Amazing stat for Djokovic

  • Thread starter Deleted member 757377
  • Start date
Don't be surprised, BeatlesFan does not know much about tennis. Federer overtook Murray in H2H just recently after he developed his game in post-2014 period. Current H2H is 14:11 for Federer and until 2014 it was 11:9 for Murray. Thus, Fed won 56% of matches played against Murray. These numbers show that a statement that Murray is a non-factor suggest either a total lack of information or deliberate laying.
Tbf Murray gained most of his wins at a time when many mugs feasted on Fed.
 

Federev

G.O.A.T.
Finals won against a big4 member in each big annual event:

DJOKOVIC

Australian Open: 6
Roland Garros: 1
Wimbledon: 3
US Open: 2
ATP Finals: 4
Indian Wells: 3
Miami: 4
MonteCarlo: 1
Madrid/Hamburg: 2
Rome: 3
Canadian Open: 1
Cincinnati: 1
Shanghai/Madrid: 1
Bercy: 1

NADAL

Australian Open: 1
Roland Garros: 6
Wimbledon: 1
US Open: 2
ATP Finals: 0
Indian Wells: 2
Miami: 0
MonteCarlo: 5
Madrid/Hamburg: 2
Rome: 4
Canadian Open: 0
Cincinnati: 0
Shanghai/Madrid: 0
Bercy: 0


FEDERER

Australian Open: 2
Roland Garros: 0
Wimbledon: 3
US Open: 2
ATP Finals: 1
Indian Wells: 0
Miami: 2
MonteCarlo: 0
Madrid/Hamburg: 2
Rome: 0
Canadian Open: 0

Cincinnati: 3
Shanghai/Madrid: 1
Bercy: 0

Federer and Nadal never beat a big4 member in 6 big events' finals, while Djokovic did it in all of them.

Novak is an amazing ATG. He might very well get into the GOAT convo before he hangs it up.

But once again ignored is the fact that Fed does not really belong in this generation.

The big 4 should be the big 3 by now without Fed.

His peak ended long before Novak had his and he’s stayed wayyyy late in the game and should have lopsided losing H2H’s against all these ATGs by now. It’s amazing he doesn’t.

At 37, still contending for slams, and #1 or #2 in the world for part of EVERY year since 2003 - including this year and last ... this is ridiculous.

It’s a bit of apples and oranges to me at this point.
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
Go to https://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/fedex-head-2-head/roger-federer-vs-andy-murray/f324/mc10
and you will realize that you are mistaken. Murray was most successful against Federer in 2008 and 2009. It is true that Federer was a weaker player than present, but the field was much weaker and Federer has done very well against the field, but not against Murray.
I was referring to that period. Guy won one title above 250 in 2008 and the next one was Madrid in 2009.
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
I was referring to that period. Guy won one title above 250 in 2008 and the next one was Madrid in 2009.
What is going on with you? In 2008 Federer played 3 GS finals and won US Open. In 2009 Federer played 4GS finals and won FO and W. Twilight zone music.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
There is no big four. If Wawrinka can get back to the top 10 and continue to be a threat at big tourneys while Murray can't, then the big 4 will forever be debunked.

No it won't. Just being a 'threat' won't cut it. Wawrinka has got to pad out his Slam count and/or win other big titles eg. WTF and get to the top of the rankings like the real Big 4 have done.
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
These stats are always so useless.

So if Djokovic loses before the final and Nadal beats the guy (who is not big 4) that beat Djokovic, that somehow plays into your argument.

You can only beat who is in front of you and who progresses through the tournament.

Or more to the point, if you beat 2 of the big 4 before the final then it's less good than beating one of them in the final?

Not that I'm saying this happened, but let's say Nadal beating Djokovic in the semis of Canada 2013, or Fed beating Nadal in the WTF semis
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
*Djokovic
Fish
Roddick
Stepanek
Simon
Karlovic
Blake
Stan

What are you smoking? First off, Djokovic is no mug and neither is Stan.

As for the others, their H2Hs vs Fed:

Fish 1-8
Roddick 3-21
Stepanek 2-14
Simon 2-6
Karlovic 1-13
Blake 1-10

Even Stan is 3-21 (same as Roddick) .

Murray is 11-14, more than all those 'mugs' put together.
 
What are you smoking? First off, Djokovic is no mug and neither is Stan.

As for the others, their H2Hs vs Fed:

Fish 1-8
Roddick 3-21
Stepanek 2-14
Simon 2-6
Karlovic 1-13
Blake 1-10

Even Stan is 3-21 (same as Roddick) .

Murray is 11-14, more than all those 'mugs' put together.
I was referring to the 2008-2009 period. Djokovic had an asterisk because while he was in his prime period but Fed was playing crapola but when he Novak was playing crapola in 2009 he barely met Fed.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
I was referring to the 2008-2009 period. Djokovic had an asterisk because while he was in his prime period but Fed was playing crapola but when he Novak was playing crapola in 2009 he barely met Fed.

Fed was not 'crapola' in 2008-9. He won 3 Slams ('08 USO, '09 FO and '09 Wimbledon). Might have been poor by his peak standards but still far from 'crapola'.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
Fed was not 'crapola' in 2008-9. He won 3 Slams ('08 USO, '09 FO and '09 Wimbledon). Might have been poor by his peak standards but still far from 'crapola'.

It's when the losses come to Nadal and Djokovic,that federer was crapola and far from his prime. That's when the excuses come up. These excuses are already planned beforehand lmao, everything is already planned by the fans.
 

NoleFam

Bionic Poster
I was referring to the 2008-2009 period. Djokovic had an asterisk because while he was in his prime period but Fed was playing crapola but when he Novak was playing crapola in 2009 he barely met Fed.

They played 5 times in 2009. I don't think that constitutes as hardly meeting.
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
Murray has definitely showed he's good enough to beat a decent Federer in Masters and lesser tournaments, but when it comes to the biggest stuff, he's got 3 wins, 2 of them when Fed was clearly struggling and even then it was fairly close (WTF 08, AO 13). Olympics 12 is the exception, because even though Federer was obviously tired, Murray pummeled him there alright, which makes me think that he could have honestly beaten Rogr even without the Delpo curse. Olympics was probably Murray's best ever tournament - beat Djokovic and Federer back-to-back in straight break sets without conceding serve once, very impressive!
 

JackGates

Legend
Aren't stats being skewed by Djokovic sucking and having late prime? Before 2011 Fed and Rafa dominated for 5-6 years already, so Djokovic wasn't good to make it to them.

But past their primes they made it to Djokovic so he can pad his record.
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
It's when the losses come to Nadal and Djokovic,that federer was crapola and far from his prime. That's when the excuses come up. These excuses are already planned beforehand lmao, everything is already planned by the fans.

Except that poster didn’t mention Nadal or Djokovic at all... Fed was quite often crapola outside of slams in 2008-2009 which is where most his losses to Murray, Roddick, Fish, Blake, Karlovic, Stepanek, Tsonga etc came from.
 

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
Except that poster didn’t mention Nadal or Djokovic at all... Fed was quite often crapola outside of slams in 2008-2009 which is where most his losses to Murray, Roddick, Fish, Blake, Karlovic, Stepanek, Tsonga etc came from.
he was crapola at basically every non-slam event in 08-09 besides 09 Madrid/Cincy/WTF, 08 Madrid/Basel/Hamburg/MC. He started giving a crap outside slams after 2011 USO where it was made clear he would need to vulture to get back to #1.
 

3lite

Professional
Forget Stan, I'm not entirely sure Murray is ahead of the likes of Tsonga/Berdych/Baghdatis.
 
Top