Comparing Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic since 2008

[McEnroeisanartist]

Now that the 2012 Season is over, comparing Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic since 2012.

In All Matches
Federer 327-64 83.63%
Nadal 330-56 85.49%
Djokovic 348-72 82.86%

In Grand Slam Matches
Federer 109-15 87.90% (If you count a walkover as a win, he has two more match wins and his percentage goes up to 88.1%)
Nadal 101-10 90.1%
Djokovic 102-15 87.17%

In finals
Federer 23-17 57.5%
Nadal 27-15 64.3%
Djokovic 27-16 62.79%

[Sabratha]

Federer would have done better in his "prime" period against the top four.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Past-prime Federer has done just as well, if not better, than 20.5-25.5 years-old Djokovic.

[Sabratha]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Past-prime Federer has done just as well, if not better, than 20.5-25.5 years-old Djokovic.

Most their matches are close and can go either way on any surface these days.

[Agassifan]

Only 10 slams losses for Rafa. Impressive, although he would've lost two more had he showed up in W09 and US12.

[veroniquem]

Comparing Nadal, Djokovic, Fed and Murray's titles until their 25th year (I update the stats every year). That is until the end of 2006 for Fed, 2011 for Rafa, 2012 for Murray/Djoko:

Overall titles: 1- Nadal: 46
2- Fed: 45
3- Djoko: 34
4- Murray: 24

Slams: 1- Nadal: 10
2- Fed: 9
3- Djoko: 5
4- Murray: 1

WTF: 1- Fed: 3
2- Djoko: 2
3- Nadal/Murray: 0

Masters: 1- Nadal: 19
2- Djoko: 13
3- Fed: 12
4- Murray: 8

Olympics: 1- Nadal/Murray: gold
2- Djoko: Bronze
3- Fed: 0


500: 1- Nadal: 11
2- Djoko: 8
3- Fed: 7
4- Murray: 3

250: 1- Fed: 14
2- Murray: 11
3- Djoko: 6
4- Nadal: 5

Team event: DC: 1- Nadal: 4
2- Djokovic: 1
3- Fed/Murray: 0


To be followed next year...

[joeri888]

Fed will look better next year, no doubt. He'll certainly be ahead of Rafa (Already is) and he can only lose his dominance over Djoko by 1 Slam, and that is if djoko wins them all.

By the way, if you include DC, you might as well include weeks at number 1 and year end no. 1's.

[TMF]

Past prime Federer is doing better than a pre-prime Federer. During his early year, he was consistently losing to Hewitt, Nalbandian, Henman, Agassi, etc. I know he beat 4 times defending Sampras at Wimbledon in 01 but he wasn't a slam materials yet, and not in the top 5, let alone reaching #1. However, past prime Fed today who is facing Nadal/Nole/Murray is doing much better than teenage Fed.

When you think about it, Hewitt/Safin/Agassi/Nalbandian and company get slighted when comparing to the top players today.

[veroniquem]

In terms of winning titles, he isn't doing as well but he's close in some categories. Comparing his first 6 seasons of winning titles (20 to 25) to his last 6 seasons (26 to 31):

Titles won: 45 vs 31.
slams: 9 vs 8
WTF: 3 vs 3 (only one that's equal right now)
Masters: 12 vs 9
500: 7 vs 5
250: 14 vs 6


Joeri: I'm working on the #1 stats. I'll post them in a little while.


ETA: I forgot Olympics: the one stat where Fed did better. He got the silver medal in the latter stage of his career: 0 vs 1!

[joeri888]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

In terms of winning titles, he isn't doing as well but he's close in some categories. Comparing his first 6 seasons of winning titles (20 to 25) to his last 6 seasons (26 to 31):

Titles won: 45 vs 31.
slams: 9 vs 8
WTF: 3 vs 3 (only one that's equal right now)
Masters: 12 vs 9
500: 7 vs 5
250: 14 vs 6


Joeri: I'm working on the #1 stats. I'll post them in a little while.

Thanks vero! WIll be interesting to monitor too.

Anyway, I don't think his first six of winning titles are pre-prime, and from 26 on is not post prime. I'd consider 2004-2007 prime. 1998-2003 = preprime. 2008-2012= post prime. 2013-2016 =grandpatime

[veroniquem]

Here we go:

Year ends at #1: 1- Fed: 3 (consecutive)
2- Djoko: 2 (consecutive)
3- Nadal: 2 (non consecutive)
4- Murray: 0

This is still until their 25th year of course.

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by joeri888

Thanks vero! WIll be interesting to monitor too.

Anyway, I don't think his first six of winning titles are pre-prime, and from 26 on is not post prime. I'd consider 2004-2007 prime. 1998-2003 = preprime. 2008-2012= post prime. 2013-2016 =grandpatime

I agree. And I'm sure the results would confirm your timetable as well. (I'm wondering if 2003 shouldn't be part of the prime actually, 7 titles including a slam and WTF).

[zam88]

What's the farthest after someone's "prime" that they won a major in tennis history in the POST open era?


I mean... I think we can agree Federer's prime ended in January of 2010 at the absolute latest..

Obviously 2007 was his last "epic year" but in 2009 he made the finals of all four majors so if that isn't still pretty prime, I'm not sure what is.

so he's won one major 2.5 years post prime...

I'm not even sure with Agassi when his prime was.. i know he won majors at an advanced age though.

[veroniquem]

Agassi's career was very atypical. He never had a dominant season (titles in the double digits, 3 slams, etc) and his entire career was the ultimate roller coaster but he hanged around much longer than anyone would have thought and surprisingly enough (for me at least), much longer than Sampras.
Fed doesn't fit that profile at all. He definitely had a prime (titles in double digits, multiple slams, masters etc) and a post prime with fewer titles. 2009 was great but still, 4 titles total is visibly different from his prime years. 2012 has been the only post-prime season that showed similarities to his prime years. I wouldn't be surprised if 2012 turned out to be Fed's "swan song".