Fed's Slam Window Shut

[Murat Baslamisli]

Darth, if H2H only comes into effect when the slam count is tied, I am not sure how important it really is.

I mean, Nadal owns Roger, right? Why can't we just say he is better right now, period? Why wait till he gets enough slams? Because tennis is played against a field, that's why.

We can ask, why can't Nadal win a tournament when top 8 players get together to fight it out? Surface? Really? The guy won Wimbledon, which is pretty fast last time I checked.

Why does Krajicek have a better H2H against Sampras? What does it even mean?

If Nole catches Nadal and has a better H2H, is he better?

I have a lot of other tie breakers before I get to H2Hs man. They never tell the whole story.

 

[Federberg]

oh dear! Not another one of these? I'm quite happy to say.. if their slam count is even, at the end.. that they can be considered roughly equal (h2h countered by WTF performance.. a major concession on my part!). They're certainly both in the conversation anyway. Who knows how history will look at all this stuff in 50yrs time?

I do agree that not enough is said about the WTF though. As an event it's history can't be contested in the open era. Frankly I long for the day Rafa wins one of these. That way fan boys might have to concede it has more credibility Only joshing... As an aside.. I was just looking on wiki recently, and his record (shared with Lendl) of unbeaten wins of 5 is stupidly impressive but rarely spoken about

 

[Federberg]

Darth, if H2H only comes into effect when the slam count is tied, I am not sure how important it really is.

I mean, Nadal owns Roger, right? Why can't we just say he is better right now, period? Why wait till he gets enough slams? Because tennis is played against a field, that's why.

We can ask, why can't Nadal win a tournament when top 8 players get together to fight it out? Surface? Really? The guy won Wimbledon, which is pretty fast last time I checked.

Why does Krajicek have a better H2H against Sampras? What does it even mean?

If Nole catches Nadal and has a better H2H, is he better?

I have a lot of other tie breakers before I get to H2Hs man. They never tell the whole story.

completely agree Murat. I don't think h2h matters to be honest. As I've said before.. you don't fantasize (as an aspiring tennis pro) to have better h2h's against your rivals. You fantasize about winning the big prizes. But if it stops the argument then I'll give some weight to it... but actual achievements are what matter! Anyway.. I think I won't say anymore.. I'm getting bored just anticipating another Fedal argument :laydownlaughing

 

[DarthFed]

Darth, if H2H only comes into effect when the slam count is tied, I am not sure how important it really is.

I mean, Nadal owns Roger, right? Why can't we just say he is better right now, period? Why wait till he gets enough slams? Because tennis is played against a field, that's why.

We can ask, why can't Nadal win a tournament when top 8 players get together to fight it out? Surface? Really? The guy won Wimbledon, which is pretty fast last time I checked.

Why does Krajicek have a better H2H against Sampras? What does it even mean?

If Nole catches Nadal and has a better H2H, is he better?

I have a lot of other tie breakers before I get to H2Hs man. They never tell the whole story.

We aren't too far off actually. I do think H2H means something when we are talking about 2 resumes that are roughly equal. But it doesn't mean as much as some (read some Nadal fans) like to think. I mean you have some on this board already trying to argue that Rafa is the greater player and there is no argument to stand on there.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Federberg, I am not interested in another Fedal either because it never goes anywhere.

The minute someone can explain to me why Kolya has a better H2H against Rafa and is 2-19 against Roger without talking about surface, playing styles and match-up issues, I will agree that H2H is the most important stat ever created !

 

[Federberg]

Federberg, I am not interested in another Fedal either because it never goes anywhere.

The minute someone can explain to me why Kolya has a better H2H against Rafa and is 2-19 against Roger without talking about surface, playing styles and match-up issues, I will agree that H2H is the most important stat ever created !

You're absolutely right. H2H is used to denigrate Fed. But as you say.. so many other things matter more. Tournament wins (not just slams for me), weeks at number 1 etc etc.. As I've said many times, you don't fantasize about H2H, you dream about winning titles! H2H is a fabricated construct, with very little merit in the scheme of things

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

h2h isn't important..the goal of tennis is to win the tournament. not just to beat one player in that tourney.

its partially important as a guide to who might be likely to win in a meetup in a tourney, but not mean they are then going to go on and win the tourney.

nadal finally beats Federer at the wtf last year, but lost the final so it didn't mean much. 17yr old pumped up rafa beat an off guard Federer at Miami 2004 but lost soon after, so it didn't mean much..Federer vs del potro was 6-0 before 2009 usopen so we could say Federer was likely gonna win but he didn't, Federer v nadal 2007 on clay, nadal is 85 wins unbeaten on clay v Federer on his worst surface so its likely nadal wins, but Federer won.

it really does not mean much, and its just a old fetid heap of fanboi camels mess. folk fling it around to usually bash any player over another as we see with 23-10.

 

[Kieran]

Okay, without going into a Fedal thingy, because these always end up being drawn across party lines, generate more heat than light, etc, here's why Pete's H2H with Agassi, for example is more important than Krajicek's H2H with Pete.

Pete and Dre were historical rivals vying for the one space. Every match between them was an historical issue, like Mac-Borg, or Fedal, or Rafa-Nole. There was simply more significance, and more at stake, from a historical perspective - add in the fact that they faced off 9 times in majors, and of these, 5 were in finals, and of the other 4, twice the winner of their match went on to win the event.

So we're talking two great players at their (occasional) prime, staking a claim for something their talent tells them is theirs - but facing a foe who's thinking the same, and with the game to back it up. They handled the expectations, though obviously Pete did this better.

With Krajicek, he finished with a 6-4 H2H lead on Pete, but he had the advantage of playing with little to lose. He snuck in like a sniper a few times, and for about 4 matches, he was in Pete's head, then Pete schooled him the last two times they met. But they never met in a major final - which was Pete's bread and butter. He was more vulnerable early on, but he peaked in finals. So there was one guy facing all the load of history and pressure - and another guy who could swing and take his chops as they came.

So there's a huge difference in quality and expectation in both rivalries. You couldn't deduce from Krajicek's record against Pete that he was the better player. You'd have to say, in fairness, he was an occasional bogeyman, and nothing more, but in terms of majors, he beat Pete once, and Pete beat him once. Krajicek didn't get in Pete's way, in an historical sense...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Kieran, what you are basically saying is Krajicek was a mere nuisance for Pete. If that is the case, why is he the only nuisance that has a better H2H against Pete, besides Stich? What made these guys so special that Pete could not beat them more than he was beaten? Why does Andre have a positive H2H against Krajicek but a negative one against Sampras who had a hard time against krajicek?

Why is Edberg 10-0 against Muster, including 4 on clay?

I know you know the answer.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Kieran, what you are basically saying is Krajicek was a mere nuisance for Pete. If that is the case, why is he the only nuisance that has a better H2H against Pete, besides Stich? What made these guys so special that Pete could not beat them more than he was beaten? Why does Andre have a positive H2H against Krajicek but a negative one against Sampras who had a hard time against krajicek?

Why is Edberg 10-0 against Muster, including 4 on clay?

I know you know the answer.

Match-ups, surfaces, circumstances, and hell, maybe even luck.

 

[Kieran]

Kieran, what you are basically saying is Krajicek was a mere nuisance for Pete. If that is the case, why is he the only nuisance that has a better H2H against Pete, besides Stich? What made these guys so special that Pete could not beat them more than he was beaten? Why does Andre have a positive H2H against Krajicek but a negative one against Sampras who had a hard tome against krajicek?

Why is Edberg 10-0 against Muster, including 4 on clay?

I know you know the answer.

Edberg was better than Muster in big matches. In terms of Stich and Krajieck, they gave Pete problems in a unique way - but in majors, Pete was 2-1 against them, combined. That's where the real money is handed out - and Pete was a different player there.

Every player ends up with a losing record against somebody. Even Rafa, who has the greatest accumulation of H2H records against his peers, I'm sure - but he has a losing record against Davydenko. And Kyrgios. But the likes of Krajicek didn't get in the way of Pete in an historical sense, the way Agassi did in Oz, twice, and the way Pete did with Dre. It's like the difference between a defeat at Doha, and a defeat in Oz. One has greater significance.

Krajicek was a sniper, but Dre was a proper rival. There was a time when Fedal could almost surely count on facing each other in a big event.

Now this is where the practical business of the H2H comes in: if Federer was to face Rafa in a major, do you really think their shared history on court means nothing?

 

[brokenshoelace]

The thing about Federer-Nadal IF they are tied in slam counts, is that whether fair or unfair, accurate or not, people will look at the H2H and not just see that Nadal leads it convincingly, but see a resounding lead in Grand Slam meetings, including a pretty incredible grand slam final record over Federer. Keep in mind, by today's criteria, whether fair or not, grand slams are pretty much the entire criteria (why else would we be saying "if Nadal ties Federer at 17")... In that regard, the H2H will become pretty significant, since it will show that Nadal won many of these 17 by actually beating the other guy who's in GOAT contention.

Now we all know that in reality, it's a more complex situation and other factors should intervene, but to dismiss the H2H by making false analogies (Davydenko, etc...) is a bit short-sighted.

 

[Federberg]

Whether we like it or not, it has relevance because the media makes it so. But in 50yrs time, if they're tied on 17 majors, it's entirely possible that by that point the WTF will have even more relevance.. we simply can't know now. If that happens then as things stand it's a no brainer. It was interesting listening to the discussion on Sky over the weekend in London. Rusedski was insisting on the primacy of number of slams. Roger was talking about the difficulty of comparing eras and looking at other things like tournament wins and weeks at number 1. It's a water cooler debate. By some measures we can say Rafa is likely to make the grade as a GOAT... by every measure Roger does. Interesting.. but I'm not going to die in a ditch over this. They are both greats... GOAT's taste good... but I like other things too!

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

BS, Davydenko and Rafa step on the court , play it out, Davy wins more than he loses. How is it a false analogy? It is just tennis. If Davydenko is not a worthy opponent, why can't Nadal bagel him and put him in his place?

Kieran, same question: If Krajicek was not a "proper" rival, why didn't Pete treat him like all the other None-proper rivals and put him in his place?


Guys, you know why. Match-ups matter. Simple really. I can give 10 more examples of the more accomplished player having a losing record against a lesser player. In none of those cases it means the lesser player was the better player. He was only better in that match-up.

 

[Kieran]

BS, Davydenko and Rafa step on the court , play it out, Davy wins more than he loses. How is it a false analogy? It is just tennis. If Davydenko is not a worthy opponent, why can't Nadal bagel him and put him in his place?

Kieran, same question: If Krajicek was not a "proper" rival, why didn't Pete treat him alike all the other None-proper rivals and put him in his place?

Well, in majors, he tied 1-1.

In other events, a match against Pete was a final for Richard. A match against Richard was a warm-up for a slam for Pete...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

BS, Davydenko and Rafa step on the court , play it out, Davy wins more than he loses. How is it a false analogy? It is just tennis. If Davydenko is not a worthy opponent, why can't Nadal bagel him and put him in his place?

Kieran, same question: If Krajicek was not a "proper" rival, why didn't Pete treat him alike all the other None-proper rivals and put him in his place?

Well, in majors, he tied 1-1.

In other events, a match against Pete was a final for Richard. A match against Richard was a warm-up for a slam for Pete...

You are not answering the question. Pete had 100s of other players that he stormed through during "Warm-ups" Why is Krajicek the one he has a losing record against?

 

[brokenshoelace]

BS, Davydenko and Rafa step on the court , play it out, Davy wins more than he loses. How is it a false analogy? It is just tennis. If Davydenko is not a worthy opponent, why can't Nadal bagel him and put him in his place?

It's all a false analogy because we're comparing it to Nadal/Federer, two guys who have played FAR more (hence the data sample is far more reliable), their matches are spread out on all surfaces, across a much greater time-span, and most importantly, in majors, where everything is on the line.

Meanwhile, Nadal and Davydenko have played far less, mostly on hards, rarely in slams, and Davydenko very seldom made it to Nadal in most tournaments.

 

[Federberg]

^I don't have much skin in the game, but that sounds like you're saying Rafa was penalised by Davydenko not getting deep enough to play Rafa more? That sounds a lot like an argument that's been used before (rightly so by the way!). It's just another nail in the coffin to the h2h debate in my view

 

[Kieran]

BS, Davydenko and Rafa step on the court , play it out, Davy wins more than he loses. How is it a false analogy? It is just tennis. If Davydenko is not a worthy opponent, why can't Nadal bagel him and put him in his place?

Kieran, same question: If Krajicek was not a "proper" rival, why didn't Pete treat him alike all the other None-proper rivals and put him in his place?

Well, in majors, he tied 1-1.

In other events, a match against Pete was a final for Richard. A match against Richard was a warm-up for a slam for Pete...

You are not answering the question. Pete had 100s of other players that he stormed through during "Warm-ups" Why is Krajicek the one he has a losing record against?

In fact, I did answer the question: where it mattered most to Pete, they were tied 1-1. The rest of it is statistics, but also, Richard loved playing Pete, in a similar way to Sod against Rafa (but without the mutual disliking).

Where it matters most to Fedal, Rafa leads 9-2. That's significant.

You never answered my question, by the way: in a practical sense, if Roger faces Rafa in a major, do you think their H2H is totally irrelevant to both players? Will they forget their shared history once they're on court?

 

[brokenshoelace]

^I don't have much skin in the game, but that sounds like you're saying Rafa was penalised by Davydenko not getting deep enough to play Rafa more? That sounds a lot like an argument that's been used before (rightly so by the way!). It's just another nail in the coffin to the h2h debate in my view

No, because Davydenko almost never made it to Rafa. Rafa made it to Roger some 30 times. That's not the same at all. And in fact, since hitting his peak in 2010, it was Federer who wasn't making it enough to play Nadal, just as Nadal wasn't making it enough to Federer in 05-06.