Nadal's Incredible H2H Record

Heard it said that Nadal has a positive H2H with every active player that he's played more than once... apart from Davydenko. Davydenko leads 6-4. This is incredible if true. I doubt that any other player comes close to this record.

No-one is going to comment on this HE...this isnt the right forum to talk positive about Nadal. What were you thinking....lol.

Give us a chance

Is that so, I thought it might be - pretty impressive. Of course it might begin to change in a year or so as he becomes a veteran of the tour.

PS I didn't mean to be negative with the last comment - just pragmatic lol

lol...pragmatism is good...they all start losing more eventually.

Im not surprised.

Nadal has the second highest career winning percentage behind Borg; he's likely to go ahead of Borg in the next couple of years.

HE, I think Federer may also have a winning H2H against every active player bar Nadal and Murray. I can't think of any other active players that have a winning H2H against him.

emancipator wrote:Im not surprised.

Nadal has the second highest career winning percentage behind Borg; he's likely to go ahead of Borg in the next couple of years.

HE, I think Federer may also have a winning H2H against every active player bar Nadal and Murray. I can't think of any other active players that have a winning H2H against him.

I can think of one who is going to have it very soon

Nadal's win-loss ratio is indeed unprecedented. I don't think Borg is a fair comparison given the much more professional way tennis is played these days.

Federer has had a better win-loss ratio than Nadal since 2005 but his early years on the tour have hurt him in this regard. Nadal on the other hand had only one season (his first) where he accumulated a high ratio of losses.

It is tainted!

All this proves is that Davydenko is a better player than Nadal.

Nadal never had the disadvantage like other players once had: the physical gap between juniors and seniors. He closed the gap in 1 years, that's 4 times faster than average.

It's a impressive record, but let's see what it's like in 5 years from now

gallery play wrote:Nadal never had the disadvantage like other players once had: the physical gap between juniors and seniors. He closed the gap in 1 years, that's 4 times faster than average.

It's a impressive record, but let's see what it's like in 5 years from now

excellent point.

question is how many more maulings is this record going to survive against Novak??

emancipator wrote:Im not surprised.

Nadal has the second highest career winning percentage behind Borg; he's likely to go ahead of Borg in the next couple of years.

HE, I think Federer may also have a winning H2H against every active player bar Nadal and Murray. I can't think of any other active players that have a winning H2H against him.

Nadal's win loss ratio is .823 (554 wins 119 losses). Federer's is .815 (829 wins! 188 losses).

I'm not sure how to find out about Federer's winning H2H record but would be very interested to know about it?

I also heard commentators mention that Nadal has only ever lost 15 times (I think they said 15 times) to a player outside the top 30. They also added that no player is even close to this statistic. Again if anyone can find evidence to prove this I would be very interested?

Interesting to see if Djokovic can catch up Federer (10-14) or Nadal (14-16). An interesting sub plot for this year and beyond.

Djokovic has a career win loss ratio of .783 (408 wins 113 losses)

Does anyone know how many players he has a losing H2H with?

Also it would be interesting to know how many times Federer and Djokovic have lost to players outside the top 30 in order to make a comparison with Nadal. Does anyone know? I'm not sure how to find such data...

hawkeye wrote:

emancipator wrote:Im not surprised.

Nadal has the second highest career winning percentage behind Borg; he's likely to go ahead of Borg in the next couple of years.

HE, I think Federer may also have a winning H2H against every active player bar Nadal and Murray. I can't think of any other active players that have a winning H2H against him.

Nadal's win loss ratio is .823 (554 wins 119 losses). Federer's is .815 (829 wins! 188 losses).

I'm not sure how to find out about Federer's winning H2H record but would be very interested to know about it?

I also heard commentators mention that Nadal has only ever lost 15 times (I think they said 15 times) to a player outside the top 30. They also added that no player is even close to this statistic. Again if anyone can find evidence to prove this I would be very interested?

A bit misleading that stat since it only refers to players who have never been higher than 30, ie it doesn't include players he lost to when they were ranked outside the top 30 but at some other point in time may have been ranked higher. So for example if he was to lose to Nalbandian in their next match and Nalby is still ranked less than 30 it wouldn't be considered under this stat.

Having read that other thread I am now convinced Nadal's H2H record is due to MRI. A dose of MRI is surely the key to success.

emancipator.

As a comparison stat I would imagine it's still significant. If used to compare careers (a largish number of matches and the same criteria used for all 3 players) Still not sure how to find the data though...

Nore Staat wrote:Having read that other thread I am now convinced Nadal's H2H record is due to MRI. A dose of MRI is surely the key to success.

why just the MRI and not the other stuff?

reckoner wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:Having read that other thread I am now convinced Nadal's H2H record is due to MRI. A dose of MRI is surely the key to success.

why just the MRI and not the other stuff?

lol

newballs wrote:question is how many more maulings is this record going to survive against Novak??

Well that's quite straightforward really. Two more would tie the H2H and three would tilt it in Djokovic's favour.

gallery play wrote:Nadal never had the disadvantage like other players once had: the physical gap between juniors and seniors. He closed the gap in 1 years, that's 4 times faster than average.

It's a impressive record, but let's see what it's like in 5 years from now

And add to that the advantage he had on clay while his H2H not counting clay might be very different. Clay explains very much why a player with such a great H2H record v everybody spent most of his career at number 2.

But as you say, in 5 years, it will all make sense.

Finally!! My time wasting the other day comes in handy!

Follow these links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer_career_statistics#Head.E2.80.93to.E2.80.93head_vs._Top_20_ranked_players

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Nadal_career_statistics#ATP_Head_to_head

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novak_Djokovic_career_statistics#Head-to-head_record_against_other_players

Scroll down to see more, there are loads of stuff there.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-Finals-Career-List.aspx

Look at who is #1 AND #2 in this list.

Really to be proud of at the moment, but guess Nole gonna get better h2h against him before the end of this year, Nadal will have a negative h2h against so many players in 5 yrs once his physical powers wane out.

Henman Bill wrote:Interesting to see if Djokovic can catch up Federer (10-14) or Nadal (14-16). An interesting sub plot for this year and beyond.

I think Novak has a good shot against both those guys of turning the h2h record around. With Fed it will be harder because Fed will probably retire before Novak can completely turn it around on him. With Nadal I think it is a safe bet that Novak will go on top in that H2H. Federer could possibly leave with a losing h2h against Murray, Novak, and Nadal. Although I think that he will hold his own most likely and leave with a better h2h against Novak. Either way I think it is a great accomplishment for Novak even at this stage in his career to have 24 tour wins against fedal v. just 30 losses. I mean one guy is the goat, the other guy the greatest clay courter of all time and 10 time grandslam champion. Sometimes even a losing record can be a positive when measured against competition like that.

Hurray I am the 70,000 post on the tennis section.

Nice to see a few are able to appreciate what a great record this is. Rather than looking to the future and being hopeful... cough I mean pragmatic about this incredable record being broken there is perhaps a good chance that Nadal could make it "perfect". Where is Davydenko when you need him?

No-one is going to comment on this HE...this isnt the right forum to talk positive about Nadal. What were you thinking....lol.

Exactly just go on his corporated and "unbiased" facebook page to post such messages. This forum is totally biased and totally hate Nadal to the core...

(sigh)

HE,

I am afraid you are preaching to the wrong choir.

As impressive as the stats are, like in all other sports many will feel that stats are sometimes not a reflection of what has been achieved.

Federer a 16 time Slam winner has negative H2H's with some players. Some would say does 16 Slams really reflect on his H2H with most players?

Sometimes persistance never pays off.

Very true lk.

Some people like to talk about his numbers and stats which are impressive but his game does not leave many of us wanting to see more.

His grinding tennis may be liked by a few, but most of the crowd would rather give birth to an elephant than sit through his games.

Thanks JM.

I think a bigger question is what more can Nadal give into his game?

Federer has seen a change in fortunes after a barron 2 year spell. He has adapted his game to find ways of winning because the baseline battle has become an iron man contest.

Djokovic to some is a hybrid version of Nadal and Federer. A player that Nadal has struggled with now.

Given his physical limitations I can not see Nadal playing past 30.

legendkillarV2

I think I have to disagree about these stats not being a reflection of achievement. It's not as if Nadal hasn't played many matches and hasn't played all the top players multiple times. With these sort of career stats there is no hiding place. The fact that Nadal has won 10 slams and I've forgotton how many masters titles shows that there is nothing flukish about them. Whoever Nadal plays (apart from Davydenko) he goes into the match knowing he has beaten them more often than suffered defeat. His opponant knows this too! IMO this is meaningful...

Federer has some great stats too... Both players are incredible.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Very true lk.

Some people like to talk about his numbers and stats which are impressive but his game does not leave many of us wanting to see more.

His grinding tennis may be liked by a few, but most of the crowd would rather give birth to an elephant than sit through his games.

Ha ha! I think youv'e been hanging around 606v2 for too long. This will come as a surprise but Nadal is one of the most popular players ever and is virtually a sell out wherever he plays.

HE,

I feel you are disagreeing to be pedantic.

Before Sampras finished his career many percieved Borg to have been the greatest. Despite the fact that Laver had completed a CGS and that Rosewall had won more Slams. Now is that a true reflection of stats? Nope. Not in the slightest.

I am not taking anything away from Nadal. To be regarded as a great and not quite near the level of some of the other greats, but to have the H2H record he has is phenominal.

Like I said you endorse these stats as to promote the greatness of Nadal and I have no issue with that. You just can't throw stats out there and say well he has to be the best of his time because these stats say so.

Very interesting topic. Nadal has never really had a bete noire in the way that Fed had with Henman (although he made Tim pay in the end) and with Nalby and, still, with Rafa himself.
Agree with the view that Rafa got off to such an amazing start and did not suffer the usual early losses due to the fact that he was so physically mature. We'll never know if he could have won RG even earlier as he had to miss out through injury in the years before 05.
But to encourage les autres, and as Roddick has just proved, it's never too late to improve even the most dire of head-to-head records.

legendkillarV2

Where did I say "he has to be the best of his time"? I know Nadal has a rival that's what makes it fun...

HE,

So why does this thread exist?

legendkillarV2 wrote:HE,

So why does this thread exist?

He got in early before Djokovic pulls the H2H in his favour.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:HE,

So why does this thread exist?

He got in early before Djokovic pulls the H2H in his favour.

Djokovic has got a lot of work to do on H2H's against a number of players before he can come close to Nadals incredible record... How many I wonder...

But what's better than having a positive H2H record versus the man who has the best H2H record?

Davydenko is the man!

Do any of the link threads say which pair have actually met the most times? I think Pete/Agassi met 34 times but some pairs may have done more. Djoko and Rafa are gonna chalk up a few and think that when Fed packs it in the matches between the current top two and Murray will increase rapidly (Murray playing one of them at a time, that is)

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQjXf-dR4FrAp8LJheSurTKX6hDLSG-GX6b1mylwYeacaB8bPFmGQ

one trophy Rafa is unable to get.

Davy

It's impressive but I wonder whether othe rplayers have had similar positions at that age?

The real test will be what's it like when he hangs the raquet up.

sirfredperry wrote:Do any of the link threads say which pair have actually met the most times? I think Pete/Agassi met 34 times but some pairs may have done more. Djoko and Rafa are gonna chalk up a few and think that when Fed packs it in the matches between the current top two and Murray will increase rapidly (Murray playing one of them at a time, that is)

I was always aware (although not from first-hand experience) of a past rivalry that comprehensively trumps any other in terms of sheer numbers of meetings

May I present those great Aussies : Messrs Laver and Rosewall

When I came to check the detail I was staggered to see that these two are reputed to have met - wait for it - over 130 times

I say 'reputed' because some of the records are incomplete both as regards exact number of clashes and scorelines. What has been documented, however, is that Laver led overall 80-63, with other, related stats in doubt and/or questionable

Think we're safe to say this particular numbers record will never be surpassed. BUT ........ just how sick of the sight of each other did they get ....????

Wiki devotes a whole page to their h2h, so have a read here. Or - to coin a phrase - go figure !!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laver%E2%80%93Rosewall_rivalry

That is totally incredible.

Yeah, but back then pro circuit had much smaller fields in tournaments so the two best guys met virtually every single week. In fact early on in the pro era only a few guys played full time and often it was a case of basically playing the same guy every week.

I disagree with those that say this isn't a big accomplishment I think it is. I think people do look at head to head records between contemporaries as one aspect of their career. A great deal of fed fans want to pretend that this is not important at all. I disagree I think when you have two great players who played contemporaneously that people will look to their h2h matchup. I think Bjorg's legacy and career was hurt by the fact that he lost in 3 straight slams to Mac and then picked up left the tour. I think to an extent Nadal has given fed the one drawback to his resume that often gets discussed. H2h does impact legacy but at the end the day grandslams really define who is rated. But big rivalry matches against other greats in slams particularly do go a long way to defining a career.

Nadal's w/l is extraordinary. It is testament to how quickly he got winning - his first tentative steps onto the tour were in 2002 but he had a slam and an 80+ year under his belt by the end of 2005. The comparison with Fed is a 1998 start and his first 80+ and slam year in 2003. Nadal took 3 years less than Fed to hit the big time, and they've both gone 80% solidly since then.

I agree with Socal that you cannot assess Fed without taking into account his H2H vs. his greatest rival (so far), but ultimately the only way to assess any individual player's career is once he's hung up his racquet - especially one who is as young as Nadal.