Why the Nadal/Federer H2H is bogus

initialize

Hall of Fame
Kudos to member falstaff78 for originally posting this. The original thread is now closed for further replies, so I feel now is a good time to bring it up again since DjoKodal fans are having a field day with Federer, the true GOAT being buried behind recency bias:

This thread looks at all 151 tour level tournaments that Federer and Nadal entered together. For each draw, I looked at the round in which they were due to have their "date," and who reached the "date".

This allows us to quantify the worst-kept secret in tennis: that Nadal's head to head record vs. Federer has been protected because Nadal wasn't good enough vs the field to reach Federer, in many situations which favoured Federer.


Overall

  • Federer and Nadal entered 151 tournaments together.
  • Federer won more of these (47 vs. 37) and went further more often (73 vs. 67 with 11 ties).
  • The same is true of the 46 majors they entered together - Federer went further more often (25 v. 19), and won more (16 v. 14).
  • They have played in 25% of tournaments entered together (37)
  • Interestingly, Federer won the title each time he beat Nadal (14/14). Whereas Nadal won the title 17/23 times he beat Federer.

Split by first and second half of season

  • Nadal does better than Federer in the first half of the season, until RG (went further 50 vs. 29). And Federer does better after RG (went further 44 vs. 17). This should tell you how big a favourite Federer is for the year end ranking in 2017 - it won't even be close.
  • The same trend is reflected in their head to head. Nadal leads 20-7 in the first half, and Federer leads 7-3 in the second half.
  • The two most common explanations offered for this trend are: increased court speeds in the second half of the year, and fatigue for Nadal after clay court exertions.
  • A key question is: why have they played 27 matches in the first half of the year, and only 10 in the second?
  • There are two reasons for this:
    • The first is that they entered far fewer draws together in the second half (67 vs. 84)
    • The second is that they played in a greater fraction of the draws they entered in the first half of the year, than in the second (in first half, met in 32% of common tournaments, vs. 15% in the second half).
  • Both of these reasons are due to Nadal:
    • First, he enters far fewer events in the second half of the year (only 46% of his career tournament entries are after RG vs. 52% for Federer - not shown on the chart).
    • Second, in the tournaments Nadal and Federer did play in the second half, Nadal only reached 28% of "dates". Federer, on the other hand, reached 64%. Compare this to the first half, where Federer was much closer to Nadal in reaching "dates" (51% vs. 58%)
Split by surface

  • We can see the same trend when we split their records by surface.
  • On clay Nadal killed Federer 13-2, and they played in 38% of draws entered together.
  • On grass and hard courts, Federer leads, and they have only met 20% of the time on each.
  • Specifically, on hard courts in the second half of the season, Federer leads 5-2; in such draws, they play each other only 1/3 as often as clay. (13% of draws, vs. 38%).
  • Again, Nadal is clearly the culprit, having only reached their "date" 27% of the time. vs. 60% for Federer.

Split by time

  • As a consequence of the 5 year age difference, their peaks have no overlap. Federer's peak of winning 11/16 majors was from 2004-2007. Whereas Nadal's peak years were all between 2008 and 2013.
  • During Federer's peak, out of 24 tournaments in the first half of the season, they met 10 times (42%). Nadal won 8. However, out of 24 tournaments late in the season, they only met 4 times (17%). Federer won all 4.
  • Again, the smaller number of matches in the second half was due to Nadal. Nadal showed up for "dates" much more often in the first half of the year (54% vs. 21%). Whereas Federer showed up to 75% of "dates" in the first half season, and 79% in the second.
  • By comparison, during Nadal's peak years, Federer was much more consistent about reaching the "date" early and late in the season. (40% vs. 45%).

To conclude, this post has merely quantified what we already know: that Federer vs. Nadal matches were strongly skewed towards conditions suiting Nadal, and that this is due to Nadal's shortcomings vs the field.

The reason head-to-head is such a silly metric is: if Nadal had played better against the field later in the year, especially on hard courts, and especially between 2003 and 2007, his head to head with Federer would have been much closer to parity.

The purpose of professional tennis is to advance as far as possible in tournaments. It is therefore much more relevant to look at who went further in more tournaments that both played (Federer 73-67). Or who won more tournaments that they both played (Federer 47-37). This objectively means Federer has done better than Nadal, head to head.

Enjoy.

qLmC43R.png
 

Novichok

Professional
All I see are mentions of Wimbledon 08, AO 09 and other strawmen instead of talk about OP's actual argument. Never change TTW. :)
 
Last edited:

initialize

Hall of Fame
This thread would not exist if Federer lead Nadal 24-16. Or if Federer lead Nadal 8-6 in outdoor hard and 3-1 at the AO. Or if Federer were 6-0 against Rafa at WB and 1-3 at RG. Because it is the reverse, OP is making laughable excuses.
Or if Nadal clearly didn't try to avoid Federer in certain matches
 

Kralingen

Talk Tennis Guru
That or if he had managed to win at least one of their RG matches.
True, but what I’m getting at is how those two matches made Nadal’s legacy in the H2H. He was a superstar independently, but without those two wins it’s viewed as mainly a surface dependent rivalry.
 

ND-13

Hall of Fame
Nadal had a losing h2h against top 10 at some point on HC

Nadal did not defend one HC title all his career

Nadal probably won 1 indoor HC all his career.

Yet they are barely mentioned here. But why is the obsession so much about Federer, when really folks should be celebrating the 21 ?
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
True, but what I’m getting at is how those two matches made Nadal’s legacy in the H2H. He was a superstar independently, but without those two wins it’s viewed as mainly a surface dependent rivalry.
No, it isn't. Nadal started leading the H2H over prime Federer in outdoor hard since Miami 2004 and Dubai 2006.

In fact, Nadal leads Federer 8-6 in outdoor hard and 3-1 at the AO.

So it's not like he only has those 2 wins (WB 2008 and AO 2009) over Federer outside clay.
 

Sabrina

Hall of Fame
Nadal had a losing h2h against top 10 at some point on HC

Nadal did not defend one HC title all his career

Nadal probably won 1 indoor HC all his career.

Yet they are barely mentioned here. But why is the obsession so much about Federer, when really folks should be celebrating the 21 ?

Yes. He defends his Montreal/Toronto 2018 title by winning it in 2019 again ;)
 
True, but what I’m getting at is how those two matches made Nadal’s legacy in the H2H. He was a superstar independently, but without those two wins it’s viewed as mainly a surface dependent rivalry.
Right, Wimby 08 and AO 09 are 2 of the greatest matches of all time. As time passes people forget the finer details and will only have the highlights of their careers. Seeing RAFA win such career defining matches swayed a lot of people to his side.
 

ND-13

Hall of Fame
At the end of the day, Federer and Djokovic are better than Rafa on 2 out of 3 surfaces. One may wonder how Nadal is the greatest when he is inferior to both of them on majority of the surfaces.

Rafa will have his slam count .

So, it is up to everyone to choose the one they think is the greatest.
 

UnderratedSlam

G.O.A.T.
At the end of the day, Federer and Djokovic are better than Rafa on 2 out of 3 surfaces. One may wonder how Nadal is the greatest when he is inferior to both of them on majority of the surfaces.

Rafa will have his slam count .

So, it is up to everyone to choose the one they think is the greatest.
Inferior.

Funnily enough, a certain post I just responded to is inferior... Huh, irony.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
At the end of the day, Federer and Djokovic are better than Rafa on 2 out of 3 surfaces. One may wonder how Nadal is the greatest when he is inferior to both of them on majority of the surfaces.

Rafa will have his slam count .

So, it is up to everyone to choose the one they think is the greatest.
That is not a valid argument, since you are ignoring clay achievements. You are only considering 2 out of 3 (67%) of the surfaces, not 3 out of 3 (100%) of the surfaces.

Sampras is also better in 2 of the 3 surfaces than Nadal but still clearly behind Rafa, as 21 > 14.

If we only consider Slams outside clay, yes Nadal is behind Fedovic (Federer 19 > Djokovic 18 > Nadal 8). Because clay is a valid surface, 21 > 20 > 20.

P. S. : Djokovic is better than Nadal on hard overall, but not in all hard courts. In the hard courts of the US Open, Nadal is better.
 

ND-13

Hall of Fame
That is not a valid argument, since you are invalidating clay achievements.

Sampras is also better in 2 of the 3 surfaces than Nadal but still clearly behind Rafa, as 21 > 14.

If we only consider Slams outside clay, yes Nadal is behind Fedovic (Federer 19 > Djokovic 18 > Nadal 8). Because clay is a valid surface, 21 > 20 > 20.

P. S. : Djokovic is better than Nadal on hard overall, but not in all hard courts. In the hard courts of the US Open, Nadal is better.

It is a valid argument. The truth stings as it does for Fed fans about the several times he has choked 40-15

Obviously we are not going to equate Sampras at 14 majors the same as Fed/Djoker who are at 20.

I dont believe in GOAT but Nadal's clay superiority is not undervalued.

Tennis is a 3 surface sport and on 2 surfaces Fed and Djokovic are better than Rafa. Hence there will always be the question as to how Rafa can be the greatest.

I would say Djokovic has the most records from a quantitative standpoint and he has a better claim to greatest , if that is to be the basis of judgment
 

Kralingen

Talk Tennis Guru
No, it isn't. Nadal started leading the H2H over prime Federer in outdoor hard since Miami 2004 and Dubai 2006.

In fact, Nadal leads Federer 8-6 in outdoor hard and 3-1 at the AO.

So it's not like he only has those 2 wins (WB 2008 and AO 2009) over Federer outside clay.
No one gives a f-ck about Miami '04 or Dubai '06 lol, especially because Fed had wins on clay (Madrid/Hamburg) in '04-09 as well.
 

tennis24x7

Professional
No one has actually refuted OP's post yet. Just a bunch of expected whining so far LOL
Let us take just this point from OP below
"

  • As a consequence of the 5 year age difference, their peaks have no overlap. Federer's peak of winning 11/16 majors was from 2004-2007. Whereas Nadal's peak years were all between 2008 and 2013.
"

So Fed could not win one FO against a non-peak Nadal from 2004 to 2007?
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
It is a valid argument. The truth stings as it does for Fed fans about the several times he has choked 40-15

Obviously we are not going to equate Sampras at 14 majors the same as Fed/Djoker who are at 20.

I dont believe in GOAT but Nadal's clay superiority is not undervalued.

Tennis is a 3 surface sport and on 2 surfaces Fed and Djokovic are better than Rafa. Hence there will always be the question as to how Rafa can be the greatest.

I would say Djokovic has the most records from a quantitative standpoint and he has a better claim to greatest , if that is to be the basis of judgment
Invalid argument, as you are ignoring clay achievements. Sampras is better than Nadal in 2 out of 3 surfaces and there is no question Nadal is better. The same applies to the Nadal-Federer comparison. Federer being better in 2 out of 3 surfaces doesn't mean he is better overall.

You are only considering 2 out of 3 surfaces (67%), not the 3 as a whole (100%).

Yes, without including Slams on clay, Federer has 19 Slams and Nadal only 8. 19 > 8.

BUT clay is a valid surface. So 21 > 20.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
No one gives a f-ck about Miami '04 or Dubai '06 lol, especially because Fed had wins on clay (Madrid/Hamburg) in '04-09 as well.
Does Federer lead the H2H over Nadal in outdoor clay? Nadal leads the H2H over Federer in outdoor hard.

It's not only WB 2008 and the AO 2009.
 

ChaelAZ

G.O.A.T.
Kudos to member falstaff78 for originally posting this. The original thread is now closed for further replies, so I feel now is a good time to bring it up again since DjoKodal fans are having a field day with Federer, the true GOAT being buried behind recency bias:

This thread looks at all 151 tour level tournaments that Federer and Nadal entered together. For each draw, I looked at the round in which they were due to have their "date," and who reached the "date".

This allows us to quantify the worst-kept secret in tennis: that Nadal's head to head record vs. Federer has been protected because Nadal wasn't good enough vs the field to reach Federer, in many situations which favoured Federer.


Overall

  • Federer and Nadal entered 151 tournaments together.
  • Federer won more of these (47 vs. 37) and went further more often (73 vs. 67 with 11 ties).
  • The same is true of the 46 majors they entered together - Federer went further more often (25 v. 19), and won more (16 v. 14).
  • They have played in 25% of tournaments entered together (37)
  • Interestingly, Federer won the title each time he beat Nadal (14/14). Whereas Nadal won the title 17/23 times he beat Federer.

Split by first and second half of season

  • Nadal does better than Federer in the first half of the season, until RG (went further 50 vs. 29). And Federer does better after RG (went further 44 vs. 17). This should tell you how big a favourite Federer is for the year end ranking in 2017 - it won't even be close.
  • The same trend is reflected in their head to head. Nadal leads 20-7 in the first half, and Federer leads 7-3 in the second half.
  • The two most common explanations offered for this trend are: increased court speeds in the second half of the year, and fatigue for Nadal after clay court exertions.
  • A key question is: why have they played 27 matches in the first half of the year, and only 10 in the second?
  • There are two reasons for this:
    • The first is that they entered far fewer draws together in the second half (67 vs. 84)
    • The second is that they played in a greater fraction of the draws they entered in the first half of the year, than in the second (in first half, met in 32% of common tournaments, vs. 15% in the second half).
  • Both of these reasons are due to Nadal:
    • First, he enters far fewer events in the second half of the year (only 46% of his career tournament entries are after RG vs. 52% for Federer - not shown on the chart).
    • Second, in the tournaments Nadal and Federer did play in the second half, Nadal only reached 28% of "dates". Federer, on the other hand, reached 64%. Compare this to the first half, where Federer was much closer to Nadal in reaching "dates" (51% vs. 58%)
Split by surface

  • We can see the same trend when we split their records by surface.
  • On clay Nadal killed Federer 13-2, and they played in 38% of draws entered together.
  • On grass and hard courts, Federer leads, and they have only met 20% of the time on each.
  • Specifically, on hard courts in the second half of the season, Federer leads 5-2; in such draws, they play each other only 1/3 as often as clay. (13% of draws, vs. 38%).
  • Again, Nadal is clearly the culprit, having only reached their "date" 27% of the time. vs. 60% for Federer.

Split by time

  • As a consequence of the 5 year age difference, their peaks have no overlap. Federer's peak of winning 11/16 majors was from 2004-2007. Whereas Nadal's peak years were all between 2008 and 2013.
  • During Federer's peak, out of 24 tournaments in the first half of the season, they met 10 times (42%). Nadal won 8. However, out of 24 tournaments late in the season, they only met 4 times (17%). Federer won all 4.
  • Again, the smaller number of matches in the second half was due to Nadal. Nadal showed up for "dates" much more often in the first half of the year (54% vs. 21%). Whereas Federer showed up to 75% of "dates" in the first half season, and 79% in the second.
  • By comparison, during Nadal's peak years, Federer was much more consistent about reaching the "date" early and late in the season. (40% vs. 45%).

To conclude, this post has merely quantified what we already know: that Federer vs. Nadal matches were strongly skewed towards conditions suiting Nadal, and that this is due to Nadal's shortcomings vs the field.

The reason head-to-head is such a silly metric is: if Nadal had played better against the field later in the year, especially on hard courts, and especially between 2003 and 2007, his head to head with Federer would have been much closer to parity.

The purpose of professional tennis is to advance as far as possible in tournaments. It is therefore much more relevant to look at who went further in more tournaments that both played (Federer 73-67). Or who won more tournaments that they both played (Federer 47-37). This objectively means Federer has done better than Nadal, head to head.

Enjoy.

qLmC43R.png



lol. That is a shizz ton of extraneous justification around Fed's losing record against Nadal H2H - 40% to 60% respectively.

be7d51ea-943f-4b57-bffe-a84fa3f9e15f_text.gif
 

ND-13

Hall of Fame
Invalid argument, as you are ignoring clay achievements. Sampras is better than Nadal in 2 out of 3 surfaces and there is no question Nadal is better. The same applies to the Nadal-Federer comparison. Federer being better in 2 out of 3 surfaces doesn't mean he is better overall.

You are only considering 2 out of 3 surfaces (67%), not the 3 as a whole (100%).

Yes, without including Slams on clay, Federer has 19 Slams and Nadal only 8.

BUT clay is a valid surface. So 21 > 20.

You can disagree as much as you want as it is your prerogative.

I am considering all 3 surfaces (100%) and Nadal is the best on one surface (33%) and Djokovic and Federer are better in 2 others (67%). We know that on the surface he is better, his gap over the others are far greater than the other way. BUT, that does not take away the fact that Djokovic and Federer have better results when you consider all 11 months of the tennis calendar and all 3 surfaces.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
You can disagree as much as you want as it is your prerogative.

I am considering all 3 surfaces (100%) and Nadal is the best on one surface (33%) and Djokovic and Federer are better in 2 others (67%). We know that on the surface he is better, his gap over the others are far greater than the other way. BUT, that does not take away the fact that Djokovic and Federer have better results when you consider all 11 months of the tennis calendar and all 3 surfaces.
No, you are only considering 2 out of 3 surfaces (67%). You are excluding clay.

Slam count only counting hard and grass (67%):
Federer 19
Sampras 14
Nadal 8

Slam count including all surfaces (100%):
Nadal 21
Federer 20
Sampras 14

21 > 20 > 14 if we consider the 3 surfaces.
 

initialize

Hall of Fame
No, you are only considering 2 out of 3 surfaces (67%). You are excluding clay.

Slam count only counting hard and grass (67%):
Federer 19
Nadal 8

Slam count including all surfaces (100%)
Nadal 21
Federer 20

21 > 20 if we consider the 3 surfaces.
bruh, lol, all you're doing is considering slam count in the end, which doesn't take into account who's better at what surface.


Fed and Djokovic are better on the majority of surfaces
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
bruh, lol, all you're doing is considering slam count in the end, which doesn't take into account who's better at what surface.


Fed and Djokovic are better on the majority of surfaces
Again, you are excluding clay and only considering grass and hard (67%). Sampras is also better at the majority of the surfaces, but not better overall. The same applies to Federer.

To be the best overall, you need the most Slams.

If we consider 100% of the surfaces, Nadal is better the Federer and Sampras. 21 > 20 > 14.
 

initialize

Hall of Fame
Again, you are excluding clay. Sampras is also better at the majority of the surfaces, but not better overall. The same applies to Federer.

To be the best overall, you need the most Slams.
Sampras doesn't have a slam count near the Big 3 though, so obviously he won't be part of the discussion. Nadal having one more slam than the other 2 doesn't make him greater. Maybe if he leads by 2-3 more slams he'd be the undisputed GOAT (i.e. 24-20-20), but for now he's definitely 3rd best despite having the slam record
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Sampras doesn't have a slam count near the Big 3 though, so obviously he won't be part of the discussion. Nadal having one more slam than the other 2 doesn't make him greater. Maybe if he leads by 2-3 more slams he'd be the undisputed GOAT (i.e. 24-20-20), but for now he's definitely 3rd best despite having the slam record
That is a logical fallacy (wrong argument) known as double standard, which consists in applying a different criterion for a sinilar case, instead of applying the same uniform criterion.

Either the "2 out of 3" argument is valid for all cases, or it is invalid for all cases. If it is invalid for Sampras, so it is for Federer. Being better at 2 out of 3 surfaces is not a synonym with being better overall if the other ñlayer is dominant enough on his predilect surface.

If we consider 100% of the surfaces, Nadal 21 > Federer 20 > Sampras 14.
 

ND-13

Hall of Fame
Again, you are excluding clay and only considering grass and hard (67%). Sampras is also better at the majority of the surfaces, but not better overall. The same applies to Federer.

To be the best overall, you need the most Slams.

If we consider 100% of the surfaces, Nadal is better the Federer and Sampras. 21 > 20 > 14.

When you are doing overall, you discount the surfaces.

We don't need to do all these mental gymnastics. We dont need to be Lew. It is very simple.
 

initialize

Hall of Fame
That is a logical fallacy (wrong argument) known as double standard, which consists in applying a different criterion for a sinilar case, instead of applying the same uniform criterion.

Either the "2 out of 3" argument is valid for all cases, or it is invalid for all cases. If it is invalid for Sampras, so it is for Federer. Being better at 2 out of 3 surfaces is not a synonym with being better overall if the other ñlayer is dominant enough on his predilect surface.

If we consider 100% of the surfaces, Nadal 21 > Federer 20 > Sampras 14.
Fine, then Nadal is 4th GOAT behind Federer, Djokovic, and Sampras
 
Top