Fedal: do we stop saying it's a "bad matchup"..

[Ricardo]

Pete Sampras recently declared Rafa to be a rock. Another time, he said Rafa is a beast. When a proud champ like Pete can only use such strong metaphors to describe Rafa, we know that he's praising him highly.

I always felt that Rafa made tennis too much like a contact sport for Roger. Even as a kid, Rafa physically dominated Roger. It was never about match-up - it was about imposing himself on his opponent, and Rafa does that to everybody. And while Roger can do that to most people - impose his aesthetically pleasing game - he gets thrown back on the ropes by the rough-housing Rafa.

As for asking "at what point...", I crossed that point years ago...

what a worthless post, full of mistakes and wishful biased thinking. Get the facts straight, first Rafa and Roger are similar achievers in tennis (13 vs 17 majors so far and whatnot) yet he dominates Fed more than he does against other top tier players. His natural game eats into Fed's weaker shot (high backhand) and gets that advantage like no other players, now that's 'match-up' no 1. Now the results between the two varies hugely on fast and slow courts, Rafa dominates him on high bouncing courts (slow hard and clay) which magnifies that advantage unlike on fast courts....... there is evidence no2 of match-up issue for you. Also the fact that Fed can play his game against everyone else (win or lose) but is always on the back foot against Rafa is against all about matchup.

Clearly you don't know what you are talking about. Cheap mocking doesn't help, since when does a player win because his game is based on 'aesthetically pleasingness'? how about his game is actually effective against everyone but Rafa...... but no you wouldn't understand that.

Remember, Sampras said Rafa is a beast and Fed is the best ever so which statement do you want to discredit now? don't forget Pete himself couldn't impose his aesthetically pleasing game on Haarhuis and Krajicek, of course it wasn't about the match-up was it?

 

[Kieran]

Cheap mocking doesn't help

We see that. We read your post...

 

[El Dude]

At this point, should we stop saying the Nadal Federer is "bad" for Fed and just proclaim
Nadal is the better player?

What says you?

Why are these two options mutually exclusive? Why can't it be both.

This is what I was going to say. While I'm a bit sick of Fedal discussion, I will say this:

1. OF COURSE the match-up matters. To say otherwise is to be willfully ignorant. Match-ups always matter. Becker was 25-10 against Edberg overall - was he that much better? No.
2. To look at overall greatness, you have to look beyond the head-to-head and at dominance playing other players.
3. We should not forget the age difference - almost five years! That's the difference in age between McEnroe and Wilander, or Edberg and Sampras, or Nadal and Dimitrov - an entire generation!

All things tolled, Roger still has the better overall career. That may change, but for now he was more dominant overall, and more consistent in his dominance. Now if and when Rafa wins a Slam or two this year and takes the #1 ranking again, the balance might start swaying towards him. But in terms of career, right now? Roger still has the edge. At their very best? Rafa still doesn't have the years that Roger did, although arguably better competition.

That said, I'm not in disagreement with the idea that Nadal is, in the end, the greater player - the head-to-head DOES matter, although not as much as his most raving fanboys like to think, and his dominance over contemporary greats has been remarkable (2011 aside). But whoever you pick, the fact that its debatable - and so hotly debated - means that it isn't clear, and I suspect it will remain unclear for perpetuity (unless Rafa wins 18-20+ Slams, then it will be a moot point).

But who cares? They're probably 1a and 1b among all-time greats, at least in the Open Era.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

At this point, should we stop saying the Nadal Federer is "bad" for Fed and just proclaim
Nadal is the better player?

What says you?

Why are these two options mutually exclusive? Why can't it be both.

It can be both, but if it is both the lesser player saddle with the bad match up would be in a world of hurt, and if it was the case here, the h2h would be even more lopsided. I think many times the use of the term "bad match up" is used as an ego cushion.

 

[Ricardo]

Cheap mocking doesn't help

We see that. We read your post...

who imposed aesthetically pleasing game to beat others? just cheap....

 

[Luxilon Borg]

One question that often pops in everyone's mind often is what would be the H2H
between Rafa and Roger, if Rafa were a right handed player. Then all the high-bouncing
top spin forehands will go to the Roger's dominant side and would be much easier
for Roger to handle.

Of course, we will never know the answer to this question.

However, I would agree that "primeness" or lack there of is not the issue
in this H2H. After all Rafa, beat him in 2004 Miami, their very first match.

Talking of that, we will have a 10 year anniversary of their first match
very soon.

I try to process how much his leftyness is a factor...and I come up with the notion it it is HUGE.

I say if Rafa plays righty 25% of his advantage disappears. Certainly the wide serve in the ad court.
And Rogers best shot, his inside out forehand would now target Rafa's backhand.

Rafa would still have his speed, brute physicality, and mental toughness, and his spin, so it would not diminish him to the point of being an ordinary player...not in a million years.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

the head to head isn't important, tennis is about winning titles not just beating one bloke..

the h2h is only worth looking at to see who might win or who might have a good/bad match up with another player..

unfortunately fedal fanboy/girl wars lose focus and use h2h to bask in reflected glory
and to bash Federer and somehow claim maybe it is worth and extra major or two..

I mean look at the AO..NADAL Wasted Federer but didn't win the title so really it did not mean that much, like Miami in 2004.. nadal spooked the new world no1 in straight sets, but lost not long after.

tennis forums and 24 media have not helped in this..its one of the downsides of where we are with 21st century media as tennis fans. when I see a potential h2h coming up in any given tourney I don't think 10-25 or whatever it is, I think I'm ok with whoever wins but I'd rather not see a onesided ownage like in ao sf this year.

apparently its not usual to like both Federer and nadal, obviously I look at it from a different angle.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Pete Sampras recently declared Rafa to be a rock. Another time, he said Rafa is a beast. When a proud champ like Pete can only use such strong metaphors to describe Rafa, we know that he's praising him highly.

I always felt that Rafa made tennis too much like a contact sport for Roger. Even as a kid, Rafa physically dominated Roger. It was never about match-up - it was about imposing himself on his opponent, and Rafa does that to everybody. And while Roger can do that to most people - impose his aesthetically pleasing game - he gets thrown back on the ropes by the rough-housing Rafa.

As for asking "at what point...", I crossed that point years ago...

what a worthless post, full of mistakes and wishful biased thinking. Get the facts straight, first Rafa and Roger are similar achievers in tennis (13 vs 17 majors so far and whatnot) yet he dominates Fed more than he does against other top tier players. His natural game eats into Fed's weaker shot (high backhand) and gets that advantage like no other players, now that's 'match-up' no 1. Now the results between the two varies hugely on fast and slow courts, Rafa dominates him on high bouncing courts (slow hard and clay) which magnifies that advantage unlike on fast courts....... there is evidence no2 of match-up issue for you. Also the fact that Fed can play his game against everyone else (win or lose) but is always on the back foot against Rafa is against all about matchup.

Clearly you don't know what you are talking about. Cheap mocking doesn't help, since when does a player win because his game is based on 'aesthetically pleasingness'? how about his game is actually effective against everyone but Rafa...... but no you wouldn't understand that.

Remember, Sampras said Rafa is a beast and Fed is the best ever so which statement do you want to discredit now? don't forget Pete himself couldn't impose his aesthetically pleasing game on Haarhuis and Krajicek, of course it wasn't about the match-up was it?

Yeh,but how many times did Sampras play Haarhuis and Krajicek..and in how many semis and finals?

 

[Luxilon Borg]

At this point, should we stop saying the Nadal Federer is "bad" for Fed and just proclaim
Nadal is the better player?

What says you?

Why are these two options mutually exclusive? Why can't it be both.

This is what I was going to say. While I'm a bit sick of Fedal discussion, I will say this:

1. OF COURSE the match-up matters. To say otherwise is to be willfully ignorant. Match-ups always matter. Becker was 25-10 against Edberg overall - was he that much better? No.
2. To look at overall greatness, you have to look beyond the head-to-head and at dominance playing other players.
3. We should not forget the age difference - almost five years! That's the difference in age between McEnroe and Wilander, or Edberg and Sampras, or Nadal and Dimitrov - an entire generation!

All things tolled, Roger still has the better overall career. That may change, but for now he was more dominant overall, and more consistent in his dominance. Now if and when Rafa wins a Slam or two this year and takes the #1 ranking again, the balance might start swaying towards him. But in terms of career, right now? Roger still has the edge. At their very best? Rafa still doesn't have the years that Roger did, although arguably better competition.

That said, I'm not in disagreement with the idea that Nadal is, in the end, the greater player - the head-to-head DOES matter, although not as much as his most raving fanboys like to think, and his dominance over contemporary greats has been remarkable (2011 aside). But whoever you pick, the fact that its debatable - and so hotly debated - means that it isn't clear, and I suspect it will remain unclear for perpetuity (unless Rafa wins 18-20+ Slams, then it will be a moot point).

But who cares? They're probably 1a and 1b among all-time greats, at least in the Open Era.

Good post.

First, may would argue that Becker WAS the better "player" technically than Edberg. His ground strokes were far better. His serve and return were better. Where Edberg was better was obvious, the volleys, and he was faster.

I don't think age difference is factor here at all. Federer was in his PRIME when Nadal became a thorn in his side.

I agree, in terms of career, Federer, to me is still the GOAT.

 

[Ricardo]

Pete Sampras recently declared Rafa to be a rock. Another time, he said Rafa is a beast. When a proud champ like Pete can only use such strong metaphors to describe Rafa, we know that he's praising him highly.

I always felt that Rafa made tennis too much like a contact sport for Roger. Even as a kid, Rafa physically dominated Roger. It was never about match-up - it was about imposing himself on his opponent, and Rafa does that to everybody. And while Roger can do that to most people - impose his aesthetically pleasing game - he gets thrown back on the ropes by the rough-housing Rafa.

As for asking "at what point...", I crossed that point years ago...

what a worthless post, full of mistakes and wishful biased thinking. Get the facts straight, first Rafa and Roger are similar achievers in tennis (13 vs 17 majors so far and whatnot) yet he dominates Fed more than he does against other top tier players. His natural game eats into Fed's weaker shot (high backhand) and gets that advantage like no other players, now that's 'match-up' no 1. Now the results between the two varies hugely on fast and slow courts, Rafa dominates him on high bouncing courts (slow hard and clay) which magnifies that advantage unlike on fast courts....... there is evidence no2 of match-up issue for you. Also the fact that Fed can play his game against everyone else (win or lose) but is always on the back foot against Rafa is against all about matchup.

Clearly you don't know what you are talking about. Cheap mocking doesn't help, since when does a player win because his game is based on 'aesthetically pleasingness'? how about his game is actually effective against everyone but Rafa...... but no you wouldn't understand that.

Remember, Sampras said Rafa is a beast and Fed is the best ever so which statement do you want to discredit now? don't forget Pete himself couldn't impose his aesthetically pleasing game on Haarhuis and Krajicek, of course it wasn't about the match-up was it?

Yeh,but how many times did Sampras play Haarhuis and Krajicek..and in how many semis and finals?

so how many times does it take to be valid? you know the standard? and losing in qf doesn't count as equally a loss as losing in semi? no wonder you came up with this thread.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

and we cannot stop saying 'bad match up' because it is.

 

[El Dude]

Good post.

First, may would argue that Becker WAS the better "player" technically than Edberg. His ground strokes were far better. His serve and return were better. Where Edberg was better was obvious, the volleys, and he was faster.

If he was better he wasn't THAT much better - and the same goes for Nadal and Federer. But if you look at Edberg and Becker, their career results are very, very similar. Historically speaking, they're very close.

I don't think age difference is factor here at all. Federer was in his PRIME when Nadal became a thorn in his side.

Yes - Rafa has always had the edge on Federer. But age plays some factor, especially over the last few years - which counts to the total head-to-head.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Good post.

First, may would argue that Becker WAS the better "player" technically than Edberg. His ground strokes were far better. His serve and return were better. Where Edberg was better was obvious, the volleys, and he was faster.

If he was better he wasn't THAT much better - and the same goes for Nadal and Federer. But if you look at Edberg and Becker, their career results are very, very similar. Historically speaking, they're very close.

I don't think age difference is factor here at all. Federer was in his PRIME when Nadal became a thorn in his side.

Yes - Rafa has always had the edge on Federer. But age plays some factor, especially over the last few years - which counts to the total head-to-head.

Agree, the Edbeg/Becker careers were very similar.

Well, age, if it is a factor, it seems not to matter when he plays Nole or Murray...and hopefully not today against RoboCop..

 

[britbox]

At this point, should we stop saying the Nadal Federer is "bad" for Fed and just proclaim
Nadal is the better player?

What says you?

Why are these two options mutually exclusive? Why can't it be both.

This is what I was going to say. While I'm a bit sick of Fedal discussion, I will say this:

1. OF COURSE the match-up matters. To say otherwise is to be willfully ignorant. Match-ups always matter. Becker was 25-10 against Edberg overall - was he that much better? No.
2. To look at overall greatness, you have to look beyond the head-to-head and at dominance playing other players.
3. We should not forget the age difference - almost five years! That's the difference in age between McEnroe and Wilander, or Edberg and Sampras, or Nadal and Dimitrov - an entire generation!

All things tolled, Roger still has the better overall career. That may change, but for now he was more dominant overall, and more consistent in his dominance. Now if and when Rafa wins a Slam or two this year and takes the #1 ranking again, the balance might start swaying towards him. But in terms of career, right now? Roger still has the edge. At their very best? Rafa still doesn't have the years that Roger did, although arguably better competition.

That said, I'm not in disagreement with the idea that Nadal is, in the end, the greater player - the head-to-head DOES matter, although not as much as his most raving fanboys like to think, and his dominance over contemporary greats has been remarkable (2011 aside). But whoever you pick, the fact that its debatable - and so hotly debated - means that it isn't clear, and I suspect it will remain unclear for perpetuity (unless Rafa wins 18-20+ Slams, then it will be a moot point).

But who cares? They're probably 1a and 1b among all-time greats, at least in the Open Era.

Good post.

First, may would argue that Becker WAS the better "player" technically than Edberg. His ground strokes were far better. His serve and return were better. Where Edberg was better was obvious, the volleys, and he was faster.

I don't think age difference is factor here at all. Federer was in his PRIME when Nadal became a thorn in his side.

I agree, in terms of career, Federer, to me is still the GOAT.

Becker's groundstrokes on the backhand wing certainly weren't better than Edberg's. Forehand.. yes, granted.

Who had the better career? Very close to call. 6 majors each. Edberg had 72 weeks at #1 compared to Beckers 12. Edberg also won 3 double majors majors and the Olympics. He was down 10-25 in the overall H2H but led 3-1 when they met in majors and won the YEC when they met. The H2H was actually much closer when they were both vieing to be top dog. There was usually only 2-3 matches difference... Becker just ran away with it that end winning about 11 or 12 on the spin.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

At this point, should we stop saying the Nadal Federer is "bad" for Fed and just proclaim
Nadal is the better player?

What says you?

Why are these two options mutually exclusive? Why can't it be both.

This is what I was going to say. While I'm a bit sick of Fedal discussion, I will say this:

1. OF COURSE the match-up matters. To say otherwise is to be willfully ignorant. Match-ups always matter. Becker was 25-10 against Edberg overall - was he that much better? No.
2. To look at overall greatness, you have to look beyond the head-to-head and at dominance playing other players.
3. We should not forget the age difference - almost five years! That's the difference in age between McEnroe and Wilander, or Edberg and Sampras, or Nadal and Dimitrov - an entire generation!

All things tolled, Roger still has the better overall career. That may change, but for now he was more dominant overall, and more consistent in his dominance. Now if and when Rafa wins a Slam or two this year and takes the #1 ranking again, the balance might start swaying towards him. But in terms of career, right now? Roger still has the edge. At their very best? Rafa still doesn't have the years that Roger did, although arguably better competition.

That said, I'm not in disagreement with the idea that Nadal is, in the end, the greater player - the head-to-head DOES matter, although not as much as his most raving fanboys like to think, and his dominance over contemporary greats has been remarkable (2011 aside). But whoever you pick, the fact that its debatable - and so hotly debated - means that it isn't clear, and I suspect it will remain unclear for perpetuity (unless Rafa wins 18-20+ Slams, then it will be a moot point).

But who cares? They're probably 1a and 1b among all-time greats, at least in the Open Era.

Good post.

First, may would argue that Becker WAS the better "player" technically than Edberg. His ground strokes were far better. His serve and return were better. Where Edberg was better was obvious, the volleys, and he was faster.

I don't think age difference is factor here at all. Federer was in his PRIME when Nadal became a thorn in his side.

I agree, in terms of career, Federer, to me is still the GOAT.

Becker's groundstrokes on the backhand wing certainly weren't better than Edberg's. Forehand.. yes, granted.

Who had the better career? Very close to call. 6 majors each. Edberg had 72 weeks at #1 compared to Beckers 12. Edberg also won 3 double majors majors and the Olympics. He was down 10-25 in the overall H2H but led 3-1 when they met in majors and won the YEC when they met. The H2H was actually much closer when they were both vieing to be top dog. There was usually only 2-3 matches difference... Becker just ran away with it that end winning about 11 or 12 on the spin.

Good analysis. However, I would still take Becker's backhand over Edberg's.

 

[britbox]

^ All opinions... but you're probably in a small minority. Edberg had one of the best single handed backhands of all time IMO.

 

[brokenshoelace]

the head to head isn't important, tennis is about winning titles not just beating one bloke..

Agree with the second part, but I strongly disagree with the first. The H2H does matter, especially when it's your biggest rival who you played in finals most of the time. In other words, if you're losing to him in the final, you're not winning the title while he is. And THAT matters very much.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Why are these two options mutually exclusive? Why can't it be both.

This is what I was going to say. While I'm a bit sick of Fedal discussion, I will say this:

1. OF COURSE the match-up matters. To say otherwise is to be willfully ignorant. Match-ups always matter. Becker was 25-10 against Edberg overall - was he that much better? No.
2. To look at overall greatness, you have to look beyond the head-to-head and at dominance playing other players.
3. We should not forget the age difference - almost five years! That's the difference in age between McEnroe and Wilander, or Edberg and Sampras, or Nadal and Dimitrov - an entire generation!

All things tolled, Roger still has the better overall career. That may change, but for now he was more dominant overall, and more consistent in his dominance. Now if and when Rafa wins a Slam or two this year and takes the #1 ranking again, the balance might start swaying towards him. But in terms of career, right now? Roger still has the edge. At their very best? Rafa still doesn't have the years that Roger did, although arguably better competition.

That said, I'm not in disagreement with the idea that Nadal is, in the end, the greater player - the head-to-head DOES matter, although not as much as his most raving fanboys like to think, and his dominance over contemporary greats has been remarkable (2011 aside). But whoever you pick, the fact that its debatable - and so hotly debated - means that it isn't clear, and I suspect it will remain unclear for perpetuity (unless Rafa wins 18-20+ Slams, then it will be a moot point).

But who cares? They're probably 1a and 1b among all-time greats, at least in the Open Era.

Good post.

First, may would argue that Becker WAS the better "player" technically than Edberg. His ground strokes were far better. His serve and return were better. Where Edberg was better was obvious, the volleys, and he was faster.

I don't think age difference is factor here at all. Federer was in his PRIME when Nadal became a thorn in his side.

I agree, in terms of career, Federer, to me is still the GOAT.

Becker's groundstrokes on the backhand wing certainly weren't better than Edberg's. Forehand.. yes, granted.

Who had the better career? Very close to call. 6 majors each. Edberg had 72 weeks at #1 compared to Beckers 12. Edberg also won 3 double majors majors and the Olympics. He was down 10-25 in the overall H2H but led 3-1 when they met in majors and won the YEC when they met. The H2H was actually much closer when they were both vieing to be top dog. There was usually only 2-3 matches difference... Becker just ran away with it that end winning about 11 or 12 on the spin.

Good analysis. However, I would still take Becker's backhand over Edberg's.

No.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

the head to head isn't important, tennis is about winning titles not just beating one bloke..

Agree with the second part, but I strongly disagree with the first. The H2H does matter, especially when it's your biggest rival who you played in finals most of the time. In other words, if you're losing to him in the final, you're not winning the title while he is. And THAT matters very much.

I don't agree..tennis is about winning titles, roger has won 78. including the most majors.

 

[brokenshoelace]

the head to head isn't important, tennis is about winning titles not just beating one bloke..

Agree with the second part, but I strongly disagree with the first. The H2H does matter, especially when it's your biggest rival who you played in finals most of the time. In other words, if you're losing to him in the final, you're not winning the title while he is. And THAT matters very much.

I don't agree..tennis is about winning titles, roger has won 78. including the most majors.

But the point is, the H2H against Nadal has stopped him from winning many other titles, so it IS important.