One of the lesser talked about parameters that measures the competitiveness of a player against a certain opponent is the head-to-head record.
Some people are of the opinion that head-to-head is not a valid measure of a player's ability because it fails to take into consideration that the ATP Tour is made up of more than one person. Meaning that, while you may be not-so-good against a certain person, it shouldn't be a stain on you as you could be brilliant against everyone else.
Another group that shares the same opinion, but for different reasons, claims that H2H is not a valid measure of a player's general ability because it's possible to have a bad head-to-head against someone who is inferior to you.
Some others are of the opinion that H2H is indeed a valid measure of a player's ability because, at the end of the day, you still have to beat the person on the other side of the net and opponents have to be accountable for their losses.
There may be other views too, and each view has some valid supporting evidence and probably some not-so-valid points, but is there one that possibly overrides the others?
Is Rafael Nadal's head-to-head record against Roger Federer really important to how both players are estimated with regard to each other?
If yes, why?
If no, why and is there a possible scenario where it could become important?
Jump into the debate and have your say.
Agree with someone's comment? Vote for it to make the debate highlights section.
Disagree with a comment? Reply and voice your opinion. Happy Debating!
NOTE: The debate is about the merits of H2H as a measure of ability. It is not about GOAT or anything else.
JUMP INTO THE DEBATE AND HAVE YOUR SAY.
Agree with someone's comment? Vote for it to make the Debate Highlights section. Disagree with a comment? Reply and voice your opinion. Happy Debating!Add Comment