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

First topic message reminder :

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.

Yes but Tenez Federer trains like a trojan to last hours in matches. He works strenuously with his fitness coach Paganini for something like 150 days a year. Federer getting a break up in the first set is a complete anomaly, an irrelevance. For a start, Nadal is notoriously slow to start matches. But above that there is no way Federer is tiring after doing a bit of running for a few games. Again, I implore people read this article: http://www.worldtennismagazine.com/archives/6329 ...the article includes this...Paganini worked with Federer to achieve a “coordinated creativity,” high precision movements and the ability to muster top athletic performance after four hours of play. “Roger couldn’t be permitted to choose the wrong tactic for physical reasons,” Paganini said.

But Tenez, besides all this you are completely sunk by your own argument anyway. And as usual the stats dont support your story either! According to you Nadal starts to tire Fed out after Fed gets an early lead. Nadal then takes the first set. In your own words..."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."

So....with that fragile timing broken down from late in the first set (presumably...) why isnt Nadal going on to beat Federer in straight sets every time once he's won the first set then? After all, surely once that "fragile timing" is gone then Federer should be easy to put away right?

So why is it that Federer comes back and wins 2nd sets, 3rd sets, 4th sets, or even in 2 cases the 5th. The answer is simple. Your reasoning defies logic and isnt credible. You are saying Federer loses his oh so precious timing in the first set, and yet is able to miraculously find it again in the 2nd and beyond to win sets...before presumably tiring again to lose later on!

Let me guess...you have a theory for that too

If you play 30 matches and Federer starts well in 20 (2 out of 3) and loses 20 (2 out of 3), it's statiscally very relevant. HB also finds out that Fed loses sets more often as it goes along but he says it's negligeable. By looking closer I show it's not at all.

Look across the stats of tennis matches and winning the first set or leading in the first will probably lead to a 60% plus chance of winning the match. Not when those 2 play and that's telling something.

Here it's reverse. Out of 10 matches it might be glitch. Not out of 30.

But you refuse to see it cause it doesn;t suit your "Nadal is as talented" theory.

Excellent and well researched thread by the OP. Clearly showing that Roger does not get tired and lose all his matches to Nadal on exhaustion. Roger actually plays better in the 4th sets of their matchups than the two sets before.

Also pretty much destroys the idea that the surfaces are homogenized. Roger owns the edge on grass and indoor as would be expected and Rafa the edge on clay and outdoors. But if all the surfaces are green clay and so similar why the discrepancy in this rivalry among the various conditions?

Lydian of course makes another yeoman's effort to expose the contralogical posts of the Fed gets tired and loses because every surface is green clay or blue clay argument. But I am sure that will completely ignored by the Fed apologist crowd.

In Rafa's book he states that at the start of the 5th set of the Wimby 2008 he could tell Fed was tired (i.e. noticeably more tired than Rafa was) and believes it was only Fed's serving that was keeping him in the match. Rafa knew there was little chance of his own serve being broken, as Fed no longer had the energy to do so, and so just bided his time until he got the decisive break.
Rafa could be wrong, of course, but he was closer to it than any of us.

Tenez wrote:

But you refuse to see it cause it doesn;t suit your "Nadal is as talented" theory.

What a radical and shocking theory!

Tenez...firstly, why dont you answer the question I posed in my last post. I repeat, why is Federer losing his fragile timing in the 1st set due to tiredness yet is able to find it again to win 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th sets?

Secondly, you conveniently ignore Nadal is a slower started and Federer always a very fast starter. You also ignore that Nadal wins the first set 14 times out of his 18 wins. Thats the only thing that has significance here! We dont know how many times Federer is ACTUALLY a break up...we as usual have to trust YOUR stats on that - which when examined ALWAYS break down. Losing 14 x 1st sets out of 27 matches is NOT starting well at all as you claim (...in 2 out of 3 matches). Its getting a set down in over 50% of them! But who cares whether Federer gets off to a good start or not when your logic doesnt hold for later sets anyway...

You're swimming in a sea of denial Tenez and clutching at ever more flimsy
straws.

LOL! Amritia I love how the people who reject Tenez's line of reasoning are so illogical to believe that a 10 grandslam champion is actually talented.

lol the same fatuous arguments over and over and over and over again no matter how many times the vacuous logic is exposed and blown to smitherings. I'm amazed some people aren't Nadal admirers considering their shared trait of remarkable perseverance and tedious repetition.

JuliusHMarx wrote:In Rafa's book he states that at the start of the 5th set of the Wimby 2008 he could tell Fed was tired (i.e. noticeably more tired than Rafa was) and believes it was only Fed's serving that was keeping him in the match. Rafa knew there was little chance of his own serve being broken, as Fed no longer had the energy to do so, and so just bided his time until he got the decisive break.
Rafa could be wrong, of course, but he was closer to it than any of us.

Yes Fed was clearly tired, as he was in AO09, USO09, USO 10, USO 11, FO 11 and more so in FO08 where he knew that physically he was not up to the task so hardly tried.

But the important part of what I say which can be observed is that though Fed can run for ever, however the muscles allowing his great timing tire quicker than his legs. Anyone who plays tennis knows/has experienced that.

On a faster surface, it's no problems as it's only a succession of short points....but when it slows down, the timing goes. This is what we have experienced on clay for years (McEnroe, Edberg, Vilas, Lendl, Sampras etc...) all losing in the 5th...but already losing in the second and 3rd often...even though it was considerably less physical than playing Nadal.

As an aside, Lendl said once (fairly recently I think) that he got his fitness to a level that he wasn't bothered in a 5-setter as long he won 1 of the first 3 sets - after that, he knew his fitness would allow him to win the last 2, whoever he played against.

lydian wrote:Tenez...firstly, why dont you answer the question I posed in my last post. I repeat, why is Federer losing his fragile timing in the 1st set due to tiredness yet is able to find it again to win 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th sets?

Easy cause he never quite retrieves it. He has a pretty poor 5setter record. However his partner tires as well and that's enough to reverse the balance at times.

Secondly, you conveniently ignore Nadal is a slower started and Federer always a very fast starter. You also ignore that Nadal wins the first set 14 times out of his 18 wins. Thats the only thing that has significance here! We dont know how many times Federer is ACTUALLY a break up...we as usual have to trust YOUR stats on that - which when examined ALWAYS break down. Losing 14 x 1st sets out of 27 matches is NOT starting well at all as you claim (...in 2 out of 3 matches). Its getting a set down in over 50% of them! But who cares whether Federer gets off to a good start or not when your logic doesnt hold for later sets anyway...

YOu ignore the fact that like in FO06, FO11, AO12 Fed actually starts so well than Nadal doesn;t even see the ball. It's not up to him when Fed plays like that. And Nadal says again, he needs to wait and deal with teh more tired version.

You're swimming in a sea of denial Tenez and clutching at ever more flimsy
straws.

YOu wish. That's because we have shown you being in denial so many times that you are hoping I am too. But contrary to you I always base my judgement on what I observe, regardless of what I want to believe...so unlike you.

I don't really understand how anyone can deny that Nadal plays a gameplan based on running his opponent into the ground. I'm not saying given an open court he won't take it, but all experience of watching him shows that grinding is the #1 plan. After all, he's a creature of classic clay tennis.

It can only think that some feel somehow unsatisfied in the legacy of their favourite and would like it to be more like the one that McEnroe or Federer have, so try to invent the idea that he outsmarts opponents rather than outruns.

The ultimate proof is the hidings he's been getting from Djokovic ever since he upped his fitness to the point where The Tactic doesn't work.

No Tenez, all those guys lost to better players on clay. And, lol, didnt Chang beat Lendl in 5 sets after Chang was suffering from leg cramps and had to resort to underarm serving he was so tired. Not every winner is the physically strongest. Anyone also see Sampras beat Corretja when throwing up from exhaustion. To all the examples you give there are always counters, you just pick the ones that suit your argument.

But coming back to the present argument you again shoot yourself in the foot y saying "Federer can run forever"...well I'm glad that at least you are starting to recognise what we all know! But then you try to stretch incredulity by saying the muscles that control his great timing tire quicker. Hey? Which ones are those then? So...the logic here is that Federer can run and run and run....BUT he gets tired after 3-4 games in the first set so loses his timing! This just gets better and better.

Tenez...the answer you gave about winning subsequent sets rings hollow.
So now you are telling us that Nadal starts to tire too! Is Nadal losing his timing as well into the 2nd set but not the first? And that Federer loses his timing in the first (but hang on "he can run forever") but retains it better in the 2nd set than Nadal who suddenly starts tiring...but never in the first set. But hang on, you also say Nadal's game doesnt rely on timing. He's just lungs and moonballing right?

Oh its so confusing keeping up with your logic Tenez...especially when it seems to shift sand like the Sahara from post to post.

lydian wrote:Oh its so confusing keeping up with your logic Tenez...especially when it seems to shift sand like the Sahara from post to post.

You pretend it;s complicated but it's quite simple if you are willing to understand.

It explains also why the fittest player benefits from taking extra time between points. With Nadal comments, Djoko and Murray working harder and being successful despite having half the shot making ability of a Nalbandian...it all makes perfect sense.

Excellent Article HB

Yes it all makes perfect sense on Planet Tenez.
Your explanation of Federer tiring in the 1st set holds no water.
Especially further now you have admitted Federer can run forever!
Yet with that amazing fitness we have to believe its his "timing muscles" (lol) that tire quickly
Keep them coming Tenez

lydian wrote:Yes it all makes perfect sense on Planet Tenez.
Your explanation of Federer tiring in the 1st set holds no water.
Especially further now you have admitted Federer can run forever!
Yet with that amazing fitness we have to believe its his "timing muscles" (lol) that tire quickly
Keep them coming Tenez

YOU are only confirming that you don;t play tennis at a decent level.

And I am not saying this to tease you or annoy you but it's a fact. Just you believing for all those years that Nadal was taking extra time because of his OCDs and not to help his game is quite surprising.

But don;t worry, I'll keep them coming...What I say often ends up being common knowledge later down the years.

Lydian, there IS a huge difference between fitness to run and to time. There just is.

Tenez, you're coming back with nothing except the usual stuff about extra time, OCDs, etc. And now you're questioning my tennis playing ability - who are you to do that? Some guy on a tennis forum who's had an agenda against Nadal for years laid bare for all to see in just about everything you post. I'm not getting into those petty games anymore with you. Its a waste of time but people know your stats are dubious at best.

BB, dont tell me you've bought into this Federer tiring out thing after a few games against Nadal as well! Its funny, you always jump in to Tenez's defence by turning the argument to me, never to Tenez when surely you cant agree with everything he says. I bet sometimes you must read what he writes and think "hmmmm....". But you always seem to agree with EVERYTHING he says by inference of turning these arguments back to me when most of Tenez's theories get debunked by proper stats. Its kind of amusing really.

lydian wrote:Tenez, you're coming back with nothing except the usual stuff about extra time, OCDs, etc. And now you're questioning my tennis playing ability - who are you to do that? Some guy on a tennis forum who's had an agenda against Nadal for years laid bare for all to see in just about everything you post. I'm not getting into those petty games anymore with you. Its a waste of time but people know your stats are dubious at best.

BB, dont tell me you've bought into this Federer tiring out thing after a few games against Nadal as well! Its funny, you always jump in to Tenez's defence by turning the argument to me, never to Tenez when surely you cant agree with everything he says. I bet sometimes you must read what he writes and think "hmmmm....". But you always seem to agree with EVERYTHING he says by inference of turning these arguments back to me when most of Tenez's theories get debunked by proper stats. Its kind of amusing really.

Well said on all your points on this thread lydian, clearly well thought out

Thanks Tom____ and good to see you back posting

Its funny when you look back...
1. Tenez has now been debunked recently by 2 people on those Miami HC match stats. They (and the timed 2003 Wimb stats) showed Nadal has always taken his time. Not post Miami 2005 as Tenez always asserted.
2. His assertion that Federer only lost via long matches to Nadal has now been thoroughly debunked by this thread. Nadal beats him in short, medium and long matches.
3. Tenez then always told us how Nadal strategically took his time (but only after - debunked - Miami 05 of course). Nore Straat provided AO stats that showed on average through matches Nadal takes as long
against differing levels of opposition, i.e. why didnt Nadal take much longer playing Federer than he did playing 2 guys to whom he lost 14 games in total to both! Those stats tell us Nadal applies the same routine no matter who he plays. Yes...Nadal said he wants more time after long ralleys in that recent interview but it revealed nothing new otherwise, although Tenez jumped on it as though it was the written proof for cold fusion!
4. Then on this very thread he stretches incredulity by saying Federer can "run forever" but expects us to believe that he gets tired against Nadal after just a few games! Not only that, its his "timing muscles" that get tired. And yet although Nadal apparently tires too (but this isnt linked to timing because we know Nadal 'just moonballs safely') Federer is able to rise Lazarus-like to win subsequent sets.

And yet everyone else is wrong and their tennis playing ability called into question to boot! Needless to say, my debates with Tenez on these topics are now done. All his long held assertions and theories unravel and become debunked when under the scrutiny of other posters stats work. He's even debunked himself. But I know he'll continue to peddle theories to undermine Nadal's success nonetheless...that much has been the case for years now...and clearly he has an audience here amongst the other non-Nadal fans. But not this poster anymore.

No one believes him now apart from Nadal-hatahs.

Wow Henman Bill! Great article/research!

While in the meantime....another match with Federer leading by a break in the first set.

And some still think it's a mental problem?

Updated after their Indian Wells match. Of course, one match doesn't change much in a 28 match series, although each match does slightly shift both data and conclusions.

I think too many of us are Federer fans and are looking at this too much from a Federer perspective. I've been thinking that Rafa is just a slow starter. He doesn't get going until either some time has passed or he has a challenge or a dogfight to get his teeth into. Maybe it's Rafa that's causing Federer to have the highest win % in the first set.

Henman Bill wrote:I think too many of us are Federer fans and are looking at this too much from a Federer perspective. I've been thinking that Rafa is just a slow starter.

If you watch objectively most first sets when those 2 play, Fed produces amazing tennis. FO06, Wimbledon 06 and 07, FO11, AO12, even AO09. It has nothing to do with Nadal. It's just too fast. The problem Fed has had is sustaining that level.

It's obvious to the naked and even Nadal admits it...so why looking further?