Fed's Slam Window Shut

[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?

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.

I don't get it. 11 matches is a fairly decent sample size. And this is not an election poll with plus/minus variables. Those 11 matches took place in real world and by the way, 4 of them were on clay, which were all won by Nadal.

Also, same question I asked Kieran: Why does Nadal beat everyone else even when everything is NOT on the line but against Kolya , he goes" Meh, nothing is on the line today so I will not play like I do every other time I step on the court"?

 

[Kieran]

^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.

Another aspect is this: Ferrer leads Berdych 7-5 in H2H. Is this as significant as a statistic and a rivalry in the history of the sport as Borg-Mac, Pete-Dre, Fedal, Rafa-Nole?

Obviously not...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

^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.

How many times did Rafa make it to a Us Open final when peak Roger won 5 in a row?

 

[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.

I don't get it. 11 matches is a fairly decent sample size. And this is not an election poll with plus/minus variables. Those 11 matches took place in real world and by the way, 4 of them were on clay, which were all won by Nadal.

Also, same question I asked Kieran: Why does Nadal beat everyone else even when everything is NOT on the line but against Kolya , he goes" Meh, nothing is on the line today so I will not play like I do every other time I step on the court"?

And you know what's the h2h based on these 11 matches? 6-5 in favor of Kolya. That's only one match swaying things in his favor.

I think we both know the gap between Nadal's wins and Federer's wins in their far greater sample is actually far greater than one match. Beating someone more than he beat you by one is not the same at all as beating him by 13. Hence, false analogy.

 

[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.

How many times did Rafa make it to a Us Open final when peak Roger won 5 in a row?

How many times did Roger make it to Nadal when he reached 3 US Open finals in a row (well, technically it wasn't in a row since he missed 2012 but you get the point).

 

[Kieran]

^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.

How many times did Rafa make it to a Us Open final when peak Roger won 5 in a row?

How many times did Roger make it to the US Open final when Rafa reached 3 in a row (that he entered)?

He couldn't even get past Tommy Robredo in the 4th round last year to make the match with Rafa in the QF.

This is how it goes when there's a five year age gap...

 

[the AntiPusher]

Not as long as Rafa has his current team "whom I blame for his strenuous training daily regimen and match schedule".. All Fed has to do is just hang around for another Rafa injury or a Djoker meltdown and he will secure number #18.. Trust me.. his Windows is Never closed.

 

[brokenshoelace]

This argument is quite silly. Yes, Nadal didn't always make it to Roger and Roger didn't always make it to Rafa because well, no two guys always make it to each other otherwise we'd have the same final in every tournament. But they still made it to each other FAAAAAAAAR more than Davydenko did to Nadal. and hence, we got to see them play more than enough to formulate an opinion (albeit yes, not a conclusive one since there was a time, in Roger's peak, where they weren't playing in hard court slams). Nevertheless, how is the difference not obvious? These aren't the same things at all.

And again, 6-5 is not the same as 23-10. Not by a long shot.

 

[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?

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?

Still not answering . Where it NOT mattered most, Pete STILL beat everyone else easily. Why not Krajicek? Why is it when Pete beats Krajicek it matters, when he loses, it is a statistic?

Answer to your question: They are both aware of their H2H. But they are not there to pad their stats. They are there to win the tournament. They have already beaten 6 guys to get there. They need to beat 1 more guy.

 

[Kieran]

Not as long as Rafa has his current team "whom I blame for his strenuous training daily regimen and match schedule".. All Fed has to do is just hang around for another Rafa injury or a Djoker meltdown and he will secure number #18.. Trust me.. his Windows is Never closed.

Back on topic. I like it.

Even Bodo, in delighting with the draw Roger had this year, used the default term: the stars have aligned for Roger. And then Nole fell, and the stars went superNovak for him, but he lost.

By the way, one of the satisfying elements of his defeat is that sooooo many Fedfans were gloating before a ball was even hit. The smugness was shining like a snail trail. For this reason alone, I got a fit of the giggles when I saw the score against Cilic...

 

[brokenshoelace]

Not as long as Rafa has his current team "whom I blame for his strenuous training daily regimen and match schedule".. All Fed has to do is just hang around for another Rafa injury or a Djoker meltdown and he will secure number #18.. Trust me.. his Windows is Never closed.

Back on topic. I like it.

Even Bodo, in delighting with the draw Roger had this year, used the default term: the stars have aligned for Roger. And then Nole fell, and the stars went superNovak for him, but he lost.

By the way, one of the satisfying elements of his defeat is that sooooo many Fedfans were gloating before a ball was even hit. The smugness was shining like a snail trail. For this reason alone, I got a fit of the giggles when I saw the score against Cilic...

...in fairness, all of us Nadal fans were doing the same before a single ball was hit in the Australian Open final.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

This argument is quite silly. Yes, Nadal didn't always make it to Roger and Roger didn't always make it to Rafa because well, no two guys always make it to each other otherwise we'd have the same final in every tournament. But they still made it to each other FAAAAAAAAR more than Davydenko did to Nadal. and hence, we got to see them play more than enough to formulate an opinion (albeit yes, not a conclusive one since there was a time, in Roger's peak, where they weren't playing in hard court slams). Nevertheless, how is the difference not obvious? These aren't the same things at all.

And again, 6-5 is not the same as 23-10. Not by a long shot.

I agree it is silly. It is silly because all one has to admit is match-ups matter and H2H only tells a bit of the story in the grand scheme of things.

BS, is 22 enough of a sample size for you? I hope it is. So, is Murray , in the grand scheme of things, Federer's equal? They have played a bunch of meaningful matches. Both won slams...They are 11-11.

 

[Kieran]

Still not answering . Where it NOT mattered most, Pete STILL beat everyone else easily. Why not Krajicek? Why is it when Pete beats Krajicek it matters, when he loses, it is a statistic?

Answer to your question: They are both aware of their H2H. But they are not there to pad their stats. They are there to win the tournament. They have already beaten 6 guys to get there. They need to beat 1 more guy.

Follow-up question, sir!

Since they're both "aware of their H2H", do you believe the shared history has an effect in their matches?

Pete didn't beat everyone else easily. He was a guy who paced himself around the calendar. He lost against others too. Krajicek had a great record against Pete - but it was only 6-4. He had a huge serve and this always gave Pete problems. But it didn't give Pete problems the last two times they met, and had they met more regularly - and most particularly on Pete's home patch of major finals - I think their record would show a different tale...

 

[Kieran]

Not as long as Rafa has his current team "whom I blame for his strenuous training daily regimen and match schedule".. All Fed has to do is just hang around for another Rafa injury or a Djoker meltdown and he will secure number #18.. Trust me.. his Windows is Never closed.

Back on topic. I like it.

Even Bodo, in delighting with the draw Roger had this year, used the default term: the stars have aligned for Roger. And then Nole fell, and the stars went superNovak for him, but he lost.

By the way, one of the satisfying elements of his defeat is that sooooo many Fedfans were gloating before a ball was even hit. The smugness was shining like a snail trail. For this reason alone, I got a fit of the giggles when I saw the score against Cilic...

...in fairness, all of us Nadal fans were doing the same before a single ball was hit in the Australian Open final.

That was before the final, and not the tournament.

And there was justification - but who could have foreseen how that match ended, eh? :nono

 

[brokenshoelace]

BS, is 22 enough of a sample size for you? I hope it is. So, is Murray , in the grand scheme of things, Federer's equal? They have played a bunch of meaningful matches. Both won slams...They are 11-11.

Murat, no. Murray is not Fed's equal because they are separated by 15 slams and a plethora of other accolades that Federer has which Murray hasn't come close to.

The argument, I think, is that IF Nadal ends up with 17 (the same number as Roger), would the H2H sway things in his favor? In that case, you can't compare the situation to Fed-Murray or Nadal-Davydenko, because we'd be talking about people with exactly the same amount of slam wins (meaning they are more or less equal, or close to being equal).

Therefore, I still think most of what has been offered is faulty logic or false analogies. For now, Roger is the greater player based on resume, but Rafa has been the better player for the most part when they play one another. It's really not as complicated as people are making it out to be.

Nevertheless, even now, the H2H is deemed more relevant when talking legacies because they have comparable resumes, unlike Fed/Murray or Nadal/Davydenko.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Still not answering . Where it NOT mattered most, Pete STILL beat everyone else easily. Why not Krajicek? Why is it when Pete beats Krajicek it matters, when he loses, it is a statistic?

Answer to your question: They are both aware of their H2H. But they are not there to pad their stats. They are there to win the tournament. They have already beaten 6 guys to get there. They need to beat 1 more guy.

Follow-up question, sir!

Since they're both "aware of their H2H", do you believe the shared history has an effect in their matches?

.

Nope. No matter what, Rafa will play a certain way and no matter what, Roger will always believe it is on his racket if he plays the way he is supposed to play. On CLAY, not so much.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

yes..Federer believes its always down to him.

even at 33yrs old, if he plays his best then he will win. (matches in general).

 

[brokenshoelace]

Not as long as Rafa has his current team "whom I blame for his strenuous training daily regimen and match schedule".. All Fed has to do is just hang around for another Rafa injury or a Djoker meltdown and he will secure number #18.. Trust me.. his Windows is Never closed.

Back on topic. I like it.

Even Bodo, in delighting with the draw Roger had this year, used the default term: the stars have aligned for Roger. And then Nole fell, and the stars went superNovak for him, but he lost.

By the way, one of the satisfying elements of his defeat is that sooooo many Fedfans were gloating before a ball was even hit. The smugness was shining like a snail trail. For this reason alone, I got a fit of the giggles when I saw the score against Cilic...

...in fairness, all of us Nadal fans were doing the same before a single ball was hit in the Australian Open final.

That was before the final, and not the tournament.

And there was justification - but who could have foreseen how that match ended, eh? :nono

I know, if only we knew that Stan would so thoroughly outplay Rafa and there was nothing Rafa could ever do to beat the mighty Stan playing his best tennis.

 

[Kieran]

Still not answering . Where it NOT mattered most, Pete STILL beat everyone else easily. Why not Krajicek? Why is it when Pete beats Krajicek it matters, when he loses, it is a statistic?

Answer to your question: They are both aware of their H2H. But they are not there to pad their stats. They are there to win the tournament. They have already beaten 6 guys to get there. They need to beat 1 more guy.

Follow-up question, sir!

Since they're both "aware of their H2H", do you believe the shared history has an effect in their matches?

.

Nope. No matter what, Rafa will play a certain way and no matter what, Roger will always believe it is on his racket if he plays the way he is supposed to play. On CLAY, not so much.

Seriously? You don't think all those defeats murmur in Roger's ear when he faces a break point against Rafa?

Follow-up to the follow-up!

Is the Ferrer-Berdych H2H as historically significant as the Fedal H2H?

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

BS, is 22 enough of a sample size for you? I hope it is. So, is Murray , in the grand scheme of things, Federer's equal? They have played a bunch of meaningful matches. Both won slams...They are 11-11.

Murat, no. Murray is not Fed's equal because they are separated by 15 slams and a plethora of other accolades that Federer has which Murray hasn't come close to.

The argument, I think, is that IF Nadal ends up with 17 (the same number as Roger), would the H2H sway things in his favor? In that case, you can't compare the situation to Fed-Murray or Nadal-Davydenko, because we'd be talking about people with exactly the same amount of slam wins (meaning they are more or less equal, or close to being equal).

Therefore, I still think most of what has been offered is faulty logic or false analogies. For now, Roger is the greater player based on resume, but Rafa has been the better player for the most part when they play one another. It's really not as complicated as people are making it out to be.

Nevertheless, even now, the H2H is deemed more relevant when talking legacies because they have comparable resumes, unlike Fed/Murray or Nadal/Davydenko.

But that's is exactly what I don't get: If H2H , by itself, is a weak measure of success , how can it become meaningful as a tie breaker?

If you are using the H2H as a tie breaker, you are telling Roger " You know what bro, all those YECs that you won..? Means nothing. That guy that has never won it over there, he owns you...He was never good enough to navigate his way through the top 8 players of any given year but hey, tough titties...Oh , by the way, those weeks at number one? Nobody cares...You have consistently been better than everyone else on the field to be number 1, but that guy over there, even though he has not been number one that long, he owns you..."

How many people here can tell the H2Hs Laver had against his rivals without googling it, how many can tell his biggest achievement as a tennis player without thinking more than 1 second?



Doesn't make any sense to me but hey, to each his own.