Federer vs Nadal H2H Analysis Including By Match Length, Sets Won and BO5 vs BO3

This article was originally written after the Australian Open. It has now been updated after their Indian Wells match.

In this article I seek to statistically answer 5 specific questions.

1. Does surface affect who wins in the Rafa-Roger rivalry?
2. Is Rafa more likely to win when it’s a slam?
3. Has Roger historically won the first set more often and then faded? Is Roger less likely to win sets as the match progresses?
4. Is Rafa more likely to win as the match gets longer?
5. Is Rafa more likely to win in best of 5 set matches (rather than best of 3)?


Question 1. Does surface/court conditions affect who wins in the Rafa-Roger rivalry?
Stats: Rafa is 12-2 on clay (86%) and 5-2 on outdoor hard (71%) but Federer is 2-1 on grass and 4-0 on indoor hard. (6-5 to Fed on all hard.)

Answer: Yes clearly it does. Anything other than grass or indoor, and Federer has statistically been toast with only a 21% chance of a win.


Question 2. Is Rafa more likely to win when it’s a slam?
Stats: Rafa leads 8-2 at slams (80%) and 10-8 in all others (56%) compared to 18-10 overall for the rivalry (64%). However if we take indoor out of others it's 10-4 (71%) for non slams.

Answer: Yes, Rafa is more likely to beat Roger at a slam. However we can see above that without the indoor results (there is no indoor slam), the ratio is more similar. Arguably then, the (main) reason Rafa is more likely to beat Roger at a slam is because there is no indoor slam and not for other reasons.


Question 3a. Has Roger historically won the first set more often and then faded? Is Roger less likely to win sets as the match progresses?
Stats:
First set Roger 13, Rafa 15 (46% Rog).
Second set Rog 12, Rafa 16 (43% Rog).
Third set Rog 6, Rafa 12 (33% Rog).
Fourth set Rog 5, Rafa 7 (42% Rog).
Fifth set Rog 2, Rafa 3 (40% Rog).

Total Rog 38, Rafa 53 (42% Rog).

Last set Rog 10, Rafa 18 (36% Rog).

Answer: Roger is indeed most likely to win the first set (but still less than 50%) and less and less likely to win a set as the match goes to a second and third set. It is a statistically significant effect in my opinion, but not conclusively. It is a small effect however (Roger won 46% of first sets compared to 42% of all sets) and should not be overstated. Roger’s win rate for the 4th set is actually higher than the 3rd, however the 4th and 5th set stats do not contain enough data to be statistically significant, so this can perhaps be ignored.


Question 3b. How is this different in best of 3 or best of 5 matches?
Stats:
Best of 3 matches:
1st set Rog 8, Rafa 7 (Rog 53%)
2nd set Rog 7, Rafa 8 (Rog 47%)
3rd set Rog 2, Rafa 3 (Rog 40%)

Best of 5-set matches:
1st set Rog 5, Rafa 8 (Rog 38%)
2nd set Rog 5, Rafa 8 (Rog 38%)
3rd set Rog 4, Rafa 9 (Rog 31%)
4th set Rog 5, Rafa 7 (Rog 42%)
5th set Rog 2, Rafa 3 (Rog 40%)

Answer:
In best of 3 set matches, Roger's win % declines as the match go on, but it's a small factor which probably cannot be said to be statistically significant.
In best of 5 set matches, there is no evidence that Rafa gets stronger as the match goes on.


Question 3c. Is Rafa more likely to win if it's a deciding set?
Stats: For all sets they have played, the score is Rog 36, Rafa 53 (40% Rog). For all deciding sets they have played, it is Rog 4, Rafa 6 (40% Rog).

Answer:
Roger is just as likely to beat Rafa in a deciding set as any other set. (Even his first set win % of 44% is barely above his 40% final set win %.)


Question 4. Is Rafa more likely to win as the match gets longer?
Stats:
0-1 hour = Nadal 0, Federer 2 (0%)
1.01-2 hr= Nadal 6, Federer 5 (55%)
2-3 hour = Nadal 4, Federer 1 (80%)
3-4 hour = Nadal 5, Federer 2 (75%)
4-5 hour = Nadal 2, Federer 0 (100%)
5 hours+ = Nadal 1, Federer 0 (100%)

Show 2 hour intervals instead of 1 and it becomes clearer still.

0 -2 hour = Nadal 6, Federer 7 (46%)
2- 4 hour = Nadal 9, Federer 3 (75%)
4 hour+ = Nadal 3, Federer 0 (100%)

Answer: Rafa wins the longer matches. It’s a clear trend. This may indicate superior physical fitness and resilience, or perhaps mental strength, or even just that indoor courts play faster.


Question 5: Is Rafa more likely to win in best of 5 set matches?
Stats: For best of 3 Rafa leads 8-7 (53%). For best of 5 he leads 10-3 (77%).

Answer: Yes, by a large margin. Again though note the lack of an indoor 5 setter (they never played a BO5 indoor). If we exclude that data, the win rate is very similar at 8-3 (73%).

Note: this one is different to the slams vs others because some masters were 5 set finals before they changed it, Rafa leading 2-1 in BO5 masters 1000 finals.


Summary
1. Does surface affect who wins in the Rafa-Roger rivalry? YES, A LOT.
2. Is Rafa more likely to win when it’s a slam? YES, BUT PROBABLY BECAUSE THE INDOOR MATCHES ARE NOT SLAMS.
3. Has Roger historically won the first set more often and then faded? Is Roger less likely to win sets as the match progresses? YES, BUT ONLY A SMALL AMOUNT.
4. Is Rafa more likely to win as the match gets longer? YES.
5. Is Rafa more likely to win in best of 5 set matches? YES, BUT THE LACK OF AN INDOOR TOURNAMENT WITH BO5 IS A FACTOR.


Sources: Wikipedia and ATP head to head.

Stunning analysis, research HB.
Pleasure to read this article.

Rafa jinxed Federer as always calling him favourite like he did in every slam match, illegal coaching jinxer.. Roger will WIN the French and the Olympics!

Roger’s win rate for the 4th set is actually higher than the 3rd
___________________________________________________
Probably because a 3rd set is the deciding set in BO3, where Nadal's mental edge (based on his edge gamewise) shines through.


Good article. I liked how you took into account those indoor matches, to make correct conclusions out of the statistics.

Hi HB - a very interesting and welcome analysis confirming a few things that have been mentioned by others in passing discussion.


I have three comments:
1) There is a Tables tab amongst the various tabs above the edit window. Pass the cursor over the tabs and the tab name will appear. You need to specify the number of rows and columns when inserting a table. It is in something called BB code - which you can see if you use the disable BB code option (which you will find below the edit window). You can copy this code into a text editor elsewhere if you want to "play" with it.

Federer	Nadal
Loser	winner

2) Indoor and outdoor hard courts belong to the same "surface". I would distinguish them by saying they represented different "court conditions".

3) In your Qu3 I think BO3 and BO5 matches should be first considered separately. Federer used to say that BO5 were completely different to BO3 matches, at least when explaining his BO3 set losses to players such as Murray and Davydenko.

Nore Staat wrote:Hi HB - a very interesting and welcome analysis confirming a few things that have been mentioned by others in passing discussion.


I have three comments:
1) There is a Tables tab amongst the various tabs above the edit window. Pass the cursor over the tabs and the tab name will appear. You need to specify the number of rows and columns when inserting a table. It is in something called BB code - which you can see if you use the disable BB code option (which you will find below the edit window). You can copy this code into a text editor elsewhere if you want to "play" with it.

Federer	Nadal
Loser	winner

2) Indoor and outdoor hard courts belong to the same "surface". I would distinguish them by saying they represented different "court conditions".

3) In your Qu3 I think BO3 and BO5 matches should be first considered separately. Federer used to say that BO5 were completely different to BO3 matches, at least when explaining his BO3 set losses to players such as Murray and Davydenko.

1. I know. I tried it. Exactly the option you say. Didn't work for me. Maybe I'll try it next time.
2. Yes you're right, I've edited the article.
3. Given the small difference in % by set, splitting by BO3 and BO5 might take away what borderline statistical significance there already is. Also, time for bed soon. Feel free to do it yourself of course if you want. I would like to see it but I think I've spent long enough already on this article to be honest.

I personally do not believe in those indoors conds favouring Federer.

It's simply that those indoors matches always happen after the slam season and that Nadal is "tired" after it...even if he rests 3 months.

Nadal wins bugger all after the USO and it's irrelevant to the surface.

Good work but the stat is much more impressive regarding the first set when you consider how many first set was Fed a break up. Like the last FO, he might be ahead but gets caught up towards the end. [/quote]

True I think, certainly it was true today with Federer getting the first break in all of the first three sets I think, but winning only one, and that with a breaker.

Tenez wrote:I personally do not believe in those indoors conds favouring Federer.

It's simply that those indoors matches always happen after the slam season and that Nadal is "tired" after it...even if he rests 3 months.

Nadal wins bugger all after the USO and it's irrelevant to the surface.

I think they do favour him. Fast conditions as well as true not just the bounce also no wind or sun effects precise timing. I think the main reason that Nadal does badly from the US Open onwards is that the courts are fastest that part of the year. However yes he does peak physically for Spring and summer that is a factor as well.

This article is up to date including their Australian Open match.

Nore Staat wrote:
3) In your Qu3 I think BO3 and BO5 matches should be first considered separately. Federer used to say that BO5 were completely different to BO3 matches, at least when explaining his BO3 set losses to players such as Murray and Davydenko.

Best of 3 matches:
1st set Rog 7, Rafa 7 (Rog 50%)
2nd set Rog 6, Rafa 8 (Rog 43%)
3rd set Rog 2, Rafa 3 (Rog 40%)

Best of 5-set matches:
1st set Rog 5, Rafa 8 (Rog 38%)
2nd set Rog 5, Rafa 8 (Rog 38%)
3rd set Rog 4, Rafa 9 (Rog 31%)
4th set Rog 5, Rafa 7 (Rog 42%)
5th set Rog 2, Rafa 3 (Rog 40%)

Analysis: In best of 3 set matches, Roger's win % declines as the match go on, but it's a very small factor which cannot be said to be statistically significant.
In best of 5 set matches, there is no evidence that Rafa gets stronger as the match goes on.

Henman Bill wrote:

Tenez wrote:I personally do not believe in those indoors conds favouring Federer.

It's simply that those indoors matches always happen after the slam season and that Nadal is "tired" after it...even if he rests 3 months.

Nadal wins bugger all after the USO and it's irrelevant to the surface.

I think they do favour him. Fast conditions as well as true not just the bounce also no wind or sun effects precise timing. I think the main reason that Nadal does badly from the US Open onwards is that the courts are fastest that part of the year. However yes he does peak physically for Spring and summer that is a factor as well.

It's not peaking, it's that his level out of the limited season is low. There's a word for it, can't quite bring it to mind.... Something to do with low bicycles or something...

Excellent analysis HB.

This sort of meticulous research brings an added, informed dimension to the table.

But equally I hope you won't think I'm in any way denigrating your efforts (have no wish to do so HB) in saying that in the 'ole days when such historic data was not readily/publically available we would perhaps watch the sport and accept it for what it was on the day, judging with our own eyes, and with thoughts and perspective less clouded by precisely what percentage of sets was previously won, in what length of time, by whom and when !

Just my two pence worth - I'm certainly not advocating we somehow go back to a time when, other than Wimbledon (+ some of RG), very little tennis was even shown on British tv ....!

It's a top article, HB. Well done.

Sometimes the type of judgement you describe beats stats, and sometimes stats wins. I think it's better to have all things available.

***Article updated with new bits - 3b and 3c!****

Indeed HB (hence why I included a 'perhaps' )

HB great job; I love this. I am a nerd so always keen to try and digest this type of data. A bit puzzled that Roger does not seem to be getting much worse in 4th and 5th sets yet he loses vast majority of long (hour-wise) matches.

Nice analysis update

Also, out of Federer's 18 losses, Nadal won the first set 14 times.
So its not like Federer always streaks ahead by winning the first then gets pegged back by Nadal. Infact is the opposite. Additionally, Nadal has beaten Federer in straights 6 times. Federer has beaten Nadal in straights 4 times.

The stats dispell the myth that Nadal only beats Federer in long matches...at just about every stage/step Nadal is ahead.

lydian wrote:

The stats dispell the myth that Nadal only beats Federer in long matches...at just about every stage/step Nadal is ahead.

Yep. Specifically the set-by-set data shows there is little impact whether it is the first or any other set.

Essentially, it's all about where they play.

Nadal has won the majority of first sets.

bogbrush wrote:Essentially, it's all about where they play.

Definitely that is the variable that has most impact in HB's stats. Not too surprising really that this one does matter.

Bear in mind Federer has only beat Nadal 3 times since mid 2007....twice indoors and once at Madrid clay (the day after Nadal played Djokovic for 4 hours!)...so the surface argument I'm not sure about.

bogbrush wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:

Tenez wrote:I personally do not believe in those indoors conds favouring Federer.

It's simply that those indoors matches always happen after the slam season and that Nadal is "tired" after it...even if he rests 3 months.

Nadal wins bugger all after the USO and it's irrelevant to the surface.

I think they do favour him. Fast conditions as well as true not just the bounce also no wind or sun effects precise timing. I think the main reason that Nadal does badly from the US Open onwards is that the courts are fastest that part of the year. However yes he does peak physically for Spring and summer that is a factor as well.

It's not peaking, it's that his level out of the limited season is low. There's a word for it, can't quite bring it to mind.... Something to do with low bicycles or something...

Cycling down!

summerblues wrote:HB great job; I love this. I am a nerd so always keen to try and digest this type of data. A bit puzzled that Roger does not seem to be getting much worse in 4th and 5th sets yet he loses vast majority of long (hour-wise) matches.

Certainly can explain this, in part anyway. Of the 5 matches where 5 sets were actually played, Federer won the shorter ones (Miami 3:43 and Wimbledon 3:45) but lost the longer ones (Rome 5:05, Wimbledon 4:48, Australia 4:23).

I think a second reason is that matches on an indoor surface are quicker.

Think the combination of those two reasons largely explains/eliminates that discrepancy.

It's not the pace of the indoor surfaces which is the problem, it's the low bounce.
Although Nadal is normally knackered by the end of the season.

Top effort by the OP. Nothing to argue against the "STATS".

bogbrush wrote:Essentially, it's all about where they play.

Yes. The whole debate can be summarised in...

1. Single-handed backhand (or not having a DHBH)

2. Endless shots to single handed backhand in the ad-court.

In short, match-up.

Henman Bill wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:
3) In your Qu3 I think BO3 and BO5 matches should be first considered separately. Federer used to say that BO5 were completely different to BO3 matches, at least when explaining his BO3 set losses to players such as Murray and Davydenko.

Best of 3 matches:
1st set Rog 7, Rafa 7 (Rog 50%)
2nd set Rog 6, Rafa 8 (Rog 43%)
3rd set Rog 2, Rafa 3 (Rog 40%)

Best of 5-set matches:
1st set Rog 5, Rafa 8 (Rog 38%)
2nd set Rog 5, Rafa 8 (Rog 38%)
3rd set Rog 4, Rafa 9 (Rog 31%)
4th set Rog 5, Rafa 7 (Rog 42%)
5th set Rog 2, Rafa 3 (Rog 40%)

Analysis: In best of 3 set matches, Roger's win % declines as the match go on, but it's a very small factor which cannot be said to be statistically significant.
In best of 5 set matches, there is no evidence that Rafa gets stronger as the match goes on.

I am afraid, that's not true. As I said, you have to include Fed leading the first set to get a better analysis cause like we saw in Hamburg 08, AO 09, FO11, quite a few of the clay TMS too, Federer leads the first set. by some margins but of course knowing the first set is more key for him than Rafa, its closing is actually harder for him than for Nadal. Again proven in their last AO.

If you consider the fact that Federer alsmost always starts the strongest, you have to analyse why he can't keep it up. If it was teh mind, he might as well start badly...but that's not the case.

The problem is simple on slow courts he gets to rally much more than he wants and that quickly afftect his fragile timing.

Hmm. Knackered after taking 5 weeks off...

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Henman Bill wrote:

Tenez wrote:I personally do not believe in those indoors conds favouring Federer.

It's simply that those indoors matches always happen after the slam season and that Nadal is "tired" after it...even if he rests 3 months.

Nadal wins bugger all after the USO and it's irrelevant to the surface.

I think they do favour him. Fast conditions as well as true not just the bounce also no wind or sun effects precise timing. I think the main reason that Nadal does badly from the US Open onwards is that the courts are fastest that part of the year. However yes he does peak physically for Spring and summer that is a factor as well.

It's not peaking, it's that his level out of the limited season is low. There's a word for it, can't quite bring it to mind.... Something to do with low bicycles or something...

Cycling down!

You two! Come on, let's not have the mods threatening to ban reasonable discussion because of these insinuations. You cannot use Nadal's poor performance in the latter part of the season as (strong) evidence for this because his poor performance is just as likely due to court speed.

amritia3ee wrote:It's not the pace of the indoor surfaces which is the problem, it's the low bounce.
Although Nadal is normally knackered by the end of the season.

Not so much low as the fact that it penetrates further into (or beyond) the court rather than staying nearer to where it bounces.

lydian wrote:Bear in mind Federer has only beat Nadal 3 times since mid 2007....twice indoors and once at Madrid clay (the day after Nadal played Djokovic for 4 hours!)...so the surface argument I'm not sure about.

But they only played twice indoors and, as you yourslelf say, Madrid was against tired Nadal. So this seems to be exactly consistent with the "surface does matter" data.

Not saying there could not be other explanations (e.g. Nadal tired toward the end of the season), just do not think your specific argument works.

Tenez, to be fair I can't realistically include who led in the set due to complexity vs time I'm going to spend on this and data availability. We'll just have to take your word for it. AO supported you.

On our big disagreement on whether physical (as you say) or mental (as I say) is the issue in the matchup, my data, if anything, more supports the idea that neither is critical since set winnage doesn't change much at the end (end= more tired and more tense). If anything the data supports the idea that surface is the most important thing. Anyway, hope we get a good match to enjoy.

Tenez in the majority of the matches Nadal has won the first set. How quickly does Fed tire?

Henman Bill wrote:
Certainly can explain this, in part anyway. Of the 5 matches where 5 sets were actually played, Federer won the shorter ones (Miami 3:43 and Wimbledon 3:45) but lost the longer ones (Rome 5:05, Wimbledon 4:48, Australia 4:23).

I think a second reason is that matches on an indoor surface are quicker.

Think the combination of those two reasons largely explains/eliminates that discrepancy.

Cool thanks, it all makes sense.

You can't but it makes quite a difference: I have counted that out of the 27 times they played, Fed was a break up or a set up 16 times.

That's 60% is quite a striking figure compared with the 33% of times Federer actually wins. They are exactly opposite stats. Those are the stats we often see against physical players. The first set or 2 are usually closer than usual.

That is the real stat proving that the distance plays a role physically and because of it, it has also a psychological impact....when comes the crunch time towards the end of teh first set.

spuranik wrote:

Yes. The whole debate can be summarised in...

1. Single-handed backhand (or not having a DHBH)

2. Endless shots to single handed backhand in the ad-court.

In short, match-up.

Is it not lovely? We all spend years watching, analyzing and discussing their matches when all along this is pretty much all that neeeds to be said. Will not stop me hoping for a happy ending today.

Question 3a. Has Roger historically won the first set more often and then faded? Is Roger less likely to win sets as the match progresses?
Stats:
First set Roger 12, Rafa 15 (44% Rog).
Second set Rog 11, Rafa 16 (41% Rog).
Third set Rog 6, Rafa 12 (33% Rog).
Fourth set Rog 5, Rafa 7 (42% Rog).
Fifth set Rog 2, Rafa 3 (40% Rog).

Total Rog 36, Rafa 53 (40% Rog).

Last set Rog 9, Rafa 18 (33% Rog).

Answer: Roger is indeed most likely to win the first set (but still less than 50%) and less and less likely to win a set as the match goes to a second and third set. It is a statistically significant effect in my opinion, but not conclusively. It is a very small effect however (Roger won 44% of first sets compared to 40% of all sets) and should not be overstated. Roger’s win rate for the 4th set is actually higher than the 3rd, however the 4th and 5th set stats do not contain enough data to be statistically significant, so this can perhaps be ignored.

[/quote]

Definitely debunks the assertion that Roger almost always starts out very strong in first set and then tires as the match goes on.
I wonder what the stats are like for first break of serve in first set because the next assertion seems to be that Roger almost always breaks Rafa first in the first set but gets too tired in the process and is unable to keep up. This is getting amusing to put it mildly.

And nice work with the article. 5 stars!!

But the biggest proof is actually watching a Djoko v Nadal match. We can see none of those guys go for much winners and risky shots, they just rally endlessly cause they do not use that "edge" I was talking about. They send teh ball rather deep but not too much and make sure they create enough angle to make each other run.

Djoko lost enough matches v Nadal in teh past trying to past winners by him. He understood it was too risky and often pointless. Better bank on teh fitness side.

AO was a great match because it wasn't just backhand peppering, there was more variety.

WTF was nice because Federer's backhand was on song (Nadal's depth and not producing his max spin may be a factor).

EDIT: When I say AO I was thinking of 2009, when I said WTF I was thinking of the last one.

summerblues wrote:

spuranik wrote:

Yes. The whole debate can be summarised in...

1. Single-handed backhand (or not having a DHBH)

2. Endless shots to single handed backhand in the ad-court.

In short, match-up.

Is it not lovely? We all spend years watching, analyzing and discussing their matches when all along this is pretty much all that neeeds to be said. Will not stop me hoping for a happy ending today.

We would need to add that on faster, lower bounce courts, that SHBH becomes a strength and the H2H is completely reversed.

summerblues wrote:

spuranik wrote:

Yes. The whole debate can be summarised in...

1. Single-handed backhand (or not having a DHBH)

2. Endless shots to single handed backhand in the ad-court.

In short, match-up.

Is it not lovely? We all spend years watching, analyzing and discussing their matches when all along this is pretty much all that neeeds to be said. Will not stop me hoping for a happy ending today.

Yes, if that is not the summary then tell me is there anything different in that match-up...

And one more thing, you can talk all you want and discuss and analyse I have no problem. I tried to summarise, and that's all I can come up with.

Tenez wrote:You can't but it makes quite a difference: I have counted that out of the 27 times they played, Fed was a break up or a set up 16 times.

That's 60% is quite a striking figure compared with the 33% of times Federer actually wins. They are exactly opposite stats. Those are the stats we often see against physical players. The first set or 2 are usually closer than usual.

That is the real stat proving that the distance plays a role physically and because of it, it has also a psychological impact....when comes the crunch time towards the end of teh first set.

This doesn't work for me. Are you saying the crunch physically speaking comes about 30 minutes into a 2- 4 hour match?

amritia3ee wrote:Tenez in the majority of the matches Nadal has won the first set. How quickly does Fed tire?

After the first break of serve in the first set.

Well how quickly did Fed tire in FO final 2008.
Maybe the warm-up was strenuous.

Apologies for the double post.

Henman Bill wrote:

Tenez wrote:You can't but it makes quite a difference: I have counted that out of the 27 times they played, Fed was a break up or a set up 16 times.

That's 60% is quite a striking figure compared with the 33% of times Federer actually wins. They are exactly opposite stats. Those are the stats we often see against physical players. The first set or 2 are usually closer than usual.

That is the real stat proving that the distance plays a role physically and because of it, it has also a psychological impact....when comes the crunch time towards the end of teh first set.

This doesn't work for me. Are you saying the crunch physically speaking comes about 30 minutes into a 2- 4 hour match?

So how do you explain those stats? just coincidence that they are completely reverse?

If you play tennis you realise that playing 3 or 4 long rallies is like running a succession of 200ms. It's very taxing, especialy when you need to hit a flatter SHBH or flatter FHs in general. Look at the shanking Fed goes through once again in the middle of the AO12. You can have one or 2 long rallies, then you have a break between games and you are fine, but having a bit more is enough to break that fragile timing. On a faster surface, teh phsycial aspect hardly intervenes cause there are plenty of short points to recover and very few long rallies.

It also explains why SHBHs have not beaten a DHBH for years on those slow courts.

This is where the battle is in tennis. Look at the match between Murray and Benetteau a couple of years ago. Murray was being dominated...until he plays that one very long rallies. That was enough to kills Beneteau's edge and from then Beneteau lost it all. Even Murray mentions that this rally was what made the diffference.

Tennis is like biathlon. If you do not understand that, then I can't explain it better. You need to play with guys that make you run, then, you'll understand.

spuranik wrote:

Yes, if that is not the summary then tell me is there anything different in that match-up...

And one more thing, you can talk all you want and discuss and analyse I have no problem. I tried to summarise, and that's all I can come up with.

Just to make sure we are on the same page: I was not being sarcastic. I was really agreeing with you. I think what you said sums it up rather nicely. If I was being sarcastic at all, I was poking fun at the endless debates we are having about it. But even then it was a gentle poke - we need these debates to spice up our following of the game.

summerblues wrote:

spuranik wrote:

Yes, if that is not the summary then tell me is there anything different in that match-up...

And one more thing, you can talk all you want and discuss and analyse I have no problem. I tried to summarise, and that's all I can come up with.

Just to make sure we are on the same page: I was not being sarcastic. I was really agreeing with you. I think what you said sums it up rather nicely. If I was being sarcastic at all, I was poking fun at the endless debates we are having about it. But even then it was a gentle poke - we need these debates to spice up our following of the game.

Sorry Summerblues. That's what exactly happened... I thought you're being sarcastic...

Now that I've gone back and read your comment again, it doesn't sound "offensive" at all...