Another tough Slam for Novak

Lew II

Hall of Fame
Federer despite he had a very tough slam (big3 in both final and semi) is still the one who had it the easiest in his career. Djokovic the hardest.

Slam finals played against Big3

Nadal 17/26 (65.4%)
Djokovic 13/25 (52%)
Federer 14/ 31 (45.2%)

Slam semifinals played against Big3

Djokovic 15/36 (46.9%)
Federer 15/45 (33.3%)
Nadal 10/32 (31.25%)

Slam finals played against Big4

Djokovic 20/25 (80%)
Nadal 17/26 (65.4%)
Federer 17/31 (54.8%)

Slam semifinals played against Big4

Nadal 16/32 (50%)
Djokovic 17/36 (47.2%)
Federer 17/45 (37.8%)
 

Pctopcool

New User
Sorry for my poor math. But it seems everyone wins less than 50%in the semi against each other. Is that possible?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
The glaring problem with this (aside from it being a rehashed, completely unoriginal "analysis") is that it doesn't highlight the difference between, for example, 2012 AO Nadal and 2019 AO Nadal. These stats don't tell us that 2019 AO Nadal played like crap. These stats also don't tell us that Roddick at Wimby 2003, Wimby 2004, US Open 2006, and Wimby 2009 put up a much stiffer resistance than some of this "mighty" opposition.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
The glaring problem with this (aside from it being a rehashed, completely unoriginal "analysis") is that it doesn't highlight the difference between, for example, 2012 AO Nadal and 2019 AO Nadal. These stats don't tell us that 2019 AO Nadal played like crap. These stats also don't tell us that Roddick at Wimby 2003, Wimby 2004, US Open 2006, and Wimby 2009 put up a much stiffer resistance than some of this "mighty" opposition.
The stat says that they were in good enough form to reach a final or a semifinal, which is something to me. You don't easily win 5/6 matches in a row in the biggest tournament category.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
These metrics will always paint Federer I'm a bad light because hes 5-6 years older And was already through a third of his career when Djokovic and Nadal became consistent threats.Your metric for assessing difficulty will only work for players of the same age group.
No, it means that Federer had some easy years before the three other other ATGs of the 2000s peaked. Djokovic and Nadal are yet to have really easy years.

No ATG other than Fed was born from 1972 to 1985, don't forget it.
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
percentages are actually not relevant as much, since Fed started his career so long ago before Djoker

Fed has played big 3 in finals - 14 times and Djoker played big 3 - 13 times
Fed has played big 3 in SF -15 times and Djoker also played big 3 - 15 times

So, Fed has had it tougher.
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame

Lew II

Hall of Fame
You don't have to tell me that. I already know he's not an ATG. A great player, yes, but not an ATG.

But that doesn't mean he plays every match like he's not an ATG. Wimbledon 2009 already disproves the point you're trying to make.

Likewise, even though Nadal is an ATG you can't expect him to play every match like he is one.
On average ATGs play better than non-ATGs.

Djokovic and Nadal in percentage played more ATGs than Federer. That's why they had it tougher IMO.
 

Raining hopes

Hall of Fame
Djokovic has won the most toughest slams out of the big 4. True.Not new discovery.


But this fascination with Big 4 only being the tough match is baffling, not even considering their form or play to make such assertion. This can only stem from complete and utter ignorance of overall tour and Tennis recent past.
 

JackGates

Hall of Fame
Federer despite he had a very tough slam (big3 in both final and semi) is still the one who had it the easiest in his career. Djokovic the hardest.

Slam finals played against Big3

Nadal 17/26 (65.4%)
Djokovic 13/25 (52%)
Federer 14/ 31 (45.2%)

Slam semifinals played against Big3

Djokovic 15/36 (46.9%)
Federer 15/45 (33.3%)
Nadal 10/32 (31.25%)

Slam finals played against Big4

Djokovic 20/25 (80%)
Nadal 17/26 (65.4%)
Federer 17/31 (54.8%)

Slam semifinals played against Big4

Nadal 16/32 (50%)
Djokovic 17/36 (47.2%)
Federer 17/45 (37.8%)
Fed according to you is a weak era champion, so he shouldn't count as a tough opponent, you can't have it both ways. Also, at least some of Fed's non big 4 finals were tough too, like Agassi at USO and Safin and Roddick at least once played a very high level finals.

So, once you adapt your numbers to reality, it looks about the same.
 

Third Serve

Hall of Fame
That's why I'm talking about the whole career.

You use average for careers.
I know that, but there are certain matches where you can't play that game. It's a minority, sure, but it's enough that you can't ignore.

Federer didn't face a Big 3 player in Wimby 2009. According to you, we can't chalk this tournament up on your list of tough wins because it was "easy". But what these stats don't show is that Andy Roddick played a better match in the final than many of these Big 3 opponents.

The problem with your stat lists is that they focus on averages more than anything else. It works a lot of the time but they never allow for exceptions. If a Big 3 player plays unlike a Big 3 member, like Federer at RG 2008 or Nadal at AO 2019, it still counts as the same player as a Big 3 player who plays like a Big 3 player, like Nadal at AO 2012 or Federer at Wimby 2008.

When a non-Big 3 player plays well above expectations, like Agassi in USO 2005 or Roddick at Wimby 2009, they still don't count.

Do you understand?
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Fed according to you is a weak era champion, so he shouldn't count as a tough opponent, you can't have it both ways. Also, at least some of Fed's non big 4 finals were tough too, like Agassi at USO and Safin and Roddick at least once played a very high level finals.

So, once you adapt your numbers to reality, it looks about the same.
You didn't know how Lewberry works ? It is like the Goldilocks and peas porridge.

Fed is not too strong to regard as a GOAT, not too weak that he is a vulture - but just right in between that you can use it to pad Novak's stats - to pump up his resume
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
Fed according to you is a weak era champion, so he shouldn't count as a tough opponent, you can't have it both ways. Also, at least some of Fed's non big 4 finals were tough too, like Agassi at USO and Safin and Roddick at least once played a very high level finals.

So, once you adapt your numbers to reality, it looks about the same.
When did I call him a weak era champ?

I called him Big3 because he's one of the best ever.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
You didn't know how Lewberry works ? It is like the Goldilocks and peas porridge.

Fed is not too strong to regard as a GOAT, not too weak that he is a vulture - but just right in between that you can use it to pad Novak's stats - to pump up his resume
LOL so there is no shade of grey between GOAT and vulture?
 

JackGates

Hall of Fame
I know that, but there are certain matches where you can't play that game. It's a minority, sure, but it's enough that you can't ignore.

Federer didn't face a Big 3 player in Wimby 2009. According to you, we can't chalk this tournament up on your list of tough wins because it was "easy". But what these stats don't show is that Andy Roddick played a better match in the final than many of these Big 3 opponents.

The problem with your stat lists is that they focus on averages more than anything else. It works a lot of the time but they never allow for exceptions. If a Big 3 player plays unlike a Big 3 member, like Federer at RG 2008 or Nadal at AO 2019, it still counts as the same player as a Big 3 player who plays like a Big 3 player, like Nadal at AO 2012 or Federer at Wimby 2008.

When a non-Big 3 player plays well above expectations, like Agassi in USO 2005 or Roddick at Wimby 2009, they still don't count.

Do you understand?
Also, why does Murray even count? I would pick Delpo and Cilic to give more problems to Fed than Murray, Murray is like better version of Ferrer, great consistency, but no huge weapons to consistently bother Fed in GS finals. Peak form is much more important in majors.
 

JackGates

Hall of Fame
When did I call him a weak era champ?

I called him Big3 because he's one of the best ever.
When you say he is vulturing majors in a weak era? And I don't mind if you call him that, but then you can't use him as tough competition especially at this old age.
 

Towser83

G.O.A.T.
So this slam is another tough one for Djokovic based on all the other slam finals he's made? What's the past got to do with this one? And come on man, he's had a cakewalk to the final (fed had a cakewalk to the semi but it was a tough demi at least) and now has top opponent but an ageing one
 

ReeceSachs

Hall of Fame
This thread is kinda pointless. I find some of your stats intresting but you dont get bored on trying to list stats to make Djokovic look the best and Federer look the worse. I have to point this out for once.
 

JackGates

Hall of Fame
You didn't know how Lewberry works ? It is like the Goldilocks and peas porridge.

Fed is not too strong to regard as a GOAT, not too weak that he is a vulture - but just right in between that you can use it to pad Novak's stats - to pump up his resume
I didn't get that impression. Looks like he says Fed never gets hard draws and Novak always gets hard draws. If he was in between, like you are saying, then at least you give some credit here and there to Agassi at USO and to Roddick,Safin, Hewitt, to not make it too obvious.
 

JackGates

Hall of Fame
So this slam is another tough one for Djokovic based on all the other slam finals he's made? What's the past got to do with this one? And come on man, he's had a cakewalk to the final (fed had a cakewalk to the semi but it was a tough demi at least) and now has top opponent but an ageing one
Nishi is a slam finalist and well rounded player, I don't thik he is a cakewalk. The guy beat peak Nole at a slam once, that is no joke.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
Also, why does Murray even count? I would pick Delpo and Cilic to give more problems to Fed than Murray, Murray is like better version of Ferrer, great consistency, but no huge weapons to consistently bother Fed in GS finals. Peak form is much more important in majors.
There's a reason Murray is called a Big4. I didn't invent this.

Also don't forget that Murray led the h2h over young Federer. ;)
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
When you say he is vulturing majors in a weak era? And I don't mind if you call him that, but then you can't use him as tough competition especially at this old age.
I can't use as tough competition someone I consider top3 ever? :unsure:
 

ghostofMecir

Hall of Fame
On average ATGs play better than non-ATGs.

Djokovic and Nadal in percentage played more ATGs than Federer. That's why they had it tougher IMO.
On average, older ATGs lose to younger ATGs. Since 1980, 30 year old+ ATGs are 7-31 against younger ATGs (3 years older+) in slams QF/SF/F. If you count Hewitt and Murray, 11-33. If you count just Murray, 10-32.

When facing younger all-time greats (at least 3 years younger)

• Federer: 3W—8L
• Connors: 3W—11L
• Agassi: 0W—3L
• Lendl: 1W—6L
• McEnroe: 0W—3L
If you count Hewitt and Murray as ATGs, it’s 11 W, 33 L.

• Federer: 6W—9L
• Connors: 3W—11L
• Agassi: 1W—3L
• Lendl: 1W—6L
• McEnroe: 0W—3L
• Sampras: 0W—1L

—Connors beat Lendl, 1982 USO F
—Connors beat Lendl,1983 USO F
—Connors lost to McEnroe, RG 1984 SFs
—Connors beat Lendl, 1984 Wimby SFs
—Connors lost to McEnroe. 1984 Wimby Fs
—Connors lost to McEnroe, 1984 USO SFs
—Connors lost to Edberg, 1985 RG QFs
—Connors Lost to Lendl, 1985 RG SFs
—Connors Lost to Lendl, 1985 USO SFs
—Connors Lost to Becker, 1987 RG QFs
—Connors Lost to Lendl, 1987 USO SFs
—Connors Lost to Agassi, 1988 USO QFs
—McEnroe Lost to Edberg, 1989 Wimby QF
—Connors Lost to Agassi, 1989 USO QFs
—Lendl Lost to Edberg, 1990 Wimby SFs
—Lendl Lost to Sampras, 1990 USO QFs
—McEnroe Lost to Sampras, 1990 USO SFs
—Lendl Beat Edberg, 1991 AO SFs
—Lendl Lost to Becker, 1991 AO Fs
—Connors Lost to Courier, 1991 USO SFs
—Lendl Lost to Edberg, 1991 USO SFs
—Lendl Lost to Edberg, 1992 AO QFs
—McEnroe Lost to Agassi, 1992 Wimby SFs
—Lendl Lost to Edberg, 1992 USO QFs
—Sampras Lost to Hewitt, 2001 USO, Fs (if you count Hewitt)
—Agassi Beat Hewitt, 2002 USO SFs (if you count Hewitt)
—Agassi Lost to Federer, 2004 USO QFs,
—Agassi Lost to Federer, 2005 AO QFs,
—Agassi Lost to Federer, 2005 USO F
—Federer Lost to Djokovic, 2011 USO
—Federer Lost to Nadal, 2012 AO
—Federer Beat Djokovic, 2012 Wimby SFs
—Federer Beat Murray, 2012 Wimby Fs (if you count Murray)
—Federer Lost to Murray, 2013 AO, SFs
—Federer Beat Murray, 2014 AO QFs (if you count Murray)
—Federer Lost to Nadal, 2014 AO SFs
—Federer Lost to Djokovic, 2014 Wimby Fs
—Federer Beat Murray, 2015 Wimby SFs (if you count Murray)
—Federer Lost to Djokovic. 2015 Wimby Fs
—Federer Lost to Djokovic, 2015 USO Fs
—Federer Lost to Djokovic, 2016 AO SFs
—Federer Beat Nadal, 2017 AO Fs
—Federer Lost to Nadal, 2019 RG SFs
—Federer Beat Nadal, 2019 Wimbledon SFs
 

stringertom

Bionic Poster
Federer despite he had a very tough slam (big3 in both final and semi) is still the one who had it the easiest in his career. Djokovic the hardest.

Slam finals played against Big3

Nadal 17/26 (65.4%)
Djokovic 13/25 (52%)
Federer 14/ 31 (45.2%)

Slam semifinals played against Big3

Djokovic 15/36 (46.9%)
Federer 15/45 (33.3%)
Nadal 10/32 (31.25%)

Slam finals played against Big4

Djokovic 20/25 (80%)
Nadal 17/26 (65.4%)
Federer 17/31 (54.8%)

Slam semifinals played against Big4

Nadal 16/32 (50%)
Djokovic 17/36 (47.2%)
Federer 17/45 (37.8%)
Another UUUGGGEEE waste of bandwidth trying to prop your boy up and take fedr down.

Have to applaud your amazing stamina for being totally redundant.

Here’s a stat for blowing up your mind: Raonic >>>>Joe Kovic and The Nadal because he’s the only one to beat fedr in a Wimby SF. Ever.
 

TearTheRoofOff

Hall of Fame
The stat says that they were in good enough form to reach a final or a semifinal, which is something to me. You don't easily win 5/6 matches in a row in the biggest tournament category.
If that's the case, then what does it matter who they played in the final or semifinal? Whomever reaches the final or semifinal was in good enough form to do so, by definition.
 
Sorry for my poor math. But it seems everyone wins less than 50%in the semi against each other. Is that possible?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
It’s not about matches played vs each other.

It’s saying that, for these 3 players, fewer than 50% of their semis were against the other 2.
 
No, it means that Federer had some easy years before the three other other ATGs of the 2000s peaked. Djokovic and Nadal are yet to have really easy years.

No ATG other than Fed was born from 1972 to 1985, don't forget it.
You're kidding me. Djokovic and Nadal are currently playing in the weakest era imaginable. Competition has been going downhill since 2015.
 

Wander

Professional
I don't know how you are twisting this so that Federer had it "the easiest" when:

-Federer played equal most semi-finals against the big 4
-Federer played equal most semi-finals against the big 3
-Federer played the second most finals against the big 3.
-Federer played the second most finals against the big 4.

A very strange interpretation of numbers.
 

JackGates

Hall of Fame
I don't know how you are twisting this so that Federer had it "the easiest" when:

-Federer played equal most semi-finals against the big 4
-Federer played equal most semi-finals against the big 3
-Federer played the second most finals against the big 3.
-Federer played the second most finals against the big 4.

A very strange interpretation of numbers.
And a cherry on top, Fed also lost the most versus big 3 too, so how is this him not facing more opposition, if they challenged him more?
 
Top