What Would It Say For Federer If He Loses?

Why always those nonsensical H2H questions and arguments?

What shall I say here? Yeah, you are right, losing in R1 would have been better for his legacy instead of losing in the SF to Nadal or in the final to Djokovic?

We could discuss what it means if Nadal wins Wimbledon and it’s only 19-20 then. Nadal would most likely overtake Federer then, and that would mean something for his legacy. But also not that Federer failed NOW with 38, but rather didn’t won enough from 28-34 (2010-2016) to finally be crowned GOAT.

That’s why he has to stop Nadal even NOW with 38, no matter what a gigantic task it it. But surely not because of irrelevant H2H statistics.

Or do you think it’s better for Sampras that he lost to dozens of seperate players on all surfaces even in his best years compared to Federer who mostly only lost against the best? I will never understand this absurd king of logic. And with Borg, don't you think it's a bit easier not to be "dominated" when retiring at 26 as an early bloomer and in an era were being young generally was a bigger advantage? I think until around 1993 you could have seen him being "dominated" by his "main rivals" (if there even would have been those, because what are "main rivals" if he wouldn't compete for titles in any way?).
There's no logic behind @titoelcolombiano arguments.He just wants to prove that the guy who is rumored to be on steroids and got aced by an underarm serve by an untrained Kyrgios is Goat.
 
How many on clay again? H2H is meaningless, it is about winning titles.
LOL You are contradicting yourself. You said Nadal would give up his h2h in a heartbeat for another slam while I proved to you that it would mean LOSING 8 slams in total, Wimbledon and the AO amongst them. It's about titles, right? Do you get what you said, dude?
 

Steve0904

Talk Tennis Guru
How many on clay again? H2H is meaningless, it is about winning titles.
Not entirely meaningless. Just means the truly important matches are the ones where either guy beat the other to win the title in the final or beat him in an earlier round and went on to win. That's why the upcoming match is better looked at in hindsight instead of being over hyped directly before the match. The favourite is on the other side of the draw. If one of them can beat Novak it means the SF win was huge. If the winner doesn't beat Novak, the match doesn't mean anywhere near as much unless the fans of the player or the player himself are happy finishing 2nd place to Novak, and I guarantee you that won't be true.
 
Especially against Djokovic in the final,how will it affect his legacy? I mean,this is a guy who is claimed by most to be the greatest grass court player ever but he would be 0-3 in Wimbledon finals against one of his biggest rivals. How can he make that claim when someone else has his number? Who dominated Borg on grass,or Sampras? Or against Nadal he would be 2-2 H2H on his favourite surface. You can bring up age,but when Federer lost the 2014 Wimbledon final he was 32. Djokovic is 32 now and dominating Wimbledon and if Federer is playing well enough to get to the final,well he can't be that bad can he?
Isn't Djokovic 0-3 in slam finals against one of his biggest rivals Wawrinka.... Wawrinka isn't even an ATG and is actually a slam pigeon for fed or nadal and Djokovic still loses slam finals too him

Also Djokovic isn't dominating wimbeldon.... he is beating utter mugs and then either losing or barely winning or when he reaches fed or nadal even though they are past it.... and at 32 Fed was able to easily beat anyone not Djokovic or Nadal too so Djokovic isn't doing anything special at 32 that Fed or Nadal haven't done at 32
 
Especially against Djokovic in the final,how will it affect his legacy? I mean,this is a guy who is claimed by most to be the greatest grass court player ever but he would be 0-3 in Wimbledon finals against one of his biggest rivals. How can he make that claim when someone else has his number? Who dominated Borg on grass,or Sampras? Or against Nadal he would be 2-2 H2H on his favourite surface. You can bring up age,but when Federer lost the 2014 Wimbledon final he was 32. Djokovic is 32 now and dominating Wimbledon and if Federer is playing well enough to get to the final,well he can't be that bad can he?
It’ll all be put in context when Nadal and Djokovic are trying to win slams against younger ATG’s Grigor and Kei.





Oh...
 
Rafa's been beating Fed since he was a teenager and that was when Fed was in his prime - that reasoning doesn't hold up.
Overall career achievments make a better player not individual h2h records.

Fed losing to Nadal doesn;t make him a lesser player than Nadal. If that was the case then Nadal would be a lesser player than Djokovic who aboslutely demolished peak Nadal 7-0, 7-0. Or Nadal would be a lesser player then guys like Mueller, Brown on grass as they have multiple winning records against him Nadal over multiple matches so are not a fluke (yes other players have winning records vs nadal but 1 of matches are not statistical).

Can you actually state the specific reason why Nadal is a better player then Davednko on hard courts (or overall even as Davednko leads the overall h2h too and it is a 11 match sample so not a fluke) when Davednko has won every single match they have played on hard courts bar one? Ahhh you say it is because Nadal has a better record vs the field than davednko and a better career? Well Fed has a better career than Nadal... More slams, more WTF, more weeks no 1, more YE no 1, more AO, WIMB, USO etc and a whole enclopedia of better records. On his negatives he has less masters and less FO..... if you disagree then feel free to agree with why Mueller, Brown and Davdenko are better players than Nadal since one on one vs nadal they are all better players with better records. Im pretty sure Kyrigos will retire with a leading h2h vs nadal too
 
Last edited:
Overall career achievments make a better player not individual h2h records.

Fed losing to Nadal doesn;t make him a lesser player than Nadal. If that was the case then Nadal would be a lesser player than Djokovic who aboslutely demolished peak Nadal 7-0, 7-0. Or Nadal would be a lesser player then guys like Mueller, Brown on grass as they have winning records against him Nadal over multiple matches so are not a fluke.

Can you actually state the specific reason why Nadal is a better player then Davednko on hard courts when Davednko has won every single match they have played on hard bar one? Ahhh you say it is because Nadal has a better record vs the field than davednko and a better career? Well Fed has a better career than Nadal... More slams, more WTF, more weeks no 1, more YE no 1, more AO, WIMB, USO etc. On his negatives he has less masters and less FO..... if you disagree then feel free to agree with why Mueller, Brown and Davdenko are better players than Nadal
@titoelcolombiano = double standard to favour Nadal.
 

uscwang

Hall of Fame
Especially against Djokovic in the final,how will it affect his legacy? I mean,this is a guy who is claimed by most to be the greatest grass court player ever but he would be 0-3 in Wimbledon finals against one of his biggest rivals. How can he make that claim when someone else has his number? Who dominated Borg on grass,or Sampras? Or against Nadal he would be 2-2 H2H on his favourite surface. You can bring up age,but when Federer lost the 2014 Wimbledon final he was 32. Djokovic is 32 now and dominating Wimbledon and if Federer is playing well enough to get to the final,well he can't be that bad can he?
Come on. Has the Kyrgios school of thought taken hold of you?
 
Especially against Djokovic in the final,how will it affect his legacy? I mean,this is a guy who is claimed by most to be the greatest grass court player ever but he would be 0-3 in Wimbledon finals against one of his biggest rivals. How can he make that claim when someone else has his number? Who dominated Borg on grass,or Sampras? Or against Nadal he would be 2-2 H2H on his favourite surface. You can bring up age,but when Federer lost the 2014 Wimbledon final he was 32. Djokovic is 32 now and dominating Wimbledon and if Federer is playing well enough to get to the final,well he can't be that bad can he?
It's irrelevant. The reason why Fed's goat status is in quesiton is because Djokovic and Nadal may take away his records, that's it. I mean if Nole had 3 slams, would anyone care that he is a tough matchup for Federer? No, it's Nole's records what matters and not how he does vs an old champion past his prime. The second reason why some doubt Federer is they assume he was playining in a weaker era, but apart from some hardcore fans, I doubt anyone thinks his h2h vs his rivals past his prime would matter.
 
The complete fail on this is that Federe adapted to a huge technology change. Nadal and Djoko were the first great players born and bred on Poly string. There games developed around it. Federe should not be winning anything, let alone when he's in his 38th year. He should be long gone like Roddick, Hewitt, Ferrero, and many, many more.

We can try to take away McEnroe's 1984 with graphite just like Fed's 2004, but then compare the results afterwards. Federe is very special and something Djoko and Nadal can never match as they had it very easy in their youngerer years when they were the wolfs among the all court sheep. Fed had competition during his earliest years. The rest of the Big 4 had it very easy coming up with only Fed off clay and Nadal on clay. Hoovering up in a vacuum created by technology change. Yes it was hard to get the early slam, but plenty else ready for consumption especially with Federer slam focused and Nadal not near his hard court prime.
You know way more about strings than I do. If you had to guess, when do Novak and Rafa start using poly in training when growing up? I figure maybe Fed didn't use it at all until his late teens. (?) But maybe the other two were switching over in their early teens. Novak was 13 in 2000. Would he have been using poly then?

For the rest I think you are right. Sampras retired before the worst of the poly dominance. If he had played longer, then would have had to change over to win. I'm unclear about when Agassi moved to poly. He had to have been at the vanguard. Fed's late change to the newer racket definitely held him back before he finally took the plunge.
 
You know way more about strings than I do. If you had to guess, when do Novak and Rafa start using poly in training when growing up? I figure maybe Fed didn't use it at all until his late teens. (?) But maybe the other two were switching over in their early teens. Novak was 13 in 2000. Would he have been using poly then?

For the rest I think you are right. Sampras retired before the worst of the poly dominance. If he had played longer, then would have had to change over to win. I'm unclear about when Agassi moved to poly. He had to have been at the vanguard. Fed's late change to the newer racket definitely held him back before he finally took the plunge.
Federer switched around clay season 2001. Since Kuerten's 1997 RG, one would assume any young clay player of merit would have quickly moved to Poly. Presumably Djokovic formed his game on Poly as well and would have been using Poly by age 13.

Federe fancied himself a young serve and volley player based on style perhaps trying to outdo Rafter who even mimicked a bit in appearance. Fed adapted and hit his speed prime with Poly. His peers have all been long gone from the game which makes him all the more remarkable; its like McEnroe continued to play on and was beating Sampras and Agassi late into the 1990s.
 
This is incorrect friend. Kuerten introduced 100% poly strings at the '97 RG when everybody was using gut, which turned the tennis world upside down. Federer didn't make his Slam debut until two years later: 1999 RG. He never even used full poly and a used a hybrid mixed with gut and poly. Far as I know, he still uses that today but someone can correct me on it. Djokovic, Murray and Serena also use hybrid strings. Nadal and Wawrinka are 100% poly. The point is the technology shift happened before Federer came along.

As for as him having it tougher early on, I strongly disagree with this because it is much harder to dethrone an established ATG player who is dominating along with a strong field of other players than it is to come in with a group of peers all trying to make it to the top with no dominant ATG in the way. This drum has been beaten to death though so no need to take it further than that.
Wrong. Federe was full gut into 2001. Roddick and Hewitt full gut into 2004.

Kuerten turned the clay world upside down, not other surfaces.
 
Wrong. Federe was full gut into 2001. Roddick and Hewitt full gut into 2004.

Kuerten turned the clay world upside down, not other surfaces.
The fact is, poly was introduced two years before Federer started playing Slams. Also, Kuerten wasn't the only player using poly in that '97 RG but he is the one most talked about. If Federer changed his strings in 2001, he was still two years away from winning his first Slam.
 
Its very unusual to concede a player has been out of his athletic prime for a decade but that his loses at 38 hurt his legacy. If the final against Djokovic, should Fed get there, were actually against Bautista agut, and fed lost, would any of us say that his legacy is tarnished? No, we would in unison agree, he's old. Just because its Djokovic, and just because Djokovic is nipping at the heels of Fed's slam record, doesn't mean much of anything considering Federer is way past his prime.
And thus the logical problems caused by obsessing over H2H. Is it actually better to lose to notably inferior players, just because it helps you avoid those damaging H2H losses? That’s absurd, but it’s what H2H obsession leads to.
 
The fact is, poly was introduced two years before Federer started playing Slams. Also, Kuerten wasn't the only player using poly in that '97 RG but he is the one most talked about. If Federer changed his strings in 2001, he was still two years away from winning his first Slam.
Fed's game was not developed on Poly, nor Hewitt, or Roddick. That is the point. The rest of the Big 4 had a tech advantage, Federer had to adapt and change in his 20's.
 
Overall career achievments make a better player not individual h2h records.

Fed losing to Nadal doesn;t make him a lesser player than Nadal. If that was the case then Nadal would be a lesser player than Djokovic who aboslutely demolished peak Nadal 7-0, 7-0. Or Nadal would be a lesser player then guys like Mueller, Brown on grass as they have multiple winning records against him Nadal over multiple matches so are not a fluke (yes other players have winning records vs nadal but 1 of matches are not statistical).

Can you actually state the specific reason why Nadal is a better player then Davednko on hard courts (or overall even as Davednko leads the overall h2h too and it is a 11 match sample so not a fluke) when Davednko has won every single match they have played on hard courts bar one? Ahhh you say it is because Nadal has a better record vs the field than davednko and a better career? Well Fed has a better career than Nadal... More slams, more WTF, more weeks no 1, more YE no 1, more AO, WIMB, USO etc and a whole enclopedia of better records. On his negatives he has less masters and less FO..... if you disagree then feel free to agree with why Mueller, Brown and Davdenko are better players than Nadal since one on one vs nadal they are all better players with better records. Im pretty sure Kyrigos will retire with a leading h2h vs nadal too
Davydenko - Nadal 7 match sample size

Fedal - 40 match sample size over 15 years
 
Not even close to what Fed had to deal with. Fed dealt "consistently" with Nadal, Djoko, Murray, Stan and "many" second tier folks.

Nadal and Djoko don't even have 2nd tier folks to deal with. Just Thiem on clay.
Please... Stan is Fed's pigeon.

It is true that he had to content with Nadal, Djoker & Murray - but that is the point here... so did Djokovic and Nadal. It was only Federer that got a few sweet years to himself.
 
Davydenko - Nadal 7 match sample size

Fedal - 40 match sample size over 15 years
11 match sample size overall h2h.

LOL how is 7 matches insignificant either? That is ridiculous to state so. After all VB go to stat is Nadal leads djokovic 2-1 at USO which is obviously an anomoly. 3 match sample. Pick and choose hey? And if 11 is too small isn't that similar size to the sample size for fedal in slams? Or fedal on hard courts or grass? Guess fedal h2h doesn't count. Sample size too small?

Well novaks h2h certainly isn't a small sample size. And Nadal has struggled to win 5 matches to novaks 20 ever since Novak became a world no 1 or won a slam
 
11 match sample size overall h2h.

LOL how is 7 matches insignificant either? That is ridiculous to state so. After all VB go to stat is Nadal leads djokovic 2-1 at USO which is obviously an anomoly. 3 match sample. Pick and choose hey? And if 11 is too small isn't that similar size to the sample size for fedal in slams? Or fedal on hard courts or grass? Guess fedal h2h doesn't count. Sample size too small?

Well novaks h2h certainly isn't a small sample size. And Nadal has struggled to win 5 matches to novaks 20 ever since Novak became a world no 1 or won a slam
Not sure why you mention this - it is not my 'go-to' stat
 
Top