Roger should send Novak flowers

[brokenshoelace]

Darth ignores the painful truth, nobody has as many quality wins as Nadal. Despite his insistence of focusing on Nadal losses at the slams as ridiculous if it was to a guy like Tsonga at the AO; it wont change this.

Rafa went through Federer when Roger was ranked #1 and #2 to win his Slams; he also went through Novak when he was ranked #1 and #3 to win a good share as well. His Gonzalez, Davydenkos, Hewits and Roddicks of the world are far less than Roger. (SW19 2010, RG 2010)

Rafa it's the ultimate SLAYER of BIG PREY, something Roger has been found wanting.

The best player of THIS generation will be recognize as the Greatest soon........it's only a formality at this point.

The wins all count the same. It should be said that Nole was only awesome for 1 year too. Other than that he is no more than Murray. He is great at AO and nowhere else.

But none of what you said diffuses the point I made, Roger for his career is way better vs. the field than Rafa. But the fact that he is a walk in the park for Rafa is what will make his career 2nd rate in the end.

OK I conducted some research:

In his entire career, Nadal has lost 21 times to players not named Federer in slams.

Now, Nadal turned pro in 2003, so it's unfair to look at Roger's losses before that year since he's been on the tour for longer. So I'll only count Roger's losses since 2003.

And what do you know, since 2003, Roger has lost 19 times to people not named Nadal.

That's a difference of....TWO, yes two losses only.

So, in other words, he's hardly been WAY better against the field.

There, now that we have facts in the way, is this debate put to bed?

PS: I'll gladly name the losses by the way. And if someone wants to double check, be my guest.

PPS: Nadal's losses would have been even less if I didn't count his pre Roland Garros 2005 losses, which is when he broke out. So yeah, he might even have done BETTER against the field since 2005.

And you are already leaving out a big factor: how many slams did Rafa not play in? I know of at least 5, RG 04, AO 06, Wimby 09, USO 12 and AO 13. Debate put to bed indeed.

Yup. Because I'm sure Rafa had NO chance of winning RG in 04, Wimbledon in 09, the US Open in 12, and the AO in 13. Zero. None at all.

It goes both ways buddy. He might have lost to other people then, OR he might have lost to Fed...OR, better yet, he might have won 3 additional slams and this debate would be put to bed come tomorrow morning

 

[brokenshoelace]

Darth, sorry, but the above argument is silly. In other words, you're saying "Rafa is lucky he was injured and missed all those slams." Uh....What?

 

[DarthFed]

Dear God man, you are way more intelligent than you are showing here.

IF Rafa won ALL 5 of the ones I just listed he would then still be slightly worse vs. the field as you showed. Now, if he lost in ANY of those tournaments he would now have more losses vs. the field and it'd be a bigger gap. And chances are he missed more than just those listed if we are going back to 2003.

One other way to look at this would be to completely take out any majors in which Rafa and Fed played and tally up what their slam wins would look like. Roger would have 15 and Rafa would have 6.

 

[huntingyou]

A little bird told me this:

Rafa goes through his main rivals to win his majors - not around them.


Tennis is the ultimate H2H sport, there is "no passing the ball all out there" yet Darth wants to make all wins equal. :laydownlaughing

Sure, Rafa beating Puerta in the finals was as monumental as beating Novak in the final in 2012.

There is something call critical thinking and some Roger fans seems devoid of that.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Dear God man, you are way more intelligent than you are showing here.

IF Rafa won ALL 5 of the ones I just listed he would then still be slightly worse vs. the field as you showed. Now, if he lost in ANY of those tournaments he would now have more losses vs. the field and it'd be a bigger gap. And chances are he missed more than just those listed if we are going back to 2003.

One other way to look at this would be to completely take out any majors in which Rafa and Fed played and tally up what their slam wins would look like. Roger would have 15 and Rafa would have 6.

Yeah, he still would be 2-3 losses worse against the field, but he'd have at least THREE EXTRA SLAMS, making this debate settled, and making the fact that he's got 3, 4 or even 10 more losses against the field absolutely irrelevant. That's my whole argument.

As far as the second part, we both know that's a ridiculous way of putting it.

My point is, 19 losses vs 21 is really minor, and I bet you didn't think it would be that close. Your original argument was that Federer has done "WAY" better against the field. This is simply untrue. He's done better, slightly better.

 

[huntingyou]

Dear God man, you are way more intelligent than you are showing here.

IF Rafa won ALL 5 of the ones I just listed he would then still be slightly worse vs. the field as you showed. Now, if he lost in ANY of those tournaments he would now have more losses vs. the field and it'd be a bigger gap. And chances are he missed more than just those listed if we are going back to 2003.

One other way to look at this would be to completely take out any majors in which Rafa and Fed played and tally up what their slam wins would look like. Roger would have 15 and Rafa would have 6.

I'll tell you this:

What's Rafa career winning percentage and what's Roger?

No more nonsense of taking this out or eliminating that blah blah

Who is tougher to beat at the ATP level since both careers started?

 

[Front242]

Rafa's winning % is about 2% higher but he's played around 300 less matches. This is irrelevant till they both retire.

 

[huntingyou]

Rafa's winning % is about 2% higher but he's played around 300 less matches. This is irrelevant till they both retire.

Facts are irrelevant? We are talking who is better against the field but since Rafa's career percentage show he is actually BETTER against the field we have to wait until both retire?

You take the cake buddy. Wow, Rafa has an amazing ability of making capable people totally go ballistic on the looney scale.

 

[Front242]

Rafa's winning % is about 2% higher but he's played around 300 less matches. This is irrelevant till they both retire.

Facts are irrelevant? We are talking who is better against the field but since Rafa's career percentage show he is actually BETTER against the field we have to wait until both retire?

You take the cake buddy. Wow, Rafa has an amazing ability of making capable people totally go ballistic on the looney scale.

Of course it's irrelevant since they're both still active players. Duh! Rafa may lose his next 200 matches for all you know and then look at that % That's why you need to wait till they both retire. Also, naturally it's easier to have a higher % based on a lower sample. Another reason to wait for the final numbers.

 

[huntingyou]

Rafa's winning % is about 2% higher but he's played around 300 less matches. This is irrelevant till they both retire.

Facts are irrelevant? We are talking who is better against the field but since Rafa's career percentage show he is actually BETTER against the field we have to wait until both retire?

You take the cake buddy. Wow, Rafa has an amazing ability of making capable people totally go ballistic on the looney scale.

Of course it's irrelevant since they're both still active players. Duh! Rafa may lose his next 200 matches for all you know and then look at that % That's why you need to wait till they both retire. Also, naturally it's easier to have a higher % based on a lower sample. Another reason to wait for the final numbers.

We all know Rafa ain't losing 200 matches more and we all know Roger ain't winning 200 more matches. Rafa has this GAP seal with iron clad buddy. 2% lead it's huge given the sample and where both players are in their respective career.

Your hope it's for Rafa to stick around when he start sucking but he won't.......that much it's clear.

 

[DarthFed]

Dear God man, you are way more intelligent than you are showing here.

IF Rafa won ALL 5 of the ones I just listed he would then still be slightly worse vs. the field as you showed. Now, if he lost in ANY of those tournaments he would now have more losses vs. the field and it'd be a bigger gap. And chances are he missed more than just those listed if we are going back to 2003.

One other way to look at this would be to completely take out any majors in which Rafa and Fed played and tally up what their slam wins would look like. Roger would have 15 and Rafa would have 6.

Yeah, he still would be 2-3 losses worse against the field, but he'd have at least THREE EXTRA SLAMS, making this debate settled, and making the fact that he's got 3, 4 or even 10 more losses against the field absolutely irrelevant. That's my whole argument.

As far as the second part, we both know that's a ridiculous way of putting it.

My point is, 19 losses vs 21 is really minor, and I bet you didn't think it would be that close. Your original argument was that Federer has done "WAY" better against the field. This is simply untrue. He's done better, slightly better.

I did think it'd be that close actually. I will again try to put this in easy terms. Let's play the what if player X never existed game: If Fed never existed Rafa would be going on 16 slams today, if Rafa never existed it is very likely Roger would be at 25 (I am excluding only 2012 AO). This really isn't rocket science here.

 

[Front242]

Rafa's winning % is about 2% higher but he's played around 300 less matches. This is irrelevant till they both retire.

Facts are irrelevant? We are talking who is better against the field but since Rafa's career percentage show he is actually BETTER against the field we have to wait until both retire?

You take the cake buddy. Wow, Rafa has an amazing ability of making capable people totally go ballistic on the looney scale.

Of course it's irrelevant since they're both still active players. Duh! Rafa may lose his next 200 matches for all you know and then look at that % That's why you need to wait till they both retire. Also, naturally it's easier to have a higher % based on a lower sample. Another reason to wait for the final numbers.

We all know Rafa ain't losing 200 matches more and we all know Roger ain't winning 200 more matches. Rafa has this GAP seal with iron clad buddy. 2% lead it's huge given the sample and where both players are in their respective career.

Your hope it's for Rafa to stick around when he start sucking but he won't.......that much it's clear.

Well obviously he won't lose a ton more but you've no idea how much longer either will play for. And I disagree as the sample size is so different, what with Fed being 32 and Nadal 27. You'd need 5 more years of Rafa playing to have a comparable sample size.

 

[DarthFed]

Rafa's winning % is about 2% higher but he's played around 300 less matches. This is irrelevant till they both retire.

Facts are irrelevant? We are talking who is better against the field but since Rafa's career percentage show he is actually BETTER against the field we have to wait until both retire?

You take the cake buddy. Wow, Rafa has an amazing ability of making capable people totally go ballistic on the looney scale.

Of course it's irrelevant since they're both still active players. Duh! Rafa may lose his next 200 matches for all you know and then look at that % That's why you need to wait till they both retire. Also, naturally it's easier to have a higher % based on a lower sample. Another reason to wait for the final numbers.

We all know Rafa ain't losing 200 matches more and we all know Roger ain't winning 200 more matches. Rafa has this GAP seal with iron clad buddy. 2% lead it's huge given the sample and where both players are in their respective career.

Your hope it's for Rafa to stick around when he start sucking but he won't.......that much it's clear.

Yea, as Fed has. Roger is getting punished for becoming Favre and Jordan at aged 40. Maybe he deserves it a little but winning % is overrated stat anyways. We all know tennis' "postseason" is the slams. I don't care about these guys beating up on people in worthless tourneys.

 

[huntingyou]

Rafa's winning % is about 2% higher but he's played around 300 less matches. This is irrelevant till they both retire.

Facts are irrelevant? We are talking who is better against the field but since Rafa's career percentage show he is actually BETTER against the field we have to wait until both retire?

You take the cake buddy. Wow, Rafa has an amazing ability of making capable people totally go ballistic on the looney scale.

Of course it's irrelevant since they're both still active players. Duh! Rafa may lose his next 200 matches for all you know and then look at that % That's why you need to wait till they both retire. Also, naturally it's easier to have a higher % based on a lower sample. Another reason to wait for the final numbers.

We all know Rafa ain't losing 200 matches more and we all know Roger ain't winning 200 more matches. Rafa has this GAP seal with iron clad buddy. 2% lead it's huge given the sample and where both players are in their respective career.

Your hope it's for Rafa to stick around when he start sucking but he won't.......that much it's clear.

Well obviously he won't lose a ton more but you've no idea how much longer either will play for. And I disagree as the sample size is so different, what with Fed being 32 and Nadal 27. You'd need 5 more years of Rafa playing to have a comparable sample size.

NO NO NO

We have CAREERS here, total matches are irrelevant. This is winning percentage not total values.

Age it's meaningless, Rafa might not play past 30 and Roger might stick around until he is 38.........who cares. So far Rafa has been more SUCCESSFUL against the field than Roger. Simple as that. Done.

 

[DarthFed]

A little bird told me this:

Rafa goes through his main rivals to win his majors - not around them.


Tennis is the ultimate H2H sport, there is "no passing the ball all out there" yet Darth wants to make all wins equal. :laydownlaughing

Sure, Rafa beating Puerta in the finals was as monumental as beating Novak in the final in 2012.

There is something call critical thinking and some Roger fans seems devoid of that.

The win vs. Puerta counts the same as the win vs. Novak except for one immeasurable factor: that being how it impacted both players psychologically. Puerta is of course a non factor whereas Novak is the chief rival. It was more important that Nadal win the 2012 title than that 2005 one but they still count the same...+1 to the slam count. There is that obvious difference that you are not comprehending. Rafa didn't get .4 slams for beating Berd and 2.5 for beating Fed in 08.

 

[huntingyou]

Yea, as Fed has. Roger is getting punished for becoming Favre and Jordan at aged 40. Maybe he deserves it a little but winning % is overrated stat anyways. We all know tennis' "postseason" is the slams. I don't care about these guys beating up on people in worthless tourneys.

I'll tell you what:

Let's make Rafa right handed and give him terminal cancer at the age of 25, in this world Roger fans need no worries because his legacy would be secure.

So 4 tournaments it's all that matter in tennis? Send the memo to all top players not to waste time with meaningless Master events and WTF and Davis Cups and Olympics.

This is priceless

 

[Front242]

Total matches played obviously dictate the degree of the winning %, what the hell are you talking about? Either way it's one of the more useless stats out there.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Dear God man, you are way more intelligent than you are showing here.

IF Rafa won ALL 5 of the ones I just listed he would then still be slightly worse vs. the field as you showed. Now, if he lost in ANY of those tournaments he would now have more losses vs. the field and it'd be a bigger gap. And chances are he missed more than just those listed if we are going back to 2003.

One other way to look at this would be to completely take out any majors in which Rafa and Fed played and tally up what their slam wins would look like. Roger would have 15 and Rafa would have 6.

Yeah, he still would be 2-3 losses worse against the field, but he'd have at least THREE EXTRA SLAMS, making this debate settled, and making the fact that he's got 3, 4 or even 10 more losses against the field absolutely irrelevant. That's my whole argument.

As far as the second part, we both know that's a ridiculous way of putting it.

My point is, 19 losses vs 21 is really minor, and I bet you didn't think it would be that close. Your original argument was that Federer has done "WAY" better against the field. This is simply untrue. He's done better, slightly better.

I did think it'd be that close actually. I will again try to put this in easy terms. Let's play the what if player X never existed game: If Fed never existed Rafa would be going on 16 slams today, if Rafa never existed it is very likely Roger would be at 25 (I am excluding only 2012 AO). This really isn't rocket science here.

Well... to play Front's "Fed has been on the tour longer" card (which, in fairness, is a valid argument), this is normal because Fed has been on tour longer, and thus racked up some slams A) before Nadal broke through and B) Before Nadal peaked (meaning Nadal wasn't reaching him in some of those slams in say, 05 and 06). Like I said in my original post, this only highlights the age discrepancy between them, and is pretty telling with regards to their respective peaks.

So yeah, that really doesn't tell anything and it's not rocket science indeed.

 

[DarthFed]

Facts are irrelevant? We are talking who is better against the field but since Rafa's career percentage show he is actually BETTER against the field we have to wait until both retire?

You take the cake buddy. Wow, Rafa has an amazing ability of making capable people totally go ballistic on the looney scale.

Of course it's irrelevant since they're both still active players. Duh! Rafa may lose his next 200 matches for all you know and then look at that % That's why you need to wait till they both retire. Also, naturally it's easier to have a higher % based on a lower sample. Another reason to wait for the final numbers.

We all know Rafa ain't losing 200 matches more and we all know Roger ain't winning 200 more matches. Rafa has this GAP seal with iron clad buddy. 2% lead it's huge given the sample and where both players are in their respective career.

Your hope it's for Rafa to stick around when he start sucking but he won't.......that much it's clear.

Well obviously he won't lose a ton more but you've no idea how much longer either will play for. And I disagree as the sample size is so different, what with Fed being 32 and Nadal 27. You'd need 5 more years of Rafa playing to have a comparable sample size.

NO NO NO

We have CAREERS here, total matches are irrelevant. This is winning percentage not total values.

Age it's meaningless, Rafa might not play past 30 and Roger might stick around until he is 38.........who cares. So far Rafa has been more SUCCESSFUL against the field than Roger. Simple as that. Done.

Then you have the Borg effect where his career winning % is great because he ran for the hills as soon as there was some adversity. I guess Borg was better vs. the field than Roger too. If Roger had retired after 2007 (comparable age to Borg) his winning % would have been probably about as high as Borg's. Instead Roger stuck around and lost a crap load more but grabbed 5 slams. And now he is at full on scrub level from 2013 on. That win % will get more pathetic, soon Murray and others probably will pass it. I guess they were better vs. the field too though right :laydownlaughing

 

[huntingyou]

A little bird told me this:

Rafa goes through his main rivals to win his majors - not around them.


Tennis is the ultimate H2H sport, there is "no passing the ball all out there" yet Darth wants to make all wins equal. :laydownlaughing

Sure, Rafa beating Puerta in the finals was as monumental as beating Novak in the final in 2012.

There is something call critical thinking and some Roger fans seems devoid of that.

The win vs. Puerta counts the same as the win vs. Novak except for one immeasurable factor: that being how it impacted both players psychologically. Puerta is of course a non factor whereas Novak is the chief rival. It was more important that Nadal win the 2012 title than that 2005 one but they still count the same...+1 to the slam count. There is that obvious difference that you are not comprehending. Rafa didn't get .4 slams for beating Berd and 2.5 for beating Fed in 08.

No, you are missing the essence of sport and tennis in specific. This is not a numbers game and there is CONTEXT to history that goes beyond the shallow appearance of a +1 in slam counts.

Instead of being intellectually honest you resort to dehumanize and cheapen the value of what individual players being to the table and what it means to really beat the BEST.

At this point we are just whores for numbers and shiny objects..............why even watch the matches? Let's just wait for ESPN to tell us who got the +1 at the end of the tournament.