Federer's Grand Slam finals and semifinals streaks put into perspective

Messarger said:

Why even bother comparing them? Just watch the tennis and enjoy it for what it is.

Click to expand...

Nathaniel_Near said:

Limits are for wussies. One could do both.

Click to expand...

Nathaniel_Near said:

Umm it must be a typo. 05 Wimbly - 07 US Open = 10.

Click to expand...

Nathaniel_Near said:

Umm it must be a typo. 05 Wimbly - 07 US Open = 10.

Click to expand...

Messarger said:

Limits?? Of course one could do both, but at the end of the day numbers and figures dont always depict the whole picture. (accurate) comparisons should be made when both players are out on the courts battling with each other.

Click to expand...

BlakeGOAT said:

Stupid typo then

Click to expand...

Agassifan said:

Why bother comparing Fed's streaks with Rafa's? Nobody in tennis history come even close. Given the situation today, you could do something like

Federer's streaks
vs
Rest of top 5's streaks (for instance, count EITHER of rafa, novak, murray and roddick making the semis of all slams in one year as a streak of 4)

Click to expand...

luvly said:

That sounds great I will do just the last three years I am doing off the top of my head and I am only using Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Roddick, Del Potro, and Murray ( I am only using Roddick because i can not remember who ended the year number 5 last year although I think it was Davydenko)


2007-2009

Federer -7 (F 08-USO 09)
Others-8 (F07- AO 09)


Semis
Federer-12 (AO 07-PRESENT)
Others-9 (AO 07-AO 09)

Click to expand...

Nathaniel_Near said:

Accurate comparisons can probably be made at any time whatsoever. And an accurate comparison is not obligated to tell 100% of the story, however its contribution can still be highly valuable. There is plenty of reason to bother comparing statistics of different questions; to draw conclusions out of curiosity in order to construct a hierarchy for example. The act in itself could be deemed aimless but curiosity didn't always kill the cat, you dig?

Click to expand...

JennyS said:

Here's how much more consistent he's been than the guy who owns him:

Consecutive Grand Slam Finals:
1. Federer: 10 (04 W-07 USO)
2. Federer: 7 (08 FO-present)
3. Nadal: 2 (08 FO and W)

Consecutive Grand Slam Semis:
1. Federer: 22 (04 W-present)
2. Nadal: 5 (08 AO-09 AO)

Consecutive Grand Slam quarters:
1. Federer: 22 (04 W to Present)
2. Nadal: 6 (06 FO to 07 W)

All of those streaks ranked:
1. Federer Consecutive Grand Slam Semis: 22
2. Federer Consecutive Grand Slam Finals: 10
3. Federer Consecutive Grand Slam finals: 7
4. Nadal Consecutive Grand Slam quarterfinals: 6
5. Nadal Consecutive Grand Slam Semis: 5
6. Nadal Consecutive Grand Slam finals: 2

So Federer's SECOND longest Grand Slam FINALS streak is longer than Nadal's longest QUARTERFINALS streak! Amazing!

Click to expand...

namelessone said:

LOL,no one is arguing Fed's records and consistency but the stats you pointed show the fact that Federer only had one real rival(and a rival whose body is prone to breaking down) and that's kinda sad. Do the same stats for roddick and hewitt and see where you will end up. Hell,do the same for other supposed rivals like djoker and murray.
If you think Roger's domination is amazing now,look at it this way: the guy would have had 2 calendar slams and about 19-20 GS(with 7 straight wimbledons and 4 RG's) if Nadal had been a late bloomer as well. While I don't buy into the weak era crap,it would have been better for Fed if there were more people to really challenge him.

The reason why so many people hang on the Nadal h2h issue with Fed,even people who aren't fed haters, is that while Fed has broken 90% of the tennis records that matter,he hasn't really been able to dominate the one rival history threw at him. While for me as a Nadal fan,it isn't really a issue,I can understand why it bothers some people.

Click to expand...

namelessone said:

LOL,no one is arguing Fed's records and consistency but the stats you pointed show the fact that Federer only had one real rival(and a rival whose body is prone to breaking down) and that's kinda sad. Do the same stats for roddick and hewitt and see where you will end up. Hell,do the same for other supposed rivals like djoker and murray.
If you think Roger's domination is amazing now,look at it this way: the guy would have had 2 calendar slams and about 19-20 GS(with 7 straight wimbledons and 4 RG's) if Nadal had been a late bloomer as well.While I don't buy into the weak era crap,it would have been better for Fed if there were more people to really challenge him.

The reason why so many people hang on the Nadal h2h issue with Fed,even people who aren't fed haters, is that while Fed has broken 90% of the tennis records that matter,he hasn't really been able to dominate the one rival history threw at him. While for me as a Nadal fan,it isn't really a issue,I can understand why it bothers some people.

Click to expand...

zagor said:

But whatever,I can use Sampras/Nadal fanboy logic as well,let's see:

-Nadal doesn't have any rivals on clay(he just dominates everyone,wasn't even ever pushed to five at the FO),weak clay era therefore Nadal's achievements on clay don't mean that much really.Guga is better,he had tougher competition.

-The only player in all these years at the FO who didn't choke/wilt/was afraid of Nadal at the FO was Soderling this year and of course he beat him.Nadal failed his biggest FO test,therefore not so good on clay.

-Sampras had no rivals during his prime(years he ended #1),all of them lost repeatedly against Pete on the big stages(Becker,Courier,Agassi,Goran)so they don't qualify as rivals,right? Weak era,his achievements don't mean much.

-When Sampras faced the only player who wasn't afraid of him at Wimbledon(Krajicek),he lost in straights(in his prime).

I could go on but I trust you get the point.

Click to expand...

Messarger said:

First of all, what hierachy are you talking about?

Yes, of course, that is what discussion forums are for. But look at the tone of the original post again and tell me if that is consistent with what you said in bold.

Click to expand...

zagor said:

No,Novak,Hewitt,Roddick and Safin are also Fed's rivals,they all played him plenty of times on the big stages,heck Novak played him 5 times in slams which is more times than any player aside from Andre played Pete in the 90s(If I remember correctly).

Saying Nadal has been Fed's only rival is convenient for people to say and use against Fed because Fed has a losing H2H against him.It basically comes down to well yeah Fed has all those sick achivements but they don't really count because of his record against Nadal.

Is Nadal Fed's main rival? Without question but is he his only rival? Heck no,his other rivals just weren't able able to handle more often than not Fed on the big stages once he hit his prime.

Now I perfectly understand and agree with people saying Fed isn't the GOAT because of his H2H with his main rival(we're talking about the best of all time here)but taking a dump on all of his terrific accomplishments and acting like none of them hold ANY weight because of his record against one player(which is a common attitutude from Nadal/Sampras fans on this forum)is ridiculous IMO.

But whatever,I can use Sampras/Nadal fanboy logic as well,let's see:

-Nadal doesn't have any rivals on clay(he just dominates everyone,wasn't even ever pushed to five at the FO),weak clay era therefore Nadal's achievements on clay don't mean that much really.Guga is better,he had tougher competition.

-The only player in all these years at the FO who didn't choke/wilt/was afraid of Nadal at the FO was Soderling this year and of course he beat him.Nadal failed his biggest FO test,therefore not so good on clay.

-Sampras had no rivals during his prime(years he ended #1),all of them lost repeatedly against Pete on the big stages(Becker,Courier,Agassi,Goran)so they don't qualify as rivals,right? Weak era,his achievements don't mean much.

-When Sampras faced the only player who wasn't afraid of him at Wimbledon(Krajicek),he lost in straights(in his prime).

I could go on but I trust you get the point.

Click to expand...

namelessone said:

First of all,I am not using "that" logic. A rival isn't someone you play with x nr of times even though a certain number of meetings is necessary. A rival is someone who really challenges you,and even beats you in a few key events or at least gets close.

Nadal has rivals in the form of Fed,Djoker,Murray and now DelPo. All have hammered Rafa a couple of times,whether on grass and HC,some even on clay but he holds a respectable h2h with them and they have had a few memorable matches over the years. Maybe I can agree that Rafa doesn't really have rivals on clay but he certainly does for grass and HC.

My point is that a rival should push you. Fed got pushed once by Safin but Safin wasn't a model for consistency over the years. A few times by hewitt when hewitt was at the peak of his career(hewitt's last victory over fed was in 03'). Roddick has been his pigeon in most matches(at times I almost felt pity for andy) though he redeemed himself a bit in WB 09'. I hope I don't have to tell you about davydenko,soderling and "most rivals". Dare I say Nalbandian was the only one who really believed he could beat Fed over the years but we know what happened to him. Forget winning h2h,a few wins over federer would have been nice,in this respect at least hewitt has 7 wins in 23 matches and Nalby has 8 wins in 18 matches. There are other "rivals" whose wins over Federer came only this year. Safin has 2 wins over Fed in 12 matches,Roddick has 2 wins in 21 matches,Davy has 1 win in 13 matches and so on.

So no,I don't believe Federer had REAL RIVALS outside of Rafa,at least not in the 03'-09' stretch. We had a few guys who really tried but ultimately Fed got in their head with his awesome game and crushed them all like bugs over the years. A lot of times these "rivals" were defeated before they even stepped on court against Fed,almost like journeymen.

Click to expand...

zagor said:

LOL,love the double standard.So Novak,Murray and Delpo are Nadal's rivals but not Fed's(you said they're "so called" Fed rivals)? Do explain why,especially Novak's case.

And what is this about "some" of them(Fed,Novak,Murray,Delpo) hammering Nadal even on clay? The only one in that group who ever beat Nadal on clay is Fed and he also lost like 9 times or something to Nadal on clay,Novak's H2H with Nadal on clay is terrible.

But still the fact remains that using your logic Nadal has zero rivals on clay,heck he never even got "pushed" to five sets at FO.He had something like 80 wins in a row on clay at one point,if that's not being defeated before stepping on court I don't know what is.So his achievements on clay(his most succesful surface by far)aren't that impressive,right? He was just the benefactor of a very weak clay era.

Dare I say Soderling is the only one who believed/didn't choke/wasn't scared/whatever other BS you come up with/ when facing Nadal at the FO.He saved claycourt tennis which has been boring for last 4 years,what a stud,right?

Click to expand...

namelessone said:

Federer was great everywhere(including clay except where Nadal was concerned) in the 04'-09' period. The ONLY constant roadblock he had in this period as a whole was Nadal on clay and later on grass and HC.

Click to expand...

Cyan said:

This is what is called a really weak era. No wonder Fed piled up the slams in those years. Put this Fed in the 1980s and he doesn't win more than 8 slams, you know, like Lendl who was unlucky to play in the toughest era ever....

Click to expand...

JennyS said:

Here's how much more consistent he's been than the guy who owns him:

Consecutive Grand Slam Finals:
1. Federer: 10 (05 W-07 USO)
2. Federer: 7 (08 FO-present)
3. Nadal: 2 (08 FO and W)

Consecutive Grand Slam Semis:
1. Federer: 22 (04 W-present)
2. Nadal: 5 (08 AO-09 AO)

Consecutive Grand Slam quarters:
1. Federer: 22 (04 W to Present)
2. Nadal: 6 (06 FO to 07 W)

All of those streaks ranked:
1. Federer Consecutive Grand Slam Semis: 22
2. Federer Consecutive Grand Slam Finals: 10
3. Federer Consecutive Grand Slam finals: 7
4. Nadal Consecutive Grand Slam quarterfinals: 6
5. Nadal Consecutive Grand Slam Semis: 5
6. Nadal Consecutive Grand Slam finals: 2

So Federer's SECOND longest Grand Slam FINALS streak is longer than Nadal's longest QUARTERFINALS streak! Amazing!

Click to expand...

Cyan said:

This is what is called a really weak era. No wonder Fed piled up the slams in those years. Put this Fed in the 1980s and he doesn't win more than 8 slams, you know, like Lendl who was unlucky to play in the toughest era ever....

Click to expand...

namelessone said:

Safin,Nalbandian,Davydenko,Roddick,Hewitt(from fed's prime and older era) aren't bad players at all(nalbandian was god like when he was on,we know what hewitt can do and safin beat sampras and had a killer semi with Fed in AO 05'). They would probably be multiple slam winners in a non-fed era.
It's just that Fed is better than them but my problem wasn't weak era and all that,it was with calling them rivals because they can't consistently push Roger. Some of them were more minor nuisances than rivals. When Nadal at 23 has as many wins over Fed(and he actually won some of these in fed's best years-gamewise) as a lot of these so called rivals put together it just goes to show that there really weren't many people consistent enough to take on Federer on in that period,not to mention the fact that Nadal was the only one to beat Fed at slams more than once in the 03'-09' period,where it matters.

Click to expand...

Cyan said:

Safin,Nalbandian,Davydenko,Roddick,Hewitt are not as good as Mcenroe, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Connors, the players Lendl had to play in the 1980s. No contest, really. Transport Lendl to the noughties and he piles up 15 slams like Fed....

Click to expand...

Cyan said:

Safin,Nalbandian,Davydenko,Roddick,Hewitt are not as good as Mcenroe, Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Connors, the players Lendl had to play in the 1980s. No contest, really. Transport Lendl to the noughties and he piles up 15 slams like Fed....

Click to expand...

namelessone said:

Safin,Nalbandian,Davydenko,Roddick,Hewitt(from fed's prime and older era) aren't bad players at all(nalbandian was god like when he was on,we know what hewitt can do and safin beat sampras and had a killer semi with Fed in AO 05'). They would probably be multiple slam winners in a non-fed era.
It's just that Fed is better than them but my problem wasn't weak era and all that,it was with calling them rivals because they can't consistently push Roger. Some of them were more minor nuisances than rivals. When Nadal at 23 has as many wins over Fed(and he actually won some of these in fed's best years-gamewise) as a lot of these so called rivals put together it just goes to show that there really weren't many people consistent enough to take on Federer on in that period,not to mention the fact that Nadal was the only one to beat Fed at slams more than once in the 03'-09' period,where it matters.

Click to expand...

Steve132 said:

You have not addressed Zagor's main point, which is that your definition of a "rival" is tendentious and belittles Federer's real achievements. Federer's rivals are not restricted to the players who beat him. They are the players that (a) are consistently ranked among the best, and (b) play him often. By these criteria Hewitt, Nalbandian and Roddick - not to mention Djokovic - are all Federer's rivals. The fact that he has favorable H2H records against them is a tribute to his talents, not an indication that they are not rivals.

The alternative, as has been pointed out several times on this forum, is to embrace a circular logic which states that:

This is a weak era because Federer has no competition other than Nadal
Other players are not competition because Federer beats them consistently
If Federer lost more often to these players they would become competition for him - but he would, of course, win fewer titles.

I don't find that argument particularly compelling.

Click to expand...

namelessone said:

First of all,I am not using "that" logic. A rival isn't someone you play with x nr of times even though a certain number of meetings is necessary. A rival is someone who really challenges you,and even beats you in a few key events or at least gets close.

Nadal has rivals in the form of Fed,Djoker,Murray and now DelPo. All have hammered Rafa a couple of times,whether on grass and HC,some even on clay but he holds a respectable h2h with them and they have had a few memorable matches over the years. Maybe I can agree that Rafa doesn't really have rivals on clay but he certainly does for grass and HC.

My point is that a rival should push you. Fed got pushed once by Safin but Safin wasn't a model for consistency over the years. A few times by hewitt when hewitt was at the peak of his career(hewitt's last victory over fed was in 03'). Roddick has been his pigeon in most matches(at times I almost felt pity for andy) though he redeemed himself a bit in WB 09'. I hope I don't have to tell you about davydenko,soderling and "most rivals". Dare I say Nalbandian was the only one who really believed he could beat Fed over the years but we know what happened to him. Forget winning h2h,a few wins over federer would have been nice,in this respect at least hewitt has 7 wins in 23 matches and Nalby has 8 wins in 18 matches. There are other "rivals" whose wins over Federer came only this year. Safin has 2 wins over Fed in 12 matches,Roddick has 2 wins in 21 matches,Davy has 1 win in 13 matches and so on.

So no,I don't believe Federer had REAL RIVALS outside of Rafa,at least not in the 03'-09' stretch. We had a few guys who really tried but ultimately Fed got in their head with his awesome game and crushed them all like bugs over the years. A lot of times these "rivals" were defeated before they even stepped on court against Fed,almost like journeymen.

Click to expand...

JennyS said:

Here's how much more consistent he's been than the guy who owns him:

Consecutive Grand Slam Finals:
1. Federer: 10 (05 W-07 USO)
2. Federer: 7 (08 FO-present)
3. Nadal: 2 (08 FO and W)

Consecutive Grand Slam Semis:
1. Federer: 22 (04 W-present)
2. Nadal: 5 (08 AO-09 AO)

Consecutive Grand Slam quarters:
1. Federer: 22 (04 W to Present)
2. Nadal: 6 (06 FO to 07 W)

All of those streaks ranked:
1. Federer Consecutive Grand Slam Semis: 22
2. Federer Consecutive Grand Slam Finals: 10
3. Federer Consecutive Grand Slam finals: 7
4. Nadal Consecutive Grand Slam quarterfinals: 6
5. Nadal Consecutive Grand Slam Semis: 5
6. Nadal Consecutive Grand Slam finals: 2

So Federer's SECOND longest Grand Slam FINALS streak is longer than Nadal's longest QUARTERFINALS streak! Amazing!

Click to expand...

djones said:

Ok, and how about Federer's amazing numbers at the age of 23?

Click to expand...

Agassifan said:

freaking unbelievable... and people talk about Roger not beating enough Top players in finals... if only they bothered to show up.

Click to expand...

zagor said:

LOL,love the double standard.So Novak,Murray and Delpo are Nadal's rivals but not Fed's(you said they're "so called" Fed rivals)? Do explain why,especially Novak's case.

And what is this about "some" of them(Fed,Novak,Murray,Delpo) hammering Nadal even on clay? The only one in that group who ever beat Nadal on clay is Fed and he also lost like 9 times or something to Nadal on clay,Novak's H2H with Nadal on clay is terrible.

But still the fact remains that using your logic Nadal has zero rivals on clay,heck he never even got "pushed" to five sets at FO.He had something like 80 wins in a row on clay at one point,if that's not being defeated before stepping on court I don't know what is.So his achievements on clay(his most succesful surface by far)aren't that impressive,right? He was just the benefactor of a very weak clay era.

Dare I say Soderling is the only one who believed/didn't choke/wasn't scared/whatever other BS you come up with/ when facing Nadal at the FO.He saved claycourt tennis which has been boring for last 4 years,what a stud,right?

Click to expand...

namelessone said:

Perhaps you are misunderstanding. We know Nadal can get hammered by Federer,Djoker,Delpo and so on. But we know he can also hammer them.
Clay is one surface and Rafa has dominated it for about 4 years. Where does Nadal dominate Fed/Djoker/Delpo/Murray outside of clay?

Novak? He's Nadal's age but hasn't been as consistent as him against Federer,the measuring stick for success on the tour in the last 5-6 years,since these guys only meet each other in the later stages of the big tourneys. He had some good victories over him while Fed was in the pits this year at miami and rome and at the end of the year when Fed winded down a bit after his great GS season and when novak usually has his best part of the year. He is still pretty weak against Fed in GS's(when it matters most)beating him only one time and losing 4 times. Ok,I'll let this one go and consider Djoker a rival,even though he's only been a threat since 07' and doesn't perform as well in GS's.

Federer was great everywhere(including clay except where Nadal was concerned) in the 04'-09' period. The ONLY constant roadblock he had in this period as a whole was Nadal on clay and later on grass and HC.

I am not arguing about weak era. I don't believe in it. I already said so. I am arguing about why some people might view it as a weak era because they see almost no rivals for fed(which I agree on) but they automatically view these players as weak,not that talented and so on(hence the weak era argument). I am saying just that they couldn't stand up to Fed,for a multitude of reasons,and that some of them were downright pathetic in their attempt to be "rivals" to Federer. Roddick has 2 victories in 21 freaking matches. Davy's first victory in 13 matches came this year. Safin has 2 victories in 12 matches.

The only ones who had some(notice I said some,not necessarily a positive h2h or anything like that) success over Fed were Hewitt(but his last win came in 03') and Nalbandian,who really had potential,but unfortunately he was inconsistent and later plagued by injuries.

Click to expand...

Davy_for _GOAT said:

Would you mind owning JeMar for his stupid statements regarding Lendl and Roddick, too?

Click to expand...

zagor said:

But according to your standards Novak is not a rival for Nadal,all he did against nadal in their 4 slam meetings is take one measly set while against Fed he atleast scored a win in a slam(in straights no less),he's also overall 14-7 against Nadal(some rival lol).

Murray beat Nadal in a slam true but he's stil 2-7 overall,really not impressive H2H for the supposed big rival.

Delpo is a rival I agree and seems to be a tough match-up for Nadal and may be a big obstacle for him in the future.

As for Fed,we are reminded daily here from Nadal/Sampras fans that Nadal completely owns him so he doesn't really constitute for a rival either.It's a complete ownage,heck the only times Fed won their encounters was when Nadal was exhausted/had a busted knee/was too young/played on too high altitude.

So when we look overall aside from Delpo who only really started to come into his own this year Nadal never had any rivals,it's been a major cakewalk for him.

Click to expand...

ksbh said:

I won't be surprised if someone tells me that some Federer lovers, especially OP JennyS, sing themselves to sleep every night with the mantra ... 'Federer really is better than Sampras regardless of his H2H against Nadal or his poor mental strength'!

Click to expand...

TheFifthSet said:

Is that really worse than not being a factor on 40% of the tour?

Click to expand...