The real story of Fedal H2H

[britbox]

There is no way it can be argued that the losses on clay made Roger better and more resilient. I mean look at the twin non-clay disasters at Wimbledon 08 and AO 09. It is much more clear to say that the clay losses contributed heavily to Rafa being in Roger's head which made his task much easier at Wimbledon and AO.

The fact of the matter is most abuse has been on clay. The Rafa nuts like to act as though Nadal had Roger's number everywhere from the get go. It only really got ugly on HC when Roger was in his 30's and now Roger at geriatric age managed to turn the HC record around a bit. Still an embarrassing 10-8 but better than before.

I was about to disagree before I read it a second time and figured out what you were actually saying.

I think those clay losses definitely got into Federer's head... and translated onto other surfaces. Nadal was a fixture in his head for some time. Federer even pointed out that the reason he has enjoyed success against Nadal in recent times was largely due to the fact that he went so long without playing him consistently and got a mental reset.

On the flip side, Nadal isn't the player he once was either - especially off the clay courts.

 

[DarthFed]

I was about to disagree before I read it a second time and figured out what you were actually saying.

I think those clay losses definitely got into Federer's head... and translated onto other surfaces. Nadal was a fixture in his head for some time. Federer even pointed out that the reason he has enjoyed success against Nadal in recent times was largely due to the fact that he went so long without playing him consistently and got a mental reset.

On the flip side, Nadal isn't the player he once was either - especially off the clay courts.

Rafa is as good as ever on HC, aside from 2013 when he played out of his mind, and it is due to his all-around game and ability to play more aggressive. He may play different than he used to but I don't think there's much evidence to say he's declined on HC. Grass and even clay is a different story.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

How many times during those tournaments was Nadal either injured or making a comeback from injury? That's the real question. Federer accumulated most of his slams before Nadal came into his own or when Nadal was in the midst of one of his setbacks. Why do you guys think Federer is often referred to as "Vulturer" or "Frauderer"? B-) These nicknames didn't come out of nowhere. The worst I've seen Nadal being called is "Dull".

 

[DarthFed]

How many times during those tournaments was Nadal either injured or making a comeback from injury? That's the real question. Federer accumulated most of his slams before Nadal came into his own or when Nadal was in the midst of one of his setbacks. Why do you guys think Federer is often referred to as "Vulturer" or "Frauderer"? B-) These nicknames didn't come out of nowhere. The worst I've seen Nadal being called is "Dull".

Dull always sits out if he is in even minor discomfort. The guy is a puss when it comes to injuries. He is just inferior to Federer and Djokovic on everything except clay. Everyone accepts it, son. It's time for you to do so as well.

 

[Moxie]

Answering to both you and @DarthFed.

First,about 06.... I guess you guys are underestimating how one match, one set, and sometimes one point can affect the way you play in the next matches, sets and points. I will never say that surely the H2H would be turned upside down -- we know there are technical reasons playing here, but could it have influenced the outcome of a few other tight matches? Surely it could. Just like that drop shot to go up a double break in the first set of the 2011 RG final (out by half an inch). Can you imagine the giant wave of confidence a guy would be riding after beating Djokovic in the semi and beating Nadal 6x2 in the first set of the final? Again, Nadal does not gives matches away, but everyone who ever picked a racket knows that one point sometimes change completely the way you play for the next hour. So, back to 06, maybe that win would have prevented the change in approach in 2008... he could even have not made the final, or just not get routed that way. It all would impact in the W final. Anyway, Federer was clearly bellow his level from previous years in 2008. @El Dude has shown his stats against the field a thousand times. This does means he was a completely sucker (he was #2 in the world by year end), but he was a tad bellow his peak, Nadal was a tad above his previous years. Those little differences have a huge effect on tennis.

And I maintain the fact that the Nadal losses made Federer a better player (even if in a specific sense). Yes, the "process" going on led to the 2008/2009 bad losses against Nadal. But this is not what I am talking about. What I am saying is that I am sure it helped him to go through all the mediocre years from 2009 on (by his standards, even if with some occasional peaks) and just not retire. When he got to that phase in his career where great champions start to lose (and most cannot handle it), he already knew the feeling, he already knew how to look for answers. From a stubborn player who played without a coach and always tried to beat his adversaries playing their strengths rather than their weaknesses, from the tactically obedient guy we have from 2012/2013 on, the change is enormous. This change is not debatable. The cause of it, ok, is debatable, and my take is that great part of it is named Nadal.



No, I got that. I just probably did not express my self decently. My point that all those numbers I cited where symptoms that the T2T would be in favor of Federer. And, yes, I agree that the T2T is more "complete" than the H2H.

@Moxie, maybe the (obvious) fact that the guy who compiled the stats is a Federer fan made the basic finding look more biased than it actually is. Imagine if (and this is a "neutral" what if) the guy just cut the crap and decided to post only the basic finding. Both entered X tournaments together, Federer won Y%, Nadal Z%, Y>Z. That's it, that's the simplicity that GSM is trying to make reference to.

The problem is not the stat, it is the conclusion you take out of it. Y>Z is clear, but John > Jake is a whole other story. Tennis players are not numbers. The first conclusion I take with some confidence is that Federer is a more complete player than Nadal -- because all those tournaments where played in different surfaces, against different players across different generations. Of course we can argue if conditions were different, the numbers would be different. If tennis were only played on clay (or grass) there would be no discussion whatsoever.

My objection to the "article" is not merely that his tone was pro-Fed, but, as I said before, I felt that his approach was, too. He omitted things that should have been said about Nadal. He wasn't dealing with a H2H between 2 players, IMO, but trying to improve one player's position in it. But hey, I also can't just let you Fed fans nod your heads and be happy with this idea (not that you and El Dude did that.) As a Nadal fan, I consider it my duty to counter-argue.

Like Darth, I still disagree with you about 2006 Rome. Even losing, at that stage, Roger still felt that he could beat Nadal on any given day, and that he'd bring him to heel eventually. I think he was still underestimating Nadal at that point.

 

[Moxie]

Dull always sits out if he is in even minor discomfort. The guy is a puss when it comes to injuries. He is just inferior to Federer and Djokovic on everything except clay. Everyone accepts it, son. It's time for you to do so as well.

This is untrue and unfair. He claims to play in general with pain, and he stayed on his damaged knees longer than he should have in '09, for example. There's no good reason to disbelieve this. You have no idea what discomfort he deals with, nor do I. To Nadalfan2013's point, I think the article could have included, in it's list of T2T, tournaments that Nadal had to retire/withdraw, because it does skew the number. But that didn't suit the fellow's agenda.

 

[DarthFed]

This is untrue and unfair. He claims to play in general with pain, and he stayed on his damaged knees longer than he should have in '09, for example. There's no good reason to disbelieve this. You have no idea what discomfort he deals with, nor do I. To Nadalfan2013's point, I think the article could have included, in it's list of T2T, tournaments that Nadal had to retire/withdraw, because it does skew the number. But that didn't suit the fellow's agenda.

Oh cry me a river. So because he played in a tournament and withdrew we should give him credit for winning the tournament? How about matches like this past USO where he was forced to run around like a madman for 12 hours to polish off a few weaklings and then got hurt in the process? How about 2010 AO when Sir Andy was taking him to the cleaners and he retired after falling in a 2 set hole. How about AO this year when he was doing ALL the running and just playing defense against Cilic until he pulled a muscle? He often withdraws when he is getting his ass kicked.

Why stop at tournaments he "had to" withdraw from and then add ones you think he wasn't 100% in. We know you Ralph clowns want to do that next.

 

[Moxie]

Oh cry me a river. So because he played in a tournament and withdrew we should give him credit for winning the tournament? How about matches like this past USO where he was forced to run around like a madman for 12 hours to polish off a few weaklings and then got hurt in the process? How about 2010 AO when Sir Andy was taking him to the cleaners and he retired after falling in a 2 set hole. How about AO this year when he was doing ALL the running and just playing defense against Cilic until he pulled a muscle? He often withdraws when he is getting his ass kicked.

Why stop at tournaments he "had to" withdraw from and then add ones you think he wasn't 100% in. We know you Ralph clowns want to do that next.

Of course you would respond with complete derision, but, if one is to be accurate about these stats, it does matter if someone was unable to finish a tournament due to injury, not loss. Nice to back a player who rarely gets injured or sick, except when he does, and you tell us how it hampered him, even when he still played. Speaking of that, I can't believe you had to type out the whole of his matches in 2008. I did say that he was clearly impaired by mono early in the year, based on results and what he himself said. However, he did play Nadal close in a couple of finals on clay that Spring, so one has to imagine that he was well by then. It was a light enough case of mono not to have kept him out of a tournament, so it can't have been affecting him all year. And he did win the USO, so he didn't suck all year. He just didn't win as much as in '07.

 

[mrzz]

In regards to the Rome match to me it comes down to whether it would've affected the RG final that year. And I just don't think it would have mattered because Roger came out very confident in that match anyways. Won the first set 6-1 but then Nadal easily turned it around and won in 4 sets. If it was a situation where it was a back and forth match that Roger barely lost (like the Rome final) then I'd agree that a win in Rome may have led to a win at RG. Rafa was just already a lot better on clay than Roger was and the gap only got larger.

First, this is a really good point. I could not help but search for highlights on youtube. On the first set, you have a very confident Federer and a so-so Nadal. But is still amazing how everything turns around quickly. Federer fails to close the first game of the second set after having a game-point at 40-30 (he had a doable passing shot on his racquet). In the highlights I saw they don't show the deuce point, but is telling how timid Federer plays the break point next. In other words, he surely could have used more confidence in that game.He might have started very confident but he surely ended it the other way around. Obviously Nadal has a say on that too, but still... it was just like a coin flip.

Answering to @Moxie, I do not think Federer underestimated Nadal. Maybe he overestimated himself. He had played him just too many times already to underestimate him. You can fool yourself after one match... not after 10 (specially if that includes five setters). How crazy must someone be to underestimate a guy who is blitzing through the field?

 

[Moxie]

First, this is a really good point. I could not help but search for highlights on youtube. On the first set, you have a very confident Federer and a so-so Nadal. But is still amazing how everything turns around quickly. Federer fails to close the first game of the second set after having a game-point at 40-30 (he had a doable passing shot on his racquet). In the highlights I saw they don't show the deuce point, but is telling how timid Federer plays the break point next. In other words, he surely could have used more confidence in that game.He might have started very confident but he surely ended it the other way around. Obviously Nadal has a say on that too, but still... it was just like a coin flip.

Answering to @Moxie, I do not think Federer underestimated Nadal. Maybe he overestimated himself. He had played him just too many times already to underestimate him. You can fool yourself after one match... not after 10 (specially if that includes five setters). How crazy must someone be to underestimate a guy who is blitzing through the field?

Perhaps I should have said that he may have underestimated Nadal's mentality. Surely he didn't underestimate his tennis on clay. But I do suspect that Federer was still thinking he'd eventually get under Rafa's skin as he'd done with basically everyone else. And yes, I do think he overestimated himself. He had every right to have a lot of trust in his game, but it did take him a really long time to make adjustments for Nadal. Anyway, for both of those reasons, I don't think that Fed winning the Rome final would have made any difference in their dynamic on clay, or off of it.

 

[atttomole]

Of course you would respond with complete derision, but, if one is to be accurate about these stats, it does matter if someone was unable to finish a tournament due to injury, not loss. Nice to back a player who rarely gets injured or sick, except when he does, and you tell us how it hampered him, even when he still played. Speaking of that, I can't believe you had to type out the whole of his matches in 2008. I did say that he was clearly impaired by mono early in the year, based on results and what he himself said. However, he did play Nadal close in a couple of finals on clay that Spring, so one has to imagine that he was well by then. It was a light enough case of mono not to have kept him out of a tournament, so it can't have been affecting him all year. And he did win the USO, so he didn't suck all year. He just didn't win as much as in '07.

Unfortunately, Nadal’s withdrawals are obviously due to his punishing style of play. I don’t see why he should get a pass for withdrawing. I don’t remember Roger withdrawing from a match because he was losing. He allows opponents to get their wins, even when he has a good reason to withdraw. Imagine if Roger had withdrawn from the RG final in 2008 when he was being steamrolled.

 

[Moxie]

Unfortunately, Nadal’s withdrawals are obviously due to his punishing style of play. I don’t see why he should get a pass for withdrawing. I don’t remember Roger withdrawing from a match because he was losing. He allows opponents to get their wins, even when he has a good reason to withdraw. Imagine if Roger had withdrawn from the RG final in 2008 when he was being steamrolled.

If I remember correctly, Roger has NEVER withdrawn from a match. That's very elegant, and I give it all respect. However, I don't actually remember him being hampered with injury in any match that you might have thought he should withdraw from. Not so with Nadal, unfortunately. I don't ask for a "pass" for him withdrawing. I'm only saying that the stats are somewhat skewed in the original net post that GSM cited, because it implies that when Nadal wasn't beaten by Federer, in their T2T, he lost to someone else. It doesn't take into account when he may have withdrawn due to injury. You can "blame" him for his style of play, if you like, but then you can't say that it shouldn't be taken into account. You can't have it both ways.

 

[DarthFed]

Of course you would respond with complete derision, but, if one is to be accurate about these stats, it does matter if someone was unable to finish a tournament due to injury, not loss. Nice to back a player who rarely gets injured or sick, except when he does, and you tell us how it hampered him, even when he still played. Speaking of that, I can't believe you had to type out the whole of his matches in 2008. I did say that he was clearly impaired by mono early in the year, based on results and what he himself said. However, he did play Nadal close in a couple of finals on clay that Spring, so one has to imagine that he was well by then. It was a light enough case of mono not to have kept him out of a tournament, so it can't have been affecting him all year. And he did win the USO, so he didn't suck all year. He just didn't win as much as in '07.

I typed out the 2008 season to show how bad his struggles were. He played in all 9 masters, the YEC, and the Olympics. That is 15 big tourneys and he only won 1 and only reached the finals of 4 others. I don't blame all or even most on mono. Maybe it contributed to the poor start but at some point it became about him and a lack of confidence and just sucking in prettt much all the big moments.

 

[DarthFed]

My objection to the "article" is not merely that his tone was pro-Fed, but, as I said before, I felt that his approach was, too. He omitted things that should have been said about Nadal. He wasn't dealing with a H2H between 2 players, IMO, but trying to improve one player's position in it. But hey, I also can't just let you Fed fans nod your heads and be happy with this idea (not that you and El Dude did that.) As a Nadal fan, I consider it my duty to counter-argue.

Like Darth, I still disagree with you about 2006 Rome. Even losing, at that stage, Roger still felt that he could beat Nadal on any given day, and that he'd bring him to heel eventually. I think he was still underestimating Nadal at that point.

2006 Rome isn't the big what if on clay. From Roger's perspective it is the 2008 clay matches that I wish never materialized. He was playing terrible tennis and was dead meat. The RG final made him weak for Wimbledon and that match made him weak for AO

 

[atttomole]

If I remember correctly, Roger has NEVER withdrawn from a match. That's very elegant, and I give it all respect. However, I don't actually remember him being hampered with injury in any match that you might have thought he should withdraw from. Not so with Nadal, unfortunately. I don't ask for a "pass" for him withdrawing. I'm only saying that the stats are somewhat skewed in the original net post that GSM cited, because it implies that when Nadal wasn't beaten by Federer, in their T2T, he lost to someone else. It doesn't take into account when he may have withdrawn due to injury. You can "blame" him for his style of play, if you like, but then you can't say that it shouldn't be taken into account. You can't have it both ways.

Federer does not have to beat Nadal in a tournament in which they both enter. He just has to win the tournament, whatever way. If Federer wins a tournament that Nadal withdraws from, it does not diminish the weight of Federer's win, with respect to T2T. Nadal's style of play should be taken into account because it has allowed him to win so many slams. It is you that wants to have it both ways.

I think Federer has had injuries from which he could have withdrawn, but continued to play. Against Berdych at Wimbledon 2010, for example, he looked incapacitated with back problems. There are surely other matches that I am forgetting. The difference between Federer and Nadal is that Nadal's game is largely based on wearing down opponents, by chasing every ball, while Federer's game is mostly shot-making and serving. With the same injury, I guess Federer would be able to play at a higher level than Nadal.

 

[Moxie]

Federer does not have to beat Nadal in a tournament in which they both enter. He just has to win the tournament, whatever way. If Federer wins a tournament that Nadal withdraws from, it does not diminish the weight of Federer's win, with respect to T2T. Nadal's style of play should be taken into account because it has allowed him to win so many slams. It is you that wants to have it both ways.

I think Federer has had injuries from which he could have withdrawn, but continued to play. Against Berdych at Wimbledon 2010, for example, he looked incapacitated with back problems. There are surely other matches that I am forgetting. The difference between Federer and Nadal is that Nadal's game is largely based on wearing down opponents, by chasing every ball, while Federer's game is mostly shot-making and serving. With the same injury, I guess Federer would be able to play at a higher level than Nadal.

I don't think you read the article we're discussing. The notion of tournament-to-tournament was how each fared when they both played the same tournament. The article said that Fed won 14/14 when they both played. That Nadal won 17/23 when they both play, if I remember correctly. But it doesn't tell us when Nadal withdrew from injury, or if he just lost to someone else. Same is true for the stat of Roger going further in tournaments they both played. No stat for Nadal withdrawing for injury. It does make a difference. The OP of the article, however, doesn't seem to want to parse things, when it comes to Nadal. Only Roger. That's my objection.

That Nadal just wears down opponents is not a truth, but a "truism," meaning that you all like to believe it, but it's a vast over-simplification of his game. If he merely played a game of attrition, I don't see how he'd have 17 Majors.

 

[Moxie]

2006 Rome isn't the big what if on clay. From Roger's perspective it is the 2008 clay matches that I wish never materialized. He was playing terrible tennis and was dead meat. The RG final made him weak for Wimbledon and that match made him weak for AO

Are you saying that if Roger hadn't played so well against Rafa earlier in the clay season that he wouldn't have done so poorly at RG? Because that doesn't make sense. Roger's problem at RG was that Rafa was playing amazing tennis that clay season. Roger was only terrible in that RG final. Let's face it: he gave up on that match. Even Uncle Toni said so, to his own astonishment. Clearly that didn't bode well for Wimbledon, but Roger had his chances. His problem was that Rafa was gaining on him at Wimbledon, too. He could definitely have won in '07. Still, Roger pulled himself together and won the USO. What had gone before didn't have to impact the AO final in '09. That was another case when I think Federer underestimated Nadal. He figured he was done after the SF v. Verdasco. Imho, given that it was Rafa's first final on HC, and how rough his SF had been, (and that it was a night after Roger's,) I do think that Roger counted that one in the treasure chest before time. No one, not even us Nadal fans, thought Rafa would win that match.

 

[DarthFed]

Are you saying that if Roger hadn't played so well against Rafa earlier in the clay season that he wouldn't have done so poorly at RG? Because that doesn't make sense. Roger's problem at RG was that Rafa was playing amazing tennis that clay season. Roger was only terrible in that RG final. Let's face it: he gave up on that match. Even Uncle Toni said so, to his own astonishment. Clearly that didn't bode well for Wimbledon, but Roger had his chances. His problem was that Rafa was gaining on him at Wimbledon, too. He could definitely have won in '07. Still, Roger pulled himself together and won the USO. What had gone before didn't have to impact the AO final in '09. That was another case when I think Federer underestimated Nadal. He figured he was done after the SF v. Verdasco. Imho, given that it was Rafa's first final on HC, and how rough his SF had been, (and that it was a night after Roger's,) I do think that Roger counted that one in the treasure chest before time. No one, not even us Nadal fans, thought Rafa would win that match.

First of all he didn't play well in those first two clay matches. He got out to commanding leads in both MC sets only to lose both. Same deal in Hamburg where he was up 5-1 and lost the set after a fake medical timeout from Nadal. But the main one was RG. I don't care that Nadal came close in 2007, that wasn't a good match from Roger either, but regardless a close match in 2007 didn't mean he was "supposed" to win 2008. It took a ton of help from Federer whose play was overstated to laughable extremes by Rafa fans. Certainly the beat down at RG hurt Fed and gave Nadal a ton of confidence. And that match ages poorly for Roger when you see Rosol and the sisters of the blind beat Nadal at Wimbledon. He was never anything special on grass, Roger shat the bed.

I don't think Roger underestimated Nadal at AO, he just was already spooked anytime Rafa was across the net. The 5th set was laughable.

 

[Moxie]

First of all he didn't play well in those first two clay matches. He got out to commanding leads in both MC sets only to lose both. Same deal in Hamburg where he was up 5-1 and lost the set after a fake medical timeout from Nadal. But the main one was RG. I don't care that Nadal came close in 2007, that wasn't a good match from Roger either, but regardless a close match in 2007 didn't mean he was "supposed" to win 2008. It took a ton of help from Federer whose play was overstated to laughable extremes by Rafa fans. Certainly the beat down at RG hurt Fed and gave Nadal a ton of confidence. And that match ages poorly for Roger when you see Rosol and the sisters of the blind beat Nadal at Wimbledon. He was never anything special on grass, Roger shat the bed.

I don't think Roger underestimated Nadal at AO, he just was already spooked anytime Rafa was across the net. The 5th set was laughable.

I don't see how you say he didn't play well against Nadal in those matches, if he took him to 3 in both, in a season when Nadal was playing ethereally well. (Does amuse me that you still have catalogued the MTO, though. Jeepers, elephants have nothing on you and Front.)

Here's where it becomes really laughable, though. Roger played poorly in 2007 W final, too?? And Roger's play in 2008 is not "overstated to laughable extremes by Rafa fans." It's actually "overstated" (if you like) by the world press at large, and every commentator on tennis. You may not agree, but you don't get to act as if Nadal fans invented the notion that Roger played well in what is generally considered the Greatest Tennis Match of All Time. You don't get that when one of them plays crap. You and a few Federer fans on the internet are alone in that assessment.

As to the 5th set of the AO in '09, I'll give you that...it was the moment when Roger got that "look." He'd seen that movie before. He knew Rafa was going to get him, and he did rather fall apart.

 

[DarthFed]

I don't see how you say he didn't play well against Nadal in those matches, if he took him to 3 in both, in a season when Nadal was playing ethereally well. (Does amuse me that you still have catalogued the MTO, though. Jeepers, elephants have nothing on you and Front.)

Here's where it becomes really laughable, though. Roger played poorly in 2007 W final, too?? And Roger's play in 2008 is not "overstated to laughable extremes by Rafa fans." It's actually "overstated" (if you like) by the world press at large, and every commentator on tennis. You may not agree, but you don't get to act as if Nadal fans invented the notion that Roger played well in what is generally considered the Greatest Tennis Match of All Time. You don't get that when one of them plays crap. You and a few Federer fans on the internet are alone in that assessment.

As to the 5th set of the AO in '09, I'll give you that...it was the moment when Roger got that "look." He'd seen that movie before. He knew Rafa was going to get him, and he did rather fall apart.

MC was straight sets. Hamburg was a very low bouncing clay court which is why Roger had more success there than traditional clay including a win vs Nadal in 2007. Sure, Roger overall may not have been bad but the fact that he kept blowing enormous leads in sets was a bad trend that continued at Wimbledon when he blew the 2nd set. The Wimbledon match was the greatest match I've seen because of the stakes and drama. But Roger went from pure trash to a barely acceptable level. At a decent level on grass he is simply way better than Nadal. It was the perfect storm of poor confidence and very erratic play with an astronomical amount of UE's.