The real story of Fedal H2H

[atttomole]

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.

I get the gist of the article and I understand that you want the article to parse the statistics. That is why I said that it does not matter whether Nadal withdrew when Roger won the tournament or not because Roger plays whoever is across the net. Are you saying that Roger's wins should count less when Nadal withdraws from the tournaments or is beaten by someone else, or vice versa? Unless you are hinting that Roger was always going to lose if they met.

 

[Moxie]

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.

MC was 7-5, 7-5, though. Anyway, I know you have to say that Roger was poor because Rafa beat him. It's a trap of your own making, though. You make absolutely no room for Nadal's great play. Fine...I wouldn't expect you to. But it was there, nonetheless.

 

[Moxie]

I get the gist of the article and I understand that you want the article to parse the statistics. That is why I said that it does not matter whether Nadal withdrew when Roger won the tournament or not because Roger plays whoever is across the net. Are you saying that Roger's wins should count less when Nadal withdraws from the tournaments or is beaten by someone else, or vice versa? Unless you are hinting that Roger was always going to lose if they met.

No, I'm only saying that the OP of that article should come clean as to when Rafa did not win a tournament that Roger was also entered in, when Roger didn't win, either. This has nothing to do with Roger's wins.

 

[atttomole]

No, I'm only saying that the OP of that article should come clean as to when Rafa did not win a tournament after having beaten Roger. This has nothing to do with Roger's wins.

Why should that matter? Remember Roger and Rafa were seeded 1 and 2 for many years, so they mostly met in finals.

 

[El Dude]

I thought I'd throw out some numbers to show to what degree Roger Federer declined between 2006 and 2008. Let's look at his losses for each of the three years:

2006 (92-5 overall, 12 titles)
A truly remarkable year - only 5 losses. Perhaps even more impressive, and rarely mentioned, is that he reached the final of 16 out of the 17 tournaments he played in.

Losses:
#2 Rafael Nadal at Dubai, F
#2 Rafael Nadal at Monte Carlo, F
#2 Rafael Nadal at Rome, F
#2 Rafael Nadal at Roland Garros, F
#21 Andy Murray at Cincinnati, R32

2007 (68-9, 8 titles)
Still very much prime Federer and one of his trio of three Slam years, 2007 sees subtle decline as he starts losing to non-elite players:

Losses:
#60 Guillermo Canas at Indian Wells, R64
#55 Guillermo Canas at Miami Masters, R32
#2 Rafael Nadal at Monte Carlo, F
#53 Filippo Volandri at Rome, R16
#2 Rafael Nadal at Roland Garros, F
#4 Novak Djokovic at Canada, F
#25 David Nalbandian at Madrid (hc), F
#21 David Nalbandian at Paris, R16
#7 Fernando Gonzalez at Tennis Masters Cup, RR

2008 (66-15, 4 titles)
Losses:
#3 Novak Djokovic at Australian Open, SF
#11 Andy Murray at Dubai, R32
#98 Mardy Fish at Indian Wells, SF
#6 Andy Roddick at Miami, QF
#2 Rafael Nadal at Monte Carlo, F
#27 Radek Stepanek at Rome, QF
#2 Rafael Nadal at Hamburg, F
#2 Rafael Nadal at Roland Garros, F
#2 Rafael Nadal at Wimbledon, F
#22 Gilles Simon at Canada, R32
#22 Ivo Karlovic, at Cincinnati, R16
#7 James Blake at Olympics, QF
#4 Andy Murray at Madrid (hc), SF
#9 Gilles Simon at Tennis Masters Cup, RR
#4 Andy Murray at Tennis Masters Cup, RR


So in those three years we see Roger go from 5 to 9 to 15 losses, and 12 to 8 to 4 titles. That's quite a steep decline. On the surface he bounced back a bit in 2009, but not really - 12 losses, 4 titles. This was probably mainly due to Rafa's injury-plagued year, otherwise he was a similar player in 2009 as he had been in 2008.

Conclusion: Federer declined steeply from 2006 to 2008, and never fully recovered. This was exacerbated--but not caused--by Nadal reaching his peak in 2008, and the emergence of Djokovic and Murray as elite players.

What is unclear is why Roger started to decline at the relatively young age of 25 (in early 2007). That wasn't unusual for players of his era and before. What is unusual is the slower decline patterns we've seen in later generations, namely Nadal and Djokovic. But their slower decline is probably exagerrated by the weak "Lost Gen."

 

[Moxie]

Why should that matter? Remember Roger and Rafa were seeded 1 and 2 for many years, so they mostly met in finals.

Read the forum post cited again. GSM's whole jive is about the tournaments that both played in and how they did, regardless of whether or not they played each other. The blog post tries to insist that Roger did better in that case, overall, and that matters more. You have to get that, or you're not arguing the right points.

 

[El Dude]

According to Elo Rating, Roger peaked at age 24-25 (2006), while Rafa peaked at 27 (2013) and Novak at 28 (2015-16).

 

[Moxie]

I thought I'd throw out some numbers to show to what degree Roger Federer declined between 2006 and 2008. Let's look at his losses for each of the three years:

2006 (92-5 overall, 12 titles)
A truly remarkable year - only 5 losses. Perhaps even more impressive, and rarely mentioned, is that he reached the final of 16 out of the 17 tournaments he played in.

Losses:
#2 Rafael Nadal at Dubai, F
#2 Rafael Nadal at Monte Carlo, F
#2 Rafael Nadal at Rome, F
#2 Rafael Nadal at Roland Garros, F
#21 Andy Murray at Cincinnati, R32

2007 (68-9, 8 titles)
Still very much prime Federer and one of his trio of three Slam years, 2007 sees subtle decline as he starts losing to non-elite players:

Losses:
#60 Guillermo Canas at Indian Wells, R64
#55 Guillermo Canas at Miami Masters, R32
#2 Rafael Nadal at Monte Carlo, F
#53 Filippo Volandri at Rome, R16
#2 Rafael Nadal at Roland Garros, F
#4 Novak Djokovic at Canada, F
#25 David Nalbandian at Madrid (hc), F
#21 David Nalbandian at Paris, R16
#7 Fernando Gonzalez at Tennis Masters Cup, RR

2008 (66-15, 4 titles)
Losses:
#3 Novak Djokovic at Australian Open, SF
#11 Andy Murray at Dubai, R32
#98 Mardy Fish at Indian Wells, SF
#6 Andy Roddick at Miami, QF
#2 Rafael Nadal at Monte Carlo, F
#27 Radek Stepanek at Rome, QF
#2 Rafael Nadal at Hamburg, F
#2 Rafael Nadal at Roland Garros, F
#2 Rafael Nadal at Wimbledon, F
#22 Gilles Simon at Canada, R32
#22 Ivo Karlovic, at Cincinnati, R16
#7 James Blake at Olympics, QF
#4 Andy Murray at Madrid (hc), SF
#9 Gilles Simon at Tennis Masters Cup, RR
#4 Andy Murray at Tennis Masters Cup, RR


So in those three years we see Roger go from 5 to 9 to 15 losses, and 12 to 8 to 4 titles. That's quite a steep decline. On the surface he bounced back a bit in 2009, but not really - 12 losses, 4 titles. This was probably mainly due to Rafa's injury-plagued year, otherwise he was a similar player in 2009 as he had been in 2008.

Conclusion: Federer declined steeply from 2006 to 2008, and never fully recovered. This was exacerbated--but not caused--by Nadal reaching his peak in 2008, and the emergence of Djokovic and Murray as elite players.

What is unclear is why Roger started to decline at the relatively young age of 25 (in early 2007). That wasn't unusual for players of his era and before. What is unusual is the slower decline patterns we've seen in later generations, namely Nadal and Djokovic. But their slower decline is probably exagerrated by the weak "Lost Gen."

Now, the '09 comment is a bit coy: "On the surface he bounced back a bit in 2009, but not really - 12 losses, 4 titles. This was probably mainly due to Rafa's injury-plagued year, otherwise he was a similar player in 2009 as he had been in 2008." However, he did win 2 Majors, of those 4 titles. Thanks for the nod to Rafa's injury, btw. (Sincerely.) And what about the mono in early 2008? By this lay-out, it barely registers in the Fed-fall that began in '07. I'm not trying to be cheeky, and I do get that pre-Rafa Roger was untouchable for a few years. But what of after? Is he just so good that even non-celestial Roger can be #1 and still win Majors? Again, not trying to be a jerk. Just asking for a friend.

 

[Moxie]

According to Elo Rating, Roger peaked at age 24-25 (2006), while Rafa peaked at 27 (2013) and Novak at 28 (2015-16).

Not to diss those ELO ratings, but I don't agree that that's when Rafa peaked, for example.

 

[atttomole]

Read the forum post cited again. GSM's whole jive is about the tournaments that both played in and how they did, regardless of whether or not they played each other. The blog post tries to insist that Roger did better in that case, overall, and that matters more. You have to get that, or you're not arguing the right points.

I understand the article, but you seem to think I don't. 14/14 for Federer when he beat Nadal, and 17/23 for Nadal when he beat Federer. Your major disagreement is that the analysis seems to favor Federer. I don't think the statistics are very conclusive either because these two beat each other and then win or lose to a different opponent. It's as if we are saying the other opponents do not matter but they are part of the equation.

 

[El Dude]

Now, the '09 comment is a bit coy: "On the surface he bounced back a bit in 2009, but not really - 12 losses, 4 titles. This was probably mainly due to Rafa's injury-plagued year, otherwise he was a similar player in 2009 as he had been in 2008." However, he did win 2 Majors, of those 4 titles. Thanks for the nod to Rafa's injury, btw. (Sincerely.) And what about the mono in early 2008? By this lay-out, it barely registers in the Fed-fall that began in '07. I'm not trying to be cheeky, and I do get that pre-Rafa Roger was untouchable for a few years. But what of after? Is he just so good that even non-celestial Roger can be #1 and still win Majors? Again, not trying to be a jerk. Just asking for a friend.

Yes, it does seem that the mono-decline of 2008 is overblown, that whatever happened to Roger started in 2007. I suppose it is possible that he got mono in 2007 and wasn't diagnosed until 2008, but that seems a stretch. It may simply be that Roger--like the majority of players in the Open Era--peaked at age 24-25 and then dropped a notch after.

And yes, even "non-celestial Roger" can be #1 and win majors. But the same is true of Rafa and Novak, neither of whom have been in "celestial mode" for a few years, Rafa since 2013 or early 2014, Novak since the first half of 2016. Rafa has been great in 2017-18, but he's not as good as he was in 2008-13, and Novak c. 2018 isn't Novak c. 2015-early 2016.

 

[El Dude]

Anyhow, not sure why that comment is coy, in your mind. If anything, I'm pointing out that Roger's two Slams in 2009 are partially due to Rafa not being healthy all year. I don't see him being a markedly better player than he had been in 2008, at least based upon results.

2007 is interesting because Roger was still able to reach "celestial mode," just not as consistently as in 2004-06. So I still see it as peak Roger, it is just that he was getting upset more frequently than he was in the previous three years.

 

[DarthFed]

Let's not kid ourselves, Roger was quite a bit better in 2009. He won 4 big titles, made all 4 major finals, didn't lose in round robin of YEC, etc. It was a far cry from 2007 but better than 2008. And while 2007 showed signs of decline it was an enormous drop in 2008. No one saw his game falling off a cliff the way it did in 08. Those years aren't comparable in any way.

 

[DarthFed]

Now, the '09 comment is a bit coy: "On the surface he bounced back a bit in 2009, but not really - 12 losses, 4 titles. This was probably mainly due to Rafa's injury-plagued year, otherwise he was a similar player in 2009 as he had been in 2008." However, he did win 2 Majors, of those 4 titles. Thanks for the nod to Rafa's injury, btw. (Sincerely.) And what about the mono in early 2008? By this lay-out, it barely registers in the Fed-fall that began in '07. I'm not trying to be cheeky, and I do get that pre-Rafa Roger was untouchable for a few years. But what of after? Is he just so good that even non-celestial Roger can be #1 and still win Majors? Again, not trying to be a jerk. Just asking for a friend.

Ah the usual ridiculous Rafa narrative where Roger won 15 majors before Nadal was on tour. Where were these "few years" Roger was dominating before Nadal? Last I checked 2004 was Roger's first dominant season and Rafa was already tremendous on clay in 2005. Roger won 4 majors before Rafa's first.

 

[El Dude]

Let's not kid ourselves, Roger was quite a bit better in 2009. He won 4 big titles, made all 4 major finals, didn't lose in round robin of YEC, etc. It was a far cry from 2007 but better than 2008. And while 2007 showed signs of decline it was an enormous drop in 2008. No one saw his game falling off a cliff the way it did in 08. Those years aren't comparable in any way.

I'll split the difference with you. I think you over-exaggerated one way, and I the other. 2009 is somewhere between 2007 and 2008, but isn't quite the resurgence some have made it out to be. I see 2009 as being closer to his 2010-12 level than his 2004-07 level.

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

And I've argued why the thesis you cite is Federer-centric. You can see how it's slanted and hugely agenda-driven, right?

But it is also truth. That's the problem here.

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

It's not a problem if someone is finding 'facts' in favour of their point in the debate. That's natural for a debater to do.

'Facts'. They are truth. A part of the reality. So, it should be taken into account. Just like H2H, this is also a part of the reality of the situation.

 

[Shivashish Sarkar]

Nadal isn't the kind of all rounder Federer is. Till 2015, Roger played tennis on all kinds of surfaces pretty actively and impressively.

However, it would also be wrong to say Nadal can't play a world class game on hard and grass. He can. But. He does not have the same kind of consistency on most courts like Roger. Nadal has 6 slams outside clay. Take any surface away from Roger and he would still have

9 non hard slams
12 non grass slams
19 non clay slams

Roger has had consistency on at least 2 out of the 3 types of courts (broadly speaking of types) over his career. And Nadal has been consistent on clay only by Roger's standard of consistency.

P.S.: Having said everything, I still don't know who's better. H2H says Nadal. And, Nadal was
pretty much dominating Roger before 2015. So, it's very confusing.

Let's all just accept it's so confusing more than anything.

 

[britbox]

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.

He's not mate... he really isn't. He lost the Eye the Tiger. Nadal in his prime was the best clutch player I've ever seen. He doesn't have that now... but the three amigos - Fed, Nadal and Djoker were that far ahead of the rest it gives them a big cushion on the decline,

 

[DarthFed]

He's not mate... he really isn't. He lost the Eye the Tiger. Nadal in his prime was the best clutch player I've ever seen. He doesn't have that now... but the three amigos - Fed, Nadal and Djoker were that far ahead of the rest it gives them a big cushion on the decline,

Overall I agree. He's still pretty damn clutch though, he just had the 2 disastrous years in 2015-2016. But as far as HC goes I think he just plays differently not necessarily worse. he clearly doesn't move like he used to but his backhand and all-around game have been noticeably better the last two years. Rafa was obviously beastly in 2013 but is his HC play any worse the last two years than 2005-2012?