The Blond Blur
G.O.A.T.
Wimby 07 belongs in the same conversation as Wimby 08 and AO 09. But AO 2017 is definitely lower in the quality department. Still a good-great match, just not on the same tier as the other 3.
Why the Nadal/Federer H2H is bogus
- Thread starter initialize
- Start date
Daniel Andrade
Hall of Fame
That's true but Nadal is much more superior in clay in comparison, however we'll never know
Antonio Puente
Hall of Fame
At the beginning of 2009, Fed had a 2-6 record vs. Nadal in slams with half the slams being off clay.
Fed certainly could have proven the OP right then. He didn't.
Fed certainly could have proven the OP right then. He didn't.
Clay lover
Legend
It does make more sense for h2h to be measured separately by surface.
As for the other argument about Nadal not being good enough to have enough meetings on other surfaces - I'd say we still have to play the matches if they do occur and not award moral wins just because Nadal is worse on the surface.
As for the other argument about Nadal not being good enough to have enough meetings on other surfaces - I'd say we still have to play the matches if they do occur and not award moral wins just because Nadal is worse on the surface.
alexio
G.O.A.T.
are you a big fan of tiktok?
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Federer only missed FO 2017,18 and 20 and AO 2022 so it is actually 17 v. 17 (Nadal missing AO 2006, W2009 and W2004).
Azure
G.O.A.T.
Aren't you guys again going back to correlation = causation? Just because @Sport happened to leave after Rafa lost, it doesn't necessarily mean that the loss caused him to leave? I hear this a lot like people leaving after their fav loses - sure there may be many such cases but its not that its the only cause?
initialize
Hall of Fame
If you read the OP someone else actually did all the research, I never would have looked all this info up LOL.
I'm glad they did though because the info they found is quite eye-opening to say the least
Last edited:
Surface obviously matters a lot with Nadal vs. Federer or Djokovic.
Nadal's last win over Federer outside of a clay court is the 2014 Australian Open. Since then he's gone 0-7 off clay (includes 1 W/O) and 1-0 on clay. Remarkable considering Fed's advancing age. Usually the younger one ramps up the HTH at the end.
Nadal's last win over Djokovic outside of a clay court is the 2013 USOpen. He is 0-9 since then off clay with Djoker, and 6-5 on clay courts.
Clearly surface matters, especially since 2013/2014, it's going on 8+ years with a non-clay court victory over his 2 biggest rivals.
The 2022 Australian Open has to sting Djoker badly.
Let the flaming begin.....
Nadal's last win over Federer outside of a clay court is the 2014 Australian Open. Since then he's gone 0-7 off clay (includes 1 W/O) and 1-0 on clay. Remarkable considering Fed's advancing age. Usually the younger one ramps up the HTH at the end.
Nadal's last win over Djokovic outside of a clay court is the 2013 USOpen. He is 0-9 since then off clay with Djoker, and 6-5 on clay courts.
Clearly surface matters, especially since 2013/2014, it's going on 8+ years with a non-clay court victory over his 2 biggest rivals.
The 2022 Australian Open has to sting Djoker badly.
Let the flaming begin.....
Last edited:
PrinceMoron
Legend
Shouldn’t this be in the former pros section?
Imagine if he hadn't won the AO in 2009 and this year was his first win, even more epic no?
Imagine if Federer had lost the AO 2017 final ....
skaj
Legend
I said someone, I didn't say you.
initialize
Hall of Fame
Just wanted to make sure
skaj
Legend
Just wanted to make sure
Then you should also make sure to realise that it's not really eye opening, but more of a desperate attempt to somehow make Federer look better in their rivalry
initialize
Hall of Fame
Can't argue with the OP's truth thoughThen you should also make sure to realise that it's not really eye opening, but more of a desperate attempt to somehow make Federer look better in their rivalry
volleynets
Hall of Fame
Federer should have won W08 (40-0 up 3-3 fifth set on Rafa serve), AO09 (should have won in 4), and W19 (5-3 40-15 MPs on serve vs Novak).
Even had a decent shot to beat Rafa RG11 losing a set up 5-2 etc. Delpo USO09 etc.
We wouldn't even be talking if he closed out those first 3 mentioned as the count would be 23-19-19 today.
As it stands tennis is about results and even as a huge Fed fan sorry but 21 slams is better than 20 no matter what. The H2H is very tilted because of Nadal stopping Fed on clay all the time as Fed made nearly every single final of every clay tourney each prime year but Nadal failed to make like any finals for the second half of every year when they were 1,2 seeds. But even if it's tilted it is the reality.
At the very least there's no excuse Fed didn't get W19 so we would have had 21-21-19 today. Despite losing H2H he should have closed a higher slam count when he created the chances..
Even had a decent shot to beat Rafa RG11 losing a set up 5-2 etc. Delpo USO09 etc.
We wouldn't even be talking if he closed out those first 3 mentioned as the count would be 23-19-19 today.
As it stands tennis is about results and even as a huge Fed fan sorry but 21 slams is better than 20 no matter what. The H2H is very tilted because of Nadal stopping Fed on clay all the time as Fed made nearly every single final of every clay tourney each prime year but Nadal failed to make like any finals for the second half of every year when they were 1,2 seeds. But even if it's tilted it is the reality.
At the very least there's no excuse Fed didn't get W19 so we would have had 21-21-19 today. Despite losing H2H he should have closed a higher slam count when he created the chances..
canta_Brian
Hall of Fame
Man who doesn’t understand tennis still feels the need to post
NatF
Bionic Poster
I don't want to lol.
Federer having a losing record against Nadal isn't necessarily the end of the world, but Federer not beating Nadal at a slam for 10 years and never beating him at RG is a big deal.
He only needed one more big win Vs Nadal from 2005-2012 to somewhat balance the rivalry. 2005-2007 + 2011 RG, 2008 Wimbledon, 2009 & 2012 Australian Open. Couldn't reach the final to face Rafa in the 2010 or 2011 US Open as well. Just one win at any of those tournaments would change the dynamic of the rivalry a lot. But it didn't happen, and that's that.
He only needed one more big win Vs Nadal from 2005-2012 to somewhat balance the rivalry. 2005-2007 + 2011 RG, 2008 Wimbledon, 2009 & 2012 Australian Open. Couldn't reach the final to face Rafa in the 2010 or 2011 US Open as well. Just one win at any of those tournaments would change the dynamic of the rivalry a lot. But it didn't happen, and that's that.
Sorry_to_tell_you_mate
Professional
didn't read lol
initialize
Hall of Fame
you should if you're a Fed or Nadal fan
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Federer had 1 break point in the eighth game of the fifth set in the 2008 Wimbledon final, Nadal serving 3-4 down at 30-40. So Federer would serve for the title if he takes that break point.
The 2019 Wimbledon final had Federer serving for the title at 8-7 in the fifth set and up 40-15. Let's also remind ourselves that Djokovic had led 3-1 and 4-2 in that fifth set. Had Federer closed out the victory, there would have probably been talk of Djokovic choking it away, even though Federer clearly played the better tennis for the vast majority of the match (although Djokovic was clearly better in all 3 tiebreaks).
skaj
Legend
Can't argue with the OP's truth though
I just did.
Sampras-Bruguera 1993
Legend
too many metrics. looks like a corporate spreadsheet. at the end of the day Nadal got the best of Fed more times than not until he slowed down significantly by 2017
titoelcolombiano
Legend
24 - 16 overall H2H to Nadal
10 - 4 slam H2H to Nadal
6 - 0 RG H2H to Nadal
3 - 1 AO H2H to Nadal
Wimbledon is the only slam Fed holds a lead over Rafa in the H2H and he was still beaten there in 2008
Also just for good measure... 21 > 20
10 - 4 slam H2H to Nadal
6 - 0 RG H2H to Nadal
3 - 1 AO H2H to Nadal
Wimbledon is the only slam Fed holds a lead over Rafa in the H2H and he was still beaten there in 2008
Also just for good measure... 21 > 20
initialize
Hall of Fame
All that to be even worse on grass and hard than Fed. Sad! As a Rafa fan I really wish he was better than Fed, it’s hard to justify his shortcomings24 - 16 overall H2H to Nadal
10 - 4 slam H2H to Nadal
6 - 0 RG H2H to Nadal
3 - 1 AO H2H to Nadal
Wimbledon is the only slam Fed holds a lead over Rafa in the H2H and he was still beaten there in 2008
Also just for good measure... 21 > 20
Kenshiro
New User
Just to remind you that Federer hasn’t beaten Djokovic since 2012 at slams.
Roger has been behind head-to-head with Nadal for his whole career. Never once had a lead.
He hasn’t won US open since 2008.
He hasn’t won French since 2009.
He is behind head-to-head against two of his great rivals.
Roger has been behind head-to-head with Nadal for his whole career. Never once had a lead.
He hasn’t won US open since 2008.
He hasn’t won French since 2009.
He is behind head-to-head against two of his great rivals.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Federer was 1-1 against Nadal, then went 1-6 down, got it to 3-6 and 4-7, and the closest he got was 6-8 behind by the end of 2007. Nadal then pulled away to 13-6 after the 2009 Australian Open final. At the end of 2012, it was 18-10 Nadal. That grew to 23-10 Nadal after the 2014 Australian Open. Federer has won 6 out of 7 against Nadal since, so 24-16 Nadal now.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Didn't harm Connors.
titoelcolombiano
Legend
3 - 1 at the AO suggests otherwise my friend. Lucky for Fed they never met at the US Open otherwise Fed would trail the H2H there also.
You have no argument for Fed anymore. He trails in the slam count, he trails in the H2H, he trails in the slam H2H, he trails in the clay slam H2H, he trails in the hardcourt slam H2H and he was beaten at his pet slam by Rafa when he was in his prime.
initialize
Hall of Fame
Why hasn’t Rafa gained more grass and hardcourt slams then if he’s superior to Fed? Oh that’s right, he isn’t LOL
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
Split by surface
- 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%)
- 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.
I boil it down to just a couple things. Put H2H aside. Rafa beat Roger on Roger’s best surface. Roger couldn’t beat Rafa on his best surface. And…Rafa 21, Roger 20. Rafa won every major 2X. Roger hasn’t.
initialize
Hall of Fame
See my above post
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Rafa is better than Fed at their respective best slams and better than Fed at their respective worst slams...
Obviously Rafa's game is more suited to clay, so to analyze properly, you break down their surface results at the majors:
Rafa - 13 clay, 6 HC, 2 grass
Fed - 11 HC, 8 grass, 1 clay
Rafa has 2 more clay slams than Fed has HC
Fed has 2 more grass slams than Rafa has HC
Rafa has 1 more grass slam than Fed has clay
Hence, 21 > 20
initialize
Hall of Fame
Again, that just goes back to grand slam tally, which we’ve beaten to death isn’t the only GOAT metric. In the end Fed just has too many more positive qualities over Nadal
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Aye. And wasn't this the main core of the Nadal vs. Federer rivalry 2006-2009 time?
The dynamic for a good while was "Nadal wins on clay, Federer wins everywhere else". In 2006-2007, it was Nadal who came closest to breaking this with the 2007 Wimbledon final, but narrowly failed. In 2008, we saw Nadal win his most one-sided French Open final against Federer and then defeat Federer in the Wimbledon final, changing the dynamic. Nadal then went on to become world number 1 and win the 2009 Australian Open final against Federer.
titoelcolombiano
Legend
Because he didn't get a fairytale weak era run like Fed did. He's had to compete with Djoker, Fed and injuries his whole career. Fed accumulated 7 of his hardcourt slams between 2003 and 2007. That leaves only four hardcourt slams outside of this bubble. Why the drastic drop off? I'll give you a hint: After 2007 he vultured one AO in 2008 and one in 2010 with Nadal going out injured. He then vultured a further AO in 2018 with Djokovic going out injured. He's won zero US Open titles since 2008. Co-incidentally that is when Djokovic and Nadal started to mature on all surfaces.
Don't fall into the trap that all Fed fans do of thinking that 2003 - 2007 is an actual reflection of his greatness, it was an inflation era as 2008 - 2012 clearly showed.
initialize
Hall of Fame
Damn, if Fed's not great then I'm excited to hear how he completely crushed Nadal in their last 8 straight meetings or so.
titoelcolombiano
Legend
Not even close to 8 straight and I wouldn't go getting into H2H debates if I were you because Nadal dominates Fed overall and at two of the three slams they've met at. Oh and leads him in the slam count
Sudacafan
Bionic Poster
What do you mean?
abmk
Bionic Poster
true, AO 17 is lower quality than other 3 clearly, but since talk was about defining matches, AO 17 is up there.
titoelcolombiano
Legend
I can tell you why those things aren't mentioned if you like:
The first one is not true
The second one is not true
The third is true and it happened to be a big title (Madrid M1000) but at the end of the day 'indoor' is not a surface, the hardcourt is and he's won lots on hardcourts.
initialize
Hall of Fame
Again, you're missing the point, Fed is considered better overall by the vast majority of people. Fed is just simply a superior player outside of clay
titoelcolombiano
Legend
Stop triggering the Fed fans
titoelcolombiano
Legend
Not really....
AO Nadal 3 - 1 Federer
RG Nadal 6 - 0 Federer
WC Nadal 1 - 3 Federer
Fed is superior at Wimbledon, that's it. Your premise is basically if they'd played more on hard and grass then the H2H would be more favourable to Fed. Whereas the actual evidence suggests that the more they played, the more chance there was of Rafa further embarrassing him at the AO, even the USO or to get another WC win which would have made things worse for Fed. The period 2008 - 2014 Rafa was beating Fed at all slam meetings, grass, hard, clay.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
