2019 is a crucial year for Djokovic

[Deleted member 716271]

Because Nole had the advantage in 2011-2012 despite Fed’s high level. Same with Federer in 2007-2009.

There is no year where not 1 of them had the advantage really. They are 6 years apart. And by the time Novak ascended in 2011 Fed was "old" will be the claim.

So its probably better to just go by accomplishments when all is said and done. But I notice many want to have their cake and eat it too and reference RG11 for example to "prove" peak Fed wins on clay.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

True, but the Fedal and Fedovic slam matches have been close. The Fedray slam matches haven't.

There is no basis for saying Muray would do well against peak Fed.

I agree it seems in slams he has Murrays number even if he struggled with him for whatever reason outside of slams early in his career.

Problem for Murray is his best slams are also Feds and Federer is far better at them. If AM was as good on clay as he is on grass he might have a chance peak for peak at RG

 

[CYGS]

This is kind of unfair because he was replying to you quoting the fedurray slam h2h lol

When stats are in Fed's favor = objectivity;
When stats bite them in the a$s = not as black and white

Fed fans are so predictable.

 

[jm1980]

This calls for a new sig, at least for a little while, thanks.

I think Sabratha had that quote in his sig for a while

 

[KINGROGER]

When stats are in Fed's favor = objectivity;
When stats bite them in the a$s = not as black and white

Fed fans are so predictable.

H2H isn’t a stat, it’s trivia that is influenced by many factors.

H2H can affect the real stats. IE slam total/streaks, YEC, masters titles, number 1 stats.

Sadly for Djokodal, their H2H vs the field so far is worse than Federer’s which is why they have less slams and time at number 1. They do have time to make this up but it’s running out.

 

[The Fedfather]

When stats are in Fed's favor = objectivity;
When stats bite them in the a$s = not as black and white

Fed fans are so predictable.

As someone who dismisses or ignores the stats in Federer's favor and hangs onto anything that shows his relative weaknesses, you're definitely not in the position to reproach anyone for being biased.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

H2H isn’t a stat, it’s trivia that is influenced by many factors.

H2H can affect the real stats. IE slam total/streaks, YEC, masters titles, number 1 stats.

Sadly for Djokodal, their H2H vs the field so far is worse than Federer’s which is why they have less slams and time at number 1. They do have time to make this up but it’s running out.

Sorry but many of the people who say H2H shouldnt count for anything in the GOAT debate (and I agree it should be more of a tiebreaker than anything else) also want to say Nadal has too many RGs for example. I've seen you say this yourself. Is that a stat? Slam distribution? I have never seen the ATP say distribution matters. I think Rafa probably does need another non RG slam personally as well as surpassing the slam count. But the point is these subjective things do matter somewhat in judging an entire career regardless of if they are official stats or not. Fans often like to use the "subjective stats" in their favor, but the ones against them they will claim is "too subjective" and "not recognized by ATP"

 

[CYGS]

H2H isn’t a stat, it’s trivia that is influenced by many factors.

H2H can affect the real stats. IE slam total/streaks, YEC, masters titles, number 1 stats.

Sadly for Djokodal, their H2H vs the field so far is worse than Federer’s which is why they have less slams and time at number 1. They do have time to make this up but it’s running out.

Wrong. Djokodal's winning rate against the field is better than Fed's. Check your facts.

 

[jm1980]

Sadly for Djokodal, their H2H vs the field so far is worse than Federer’s which is why they have less slams and time at number 1. They do have time to make this up but it’s running out.

False:

Djokovic's overall record: 825-173 (0.827)
Nadal's overall record: 918-189 (0.830)

Federer's overall record: 1170–256 (0.820)

They have fewer Slams and less time at number one because they had to contend with each other and with Fed himself. Roger on the other hand had free rein until actual rivals emerged

 

[Deleted member 716271]

False:

Djokovic's overall record: 825-173 (0.827)
Nadal's overall record: 918-189 (0.830)

Federer's overall record: 1170–256 (0.820)

They have fewer Slams and less time at number one because they had to contend with each other and with Fed himself. Roger on the other hand had free rein until actual rivals emerged

Lol you exposed just a straight up false (extremely so in fact) claim

 

[KINGROGER]

Sorry but many of the people who say H2H shouldnt count for anything in the GOAT debate (and I agree it should be more of a tiebreaker than anything else) also want to say Nadal has too many RGs for example. I've seen you say this yourself. Is that a stat? Slam distribution? I have never seen the ATP say distribution matters. I think Rafa probably does need another non RG slam personally as well as surpassing the slam count. But the point is these subjective things do matter somewhat in judging an entire career regardless of if they are official stats or not. Fans often like to use the "subjective stats" in their favor, but the ones against them they will claim is "too subjective" and "not recognized by ATP"

I rate distribution for all round GOAT. No doubt Nadal is the single surface GOAT.

Wrong. Djokodal's winning rate against the field is better than Fed's. Check your facts.

20>14 fact. Fed has done better vs the field at slams. Come back when Nole is 37 and has 21 slams and I’ll admit he’s more accomplished.

False:

Djokovic's overall record: 825-173 (0.827)
Nadal's overall record: 918-189 (0.830)

Federer's overall record: 1170–256 (0.820)

They have fewer Slams and less time at number one because they had to contend with each other and with Fed himself. Roger on the other hand had free rein until actual rivals emerged

I wasn’t referring to overall win % but record vs the field at slams which has resulted so far in 20>17>14 so I was right Fed has done better.

And Nole’s rivals vanished following 2014 RG which allowed him to double his slam tally vs the weakest field ever lmao!

 

[KINGROGER]

Lol you exposed just a straight up false (extremely so in fact) claim

More slam wins, finals, SF, QF. Who has done better at slams out of the 3 again? My claim stands.

 

[jm1980]

I wasn’t referring to overall win % but record vs the field at slams which has resulted so far in 20>17>14 so I was right Fed has done better.

Time at number is not only determined by Slam performance

Also, the fact remains Fed's stats are a reflection of the competition in his heyday

 

[CYGS]

I rate distribution for all round GOAT. No doubt Nadal is the single surface GOAT.



20>14 fact. Fed has done better vs the field at slams. Come back when Nole is 37 and has 21 slams and I’ll admit he’s more accomplished.


I wasn’t referring to overall win % but record vs the field at slams which has resulted so far in 20>17>14 so I was right Fed has done better.

And Nole’s rivals vanished following 2014 RG which allowed him to double his slam tally vs the weakest field ever lmao!

Liar. You said "their h2h vs. the field".

 

[Deleted member 716271]

I rate distribution for all round GOAT. No doubt Nadal is the single surface GOAT.



20>14 fact. Fed has done better vs the field at slams. Come back when Nole is 37 and has 21 slams and I’ll admit he’s more accomplished.


I wasn’t referring to overall win % but record vs the field at slams which has resulted so far in 20>17>14 so I was right Fed has done better.

And Nole’s rivals vanished following 2014 RG which allowed him to double his slam tally vs the weakest field ever lmao!

You keep changing your arguments wow lol

 

[KINGROGER]

Time at number is not only determined by Slam performance

The fact remains Fed's stats are a reflection of the competition in his heyday

Likewise with Djokovic. He had 6 slams before Fedal fell off a cliff in 2013 and 2014. 0 prime ATG competition at slams between 2014 W - 2016 RG which allowed him to double his slam tally.

Djokovic fan talking about weak era

 

[KINGROGER]

Liar. You said "their h2h vs. the field".

You keep changing your arguments wow lol

Yeah if you want to be pedantic about it. The discussion was regarding “slam h2h”. Federer h2h slam has resulted in 20 slams. But well done for your “victory”.

Fact remains, Federer has done better vs the field at slams than Djokodal which is why he has 20 and they have 17 and 14. As I said, they have a couple of years to turn this around and they couldn’t ask for a weaker field to do so.

 

[CYGS]

Yeah if you want to be pedantic about it. The discussion was regarding “slam h2h”. Federer h2h slam has resulted in 20 slams. But well done for your “victory”.

Liar, or you are too stupid to understand what h2h means.

 

[jm1980]

Yeah if you want to be pedantic about it. The discussion was regarding “slam h2h”. Federer h2h slam has resulted in 20 slams. But well done for your “victory”.

Backpedaling alert!

You said Fed's H2H vs the field is what earned him his weeks at #1. This of course includes results outside of the Slams

 

[KINGROGER]

Liar, or you are too stupid to understand what h2h means.

What did I lie about? Pathetic troll.

20>14. Do you understand how basic numbers work?

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Yeah if you want to be pedantic about it. The discussion was regarding “slam h2h”. Federer h2h slam has resulted in 20 slams. But well done for your “victory”.

Actually I was referring to all parts of what you wrote. Each person you addressed and each sentence contained you dodging the point insread jf admitting you were wrong like a gentleman and creating a new and different contention.

Particularly in reply to me you wrote,


"I rate distribution for all round GOAT. No doubt Nadal is the single surface GOAT.
"
That had absolutely not a thing to do with me pointing out how you call H2H subjective and not recognized by ATP but will use slam distribution as a metric when that isnt recognized either.

 

[KINGROGER]

Backpedaling alert!

You said Fed's H2H vs the field is what earned him his weeks at #1. This of course includes results outside of the Slams

Which is a fact... he has more weeks at number 1. Nole had his chances in 2017-2018 but his level dropped. He now has his chance in 2019 onward to make up the ground.

 

[CYGS]

What did I lie about? Pathetic troll.

20>14. Do you understand how basic numbers work?

Liar, or you are too stupid to understand what h2h means.

So both.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

What did I lie about? Pathetic troll.

20>14. Do you understand how basic numbers work?

Are you in Kindergarten? Just repeating 20>14 when it has nothing to do with what you said before. Freaking lol.

 

[KINGROGER]

Actually I was referring to all parts of what you wrote. Each person you addressed and each sentence contained you dodging the point insread jf admitting you were wrong like a gentleman and creating a new and different contention.

Particularly in reply to me you wrote,


"I rate distribution for all round GOAT. No doubt Nadal is the single surface GOAT.
"
That had absolutely not a thing to do with me pointing out how you call H2H subjective and not recognized by ATP but will use slam distribution as a metric when that isnt recognized either.

Slam distribution is my own opinion but I think it proves versatility.

 

[KINGROGER]

So both.

20>14 learn how numbers work.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Slam distribution is my own opinion but I think it proves versatility.

Okay well h2h is my own opinion

 

[jm1980]

Fact remains, Federer has done better vs the field at slams than Djokodal which is why he has 20 and they have 17 and 14. As I said, they have a couple of years to turn this around and they couldn’t ask for a weaker field to do so.

And for what it's worth, his record vs the field at Slams is still worse than Nadal's and Djokovic's:

Nadal's overall Slam record: 247-36 (0.873)
Djokovic's overall Slam record: 258-41 (0.863)

Federer's overall Slam record: 339-54 (0.863)

 

[KINGROGER]

Are you in Kindergarten? Just repeating 20>14 when it has nothing to do with what you said before. Freaking lol.

Who has better record vs field out of big 3 at slams? Federer. Fact.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Who has better record vs field out of big 3 at slams? Federer. Fact.

That's not what you said though also hes 5 to 6 years older if you're going by wins and not percentage. But it's not remotely what you said.

 

[KINGROGER]

And for what it's worth, his record vs the field at Slams is still worse than Nadal's and Djokovic's:

Nadal's overall Slam record: 247-36 (0.873)
Djokovic's overall Slam record: 258-41 (0.863)

Federer's overall Slam record: 339-54 (0.863)

I didn’t quote any particular statistic I was obviously speaking in general terms.

The reason they have less slams is because Djokovic lost to too many lesser players at his peak and Nadal lost to many many journeymen and lesser players.

If you want to be dense and pedantic and misinterpret my post then go ahead. I’m willing to bet Federer post 2003 win % will be similar to Djokodal’s too. He took longer to get it together than they did.

 

[KINGROGER]

And for what it's worth, his record vs the field at Slams is still worse than Nadal's and Djokovic's:

Nadal's overall Slam record: 247-36 (0.873)
Djokovic's overall Slam record: 258-41 (0.863)

Federer's overall Slam record: 339-54 (0.863)

This is surely influenced by Fed being a late starter. He had 1999-2002 period where he sucked in general at slams until it came together at Wimbledon 2003. Djokodal peaked much earlier.

 

[jm1980]

I didn’t quote any particular statistic I was obviously speaking in general terms.

The reason they have less slams is because Djokovic lost to too many lesser players at his peak and Nadal lost to many many journeymen and lesser players.

If you want to be dense and pedantic and misinterpret my post then go ahead. I’m willing to bet Federer post 2003 win % will be similar to Djokodal’s too. He took longer to get it together than they did.

I ain't misinterpreting anything. You said:

"Sadly for Djokodal, their H2H vs the field so far is worse than Federer’s which is why they have less slams and time at number 1 "

Unfortunately for you, their H2H vs the field is not worse than Federer's.

 

[jm1980]

This is surely influenced by Fed being a late starter. He had 1999-2002 period where he sucked in general at slams until it came together at Wimbledon 2003. Djokodal peaked much earlier.

Of course, but that's still part of the stats

 

[KINGROGER]

I ain't misinterpreting anything. You said:

"Sadly for Djokodal, their H2H vs the field so far is worse than Federer’s which is why they have less slams and time at number 1 "

Unfortunately for you, their H2H vs the field is not worse than Federer's.

You’re clearly taking everything literally and being pedantic. You know what I meant. If Djokodal were better vs the field at slams (IE Murray, Wawrinka, Nishikori, Querrey, Istomin) for Nadal too many to list LOL. Then they might have closer to 20. Even with their H2H over 5-6 years older Fed they are behind. We will see if they can recover the deficit age 32-36 like Fed did with 3 slams.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

@KINGROGER It's really not pedantic because you were talking about time at number 1 which is obviously influenced by all the events not just the slams

 

[KINGROGER]

@KINGROGER It's really not pedantic because you were talking about time at number 1 which is obviously influenced by all the events not just the slams

Federer had more weeks at 31 than either of the other guys. And it’s not because they faced each other... Nole had his chance in 2012/2013 but lost twice to Mugray but then dropped off in 2017-2018 during the weakest era ever so it’s his own fault.

 

[jm1980]

You’re clearly taking everything literally and being pedantic. You know what I meant. If Djokodal were better vs the field at slams (IE Murray, Wawrinka, Nishikori, Querrey, Istomin) for Nadal too many to list LOL. Then they might have closer to 20. Even with their H2H over 5-6 years older Fed they are behind. We will see if they can recover the deficit age 32-36 like Fed did with 3 slams.

If they had a period like 04-07 where their only actual rival was a teenager (and only in one Slam!) then they also might be closer to 20

 

[TripleATeam]

Federer had more weeks at 31 than either of the other guys. And it’s not because they faced each other... Nole had his chance in 2012/2013 but lost twice to Mugray but then dropped off in 2017-2018 during the weakest era ever so it’s his own fault.

Doesn't Federer have 17 weeks at #1 at 31 years old while Nadal had 34 weeks from June 3 2017 to June 3 2018?

 

[KINGROGER]

If they had a period like 04-07 where their only actual rival was a teenager (and only in one Slam!) then they also might be closer to 20

Nole did have that period. 2014-2016 where his main competition was grandpa Fed, journeyman Wawrinka and mugray. He also had 2017 but he turned into a mug himself.

 

[KINGROGER]

Doesn't Federer have 17 weeks at #1 at 31 years old while Nadal had 34 weeks from June 3 2017 to June 3 2018?

302 weeks by age 31. Neither of the other two are close to that yet. Nadal has so far matched 17 slams at the same age so he has 4 years to tie 20. Possible.

 

[TripleATeam]

302 weeks by age 31. Neither of the other two are close to that yet. Nadal has so far matched 17 slams at the same age so he has 4 years to tie 20. Possible.

Ah. I see what you mean.

 

[TripleATeam]

Ah. I see what you mean.

To be fair, though, Nadal had the most slams of any of the 3 at ages 19-25

 

[The Fedfather]

False:

Djokovic's overall record: 825-173 (0.827)
Nadal's overall record: 918-189 (0.830)

Federer's overall record: 1170–256 (0.820)

They have fewer Slams and less time at number one because they had to contend with each other and with Fed himself. Roger on the other hand had free rein until actual rivals emerged

Djokovic and Nadal met in GS 14 times (in two of which Djokovic retired), Federer and Nadal -12, Djokovic and Federer - 15. So, tell us again how it's only Djokodal that had to compete with each other.

Fedal has been a rivalry since 2005, Djokovic came onto the scene in 2007. You can say 2004 was a free year for Roger because he didn't have to face Djokovic and Nadal, but so was 2016 for Djokovic (take AO 2014 for a Slam without having to face either Federer or Nadal) and 2010 for Nadal. 2005 for Roger - 2013 for Djokovic and Nadal. 2006 - 2015 for Djokovic, I guess 2017 for Nadal. Every one of Big 3 had "free rein".

 

[CYGS]

Djokovic and Nadal met in GS 14 times (in two of which Djokovic retired), Federer and Nadal -12, Djokovic and Federer - 15. So, tell us again how it's only Djokodal that had to compete with each other.

Fedal has been a rivalry since 2005, Djokovic came onto the scene in 2007. You can say 2004 was a free year for Roger because he didn't have to face Djokovic and Nadal, but so was 2016 for Djokovic (take AO 2014 for a Slam without having to face either Federer or Nadal) and 2010 for Nadal. 2005 for Roger - 2013 for Djokovic and Nadal. 2006 - 2015 for Djokovic, I guess 2017 for Nadal. Every one of Big 3 had "free rein".

Suddenly Fed's 6 years head start got conveniently ignored.

 

[jm1980]

Djokovic and Nadal met in GS 14 times (in two of which Djokovic retired), Federer and Nadal -12, Djokovic and Federer - 15. So, tell us again how it's only Djokodal that had to compete with each other.

Fedal has been a rivalry since 2005, Djokovic came onto the scene in 2007. You can say 2004 was a free year for Roger because he didn't have to face Djokovic and Nadal, but so was 2016 for Djokovic (take AO 2014 for a Slam without having to face either Federer or Nadal) and 2010 for Nadal. 2005 for Roger - 2013 for Djokovic and Nadal. 2006 - 2015 for Djokovic, I guess 2017 for Nadal. Every one of Big 3 had "free rein".

Djokovic lost in AO 2014, so I'm not sure what you mean there? He's won the AO in 2013 and 2015 without facing either of Fedal, but he did have to beat Wawrinka and Murray in both

 

[The Fedfather]

Djokovic lost in AO 2014, so I'm not sure what you mean there? He's won the AO in 2013 and 2015 without facing either of Fedal, but he did have to beat Wawrinka and Murray in both

AO 2014 wasn't excatly an example I was going for, true. AO 2013 and 2015 are included in the "free reins" Djokovic had. Still, is that part in parentheses the only one you'll address?

 

[jm1980]

AO 2014 wasn't excatly an example I was going for, true. AO 2013 and 2015 are included in the "free reins" Djokovic had. Still, is that part in parentheses the only one you'll address?

I don't think playing Stan and Murray at the AO is exactly "free rein"

Djokovic's prime/peak generally coincided with Murray's, so I guess it depends on whether or not you consider Andy to be a credible opponent. But he still had to contend with Nadal on clay and occasionally Fed as well

 

[The Fedfather]

I don't think playing Stan and Murray at the AO is exactly "free rein"

Djokovic's prime/peak generally coincided with Murray's, so I guess it depends on whether or not you consider Andy to be a credible opponent. But he still had to contend with Nadal on clay and occasionally Fed as well

Playing Roddick and Hewitt, also Safin, when they were in form obviously, I wouldn't call it free rein either. Opponents should be judged on their performance, not name. That's what I stand by so Murray, Wawrinka, Cilic or Chung - all of these can be credible opponents.

I know your opinion about Federer won't change no matter what arguments I use, but I'm sure you understand that what you said about Nadal and Djokovic only having fewer Slams because they had it super tough competing with each other and Federer while Roger had it easy, it's simply not true.

 

[KINGROGER]

Suddenly Fed's 6 years head start got conveniently ignored.

I think most Fed fans are aware Djokodal have a few years left to make up the slam gap. Nadal probably til 2020 Djokovic til 2021.