Roger Federer vs. Rafael Nadal: What Does the 14-8 Head-to-Head Record Mean?

14-8. This is no doubt the figure that pops into any conversation on the rivalry between Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal, because it is the only constant in what has come to be a heated and highly bigoted debate on the GOAT. Often, Rafael Nadal's claims, brought newfound credibility by his completing the career slam this year, are now upheld above Federer's; that he should lead 14-8 in their rivalry must surely mean that he's the better player. But just how valid is this notion?

First, a basic and stunning fact, most probably widely known: Nadal leads 14-8 in their overall rivalry, but in fact a stunning 10-2 on clay. Were we to remove their matches on clay, then, one would find that Federer actually leads Nadal on matches played on every other surface, at 6-4. Considering that most of the year is played on other surfaces than clay, this is not an insignificant stat (despite any insinuation of an apologetic purpose).

Indeed, of these 10 matches played on hard court or grass, one finds that three of Nadal's victories—the 2006 Dubai final (2-6 6-4 6-4), the 2008 Wimbledon final (6-4 6-4 6-7 6-7 9-7) and 2009 Australian Open final (7-5 3-6 7-6 3-6 6-2)—were highly contested affairs, indeed matches which the Federer of, perhaps, 2006-07, might have won. One cannot emphasise enough the debilitating effects of the clay season of 2008, where Federer squandered big leads at Monte Carlo and Hamburg to lose to Nadal. Indeed Federer was two points from winning Wimbledon in 2008, and two points from a 2-1 sets lead at the Australian Open final, which should have secured him victory there.

Of course, similar things can be said about some of Federer's victories—notably, the Wimbledon final of 2007 (7-6 4-6 7-6 2-6 6-2), and the Miami final in 2005 (2-6 6-7 7-6 6-3 6-1). In the former Nadal came very close in the fifth set to breaking Federer's serve, and in the latter was within two points in the third set tiebreak to winning. Naturally, the same allegation of "close victories" may be laid against these two wins; had Nadal won them, of course, he would be leading the non-clay matches by 6-4.

To say, however, that Nadal's close victories, as mentioned above, were closer than Federer's—that is to say, that Federer came closer to winning in those two defeats than Nadal—would be to raise a circular and repetitive argument. How much "closer" a match may have been is subject to many more factors than simply the closeness of score.

Nonetheless, some tennis matches are closer than others. The Wimbledon final of 2008 was certainly more competitive than that of 2007—however close that match had itself been. That Federer and Nadal were within points of winning at Wimbledon and at Miami must be more significant than, say, both their chances for a two sets to one lead in the finals of the Australian Open in 2009 and Wimbledon of 2007.

Should we give all close defeats to the other, including their actual recorded victories, Federer would lead 8-2, or Nadal 6-4. Is this enough to categorically say that Federer is a better player than Nadal out of clay? Well, at least up to this point, and up to the recent victory in London in 2010, this may be said. Of course this discussion on the numbers and intangible closeness of their matches has not impinged on the wholly separate and equally, if not more, significant discussion of their relative skill sets and tactics; what an examination of the non-clay matches shows, however, is the closeness of the rivalry—for should Federer be at 8-2 against Nadal, he would only be 10-12 against Nadal overall, almost rectifying the disparity suggested by Nadal's dominance on clay.

But the critic will say, and very justifiably, that victories are victories, and defeats, defeats. Nadal just did win his matches, and Federer his. Very rightly, nothing at all should be taken away from Nadal's hugely significant victories at Wimbledon and the Australian. Matches, however close, can often be determined by the smallest margins, as Nadal has repeatedly proved (especially on clay) true in possessing just that extra self-confidence and singularity of purpose, which has often eluded Federer against his nemesis.

While I do suggest that Federer has had the chance to make respectable the scoreline of 14-8 as it stands, the very crucial fact is that he hasn't, which would say more about Nadal than it does Federer.

Another article may in the future be dedicated to looking at that asterisk—the close matches on clay. It would need little reminding to say that Federer is the only player in the last decade to have defeated Nadal in two clay finals, and indeed held match points at Rome in 2006, as well as having sizable leads in various other matches (French Open final 2006, Hamburg and Monte Carlo 2008). While this would simply serve to further elucidate Federer's psychological shortcomings against Nadal, one cannot help thinking about, inevitably, the might have beens.

So, 14-8. Is it really a realistic reflection of a rivalry that has been hailed by legends as the greatest ever? Perhaps not. It might, after all, have been much closer, at 12-10. Federer does still have the edge in their matches out of Nadal's favourite red dirt.

From one perspective the head to head is lopsided, and does not reflect the reality of the closeness of their matches, a Federer fan might suggest. But on the other side are scores, and the head to head may also at the same time reflect the whole truth—that is that Nadal has been better in the bigger moments, and Federer has simply not been up to task when he has had his chances.