Nadal's H2H Against Top 20

Saw this elsewhere and presume it's correct.

Djokovic 20-15

Murray 13-5

Federer 20-10

Ferrer 20-4

Berdych 14-3

Tsonga 8-3

Del Potro 8-3

Gasquet 10-0

Wawrinka 10-0

Haas 5-0

Cilic 2-1

Nishikori 5-0

Tipsarevic 3-0

Raonic 3-0

Almagro 10-0

Simon 5-1

Kholshreiber 9-1

Querry 3-0

Monaco 4-1

Outstanding! I wonder how this compares with Federer?

Nadal also has the best W/L ratio out of all players- active and retired.

It is pretty amazing

btw HE, Nadal-Ferrer is 20-4 now.

Djokovic will eventually turn it around, you feel. Can't believe Simon has beaten Nadal before. How did that happen?

Mthierry, I believe at one point in 2012 the H2H between Nadal and Djokovic was 16-14... after that Nadal has managed to go into a 20-15 lead.

Another thing is that for all the stuff we hear about how Nadal struggles against Djokovic, Nadal's percentage wins ratio against Djokovic is better than Federer's.

mthierry wrote:Djokovic will eventually turn it around, you feel. Can't believe Simon has beaten Nadal before. How did that happen?

Simon beat Nadal in the Madrid Masters (when it was indoors at the end of the year) in 2008. 3-6, 7-5, 7-6.

Do you know what Djokovic's H2H is with the top 20? What would it take for him to turn it around?

Red wrote:btw HE, Nadal-Ferrer is 20-4 now.

Of course! I will correct it.

hawkeye wrote:Saw this elsewhere and presume it's correct.

Djokovic 20-15

Murray 13-5

Federer 20-10

Ferrer 19-4

Berdych 14-3

Tsonga 8-3

Del Potro 8-3

Gasquet 10-0

Wawrinka 10-0

Haas 5-0

Cilic 2-1

Nishikori 5-0

Tipsarevic 3-0

Raonic 3-0

Almagro 10-0

Simon 5-1

Kholshreiber 9-1

Querry 3-0

Monaco 4-1

Outstanding! I wonder how this compares with Federer?

This is one reason that if Nadal gets close to fed in the slam count I would give him the GOAT title over fed. This is one of the reasons that I see him having a tiebreaker over fed. Djokovic's record against Nadal looks pretty damn good in retrospect. I would love it if Novak could turn his all time mark against Nadal or Fed, oddly I think he may have a chance against Nadal because they will play so many more times in the future while probably not against Fed. Murray really has to starting doing better than that.

Those statistics really highlight how little chance those using the single handed backhand have against Rafa - only Federer has more than one win (and many of those wins came before Rafa became the well rounded player of all surfaces he is today)

All excellent stats. Also extremely, spectacularly and equally pointless!

How does Fed's compare? Well, considering he is 32 (soon I believe?) his h2h are going one way against the games elite. If he carries on playing till he is 40 (which is entitled to do if he loves the game) they will get worse all round. Absolutely no-one cares about head to bloody heads in the grand scheme of things.

Why measure them against the top 20 now? Why not what ever the top 20 back in 2006? What was Sampras's record v the top 20 players in 97? Or 94? What was Lendl's at any given arbitrary point in his career?

It just doesn't matter. It doesn't prove anything. It is not a measure of anything.

As for Djokovic, I would imagine he also doesn't care. I would think his h2h stats are pretty impressive too. All he will be concerned with however will be winning the next TOURNAMENT. Not WHO he plays.

I disagree. To have overwhelming H2Hs against the current top20 is hugely and probably uniquely significant.

I will also add something else which is a little less ranty!

It is suprising that with these stats that he hasn't dominated the tour for any given length of time.

2 year end no 1's I think? Not even 2 full years (in terms of weeks) at No.1? Is it true he has never defended a non-clay tournament? Maybe what this shows that on clay he beats anyone and everyone (which I think we knew anyway!!)

But elsewhere he is, or was, a lot more susceptible. And still is possibly. Meaning more players of all rankings can beat him. I wonder what percentage of Nadal's games have been on clay? I bet it's one of the highest on tour? If so, maybe that is the reason his h2h is so healthy i.e. he plays most of his games on clay and is more likely to play players on this surface? I don't know

Its certainly the reason his h2h with Fed is so healthy. I believe it is even off clay.

Johnyjeep. The present top 20 are the best players at the moment. These are the players that stand in the way of any future tournament wins. Therefore ability to beat them is important as it is one indication of the chances of a tournament win.

You say Djokovic doesn't care about his H2H with other players. Who knows what he cares about? But his ability to beat others in the top 20 will determine his chances of "winning the next TOURNAMENT"... whether he cares or not. What is his H2H against other members of the top 20?

Johnyjeep wrote:
Its certainly the reason his h2h with Fed is so healthy.

If you discount clay and indoor hard, Nadal leads.

lydian wrote:I disagree. To have overwhelming H2Hs against the current top20 is hugely and probably uniquely significant.

Why? And why now? Why this current top 20? What does Nadal, or anyone for that matter, get for having a positive H2H over an individual or group of people?

Johnyjeep wrote:hat does Nadal, or anyone for that matter, get for having a positive H2H over an individual or group of people?

He gets a positive H2H against an individual or a group of people?

Red wrote:

Johnyjeep wrote:
Its certainly the reason his h2h with Fed is so healthy.

If you discount clay and indoor hard, Nadal leads.

haha OK! That wasn't what I said at all was it. Care to attend any more caveats?

What he gets Johny is 12 slams and 24 Masters.

Johnyjeep wrote:

Red wrote:

Johnyjeep wrote:
Its certainly the reason his h2h with Fed is so healthy.

If you discount clay and indoor hard, Nadal leads.

haha OK! That wasn't what I said at all was it. Care to attend any more caveats?

?
You're the first one to put the caveat of taking away clay (a perfectly legitimate surface?) from the record books.
My post was a sarcastic post showing how you had put a caveat, and thus I added another caveat.
Don't think you got that

lydian wrote:What he gets Johny is 12 slams and 24 Masters.

Yeah, but then if you don't count the 12 slams and 24 Masters, he's actually left with nothing.
Poor Rafa ;(

Red wrote:

Johnyjeep wrote:hat does Nadal, or anyone for that matter, get for having a positive H2H over an individual or group of people?

He gets a positive H2H against an individual or a group of people?

So when Nadal retires he will be able to say/put on his mantle peice:

"On June 2013, I had a positive h2h vs the top 20 at that time"

Wow. Probably place it next to his 8 (and counting) French Open titles.

For the record he actually has the best overall W/L ratio against all the players he has faced- in terms of his percentage matches won he is the greatest of all players, active or retired.

For me that is more significant, than winning an extra RG title. You are free to disagree.

Red wrote:

Johnyjeep wrote:

Red wrote:

Johnyjeep wrote:
Its certainly the reason his h2h with Fed is so healthy.

If you discount clay and indoor hard, Nadal leads.

haha OK! That wasn't what I said at all was it. Care to attend any more caveats?

?
You're the first one to put the caveat of taking away clay (a perfectly legitimate surface?) from the record books.
My post was a sarcastic post showing how you had put a caveat, and thus I added another caveat.
Don't think you got that

No Red. I was trying to start a discussion as to why Nadal hasn't dominated the tour (in terms of No.1) for any length of period depsite those h2h's. I used those stats as part of why (possibly) he hasn't? I might be wrong. Please read my post in it's entirety. I'm not trying to even out Nadal's h2h vs anyone. They stand quite clearly. I'm trying to understand why he hasn't dominated as much (please note that is relative) as those stats should suggest.

LOL what pointless stats without some context.

As Johnny has already pointed out a lot of those matches were played on clay. Nadal's favourite surface and probably the worst surface for most of the players on the list.

Imagine if Federer had played 5-6 grass tournaments each year between 2003 and 2009. I bet his H2H and winning percentage would be astronomical.

Take Nadal's clay matches out the equation and suddenly those stats don't look half as impressive.

Face it, clay is the weakest surface for nearly all of those players. Grass, given most players only play at most 2 tournaments a year on it, is in that regard inconsequential.

Red wrote:For the record he actually has the best overall W/L ratio against all the players he has faced- in terms of his percentage matches won he is the greatest of all players, active or retired.

For me that is more significant, than winning an extra RG title. You are free to disagree.

Not only do I disagree, but I would bet any amount of money, that any tennis player on the planet would swop that (whatever that is you say!!!!!) for another Grand Slam title.

Are you serious? A Grand Slam Trophy is the prize every player wants. It's what they live for. Not W/L ratio's vs single/group of players at an arbitrary decided point in their career.

emancipator wrote:LOL what pointless stats without some context.

As Johnny has already pointed out a lot of those matches were played on clay. Nadal's favourite surface and probably the worst surface for most of the players on the list.

Imagine if Federer had played 5-6 grass tournaments each year between 2003 and 2009. I bet his H2H and winning percentage would be astronomical.

Take Nadal's clay matches out the equation and suddenly those stats don't look half as impressive.

If we had as many clay tournaments as we did hard court tournaments, those stats would look doubly impressive.
Hard Court is Nadal's least favourite surface, Nadal prefers grass anyway.

Johnyjeep wrote:
Not W/L ratio's vs single/group of players at an arbitrary decided point in their career.

No I am talking about his overall ratio, against all players over his career. I think for me I prefer that to one more slam, you may disagree.

Why take clay out? This is the constant flaw, like clay isn't a legit surface...Nadal has 4 non clay slams, only behind Federer/Djokovic. He's all time 8th for career % W/L on grass.

I also believe Nadal's H2H on hard court on that list, would still be positive apart from Djokovic.

lydian wrote:Why take clay out? This is the constant flaw, like clay isn't a legit surface...Nadal has 4 non clay slams, only behind Federer/Djokovic. He's all time top 10 for career % W/L on HC.

Not only that... if we do only consider hard courts (his weakeast surface), I believe he is only behind Djokovic out of those 20!

Red wrote:

emancipator wrote:LOL what pointless stats without some context.

As Johnny has already pointed out a lot of those matches were played on clay. Nadal's favourite surface and probably the worst surface for most of the players on the list.

Imagine if Federer had played 5-6 grass tournaments each year between 2003 and 2009. I bet his H2H and winning percentage would be astronomical.

Take Nadal's clay matches out the equation and suddenly those stats don't look half as impressive.

If we had as many clay tournaments as we did hard court tournaments, those stats would look doubly impressive.
Hard Court is Nadal's least favourite surface, Nadal prefers grass anyway.

Nonsense, the playing field is much more even on HC than on clay. The whole tour is able to perform on HC's whereas there are very few players who are now excel on clay and none of those players, apart from Ferrer, appear on that list.

The point, as you well know, is that those stats are misleading and are biased in Nadal's favour because of his outstanding clay performance. If Federer has had the opportunity to play as many tournaments on grass his H2H and win loss ratio likewise would have been astronomical. Remember, he was unbeaten on that surface for five years.

Lydian It's not about taking clay out or delegitimising it. It's about adding some context and if you're going to compare with Federer, as Socal was doing and the OP mentions, then it's only fair to mention that Fed didn't have the advantage of playing 5-6 tournies per year on a surface on which he was virtually unbeatable in his prime.

8th on grass win/loss ratio.

And of course his HC performance whilst good, I bet is miles behind Federer.

So the point being is that those stats are boosted and distorted by his clay record. As an overall measure of performance they are pretty meaningless.
When broken down to surface they show what no-one would contest anyway - that he is the greatest clay courter ever statistically, but to post them and then laude them without context, as if they somehow make him better than say Federer, or even the greatest player ever statistically as Red put it, is misleading.

Eman- even on hard courts, apart from Djokovic, I don't believe anyone has a superior H2H against Nadal on that surface from the 20 listed in the OP. What's that go to do with clay.
Moreover, if there was as much tennis played on clay, then there was on hard courts, Nadal's stats would be miles miles higher. It works both ways. Nadal's worst surface is hard courts.

All time top 10 on HC:

Hardcourt % * W–L
1. Roger Federer 82.85 546–113
2. Ivan Lendl 82.60 394–83
3. Jimmy Connors 82.50 509–108
4. Novak Djokovic 81.49 317–72
5. John McEnroe 81.11 292–68
6. Pete Sampras 80.41 427–104
7. Andre Agassi 79.00 598–159
8. Stefan Edberg 78.82 387–104
9. Andy Murray 78.33 282–78
10. Boris Becker 77.39 219–64

Nadal 77% 282–85....so probably 11th all time. Not bad at all...only 7 losses more than Murray on 9th.

Emancipator, but Federer got to play HC all year round which is by far the preponderant surface on tour. We all know Nadal has had Fed under the kosh at slams since 2007.

I'm not taking clay out!!!! I'm just trying to understand why with those stats he has not dominated the top of the rankings for any length of time?

I heard somewhere that there are more clay tournaments than hard-court on the ATP tour??? Surely they meant outdoor hard? Even if that is not correct in anyway the points on hard court are far more spread out due to everyone being adept at playing on it.

Nadal has cleaned up over and over again on clay. Why therefore has he not been at the top of the rankings more than he has? Which was my original point. Leave clay in you want.

Also, and this is purely for curiosity as I have no idea, where does Federer stand in the clay w/l?

Johnyjeep wrote:

I heard somewhere that there are more clay tournaments than hard-court on the ATP tour???

Well that's simply not true.
There are double the number of Masters 1000 on HC then clay, also double the number of HC Slams, also WTF is played on HC.
Most of the tour is played on Nadal's weakest surface.

The point is that clay is a much more specialised surface than HC - which the entire tour can play on. Therefore it is harder to dominate on HC's.

Your first point is very different to the line you were pushing earlier - that Nadal is the greatest player ever statistically. No one on that list may have a superior H2H to him on HC apart from Djokovic but the H2H's suddenly become much closer and his numbers not nearly so impressive.

Take his grass court percentage - only 8th. Not quite so impressive is it. And probably will get worse over the next few years.

emancipator wrote:that Nadal is the greatest player ever statistically.

I said he had the best W/L ratio statistically (including all surfaces). The majority of the tour is played on Nadal's weakest surface.

Red wrote:

Johnyjeep wrote:

I heard somewhere that there are more clay tournaments than hard-court on the ATP tour???

Well that's simply not true.
There are double the number of Masters 1000 on HC then clay, also double the number of HC Slams, also WTF is played on HC.
Most of the tour is played on Nadal's weakest surface.

Double the number of HC slams! Yes, make it sound greater than it is...1! I'm not getting into this discussion. Because its all more than cancelled out by there being even less tournaments on grass - which is Federer's best surface. Just because Federer is better on more surfaces than Nadal then we should feel sorry that there aren't even more tournaments on clay. Even they clay far outweighs grass.

Red wrote:

Johnyjeep wrote:

I heard somewhere that there are more clay tournaments than hard-court on the ATP tour???

Well that's simply not true.
There are double the number of Masters 1000 on HC then clay, also double the number of HC Slams, also WTF is played on HC.
Most of the tour is played on Nadal's weakest surface.

Lets not forget 11 of Nadal's last 12 tournies have been on clay.

In fact I'd like to know what percentage of his matches won throughout his career have been on clay?

I'd imagine if Federer had played as many matches on grass and less on clay, his winning percentage would be even higher than Nadal's.

If we had clay dominating the tour like hard court is, Nadal's stats would be so sky high that Hawkeye's articles would go over the word limit.

Clay is now deemed specialist even though the current top 6 all learnt their tennis on it...haha. Ridiculous.

lydian wrote:Clay is now deemed specialist even though the current top 6 all learnt their tennis on it...haha. Ridiculous.

I said it's more specialist than HC's - it is. I'm surprised at how fanboyish you're coming across Lydian. You've always had this tendency with Nadal, you seem to lose any rational arguements and thought processes when it comes to evaluating him.

Red, if there had been as many grass tournies as HC tournies during Fed's prime - he would have had a hundred percent winning percentage , after all he didn't lose any grass matches from Halle 2003 until the W final of 2008.

emancipator wrote:I'm surprised at how fanboyish you're coming across Lydian.

You are the biggest Federer fan I have ever come across on any forum.
Your fandom is starting to reach my 'Nadullover' worshipping standards- I worry for you Eman.

He should have played Queens.

Wow, 292 of Nadal's 626 match wins have come on clay. That's a wopping 47 percent!!

There's some context for you.

So the majority of his wins haven't come on clay.

Very impressive stats, irrespective of surface. Comparisons to Federer are pointless at this stage, he's five years further into his career.

I suspect that Nadal will end his career as the most dominant player against his peers in history. His style is unique and suited to that purpose.

The Simon win was probably the best match Gilles has ever played, btw.