Are "Number of Grand Slams" a fair way to measure a player's greatness?

[Dropshot777]

You make it sound as if Federer put up some sort of respectable showing against Nadal on clay. In their entire career, Federer beat him twice. Twice. At worse, Pete isn't going to be doing much worse than that, and he could potentially only lose 2 matches to Nadal on faster surfaces.

And I may be misunderstanding a point you made, but how is Federer's 13-16 against Djokovic hardly much worse than Pete's 20-14 against Andre? There is a significant difference.

Agreed. Federer played harder opponents, but Pete took care of the hardest opponents he could play more efficiently.

 

[Holmes]

Again, if you actually believed all of what you were saying (instead of the half-serious half-teeheeing stuff meant to both get a rise out of people and give you an out) there might be a discussion worth having.

Your telepathic powers are incredible. Especially when they tell you to flee and label.
Anyways, an explanation of how 13-16 compares to 20-14 would be appreciated, unless of course, your gifts tell you otherwise.

Edit: It's 16-13

 

[TheFifthSet]

Your telepathic powers are incredible.

It’s not hard when someone makes it as balls-in-your-face obvious as you do, but thanks.

Especially when they tell you to flee and label.
Anyways, an explanation of how 13-16 compares to 20-14 would be appreciated, unless of course, your gifts tell you otherwise.

I think you meant 16-13, old chap. Do get the clerical stuff right at least. Or did you really think it was 13-16? My powers are drawing blanks here.

 

[Holmes]

It’s not hard when someone makes it as balls-in-your-face obvious as you do, but thanks.



I think you meant 16-13, old chap. Do get the clerical stuff right at least.

More ad hominem. All this indicates is a fear to engage. Sad.
And what I actually mean is 16-12, as Roger was past Pete's age of retirement when he played Novak in the ATP Finals in Paris which lends more credence to your argument. Happy to help you with the clerical stuff, and happy to help make your argument, as you seem unwilling to yourself.

 

[TheFifthSet]

More ad hominem. All this indicates is a fear to engage. Sad.

Layering every opinion in irony across multiple accounts over roughly a decade of posting on this site is probably a better indicator that someone is afraid to engage, shrugs.

And what I actually mean is 16-12, as Roger was past Pete's age of retirement when he played Novak in the ATP Finals in Paris which lends more credence to your argument.

In all very solemn seriousness, you typed 13-16 and then framed it as being somehow incomparable to 20-14 (which 16-13, much less 16-12, wouldn’t have been) so, nice try there but clearly not a typo. Especially good stuff with the little reach about passing retirement thresholds at the end.

Sure, 16-12 it is, if you insist.

Happy to help with the clerical stuff, and happy to help make your argument, as you seem unwilling to yourself.

This didn’t go the way you thought it would hey?

 

[Holmes]

Layering every opinion in irony through (multiple?) alts over roughly a decade is probably a better indicator that someone is afraid to engage, shrugs.



In all very solemn seriousness, you typed 13-16 and then framed it as being somehow incomparable to 20-14 (which 16-13, much less 16-12, wouldn’t have been) so, nice try there. Especially good stuff with the little reach about passing retirement thresholds at the end.

Sure, 16-12 it is, if you insist.




This didn’t go the way you thought it would hey?

More unwillingness to engage.
Yes, I did, and to be fair, when I did so, I did state that I may have been misunderstanding your point But feel free to drum a drum on a sidenote while staying silent on the heart of the argument. It's strange that your principled stand against engaging with me doesn't extend to an area in which you feel you won. But by all means, teehee away.

 

[TheFifthSet]

More unwillingness to engage.

Best I can tell I answered all of your points, good sir.

Yes, I did, and to be fair, when I did so, I did state that I may have been misunderstanding your point

Well would you look at that, a bit of sincerity, even a concession?! You’ve earned yourself another reply there.

But feel free to drum a drum on a sidenote while staying silent on the heart of the argument.

Ah, couldn’t help yourself.

The heart of my argument, that you felt compelled to opine on (half-seriously or not), was that Sampras wouldn’t have done much better from an H2H perspective in Fed’s place, especially at the equivalent ages on the equivalent surfaces. With some suspension of disbelief, a plump 12 wins may have been in the cards against Nadal. More than that and we’re in Blompf “find the votes in Georgia” territory. Seems like the difference is academic at best.

It's strange that your principled stand against engaging with me doesn't extend to an area in which you feel you won. But by all means, teehee away.

Is this supposed “TFS evasion” in the room with you right now?

 

[Holmes]

Best I can tell I answered all of your points, good sir.




Well would you look at that, a bit of sincerity, even a concession?! You’ve earned yourself another reply there.




Ah, couldn’t help yourself.

The heart of my argument, that you felt compelled to opine on (half-seriously or not), was that Sampras wouldn’t have done much better from an H2H perspective in Fed’s place, especially at the equivalent ages on the equivalent surfaces. With some suspension of disbelief, a plump 12 wins may have been in the cards against Nadal. More than that and we’re in Blompf “find the votes in Georgia” territory. Seems like the difference is academic at best.



Is this supposed “TFS evasion” in the room with you right now?

Ah sorry, didn't notice that you, for whatever reason, invisibly edited your post to engage my points...which you, in that post that you edited, said did not merit a response.

Yes, you win me mistyping 16-13 as 13-16. Happy?
Not at all, I described your behavior to the T, which you refuse to admit to. Speaking of which, you continue to evade, and now apparently, go back and pretend you didn't, which is even more telling. Rather than straight up answer a question or engage in a discussion, you act above it, engage in the pedantic teeheeing you accuse others of, and then go back and invisibly edit a post so that you do in fact answer the questions you originally said you were above answering. Why is that?

 

[TheFifthSet]

Ah sorry, didn't notice that you, for whatever reason, invisibly edited your post to engage my points...which you, in that post that you edited,

I edited it a couple of minutes later tops, (EDIT: 6 minutes later, I stand self-corrected).

said did not merit a response.

And it didn’t, because it attributed a position to me that I neither held nor would’ve been relevant to the convo if I had…a simple “thanks for correcting the record” would suffice, in that case.

Federer underachieved against Nadal on clay and Sampras, by dint of being a much worse clay courter (particularly in those ages) doesn’t win enough on the dirt to win that H2H, with enough meetings at Daytime Miami, molasses HC and tournaments in years PETE struggled to render it a decisive Ned victory. Both things can be true. That I’m even giving him 12 wins should be seen as another (likely unanswered) kindness.

Yes, you win me mistyping 16-13 as 13-16. Happy?

Almost; now, tell me what you meant by implying that 20-14 and 16-13 are somehow incomparable, ROFL (EDIT: ah, if I misread you, I’ll give it a college try: Federer won 55% of the matches in the Fedkovic H2H, Sampras won 59% of the matches in the Sampgassi H2H. Not very thorough, but I don’t see what sort of elaboration this question even requires. Neither are, on their face, damning H2H’s).

Not at all, you continue to evade, or go back and pretend you didn't, which is even more telling. Rather than straight up answer a question or engage in a discussion, you act above it, engage in the pedantic teeheeing you accuse others of, and then go back and invisibly edit a post so that you do in fact answer the questions you originally said you were above answering. Why is that?

If it’ll help, would you like me to announce the next time I edit a post?

(I’m channeling some of your methods but I unironically think that would be a fair ask!)

 

[Holmes]

I edited it a couple of minutes later tops, yes.





And it didn’t, because it attributed a position to me that I neither held nor would’ve been relevant to the convo if I had…a simple “thanks for correcting the record” would suffice, in that case.

Federer underachieved against Nadal on clay and Sampras, by dint of being a much worse clay courter (particularly in those ages) doesn’t win enough on the dirt to win that H2H, with enough meetings at Daytime Miami, molasses HC and tournaments in years PETE struggled to render it a decisive Ned victory. Both things can be true. That I’m even giving him 12 wins should be seen as another (likely unanswered) kindness.




Almost; now, tell me what you meant by implying that 20-14 and 16-13 are somehow incomparable, ROFL.



If it’ll help, would you like me to announce the next time I edit a post?

(I’m channeling some of your methods but I unironically think that would be a fair ask!)

This 16-13 thing seems quite important to you, so I'll lay it out as simply as I can.
-I misread your post as saying their record was 13-16 in Djokovic's favor and went with that.
-I thought your post was saying that a losing record of 13-16 was comparable to a winning record of 20-14
-I thought this was a mistaken position, but as my initial post says, thought I may have been misunderstanding you, hence me saying "I may be misunderstanding your point".
Hopefully this is enough and we can move on now.

Federer did underachieve against Nadal on clay, due to a combination of being much weaker on the surface, and consistently unclutch. Sampras is a worse claycourter, but significantly more clutch with wins against all the best claycourters of his generation. It's not a stretch to say he'd get one win against Rafa, despite being a worse claycourt player than Federer. Federer's problems against Nadal on quicker surfaces were also exacerbated by his mental weakness and poor strategy with his backhand. I don't know if it would be 12-2 in Pete's favor, but I think he could get at least 9 or 10 wins, bringing it to the same or slightly better than Roger's head to head. But regardless, my initial point was just about their records on faster surfaces being a whitewash, and while not exactly such, I believe it would be very strongly in Pete's favor.

I'm going to assume we can move past the rest of this and stick to the conversation about tennis.

 

[TheFifthSet]

This 16-13 thing seems quite important to you, so I'll lay it out as simply as I can.
-I misread your post as saying their record was 13-16 in Djokovic's favor and went with that.
-I thought your post was saying that a losing record of 13-16 was comparable to a winning record of 20-14
-I thought this was a mistaken position, but as my initial post says, thought I may have been misunderstanding you, hence me saying "I may be misunderstanding your point".
Hopefully this is enough and we can move on now.

While the vacillations between “it was a typo” and “I misunderstood you” are a bit puzzling, I think I can be charitable and assume you were speaking loosely. Thank you, top sir.

(Reminder that you also mischaracterized my position on the Fedal H2H on clay, as I made no indication that he acquitted himself particularly well but…this is definitely a fruitful start.)

Federer did underachieve against Nadal on clay, due to a combination of being much weaker on the surface, and consistently unclutch. Sampras is a worse claycourter, but significantly more clutch with wins against all the best claycourters of his generation. It's not a stretch to say he'd get one win against Rafa, despite, being a worse player than Federer on clay.

Yeah, he might well sneak a win, but I can’t see room for any more than that. The 7 BO5’s and two BO3 MC matches are total write-offs, so that leaves us with a realistic window of 5 encounters.

Conversely, a large chunk of their outdoor HC matches are winnable for Ned…he’d be a tough customer in 2 of the 3 Miami’s, all of which were in muggy conditions (iirc), as well as ‘06 Dubai, ‘09/‘12 AO and ‘12 IW. Those are at worst a bunch of pick ‘ems (save ‘06 Dubai) and I think 4 wins for Ned would be a lower-median outcome.

For the remaining matches, I’d make PETE a prohibitive favourite in each individual one, but with modern strings I don’t think he shuts Ned out even there. Non-zero (though small) chance Bull wins one of their three Wimby matches, and with three indoor tussles thrown in I’d say 1 win across 6 meetings would be a typical outcome.

Federer's problems against Nadal on quicker surfaces were also exacerbated by his mental weakness and poor strategy with his backhand. I don't know if it would be 12-2 in Pete's favor, but I think he could get at least 9 or 10 wins, bringing it to the same or slightly better than Roger's head to head.

Then we aren’t too far apart on this one, are we? From the jump I’ve merely maintained Sampras wouldn’t do much better (in direct response to a point about H2H’s being a tick in PETE’s box, not some random Federer apologia)…and that’s with Fed underachieving, as we both duly point out.

Far be it from me to deny Fed’s mugged it up aplenty.

But regardless, my initial point was just about their records on faster surfaces being a whitewash, and while not exactly such, I believe it would be very strongly in Pete's favor.

As do I. Federer won 8 matches on non-clay IRL and you believe PETE would be a good bet to win 9 or 10.

So, in sum, you’ve more or less agreed with me from the start? Christmas came early, LOL. Bit of a far cry from saying he “probably does [whitewash Nadal]” as you originally did, tho. How would you expect someone in my position to interpret that one?

I'm going to assume we can move past the rest of this and stick to the conversation about tennis.

I’m game for that, top sir.

If we can further confine it to responses to…actual positions the other person is espousing, that might be even more optimal.

 

[JustMy2Cents]

It's not just slam count. Can't reduce everything to numbers. CONTEXT matters

by slam count Andy would not have been at Rafa tribute by RG.

'Big Four' were present on Sunday in Paris
May 25, 2025

“We really wanted to leave you a message and let you know your old pals will always be with you.”

 

[The_Order]

Long story short, Bull the AO goat, amirite?

I get it, reading isn't your strong point...

 

[gamelovergold]

Yes it is better.

Losing against Mugs and Winning against the best is more important than winning against mugs but losing against the best.

Djokovic himself lost Grand Slam Finals to Murray and Stan but he converted vs Federer and Nadal, now imagine if he had beaten Stan/Murray in those matches and lost some to Federer/Nadal instead ? His slam count would be same but Fedal's would be more.

So losing to mugs is ok but losing in big stage is not ok, Nadal has a 2>1 H2H over Novak in New York and I must say that does not reflect good on Novak.

Losing against mugs but winning against best is all about intensity of the match.
Roger rafa novak all were highly focused when opponent is all time great player and tends to relax a bit if oppostion is lesser player.
Your assesment that if novak won against likes of murray and stan and lost against fed and nadal is actually true.
Nobody would have put him in big 3 rank if he had not beaten roger and rafa again and again.
But reaching finals and not winning is still better than losing in early rounds.

 

[Europa1]

Nope, a master should be counted as masters and a slam should be counted as slam.

Either way, the masters must be returned to best of five format. And the WTF as well.
Plus, BO3 is not a proper warm-up for a slam.

 

[TennisGrandpA]

Either way, the masters must be returned to best of five format. And the WTF as well.
Plus, BO3 is not a proper warm-up for a slam.

I don’t care about masters

 

[Tennfan123]

No.
More telling is titles won at a particular slam.

 

[ppma]

No. Against who makes a difference.

 

[zvelf]

Olympics is different, Tennis is different, no comparison between the 2.

In the Olympics the best of the best compete once in 4 years while these Slams are held 4 times an year, in an event that is 16X times in frequency if you cannot win it then definitely you are no better than the guy who lost in 3rd round or 4th round.

The frequency is irrelevant. Also, you combine the 4 slams as if they were all the same. No, you only get one chance per year to win Wimbledon, one chance per year to win the USO, etc. They are not the same tournament, so 4 times more frequent is actually the case. Even if, in some universe, silver and bronze medals are worth 25% of what they are, they would still be valued highly and not tossed.

3 matches a lot because Nadal did performed great in 2010 and he got the blow in 2013 after Novak won in 2011, so he took revenge for his loss. H2Hs are extremely important in tennis, Becker-Edberg are like 25-10 and thats what puts Becker above Edberg when they are directly compared. Djokovic having 23 more wins is something which you and I know, but 99% of the public who follow tennis and are casual fans dont see all these numbers. They see 2>1 when both have 2 titles each.

Arguing that the lowest common denominator in knowledge should win out is ridiculous. It is moronic to say that people who know the least about tennis should get to determine what is better in tennis. 3 matches is definitely not a lot, especially since they split 2 of them, which really means only 1 match makes the difference for you. 1 match is completely different from 25-10, and that h2h is not the only reason Becker is usually ranked above Edberg anyway. Becker won 3 more YECs than Edberg, Becker's career win percentage is 2% higher, Becker's wins against top 10 players is an astounding 19% higher, Becker's longevity in the top 10 was a year longer.

 

[zvelf]

At the AO .... Djokovic > Federer > Nadal
At the FO .... Nadal > Djoko > Federer
At the W ..... Federer > Djoko > Nadal
At the USO .... Federer > Nadal >/= Djoko.

At best you could argue Nadal and DJoko are tied at the USO but in no universe can a losing H2H and same titles make you better because you reached more finals to lose more....

But that's just it, Djokovic won way, way more at the USO than Nadal did: 23 more wins is a huge discrepancy. The difference in H2H is 1 match. Losing that 1 match in no way trumps 23 more wins.

 

[Razer]

Arguing that the lowest common denominator in knowledge should win out is ridiculous. It is moronic to say that people who know the least about tennis should get to determine what is better in tennis.

You really are going to die on this rock, aren't you? This is just an idiotic take. There is a reason that runner-ups get a trophy too, more money, and more ranking points than those who lose earlier. No one prefers to lose earlier unless they have psychological problems.

You know what's moronic and idiotic? It is you coming here to argue with me and constantly whining about the take being idiotic/moronic but you still happen to reply to me? How moronic is that ? I suggest you stick to tennis or just ignore my comments if you find it moronic because it is even more moronic to argue endlessly when you know I will not change my mind, no ?

Who said the fans don't determine what is important? It is THE FANS who determine what we want to watch and what we don't. We set the narrative, we decide what watchable and then tennis players get their pay checks for hitting a ball because of us fans. So you do not run your mouth here trying to say the fans do not determine things. If fans tomorrow say we dont need B05 then BO5 will be scrapped off ... thats how much power the fans have over Tennis.

Anyway, we are done here. There is nothing that I have to say to you.

 

[Razer]

The difference in H2H is 1 match. Losing that 1 match in no way trumps 23 more wins.

It does trump 23 more because those 23 more did not produce any more titles but that 1 more win shows that Nadal did overcome Djokovic in New York.

So yes, 1 does triumph over 23.

Anyway, that's it from my end, nothing more to say to you. We can agree to disagree.

 

[BlueB]

The only man who should be compensated for his success at the Masters is Andy Murray.
The great prestige of the Masters that adorned them during the Big 3 is gone, especially now that they have been extended to 2 weeks and anyone can win them.

By OP's logic, we are talking about Stan Murray here. He's certainly better than Andy Wawrinka...
I'm looking forward to see how the Janik Alcaraz and Carlos Sinner rivalry pans out.

 

[zvelf]

You know what's moronic and idiotic? It is you coming here to argue with me and constantly whining about the take being idiotic/moronic but you still happen to reply to me? How moronic is that ? I suggest you stick to tennis or just ignore my comments if you find it moronic because it is even more moronic to argue endlessly when you know I will not change my mind, no ?

No, because this is a public forum and such comments should be called out as such so as not to infect those similarly irrational as you. If this were a private conversation, yes, I absolutely would not have responded.

Who said the fans don't determine what is important? It is THE FANS who determine what we want to watch and what we don't. We set the narrative, we decide what watchable and then tennis players get their pay checks for hitting a ball because of us fans. So you do not run your mouth here trying to say the fans do not determine things. If fans tomorrow say we dont need B05 then BO5 will be scrapped off ... thats how much power the fans have over Tennis.

Uninformed fans who are unaware that Djokovic won 23 more matches at the USO should not get to determine who was superior at the USO. In that determination, the more informed you are, the better your opinion will be. Arguing for the opposite is totally illogical.

 

[Holmes]

Further regarding the h2h, I think comparing purely the overall head to head is misrepresentative of the overall dynamic of the rivalries. 6-5 Federer in slams with Federer having the age advantage in more than Novak did on him, isn't quite the same as 6-3 Sampras in slams with no age advantage in any, so Sampras was much more dominant against his rival in slams than Federer against his.

While the vacillations between “it was a typo” and “I misunderstood you” are a bit puzzling, I think I can be charitable and assume you were speaking loosely. Thank you, top sir.

(Reminder that you also mischaracterized my position on the Fedal H2H on clay, as I made no indication that he acquitted himself particularly well but…this is definitely a fruitful start.)







Yeah, he might well sneak a win, but I can’t see room for any more than that. The 7 BO5’s and two BO3 MC matches are total write-offs, so that leaves us with a realistic window of 5 encounters.

Conversely, a large chunk of their outdoor HC matches are winnable for Ned…he’d be a tough customer in 2 of the 3 Miami’s, all of which were in muggy conditions (iirc), as well as ‘06 Dubai, ‘09/‘12 AO and ‘12 IW. Those are at worst a bunch of pick ‘ems (save ‘06 Dubai) and I think 4 wins for Ned would be a lower-median outcome.

For the remaining matches, I’d make PETE a prohibitive favourite in each individual one, but with modern strings I don’t think he shuts Ned out even there. Non-zero (though small) chance Bull wins one of their three Wimby matches, and with three indoor tussles thrown in I’d say 1 win across 6 meetings would be a typical outcome.





Then we aren’t too far apart on this one, are we? From the jump I’ve merely maintained Sampras wouldn’t do much better (in direct response to a point about H2H’s being a tick in PETE’s box, not some random Federer apologia)…and that’s with Fed underachieving, as we both duly point out.

Far be it from me to deny Fed’s mugged it up aplenty.



As do I. Federer won 8 matches on non-clay IRL and you believe PETE would be a good bet to win 9 or 10.

So, in sum, you’ve more or less agreed with me from the start? Christmas came early, LOL. Bit of a far cry from saying he “probably does [whitewash Nadal]” as you originally did, tho. How would you expect someone in my position to interpret that one?



I’m game for that, top sir.

If we can further confine it to responses to…actual positions the other person is espousing, that might be even more optimal.

I'd say it's only fair to have PETE and Ned play in Pete's time if you want to hypothetically have a comparable match-up. Fed played him in the era he was most suited to, which is his own, and PETE should get to play Ned in the era that he's most suited to, which is his own. Under those circumstances, if Ned has no poly he suffers everywhere, including clay which was much slower when PETE played and would level out his heavy topspin Murder-hand.
In the 90s, it's absolutely reasonable to think PETE would win 12-14 matches against Ned on fast surfaces, and maybe even 2 on clay. That's 14/16-14/12.

If you want to transport Fed to the 90s as well (which is more advantageous to him than his own era) I don't think he'd have the guarantee of similar dominance on fast surfaces against Ned. He doesn't have the ability to hit through and suffocate him the way Sampras does due to the clearly inferior serve, and lack of poly means he can't rely on not missing the many aggressive forehands he'd need to hit over the course of long rallies. I'd give him 8-9 wins on faster surfaces. With his mental game, he might suffer a similar degree of being dominated on clay. Good news for him is that the lack of poly will mean the Murder-Hand will be much weaker, but it will also mean the topspin that Federer relied on to keep his backhand in will be diminished, so lots of slicing and inside out forehanding, and we know how that went. Still, I'll give him 3 wins on clay. That's 10/12-18/16.

That's a better result for PETE in his era, than for Rodgi in his.

 

[Razer]

No, because this is a public forum and such comments should be called out as such so as not to infect those similarly irrational as you. If this were a private conversation, yes, I absolutely would not have responded.


Uninformed fans who are unaware that Djokovic won 23 more matches at the USO should not get to determine who was superior at the USO. In that determination, the more informed you are, the better your opinion will be. Arguing for the opposite is totally illogical.

In the end Djokovic is inferior to Nadal at the US Open because they are of the same age and Nadal did beat prime Djokovic 2 times while he could win only 1 time.

All the arguments of being better than Nadal go out of the window when Nadal whoops him 2 times.....CHECKMATE !

 

[Razer]

It is pretty easy to destroy any of Djokovic > Nadal in USA argument.... all that one needs to do is post these 2 pics above like @MichaelNadal does... I was not doing it because that would have been easy but looks like this is the only way to explain to some people that you cannot lose more to someone in big matches and then say you are better than him.

Djokovic can win 2300 matches vs the field and yet his similar number of US open slams and 1-2 status vs Nadal and also the fact that Nadal was the last man to beat him in that H2H and Djoko is yet to take revenge there means Nadal is ahead of him. This is an open and shut case really.

Sorry guys, Nadal takes this one because he actually did on the court by winning more in a direct fight.... there is no IF IF IF here.

Thank your lucky stars that Nadal was injured in 2012, otherwise he would have beaten Murray and taken a 5th Title too.

 

[zvelf]

In the end Djokovic is inferior to Nadal at the US Open because they are of the same age and Nadal did beat prime Djokovic 2 times while he could win only 1 time.

All the arguments of being better than Nadal goes out of the window when Nadal whoops him 2 times.....CHECKMATE !

It's funny how you've said twice now that you would no longer respond to me on this topic, and you keep responding. That just points to how convincing my arguments are. All you are doing is repeating yourself. If the debate was solely who was better at the US Open from 2010-2013, these results would have a point, but as it is, you are relying on the outcome of a single match to determine entirely who was better at the U.S. Open. To any objective observer, the answer is without a doubt Djokovic. There is just no way that Nadal's 67-12 record at a slam beats Djokovic's 90-14 record at the same slam. Djokovic reaching 5 more finals than Nadal is just the nail in the coffin.

 

[TMF]

When we are talking HC GOAT, you combine ALL HC achievements.

This isn't a conversation about who is USO GOAT and who is AO GOAT. This is about who is the GOAT of the surface. You're trying to take the conversation in a different direction, come back to discussing surfaces as a whole.

Overall he has 14 slams on HC, this is something you cannot deny. There is not a single player who has more HC slams than him.

When the closest guy is still three slams short on the surface, its pretty much case closed as far as surface GOAT, or lets first discuss grass GOAT first.

I don't even need to go to YEC and masters, when Djokovic has three HC slams more than anyone else.

Why does it has to be your way? You like to combined both hc slams so your favorite player look better. It's a flaw, because combining both means Djokovic is also the best at USO. LOL

I chose to look at specific details in their achievements at AO and USO. The reason is the court speed, bounce, heat, stickiness, etc. are totally different. Why Sampras was so good at USO but not so much at AO, and Agassi is opposite. Nole is not so good at USO relative to AO, Nadal is much better at the USO.

Djokovic is the best and the AO, I give you that, but no way he's part of the Holy Trinity at the USO

But even then, Djokovic is GOAT at YEC, its not his fault it went best of three, he didn't vote for it, so taking away the value is just cheap, and its doesn't change the fact he still historically has 7 titles there. Federer beating old man Agassi, Blake and Ferrer in best of five isn't that much more impressive. As if Djokovic couldn't have done the same either against his opponents.

Yeah it's not his fault but you can't hold his standard against past era. Not applicable when comparing apples to oranges.
Whether you view best of 3 is equally impressive/value to best of 5 is your opinion.

 

[Razer]

Why does it has to be your way? You like to combined both hc slams so your favorite player look better. It's a flaw, because combining both means Djokovic is also the best at USO. LOL

I chose to look at specific details in their achievements at AO and USO. The reason is the court speed, bounce, heat, stickiness, etc. are totally different. Why Sampras was so good at USO but not so much at AO, and Agassi is opposite. Nole is not so good at USO relative to AO, Nadal is much better at the USO.

Djokovic is the best and the AO, I give you that, but no way he's part of the Holy Trinity at the USO


Yeah it's not his fault but you can't hold his standard against past era. Not applicable when comparing apples to oranges.
Whether you view best of 3 is equally impressive/value to best of 5 is your opinion.

I agree with you.

Slams should be judged separate.

All time Open Era Rankings at these Slams are as Follows

Aus Open : 01. Djoko 02. Federer 03. Agassi

French Open : 01. Nadal 02. Borg 03. Kuerten/Lendl

Wimbledon : 01. Federer 02. Sampras 03. Djokovic (vultured in 30s but he has to be put at the 3rd spot now)

US opens : 01. Sampras 02. Federer 03. Connors in 5.

 

[zvelf]

It is pretty easy to destroy any of Djokovic > Nadal in USA argument.... all that one needs to do is post these 2 pics above like @MichaelNadal does... I was not doing it because that would have been easy but looks like this is the only way to explain to some people that you cannot lose more to someone in big matches and then say you are better than him.

Djokovic can win 2300 matches vs the field and yet his similar number of US open slams and 1-2 status vs Nadal and also the fact that Nadal was the last man to beat him in that H2H and Djoko is yet to take revenge there means Nadal is ahead of him. This is an open and shut case really.

Sorry guys, Nadal takes this one because he actually did on the court by winning more in a direct fight.... there is no IF IF IF here.

Thank your lucky stars that Nadal was injured in 2012, otherwise he would have beaten Murray and taken a 5th Title too.

It's hilarious how you say there is no IF IF IF here and then you go to a statement that is all about IF and then pretend it isn't. But you're right, there is no IF here because Djokovic's 23 extra wins at the USO easily trumps Nadal's one extra win against him there. The reason is simple: winning more always means you are a better player than winning less. The bolded statement above takes the cake for stupidity. Yes, if Djokovic has more wins at the USO than Federer, Sampras, and Connors combined x8, Nadal is somehow still better than Djokovic at the USO because he leads their H2H there 2-1. Even Federer and Djokovic's H2H there is at least 3-3, double the sample size and Federer is clearly greater at the USO than Nadal.

 

[Razer]

It's hilarious how you say there is no IF IF IF here and then you go to a statement that is all about IF and then pretend it isn't. But you're right, there is no IF here because Djokovic's 23 extra wins at the USO easily trumps Nadal's one extra win against him there. The bolded statement above takes the cake for stupidity. Yes, if Djokovic has more wins at the USO than Federer, Sampras, and Connors combined x8, Nadal is somehow still better than Djokovic at the USO because he leads their H2H there 2-1. Even Federer and Djokovic's H2H there is at least 3-3, double the sample size and Federer is clearly greater at the USO than Nadal.

There is no IF IF IF

Nadal is 2>1 in New York and better than Novak who cannot even handle the wind. Since they are of the same age, there is no hypothetical of being born 5 years after or before here, this is straight forward.

Sorry man, Novak is a loser and Nadal is the winner in New York.... No amount of your gymnastics and bean counting shall convert a 1-2 loser into a winner.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Further regarding the h2h, I think comparing purely the overall head to head is misrepresentative of the overall dynamic of the rivalries. 6-5 Federer in slams with Federer having the age advantage in more than Novak did on him, isn't quite the same as 6-3 Sampras in slams with no age advantage in any, so Sampras was much more dominant against his rival in slams than Federer against his.

‘10 USO, ‘11 AO, ‘11 RG, ‘11 USO, ‘12 RG, ‘12 Wimby - 6 of the 11 where Djokovic had an age advantage, although Fed had a bigger one in the ‘07-‘09 matches than Djokovic in ‘10. If we’re gonna invoke surrounding form as an overriding factor for ‘10 (Djoko was slumping leading up to the tournament) then that applies to their ‘08 AO match…all in all it about evens out.

Moreover Djokovic got 4 good cracks at Fed at AO/RG, Agassi had 3 against PETE at the same slams.

Broken down by slam, there wasn’t a big difference in meaningful success for the two against their foes at the AO (despite Fed’s win against Greenvak in ‘07), Federer clearly takes it at RG, it’s roughly a wash at Wimby just like AO was (Fed’s comprehensive win in ‘12 probably give him the slight nod, but PETE was a bit under the weather in his ‘93 underperformance) and Sampras takes it at the USO.


I think Fed in Pete’s shoes does about as well in slams against Agassi as Sampras did and better in the overall H2H…whereas ‘97-‘02 PETE ain’t going 6-5 against Djokovic in slams, and forget about winning the overall H2H.

I'd say it's only fair to have PETE and Ned play in Pete's time if you want to hypothetically have a comparable match-up. Fed played him in the era he was most suited to, which is his own,

Bolded: perhaps, but Nadal was even more suited to it, whereas Fed was a bit of a tweener in that regard. It’s the other way around in the Sampgassi H2H - Pete’s game/concentrated dominance was tailor made for the ‘90s conditions, Agassi’s wasn’t ( though, as with Fed, he also wasn’t DISadvantaged per se).

So I don’t think tour dynamics really support your broader point here, seems like a mixed bag at best.

and PETE should get to play Ned in the era that he's most suited to, which is his own. Under those circumstances, if Ned has no poly he suffers everywhere, including clay which was much slower when PETE played and would level out his heavy topspin Murder-hand.
In the 90s, it's absolutely reasonable to think PETE would win 12-14 matches against Ned on fast surfaces, and maybe even 2 on clay. That's 14/16-14/12.

Fair call, but Federer also does significantly better in this hypo so I don’t see much point of separation there. And Ned would still be a tough out for PETE in the Miami/IW matches.

If you want to transport Fed to the 90s as well (which is more advantageous to him than his own era) I don't think he'd have the guarantee of similar dominance on fast surfaces against Ned. He doesn't have the ability to hit through and suffocate him the way Sampras does due to the clearly inferior serve, and lack of poly means he can't rely on not missing the many aggressive forehands he'd need to hit over the course of long rallies. I'd give him 8-9 wins on faster surfaces.

Definitely the biggest point of disagreement.

With the surface distribution as it is, I suspect neither guy will dominate Ned on aggregate (just too much of a buffer) but I also don’t see much if any room for Sampras to decisively outperform Fed in a Nadal H2H here lol

You can even use the much-maligned real-life Fedal H2H (the one Fed underperformed in!) as a useful guide. In 8 matches where the conditions were “highly favourable”—as much as they can be in that era (‘06 Dubai/Wimby/YEC, ‘07 Wimby/YEC, ‘10/‘11 YEC)—Fed went 6-2. 5 of the 6 wins were comfortable, both losses squeakers. And however much poly blunts his game in absolute terms (as it would for any player) he certainly makes it up in a relative sense as Nadal suffers worse losses.

So it’s hard to fathom Fed doing worse than that on ‘90s fast courts. Is PETE likelier to go 8-0 against Ned due to match-up/tour dynamics? Probably, yes. But both are dominating on properly “fast” surfaces with the equipment advantage. Federer already did it without one.

Left are slow/medium-pace HC’s and clay. I don’t think PETE does much better than Fed’s real-life 2-2 in the quartet of Miami/IW matches. Both likely go 2-2 or 3-1.

AO? With equipment advantages flipped Fed probably goes at least 1-1….‘99 Sampras/‘09 Nadal (granting we tweak things so he doesn’t miss the tournament) and ‘02 Sampras/‘12 Nadal on ‘99/‘02 courts…are you fully confident in a PETE win in either match? I’m definitely not, but let’s go with 1-1 there too. I’d give Fed the higher chance to go 2-0.

On clay, I would back Fed to win one or two more matches.

Doing my best to approach this comparison dispassionately, but even if you spot PETE an extra match or two to make up for my bias, I still don’t see how one can think there’d be a yawning chasm here. Sounds like two evenly-matched players to me.

With his mental game, he might suffer a similar degree of being dominated on clay. Good news for him is that the lack of poly will mean the Murder-Hand will be much weaker, but it will also mean the topspin that Federer relied on to keep his backhand in will be diminished, so lots of slicing and inside out forehanding, and we know how that went.

And what happens to Ned’s two primary weapons, the topspin forehand and ability to turn defence into offence, with natural gut? Fed will lose way less points he’s in control of. The slice doesn’t get pounced on as hard either.

And the serve as a stand-alone? Fed doesn’t lose that much. He was always a spot-server so that doesn’t change, he played the ‘01 Wimby match against PETE with a full-gut set-up and still amassed 49% freebies, which is a top 5 mark in Slams for him. Both see their +1 fh’s suffer, but Fed won a whole-ass Major serving and volleying so his service game holds up better than Ned’s as he has more point-ending variety to supplement the serve with. Fed even in the 2000’s was Ned’s equal as a front-foot passer while Nadal was much better on the dead run, so who declines more with gut on the pass? Probably Nadal.

 

[paolo2143]

There is no IF IF IF

Nadal is 2>1 in New York and better than Novak who cannot even handle the wind. Since they are of the same age, there is no hypothetical of being born 5 years after or before here, this is straight forward.

Sorry man, Novak is a loser and Nadal is the winner in New York.... No amount of your gymnastics and bean counting shall convert a 1-2 loser into a winner.

Have to say that is just nonsense.

Pete Sampras is 0-1 down to Krajicek at Wimbledon but has 7 titles to Kraicek's one, am i supposed to believe that Krajicek is better as he won that one match (he also leads their h2h by the way).

Also, going by your example then Novak has to be much better at Wimbledon than Roger as he leads h2h 3-1 and 3-0 in finals.

No one in their right mind would put Edberg ahead of Becker at Wimbledon as Becker won three titles to Edberg's two, Becker also reached 7 finals. However, again by using only their h2h at Wimbledon that is what would happen.

Novak as won way more matches at Us Open and reached far more finals so is ahead of Rafa overall even in New York. However, why are we even looking at Us Open in isolation, it is an outdoor hardcourt tournament and should be classed with Aussie open then we can see Novak leads 3-2 and 14 titles to 6.

 

[jrepac]

Connors is at 109 titles but nobody in his sane mind will put connors above big 3 .
Slam competition is toughest and most slam winner is greatest. Other things like no 1 ranking weeks spent at no 1 . Etc are also a good indicator of player greatness but there is no answer for winning trophies.

Slam counting is mostly a modern day phenomenon...so, ask me today, I'll say sure. Talk about any tennis before 1990 and I'll say "not so much". You SHOULD look at a range of factors, as they are indicators of dominance and overall success. Connors held a LOT of records not related to slams, that only recently did the big 3 break. I don't think the 109 titles will be broken, however. You can look at win %s as well, how far they went at slams, etc....when you start looking at these other factors, guys like Lendl and Connors suddenly enter the conversation. Borg and Mac, too, by reason of historical distance are getting short shrifted somewhat. Oh, Borg didn't have 23 slams and quit early. Perhaps, but he's probably the most significant player in his era. Let alone people who are saying Laver wasn't that good!

 

[jrepac]

Tennis existed for 120 years before winning the most slams became a relevant factor in discussing the "greatest".

exactly

 

[jrepac]

Nobody cares about YECs. Read the player books. It's an event to please the sponsors. Hence the round Robin format.

When did you start watching tennis? Masters/year end events where big deals in 70's thru 90's. More or less the 5th slam. Not sure who said "Nobody cares"....they were big money, big coverage.

 

[jrepac]

Lendl's fav surface was clay and Borg was out of the picture in the 80s, this really helped him, isn't it ?
Becker's fav surface was Grass and Sampras was in the picture along with some younger grass courters who emerged afterwards

So if we look at competition on their fav surface then Becker had it harder and on their bad surfaces well they both had hard competition. So that kinda nullifies it.

Lendl should have won wimbledon, if Cash can win wimbledon then why not Lendl? The obvious answer is he was not good enough. Plus even in New York he lost so many finals, is that a good thing? It is his failure if he is losing after reaching the final again and again.

I would say Becker had it hardest but you could argue for Lendl or Mcenroe too, someone like Mcenroe was trapped between the Wood-Graphite transition and he was done by age 25.

It's close, but I think Lendl had it tougher than Becker.

 

[jrepac]

Yeah, I just really doubt that any non-serve and volleyer would consistently beat Sampras in his own era on grass.

Agassi couldn't and he was the best in his day. It would be very, very hard.

 

[jrepac]

Yes but literally everyone from Sampras’s era started to decline way earlier because of less fitness knowledge and unlike Federer’s H2H with Djokovic, prime Sampras never played an Agassi who had a big age disadvantage and the same goes with Djokovic’s H2H with Federer

that's a bit of revisionist history.....fitness knowledge was around even earlier than I realized, with Margaret Court for instance. And certainly during the 80's with Ivan and Martina. Sampras had an illness that he kept secret and Agassi's spine was breaking down. Injuries just crept in....Lendl too, who had to quit a bit earlier than anticipated. Hard courts = hard on body = hip replacement (Murray, Connors and Becker, I believe)

 

[Razer]

Have to say that is just nonsense.

Pete Sampras is 0-1 down to Krajicek at Wimbledon but has 7 titles to Kraicek's one, am i supposed to believe that Krajicek is better as he won that one match (he also leads their h2h by the way).

Also, going by your example then Novak has to be much better at Wimbledon than Roger as he leads h2h 3-1 and 3-0 in finals.

No one in their right mind would put Edberg ahead of Becker at Wimbledon as Becker won three titles to Edberg's two, Becker also reached 7 finals. However, again by using only their h2h at Wimbledon that is what would happen.

Novak as won way more matches at Us Open and reached far more finals so is ahead of Rafa overall even in New York. However, why are we even looking at Us Open in isolation, it is an outdoor hardcourt tournament and should be classed with Aussie open then we can see Novak leads 3-2 and 14 titles to 6.

First of all, if Krajicek had 7 wimbledons too and was of the same age of Sampras then a winning H2H would mean yes he is beter.

Federer vs Djokovic ? Again, they are 6 years apart, if their ages were same then Djokovic would not even be having half those titles and his H2H would also be a losing one.

So I repeat..... Nadal and Djokovic are of the same age, Nadal has a winning h2h in NEW YORK and Same number of titles..... So 2>1 is pivotal.

 

[Razer]

It's close, but I think Lendl had it tougher than Becker.

Fair enough

Lendl, Mac, Becker.... all can be argued.

 

[Holmes]

‘10 USO, ‘11 AO, ‘11 RG, ‘11 USO, ‘12 RG, ‘12 Wimby - 6 of the 11 where Djokovic had an age advantage, although Fed had a bigger one in the ‘07-‘09 matches than Djokovic in ‘10. If we’re gonna invoke surrounding form as an overriding factor for ‘10 (Djoko was slumping leading up to the tournament) then that applies to their ‘08 AO match…all in all it about evens out.

Moreover Djokovic got 4 good cracks at Fed at AO/RG, Agassi had 3 against PETE at the same slams.

Broken down by slam, there wasn’t a big difference in meaningful success for the two against their foes at the AO (despite Fed’s win against Greenvak in ‘07), Federer clearly takes it at RG, it’s roughly a wash at Wimby just like AO was (Fed’s comprehensive win in ‘12 probably give him the slight nod, but PETE was a bit under the weather in his ‘93 underperformance) and Sampras takes it at the USO.


I think Fed in Pete’s shoes does about as well in slams against Agassi as Sampras did and better in the overall H2H…whereas ‘97-‘02 PETE ain’t going 6-5 against Djokovic in slams, and forget about winning the overall H2H.



Bolded: perhaps, but Nadal was even more suited to it, whereas Fed was a bit of a tweener in that regard. It’s the other way around in the Sampgassi H2H - Pete’s game/concentrated dominance was tailor made for the ‘90s conditions, Agassi’s wasn’t ( though, as with Fed, he also wasn’t DISadvantaged per se).

So I don’t think tour dynamics really support your broader point here, seems like a mixed bag at best.




Fair call, but Federer also does significantly better in this hypo so I don’t see much point of separation there. And Ned would still be a tough out for PETE in the Miami/IW matches.





Definitely the biggest point of disagreement.

With the surface distribution as it is, I suspect neither guy will dominate Ned on aggregate (just too much of a buffer) but I also don’t see much if any room for Sampras to decisively outperform Fed in a Nadal H2H here lol

You can even use the much-maligned real-life Fedal H2H (the one Fed underperformed in!) as a useful guide. In 8 matches where the conditions were “highly favourable”—as much as they can be in that era (‘06 Dubai/Wimby/YEC, ‘07 Wimby/YEC, ‘10/‘11 YEC)—Fed went 6-2. 5 of the 6 wins were comfortable, both losses squeakers. And however much poly blunts his game in absolute terms (as it would for any player) he certainly makes it up in a relative sense as Nadal suffers worse losses.

So it’s hard to fathom Fed doing worse than that on ‘90s fast courts. Is PETE likelier to go 8-0 against Ned due to match-up/tour dynamics? Probably, yes. But both are dominating on properly “fast” surfaces with the equipment advantage. Federer already did it without one.

Left are slow/medium-pace HC’s and clay. I don’t think PETE does much better than Fed’s real-life 2-2 in the quartet of Miami/IW matches. Both likely go 2-2 or 3-1.

AO? With equipment advantages flipped Fed probably goes at least 1-1….‘99 Sampras/‘09 Nadal (granting we tweak things so he doesn’t miss the tournament) and ‘02 Sampras/‘12 Nadal on ‘99/‘02 courts…are you fully confident in a PETE win in either match? I’m definitely not, but let’s go with 1-1 there too. I’d give Fed the higher chance to go 2-0.

On clay, I would back Fed to win one or two more matches.

Doing my best to approach this comparison dispassionately, but even if you spot PETE an extra match or two to make up for my bias, I still don’t see how one can think there’d be a yawning chasm here. Sounds like two evenly-matched players to me.





And what happens to Ned’s two primary weapons, the topspin forehand and ability to turn defence into offence, with natural gut? Fed will lose way less points he’s in control of. The slice doesn’t get pounced on as hard either.

And the serve as a stand-alone? Fed doesn’t lose that much. He was always a spot-server so that doesn’t change, he played the ‘01 Wimby match against PETE with a full-gut set-up and still amassed 49% freebies, which is a top 5 mark in Slams for him. Both see their +1 fh’s suffer, but Fed won a whole-ass Major serving and volleying so his service game holds up better than Ned’s as he has more point-ending variety to supplement it with. Fed even in the 2000’s was an equal or maybe even slightly better front-foot passer while Nadal was much better on the dead run, so who declines more with gut on the pass? Probably Nadal.

I don't think Djokovic had the age advantage in the USO 2010 match. He was 23, true, but Federer was 29 and in his era that isn't old by any means. And Djokovic had not even entered his prime, whereas Federer had won a slam earlier that year. Still give it to Fed here, or at worse, even. That makes it 5-5, with one a toss-up, and Federer 6-5. Either way, my point about their rivalry being much closer than Sampras-Agassi stands.

Federer's second best slam is the AO, so Djokovic getting more cracks at him there actually favors him. Agassi's second best slam was the USO, so playing PETE there more than he did at RG is not really as much a disadvantage as is painted. And 4 and 3 matches is not a drastic difference regardless.

The difference between Sampras and Agassi at the USO is significantly greater than that of Federer and Djokovic at RG - which is even as I recall? I could say each man's clearly advantageous slam was equal to one another if Federer went 2-0 with Novak. However, the fact that he played one of the best matches of his life at RG under conditions that suited him in the match that he won, as well as Novak's bigger win over him the next year under normal conditions tells me that Novak was clearly the better player on the surface. I give Sampras the advantage in slams, just as the h2h suggests.

I disagree. A 10 year older Agassi pushed Federer hard in 2004 USO quarters, and in 2005 a clearly injured Agassi made him play 4 in the finals. An Agassi of the same age would have won those matches. Sampras with 1 match at Wimbledon and 5 at the Open can definitely go 6-5 against Djokovic.

--

We'll have to agree to disagree. Pete's game would be significantly harder for Nadal than Federer's under 90s conditions. His far superior clutch would make things different too. As I mentioned before, Federer's game is going to be hurt less than Nadal's under 90s conditions, but Nadal is still going to hit great topspin forehands, that will still bother Fed's 85 square inch, pure gut backhand. I don't see a dominant record on hard courts, although he wouldn't lose a match on grass.

I think Federer's serve loses a lot, and using the statistics against PETE is irrelevant as Pete wasn't having a great match that day, and wasn't really a great percentage returner anyways, and it was grass. Federer did *not* win a major serving and volleying as his game. He won a major in which he serve and volleyed on approximately half of his points.

You're now attributing positions to me that I don't hold. I suggested a significant difference not in the overall h2h, but the h2h on faster courts, and I said this almost word for word in an earlier post. I'd give Nadal the wins in Australia, and 1 win in Miami, which would make it 11-3 on the faster surfaces, which is noticeably better than 8-6. For what it's worth, I also thought the term "whitewash" just meant a beating, not a clean 14-0 and meant it in that way when I said it would be a whitewash. But back to the point: I only ever talked about a much better performance on faster surfaces, not the overall head to head.

 

[jrepac]

Have to say that is just nonsense.

Pete Sampras is 0-1 down to Krajicek at Wimbledon but has 7 titles to Kraicek's one, am i supposed to believe that Krajicek is better as he won that one match (he also leads their h2h by the way).

Also, going by your example then Novak has to be much better at Wimbledon than Roger as he leads h2h 3-1 and 3-0 in finals.

No one in their right mind would put Edberg ahead of Becker at Wimbledon as Becker won three titles to Edberg's two, Becker also reached 7 finals. However, again by using only their h2h at Wimbledon that is what would happen.

Novak as won way more matches at Us Open and reached far more finals so is ahead of Rafa overall even in New York. However, why are we even looking at Us Open in isolation, it is an outdoor hardcourt tournament and should be classed with Aussie open then we can see Novak leads 3-2 and 14 titles to 6.

Funny, but sometimes it's about perception. I don't think of Novak as doing very well at USO...maybe because I feel like he underperformed and Rafa overperformed? They have the same # of titles, and if Novak has more wins, at the very least you'd have to make them equal, right? 23 more wins is not a small amount. Djoko still #2 there versus Connors though. He could move ahead, if he plays through end of 2026, I'd think. But even that is starting to look dicey.

 

[zvelf]

First of all, if Krajicek had 7 wimbledons too and was of the same age of Sampras then a winning H2H would mean yes he is beter.

See, so you do take into account how well a player does against the rest of the field. That's why Sampras has more titles. He beat the rest of the field more than Krajicek. Same with Djokovic. He beat the rest of the field way more than Nadal at the USO, so to dismiss those wins is you being contradictory.

Federer vs Djokovic ? Again, they are 6 years apart, if their ages were same then Djokovic would not even be having half those titles and his H2H would also be a losing one.

IF IF IF. What? I thought you didn't care about IFs? LOL!

So I repeat..... Nadal and Djokovic are of the same age, Nadal has a winning h2h in NEW YORK and Same number of titles..... So 2>1 is pivotal.

Nope, it's just one match, a tiny sample size in which given the vagaries of tennis levels on any given day, is not very meaningful. Djokovic winning 23 more matches than Nadal at the USO is a lot more meaningful. That's because the more you win is the obvious indicator of being the better player, contrary to your bewilderingly dumb claim that losing earlier in slams is better.

 

[Razer]

See, so you do take into account how well a player does against the rest of the field. That's why Sampras has more titles. He beat the rest of the field more than Krajicek. Same with Djokovic. He beat the rest of the field way more than Nadal at the USO, so to dismiss those wins is you being contradictory.


IF IF IF. What? I thought you didn't care about IFs? LOL!


Nope, it's just one match, a tiny sample size in which given the vagaries of tennis levels on any given day, is not very meaningful. Djokovic winning 23 more matches than Nadal at the USO is a lot more meaningful. That's because the more you win is the obvious indicator of being the better player, contrary to your bewilderingly dumb claim that losing earlier in slams is better.

You seem to have comprehension problems? No worries, I will repeat what I said above slowly so that it registers to you. Krajicek never won 7 titles, unlike Nadal who won the same number as Novak in New York, so that example is not valid. Comprende ?? Nadal actually did beat the field as much as Novak did, thats why their title counts are same.

Novak is inferior player to Nadal in New York, Nadal should even be having 6 titles if Fed had converted the MP in 2011 and if he was fit in 2012.

Djokovic is a loser in new york... sorry bud, this is the truth... the man is a loser. Lost to Nadal, Fed, Murray, Stan, Nishikori and even to Medvedev in big matches... in no universe is he ahead of Nadal in new york with a losing h2h because they have the same number of titles

Having more wins is never a criteria to be greater, otherwise Federer with 102 wins in Australia would have been rated ahead of Djokovic in 2023 when Novak had just 94 wins there, today he has 104 wins in australia but according to the lame logic of getting more wins in a slam making one better Fed > Novak in Aus in 2023 should have held for you but it did not, title count, not match wons accumulated.

Nadal with his H2H has proven to be a more capable player in New York.

 

[Airspun]

Andre has 8

 

[bobcolbert]

The number of Grand Slams is important, but there are many other things: the variety of Grand Slams won, the number of tournaments won, Masters victories, longevity at the highest level, records, and, more subjectively, charisma and influence on tennis...

 

[zvelf]

You seem to have comprehension problems? No worries, I will repeat what I said above slowly so that it registers to you. Krajicek never won 7 titles, unlike Nadal who won the same number as Novak in New York, so that example is not valid. Comprende ?? Nadal actually did beat the field as much as Novak did, thats why their title counts are same.

No, you have the comprehension problems. I was agreeing with you that play against the rest of the field counted. The rest of your argument though, I'm just trying to get you to see the light so that the board doesn't think you have damaged your mental faculties. That might be the case anyway, since you said you would stop responding to me about 5 posts ago.

Novak is inferior player to Nadal in New York, Nadal should even be having 6 titles if Fed had converted the MP in 2011 and if he was fit in 2012.

IF IF IF. For someone who says they don't like to go there, you go there a lot.

Djokovic is a loser in new york... sorry bud, this is the truth... the man is a loser. Lost to Nadal, Fed, Murray, Stan, Nishikori and even to Medvedev in big matches... in no universe is he ahead of Nadal in new york with a losing h2h because they have the same number of titles

You have gone off the deep end. Nadal has lost to #49 Blake, #54 Youzhny, and #32 Fognini at the USO. Djokovic has only lost to someone outside the top 30 once in his career at the USO, #48 Verdasco, and that was in 2005 when Djokovic was 18 years old playing in his first USO. Nadal has lost to players outside the top 20 six times to Djokovic's four at the USO. Djokovic is 16-8 vs the top 10 at the USO. Nadal is 7-5 vs the top 10 at the USO. So despite Djokovic and Nadal winning the title 4 times each, Djokovic has had to play twice as many top 10 players to win his 4.

Having more wins is never a criteria to be greater, otherwise Federer with 102 wins in Australia would have been rated ahead of Djokovic in 2023 when Novak had just 94 wins there, today he has 104 wins in australia but according to the lame logic of getting more wins in a slam making one better Fed > Novak in Aus in 2023 should have held for you but it did not, title count, not match wons accumulated.

Nadal with his H2H has proven to be a more capable player in New York.

The bolded has got to be one of the dumbest things I have ever read in this forum. Anyway, I did not say winning matches is the only criteria. Certainly winning titles is also a criteria. But if title counts are even, then how much you actually win at the tournament is a big consideration. Djokovic won 23 more matches than Nadal at the USO against higher-quality opposition. Nadal never even had to play Federer at the USO. Djokovic had to play Federer 6 times! That overwhelmingly counters Nadal's 1 more win in their small H2H count there.

 

[TheFifthSet]

I don't think Djokovic had the age advantage in the USO 2010 match. He was 23, true, but Federer was 29 and in his era that isn't old by any means. And Djokovic had not even entered his prime, whereas Federer had won a slam earlier that year. Still give it to Fed here, or at worse, even. That makes it 5-5, with one a toss-up, and Federer 6-5.

In terms of slam win distributions by age 23 is a little more optimal and Djokovic held up very well physically over 5, but if you don’t want to split hairs that’s fine. You originally contended Fed had the age advantage in more of them. 5-5-1 or even saying it’s debatable wouldn’t have been something I’d make a fuss about.

Either way, my point about their rivalry being much closer than Sampras-Agassi stands.

It’s more lopsided but in terms of who actually benefitted more at the slam level along the lines of age, there’s no real difference. And Djokovic’s ‘07-‘12 was better than any uninterrupted 6 year run Agassi ever had.

Federer's second best slam is the AO, so Djokovic getting more cracks at him there actually favors him.

No, the US Open was his better slam when at or remotely near his best generally (if we’re gonna weigh the meetings in terms of H2H importance, that does matter) if we’re just talking about the years in which the meetings took place, it was a push between USO and AO (Djokovic’s 1st and 2nd best slams in those years).

But even if that does happen to be the case, that’s 5/12 meetings what you think are his two best slams…for Pete against Andre it was 6/9.


Overall, there aren’t any smoking gun skews in either direction, and Djokovic was a better player than Agassi.

Agassi's second best slam was the USO, so playing PETE there more than he did at RG is not really as much a disadvantage as is painted.

How do you think I painted it?

You're now attributing positions to me that I don't hold. I suggested a significant difference not in the overall h2h, but the h2h on faster courts,

Bolded: you’re trying too hard to get that one back lmao

A range of 10-12 for Federer and 14-16 for Pete (your estimates) doesn't represent a significant difference?

Those are mean projected H2H’s of 11-17 and 15-13, respectively. A 4 match gap between two 18-match H2H's seems pretty significant to me [EDIT].

I’ll stick to my original assessment. Definitely didn’t misrepresent you.

and I said this almost word for word in an earlier post. I'd give Nadal the wins in Australia, and 1 win in Miami, which would make it 11-3 on the faster surfaces, which is noticeably better than 8-6.

Well here we’re talking about how both would do in the ‘90s, aren’t we? You’re the one that initiated that topic. Do correct me if I’ve erred.

But back to the point: I only ever talked about a much better performance on faster surfaces, not the overall head to head.

You’re a bit confused here (EDITED because original wording sounded meaner than I intended).

We’re now talking about how each of them would do against Ned in the ‘90s. It was you that pushed this comparison, and you did indeed give your 2cents on what their overall head-to-head would’ve been:

In the 90s, it's absolutely reasonable to think PETE would win 12-14 matches against Ned on fast surfaces, and maybe even 2 on clay. That's 14/16-14/12.

If you want to transport Fed to the 90s as well (which is more advantageous to him than his own era) I don't think he'd have the guarantee of similar dominance on fast surfaces against Ned. He doesn't have the ability to hit through and suffocate him the way Sampras does due to the clearly inferior serve, and lack of poly means he can't rely on not missing the many aggressive forehands he'd need to hit over the course of long rallies. I'd give him 8-9 wins on faster surfaces. With his mental game, he might suffer a similar degree of being dominated on clay. Good news for him is that the lack of poly will mean the Murder-Hand will be much weaker, but it will also mean the topspin that Federer relied on to keep his backhand in will be diminished, so lots of slicing and inside out forehanding, and we know how that went. Still, I'll give him 3 wins on clay. That's 10/12-18/16.

That's a better result for PETE in his era, than for Rodgi in his.

Bolded for your convenience. I was [EDIT] on topic and characterized your positions fairly.