1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
If there is any devastating h2h in tennis it's Federer's 2-4 or 2/6 against Nadal/Djokovic in Wim finals. 33.33% win rate against goat rivals in the biggest final in tennis.
Total Wim h2h is kinda better, 4-4 or 4/8 so not too shabby. 50% win rate.
However, will people, 200 years from now on, even care about it?
They will all see, Federer 8 titles to his name and Sampras. Federer's 8/12 in finals tops Sampras 7/7 in finals and that's it.
So I don't think we should overemphasize h2h. Yes h2h important because when you play against your rival, it boils down to +/- 2 difference in slam titles, not +/- 1.
The stakes are higher regarding slam chase, that's the real significance of h2h and perhaps that's all there is. Nothing mythical.
In terms of h2h I feel it might be important or kinda required that the player beats his rival at least once at a major stage, to avoid hole in his resume but beyond that, I don't see the need to own h2h against everyone. Federer has beaten Nadal/Djokovic several times. He doesn't own h2h but you can't say "he's never beaten them". If you demand Federer owns Nadal or Djokovic, why would you not demand Djokovic to own Nadal in slam finals? 4-5 at the moment or 0-2 vs Wawrinka. I doubt he'd have chances to improve that one.
Let's just count slams and calculate 7543 ok?