Agree. 6 short. Record books don't include weak era calculations.What matters end of the day are numbers. Novak despite facing old Fed is still 6 short of the target.
Also chasing target is for minions. If Novak is an alpha male he should get 25-26 majors.
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.Agree. 6 short. Record books don't include weak era calculations.
Yet Big3 played against each other 5 finals/semis in the last 5 slams.You're kidding me. Djokovic and Nadal are currently playing in the weakest era imaginable. Competition has been going downhill since 2015.
yep, no one putting their hand up to challenge Big 3 except for Thiem on Clay.You're kidding me. Djokovic and Nadal are currently playing in the weakest era imaginable. Competition has been going downhill since 2015.
ATGs perform better than non-ATGs in final stages. Check this: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.
No, they don't, Wawrinka has better win % in finals than all big 3.ATGs perform better than non-ATGs in final stages. Check this:
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/slam-final-conversion-rate.642760/
Federer is 5/6 years older.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.
That logic can be applied to anyone.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.
You're missing a point.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?
This is how you dispute an analysis based on the whole Open Era?No, they don't, Wawrinka has better win % in finals than all big 3.
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 1Federer 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%)
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 eraThat's why Fed had it easier.
There's Big3 now. There was no Big3 in 2003-06.
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.
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![]()
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 1So he is the biggest choker also? Objecitvely. Also lost most slam finals in straight sets
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:Djokovic was in not good enough form to reach finals/semifinals. Federer is now in good enough form to reach finals/semifinals.
Being alive is not enough to be influent in tennis big tournaments. Don't you think?
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???Let him have more finals against non-ATGs, if they're so hard for him.
He's 3-0 against players who reached less than 4 finals in their career.
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.
Ah, but that's not what you said now is it.ATGs perform better than non-ATGs in final stages. Check this:
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/slam-final-conversion-rate.642760/
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 era2003-06 Djokovic was in not good enough form to reach finals/semifinals. Federer is now in good enough form to reach finals/semifinals.
Being alive is not enough to be influent in tennis big tournaments. Don't you think?
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.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/
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.This is how you dispute an analysis based on the whole Open Era?
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.I find it hard to take OP seriously when he doesn't bother to listen to or take into consideration the opposing argument.
Guess that's why Wawrinka has been such a problem for Djokovic and Nadal and Federer get owned by him repeatedly.l
ATGs play much better in the final stage.
Quote my full post, please. The analysis on Open Era is crucial.Guess that's why Wawrinka has been such a problem for Djokovic and Nadal and Federer get owned by him repeatedly.
You're very humble.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.
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.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.
Fed has some years of weak competition while Djokovic and Nadal didn't have them yet. Simple.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.
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.You're very humble.
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.Fed has some years of weak competition while Djokovic and Nadal didn't have them yet. Simple.
WhatFed has some years of weak competition while Djokovic and Nadal didn't have them yet. Simple.
But this isn't how you judge difficulty of slams, because players can have runs where they play above/below their average level.That's why I'm talking about the whole career.
You use average for careers.
Can you prove that Federer's opponents played above their level more often than Djokovic's or Nadal's opponents?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.
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.Can you prove that Federer's opponents played above their level more often than Djokovic's or Nadal's opponents?
Ah, my bad. That makes sense.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.
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.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.
2016 till today has been a weak era. That's almost 4 years and counting.Fed has some years of weak competition while Djokovic and Nadal didn't have them yet. Simple.
The ones he won against Mugray weren't easy enough?Djokovic waiting for easy Slams:
![]()
*20142016 till today has been a weak era. That's almost 4 years and counting.
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.![]()