Hold on just a little longer, lads!
Breaking news: It also applies for the guys that are some 4 years 10 months older and such.
Which "complex interaction"-other than a 17 year 10 month age gap-contributed to Laver losing four times in a row to Borg?The link is that H2Hs are a result of more complex interactions than JUST age.
Let's see: would Federer have won "the last 5 matches", if, say, 4 of them were on clay, and he didn't change his racquet prior to that?
.
Secondly the one time Nadal won was playing at his all time peak against a Fed who was horribly shattered in confidence from the FO loss and lack of preparation due to mono earlier in the year. Fed didn't really show up in that match till the 3rd set, he said something along these lines himself. On top of that, all time peak Nadal vs. horrible Fed in 2008 and yet he still only wins by the skin of his teeth. No way that translates to Nadal winning more often than not on grass, lol
Huh? Met more at Wimbledon and won that matchup is completely non-sensical. First of all Fed leads on grass 2-1. Secondly the one time Nadal won was playing at his all time peak against a Fed who was horribly shattered in confidence from the FO loss and lack of preparation due to mono earlier in the year. Fed didn't really show up in that match till the 3rd set, he said something along these lines himself. On top of that, all time peak Nadal vs. horrible Fed in 2008 and yet he still only wins by the skin of his teeth. No way that translates to Nadal winning more often than not on grass, lol
And once again you are comparing apples and oranges. You are speculated on what WOULD happen had they met more at Wimbledon and HC, and it's a crazy speculation at that, but hey you can have your speculation.
I am not speculating about FO meetings with Nadal. Had Fed lost earlier, it is a FACT the H2H would have been better. There is no comparison.
Nice try to twist my words. I said if they met more often at AO & Wimby (as a combination - I didn't include USO because they've never met there), according to the stats, Rafa would have won more often than not. The H2H combined is 4-3 outside of RG. So yes, going by this Rafa wins 57% of the time and Fed wins 43% of the time at slams outside of RG. That by definition is more often than not.
Excuses much? If Fed was healthy enough to go deep into the 5th at Wimby, he was healthy enough to win the match, he didn't - Rafa gave him a beat-down at RG and backed it up by taking the grass GOATs crown at Wimby. He then backed that up in their next slam meeting at AO 2009 by taking Fed out there too. Oh and as per my above comment, I didn't say he would win more often than not on grass - that was you clutching at straws once you realised that you were wrong.
So basically no, Rafa owned the rivalry in slams between 2008 and 2014 winning three times at the AO, twice at RG and once at Wimby. Like I said, it is probably better for Fed that they didn't meet more often during that period
. Or even 2019, Nadal destroys the field and then all of a sudden he didn't prepare well enough defensively. . Wow, the hypocrisy.
My excuses??? It's you people that make the excuses, do you remember 2011? Hilarious. Nada is not peak in 2011, he is playing passive, he's just not at his best.
Wins over top-5 ranked Big3
Djokovic 48 out of 53 (90.6%)
Nadal 42 out of 48 (87.5%)
Federer 28 out of 37 (75.7%)
Who was in better form when they met?
Wins over top-5 ranked Big3
Djokovic 48 out of 53 (90.6%)
Nadal 42 out of 48 (87.5%)
Federer 28 out of 37 (75.7%)
Who was in better form when they met?
Djokovic-era Djokovic was also in better form than Gonzalez-era Federer.
That's debatable to say the least. And something you can't really prove/disprove with numbers. However, I will say this: Djokovic-era Federer was still able to push Djokovic-era Djokovic pretty hard. I believe peak-Federer-era Federer would have done even better.
