Nadal's Incredible H2H Record

First topic message reminder :

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.

Both Nadal and Federer should also be judged by their individual records... not just their H2H record against each other.

H2Hs are very important but they have to be analysed smartly due to so many variables such as surfaces, change of technology, fitness training and many other factors.

A H2H makes sense when comparing players + or - 3 years older/younger, or sometimes more if no significant change happen.

For instance when looking at the H2H between Fed and Nadal, we cannot overlook the fact that one player developed his games on fast surfaces and that everything was slowed down to clay like conds while he was reaching his peak. Imagine 2 seconds if the FO and and all the other surfaces had been moving to 1990s grass while Nadal was maturing.

Regarding Federer, I don't think any player of his generation +/- 3, even 4 years have a + H2H against him.

I don;t think Nadal will enjoy that much longer...unless he retires tomorrow.

socal - I hear what you say about Borg's departure in relation to Johhny Mac, it's an interesting and oft-raised point. But I do not agree that his legacy was 'hurt' in the way you describe.

I am convinced that as the years go by and players retire, they are remembered by the vast majority of fans & pundits much more for their respective wins on the biggest stages and overall achievements/titles in the game (regardless of opponent) rather than specific h2h counts which are much more ephemeral. By way of personal example : I was thinking recently about the many encounters I was fortunate to see between Borg and Connors, and I convinced myself that it must have been pretty even overall. I remembered that Borg always came out on top at Wimby but that Jimbo mostly got the better of him on home soil in NY. Only when I actually checked the archives did I see that the 'closing' h2h was pretty lopsided : 15-8 to Borg to be exact. But that of itself does not taint Connors own legacy in my mind.

Bjorn will forever be introduced as winner of eleven Slams, not for the fact that he happened to lose his last three Slam contests vs. Mac.

Mac won 'only' two more Slams after Borg's departure, when you might well have expected him to have cleaned up a lot more with such a mega name obstacle gone from the tour.

For me, Borg's legacy is totally secure despite him losing those last 3 big encounters in a h2h which overall happened to end up all square.

I say this not just because eleven Slams will always trump seven, but because Borg won all his eleven by the age of 25. Mac was still around, competing in Slams (and all credit to him for that, he remains one of the true greats) long after Bjorn had called it a day, and yet he never won any himself once he reached the same age at which Borg had departed the scene.

Lags, I understand that of course Bjorg will principally be remembered for the 11 slams. And of course as he should. But those who delve a little deeper critics and knowledgable fans will remember certain matches that these greats played and if they remember them losing to another great consistently it does leave a mark on the viewer and his opinion of both great players and where they rank respectively. The way Bjorg left the game did to some extent hurt him legacy wise. Now we can argue about how much or how little, I think the impact of getting beat by one player in 3 straight slams and then leaving the game without fighting it out or getting his payback did impact how bjorg was viewed by and large. Bjorg in 1980 was seen much the same way that Fed was seen 2007, but when fed hit a patch of poor results in 08 he fought through and got more grandslams and stayed at the highest echelon of the game. Bjorg couldn't do that or didn't try hard enough or had other things to worry about.

As to Tenez's points about age being determinative on the value of the head to head I disagree to a certain extent. Yes I agree that age gap can skew a result. But one doesn't make a hard and fast rule. One has to look at the age of the players and when both players where in their primes and how well they played at various stages in their careers. If anything in 2004, 5, and 6 Roger should have been beating up on the teenage Nadal when he was at his absolute physical peak. But from the outset Nadal had the advantage in the head to head.

Take Fed v. Djoko Roger really racked up wins against teenage Novak, and before Novak had his medical issues and fitness worked out. I believe he won the first 5 matches against Novak before losing to him either in miami of 07 or canada 07 if I do remember for the first time. Now obviously Novak has the physical edge now but didn't have it at the start of their careers.

So when analyzing players with a gap between them by looking at their careers and their h2h in context much can be learned. Sometimes an age gap can skew a h2h. Sometimes the older guy has the edge, he beats up on a younger player and then by the time the young guy comes up the older guy retires or just doesn't play the younger player as much. The opposite can be true of a great player who hangs around too long getting beat up by lesser players younger than him. But sometimes the various timing of their matchups yields a pretty fair gauge. For example, the fed Nadal matchup which Nadal dominated when he was pre-prime against a fed in his absolute prime.

Fair points Socal. As I said earlier, I personally don't see it that way*, even though I'm old enough (and, in this case, lucky enough!) to have been around at the time it all unfolded. But equally I can understand that others might judge things differently.

As for what might have happened if Borg HAD stuck around - well of course we shall never ever know. Certainly things weren't looking too good towards his last few full-on playing months (ie excluding the somewhat ill-fated and short-lived comeback). I firmly believe that was more about personal 'issues' and self-motivation - although admittedly such factors are part and parcel of the game for any top pro (whether legend or not) and have to be managed as such. These things have been much discussed & debated over the years of course. Mac's own book includes a fair bit on it from his perspective.

All that said, I will always remember Bjorn, and indeed his career overall, for the glory days ; days which can never be tainted whenever my thoughts take me back to them

*as rgds Borg

socal1976 wrote: One has to look at the age of the players and when both players where in their primes and how well they played at various stages in their careers

That's a diferent matter. It's not what I am talking about. Players are roughly near their peak physically from 24 to 30+...and if anything improving from 24 to 30 constantly, if no injury preventing a normal evolution.

I am talking of changes a generation may benefit while another may have not. Becker's game was seriously helped by the bigger frames. McEnroe for instance did not benefit from it fully. They still played and had competitve matches but had they both developed with the same tools, their H2H woudl have been very different.

Same applies to Federer who learned tennis with a heavy racquet and a small frame and natural guts as oppososed to Nadal who was already learning with lighter racquets and synthetic strings....without considering the diet and training methods which may have shorten Nadal's career by 5 years!

Those are extremely important factors. Make Nadal and Federer learn the game with gut strings and small frame and see what the H2H woudl be.

See that is my point Tenez. The changing conditions hypothetical is just a hypothetical. Federer maybe would play with a two handed backhand, then again maybe not there are still juniors who play with a one hander and some pros who came along even after Fed who play with a one hander. I honestly think you over hype the impact of the changing game on fed's career. Because you underemphasize the fact that as great an athlete as Roger was many of the changes actually helped his game. The bigger balls aid in serving accuracy, and Roger is maybe the most accurate of all time which represents a changing condition actually feeding into a federer strength. Just like the slowed conditions giving fed an edge over many of his contemporaries in terms of speed.

Bottom line is this from the start of Nadal's career he was getting the better of fed in his prime so the head to head isn't skewed by age. Nadal has had the beating of fed pretty much from day one. Regardless of mythical situations of a tennis world with never changing conditions.

Each generation is different...always has been so I dont see the point of the comparison about racquets and strings, its hypothesis for the sake of it. The players are the players they are...they're different, from different backgrounds and tennis "schools"...why try to make them the same. Just accept the players for who they are and the way they play the game - difference is good. Besides which both may not be around much longer anyway (you never know Nadal may be gone much sooner than people think)...and then discussion can swing to the next bete noire. Factually, Nadal has been beating Federer since day 1 (or first meeting), thats for sure socal.

Lags can't disagree with much of your post, a good post. The fact is I don't want to harp on that one point in regards to Bjorg. I mean he was so great in terms of resume that it lacks balance to do so. But I think h2hs vs. other great contemporaries do impact the legacy of players and Bjorg v. Mac is one example.

Borg

socal1976 wrote:See that is my point Tenez. The changing conditions hypothetical is just a hypothetical.

Oh Gosh,you like speculating don't you?

It's not hypothetical "beyond reasonable doubt!"

Nothing proves that Pete was not better on clay than on grass despite his better record there. It's only a stat but stat don't prove anything, a stat only supports a trend.

Likewise, you cannot ignore the effect of technogies and other factor on a game style. It gets absurd if you don;t want to recognise that.

Tenez wrote:

socal1976 wrote:See that is my point Tenez. The changing conditions hypothetical is just a hypothetical.

Oh Gosh,you like speculating don't you?

It's not hypothetical "beyond reasonable doubt!"

Nothing proves that Pete was not better on clay than on grass despite his better record there. It's only a stat but stat don't prove anything, a stat only supports a trend.

Likewise, you cannot ignore the effect of technogies and other factor on a game style. It gets absurd if you don;t want to recognise that.

How's the curry and popcorn going, Tenez ?

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:

socal1976 wrote:See that is my point Tenez. The changing conditions hypothetical is just a hypothetical.

Oh Gosh,you like speculating don't you?

It's not hypothetical "beyond reasonable doubt!"

Nothing proves that Pete was not better on clay than on grass despite his better record there. It's only a stat but stat don't prove anything, a stat only supports a trend.

Likewise, you cannot ignore the effect of technogies and other factor on a game style. It gets absurd if you don;t want to recognise that.

How's the curry and popcorn going, Tenez ?

LOL! We decided to have diner together "suddenly" . Lamb brochettes and Veal milanaise was on the menu and a nice bottle of Vouvray (too sweet for my taste but my wife likes sweet white wine.

I am now looking forward to Nole v Monaco. I will disappoint you, though maybe not surprise you, but now Nadal is out I want Monaco to win to open the number 1 race.

Tenez wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote:

socal1976 wrote:See that is my point Tenez. The changing conditions hypothetical is just a hypothetical.

Oh Gosh,you like speculating don't you?

It's not hypothetical "beyond reasonable doubt!"

Nothing proves that Pete was not better on clay than on grass despite his better record there. It's only a stat but stat don't prove anything, a stat only supports a trend.

Likewise, you cannot ignore the effect of technogies and other factor on a game style. It gets absurd if you don;t want to recognise that.

How's the curry and popcorn going, Tenez ?

LOL! We decided to have diner together "suddenly" . Lamb brochettes and Veal milanaise was on the menu and a nice bottle of Vouvray (too sweet for my taste but my wife likes sweet white wine.

I am now looking forward to Nole v Monaco. I will disappoint you, though maybe not surprise you, but now Nadal is out I want Monaco to win to open the number 1 race.

Well, I hope it tasted as good as it sounded
I've had my apple strudel with some sumptuous Californian red

P.S.

I don't believe Fed's got the chance of anything to do with number one . Not while Nole's keen and hungry. Very keen and hungry

noleisthebest wrote:I don't believe Fed's got the chance of anything to do with number one . Not while Nole's keen and hungry. Very keen and hungry

You might be right but Federer is a special player.

Lags72. Only just seen your post from late last week. Ta for the info about Laver and Rosewall. First time I saw them play each other was in 67 when Wimbledon actually hosted a pre-Open era pro tournament that was shown on BBC2.
Still think the most interesting head to head is the 1-0 enjoyed by some Swiss guy who is now a fireman or something, who beat Federer when Rog was about 10 and this guy was a strapping 14. I think it may have been a double bagel and no doubt the bloke has been dining out on it ever since.

sfp - he's a police officer actually, but you're right in saying that it was indeed a double bagel. Wonderful piece of historical trivia, the like of which we've never seen since !

I chanced upon a press cutting all about it, and it prompted me to post a fun article on the forum last November. You might remember the article because you contributed at the time. And if you'd like to refresh your memory, have a read here .......
https://www.606v2.com/t18222-the-player-who-double-bagelled-roger-federer

noleisthebest wrote:.

I don't believe Fed's got the chance of anything to do with number one . Not while Nole's keen and hungry. Very keen and hungry

Come on Fed owned Nole for most part of his career , so to say Fed won't get back no.1 sounds silly NITB.

Doesnt matter how hungry he is nitb, Dolgopolov is comingggggggggggg.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:.

I don't believe Fed's got the chance of anything to do with number one . Not while Nole's keen and hungry. Very keen and hungry

Come on Fed owned Nole for most part of his career , so to say Fed won't get back no.1 sounds silly NITB.

What can one say to this but......

Lags72. Ta for digging up the Federer double-bagel guy. Hadn't realied that I had already contributed to this debate ! After a few years you have two problems - one is that your memory goes, and I can't recall what the other one is.