how to play against Rafa off of clay. Nadal learns about this, then punches Federer in the face. Rafa was about to get banned, but Federer begs for Rafa to stay. Rafa stays, but Fed then blows out his knee. Rafa then punched Federer in the face again, then retired before getting banned permanently.

Fed literally won their Wimbledon match in 2019 though lol

 

[nolefam_2024]

Fed literally won their Wimbledon match in 2019 though lol

I think the comment was sarcastic ; maybe

 

[Pheasant]

Fed literally won their Wimbledon match in 2019 though lol

Going back in time to have Fed play Nadal 7 times from 2010-2018 creates a butterfly effect. And yes, that includes Federer hiring Davydenko as his coach, along with Nadal punching Fed in the face.