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

[brokenshoelace]

^ 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

Who said anything about losing sleep? But if the h2h wasn't important we wouldn't be talking about it that much. Nadal fans wouldn't be obnoxiously bragging about it, and Federer fans wouldn't be crying about it

And Nadal doesn't need 79 titles. He just needs to tie Federer's slam count, whatever it is.

 

[Haelfix]

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?

Yup. But that's the point. H2hs are always going to involve what ifs. What if Agassi had played Sampras on clay? What if Connors had been a few years younger against Borg and McEnroe. What if Hewitt had been in Sampras generation.

It's all part of the statistical bias of not being able to play an infinite amount of times, under all possible circumstances (vary the age, vary the injury profile, vary the preexisting psychological load, vary the surface and ball distribution, etc)to get a fair ensemble. Even then most players are going to find bad match ups that may not respect the rank. See Santoro-Safin.

 

[Kieran]

Let's face it, what if is part of being a fan. What if Rafa hasn't missed that backhand? What if Nole hadn't touched the net? What if Rafa was 32 and Roger was 27? How would they have done against the opposition and each other? It's all grist to the mill...

 

[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.

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

I know you're (at least partially) being facetious, but since breaking through in 2005, Rafa has missed 4 Slams: 2006 AO, 2009 Wimbledon, 2012 US Open, and 2013 AO. Roger won the first two, and given that Rafa's mastery hadn't extended beyond clay court in 2006, I think that AO 2006 is safely Roger's. The only one you can legitimately take away from Roger is 2009 Wimbledon, and then only maybe as they were pretty evenly matched on grass at that point.

I know, I know, Rafa played some Slams injured - but I figure that if he played he was well enough to conceivably win. Not to mention Roger probably played some injured but isn't the whiny drama queen that Rafa is. :cry

 

[Kieran]

Not to mention Roger probably played some injured but isn't the whiny drama queen that Rafa is. :cry

Now you're being WHOLLY facetious! :laydownlaughing :clap

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

he is 2-8 down in majors in the h2h

COUGH!

2-9.

Cough.... :snigger

oh yes..AO SF 2014. :grin: :

If orange is the new black..then 2-9 is the new 2-8. :exclamation:

 

[DarthFed]

I think Kieran drew that #12 out of a hat or something. Roger won #13 at USO in 2008 and Rafa was healthy when he got beat by Murray. Same deal with AO 2010. Rafa wasn't injured but got owned by Murray before quitting in the 3rd set. Of course I'm sure you want to blame the knees for the Rosol clownery but Rafa showed no signs of injury that match either.

 

[britbox]

I know you're (at least partially) being facetious, but since breaking through in 2005, Rafa has missed 4 Slams: 2006 AO, 2009 Wimbledon, 2012 US Open, and 2013 AO. Roger won the first two, and given that Rafa's mastery hadn't extended beyond clay court in 2006, I think that AO 2006 is safely Roger's. The only one you can legitimately take away from Roger is 2009 Wimbledon, and then only maybe as they were pretty evenly matched on grass at that point.

I know, I know, Rafa played some Slams injured - but I figure that if he played he was well enough to conceivably win. Not to mention Roger probably played some injured but isn't the whiny drama queen that Rafa is. :cry

Dude - I'm not sure how you can legitimately take anything away from Roger - let alone that particular tournament.

We've already seen in subsequent Wimbledons, scenarios where Rafa has been blown out by players outside the Top 50. These are tournaments he did appear in... it seems he'd have been better off staying at home and having titles awarded hypothetically by not showing up!

Nothing is certain and titles are won solely on court - not in people's imaginations.

 

[Ricardo]

I know you're (at least partially) being facetious, but since breaking through in 2005, Rafa has missed 4 Slams: 2006 AO, 2009 Wimbledon, 2012 US Open, and 2013 AO. Roger won the first two, and given that Rafa's mastery hadn't extended beyond clay court in 2006, I think that AO 2006 is safely Roger's. The only one you can legitimately take away from Roger is 2009 Wimbledon, and then only maybe as they were pretty evenly matched on grass at that point.

I know, I know, Rafa played some Slams injured - but I figure that if he played he was well enough to conceivably win. Not to mention Roger probably played some injured but isn't the whiny drama queen that Rafa is. :cry

Dude - I'm not sure how you can legitimately take anything away from Roger - let alone that particular tournament.

We've already seen in subsequent Wimbledons, scenarios where Rafa has been blown out by players outside the Top 50. These are tournaments he did appear in... it seems he'd have been better off staying at home and having titles awarded hypothetically by not showing up!

Nothing is certain and titles are won solely on court - not in people's imaginations.

exactly, going down Kieran's route you'd probably strip Fed's titles down to a couple if that. And of course Rafa would've been award in everything he didn't participate in, and even his losses were all attributed to injuries....

 

[August]

Roger routines Nole who routines Rafa who routines Roger. So who's the best player? Three bad match-ups.

 

[Kieran]

Nole "routines" Rafa?

Rafa has won 6 of the last 9, and holds a 22-17 H2H lead...

 

[Federberg]

I think while Fed fans are generally defensive about the H2H, it's Rafa fans who bring it up. As I've said many times before, tennis players don't start off worrying about who they beat, they fantasize about the titles they might win. Fans go on about H2H's, but frankly given the aspirations of professional tennis players, the H2H is far less important than some would like to make it.

They're both all time greats, who's better? Who cares! Just enjoy, we may never have it this good again. For my money, no matter what Rafa ends up achieving, no one (certainly not Rafa) can take away 5 consecutive in 2 slams, or the record weeks at no 1, or the consecutive semis, or consecutive finals. But Rafa has his store of impressive feats as well. To me it's more than just the slams. It's the body of work, it's the style! It's the NOT picking his behind, or time wasting, or bleating about injuries. It's a matter of taste.. each to his own!

As an aside when Djoker downs his racket, I'll always remember the absolute class he has at the net when he's lost. These are the things to focus on in my humble opinion..

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Does anybody remember this article.....


http://tennis.si.com/2013/09/25/andre-agassi-roger-federer-pete-sampras-rafael-nadal/

Buddha, er sorry, Agassi said:

“Nadal has an argument to make for the best of all time,” Agassi said. “If Nadal is sitting at a table with Federer and Federer says, ‘I’m the best ever,’ my first question would be, ‘Well, then how come you didn’t beat me, because I beat you twice as many times? And, hey, by the way, you know I won everything, including a gold medal [in singles at the Olympics] and Davis Cup [with Spain].’

 

[Moxie]

I think while Fed fans are generally defensive about the H2H, it's Rafa fans who bring it up. As I've said many times before, tennis players don't start off worrying about who they beat, they fantasize about the titles they might win. Fans go on about H2H's, but frankly given the aspirations of professional tennis players, the H2H is far less important than some would like to make it.

They're both all time greats, who's better? Who cares! Just enjoy, we may never have it this good again. For my money, no matter what Rafa ends up achieving, no one (certainly not Rafa) can take away 5 consecutive in 2 slams, or the record weeks at no 1, or the consecutive semis, or consecutive finals. But Rafa has his store of impressive feats as well. To me it's more than just the slams. It's the body of work, it's the style! It's the NOT picking his behind, or time wasting, or bleating about injuries. It's a matter of taste.. each to his own!

As an aside when Djoker downs his racket, I'll always remember the absolute class he has at the net when he's lost. These are the things to focus on in my humble opinion..

Interesting how generous you are to everyone, until you get to the presumptive ignominious parts of Rafa's behavior. You say it doesn't matter, yet you have to bring it up. On the other hand, I agree…who cares? It's so close that at this point it doesn't matter. Roger and Rafa have crossed the Rubicon…they will always be spoken of together, so how will we ever separate them?

 

[Federberg]

Haha! I guess I'm like a scorpion Moxie, try as I might, I am who I am!

 

[britbox]

Does anybody remember this article.....


http://tennis.si.com/2013/09/25/andre-agassi-roger-federer-pete-sampras-rafael-nadal/

Buddha, er sorry, Agassi said:

“Nadal has an argument to make for the best of all time,” Agassi said. “If Nadal is sitting at a table with Federer and Federer says, ‘I’m the best ever,’ my first question would be, ‘Well, then how come you didn’t beat me, because I beat you twice as many times? And, hey, by the way, you know I won everything, including a gold medal [in singles at the Olympics] and Davis Cup [with Spain].’

Santoro and Safin's conversation might be interesting too.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Does anybody remember this article.....


http://tennis.si.com/2013/09/25/andre-agassi-roger-federer-pete-sampras-rafael-nadal/

Buddha, er sorry, Agassi said:

“Nadal has an argument to make for the best of all time,” Agassi said. “If Nadal is sitting at a table with Federer and Federer says, ‘I’m the best ever,’ my first question would be, ‘Well, then how come you didn’t beat me, because I beat you twice as many times? And, hey, by the way, you know I won everything, including a gold medal [in singles at the Olympics] and Davis Cup [with Spain].’

Santoro and Safin's conversation might be interesting too.

I'm generally on Fed fan's side re: head to head (as in, Fed is the GOAT regardless), but I don't like the above comparison. With Safin-Santoro, Fabrice was more of a bette noire -- a player who weirdly has a superior player's number due to playing a brand of tennis that drives him nuts. With Fedal, we're talking about two evenly matched all-time greats and rivals who repeatedly squared off in major finals.

 

[brokenshoelace]

I think while Fed fans are generally defensive about the H2H, it's Rafa fans who bring it up.

Well, that make sense. If I'm singing my favorite player's praise, I'm not going to bring up the one blemish on his resume...at least not frequently.

 

[britbox]

Does anybody remember this article.....


http://tennis.si.com/2013/09/25/andre-agassi-roger-federer-pete-sampras-rafael-nadal/

Buddha, er sorry, Agassi said:

“Nadal has an argument to make for the best of all time,” Agassi said. “If Nadal is sitting at a table with Federer and Federer says, ‘I’m the best ever,’ my first question would be, ‘Well, then how come you didn’t beat me, because I beat you twice as many times? And, hey, by the way, you know I won everything, including a gold medal [in singles at the Olympics] and Davis Cup [with Spain].’

Santoro and Safin's conversation might be interesting too.

I'm generally on Fed fan's side re: head to head (as in, Fed is the GOAT regardless), but I don't like the above comparison. With Safin-Santoro, Fabrice was more of a bette noire -- a player who weirdly has a superior player's number due to playing a brand of tennis that drives him nuts. With Fedal, we're talking about two evenly matched all-time greats and rivals who repeatedly squared off in major finals.

I'd suggest the matchup also drives Federer nuts, and rightly so.

The Santoro/Safin example was extreme but valid to some extent.

I'm not too concerned by anybody ranking Nadal higher than Federer in a list of all time greats, but I also choose not to agree with it. (Both players are Tier 1 greats IMO)

Looking at it from the cafe conversation viewpoint... I understand the argument Agassi presented... but likewise you could flip it on it's head and ask Nadal in a similar scenario... "If you're the greatest of all time, how come the other fella in your era has 4 more major titles, 6 more YECs and spent more than 170+ weeks at number longer than you have"

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Does anybody remember this article.....


http://tennis.si.com/2013/09/25/andre-agassi-roger-federer-pete-sampras-rafael-nadal/

Buddha, er sorry, Agassi said:

“Nadal has an argument to make for the best of all time,” Agassi said. “If Nadal is sitting at a table with Federer and Federer says, ‘I’m the best ever,’ my first question would be, ‘Well, then how come you didn’t beat me, because I beat you twice as many times? And, hey, by the way, you know I won everything, including a gold medal [in singles at the Olympics] and Davis Cup [with Spain].’

Santoro and Safin's conversation might be interesting too.

santoro and marat never competed for slams, masters 1000s, or Olympic Gold..or for the #1 ranking, or for the GOAT label.