Why does Rafa have positive h2h against Fed?

Only and only because of the abundance of clay courts in the first half of the season. Rafa's record on the hard courts, indoor and carpet pales in comparion to Fed probably against Nole and Murray too. All these years Nadal has performed poorly in the second half of the season and hence avoided to meet on his favourite surfaces. The only notable second half of the season for Nadal is 2010 and Fed managed to better him in the year ending event at O2. Nadal has not won a single ATP finals event in his career.

Nadal's record on

hard courts
w l titles
259 80 11

carpet
2 6 0

Indoor
49 27 0

on the other hand, fed's records reads like this
hard courts
477 102 45

carpet
50 19 2

Indoor
198 51 16

Looking at above stats it is quite clear that Rafa failed to meet his main rival from time to time on faster surfaces. Nadal kept losing to lesser opponents such as Davy, Blake, Lubjicic .. to avoid meeting fed at the hard courts. In a career stretched to 8 seasons Rafa only mustered 6 meetings against Fed on hard courts which is 3 a piece but it will not be an exaggeration to say that winning on clay gave tremendous mental advantage to rafa and played pivotal role in getting those wins on hard courts as well.

WTF is still proving to be an elusive dream for Rafa and IMO he will struggle to win it as well whether rest or no rest.

Rafa would have been a similar palyer to Safin had there been no clay season.
Fed rules.

Rafa would have been a similar palyer to Safin had there been no clay season.

In what way? Safin gets tired after a 10 shot rally!

In terms of tennis trophies, winning percentage or ranking etc. I dont think that Marat just used to get tired, I think before Delpo he held the record for tallest person to win a slam. Not a bad comparison for Rafa.

Marat was a very good tennis player. Had it not been for his idiosyncracies he would have been a multi slam winner.

So what if Nadal wins most of his matches on clay? It's still a legitimate tennis surface! I've played on clay and it's really not that much different to a slow hard court.

Chazfazzer wrote:So what if Nadal wins most of his matches on clay? It's still a legitimate tennis surface! I've played on clay and it's really not that much different to a slow hard court.

Nothing wrong but my point is that Rafa kept avoiding fed on hard courts be losing to journeymen. The H2H would have been different if Fed was a poor clay courter like rafa is on hard courts.

Actually I think that the HC head to head is 4-4 with Nadal having won the only GS final meeting on Hard Court (AO 2009). Therefore I don't see why you think he is scared to meet Federer on HC.

Calder106 wrote:Actually I think that the HC head to head is 4-4 with Nadal having won the only GS final meeting on Hard Court (AO 2009). Therefore I don't see why you think he is scared to meet Federer on HC.

I did not say scared. The last final on hard court was ATP tour finals 2010 which Fed won easily. All I am saying that rafa was never a good hard courter like fed on clay. And because of this he kept losing to lesser opponents and failing to get more matches on hard courts.

You didn't say scared but you did say he kept losing to lesser ranked players to avoid playing Federer on HC, Means the same to me. Btw Nadal won their only HC meeting this year in Miami 6-3, 6-2. I agree that the head to head is skewed towards Nadal because of the number of times they have played on clay as opposed to HC or grass (2-1 Federer) but the 4-4 record on HC shows there is not as much between them on that surface as you imply.

Where is that poster who talks about clay being the "surface of kings" when they are needed...

wow wrote:In terms of tennis trophies, winning percentage or ranking etc. I dont think that Marat just used to get tired, I think before Delpo he held the record for tallest person to win a slam. Not a bad comparison for Rafa.

Marat was a very good tennis player. Had it not been for his idiosyncracies he would have been a multi slam winner.

You forgot Richard Krajicek, he was more or less same height as Del Potro.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

wow wrote:In terms of tennis trophies, winning percentage or ranking etc. I dont think that Marat just used to get tired, I think before Delpo he held the record for tallest person to win a slam. Not a bad comparison for Rafa.

Marat was a very good tennis player. Had it not been for his idiosyncracies he would have been a multi slam winner.

You forgot Richard Krajicek, he was more or less same height as Del Potro.

I don't think so. Kraji was more like Safin in size.

wow wrote:
Marat was a very good tennis player. Had it not been for his idiosyncracies he would have been a multi slam winner.

Very strange. I was sure Marat Safin, having won two, was by all means a multi slam winner. Disqualified?

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

wow wrote:
Marat was a very good tennis player. Had it not been for his idiosyncracies he would have been a multi slam winner.

Very strange. I was sure Marat Safin, having won two, was by all means a multi slam winner. Disqualified?

JK, I got it wrong. Marat was a multi slam winner, my bad English. What I meant that he would have won more

Miami we all knoe is a slow hard court and also falls in the first half of the season. Some of the hard courts win were because of the mental advantage rafa will get thru clay wins. Name one season other than 2010 where rafa did well in the second half of the season?
He has been a primarily clay courter which also reflects him in not defending a title outside clay.

Nadal has had the right game to blunt Federer's game and has done so often. It is strange how it takes in a such a 'negative' tactic to de-throne such a player as Federer. For Federer to adopt such a negative game to combat this is somewhat impossible. Credit to Nadal for finding the game to defeat Federer, but I am sure other observers won't see it that way.

legendkillar wrote:Nadal has had the right game to blunt Federer's game and has done so often. It is strange how it takes in a such a 'negative' tactic to de-throne such a player as Federer. For Federer to adopt such a negative game to combat this is somewhat impossible. Credit to Nadal for finding the game to defeat Federer, but I am sure other observers won't see it that way.

Good comment 'legend'. It always amazes me the disrespect Rafa gets in comparison to the respect that Roger, does. There seems to be a consistent number who think that anyone who beat Fed, must be bad for the game - because the game is all about Roger!! No-ones allowed to do anything to halt the Swiss masterman

However, such warped views are delicously ironic. It never occurs to these dopes, that beating Fed six times in slam finals (including TWO non clay court ones) warrants him having much respect. Otherwise, it doesn't say much about Roger

banbrotam wrote:Good comment 'legend'. It always amazes me the disrespect Rafa gets in comparison to the respect that Roger, does.

How do you explain this considering that none of us know Nadal or Federer. What makes Federer the more respected player?

No one is disrespecting Rafa so stop being hysterical. The post is just to show that H2H might have been different had Rafa managed a better second half season in his 8 years of his career.

Rafa has taken off 2 finals off clay, agreed and no one is denying that. The whole point is that mental advantage which Rafa got from clay wins also carried through the other surfaces. Rafa did psyche Fed in the similar way Novak has done to Rafa.

Why do Nadal fans get so defensive?

banbrotam wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Nadal has had the right game to blunt Federer's game and has done so often. It is strange how it takes in a such a 'negative' tactic to de-throne such a player as Federer. For Federer to adopt such a negative game to combat this is somewhat impossible. Credit to Nadal for finding the game to defeat Federer, but I am sure other observers won't see it that way.

Good comment 'legend'. It always amazes me the disrespect Rafa gets in comparison to the respect that Roger, does. There seems to be a consistent number who think that anyone who beat Fed, must be bad for the game - because the game is all about Roger!! No-ones allowed to do anything to halt the Swiss masterman

However, such warped views are delicously ironic. It never occurs to these dopes, that beating Fed six times in slam finals (including TWO non clay court ones) warrants him having much respect. Otherwise, it doesn't say much about Roger

I was about to say you welcome Banbrotam as I have not seen you for long but it is good for the forum if you do not post here regularly.
Could you please explain the insult?

Only a "dope" (acknowledgements to bantroban) would fail to see that what wow was saying was that the h2h wouldn't be negative for Federer if he were a poor clay court player. Nothing to do with Nadal, no need to defend him.

Indeed, if Federer were as good as Sampras on clay he would have 15 Slams and a +ve/neutral h2h with nadal. Nobody would be dissing his GOAT credentials. Because he's miles better than Pete on clay with many FO finals he looks worse. This alone should be telling anyone looking to draw lots of conclusions from statistics to beware.

banbrotam wrote:
However, such warped views are delicously ironic. It never occurs to these dopes, that beating Fed six times in slam finals (including TWO non clay court ones) warrants him having much respect. Otherwise, it doesn't say much about Roger

But I cannot understand why duffers are so keen on nadal either

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:
But I cannot understand why duffers are so keen on nadal either

I do.

SO do I

wow wrote:No one is disrespecting Rafa so stop being hysterical. The post is just to show that H2H might have been different had Rafa managed a better second half season in his 8 years of his career.

Rafa has taken off 2 finals off clay, agreed and no one is denying that. The whole point is that mental advantage which Rafa got from clay wins also carried through the other surfaces. Rafa did psyche Fed in the similar way Novak has done to Rafa.

Why do Nadal fans get so defensive?

It's not really half a season though is it? 3 out of the 4 slams are played in your first "half" for a start.

wow wrote:No one is disrespecting Rafa so stop being hysterical. The post is just to show that H2H might have been different had Rafa managed a better second half season in his 8 years of his career.

Rafa has taken off 2 finals off clay, agreed and no one is denying that. The whole point is that mental advantage which Rafa got from clay wins also carried through the other surfaces. Rafa did psyche Fed in the similar way Novak has done to Rafa.

Why do Nadal fans get so defensive?

Wow,
you know I'm a Nadal anti-fan, but think that Federer fan's are just as defensive. One look at this forum will tell you that.
In fact only US Nole fan(s) are not defensive here.....that doesn't mean you should all start Nole wumming

noleisthebest wrote:

wow wrote:No one is disrespecting Rafa so stop being hysterical. The post is just to show that H2H might have been different had Rafa managed a better second half season in his 8 years of his career.

Rafa has taken off 2 finals off clay, agreed and no one is denying that. The whole point is that mental advantage which Rafa got from clay wins also carried through the other surfaces. Rafa did psyche Fed in the similar way Novak has done to Rafa.

Why do Nadal fans get so defensive?

Wow,
you know I'm a Nadal anti-fan, but think that Federer fan's are just as defensive. One look at this forum will tell you that.
In fact only US Nole fan(s) are not defensive here.....that doesn't mean you should all start Nole wumming

So long as we exclude hysterical conspiracy theories involving Italian journeymen and draw rigging.

bogbrush wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

wow wrote:No one is disrespecting Rafa so stop being hysterical. The post is just to show that H2H might have been different had Rafa managed a better second half season in his 8 years of his career.

Rafa has taken off 2 finals off clay, agreed and no one is denying that. The whole point is that mental advantage which Rafa got from clay wins also carried through the other surfaces. Rafa did psyche Fed in the similar way Novak has done to Rafa.

Why do Nadal fans get so defensive?

Wow,
you know I'm a Nadal anti-fan, but think that Federer fan's are just as defensive. One look at this forum will tell you that.
In fact only US Nole fan(s) are not defensive here.....that doesn't mean you should all start Nole wumming

So long as we exclude hysterical conspiracy theories involving Italian journeymen and draw rigging.

I have never been involved in any such discussions Draw rigging is a completely different subject, being soon taken to court, I believe.

Well you did broaden it to include all Nole fans.....

banbrotam wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Nadal has had the right game to blunt Federer's game and has done so often. It is strange how it takes in a such a 'negative' tactic to de-throne such a player as Federer. For Federer to adopt such a negative game to combat this is somewhat impossible. Credit to Nadal for finding the game to defeat Federer, but I am sure other observers won't see it that way.

Good comment 'legend'. It always amazes me the disrespect Rafa gets in comparison to the respect that Roger, does. There seems to be a consistent number who think that anyone who beat Fed, must be bad for the game - because the game is all about Roger!! No-ones allowed to do anything to halt the Swiss masterman

However, such warped views are delicously ironic. It never occurs to these dopes, that beating Fed six times in slam finals (including TWO non clay court ones) warrants him having much respect. Otherwise, it doesn't say much about Roger

I suspect that the same number are actually fine seeing Djokovic, Del Potro or even at times Murray beating Fed as when they win you really feel like they beat him, same goes for Safin and Nalbandian. You can even feel good for them as they took destiny into their own hands and went for their shots. They play their game rather than stopping the other player playing theirs. The tactic that's made Nadal successful against Fed might be akin to finding a glitch in a computer game which allows you to win in a way that foregoes all the other aspects of the game i.e. all he has to do is keep hitting that same shot and not worry about much else. Rightly or wrongly I think that is the source of most of the negative feeling and withheld respect. As for the reason you gave for warranting respect, I don't think victories work in a transitive way.

Having said that, maybe it's not good for the game to have all the players 'going for their shots' and you need the other styles. From that point of view Nadal is as valuable as Fed or any other player to the game.

break in the fifth

Nadal has a clear tactic against Federer. The thing is he uses different tactics against other players. They also work as I'm struggling to think of any player that has a posative H2H with him. That includes Djokovic...

I'm always surprised at how so many Federer fans dislike Nadal and as some say "refuse to respect him". I'm a fan of both players and IMO the best match up in tennis is when they play each other. Federer is such a great player its amazing how Nadal has found and exploited a weakness.

I loved watching last years FO final as Federer for once was able to prevent Nadal from winning with that one tactic. Nadal had to try other things and was still able to win. Can't wait for their next match...

bitf

hawkeye wrote:break in the fifth

Nadal has a clear tactic against Federer. The thing is he uses different tactics against other players. They also work as I'm struggling to think of any player that has a posative H2H with him. That includes Djokovic...

I'm always surprised at how so many Federer fans dislike Nadal and as some say "refuse to respect him". I'm a fan of both players and IMO the best match up in tennis is when they play each other. Federer is such a great player its amazing how Nadal has found and exploited a weakness.

I loved watching last years FO final as Federer for once was able to prevent Nadal from winning with that one tactic. Nadal had to try other things and was still able to win. Can't wait for their next match...

It is not about the weakness. As I have put that Nadal is a master of slow courts and that basically gave him huge advantgae. Federer came up triumphs against Nadal at O2. It was high quality tennis however Fed's win more or less was a certainity as he plays better on indoor courts. This is the exact point I am stating that negative tactic would not have worked had Nadal met Fed on faster courts as much as they met on clay.

hawkeye wrote:break in the fifth
....................................................................
Nadal has a clear tactic against Federer. The thing is he uses different tactics against other players. They also work as I'm struggling to think of any player that has a posative H2H with him. ...

I believe one or two players do have a positive h2h vs Nadal, although I agree it's most likely a pretty exclusive club. Davydenko is certainly a member of it (and he's a senior citizen aged 30 ...!!)

.........not to mention Florian Mayer ......

(shhh .... I said not to mention him )

lags72 wrote:.........not to mention Florian Mayer ......

(shhh .... I said not to mention him )

Good one lags, good research as well.

By the end of 2012 probably Djokovic. Then the fur will really fly......

In my view the most significant comparison of the two men is their progress at matching ages - Nadal at the end of 2011 will be (give or take a few months) the same age as Federer was at the end of 2006.

In every major category bar one Nadal is ahead of Federer at the same age - he is ahead on tournament wins, slam wins, match wins, and slam match wins, but he is behind in weeks at No. 1 by a full year.

Thus far Nadal's relative superiority was at a peak (i.e. ahead on every factor) about 2-3 years ago (i.e. comparing 2008-2009 for Nadal with 2003-2004 for Federer). That is testament to his having been at the top since he was very young. Since then Nadal's record at a comparable age has faltered slightly against Federer's, even despite his amazing success in 2010. I think 2012 will be a fascinating year for comparing the two men.

As we stand now only a fit Djokovic can keep the biggest prizes from a fit Nadal's grasp. Nadal is undergoing his usual end of season dip in form on his least favourite surface into which it is unwise to read too much, but the strain on Djoko at the end of his his first great season is a new thing.

Roll on 2012.

Terrific post barry. Balanced and appetite-whetting for the year ahead.

barrystar wrote:In my view the most significant comparison of the two men is their progress at matching ages - Nadal at the end of 2011 will be (give or take a few months) the same age as Federer was at the end of 2006.

In every major category bar one Nadal is ahead of Federer at the same age - he is ahead on tournament wins, slam wins, match wins, and slam match wins, but he is behind in weeks at No. 1 by a full year.

Thus far Nadal's relative superiority was at a peak (i.e. ahead on every factor) about 2-3 years ago (i.e. comparing 2008-2009 for Nadal with 2003-2004 for Federer). That is testament to his having been at the top since he was very young. Since then Nadal's record at a comparable age has faltered slightly against Federer's, even despite his amazing success in 2010. I think 2012 will be a fascinating year for comparing the two men.

.

I see the logic but it's overlooking a big factor. The fact that Federer learnt and developed his tennis to beat SVers on fast surfaces. Then he had to adapt and play shot makers like Nalbandian and Safin...all this with a rather small frame and natural gut.

So when he was faced with the challenge that is Nadal who trained all his life on clay with light racquets, syntetic spiny strings, he really had to reinvent his game. He did well to stay with Nadal to some extend on surfaces that were not making the most of his natural skills.

In that respect the technology and change of conds are the real reasons for this unbalanced H2H (more so than the clay argument held by wow). This is something that accelerated the decline and overtaking of the old generation by the new one.

One just needs to see how tennis was played in SW19 2001 and then a year later in 2002....then in 2006. As Agassi said, it;s a different game. We just happen to call it tennis still but required very different skills.

Now if you look at how Nadal is holding off the player of his generation, in particulat Djoko, he has no such excuse about the change of conds and he seems already completely overwhelmed....and soon by Murray too.

hawkeye wrote:break in the fifth

Nadal has a clear tactic against Federer. The thing is he uses different tactics against other players. They also work as I'm struggling to think of any player that has a posative H2H with him. That includes Djokovic...

I'm always surprised at how so many Federer fans dislike Nadal and as some say "refuse to respect him". I'm a fan of both players and IMO the best match up in tennis is when they play each other. Federer is such a great player its amazing how Nadal has found and exploited a weakness.

I loved watching last years FO final as Federer for once was able to prevent Nadal from winning with that one tactic. Nadal had to try other things and was still able to win. Can't wait for their next match...

Didn't say he used the same tactics against all players anyhow this was just about these two. He's obviously some player as he manages to regularly get through the rest of the field as well. As far as Djokovic is concerned I think he should just be glad he got to play him all those times before Djokovic became what he is now, well that's if he's as bothered by H2H as some.

The FO final for me was kind of just his percentage play and fitness winning over on a slow surface (though probably one of the fastest this year), hence the last set, though Fed isn't unaccountable as he should really have taken the first set. The tennis display was alright but the result is always the same.

As for respecting Nadal, there are many things I admire about him and his game although, with a couple of exceptions, I don't like his shots.

Tenez I love your unwavering belief in Murray, the truth is he should be beating them all right now, the worrying thing is he's gone backwards rather than forwards relative to them.