Nadal's H2H Against Top 20

First topic message reminder :

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?

Given that Rafa's best surface is clay and Fed's is grass, it's fair to say the majority of the tour is on both their respective weaker surfaces (plural).

Obviously it's an impressive stat, but we knew Rafa was a great player anyway, didn't we?

Cmon Julius, how dare you be so neutral, pick a side

Emancipator, call me fanboy or whatever you like if it makes you feel better, I really don't give 2 hoots. I've posted long enough on here to not defend myself. We know the agenda at play here and every time Nadal wins a slam. On this occasion he wins his 12th slam to move within 5 short, so lo and behold the knives are out to diminish his overall record and position him as a specialist, with his clay wins now not worth as much as Federer's HC wins. And you call me a fanboy...lol.

The really fascinating contradition is to have this record, yet by aged 27 to have only 4 Slams away from Roland Garros.

It probably needs closer inspection to understand this.

I think it's fair to say that 'peak' Federer, which is 2004/5 would have beaten any version of Nadal you care to mention on grass

And those who ignore the fact that Rafa has only won one of his last twelve )or whatever the stat was) miss the point

Nobody's having a go, but to the other players, psychologically - Rafa is seen as fair game away from the dirt

Red wrote:Cmon Julius, how dare you be so neutral, pick a side

What, and be called a fanboy? My side? C'mon Tim!

His career has been devastated by injury- 2004-early 2005 out with foot injury, misses Wimbledon 2009 with knee injury, USO 2009 abdominal strain (couldn't serve), AO 2010 (knee goes in the start of second set TB, has to retire), AO 2011 (injured in the QF vs David Ferrer), has to miss all of latter half of 2012 due to knee injury

No wonder he's only on 12 Slams

Yeah, I mean he'd been knocking on the door of the US Open so hard until 2009 hadn't he?
I can list you 5 Slams off the top of my head that Federer has been messed up for. They all accumulate them after a while.

Go on, name me 5 slams where Federer could have won if not for injury.

It's not been 'devastated' by injury - that gross and ridiculous exaggeration. You want a career devasted by injury, look at Krajicek, Blake or Del Potro.
Get some perspective (unless you're wumming, in which case, stop wumming)

Well if you take out Federers grass record cause i think its too specialist a surface...
But if you take out indoor cause its too specialist a surface...

Surface or no surface, Nadal doesn't need to prove to anyone he can play on any surface, hes dominant on 1 surface in particular, and that shoudn't detract from his achievements. Its the fault of Federer and co who, depsite their own stellar clay records, and upbringing on the stuff, are frankly no match for him, Novak the only exception to the rule over the whole 10 years.

Cherry picking his HC results discounting his clay records is not gonna work, hes lower down than Fed on HC yes, but soo what? I fail to see how HC is somehow a "purer" surface just because more people play it.

Despite all that His HC record is still great on its own, and his dominance against big opposition is impressive too, its not his fault they're all cannon fodder on clay to him

Krakicek and Blake, I'd say yes- their careers have been 'ultra- devastated' by injuries if you like. Put Haas in there as well.
For Nadal and Del Potro it's a step down from that- you can label it what you want really.

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

I think what some are pointing out and it's valid, is you are talking about a snapshot in time-- this is the type of thing that should really be looked at when he's finished..... the reality is- like all players unless retiring in the midst of his prime like Bjorg- he will decline and the W/L will go down-- much like we are seeing and going to see with Fed... It's impressive, but really not fair to be touting this when guys like Sampras played a couple years on tour in extreme decline taking losses, etc,etc.... As others have mentioned, the w/l is great- but that hasn't translated to a true dominance across the whole season- - 7 months is his longest stretch at #1... that points to Nadal dominating a specific part of the season which we all know when that is...... He's the Clay Goat and will go down in history as such--- but it's valid to point out that 3/4 of the season- he's not the best.

I think it's also valid to point out that while there are more hard court tournaments than clay-- there are also more very good to great hard courters competing for those titles over the past 9-10 years than clay... It's factual that the weakest surface for the rest of the big 4 is clay.... Murray is downright weak on clay, while DJoko is good and getting better but it's weaker than his hard court/medium to fast court abilities.. Federer is a truly great clay courter though it's the weakest of his surfaces, but he was either cursed or Nadal blessed that his style is a matchup nightmare against the Nadal clay style. Nadal until 2011 only had Federer that was even very good on clay to compete against- and Nadal was able to feast on that 1 hander. Nadal would be a clay goat in any era but his dominance is helped by a weaker clay field... sorry- it just is. The Hard courter dominant players like Federer and now Djoko simply have more minefields, competition in the draw to navigate than Nadal has on clay...

There should be more grass tournaments- it's the most important historical surface in tennis- and it's again fair to point out someone like Federer would be even more dominant in W/L, titles if there was even 1 Masters on Grass over the years..That's a travesty really. I would also agree that grass has a specialist aspect to it- so that would inflate Fed's #'s too.

The surface argument is laughable. Maybe Nadal should be moaning most of the tour, 2/3rds of the Masters, 2 of the 4 GS and the WTF are all played on hard and that there should be more clay tourneys. Then his stats would look even more impressive. The argument could swing both ways. I do agree though that it's unfair to compare those stats to Federer's considering Federer is at the twilight years of his career.

As for the skewed h2h with Federer, if Federer had made all those non-clay Slam finals Nadal made since 2010, I'm fairly confident Nadal would have had the edge. I wish they had met in that 2010 US Open final. Would have been a great match that would complete their GS match set.

Of course Nadal's win loss may comedown as he gets older, but one thing about Nadal he has held that head to head advantage since he was a teenager. But it is a fair criticism of some Fed fans that the fact that Nadal is a lock for one third of the schedule tilts a lot of these head to head records. This is not a diminishing of Nadal or the value of clay court tournaments. I don't think anyone is saying that Nadal's wins are worth less because they are on clay. Nadal just is a lot better on one surface than everyone else. And then the followup question is that is it better to be really good on all surfaces or incredibly dominant on one surface.

As for the weak competition on clay, if Nadal didn't exist, Federer would have initially dominated the surface like Borg and we wouldn't be calling it his weakest surface; he'd be one of the clay GOATs. Nole would have won it the last 2 times just like his HC dominance and we won't be calling it his weakest surface. These guys grew up on this surface. It appears to be their weakest surface and clay appears to have the weakest competition because of one man. It makes that one man a once-in-a-lifetime freak and a great. It doesn't mean the surface competition is weak.

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

Well you have to wait till he retire before one can boast on this record.

banbrotam wrote:I think it's fair to say that 'peak' Federer, which is 2004/5 would have beaten any version of Nadal you care to mention on grass
And those who ignore the fact that Rafa has only won one of his last twelve )or whatever the stat was) miss the point

Nobody's having a go, but to the other players, psychologically - Rafa is seen as fair game away from the dirt

The bolded is highly disputable conjecture for the simple fact peak Federer didn't meet a peak Nadal on the surface. 2007 Federer was still peak Federer and a technically incomplete, maturing 21-year old Nadal with a WTA standard serve did take 2 sets from him in the final. We would simply never know. And while Federer may be unlucky with the clay-skewed h2h, many players in that list haven't met Nadal too many times on clay. Andy Murray for example with a 5-13 deficit has only met Nadal on clay 4 times in their 18 matches which is skewed to his more favoured courts. Why is everyone assuming all Nadal's results are skewed towards his clay success?

lydian wrote:Emancipator, call me fanboy or whatever you like if it makes you feel better, I really don't give 2 hoots. I've posted long enough on here to not defend myself. We know the agenda at play here and every time Nadal wins a slam. On this occasion he wins his 12th slam to move within 5 short, so lo and behold the knives are out to diminish his overall record and position him as a specialist, with his clay wins now not worth as much as Federer's HC wins. And you call me a fanboy...lol.

Wow Lydian, you really are getting a little touchy.

I didn't mean to call you a fanboy and I don't think I did.

I said that you have some fanboyish tendencies when it comes to evaluating Nadal and his achievements. This was very much apparent in your discussions with Socal wherin it was quite clear that Socal was actually making the logically consistent points whilst you were floundering in inconsistencies. I have noticed that you tend to contradict yourself a lot and offer a lot of hotch potch theories which you try to pass off as technical analysis. These theories tend to change dependent on which player you are discussing. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticed this - I think Socal and Summerblues have both also picked up on this. This is just an observation so don't get too upset on reading this. I am after all the emancipator, and it is part of my service to humanity to observe, educate and thus, emancipate.

Anyway, my point with regards to this thread is clear and stands. Rafa's numbers are inflated by his clay resume. To have almost 50% of your wins on a surface that only accounts for approx 25% of the tour is indicative of this. I ask again, would Roger's numbers not be just as impressive and indeed more so if he had had played 5-6 grass tournies per year during his pomp? Or how about Pete Sampras? Of course they would. This is not to diminish Nadal as a specialist but the fact remains that HC is the staple of the tour and has been for about 20 years now. The competition on HC's is more fierce, the potential for losing earlier greater. This is stating the obvious and it is fanboyish (emphasis on the ish) to dismiss this as if it is not a valid arguement. Another example of your clouded and inconsistent evaluations of Nadal. The acknowledgement has already been made that Nadal is statistically the clay GOAT, but it doesn't necessarily follow that that clay dominance then extends to all other surfaces. Why should this then not be pointed out? So I don't understand all this talk about diminishing Rafa's record or knives being drawn. I'm merely adding some context.

It's perfectly reasonable to challenge the OP, especially when there is a clear insinuation in the OP and subsequent posts that other players are not as good or their records not as impressive on the basis of the stats provided. As to why there is such a defensive outpouring, I have no idea.



emancipator

Djokovic H2H against current top 20:

Nadal 15-20
Federer 13-16
Murray 11-7
Ferrer 10-5
Berdych 13-2
Tsonga 10-5
Del Potro 8-3
Gaquet 7-1
Wawrinka 12-2
Haas 5-3
Cilic 7-0
Nishikori 1-1
Tipsarevic 5-2
Raonic 0-0
Amagro 3-0
Simon 6-1
Kohlschreiber 3-1
Querrey 6-1
Monaco 7-0


Therefore only losing head to head currently is Nadal and Fed which he could of course improve in years ahead. He still has the best record against Nadal of anybody in my opinion, not to mention managing 3 wins on clay which is a feat in itself. He has never played raonic strangely. Very impressive stats though against current top 20 !

Slasher- good stuff
Nishikori is somehow tagging along at 1-1, not sure how that happened

mthierry wrote:2007 Federer was still peak Federer

Sorry but that is nonsense. During 2004/5 Federer played Tennis that no-one has ever played before or since.

Part of the reason, IMHO, is because he was so far ahead of his available rivals (no Haas, Hewitt injured, Safin on walkabouts etc) he gained an amazing confidence and just played Tennis from another stratosphere

He was still pretty good in 2007, far better than most other slam winning players peaks - but he was losing to the likes of Andy Murray, i.e. not quite 'god like' Tennis

And he did beat Rafa

2008 comes and we can argue that he would never reach the heights of 2005, partially due to the mono - meaning that inevitably (during recovery) other parts of his body would have been put under strain - hence the later back problems. And it still took an arguably 'peak' Nadal five sets to beat him at a rainy / cool Wimbledon

I go back to 2004/5 - for me it's actually as it should be, there is no way any human being could keep playing Tennis of that quality for any longer and 2010 Nadal would not have beaten him

Federer H2H vs top 20:

Nadal 10-20
Djokovic 16-13
Murray 9-11
Ferrer 14-0
Berdych 11-6
Tsonga 9-4
del potro 13-4
gasquet 10-2
wawrinka 13-1
haas 10-3
cilic 4-0
nishikori 1-1
tipsarevic 6-0
Raonic 4-0
almagro 5-0
simon 4-2
Kohlschreiber 6-0
Querrey 2-0
Monaco 4-0

Again very impressive with just two losing head to heads with Nadal and Murray. Nishikori has bragging rights (he has 1-1 with Federer and Novak, might not last though If novak turns around his H2H with Federer, Fed will not be liking that i reckon.

At the end of the day tournament wins and slam wins are what it is all about but Nadal's figures are staggering

I thought I would drill down into the numbers

98 out of the 219 matches played have been on clay.

Out of the 98 matches on clay he has won 92.

He has played 16 matches on the grass and lost 4.

He has played 106 matches on HC. He has lost 34 on HC.

Only Djokovic and Federer have beaten him on HC, Clay and Grass.

Head to heads are interesting but they are meaningless without context.

The surface has been discussed but also significant are the relevant cycles of of a players career.

It's not inconceivable that Federer will end his career with a losing head to head against Rafa, Novak and Andy.

But that doesn't account for the fact that there was a period of Federer's career (prime years too) where the other guys weren't even on the scene! Had they been born 3 years earlier, the head to head would likely look better for Federer.

Good stuff legend killar, i would also hazard a guess that only djokovic and federer have beaten him on clay and HC (leaving grass out).

HM Murdoch wrote:Had they been born 3 years earlier, the head to head would likely look better for Federer.

No but early on Federer had a chance to get many wins against a young Djokovic- so it works both ways.

LK- interesting stats Half of those 34 losses on hard courts have come to Djokovic and Federer.

Red wrote:Go on, name me 5 slams where Federer could have won if not for injury.

Can't do that. Neither can you. You can only cite events where nadal didn't win and was impaired, you can't tell me what he'd have won.

For instance, until 2009 Rafa Nadal never beat a seeded player at the US Open. Not a single seed. Ever. So what impact do you think any injury up to then had on his Slam tally?

Second example. In all the times he's entered Wimbledon he's won it two times. The second time, he was aided by Roger Federer losing in the quarters (probably impaired by a back injury) and a pre-excellent Djokovic losing in the semi. So, on one occasion has he won it beating someone really good (Federer, but in a yeat he had GF). So what impact do you suggest any missing events has on his Slam tally?

See, the nice things about injuries for fans is that it allows them to imagine their hero would otherwise have won it all. Since Rafa has entered a lot of non-RG Slams, and won only 4, that's no kind of argument.

banbrotam wrote:
Part of the reason, IMHO, is because he was so far ahead of his available rivals (no Haas, Hewitt injured, Safin on walkabouts etc) he gained an amazing confidence and just played Tennis from another stratosphere

Hmmm. Perhaps the reason it looked liked he was playing in another stratosphere was precisely that... all his rivals were in a lower stratosphere

Bogbrush, I say could have won, not would have won.

slashermcguirk wrote:Federer H2H vs top 20:

Nadal 10-20
Djokovic 16-13
Murray 9-11
Ferrer 14-0
Berdych 11-6
Tsonga 9-4
del potro 13-4
gasquet 10-2
wawrinka 13-1
haas 10-3
cilic 4-0
nishikori 1-1
tipsarevic 6-0
Raonic 4-0
almagro 5-0
simon 4-2
Kohlschreiber 6-0
Querrey 2-0
Monaco 4-0

Again very impressive with just two losing head to heads with Nadal and Murray. Nishikori has bragging rights (he has 1-1 with Federer and Novak, might not last though If novak turns around his H2H with Federer, Fed will not be liking that i reckon.

At the end of the day tournament wins and slam wins are what it is all about but Nadal's figures are staggering

Good post.

But bear in mind that this is not a like for like comparison. Fed is nearly 32 and has accumulated losses over the years and this current top twenty looks very different to the one he faced at the same age as Nadal is now. If we were to look back at Fed vs the top twenty in 2007 I'm sure it would have been very impressive, and that's still without having approx 45% of his matches on his favourite surface (unlike Nadal who has had approx 45% of his matches against the top 20, judging by LK's post, on clay).

that is true HM Murdoch. That being said some of it does even out.

Novak would have taken a lot of losses against Federer in his prime and he was pretty much a kid at the time. In last year or two this has evened out a bit. The interesting thing is their matches even at the beginning were competitive and they still kind of are. I remember a really young novak in US open final 2007 really taking it to Federer, lost 7-6 7-6 6-4 and had set points in each of those first two sets. That was a really young novak against a prime federer. That being said Fed despite losing numerous times to novak in 2011 managed one win at French and took him close at US open that year before losing.

These great players always manage to make it competitive over such a sustained period of time. I do agree that clay for nadal really helps with head to head stats but you could probably say the same about other players on their favourite surfaces.

H2H is certainly not everything, titles are far more important but it does give you a good indication of how players match up to each other.

bogbrush wrote:

Red wrote:Go on, name me 5 slams where Federer could have won if not for injury.

Can't do that. Neither can you. You can only cite events where nadal didn't win and was impaired, you can't tell me what he'd have won.

For instance, until 2009 Rafa Nadal never beat a seeded player at the US Open. Not a single seed. Ever. So what impact do you think any injury up to then had on his Slam tally?

Second example. In all the times he's entered Wimbledon he's won it two times. The second time, he was aided by Roger Federer losing in the quarters (probably impaired by a back injury) and a pre-excellent Djokovic losing in the semi. So, on one occasion has he won it beating someone really good (Federer, but in a yeat he had GF). So what impact do you suggest any missing events has on his Slam tally?

See, the nice things about injuries for fans is that it allows them to imagine their hero would otherwise have won it all. Since Rafa has entered a lot of non-RG Slams, and won only 4, that's no kind of argument.

Great post.

Of the slams Nadal has missed W2009, USO 2012, AU 2013 - he would not have started any of them as a strong favourite.

It is arguable whether he would have been the favourite at W 2009 given Fed had more mojo that year than W2008. As for the other two slams he would definitely have not been the favourite.

Truffin, good post- also good to have someone with an opposing point of view who doesn't start screaming insults like emancipator

Just a few things I would like to refute, if I may:

the W/L will go down-- much like we are seeing and going to see with Fed

I do believe that Nadal has been ahead of the W/L ratio compared to Federer every step of the way... it's not just recently Fed has decline that Nadal has gone ahead. If you follow their career path, match by match, the W/L ratio is favourable for Nadal all the way through.

there are also more very good to great hard courters competing for those titles over the past 9-10 years than clay...

I would actually disagree with you on this, well nowadays anyway. I do watch a lot of ATP 250s (I play a prediction game on the other forum, where we play 250s too, so I've got myself a Tennis TV subscription ), and I feel that the numbers of players comfortable on clay are similar to the number of players comfortable on grass. I believe it is as fiercely competed.
Around the world, I agree North America uses mostly hard courts, but South America is mostly clay based. In Europe, I believe France, Spain and Italy are mostly clay court dominated as well. In England I don't believe one surface in particular dominates.
Anyway for Nadal in particular- in terms of threats (or minefields as Emancipator put it),.. you're looking at it from a totally wrong perspective. I actually believe that Nadal's biggest threat on clay... is a player who specialises on hard-courts. I know this may seem weird, but I genuinely believe this is the case- feel free to disagree. If I give you an example... I believe Brands (not a clay courter) would be a bigger threat to Nadal than a genuine clay-courter such as Juan Monaco. Watch the FO 2012 match vs Monaco, and the FO 2013, and then tell me if you disagree. So fundamentally when analysing which players are 'tough' for Nadal on clay, I believe you've got it wrong.

Nadal until 2011 only had Federer that was even very good on clay to compete against-

I would actually agree with you there.
I do believe if we look at the stats in terms of W/L ratio and finals reached Federer is right up there. In-fact in the last few years his more impressive performance probably came on clay, when he dismantled Djokovic's unbeaten run in FO 2011. I believe Federer is probably in the top 5 greatest on clay, if not for Nadal imagine how much he would have won!!
By 'very good' I assume you mean like 'ATG World Class' very good (I mean Ferrer and Almagro would see themselves are 'bery good' on clay ;0)- and I have always argued that the number of these 'very good' (ie ATG world class) players are what test you the most. You say Federer matches up badly on clay to Nadal, but who doesn't?? Look at even when Nadal was a teenager, he dealt with the likes of Coria very well.

Red wrote:No but early on Federer had a chance to get many wins against a young Djokovic- so it works both ways.

True.

But the difference is that prime Fed v young Novak lasted about two years (2006 -2007). Fed leads this period 5-1.

We then have a period of about 3 years (2008 -2010) of Fed beginning to slowly decline and Novak starting to approach his prime. Fed leads this 8-5.

We are then into the ongoing period from 2011 onwards which has prime Novak v definitely post prime Federer. Novak leads this 7-3. This period is already into its third season and one would expect it to extend into a fourth, maybe a fifth.

So the cycle of their careers definitely favours Novak in terms of head to head.

Red wrote:

banbrotam wrote:
Part of the reason, IMHO, is because he was so far ahead of his available rivals (no Haas, Hewitt injured, Safin on walkabouts etc) he gained an amazing confidence and just played Tennis from another stratosphere

Hmmm. Perhaps the reason it looked liked he was playing in another stratosphere was precisely that... all his rivals were in a lower stratosphere

Superficial analysis.

Did you know that in 2005 and 2006 COMBINED Roger Federer lost THREE matches to anyone not called Nadal, Murray or Djokovic?

In 2007 alone he lost SEVEN matches to anyone not called Nadal, Murray or Djokovic, and the picture only worsened somewhat after then.

If you're going to do your smart-arsed whistley thing you'd be better advised to actually write smart posts.

Red wrote:Bogbrush, I say could have won, not would have won.

Which makes it fanciful and pointless speculation, not something that can be used in any meaningful argument.
I'm sure you'd agree with that.
What could Djokovic have won had his health problems been diagnosed earlier? What could Borg have won if he'd played the AO? What could Krajicek have won if not for his knees? What could Fed have won if his coach hadn't died?
I mean, you could re-write the whole of tennis history to suit your own agenda, if you wanted to.

bogbrush wrote:

Red wrote:

banbrotam wrote:
Part of the reason, IMHO, is because he was so far ahead of his available rivals (no Haas, Hewitt injured, Safin on walkabouts etc) he gained an amazing confidence and just played Tennis from another stratosphere

Hmmm. Perhaps the reason it looked liked he was playing in another stratosphere was precisely that... all his rivals were in a lower stratosphere

Superficial analysis.

Did you know that in 2005 and 2006 COMBINED Roger Federer lost THREE matches to anyone not called Nadal, Murray or Djokovic?

In 2007 alone he lost SEVEN matches to anyone not called Nadal, Murray or Djokovic, and the picture only worsened somewhat after then.

If you're going to do your smart-arsed whistley thing you'd be better advised to actually write smart posts.

What you just said pretty much backs up what I was saying...

HM Murdoch wrote:

Red wrote:No but early on Federer had a chance to get many wins against a young Djokovic- so it works both ways.

True.

But the difference is that prime Fed v young Novak lasted about two years (2006 -2007). Fed leads this period 5-1.

We then have a period of about 3 years (2008 -2010) of Fed beginning to slowly decline and Novak starting to approach his prime. Fed leads this 8-5.

We are then into the ongoing period from 2011 onwards which has prime Novak v definitely post prime Federer. Novak leads this 7-3. This period is already into its third season and one would expect it to extend into a fourth, maybe a fifth.

So the cycle of their careers definitely favours Novak in terms of head to head.

That's a very good objective post Murdoch.

I was almost going to write something similar but I've decided that.. well lets just say it's pointless wasting time debating with some people.

Red wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Red wrote:

banbrotam wrote:
Part of the reason, IMHO, is because he was so far ahead of his available rivals (no Haas, Hewitt injured, Safin on walkabouts etc) he gained an amazing confidence and just played Tennis from another stratosphere

Hmmm. Perhaps the reason it looked liked he was playing in another stratosphere was precisely that... all his rivals were in a lower stratosphere

Superficial analysis.

Did you know that in 2005 and 2006 COMBINED Roger Federer lost THREE matches to anyone not called Nadal, Murray or Djokovic?

In 2007 alone he lost SEVEN matches to anyone not called Nadal, Murray or Djokovic, and the picture only worsened somewhat after then.

If you're going to do your smart-arsed whistley thing you'd be better advised to actually write smart posts.

What you just said pretty much backs up what I was saying...

No, I'm afraid not, because the players he started losing to were the players he was virtually incapable of losing to earlier on. Are you going to suggest they all improved?

bogbrush wrote:

Red wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Red wrote:

banbrotam wrote:
Part of the reason, IMHO, is because he was so far ahead of his available rivals (no Haas, Hewitt injured, Safin on walkabouts etc) he gained an amazing confidence and just played Tennis from another stratosphere

Hmmm. Perhaps the reason it looked liked he was playing in another stratosphere was precisely that... all his rivals were in a lower stratosphere

Superficial analysis.

Did you know that in 2005 and 2006 COMBINED Roger Federer lost THREE matches to anyone not called Nadal, Murray or Djokovic?

In 2007 alone he lost SEVEN matches to anyone not called Nadal, Murray or Djokovic, and the picture only worsened somewhat after then.

If you're going to do your smart-arsed whistley thing you'd be better advised to actually write smart posts.

What you just said pretty much backs up what I was saying...

No, I'm afraid not, because the players he started losing to were the players he was virtually incapable of losing to earlier on. Are you going to suggest they all improved?

At which point did I compare 2007 to 2005/6??
My post had nothing to do with that.

HM Murdoch wrote:

Red wrote:No but early on Federer had a chance to get many wins against a young Djokovic- so it works both ways.

True.

But the difference is that prime Fed v young Novak lasted about two years (2006 -2007). Fed leads this period 5-1.

We then have a period of about 3 years (2008 -2010) of Fed beginning to slowly decline and Novak starting to approach his prime. Fed leads this 8-5.

We are then into the ongoing period from 2011 onwards which has prime Novak v definitely post prime Federer. Novak leads this 7-3. This period is already into its third season and one would expect it to extend into a fourth, maybe a fifth.

So the cycle of their careers definitely favours Novak in terms of head to head.

The case is there to say Fed and Djoko never played each other whilst both at their prime.

emancipator wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

Red wrote:No but early on Federer had a chance to get many wins against a young Djokovic- so it works both ways.

True.

But the difference is that prime Fed v young Novak lasted about two years (2006 -2007). Fed leads this period 5-1.

We then have a period of about 3 years (2008 -2010) of Fed beginning to slowly decline and Novak starting to approach his prime. Fed leads this 8-5.

We are then into the ongoing period from 2011 onwards which has prime Novak v definitely post prime Federer. Novak leads this 7-3. This period is already into its third season and one would expect it to extend into a fourth, maybe a fifth.

So the cycle of their careers definitely favours Novak in terms of head to head.

That's a very good objective post Murdoch.

I was almost going to write something similar but I've decided that.. well lets just say it's pointless wasting time debating with some people.

We agree on something.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

The case is there to say Fed and Djoko never played each other whilst both at their prime.

If they did, I think Federer would have won.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

emancipator wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

Red wrote:No but early on Federer had a chance to get many wins against a young Djokovic- so it works both ways.

True.

But the difference is that prime Fed v young Novak lasted about two years (2006 -2007). Fed leads this period 5-1.

We then have a period of about 3 years (2008 -2010) of Fed beginning to slowly decline and Novak starting to approach his prime. Fed leads this 8-5.

We are then into the ongoing period from 2011 onwards which has prime Novak v definitely post prime Federer. Novak leads this 7-3. This period is already into its third season and one would expect it to extend into a fourth, maybe a fifth.

So the cycle of their careers definitely favours Novak in terms of head to head.

That's a very good objective post Murdoch.

I was almost going to write something similar but I've decided that.. well lets just say it's pointless wasting time debating with some people.

We agree on something.

Surely you're not having a go at me Julius?

emancipator wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

emancipator wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

Red wrote:No but early on Federer had a chance to get many wins against a young Djokovic- so it works both ways.

True.

But the difference is that prime Fed v young Novak lasted about two years (2006 -2007). Fed leads this period 5-1.

We then have a period of about 3 years (2008 -2010) of Fed beginning to slowly decline and Novak starting to approach his prime. Fed leads this 8-5.

We are then into the ongoing period from 2011 onwards which has prime Novak v definitely post prime Federer. Novak leads this 7-3. This period is already into its third season and one would expect it to extend into a fourth, maybe a fifth.

So the cycle of their careers definitely favours Novak in terms of head to head.

That's a very good objective post Murdoch.

I was almost going to write something similar but I've decided that.. well lets just say it's pointless wasting time debating with some people.

We agree on something.

Surely you're not having a go at me Julius?

No, it's even worse.
I think he's having a go at me

Red wrote:

emancipator wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

emancipator wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

Red wrote:No but early on Federer had a chance to get many wins against a young Djokovic- so it works both ways.

True.

But the difference is that prime Fed v young Novak lasted about two years (2006 -2007). Fed leads this period 5-1.

We then have a period of about 3 years (2008 -2010) of Fed beginning to slowly decline and Novak starting to approach his prime. Fed leads this 8-5.

We are then into the ongoing period from 2011 onwards which has prime Novak v definitely post prime Federer. Novak leads this 7-3. This period is already into its third season and one would expect it to extend into a fourth, maybe a fifth.

So the cycle of their careers definitely favours Novak in terms of head to head.

That's a very good objective post Murdoch.

I was almost going to write something similar but I've decided that.. well lets just say it's pointless wasting time debating with some people.

We agree on something.

Surely you're not having a go at me Julius?

No, it's even worse.
I think he's having a go at me

Oh that's ok then

I feel much better.

JuliusHMarx wrote:The case is there to say Fed and Djoko never played each other whilst both at their prime.

Not only that, I'd say they missed each other by 3 years or so!

But the age gap between the two is almost 6 years. It's only the fact that Federer has stuck around for so long that makes it feel like they are directly comparable.

Am I having a go at anyone? Depends, was Red having a go at anyone? I merely agreed with his sentiment.