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

[Front242]

^ Either way he still has 17 slams and 78 titles so I doubt he's gonna lose too much sleep, unless Nadal ends up with 18 slams and 79 titles when he retires and Fed doesn't win another single title

 

[Kieran]

Fedal Wars, we love 'em, eh? It's where the word "Feudal" originated, in them battles between Young Ralph and the Man Who Would Be a Goat.

Broken is right: Rafa goes through anybody to get his titles: Roger goes around Rafa to get his. Whatever way you spin it, the H2H has had a bad effect on Federer, slam-wise...

 

[Luxilon Borg]

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

I am a big Stefan fan..saw him play and practice many times...his backhand was beautiful...I was just saying I personally would take Becker's. More power and spin. IMO.

 

[Kieran]

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

I am a big Stefan fan..saw him play and practice many times...his backhand was beautiful...I was just saying I personally would take Becker's. More power and spin. IMO.

Edberg had more accuracy and consistency off the backhand. Yeah, Becker's could be powerful but Edberg was always on with the backhand...

 

[Front242]

Fedal Wars, we love 'em, eh? It's where the word "Feudal" originated, in them battles between Young Ralph and the Man Who Would Be a Goat.

Broken is right: Rafa goes through anybody to get his titles: Roger goes around Rafa to get his. Whatever way you spin it, the H2H has had a bad effect on Federer, slam-wise...

Yup and since the thread is about match up issues you could also say the reverse is true regarding how many slams Nadal notched up thanks to the match up versus Federer.

And also how many of Fed's slams did he win simply 'cos Nadal wasn't good enough and lost before even meeting Fed?

 

[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.

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

i don't agree..the fact that he has won more majors than anyone else ever in the history of global tennis despite losing 8 times to rafa in majors..makes federers title haul all the more amazing.

he is 2-8 down in majors in the h2h but has still won 17 of them and appeared in 24 major finals in total. in the end the losing h2h means nothing, Federer still wins loads. as does rafa. that's the sport.

 

[Kieran]

he is 2-8 down in majors in the h2h

COUGH!

2-9.

Cough.... :snigger

 

[Luxilon Borg]

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

I am a big Stefan fan..saw him play and practice many times...his backhand was beautiful...I was just saying I personally would take Becker's. More power and spin. IMO.

Edberg had more accuracy and consistency off the backhand. Yeah, Becker's could be powerful but Edberg was always on with the backhand...

The back hand HAD to be great..the forehand was an utter disaster.

Yes, as I said, it was gorgeous as was his whole game, minus the forehand.

The man was a gazelle.

 

[El Dude]

Its an interesting thought: imagine Roger didn't exist. Rafa would have two more majors, 15 total. But if Rafa didn't exist? Maybe Roger doesn't win all nine, but what about six or seven? That's 23+ Slam titles.

 

[Front242]

Its an interesting thought: imagine Roger didn't exist. Rafa would have two more majors, 15 total. But if Rafa didn't exist? Maybe Roger doesn't win all nine, but what about six or seven? That's 23+ Slam titles.

Ssssh, don't wind up the Nadal fans. Remember there's no match up issue here at all. Very good point though.

 

[Kieran]

Its an interesting thought: imagine Roger didn't exist. Rafa would have two more majors, 15 total. But if Rafa didn't exist? Maybe Roger doesn't win all nine, but what about six or seven? That's 23+ Slam titles.

Ssssh, don't wind up the Nadal fans. Remember there's no match up issue here at all. Very good point though.

Psssssttt! What if Rafa was never injured? Roger would have 12... :snigger

 

[Front242]

^ Yeah, yeah. What about the times Roger helped out Rafa by clearing the path of his obstacles. The list is endless

 

[Kieran]

^ Yeah, yeah. What about the times Roger helped out Rafa by clearing the path of his obstacles. The list is endless

Pity he didn't do it at Flushing Meadows in 2011! :cry

 

[Front242]

^ Yeah, yeah. What about the times Roger helped out Rafa by clearing the path of his obstacles. The list is endless

Pity he didn't do it at Flushing Meadows in 2011! :cry

True but RG 2011 was a better treat and better for his clay legacy or he'd have one less RG title.

 

[Kieran]

^ Yeah, yeah. What about the times Roger helped out Rafa by clearing the path of his obstacles. The list is endless

Pity he didn't do it at Flushing Meadows in 2011! :cry

True but RG 2011 was a better treat and better for his clay legacy or he'd have one less RG title.

Nah, he'd have beaten Nole there...

 

[Front242]

^ Doubtful that year more than others But either way, the final wasn't exactly rocket science to predict the winner beforehand although he put up a good fight till the end of set 3 at least.

 

[Haelfix]

Imagine if Federer was five years younger than Nadal. He'd be 22 and just about to enter his early prime. Anyone want to speculate on how the h2h might turn out differently in hards and grass, and probably clay as well?

Especially that you consider that his game was formed when courts played faster and he'd have an entire career worth of time to figure out Rafa.

H2hs are always going to be biased in one way. There isn't a single h2h in history that isn't biased. Even amongst players that play a lot.

 

[Kieran]

Imagine if Federer was five years younger than Nadal. He'd be 22 and just about to enter his early prime...

He'd be Baby Fed. H2H there is currently 4-0 Rafa...

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Imagine if Federer was five years younger than Nadal. He'd be 22 and just about to enter his early prime...

He'd be Baby Fed. H2H there is currently 4-0 Rafa...

Yeh, but he has won as many sets over the past year as Daddy Fed!

 

[I.Haychew]

What iph there was no clay? What iph there was ONLY clay? What iph there was only...pick your surphace? What iph Phed was the same age as Rapha? What iph Phed was younger than Rapha? What iph Rapha was right handed? What iph Phed was lepht handed? What iph this? What iph that? What iph we didn't "What iph?" everything to death? I say...Put 'em in age groups (23 yr. olds only play other 23 yr. olds, 33 yr. olds only play other 33 yr. olds, etc.) and make 'em play on only one particular surphace so we can stop arguing about this stuph. But that wouldn't be any phun, would it?