Another tough Slam for Novak

EasyGoing

Professional
So now it's back to the same threads that were already made minced meat of? I guess all the Lewberries have already been picked, and now he is selling the old, rotten stuff again.
 

JackGates

Hall of Fame
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.
 

AceSalvo

Legend
Djoko had the easiest route to the finals. Nothing tough here for the defending champion who started the tournament as a heavy favorite..
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
You're kidding me. Djokovic and Nadal are currently playing in the weakest era imaginable. Competition has been going downhill since 2015.
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.
 

Lew II

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.
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.
 

73west

Semi-Pro
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.
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
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?
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/
 
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%)
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 :cry: So he is the biggest choker also? Objecitvely. Also lost most slam finals in straight sets
 
That's why Fed had it easier.

There's Big3 now. There was no Big3 in 2003-06.
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 :cry:
 

MS_07

Rookie
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.

exactly !!
now say that line slowly with "2003/2007" years in sight !!
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
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 :cry:
2003-06 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?
 

EasyGoing

Professional
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 ;)
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
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 :cry: So he is the biggest choker also? Objecitvely. Also lost most slam finals in straight sets
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.
 
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?
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
 
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.
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??? :cry:
 

MS_07

Rookie
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.

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 .
 
2003-06 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?
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 :cry:
 

73west

Semi-Pro
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/
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
 

JackGates

Hall of Fame
This is how you dispute an analysis based on the whole Open Era?
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.
 

JackGates

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.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
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.
You're very humble.
 

tudwell

Legend
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.
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
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.
Fed has some years of weak competition while Djokovic and Nadal didn't have them yet. Simple.
 

JackGates

Hall of Fame
You're very humble.
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
Fed has some years of weak competition while Djokovic and Nadal didn't have them yet. Simple.
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. :unsure:
 

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.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
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.
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."

 

fundrazer

Legend
Can you prove that Federer's opponents played above their level more often than Djokovic's or Nadal's opponents?
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.
 
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.
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?
 
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
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. ;)
Hewitt has beaten Sampras and Federer on grass multiple times and you ignore him.

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.
 
Top