This is the best analysis of the H2H of Fed and Nad ...
Ali Asoag
Interesting (yet absurd) is, you can consider this lopsided H2H two ways:
1) If Fed had been *less successful* on clay (e.g. reaching less clay
finals), the H2H would be *more positive* for him.
2) If Nadal had been "more successful" on HC and grass (e.g. reaching
more HC and grass finals), the H2H would be *less positive" for him.
So Nadal is sort of only good on clay while Fed is superb on all
surfaces. It's just Fed has the bad luck to face Nadal on clay.
Everyone can see how ridiculous this H2H debate is!
steve jaros
obvious to anyone who doesn't have an anti-fed ax to grind.
--
Prestige is the shadow cast by power.
- Dean Acheson
RahimAsif
> ... which exactly is what I have been saying all the time:
>
>
> Interesting (yet absurd) is, you can consider this lopsided H2H two ways:
>
> 1) If Fed had been *less successful* on clay (e.g. reaching less clay
> finals), the H2H would be *more positive* for him.
>
> 2) If Nadal had been "more successful" on HC and grass (e.g. reaching
> more HC and grass finals), the H2H would be *less positive" for him.
>
> So Nadal is sort of only good on clay while Fed is superb on all
> surfaces. It's just Fed has the bad luck to face Nadal on clay.
>
> Everyone can see how ridiculous this H2H debate is!
Not really - Fed and Nadal are just about even off clay (6-5 in favor
of Fed). If Nadal made all the finals, he would statistically beat Fed
in about half of them - so the head to head would been something like
21-12 instead of 17-8. Still a domination...
Ali Asoag
Please talk about facts. Tennis is not maths. What would else this tell
you: Fed beats Djoker, Djoker beats Nadal, Nadal beats Fed. Who is then
better?
RahimAsif
Djoker is 0-5 against Nadal in slams. His success against Nadal in non-
majors isn't much different than Murray dominating Fed in minor
tournaments. It counts for very little, and certainly doesn't make him
"better" than Nadal...
Joe Ramirez
> ... which exactly is what I have been saying all the time:
>
>
> Interesting (yet absurd) is, you can consider this lopsided H2H two ways:
>
> 1) If Fed had been *less successful* on clay (e.g. reaching less clay
> finals), the H2H would be *more positive* for him.
>
> 2) If Nadal had been "more successful" on HC and grass (e.g. reaching
> more HC and grass finals), the H2H would be *less positive" for him.
>
again in RST for years.
RahimAsif
Yes, and the implied assumption had been that Fed dominates Nadal off
clay when they are just about even off clay...
Joe Ramirez
Wrong, or at least, certainly not in my case. Just the opposite, in
fact: I showed that the Federer-Nadal head-to-head off clay was
comparable to the McEnroe-Borg off-clay h2h, the Becker-Lendl off-clay
h2h, and the Sampras-Kuerten off-clay h2h -- no domination, just
closely competitive tennis in every case. The difference in the
*overall* head-to-heads is that Mac and Borg never played on clay.
Sampras and Kuerten never played on clay. Becker and Lendl played only
once on clay. But Federer and Nadal have played so often on clay that
clay has become the principal component of their rivalry -- something
unique for a fast-court player like Fed. What other fast court player
-- someone who dominates Wimbledon and the USO -- is judged primarily
by how he does on clay, at Roland Garros, and against the clay GOAT?
No one.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/msg/a2d85201ecfd1b17
RahimAsif
Fair enough. My argument for thinking Nadal is better than Fed is
simply because he is just about Fed's equal off clay (5-6) in the h2h,
and miles ahead on clay. Of course, Fed has the numbers and until
Nadal equals or surpasses them, I will consider Fed greater...
reilloc
> Not really - Fed and Nadal are just about even off clay (6-5 in favor
> of Fed). If Nadal made all the finals, he would statistically beat Fed
> in about half of them - so the head to head would been something like
> 21-12 instead of 17-8. Still a domination...
Did this idiot just say that if something that didn't happen had
happened it would have turned out even better for the guy who couldn't
do it?
LNC
MBDunc
> ... which exactly is what I have been saying all the time:
>
>
> Interesting (yet absurd) is, you can consider this lopsided H2H two ways:
>
> 1) If Fed had been *less successful* on clay (e.g. reaching less clay
> finals), the H2H would be *more positive* for him.
That is true.
> 2) If Nadal had been "more successful" on HC and grass (e.g. reaching
> more HC and grass finals), the H2H would be *less positive" for him.
Probably but not sure.
> So Nadal is sort of only good on clay while Fed is superb on all
> surfaces. It's just Fed has the bad luck to face Nadal on clay.
While I love (who doesnt') to cherrypick certain "luck" situtations
after all this is far from any real concern. Otherwise you could start
removing
other obstacles too for other players. Connors without Borg? Borg
without Mac? Agassi without Sampras.(I think without Nadal in the mix
Fed actually would be worse clay player as Fed clearly has made
adjustments in his game to match Nadal = which has created Fed's
overall clay succee possible...).
> Everyone can see how ridiculous this H2H debate is!
H2H is subjective as everyone usually creates boundaries for it based
on who they want to excel with this stat. If they want Borg to excel
then they point out that Borg never played Mac on clay. If they want
Hoad/Connors to excel they just ignore the whole issue (as Hoad/
Connors had losing h2h against their every key peer). If they want
Sampras to excel they narrow the scope to the laughable limits and
make artificial lining ("sampras never lost the same guy twice at slam
final"). If they want to excel Fed they talk about off-clay (+ total
darkness crapshoot 08 Wimb) instead of clay. If they want to excel
Nadal then vs Fed clay finals are highlighted and in loss cases Nadal
is always injured, not-yet-matured, tired, too young, too old, too
Nadal....
H2H is ridiculous and subjective...but part of this entertaiment and
fun (to speculate). Bonus sector: After all it is whisper's only
drawing card out there and only r.s.t related thing which has kept him
going since Fed got his 15th.
.mikko
RahimAsif
I suggest you learn to read post within the contexts they were made -
and not prove your idiocity by posting hastily without understanding.
The point was that the common argument that the h2h would have been
more favorable for Fed if Nadal made more non-clay slam finals is
pretty baseless given the off clay results (6-5 for Fed)...
RzR
yeah whatever...
John Liang
Federer won 9 clay court titles and 57 non clay court titles and Nadal
11.
so what you looking at is 40+ Nadal fail to reach the final. So Nadal
was
practically in about 1 final out of every 5 Federer contested on non
clay
surface. So it is a long way from domination when you fail to reach
final at that sort of rate.
>
> - Show quoted text -
kaennorsing
It's more than the difference between clay and non-clay surfaces: All
of Rafa's victories have come in the 1st 7 months of the year. Meaning
they've mostly played in conditions favourable to Rafa: slow-
hardcourt, clay and (to a lesser extent) grass. The 2nd half of the
year they've only played in the YEC, whereas of course the tournaments
between Wimbledon and the YEC are much better suited to Federer...
You (and other proponents of h2h importance) should take this into
consideration when assessing their rivalry.
John Liang
Tennis can be interpret as maths. Federer won 50+ non clay court
events to
Nadal 11, so the gap between them on that surface is 40+ titles. In
term of
finals Federer is in 60+ finals compare to Nadal 24 on non clay
courts.
I guess you can see the difference. We also know that Federer played
13 finals
on clay since 2005 when he probably played about 20 tournaments on
that surface.
John Liang
>
> - Show quoted text -
Strictly speaking tennis competition is not about h2h against a single
opponents but a pool of players.
What h2h does not analyze is how a player perfom in all the
tournaments he entered. When did
h2h actually tell you that Federer was actually in 60+ non clay court
finals compare to Nadal's 24 and
how they dominate the field of players they are facing.
arnab.z@gmail
Nadal lost most of the important matches off-clay (YEC matches,
Wimbledon finals as the #2 seed and at his peak, so all legit wins for
Federer). The off-clay wins of Nadal against Federer came in
meaningless small tournies like Dubai, or when Federer was off-color
(Miami 2004) or off-peak (AO 2009). The only somewhat legit off-clay
win of Nadal against Federer came in the 2008 Wimbledon, a year when
Federer was recovering from mono and in a match that took a monumental
5-set struggle for Nadal to close out.
So the argument that Nadal is "just about Federer's equal off clay"
doesn't hold up under closer scrutiny.
arnab.z@gmail
> On Jun 7, 12:08 am, reilloc <reil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 6/6/2011 10:31 PM, RahimAsif wrote:
>
> > > Not really - Fed and Nadal are just about even off clay (6-5 in favor
> > > of Fed). If Nadal made all the finals, he would statistically beat Fed
> > > in about half of them - so the head to head would been something like
> > > 21-12 instead of 17-8. Still a domination...
>
> > Did this idiot just say that if something that didn't happen had
> > happened it would have turned out even better for the guy who couldn't
> > do it?
>
> > LNC
>
> I suggest you learn to read post within the contexts they were made -
> and not prove your idiocity
Wow. Rahima got so flustered by Larry's remark that he coined a new
word "idiocity".
GOYLE
> ... which exactly is what I have been saying all the time:
>
>
> Interesting (yet absurd) is, you can consider this lopsided H2H two ways:
>
> 1) If Fed had been *less successful* on clay (e.g. reaching less clay
> finals), the H2H would be *more positive* for him.
>
> 2) If Nadal had been "more successful" on HC and grass (e.g. reaching
> more HC and grass finals), the H2H would be *less positive" for him.
>
> So Nadal is sort of only good on clay while Fed is superb on all
> surfaces. It's just Fed has the bad luck to face Nadal on clay.
>
> Everyone can see how ridiculous this H2H debate is!
You can't really compare Nadal and Federer on clay because clay is
Federers' least favourite surface. It would be a better comparison on
grass and hc because this is where Federer has done his best. When it
comes to comparing Federer and Nadals' H2H everyone knows you have to
discount clay since it is something Federer dislikes and it isn't a
surface he tries his best at.
Iceberg
and repeatedly proved wrong.
Iceberg
I can't see what clay or anything else has to do with the h2h, it's
only biased Fedfans that continually hark on about how it's all clay
clay clay, the fact is Nadal has won against Fed since when he was a
young teenager and Fed was world number 1.
Iceberg
when the entire media is trying to brainwash the world into reckoning
somebody is the absolute undoubted GOAT and then someone points out
that this guy's h2h is 19-8 against a guy who's won 10 slams + a CGS +
Davis cup during the reign of this supposed undoubted GOAT, the only
thing ridiculous and subjective are you thicko Fedfans.
GOYLE
>
> - Show quoted text -
What do you mean? I was just saying it isn't fair to Federer to use
clay as a gauge for their H2H because we already know it is Federers'
least favourite and Nadals' favourite. From a statistical point, these
clay slams Federer lost to Nadal are merely outliers and the true H2H
comparisons are on grass and hc.
John Liang
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not just that Federer on average play 4 clay court tournaments a year
so if we count from 2005 he
played roughly 28 clay court tournaments. In that time Federer
probably entered at least 130-140
tournaments in a 7 years span. Nadal score most of his wins on clay
which accounts for 1/4 or 1/5 of
Federer's full schedule. non clay events accounts for 75-80% of full
schedule it is logical to compare
their result not only on clay but also HC and Grass court.
Whisper
That's complete bs. If Rafa wasn't around Fed would have 6 FOs & clay
would be considered his best surface. He would be considered best ever
& goat on clay. Fed is a great baseliner so why the hell would clay be
his worst surface?
You're not seriously going to say just because Rafa beats him all the
time he's no good on clay?
Whisper
Really?
You saying it's objectively fair to discount clay because Fed won only 1
slam on it & is 0-5 v Rafa at FO, but very fair not to discount grass
because that's where Fed has his only slam wins v Rafa?
If you're going to Fedfuck you need to be more subtle & intelligent
about it.
TT
And proven false each time.
Well, what did you expect from a bleacherreport article? Is this the
best authority fedfans have for their defence? lolzers.
Vlado
>
> - Show quoted text -
not this again, Nole was really never in any of those matches as they
probably relate to pre gluten free era. He played him 3 FO retiring
once, once
when he just came out and only one somewhat legit win.
, 1 Wibledon retirement where Nole actually led but had to retire with
blisters
as he had 3 five set matches bofore it,USO final again was due to
fatigue of a
5 set match and pre gluten free era.
So out of their 5 matches at slams, only 1 was a somewhat legit win ,
the others
were related to conditions and Nole was never in it to begin with. The
clay was
a much bigger obstacle which he solved this year than the mythical
slam performance
which is just a glirified masters tournament
TT
Nadal won 6 of their 7 first meetings...4 of those meetings were on clay
and 3 on hc.
Or 5/6 first meetings, 3 on both surfaces if you like that more.
Rodjk #613
> On 7/06/2011 8:28 PM, GOYLE wrote:
>
> > On Jun 7, 5:22 am, Iceberg<iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What do you mean? I was just saying it isn't fair to Federer to use
> > clay as a gauge for their H2H because we already know it is Federers'
> > least favourite and Nadals' favourite. From a statistical point, these
> > clay slams Federer lost to Nadal are merely outliers and the true H2H
> > comparisons are on grass and hc.
>
> Really?
>
> You saying it's objectively fair to discount clay because Fed won only 1
> slam on it & is 0-5 v Rafa at FO, but very fair not to discount grass
> because that's where Fed has his only slam wins v Rafa?
Yeah, because we all know that grass tournament (Wimbledon) is not
very important.
That is your point, right?
Rodjk #613
Whisper
> On Jun 7, 6:39 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/06/2011 8:28 PM, GOYLE wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 7, 5:22 am, Iceberg<iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What do you mean? I was just saying it isn't fair to Federer to use
>>> clay as a gauge for their H2H because we already know it is Federers'
>>> least favourite and Nadals' favourite. From a statistical point, these
>>> clay slams Federer lost to Nadal are merely outliers and the true H2H
>>> comparisons are on grass and hc.
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> You saying it's objectively fair to discount clay because Fed won only 1
>> because that's where Fed has his only slam wins v Rafa?
>
> Yeah, because we all know that grass tournament (Wimbledon) is not
> very important.
> That is your point, right?
>
> Rodjk #613
>
>>
>> If you're going to Fedfuck you need to be more subtle& intelligent
>> about it.
>
FO is a very important tournament too - 3rd biggest. Why can we
discount it? Not fair to do that just because of Rafa's crushing
superiority over Fed. If it's fair to do that then it's fair to
discount Fed's crushing record v Roddick.
TT
>
> So the argument that Nadal is "just about Federer's equal off clay"
> doesn't hold up under closer scrutiny.
Of course it does. They were equal on grass 2007-2008...2006 Nadal
certainly wasn't at his grass best yet..
Also Federer definitely had mental advantage on all of their grass
matches because Nadal was gunning for his first W title.
On hc it's 4-4. That looks pretty equal to me.
TT
And Nadal's least favourite surface is hc - where they have 4-4 h2h. Why
couldn't Fed do better against Nadal on that surface? Fed is supposed to
be hc goat no?
Why couldn't Fed do to Nadal on hc what Nadal did to Fed on clay?
TT
That's of course bs.
AliAsoag
> On Jun 6, 11:22 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 7, 12:07 am, RahimAsif <rahima...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 6, 11:06 pm, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > >http://bleacherreport.com/articles/724627-french-open-2011-roger-fede...
>
> > > > > Interesting (yet absurd) is, you can consider this lopsided H2H two ways:
>
> > > > > 1) If Fed had been *less successful* on clay (e.g. reaching less clay
> > > > > finals), the H2H would be *more positive* for him.
>
> > > > > 2) If Nadal had been "more successful" on HC and grass (e.g. reaching
> > > > > more HC and grass finals), the H2H would be *less positive" for him.
>
> > > > again in RST for years.
>
> > > Yes, and the implied assumption had been that Fed dominates Nadal off
> > > clay when they are just about even off clay...
>
> > Wrong, or at least, certainly not in my case. Just the opposite, in
> > fact: I showed that the Federer-Nadal head-to-head off clay was
> > comparable to the McEnroe-Borg off-clay h2h, the Becker-Lendl off-clay
> > h2h, and the Sampras-Kuerten off-clay h2h -- no domination, just
> > closely competitive tennis in every case. The difference in the
> > *overall* head-to-heads is that Mac and Borg never played on clay.
> > Sampras and Kuerten never played on clay. Becker and Lendl played only
> > once on clay. But Federer and Nadal have played so often on clay that
> > clay has become the principal component of their rivalry -- something
> > unique for a fast-court player like Fed. What other fast court player
> > -- someone who dominates Wimbledon and the USO -- is judged primarily
> > by how he does on clay, at Roland Garros, and against the clay GOAT?
> > No one.http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/msg/a2d85201ecfd1b17
>
> Fair enough. My argument for thinking Nadal is better than Fed is
> and miles ahead on clay. Of course, Fed has the numbers and until
> Nadal equals or surpasses them, I will consider Fed greater...
This is exactly warum the H2H is a crappy consideration. Nadal has
reached a few Off-clay finals and achieves much less than Fed there,
but he is qual just because he won almost as many matches against Fed
as vice versa. Can we say Kraijek is absoluteLy better than Sampras at
all and specifically in Wimbledon? tennis is not about winning against
a certain player, tennis is about winning titles.
AliAsoag
Fed lost against many other players, too? On all surfaces! Does that
mean Fed is the worst player? LOL
AliAsoag
Roddick and Hewitt also won their first matches against Fed ...
TT
And?
TT
He lost 17-8 to someone else as well?
TT
Nadal won more hc titles than Federer did clay titles.
Their win% is around equal Nadal hc vs. Federer clay...But Nadal's clay
win% is from another planet compared to Fed's win% on hc.
> but he is qual just because he won almost as many matches against Fed
> as vice versa. Can we say Kraijek is absoluteLy better than Sampras at
> all and specifically in Wimbledon?
Does Kraj lead Sampras 17-8?
> tennis is not about winning against
> a certain player, tennis is about winning titles.
Then why do you count SF streaks?
Tennis is about winning titles, but it's also about how you fair against
best players. It's a h2h sport, unlike golf.
kaennorsing
If you really believe clay is Fed's best surface you're even dumber
(or a bigger troll) than I thought. Fed lost his first 13 matches on
clay and only made his first FO final after winning 4 slams and 2
YECs, made his first FO semi after winning every other slam at least
once.
kaennorsing
Yes, and another fact is he never beat Federer post-Wimbledon - from
July to November... Coincidence?
Joe Ramirez
This "clay is Fed's best surface" meme is Whisper at his most idiotic.
Even bob has mostly backed off the literal version of that claim. But
no matter how many indisputable facts are adduced to show that Federer
is not quite as good on clay as on hard court and grass, Nadal or no
Nadal, Whisper just keeps intoning it over and over. Sort of like
this:
W: Clay is Fed's best surface.
SOMEONE SENSIBLE: No -- look at all this evidence (citing stats
galore).
W: Are you saying Fed is no good on clay??
SS: Not at all; he's clearly good on clay.
W: Yes; in fact, it's his best surface.
SS: No ....
(Repeat as desired.)
TT
> On 7 jun, 13:34, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/06/2011 8:16 PM, GOYLE wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 6, 10:00 pm, Ali Asoag<ali.aso...@arcor.de> wrote:
>>>> ... which exactly is what I have been saying all the time:
>>
>>>> http://bleacherreport.com/articles/724627-french-open-2011-roger-fede...
>>
>>>> Interesting (yet absurd) is, you can consider this lopsided H2H two ways:
>>
>>>> 1) If Fed had been *less successful* on clay (e.g. reaching less clay
>>>> finals), the H2H would be *more positive* for him.
>>
>>>> 2) If Nadal had been "more successful" on HC and grass (e.g. reaching
>>>> more HC and grass finals), the H2H would be *less positive" for him.
>>
>>>> So Nadal is sort of only good on clay while Fed is superb on all
>>>> surfaces. It's just Fed has the bad luck to face Nadal on clay.
>>
>>>> Everyone can see how ridiculous this H2H debate is!
>>
>>> You can't really compare Nadal and Federer on clay because clay is
>>> Federers' least favourite surface. It would be a better comparison on
>>> grass and hc because this is where Federer has done his best. When it
>>> comes to comparing Federer and Nadals' H2H everyone knows you have to
>>> discount clay since it is something Federer dislikes and it isn't a
>>> surface he tries his best at.
>>
>> would be considered his best surface. He would be considered best ever
>> & goat on clay. Fed is a great baseliner so why the hell would clay be
>> his worst surface?
>>
>> You're not seriously going to say just because Rafa beats him all the
>> time he's no good on clay?
>
> If you really believe clay is Fed's best surface you're even dumber
> (or a bigger troll) than I thought. Fed lost his first 13 matches on
> clay and only made his first FO final after winning 4 slams and 2
> YECs, made his first FO semi after winning every other slam at least
> once.
But let's look at the situation since 2005...
Federer probably has done better on clay than he has on hc, if we don't
count his matches against Nadal.
So Whisper definitely has a point there!
Then again, grass is Fed's best surface...even for time frame above.
undecided
> ... which exactly is what I have been saying all the time:
>
> http://bleacherreport.com/articles/724627-french-open-2011-roger-fede...
>
> Interesting (yet absurd) is, you can consider this lopsided H2H two ways:
>
> 1) If Fed had been *less successful* on clay (e.g. reaching less clay
> finals), the H2H would be *more positive* for him.
>
> 2) If Nadal had been "more successful" on HC and grass (e.g. reaching
> more HC and grass finals), the H2H would be *less positive" for him.
>
> So Nadal is sort of only good on clay while Fed is superb on all
> surfaces. It's just Fed has the bad luck to face Nadal on clay.
>
> Everyone can see how ridiculous this H2H debate is!
How is this correct? Yes, Fed did better at hard courts but he has
reached what, 5 FO Finals and it would have been six had he not lost
to Nadal? If Nadal wasnt around Fed may have had another 5 FOs. That
would have made him equal to Borg in that respect. Also, Fed is 5
years older than Nadal, a bunch of his HC wins were against
prepubescent Nadal. Now, to Fed's favour, I don't think that's fair to
add this FO's loss to his H2H. He is almost 30 and Nadal is at peak
age (25). Same way when 24 year old Fed was beating baby Nadal, that
should not count either.
TT
But Fed played his highest level ever at FO. Every expert says that he
played his best match at FO against Nadal.
Borg even says that it was his best match ever against Nadal.
kaennorsing
Tactically it was probably his best match vs Nadal at the FO... Not in
terms of overall performance though, not even close IMO. Even limited
to clay; Rome 06, Hamburg 07 and Madrid 09 were clearly better
performances from Fed.
kaennorsing
Yes, it's kind of insane from me to even respond to his nonsense as he
keeps repeating the same silliness - only to ignore the sensible
rebuttals.
arnab.z@gmail
You are a biased Nadal fanboy. Cannot be taken seriously.
reilloc
> On Jun 7, 12:08 am, reilloc<reil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6/6/2011 10:31 PM, RahimAsif wrote:
>>
>>> Not really - Fed and Nadal are just about even off clay (6-5 in favor
>>> of Fed). If Nadal made all the finals, he would statistically beat Fed
>>> in about half of them - so the head to head would been something like
>>> 21-12 instead of 17-8. Still a domination...
>>
>> happened it would have turned out even better for the guy who couldn't
>> do it?
>>
>> LNC
>
> I suggest you learn to read post within the contexts they were made -
> and not prove your idiocity by posting hastily without understanding.
> The point was that the common argument that the h2h would have been
> more favorable for Fed if Nadal made more non-clay slam finals is
> pretty baseless given the off clay results (6-5 for Fed)...
No, stupid, you're just stupid. You're saying if we had some ham we
could have some ham and eggs, if we had some eggs. Stupid.
LNC
RzR
>
> when the entire media is trying to brainwash the world into reckoning
> somebody is the absolute undoubted GOAT and then someone points out
> that this guy's h2h is 19-8 against a guy who's won 10 slams + a CGS +
> Davis cup during the reign of this supposed undoubted GOAT, the only
> thing ridiculous and subjective are you thicko Fedfans.
how many YEC for nadal where there are 8 best players competing?
what?
louder?
z..what?
zero you say?
thats right...fucking ZERO
it proves nadal has been getting preferable draws in the slams
if he is so good, he would win at least one YEC, but because he doesnt
get pushed in the back by the ATP there, hes got one big fat ZERO
Patrick Kehoe
Well, yes... and as it now stands, Rafa needs 7 majors to get past
Roger... that's a significant number of majors... and who knows Roger
might win one or two more... my Fed career # is 18, so I think he'll
nab 2 more... we shall see...
P
Ali Asoag
That means - according to your stupid logic - that Roddick and Hewitt
are better than Fed which even a stupid dumbo like you would consider BS.
Ali Asoag
Why does it have to be 17-8? If Fed has a negative H2H to someone, it is
negative. And according to your theory Fed must be worse. Stupid, just
stupid.
Ali Asoag
> 7.6.2011 11:05, arnab.z@gmail kirjoitti:
>>
>> So the argument that Nadal is "just about Federer's equal off clay"
>> doesn't hold up under closer scrutiny.
>
> Of course it does. They were equal on grass 2007-2008...
Lost 2007 and was equal? Priceless.
Would mean, they were equal on clay as well (both in most of recent the
FO finals)?? Stupid, just stupid.
> 2006 Nadal
> certainly wasn't at his grass best yet..
Like Fed was certainly at his clay best 2005-2008 and 2011 anyway?
> Also Federer definitely had mental advantage on all of their grass
> matches because Nadal was gunning for his first W title.
Oh, so it was "Nadal gunning for first W title" why he lost 2007. LOL
How about: Fed only lost 2006, 2007 and 2008 FO (all good things are 3!)
because he was gunning for the NCYGS?
Ali Asoag
I bet he played more HC tournaments than Fed did on clay.
> Their win% is around equal Nadal hc vs. Federer clay...But Nadal's clay
> win% is from another planet compared to Fed's win% on hc.
>
>> but he is qual just because he won almost as many matches against Fed
>> as vice versa. Can we say Kraijek is absoluteLy better than Sampras at
>> all and specifically in Wimbledon?
>
> Does Kraj lead Sampras 17-8?
Did Kraijek ever lose to Sampras at Wimby?
(FYI: Nadal lost multiple times to Fed)
>> tennis is not about winning against
>> a certain player, tennis is about winning titles.
>
> Then why do you count SF streaks?
>
> Tennis is about winning titles, but it's also about how you fair against
> best players. It's a h2h sport, unlike golf.
OK, so you just admit Fed is the best player and Nadal just has a
positive H2H against this GOAT. I can live with that. Pretty much the
obvious.
Ali Asoag
> On 7/06/2011 10:30 PM, Rodjk #613 wrote:
>> On Jun 7, 6:39 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>>> clay slams Federer lost to Nadal are merely outliers and the true H2H
>>>> comparisons are on grass and hc.
>>>
>>> Really?
>>>
>>> You saying it's objectively fair to discount clay because Fed won only 1
>>> slam on it& is 0-5 v Rafa at FO, but very fair not to discount grass
>>> because that's where Fed has his only slam wins v Rafa?
>>
>> Yeah, because we all know that grass tournament (Wimbledon) is not
>> very important.
>> That is your point, right?
>>
>> Rodjk #613
>>
>>>
>>> If you're going to Fedfuck you need to be more subtle& intelligent
>>> about it.
>>
>
>
> FO is a very important tournament too - 3rd biggest. Why can we discount
> it?
But you may discount AO just because Sampras lost to Agassi there?
> Not fair to do that just because of Rafa's crushing superiority over
> Fed. If it's fair to do that then it's fair to discount Fed's crushing
> record v Roddick.
The point is not to discount a tournament. The point is most of Nadal's
win over Fed were done on clay which Nadal is undoubtedly one of the
best on. But you dumbo and socks take this to claim Nadal is *better*
than Fed *overall*. That's unfair and reality-deforming.
Ali Asoag
If Nadal is as good as Fed on HC (because you say they are 4-4), why
didn't he win as many Slams/tournaments on HC as Fed?? Do you finally
see how dumb your "logic" is?
Ali Asoag
> On Jun 6, 11:00 pm, Ali Asoag<ali.aso...@arcor.de> wrote:
>> ... which exactly is what I have been saying all the time:
>>
>> http://bleacherreport.com/articles/724627-french-open-2011-roger-fede...
>>
>> Interesting (yet absurd) is, you can consider this lopsided H2H two ways:
>>
>> 1) If Fed had been *less successful* on clay (e.g. reaching less clay
>> finals), the H2H would be *more positive* for him.
>>
>> 2) If Nadal had been "more successful" on HC and grass (e.g. reaching
>> more HC and grass finals), the H2H would be *less positive" for him.
>>
>> So Nadal is sort of only good on clay while Fed is superb on all
>> surfaces. It's just Fed has the bad luck to face Nadal on clay.
>>
>> Everyone can see how ridiculous this H2H debate is!
>
> How is this correct? Yes, Fed did better at hard courts but he has
> reached what, 5 FO Finals and it would have been six had he not lost
> to Nadal? If Nadal wasnt around Fed may have had another 5 FOs. That
> would have made him equal to Borg in that respect. Also, Fed is 5
> years older than Nadal, a bunch of his HC wins were against
> prepubescent Nadal.
Since when do you say then has Nadal been "pubescent"?
> Now, to Fed's favour, I don't think that's fair to
> add this FO's loss to his H2H. He is almost 30 and Nadal is at peak
> age (25). Same way when 24 year old Fed was beating baby Nadal, that
> should not count either.
That's the point, they never played against each other when both were at
their peak!
Ali Asoag
> On 7/06/2011 8:16 PM, GOYLE wrote:
>> On Jun 6, 10:00 pm, Ali Asoag<ali.aso...@arcor.de> wrote:
>>> ... which exactly is what I have been saying all the time:
>>>
>>> http://bleacherreport.com/articles/724627-french-open-2011-roger-fede...
>>>
>>> Interesting (yet absurd) is, you can consider this lopsided H2H two
>>> ways:
>>>
>>> 1) If Fed had been *less successful* on clay (e.g. reaching less clay
>>> finals), the H2H would be *more positive* for him.
>>>
>>> 2) If Nadal had been "more successful" on HC and grass (e.g. reaching
>>> more HC and grass finals), the H2H would be *less positive" for him.
>>>
>>> So Nadal is sort of only good on clay while Fed is superb on all
>>> surfaces. It's just Fed has the bad luck to face Nadal on clay.
>>>
>>> Everyone can see how ridiculous this H2H debate is!
>>
>> Federers' least favourite surface. It would be a better comparison on
>> grass and hc because this is where Federer has done his best. When it
>> comes to comparing Federer and Nadals' H2H everyone knows you have to
>> discount clay since it is something Federer dislikes and it isn't a
>> surface he tries his best at.
>
>
> That's complete bs. If Rafa wasn't around Fed would have 6 FOs & clay
> would be considered his best surface.
False!
1) There is no proof Fed would have won all the finals against a
non-Nadal opponent.
2) Fed would (according to your logic) then also have one more Wim title
meaning he would have won 7 Wim titles now --> his best surface.
So grass is anyway Fed's best surface regardless of Nadal's existence.
> He would be considered best ever &
> goat on clay. Fed is a great baseliner so why the hell would clay be his
> worst surface?
FYI, I always said, Fed has no weak surface. His bad luck is only that
he faced Nadal in many FO finals who is one of the best there.
John Liang
Federer won 9 clay court titles when the clay court events only amount
to about 25 -30% of total tournaments
contested in a yearly cycle. Nadal won 4 more non clay court titles
than Federer on clay. Is that significantly
better ? It is not considering player like Federer probably play 4 or
5 clay court events but 13-17 non clay court
events a year.
>
> Their win% is around equal Nadal hc vs. Federer clay...But Nadal's clay
> win% is from another planet compared to Fed's win% on hc.
Federer is in more clay court grand slam finals then Nadal considering
there is 2 HC tournament every year.
Since 2005 there were 13 HC events and of those Nadal was in 2 finals
and Federer was in 9. There were
7 FO and Federer was in 5 finals. On his least favourite surface in
the most important tournaments Fed reached
the final with a success rate of 71% compare to Nadal 2/13 which is
about 15%. Is Nadal really equal to Federer
when they compete on their least favourit surface ? I leave that to
other people to judge but in term of their performance
in grand slam it is not even close.
>
> > but he is qual just because he won almost as many matches against Fed
> > as vice versa. Can we say Kraijek is absoluteLy better than Sampras at
> > all and specifically in Wimbledon?
>
> Does Kraj lead Sampras 17-8?
Kraj led Sampras 1-0 and that is exactly the same number of matches
Nadal play Federer on slam level on HC for
socks like you to claim that HC superiority he had over Fed
>
> > tennis is not about winning against
> > a certain player, tennis is about winning titles.
>
> Then why do you count SF streaks?
>
> Tennis is about winning titles, but it's also about how you fair against
> best players. It's a h2h sport, unlike golf.- Hide quoted text -
Fereira is even in h2h against Sampras but nobody mention him in term
of greatness becasue he did not win anything of note
in his whole career. So winning titles is the most important aspect
for a tennis player. H2h is not as important as winning
titles. If Fed has 0 slam and win 7 or 8 matches against the top
player of his era he would not be consider the top player in his
era.
Whisper
> On 7 jun, 13:34, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 7/06/2011 8:16 PM, GOYLE wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 6, 10:00 pm, Ali Asoag<ali.aso...@arcor.de> wrote:
>>>> ... which exactly is what I have been saying all the time:
>>
>>>> http://bleacherreport.com/articles/724627-french-open-2011-roger-fede...
>>
>>>> Interesting (yet absurd) is, you can consider this lopsided H2H two ways:
>>
>>>> 1) If Fed had been *less successful* on clay (e.g. reaching less clay
>>>> finals), the H2H would be *more positive* for him.
>>
>>>> 2) If Nadal had been "more successful" on HC and grass (e.g. reaching
>>>> more HC and grass finals), the H2H would be *less positive" for him.
>>
>>>> So Nadal is sort of only good on clay while Fed is superb on all
>>>> surfaces. It's just Fed has the bad luck to face Nadal on clay.
>>
>>>> Everyone can see how ridiculous this H2H debate is!
>>
>>> You can't really compare Nadal and Federer on clay because clay is
>>> Federers' least favourite surface. It would be a better comparison on
>>> grass and hc because this is where Federer has done his best. When it
>>> comes to comparing Federer and Nadals' H2H everyone knows you have to
>>> discount clay since it is something Federer dislikes and it isn't a
>>> surface he tries his best at.
>>
>> would be considered his best surface. He would be considered best ever
>> & goat on clay. Fed is a great baseliner so why the hell would clay be
>> his worst surface?
>>
>> You're not seriously going to say just because Rafa beats him all the
>> time he's no good on clay?
>
> If you really believe clay is Fed's best surface you're even dumber
> (or a bigger troll) than I thought. Fed lost his first 13 matches on
> clay and only made his first FO final after winning 4 slams and 2
> YECs, made his first FO semi after winning every other slam at least
> once.
He'd be a 6 time FO champ today if Rafa wasn't around. He won 1, & lost
5 to Rafa. That makes 6 FOs, which is an all time record. That's
better than his USO & AO record, & equal to Wimbledon.
Fed's style is far more suited to clay & he's less likely to suffer
upsets. His only problem was Rafa, who's own clay game was several
multiples better than Fed's.
TT
I wonder where did you get that idea...
Winning first match and losing the rest is hardly a positive h2h.
Hewitt is 8-17 against Federer.
Roddick is 2-20...AND lost his first match against Federer.
But don't let facts bother your argument.
> which even a stupid dumbo like you
Such irony.
TT
Of course there's a vast difference between 8-17 and say 3-4. Think
about it.
> And according to your theory Fed must be worse.
I have claimed nothing of the sort. Quit panicking and calm down, take
an ice cream.
TT
> On 6/7/2011 6:41 AM, TT wrote:
>> 7.6.2011 11:05, arnab.z@gmail kirjoitti:
>>>
>>> So the argument that Nadal is "just about Federer's equal off clay"
>>> doesn't hold up under closer scrutiny.
>>
>> Of course it does. They were equal on grass 2007-2008...
>
> Lost 2007 and was equal? Priceless.
In 2007+2008, yes.
>
> Would mean, they were equal on clay as well (both in most of recent the
> FO finals)?? Stupid, just stupid.
>
Lost me there. You're probably too smart for me.
TT
I have a feeling you're putting words in my mouth...
TT
I take that as "no".
TT
You didn't answer my question...
TT
Hamburg 07 and Madrid 09...lol. Get real...
AliAsoag
You were stating the "first matches one" which lead to my response.
Now you have deviated from that direction. Too obvious, TT. Go to
school finally.
AliAsoag
Who defines which margin it has to be? You are like Whisper
(surprise!). I bet if it gets to 15-17 you will still keep saying it's
negative. And if it gets to 8-30 you will say "it has to be a
difference of at least 22. LOL
AliAsoag
> 8.6.2011 5:32, Ali Asoag kirjoitti:
>
> > On 6/7/2011 6:41 AM, TT wrote:
> >> 7.6.2011 11:05, arnab.z@gmail kirjoitti:
>
> >>> So the argument that Nadal is "just about Federer's equal off clay"
> >>> doesn't hold up under closer scrutiny.
>
> >> Of course it does. They were equal on grass 2007-2008...
>
> > Lost 2007 and was equal? Priceless.
>
> In 2007+2008, yes.
Someone lost, the other guy won, and you say they were equal? ...
> > Would mean, they were equal on clay as well (both in most of recent the
> > FO finals)?? Stupid, just stupid.
>
> Lost me there. You're probably too smart for me.
I know, I went to school, you didn't. Now again: you said 2007 NAdal
was equal to Fed though he lost. Then I said Fed must have been equal
to Nadal on clay as well because he was in almost all the recent
finals that he just lost. Same logic.
AliAsoag
No. It's you who doesn't even understand what you say. You said "...
how you fair against *best players* ...". As you only mention Fed I
concluded Fed was the best player (=GOAT). Simple as that.
BTW, tennis is not (merely) an H2H sport. You win titles, not against
a certain player. Maybe - probably - only mother Djoker and you
Fedhaters think winning against Fed is everything.
TT
Learn to write in English so we can understand your "arguments".
> which lead to my response.
Apparently everything can lead to your random responses. Try to follow
the discussion before posting!
> Now you have deviated from that direction.
You did actually, by pretty much claiming that Hewitt and Roddick have
winning h2h against Federer.
AliAsoag
> 8.6.2011 5:44, Ali Asoag kirjoitti:
>
>
>
> > On 6/7/2011 6:47 AM, TT wrote:
> >> 7.6.2011 13:28, GOYLE kirjoitti:
> >>> On Jun 7, 5:22 am, Iceberg<iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Jun 7, 6:14 am, MBDunc<micha...@mail.suomi.net> wrote:
>
I thought the answer was obvious, but ok: BEcause Nadal couldn't make
as many finals on HC to face (and lose to) Fed there as Fed did on
clay. Simple as that.
But now answer my question!
TT
Common sense. Try some.
AliAsoag
It's the matchup and the wrong tactics of Fed. He actually can be
considered second best player on clay of all time. Why? BEcause Borg
didn't have to face NAdal. ;-)
TT
> On Jun 8, 10:19 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>> 8.6.2011 5:32, Ali Asoag kirjoitti:
>>
>>> On 6/7/2011 6:41 AM, TT wrote:
>>>> 7.6.2011 11:05, arnab.z@gmail kirjoitti:
>>
>>>>> So the argument that Nadal is "just about Federer's equal off clay"
>>>>> doesn't hold up under closer scrutiny.
>>
>>>> Of course it does. They were equal on grass 2007-2008...
>>
>>> Lost 2007 and was equal? Priceless.
>>
>> In 2007+2008, yes.
>
> Someone lost, the other guy won, and you say they were equal? ...
>
Federer won in 5 in 2007 and Nadal in 5 in 2008. Thus during this
particular 2 year period they were equal.
> I know, I went to school, you didn't.
I have a hunch you're still there...
TT
Yes you are.
TT
I have proven this logic insufficient multiple time.
>
> But now answer my question!
This has been pondered many times as well.
undecided
> >> ... which exactly is what I have been saying all the time:
>
> >>http://bleacherreport.com/articles/724627-french-open-2011-roger-fede...
>
> >> Interesting (yet absurd) is, you can consider this lopsided H2H two ways:
>
> >> 1) If Fed had been *less successful* on clay (e.g. reaching less clay
> >> finals), the H2H would be *more positive* for him.
>
> >> more HC and grass finals), the H2H would be *less positive" for him.
>
> >> surfaces. It's just Fed has the bad luck to face Nadal on clay.
>
>
> > reached what, 5 FO Finals and it would have been six had he not lost
> > to Nadal? If Nadal wasnt around Fed may have had another 5 FOs. That
> > would have made him equal to Borg in that respect. Also, Fed is 5
> > years older than Nadal, a bunch of his HC wins were against
> > prepubescent Nadal. Now, to Fed's favour, I don't think that's fair to
> > add this FO's loss to his H2H. He is almost 30 and Nadal is at peak
> > age (25). Same way when 24 year old Fed was beating baby Nadal, that
> > should not count either.
>
> But Fed played his highest level ever at FO. Every expert says that he
> played his best match at FO against Nadal.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
H2H tends to get lopsided if either player is either too young or too
old. Maybe Fed did play his best at FO at 29 but that is not the norm
is it?
Ali Asoag
TT talking common sense? LOL.
Ali Asoag
Seems TT didn't pass first class ...
Ali Asoag
> 8.6.2011 20:44, AliAsoag kirjoitti:
>> On Jun 8, 10:19 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>> 8.6.2011 5:32, Ali Asoag kirjoitti:
>>>
>>>> On 6/7/2011 6:41 AM, TT wrote:
>>>>> 7.6.2011 11:05, arnab.z@gmail kirjoitti:
>>>
>>>>>> So the argument that Nadal is "just about Federer's equal off clay"
>>>>>> doesn't hold up under closer scrutiny.
>>>
>>>>> Of course it does. They were equal on grass 2007-2008...
>>>
>>>> Lost 2007 and was equal? Priceless.
>>>
>>> In 2007+2008, yes.
>>
>> Someone lost, the other guy won, and you say they were equal? ...
>>
>
> Federer won in 5 in 2007 and Nadal in 5 in 2008. Thus during this
> particular 2 year period they were equal.
New trick to make Nadal closer to FEd? Why not try to use 3457 like
Whisper? LOL
>> I know, I went to school, you didn't.
>
> I have a hunch you're still there...
As principal with a dumb pupil you know who ...
Whisper
> On Jun 8, 7:15 am, Whisper<beaver...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>> On 8/06/2011 12:47 AM, kaennorsing wrote:
>>
>>
>> 5 to Rafa. That makes 6 FOs, which is an all time record. That's
>>
>> Fed's style is far more suited to clay& he's less likely to suffer
>> upsets. His only problem was Rafa, who's own clay game was several
>> multiples better than Fed's.
>
> It's the matchup and the wrong tactics of Fed. He actually can be
> considered second best player on clay of all time. Why? BEcause Borg
> didn't have to face NAdal. ;-)
So why would we discount his clay matches v Rafa if he arguably coulda
been clay goat if no rafa?
Surely if we use that logic we must also discount Fed's 2 grass wins
over Rafa?
GOYLE
That's true. If you want to be fair you should discount Federers loses
to Nadal at the FO because had Borg faced Nadal, Borg would probably
have a losing record against Nadal.
TT
>
> That's true. If you want to be fair you should discount Federers loses
> to Nadal at the FO because had Borg faced Nadal, Borg would probably
> have a losing record against Nadal.
One should discount Nadal's wins because he's so good. Makes no sense.
Whisper
Yes, because Rafa is so good we won't count Fed's FO losses to Rafa, but
the fact Fed is so good on grass & HC means we can't similarly 'not
count' his wins. Wtf?
TT
Pretty simple...fedfans tying themselves in knots trying to find a way
out of losing h2h.
GOYLE
Your not getting it. It should be a fair playing field and with Nadal
in the mix it isn't a fair playing field for the rest, especially
Federer.
Manco
>
> So Nadal is sort of only good on clay while Fed is superb on all
> surfaces. It's just Fed has the bad luck to face Nadal on clay.
>
"sort of only good" = 1 AO, 2 Wimbledon, 1 US Open, 5 HC MS-1000 and
Olympic Gold Medal on decoturf. That's a HOF career OFF clay.
Manco
slams on hard/grass.
Whisper
> Insanity. Federer didn't make a FO final until he'd already won 7
> slams on hard/grass.
Only because Rafa beat him in 2005 semis of FO, otherwise it would be 4,
not 7.
Also by 2005 FO then he had only made 1 USO final and 1 AO final - thus
he woulda have been level pegging with 3 slams as that would have been
his 1st FO final if Rafa not in his way as usual.