The real story of Fedal H2H

[GameSetAndMath]

The Nadalites often gloat about his H2H over the goat. But, they fail to understand that the purpose of playing tennis is to win tournaments and to go as deep as possible if you cannot win. So, what is really more important is to figure out how much percentage of the tournaments in which both Ralph and Roger participated are won by each one of them. Also, it will be of interest to gather data as to who went deeper than the other considering only the tourneys in which they both participated. These two measures are more important than
H2H even when you are trying to compare two players directly. Needless to say that in both of these
measures Federer comes out ahead easily.

I was planning to gather these data and create a big post about it. But, I ran into this OP in another forum. It has already been done by somebody else and I don't want to repeat it. But, it was done by that person around July 2017 or so and the data will not be current. But, I am sure it has not tilted heavily after that and so the data in that post still has some relevance.

Here is the link to that article which I am retitling as H2H my ass [URL="http://.
I hope this shuts down all the Nadalites from talking about H2H ever again"].
I hope this shuts down all the Nadalites from talking about H2H ever again.[/url]

 

[El Dude]

Interesting. I think it just furthers the point that there are many ways to look at things and each will yield a different conclusion.

Ultimately there is no single way to measure greatness or players against each other. Every measurement has limitations. I think this article goes a long way to show why H2H is limited, but then it tries to offer itself up as a better measurement. I'm not sure that it is. It is a judgement call, in the end.

 

[mrzz]

I hope this shuts down all the Nadalites from talking about H2H ever again.

What the hell have you been smoking?


Seriously, that post is interesting as it calculate the numbers we speculated a lot for years. Not exactly news, as Federer leads the major count, the weeks as number #1, and the overall titles won, so one should expect he won more tournaments they both played.

What I think must be read with a grain of salt is the "what if analysis": If Nadal had reached more "dates", the H2H would be different. Well, to begin with, to reach more dates, Nadal needed to be an (even) better player. This is not a "neutral" what if. You need to change actual reality for this what if to materialize.

But this not takes anything away from the analysis itself. Federer did reach all those clay finals. And he got a lousy H2H as a reward. But he also got the experience. When he says those losses made him a better player, this could well be very true. Nobody else had ever to face the best ever of a given surface on his peak in so many consecutive finals. He learned there -- the hard way -- how to deal with defeat and with his own limits. This surely has helped in his longevity. The physical part is important, of course, but a lot of guys would have failed to deal with those bad times between 2013 and 2016. I do not think it is a "coincidence" he succeeded in that.

 

[atttomole]

I agree with all the above posts.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

What the hell have you been smoking?


Seriously, that post is interesting as it calculate the numbers we speculated a lot for years. Not exactly news, as Federer leads the major count, the weeks as number #1, and the overall titles won, so one should expect he won more tournaments they both played.

.

The traditional H2H is what it is and I don't refute it. But, what I claim is that a more important direct comparison between players is the T2T, which is the percentage of tournaments they had won considering only the tournaments in which both played. This removes all the tourneys that one or the other skipped due to injuries. So, we don't have to worry about fake arguments like what if X was healthy and able to play in some tourney. Also, it is fair to assume that if both entered a tourney, it is fair to use that tourney as a data point notwithstanding mono and bad knees. If you are healthy enough to play in some tourney, you should not be complaining about nagging injuries.

To summarize T2T is more important than H2H considering the basic purpose of the game.

 

[El Dude]

Game, it would be interesting to look at all tournaments in which Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic played in. Of course that penalizes Roger for being older and peaking before Novak was really in the mix (starting in 2007-08).

 

[Moxie]

What the hell have you been smoking?


Seriously, that post is interesting as it calculate the numbers we speculated a lot for years. Not exactly news, as Federer leads the major count, the weeks as number #1, and the overall titles won, so one should expect he won more tournaments they both played.

What I think must be read with a grain of salt is the "what if analysis": If Nadal had reached more "dates", the H2H would be different. Well, to begin with, to reach more dates, Nadal needed to be an (even) better player. This is not a "neutral" what if. You need to change actual reality for this what if to materialize.

But this not takes anything away from the analysis itself. Federer did reach all those clay finals. And he got a lousy H2H as a reward. But he also got the experience. When he says those losses made him a better player, this could well be very true. Nobody else had ever to face the best ever of a given surface on his peak in so many consecutive finals. He learned there -- the hard way -- how to deal with defeat and with his own limits. This surely has helped in his longevity. The physical part is important, of course, but a lot of guys would have failed to deal with those bad times between 2013 and 2016. I do not think it is a "coincidence" he succeeded in that.

I will quote your post, @mrzz as my response point, because it also questions the thesis, a bit. @El Dude's above is also fair, but brief.

Firstly, you have to say the analysis you cite is rather an apologia for the H2H, and targeted defense. What it doesn't do is make any fair points in favor of Nadal. Such as: I doesn't extract Outdoor HCs, which Nadal led by a lot until 2017, when Roger won 4 at a trot. Even with that, Rafa still leads 8-6. It also talks about Rafa failing to "make the date," which happened a lot on non-clay surfaces when Rafa was young and still finding his range off of clay. But there are significant moments of Roger not "making the date," especially at the USO. I'd count 3 significant ones since 2010, and there's a strong argument that Rafa would have won them all, or at least 2.

It makes the point that Roger won 14/14 tournaments when he played Rafa, and Rafa "only" won 17/23. But he still won more of them. I also find it very questionable the OP's (of the article from the other site) point that there was "no overlaps" of their peak years. I know we argue about 2008, etc. but that seems ridiculous to say at this point.

I like Mrzz's point that the "what-ifs" cause other changes in what would have been true. Including that being 2nd best on clay and losing so many finals to Nadal made Federer a different, perhaps more resilient player. I think it's editorializing of @GSM to use the word "gloat" for Nadal fans about the h2h, when clearly Federer fans spend quite a lot of time obsessing over it, and working out ways to make it play differently. Nadal fans cite it (and some "gloat," I'll give you that,) but Federer fans keep trying to cut it up different ways to make Roger look better in its context. Why? Because it's a sore spot. It IS a blot on Roger's "perfection." In 2006, (a "peak year" without controversy,) when he only lost 5 matches, he lost 4 of them to Nadal, his bete noir.

I don't mind another attempt at explaining the h2h, but I do think this one is a bit skewed, as I said above. And it seems petulant to state that now we Nadal fans should just shut it.

 

[Moxie]

The traditional H2H is what it is and I don't refute it. But, what I claim is that a more important direct comparison between players is the T2T, which is the percentage of tournaments they had won considering only the tournaments in which both played. This removes all the tourneys that one or the other skipped due to injuries. So, we don't have to worry about fake arguments like what if X was healthy and able to play in some tourney. Also, it is fair to assume that if both entered a tourney, it is fair to use that tourney as a data point notwithstanding mono and bad knees. If you are healthy enough to play in some tourney, you should not be complaining about nagging injuries.

To summarize T2T is more important than H2H considering the basic purpose of the game.

Still, Nadal has a higher winning percentage of Majors that he's played in. And at MS; and overall win percentage. Everyone keeps saying that stats will not favor Roger, as he's older, but it doesn't account for Nadal, who was doing very well when he was younger, just not top drawer on some surfaces. I hope you do agree that the thesis you linked to has no interest in the Nadal side of the equation.

 

[DarthFed]

I will quote your post, @mrzz as my response point, because it also questions the thesis, a bit. @El Dude's above is also fair, but brief.

Firstly, you have to say the analysis you cite is rather an apologia for the H2H, and targeted defense. What it doesn't do is make any fair points in favor of Nadal. Such as: I doesn't extract Outdoor HCs, which Nadal led by a lot until 2017, when Roger won 4 at a trot. Even with that, Rafa still leads 8-6. It also talks about Rafa failing to "make the date," which happened a lot on non-clay surfaces when Rafa was young and still finding his range off of clay. But there are significant moments of Roger not "making the date," especially at the USO. I'd count 3 significant ones since 2010, and there's a strong argument that Rafa would have won them all, or at least 2.

It makes the point that Roger won 14/14 tournaments when he played Rafa, and Rafa "only" won 17/23. But he still won more of them. I also find it very questionable the OP's (of the article from the other site) point that there was "no overlaps" of their peak years. I know we argue about 2008, etc. but that seems ridiculous to say at this point.

I like Mrzz's point that the "what-ifs" cause other changes in what would have been true. Including that being 2nd best on clay and losing so many finals to Nadal made Federer a different, perhaps more resilient player. I think it's editorializing of @GSM to use the word "gloat" for Nadal fans about the h2h, when clearly Federer fans spend quite a lot of time obsessing over it, and working out ways to make it play differently. Nadal fans cite it (and some "gloat," I'll give you that,) but Federer fans keep trying to cut it up different ways to make Roger look better in its context. Why? Because it's a sore spot. It IS a blot on Roger's "perfection." In 2006, (a "peak year" without controversy,) when he only lost 5 matches, he lost 4 of them to Nadal, his bete noir.

I don't mind another attempt at explaining the h2h, but I do think this one is a bit skewed, as I said above. And it seems petulant to state that now we Nadal fans should just shut it.

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.

 

[Moxie]

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.

Well, speak to @mrzz about the clay losses and his theory. He has also wondered if Roger had won the Rome '06 final then things might have been different. I have argued that they wouldn't have.

The whole thing really comes down to Wimbledon '08 and AO '09, for you, and you claim it was Rafa being in Roger's head. I won't say he wasn't, but if Roger is such a GOAT, he might have overcome some of it. You really should admit that Rafa was peaking at that period of time, and there was nothing that Roger could have done against him. But Rafa DID have Roger's number from the get-go. As I mentioned, and as you well know, Rafa was well ahead of Rog in the H2H on outdoor HCs before 2017, too. It's not just clay. The reality is that Nadal has always fussed Federer, in the same way that Djokovic has, later career, fussed Rafa. We can hate it, or try to get around it, but those are match-ups that are difficult for our favorites.

 

[Nadalfan2013]

The real story about the h2h is that when Roger (barely) beat Rafa at the 2017 AO, it was the first time he did it in a slam in 10 years! It finally gave him a little dignity. What kind of GOAT has to go 10 years without beating his main rival in a slam. What an overrated champ, just took advantage of the weak era.

 

[DarthFed]

Well, speak to @mrzz about the clay losses and his theory. He has also wondered if Roger had won the Rome '06 final then things might have been different. I have argued that they wouldn't have.

The whole thing really comes down to Wimbledon '08 and AO '09, for you, and you claim it was Rafa being in Roger's head. I won't say he wasn't, but if Roger is such a GOAT, he might have overcome some of it. You really should admit that Rafa was peaking at that period of time, and there was nothing that Roger could have done against him. But Rafa DID have Roger's number from the get-go. As I mentioned, and as you well know, Rafa was well ahead of Rog in the H2H on outdoor HCs before 2017, too. It's not just clay. The reality is that Nadal has always fussed Federer, in the same way that Djokovic has, later career, fussed Rafa. We can hate it, or try to get around it, but those are match-ups that are difficult for our favorites.

I agree that Roger winning 2006 Rome wouldn't have changed anything as far as future matches on clay. It would have been a great win of course and just one match closer in the H2H.

There is plenty Roger could have done in those two matches. He could have played well and been somewhat clutch and you'd have seen a different result. Anyways up until 2008 it was 6-1 on clay and 2-5 off it. It is a myth that Nadal had his number everywhere from the beginning. Most of the HC losses came with Roger in his 30's including 4 uncompetitive gifts from Roger in 2013 when he finished #6 in the world.

 

[Moxie]

The real story about the h2h is that when Roger (barely) beat Rafa at the 2017 AO, it was the first time he did it in a slam in 10 years! It finally gave him a little dignity. What kind of GOAT has to go 10 years without beating his main rival in a slam. What an overrated champ, just took advantage of the weak era.

Roger himself and his fans have called that the favorite win. We understand why. Don't make it cheesy by calling Roger an overrated champ, (or calling in the weak era.) He's not, by any stretch. But they love that win for a reason...it was one over the guy who'd had his number for years, esp. at the Majors. And he was behind a break in the 5th.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Still, Nadal has a higher winning percentage of Majors that he's played in. And at MS; and overall win percentage. Everyone keeps saying that stats will not favor Roger, as he's older, but it doesn't account for Nadal, who was doing very well when he was younger, just not top drawer on some surfaces. I hope you do agree that the thesis you linked to has no interest in the Nadal side of the equation.

First of all we are not talking about match winning percentage here. We are talking about tournament winning percentage. Further, we are confining only to the tournaments in which both played (the reason being to circumvent the argument that X would have won the tournament had he played and the only reason that Y won was that X was not even in the field) . This is a more meaningful way of directly comparing two players with the big picture of playing in tennis in mind, namely winning tournaments and/or going deep in them.

You keep arguing about various irrelevant things. The reason why I posted in a separate thread as opposed to Fedal thread is to focus exclusive on direct comparison and not about records of either player in various categories. I argue that this T2T is more meaningful when comparing players than H2H.

 

[Moxie]

I agree that Roger winning 2006 Rome wouldn't have changed anything as far as future matches on clay. It would have been a great win of course and just one match closer in the H2H.

There is plenty Roger could have done in those two matches. He could have played well and been somewhat clutch and you'd have seen a different result. Anyways up until 2008 it was 6-1 on clay and 2-5 off it. It is a myth that Nadal had his number everywhere from the beginning. Most of the HC losses came with Roger in his 30's including 4 uncompetitive gifts from Roger in 2013 when he finished #6 in the world.

It isn't a myth that Nadal had Roger's number from the beginning. Re-watch that Miami '04 match. All of the issues are right there. Read it from that fellow that loves Fed so much that he wrote a book about it. (I've cited it other places here. He's a Fed fanatic.) The matches we're talking about went 5 sets, so Roger could have won them, but he didn't. I get tired of your inability to recognize that Rafa was 22 and at a peak in his career. Roger was out-played by a peaking player. End of story.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

It makes the point that Roger won 14/14 tournaments when he played Rafa, and Rafa "only" won 17/23. But he still won more of them.

.

Are you gaslighting or do you have reading comprehension issues? You are taking some unimportant part and projecting.

Let me summarize the main finding for you.

• Federer and Nadal entered 151 tournaments together.
• Federer won more of these (47 vs. 37) and went further more often (73 vs. 67 with 11 ties).
• The same is true of the 46 majors they entered together - Federer went further more often (25 v. 19), and won more (16 v. 14).

 

[Moxie]

First of all we are not talking about match winning percentage here. We are talking about tournament winning percentage. Further, we are confining only to the tournaments in which both played (the reason being to circumvent the argument that X would have won the tournament had he played and the only reason that Y won was that X was not even in the field) . This is a more meaningful way of directly comparing two players with the big picture of playing in tennis in mind, namely winning tournaments and/or going deep in them.

You keep arguing about various irrelevant things. The reason why I posted in a separate thread as opposed to Fedal thread is to focus exclusive on direct comparison and not about records of either player in various categories. I argue that this T2T is more meaningful when comparing players than H2H.

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

 

[Moxie]

Are you gaslighting or do you have reading comprehension issues? You are taking some unimportant part and projecting.

Let me summarize the main finding for you.

• Federer and Nadal entered 151 tournaments together.
• Federer won more of these (47 vs. 37) and went further more often (73 vs. 67 with 11 ties).
• The same is true of the 46 majors they entered together - Federer went further more often (25 v. 19), and won more (16 v. 14).

And are you choosing which stats to quote? I've mentioned others, which come from the same post.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

And are you choosing which stats to quote? I've mentioned others, which come from the same post.

You are missing the whole point of the article if you are arguing that the stats I highlighted is the primary focus of the article. There are various other sundry things of less importance in the article. The primary point is that T2T comparison is more meaningful and meritorious when comparing two players than H2H, considering the purpose of playing tennis.

 

[Moxie]

You are missing the whole point of the article if you are arguing that the stats I highlighted is the primary focus of the article. There are various other sundry things of less importance in the article. The primary point is that T2T comparison is more meaningful and meritorious when comparing two players than H2H, considering the purpose of playing tennis.

That assumes that the T2T is actually more meaningful and meritorious. As I have said, I think there are a lot of things left out, and that it is Fed-centric. Plus, it's one way of measuring, and surely a way of assuaging the painful Nadal/Federer H2H. Funny that it takes that many stats even to help Roger's case, vis a vis Nadal. You said nothing about the specific points I made against it.