Another tough Slam for Novak
- Thread starter Lew II
- Start date
coupergear
Professional
Agree. 6 short. Record books don't include weak era calculations.
That's true, such a great point. Fed won 6 majors more than Pete, it wasn't just enough to match him. I bet those betas will retire right after they get 1 major more, because they can't handle the press and training at this old age. Pete too. Once he was +1 he folded like cheap cookie. Borg too.
Laver and Federer, the rest will always be betas
. Rafa and Nole need Tio Toni and Pepe to hold their hands lol. No wonder this is a weak era. Plus those gammas don't even dare to challenge these new soyboys Rafa and Novak. Everyone apart from Nick are just betas lol. But sadly, Nick doesn't have the talent.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
SO is this a thread so as to let people forget that Djokovic did not face a single top 20 player to get to the finals ??
Lew II
Hall of Fame
Yet Big3 played against each other 5 finals/semis in the last 5 slams.
From WI 2003 to AO 2007 they played only 3 finals/semifinals in 14 slams.
AceSalvo
Legend
yep, no one putting their hand up to challenge Big 3 except for Thiem on Clay.
Lew II
Hall of Fame
ATGs perform better than non-ATGs in final stages. Check this:
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/slam-final-conversion-rate.642760/
No, they don't, Wawrinka has better win % in finals than all big 3.
Lew II
Hall of Fame
Federer is 5/6 years older.
If Djokovic and Nadal will have around 5 finals and 5 semifinals each against non-ATGs they will even out the differences.
That logic can be applied to anyone.
When someone faces Cilic, that Cilic was in the SF proves he belonged there.
Take 2017 USO.
If Del Potro proved to be better on HC at that moment, then why is facing him in the SF considered "easier" for Nadal than if he had played the inferior Federer?
Why should facing Thiem in the RG final be considered easier than facing Djokovic, when Thiem is the better clay courter right now and beat Djokovic in the SF?
Lew II
Hall of Fame
You're missing a point.
I take two criterias to identify a tough opponent:
1) reach the latter stages
2) being an ATG
So reaching a latter stage alone is not enough.
Here you can see why I think ATGs perform better than non-ATGs:
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/slam-final-conversion-rate.642760/
Lew II
Hall of Fame
This is how you dispute an analysis based on the whole Open Era?
herronpaul
Rookie
Novak also lost most slam finals to non Big 3. He even got straight setted in slam finals by non big 3 members while peak and no 1
So he is the biggest choker also? Objecitvely. Also lost most slam finals in straight setsherronpaul
Rookie
Novak was present in the 2003 - 2009 weak era and in slam finals. Unforutantely he was too weak for the weak era and ended up with 1 slam while Nadal who is the same age and Federer who is older aboslutely crushed it. Novak was sadly to weak for this weak era and ended up with losing h2h vs fed, nadal, roddick, saffin, gonzalez... too weak for weak era
MS_07
Rookie
Lew II
Hall of Fame
2003-06 Djokovic was in not good enough form to reach finals/semifinals. Federer is now in good enough form to reach finals/semifinals.Novak was present in the 2003 - 2009 weak era and in slam finals. Unforutantely he was too weak for the weak era and ended up with 1 slam while Nadal who is the same age and Federer who is older aboslutely crushed it. Novak was sadly to weak for this weak era and ended up with losing h2h vs fed, nadal, roddick, saffin, gonzalez... too weak for weak era
Being alive is not enough to be influent in tennis big tournaments. Don't you think?
There was no Big 3 till 2011 - or is a 1 slam Nole considered Big? Because Hewitt was then double Big, if not more with his 2 year stretch at no. 1.
This means that until Roger was 30, there was no Big 3. And you'll have a very hard time proving 30 to 35 yo Rog was Big with his 1 slam and some 20 weeks at no. 1. That's Roddick's territory.
So, this means that all your ideas and theories are basically as dead as a dodo
This means that until Roger was 30, there was no Big 3. And you'll have a very hard time proving 30 to 35 yo Rog was Big with his 1 slam and some 20 weeks at no. 1. That's Roddick's territory.
So, this means that all your ideas and theories are basically as dead as a dodo
Lew II
Hall of Fame
Let him have more finals against non-ATGs, if they're so hard for him.Novak also lost most slam finals to non Big 3. He even got straight setted in slam finals by non big 3 members while peak and no 1
He's 3-0 against players who reached less than 4 finals in their career.
herronpaul
Rookie
Federer and Nadal are reaching finals because 2014-2019 is literally the weakest era of all time. Sadly this era coincides with Novak's best performances. More objective proof. This era is so weak that an a 0 slam guy like Nishikori is reaching 5 consec quarters. This is hughly anaomolous as look at the rest of this list. It is filled with ATG's and then Nishi:
Federer 36
Djokovic 28
Connors 27
Murray 18
Lendl 14
Borg 12
Sampras / Nadal 11
Ferrer 10
McEnroe 9
Newcombe / Vilas 8
Roche / Smith / Wilander 7
Rosewall / Agassi / Hewitt / Wawrinka 6
Nastase / Orantes / Becker / Edberg / Courier / Nishikori 5
herronpaul
Rookie
He's the only one to get repeatdly straight setted in slam finals and the only one to routinely lose slam finals to non ATG's like Wawrinka and Murray who are LITERALLY slam pigeons for Nadal and Fed. He's the only one to lose WTF finals and so many masters finals to random non ATG's. I mean he just blew the WTF finals to 0 slam 0 WTF Zverev???
MS_07
Rookie
lol . once you say that fed is a weak era champ and the very second moment you count him in your stats to glorify your WEAKEST era champ .
just because joker didn't had it easy in his teen years doesn't make him strong era champ. fed won only one slem from Sept 2009 to late Jan 2017.
only thing joker has done in all those years is vulture weak era mugs .
TearTheRoofOff
Hall of Fame
Ah, but that's not what you said now is it.
herronpaul
Rookie
Fail. Djokovic was reaching slam finals in 2007. Yet while Nadal same aged and Federer ******* were killing it in the 2003-2009 golden age of tennis, Novak was near slamless, 0 weeks no 1 and losing h2h vs Roddick, Safin, Gonzales, Fed, Nadal... Djokovic was too weak for the weak era
I think people did a very good job of pointing out why that stat you shared isn't saying as much as you suggest it is saying.
I'd also say that (in general) facing any of the Big 3 in a slam SF is harder than facing even the best of the others
a) there are exceptions (like Thiem at RG this year)
b) more importantly, matches are not just hard or easy, and draws are not measured only by SFs. It's way way too simplistic
If you draw no distinction (as this stat does not) between facing Marin Cilic in a Wimbledon SF or facing Roberto Bautista Agut, then you need to.
But on top of that, as great as djokovic is, and I think he is in the chase for GOAT, we have to consider the possibility that he is the biggest beneficiary of the lost gen. As the last of the Big 3 to reach his prime, he is the one who is best positioned to "vulture" majors where the only other challengers are geriatric post-prime ATGs who had been given up for dead 3.5 years ago. Beating 37 year old Roger Federer just should not be given the same weight as beating an all-time great who is in his prime.
The Fed vs Djokovic and Nadal vs Djokovic rivalries are great examples.
I put forward a definition of prime that was not focused on the Big 3, but on overall (recent) tennis history.
If you use that definition, both those rivalries look so perfectly well behaved that it's really tempting to accept it.
When the younger player was not yet in his prime, the older player had an edge
When both were in the primes, it was a perfect .500
When the older player exited his prime, the younger player had the edge
And because they have stayed relevant so long, the last of those is the bulk of the matches, and that is the one where Djokovic has the edge, as the last one to reach his prime.
His H2H stats and Big 3 stats are helped tremendously by being the last and by the lost-gen never materializing
No, this is just to mess with you. I don't really care about your crazy theories, you just make me laugh a lot. I'm too smart to believe there is such a silly thing as goat and that you can compare eras, I'm five steps ahead of you, we won't be able to have a normal conversation, so why would I bother? We play totally different sports.
Third Serve
Hall of Fame
I find it hard to take OP seriously when he doesn't bother to listen to or take into consideration the opposing argument.
This is what happens when you have lack of younger great players, so your player is not tested, so you take his wins for granted. At least us Fed fans were humbled by Fed having an actual opposition, so we cherish every one of his wins.
Robert Baratheon
Professional
Guess that's why Wawrinka has been such a problem for Djokovic and Nadal and Federer get owned by him repeatedly.
Lew II
Hall of Fame
Quote my full post, please. The analysis on Open Era is crucial.
Lew II
Hall of Fame
You're very humble.
tudwell
Legend
Yeah, the percentages are stupid because Fed’s 5-6 years older. Of course he played some slams against other guys before the rest of the Big 3/4 arose. But in raw numbers he’s right up there with the rest of them. How that means Fed got easier draws is beyond me.
Lew II
Hall of Fame
Fed has some years of weak competition while Djokovic and Nadal didn't have them yet. Simple.
But what's the point when you never even listen or consider what the other person is saying? That is not a conversation, you are just making a speech.
And talking about being humble, how about you thinking you are smarter than tennis pros and historians and you know more about tennis history than them?
tudwell
Legend
But he’s played the Big 3 more in semis and finals than either Djokovic or Nadal. So he’s also had the toughest competition of the three.
JoelSandwich
Hall of Fame
What
Deon Sanders
Legend
The only match he has in this tournament that is remotely difficult is against a player almost 38 years old
Another tough slam? Lmfao
Another tough slam? Lmfao
Pheasant
Hall of Fame
Fed has played through the entire peaks of Nadal and Djokovic, all while the surfaces were slowed down, which hurt him. In addition, the slowing down of the surfaces had Federer using a garbage racket for years. That garbage racket saw Federer go 3-5 vs Berdych from 2010-2013, including 0-2 in slams.
But I agree with the OP that Fed has had a cakewalk path. Why? Because Fed has always had an unfair advantage, due to the huge edge in practice that he’s had over nearly every one of his opponents.
But I agree with the OP that Fed has had a cakewalk path. Why? Because Fed has always had an unfair advantage, due to the huge edge in practice that he’s had over nearly every one of his opponents.
fundrazer
Legend
But this isn't how you judge difficulty of slams, because players can have runs where they play above/below their average level.
You're absolutely clueless.
Lew II
Hall of Fame
Can you prove that Federer's opponents played above their level more often than Djokovic's or Nadal's opponents?
fundrazer
Legend
For anyone who has seen the Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episode with the billboard advertisements that came to life and started causing chaos. The billboard monsters were defeated when everybody stopped paying attention to them.
Please do the same for Lew. No more responses and maybe he'll go away. Or we can continue laughing at him and all of the idiots liking his failed attempt at "data analytics."
Please do the same for Lew. No more responses and maybe he'll go away. Or we can continue laughing at him and all of the idiots liking his failed attempt at "data analytics."
fundrazer
Legend
There are a lot of factors to consider such as match ups. It would require more than just average elo ratings which you seem obsessed with. ELO has it's own flaws such as inflation, but I doubt you're capable of understanding.
Pctopcool
New User
Sputnik Bulgorov
Semi-Pro
The era is so weak that the big 3 are basically guaranteed to waltz to the semis/finals if they play decently. Their only competition are declined versions of each other.
Obviously 2003-2007 would have less big 3 meetings. Djokovic and Nadal were still very young then. From 1980-1990, there were 0 big 3 meetings, is that a weak era too?
Sputnik Bulgorov
Semi-Pro
2016 till today has been a weak era. That's almost 4 years and counting.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
The ones he won against Mugray weren't easy enough?Djokovic waiting for easy Slams:
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
*2014
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Hewitt has beaten Sampras and Federer on grass multiple times and you ignore him.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.
The reason he's called a "Big 4" member is because the media want to push a European-white guy into the mix - doesn't mean he belongs there.