Beating GS champions of each particular slam

[drm025]

When discussing the strength of a GS draw a lot of people talk about how many GS champions a certain player had to face. I think it is more relevant to discuss how many champions of that particular slam a certain player had to beat. For example, beating Sampras at the French was probably much easier than doing it at any other slam. You may argue that surface homogenization makes it easier to perform well at all the slams but still only 4 players have accomplished the career slam in the open era (Laver,Agassi,Federer,Nadal).

For Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic, I have compiled all of their wins against slam winners at each particular slam (AO champs at AO, RG champs at RG, Wimby champs at Wimby, and USO champs at USO).

Federer
Overall: 25-18 or 58%
Finals: 9-8 or 53%
AO: 5-6 or 45%
RG: 1-6 or 14%
Wimby: 8-2 or 80%
USO: 11-4 or 73%

Nadal
Overall: 20-9 or 69%
Finals: 8-6 or 57%
AO: 4-2 or 67%
RG: 6-0 or 100%
Wimby: 6-3 or 67%
USO: 4-4 or 50%

Djokovic
Overall: 15-20 or 43%
Finals: 4-7 or 36%
AO: 4-3 or 57%
RG: 1-7 or 13%
Wimby: 4-3 or 57%
USO: 6-7 or 46%

Federer has the most wins and the most matches overall. Nadal has the best overall win percentage and win percentage in finals, as well as best percentage at the AO and RG. Federer has the best win percentage at Wimby and the USO. Federer has the most wins at one slam against champs at that slam (US open, 11 wins), though if Djokovic wins RG at some point Nadal would beat that with 12 wins at RG. Also, if Djokovic wins the French, Nadal and Fed would then both be tied with 26 wins overall and Nadal would move to a pretty impressive 10-6 or 63% in GS finals.

Before 2008, Federer had an impressive overall record of 16-6 or 73%.

Federer has won 5 slams (2 AO, 1 RG, 2 Wimby) without facing a champion of that slam. Nadal has won 4 slams (4 RG) without facing a champion of that slam, but if Djokovic wins RG that number goes down to 1. Djokovic has won all of his slams beating a champion of that slam.

Federer has beaten 2 different champions during the same tournament 6 times, once at Wimby and 5 times at the USO. Nadal has done it 3 times (1 RG, 1 Wimby, 1 USO) and Djokovic has done it 1 time at the USO.

*Sorry if people feel that me mentioning the possibility of Djokovic winning the French is biased in order to lift up Nadal, but I think most people would agree that he has a very good chance to win at least one.

 

[Russeljones]

Are those the cumulative titles of people they faced at those tournaments? I am sorry, I am not following the numbers. Can you post examples of how you compiled the numbers?

 

[NatF]

Federer's AO numbers have suffered a lot in the last 5-6 years, 5 losses to Nadal and Djokovic combined.

 

[drm025]

Are those the cumulative titles of people they faced at those tournaments? I am sorry, I am not following the numbers. Can you post examples of how you compiled the numbers?

As I stated in the OP:

For Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic, I have compiled all of their wins against slam winners at each particular slam (AO champs at AO, RG champs at RG, Wimby champs at Wimby, and USO champs at USO).

So, combine Fed's win-loss record against AO champions at the AO (5-6), against RG champions at RG (1-6), against Wimby champions at Wimby (8-2), and against USO champs at the USO (11-4). Then you get the total of 25-18. Make sense?

 

[NatF]

Nadal will end up 12-0 at the FO if Djokovic wins there. Monstrous.

 

[Russeljones]

As I stated in the OP:

For Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic, I have compiled all of their wins against slam winners at each particular slam (AO champs at AO, RG champs at RG, Wimby champs at Wimby, and USO champs at USO).

So, combine Fed's win-loss record against AO champions at the AO (5-6), against RG champions at RG (1-6), against Wimby champions at Wimby (8-2), and against USO champs at the USO (11-4). Then you get the total of 25-18. Make sense?

Basically a refurbished thread about Big 4 H2H. Thought so.

 

[Chanwan]

Are those the cumulative titles of people they faced at those tournaments? I am sorry, I am not following the numbers. Can you post examples of how you compiled the numbers?

Allow me (if I understood it correctly that is).

Roddick won a US Open. Hewitt won a Wimbledon and a US Open.
Everytime someone meets them at those respective tournaments (only US for Roddick), it counts as a meeting.

Irregardless of whether it happened before or after they became champions (which is a bit of a problem imo).
So every meeting with say Murray prior to him winning the US and Wimbledon will count in the stats - even in 2006.

Still - good job OP, not sure I know a better way.

Edit: OP beat me to it.

 

[NatF]

Allow me (if I understood it correctly that is).

Roddick won a US Open. Hewitt won a Wimbledon and a US Open.
Everytime someone meets them at those respective tournaments (only US for Roddick), it counts as a meeting.

Irregardless of whether it happened before or after they became champions (which is a bit of a problem imo).
So every meeting with say Murray prior to him winning the US and Wimbledon will count in the stats - even in 2006.

Still - good job OP, not sure I know a better way.

Edit: OP beat me to it.

This is the one major problem, obviously doing it another way adds more subjectivity to it e.g. counting only prime wins.

Might be interesting to count the wins only when the player won the slam, that's a better way to see the strength of draws.

 

[drm025]

Basically a refurbished thread about Big 4 H2H. Thought so.

Well, no, it's win-loss against any slam champion. Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Kuerten, Moya, Sampras, Agassi, Del Potro, Wawrinka are all included.

 

[drm025]

This is the one major problem, obviously doing it another way adds more subjectivity to it e.g. counting only prime wins.

Might be interesting to count the wins only when the player won the slam, that's a better way to see the strength of draws.

Like you said it is a little more subjective that way. Who's to say that a player can't show the form to win a particular tournament before they actually win it. I think Djokovic is the perfect example, even if he doesn't end up winning the French. Besides Nadal and Federer, he's clearly been the best player at RG and if he does end up winning one it will most likely come at the end of his prime, so all of his prime play at RG would count for nothing.

Also, Murray at Wimbledon. I think everybody knew about his grass prowess before he took the title at Wimbledon in 2013. Also, Wawrinka clearly showed similar form at the australian last year almost beating djokovic. Now knowing that Wawrinka won the title beating both Djokovic and Nadal, it makes Novak's win in 2013 look even better, doesn't it?

 

[NatF]

Like you said it is a little more subjective that way. Who's to say that a player can't show the form to win a particular tournament before they actually win it. I think Djokovic is the perfect example, even if he doesn't end up winning the French. Besides Nadal and Federer, he's clearly been the best player at RG and if he does end up winning one it will most likely come at the end of his prime, so all of his prime play at RG would count for nothing.

Yes but does beating Djokovic in 06 at the French really count for much? Counts for even less than Federer beating him at the AO in 2007 - which isn't a lot really. I don't disagree with the principles of this, it's nice to see Federer's strong record at the USO and Wimbledon. It's not without it's flaws though.

 

[drm025]

Yes but does beating Djokovic in 06 at the French really count for much? Counts for even less than Federer beating him at the AO in 2007 - which isn't a lot really.

But then when do you start counting matches against Djokovic at the French if not 2006? He lost to Nadal for 3 straight years there. Whether it was the quarters or not, losing to Nadal is the best any player has been able to do for the last 10 years outside of 2009.

And yeah, not arguing that this is perfect at all. I realize there are always flaws.

 

[NatF]

But then when do you start counting matches against Djokovic at the French if not 2006? He lost to Nadal for 3 straight years there. Whether it was the quarters or not, losing to Nadal is the best any player has been able to do for the last 10 years outside of 2009.

And yeah, not arguing that this is perfect at all. I realize there are always flaws.

When do I start counting? I don't know. Like I said it becomes subjective at that point which I'm not sure is better. I'd love to say some of the losses Federer had at the AO don't count too :lol:

In terms of clay court game Djokovic didn't really mature on the surface till 2008.

 

[Chanwan]

Yes but does beating Djokovic in 06 at the French really count for much? Counts for even less than Federer beating him at the AO in 2007 - which isn't a lot really. I don't disagree with the principles of this, it's nice to see Federer's strong record at the USO and Wimbledon. It's not without it's flaws though.

Yeah - there are arguments to support the inclusion, as the ones OP mention, but there's a whole lot of other examples to dismiss it and I tend to think more.

Think of Wawrinka again, was beating him prior to 2013 at the AO such a major accomplishment? He made one quarter and other than that never progressed past the 3rd round, yet there are 7 of such years, where the eventual champion would benefit on this metric if he had played (and beaten) Wawa:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislas_Wawrinka

 

[drm025]

Yeah - there are arguments to support the inclusion, as the ones OP mention, but there's a whole lot of other examples to dismiss it and I tend to think more.

Think of Wawrinka again, was beating him prior to 2013 at the AO such a major accomplishment? He made one quarter and other than that never progressed past the 3rd round, yet there are 7 of such years, where the eventual champion would benefit on this metric if he had played (and beaten) Wawa:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislas_Wawrinka

But Wawrinka is sort of an outlier being a one-time champion which just happened this year. Since he didn't have much success before it would be rare for him to meet the top players consistently. So this is more the exception than the rule. He's played Federer and Nadal once each, and never faced Djokovic before 2013.

In my mind, it all balances out, because you also have results from Fed, Nadal and Djokovic before they became slam champs. So Nadal gets a loss for losing to roddick at the USO in 2004, when he was 18. Djokovic gets a loss for losing to Safin at the AO in 2005 in his first GS match ever, when he was 17.

 

[Russeljones]

This is why I used the words "refurbished Big 4 H2H". This has been done (a lot) already. I think a more interesting subject would be average Slam event progress. Which guys made the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th rounds and so on.

 

[Chanwan]

But Wawrinka is sort of an outlier being a one-time champion which just happened this year. Since he didn't have much success before it would be rare for him to meet the top players consistently. So this is more the exception than the rule. He's played Federer and Nadal once each, and never faced Djokovic before 2013.

In my mind, it all balances out, because you also have results from Fed, Nadal and Djokovic before they became slam champs. So Nadal gets a loss for losing to roddick at the USO in 2004, when he was 18. Djokovic gets a loss for losing to Safin at the AO in 2005 n his first GS match ever, when he was 17.

You would be the better judge of that as you've seen all the matches you've counted.
There haven't been many GS champs in the last decade (Safin, Delpo, Wawa and the Big 4). But even in this instance, there are other outliers.

How big an achievement has it really been to beat Hewitt at Wimbledon and the US from 2006 or so onwards?
Delpo at the US any year but 2009?
etc.

Moreover, when Fed started out, there were many more champs in the field. Without seeing all the data, I can't tell whether or not his numbers have been inflated or deflated by this (i.e. running into a lot of champions, he couldn't beat between 98-2002/03).

 

[drm025]

You would be the better judge of that as you've seen all the matches you've counted.
There haven't been many GS champs in the last decade (Safin, Delpo, Wawa and the Big 4). But even in this instance, there are other outliers.

How big an achievement has it really been to beat Hewitt at Wimbledon and the US from 2006 or so onwards?
Delpo at the US any year but 2009?
etc.

Moreover, when Fed started out, there were many more champs in the field. Without seeing all the data, I can't tell whether or not his numbers have been inflated or deflated by this (i.e. running into a lot of champions, he couldn't beat between 98-2002/03).

Fed's number weren't really affected by that period. He was 1-1 against slam champions before winning the AO in 2004. That's it. He beat Sampras at 2001 Wimbledon and lost to Agassi at the 2001 USO. The next slam champion he faced was Safin at the AO 2004 who had yet to win the AO.

 

[Chanwan]

Fed's number weren't really affected by that period. He was 1-1 against slam champions before winning the AO in 2004. That's it. He beat Sampras at 2001 Wimbledon and lost to Agassi at the 2001 USO. The next slam champion he faced was Safin at the AO 2004 who had yet to win the AO.

Ah, cheers. Perhaps the data ain't that bad at all and all equals out in the end.

 

[urban]

I think, Laver was 20-9 playing Champions in particular Majors, 10-3 at Wimbledon.

 

[drm025]

I think, Laver was 20-9 playing Champions in particular Majors, 10-3 at Wimbledon.

Wow, really? Same overall numbers as Nadal currently.

 

[urban]

Now i have 21-9 for Laver. I overlooked an early Forest Hills match with a young Arthur Ashe, at the moment i have for Laver 10-3 at Wim (beginning 1958 with a loss to Drobny), 5-2 at Forest Hills, 3-3 at RG and 3-1 at the Australian.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

This is why I used the words "refurbished Big 4 H2H". This has been done (a lot) already. I think a more interesting subject would be average Slam event progress. Which guys made the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th rounds and so on.

Then why don't you create that thread? Instead of clogging up an otherwise interesting thread when your constant negativity?

 

[hoodjem]

When discussing the strength of a GS draw a lot of people talk about how many GS champions a certain player had to face. I think it is more relevant to discuss how many champions of that particular slam a certain player had to beat. For example, beating Sampras at the French was probably much easier than doing it at any other slam. You may argue that surface homogenization makes it easier to perform well at all the slams but still only 4 players have accomplished the career slam in the open era (Laver,Agassi,Federer,Nadal).

For Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic, I have compiled all of their wins against slam winners at each particular slam (AO champs at AO, RG champs at RG, Wimby champs at Wimby, and USO champs at USO).

Federer
Overall: 25-18 or 58%
Finals: 8-9 or 47%
AO: 5-6 or 45%
RG: 1-6 or 14%
Wimby: 8-2 or 80%
USO: 11-4 or 73%

Nadal
Overall: 20-9 or 69%
Finals: 10-6 or 63%
AO: 4-2 or 67%
RG: 6-0 or 100%
Wimby: 6-3 or 67%
USO: 4-4 or 50%

Djokovic
Overall: 15-20 or 43%
Finals: 4-7 or 36%
AO: 4-3 or 57%
RG: 1-7 or 13%
Wimby: 4-3 or 57%
USO: 6-7 or 46%

Federer has the most wins and the most matches overall. Nadal has the best overall win percentage and win percentage in finals, as well as best percentage at the AO and RG. Federer has the best win percentage at Wimby and the USO. Federer has the most wins at one slam against champs at that slam (US open, 11 wins), though if Djokovic wins RG at some point Nadal would beat that with 12 wins at RG. Also, if Djokovic wins the French, Nadal and Fed would then both be tied with 26 wins overall and Nadal would move to a pretty impressive 12-6 or 67% in GS finals.

Before 2008, Federer had an impressive overall record of 16-6 or 73%.

Federer has won 5 slams (2 AO, 1 RG, 2 Wimby) without facing a champion of that slam. Nadal has won 4 slams (4 RG) without facing a champion of that slam, but if Djokovic wins RG that number goes down to 1. Djokovic has won all of his slams beating a champion of that slam.

Federer has beaten 2 different champions during the same tournament 6 times, once at Wimby and 5 times at the USO. Nadal has done it 3 times (1 RG, 1 Wimby, 1 USO) and Djokovic has done it 1 time at the USO.

*Sorry if people feel that me mentioning the possibility of Djokovic winning the French is biased in order to lift up Nadal, but I think most people would agree that he has a very good chance to win at least one.

Most interesting.

Another example of how Nadal bests Federer again, except in the total of majors.

I wonder where Djoker will end up when all is said and done. Give it time.

 

[NatF]

Most interesting.

Another example of how Nadal bests Federer again, except in the total of majors.

I wonder where Djoker will end up when all is said and done. Give it time.

Don't really see it. Federer is far a head at the USO and Wimbledon, far behind at the FO and half Federer's losses at the AO have come since he was nearly 29...

 

[kiki]

Now i have 21-9 for Laver. I overlooked an early Forest Hills match with a young Arthur Ashe, at the moment i have for Laver 10-3 at Wim (beginning 1958 with a loss to Drobny), 5-2 at Forest Hills, 3-3 at RG and 3-1 at the Australian.

1959 wasn´t it? Ashe´s first match at a GS tourney

He left the court vomiting ( was only 16)

 

[drm025]

For those interested in the stats only including players who had already won the particular slam or were in the process of winning the title, here are the numbers.

Federer
Overall: 15-17 or 47%
Finals: 3-8 or 27%
AO: 2-6 or 25%
RG: 1-6 or 14%
Wimby: 5-2 or 71%
USO: 7-3 or 70%

Nadal
Overall: 9-8 or 53%
Finals: 4-6 or 40%
AO: 3-2 or 60%
RG: 2-0 or 100%
Wimby: 2-3 or 40%
USO: 2-3 or 40%

Djokovic
Overall: 13-19 or 41%
Finals: 4-7 or 36%
AO: 3-3 or 50%
RG: 1-7 or 13%
Wimby: 4-2 or 67%
USO: 5-7 or 42%

The sample size becomes smaller but Nadal still has the best percentage overall and in finals. This still shows Fed's strong record at Wimbledon and the US Open but a 3-8 record in finals is pretty glaring. He has only beaten 3 established champions in slam finals all at the US Open (Hewitt in 2004, Agassi in 2005, and Roddick in 2006). He has never beaten a big 4 member in the final of a slam that they had already won. Nadal has done it 4 times, once at every major (Fed at 2009 AO, Fed at 2011 RG, Fed at 2008 Wimby, Djokovic at 2013 USO). Djokovic has done it 4 times total and at each slam but the French (Nadal at 2012 AO, Nadal at 2011 Wimby and Fed at 2014 Wimby, Nadal at 2011 USO).

This may be a better way to look at it, at least in regards to slams finals. When not playing an established champion in the final, Federer is 14-0, Nadal is 10-0, and Djokovic is 3-0 (all 100% win percentage). When playing an established champion their percentages go to 27%, 40%, and 36%, respectively. That is a huge difference.

 

[NatF]

For those interested in the stats only including players who had already won the particular slam or were in the process of winning the title, here are the numbers.

Federer
Overall: 15-17 or 47%
Finals: 3-8 or 27%
AO: 2-6 or 25%
RG: 1-6 or 14%
Wimby: 5-2 or 71%
USO: 7-3 or 70%

Nadal
Overall: 9-8 or 53%
Finals: 4-6 or 40%
AO: 3-2 or 60%
RG: 2-0 or 100%
Wimby: 2-3 or 40%
USO: 2-3 or 40%

Djokovic
Overall: 13-19 or 41%
Finals: 4-7 or 36%
AO: 3-3 or 50%
RG: 1-7 or 13%
Wimby: 4-2 or 67%
USO: 5-7 or 42%

The sample size becomes smaller but Nadal still has the best percentage overall and in finals. This still shows Fed's strong record at Wimbledon and the US Open but a 3-8 record in finals is pretty glaring. He has only beaten 3 established champions in slam finals all at the US Open (Hewitt in 2004, Agassi in 2005, and Roddick in 2006). Nadal has done it 4 times, once at every major (Fed at 2009 AO, Fed at 2011 RG, Fed at 2008 Wimby, Djokovic at 2013 USO). Djokovic has done it 4 times total and at each slam but the French (Nadal at 2012 AO, Nadal at 2011 Wimby and Fed at 2014 Wimby, Nadal at 2011 USO).

This may be a better way to look at it, at least in regards to slams finals. When not playing an established champion in the final, Federer is 14-0, Nadal is 10-0, and Djokovic is 3-0 (all 100% win percentage). When playing an established champion their percentages go to 27%, 40%, and 36%, respectively. That is a huge difference.

As Nadal exits his prime his percentages will inevitably drop. To extent who knows.

 

[drm025]

Converting the data also made me realize that Federer has only 1 win against a big 4 member at any round of a slam that they had already won. That win was the 2012 Wimbledon semi against Djokovic. He is 1-13 when playing the Big 4 in slams after they had won that particular slam.

 

[Chanwan]

For those interested in the stats only including players who had already won the particular slam or were in the process of winning the title, here are the numbers.

Federer
Overall: 15-17 or 47%
Finals: 3-8 or 27%
AO: 2-6 or 25%
RG: 1-6 or 14%
Wimby: 5-2 or 71%
USO: 7-3 or 70%

Nadal
Overall: 9-8 or 53%
Finals: 4-6 or 40%
AO: 3-2 or 60%
RG: 2-0 or 100%
Wimby: 2-3 or 40%
USO: 2-3 or 40%

Djokovic
Overall: 13-19 or 41%
Finals: 4-7 or 36%
AO: 3-3 or 50%
RG: 1-7 or 13%
Wimby: 4-2 or 67%
USO: 5-7 or 42%

The sample size becomes smaller but Nadal still has the best percentage overall and in finals. This still shows Fed's strong record at Wimbledon and the US Open but a 3-8 record in finals is pretty glaring. He has only beaten 3 established champions in slam finals all at the US Open (Hewitt in 2004, Agassi in 2005, and Roddick in 2006). He has never beaten a big 4 member in the final of a slam that they had already won. Nadal has done it 4 times, once at every major (Fed at 2009 AO, Fed at 2011 RG, Fed at 2008 Wimby, Djokovic at 2013 USO). Djokovic has done it 4 times total and at each slam but the French (Nadal at 2012 AO, Nadal at 2011 Wimby and Fed at 2014 Wimby, Nadal at 2011 USO).

This may be a better way to look at it, at least in regards to slams finals. When not playing an established champion in the final, Federer is 14-0, Nadal is 10-0, and Djokovic is 3-0 (all 100% win percentage). When playing an established champion their percentages go to 27%, 40%, and 36%, respectively. That is a huge difference.

What's the most interesting in these numbers to me is that Novak has played almost twice the numbers of established champions than Nadal has.
But I guess, like with Fed, it's a bit a matter of age and when they broke through.
Novak has played Fedal a lot at slams where they were established champions.

Fed has kept Nadal (at Wimbledon), Djoko at 3 consecutive US Opens and Murray at various slams from establishing themselves as champions at that slam. When they finally did, they had overtaken Fed.

 

[NatF]

Converting the data also made me realize that Federer has only 1 win against a big 4 member at any round of a slam that they had already won. That win was the 2012 Wimbledon semi against Djokovic.

Not surprising really considering most of his slam finals were before their time...

He hasn't met any of them at the USO since they won it. Likewise at Wimbledon he's only had two cracks at it with Djokovic. Obviously we know the story at the FO. The AO he's at 2 shots at Nadal and 1 at Djokovic. For all of these attempts he's been 29 or older...

But spin it however you want.

 

[kiki]

Is there anything similar, at least, in the last 35 years in the US Open annals to what Mc Enroe achieved in 1980? I very much doubt it.

He beat Ivan Lendl in the QF
Jimmy Connors in the SF
Bjorn Borg in the F

 

[TMF]

Nadal's number could be the worst of the three when he's 33. Who knows.

 

[Chanwan]

Not surprising really considering most of his slam finals were before their time...

He hasn't met any of them at the USO since they won it. Likewise at Wimbledon he's only had two cracks at it with Djokovic. Obviously we know the story at the FO. The AO he's at 2 shots at Nadal and 1 at Djokovic. For all of these attempts he's been 29 or older...

But spin it however you want.

Context ain't that bad, when you think about it ;-)

 

[drm025]

Not surprising really considering most of his slam finals were before their time...

He hasn't met any of them at the USO since they won it. Likewise at Wimbledon he's only had two cracks at it with Djokovic. Obviously we know the story at the FO. The AO he's at 2 shots at Nadal and 1 at Djokovic. For all of these attempts he's been 29 or older...

But spin it however you want.

I get what you're saying, but I'm not spinning anything, just stating the facts. You trying to justify it is fine. But don't accuse me of doing anything else but stating facts.

 

[Chanwan]

I get what you're saying, but I'm not spinning anything, just stating the facts. You trying to justify it is fine. But don't accuse me of doing anything else but stating facts.

The implication of the fact - that Fed couldn't beat them once they were champions at that slam - was, at least to me as a reader, that that wasn't that great on his behalf.
The added comments from NatF as to which slams those were gave that a valuable context - Fed being 29 or older in all the (relatively few) meetings, where he came up against them as champions, except for the FO.

 

[drm025]

The implication of the fact - that Fed couldn't beat them once they were champions at that slam - was, at least to me as a reader, that that wasn't that great on his behalf.
The added comments from NatF as to which slams those were gave that a valuable context - Fed being 29 or older in all the (relatively few) meetings, where he came up against them as champions, except for the FO.

That's all fine, but I don't think I put on a "spin" on it. If he doesn't like the facts that I chose to highlight then he can bring out some other facts to counter if he likes, but don't accuse me of being subjective.

And to add some more context, Federer was the number 1 player in the world at 31 years old. So, I'd say he was still kickin' at 29.

 

[Chanwan]

That's all fine, but I don't think I put on a "spin" on it. If he doesn't like the facts that I chose to highlight then he can bring out some other facts to counter if he likes, but don't accuse me of being subjective.

Sure, I didn't read spin it the way you read it. More like - do with that information whatever you want. Anyhow, thanks for the data - great collection.

 

[hoodjem]

Nadal's number could be the worst of the three when he's 33. Who knows.

True.

If Nadal was "smart," he'd win four slams in a row, then retire immediately. But . . .

 

[drm025]

For those interested, the overall records against established champions when only looking at the Big 4 is:

Federer: 1-13 or 7%
Nadal: 6-5 or 55%
Djokovic: 9-16 or 36%

It really is insane how many matches Djokovic has already had to play against the Big 4 as established champions. On the flip side, Nadal has the least meetings, but all of his 13 wins against the Big 4 at RG don't count here except for one (2011 RG final against Federer).

 

[Mainad]

For those interested, the overall records against established champions when only looking at the Big 4 is:

Federer: 1-13 or 7%
Nadal: 6-5 or 55%
Djokovic: 9-16 or 36%

It really is insane how many matches Djokovic has already had to play against the Big 4 as established champions. On the flip side, Nadal has the least meetings, but all of his 13 wins against the Big 4 at RG don't count here except for one (2011 RG final against Federer).

It's certainly notable but not insane. Federer and Nadal were already multi-Slam winning champions by the time Djokovic reached his peak. It stands to reason that he would have to go through them a lot more in order to reach their level.

 

[NatF]

I get what you're saying, but I'm not spinning anything, just stating the facts. You trying to justify it is fine. But don't accuse me of doing anything else but stating facts.

I think you have an agenda, I've said this before.

These comparisons are a bit unfair due to the age gap really and like I pointed out Federer hasn't had a chance to compete much versus these guys since the won the USO or Wimbledon his best slams!

 

[drm025]

I think you have an agenda, I've said this before.

These comparisons are a bit unfair due to the age gap really and like I pointed out Federer hasn't had a chance to compete much versus these guys since the won the USO or Wimbledon his best slams!

And I've also said before that I'm not trying to hide anything. Anyone familiar with me knows that I am a Nadal fan so sure I am going to naturally look for things that make him look good. It doesn't make them any less true, though.

Yes, I realize Federer is older but his longevity really hurts all of your arguments about him being too old to be competitive. He was the number 1 in the world in the latter half of 2012. I don't know why anything before that wouldn't be fair game. Being number 1 requires more than just flashes of good form. It requires consistently good form, and if he could achieve that at 30 years old, age wouldn't hold him back at 29. Even in an "awful" year riddled with injuries in 2013, he never left the top ten. And now, on the verge of 33, he is in the top 3. He's still capable of beating everyone pretty consistently except for the Big 4.

 

[NatF]

And I've also said before that I'm not trying to hide anything. Anyone familiar with me knows that I am a Nadal fan so sure I am going to naturally look for things that make him look good. It doesn't make them any less true, though.

Yes, I realize Federer is older but his longevity really hurts all of your arguments about him being too old to be competitive. He was the number 1 in the world in the latter half of 2012. I don't know why anything before that wouldn't be fair game. Being number 1 requires more than just flashes of good form. It requires consistently good form, and if he could achieve that at 30 years old, age wouldn't hold him back at 29. Even in an "awful" year riddled with injuries in 2013, he never left the top ten. And now, on the verge of 33, he is in the top 3. He's still capable of beating everyone pretty consistently except for the Big 4.

His longevity hurts nothing. Like I told you before he's only met the Big 4 twice at Wimbledon since any of them won it, never met them at the USO. He's got wins over at least won of them at every major. The fact he hasn't got more since they won a title is a matter of circumstance.

Beating everyone consistently except the Big 3 doesn't mean he's close to his best...I never said he was too old to be competitive. I pointed out he was at least 29 years old for most of his meetings with the Big 4 when they were slam winners. If you don't think that's important information then you should stop pretending you're objective and just presenting facts - you're leaving out important information because it might shed some light on the facts of the numbers.

Looking at only the post slam win percentages is unfair, because it doesn't count Federer stopping these guys from winning the slams earlier and punishes him for playing them when they're peaking and he's not.

 

[drm025]

His longevity hurts nothing. Like I told you before he's only met the Big 4 twice at Wimbledon since any of them won it, never met them at the USO. He's got wins over at least won of them at every major. The fact he hasn't got more since they won a title is a matter of circumstance.

Beating everyone consistently except the Big 3 doesn't mean he's close to his best...I never said he was too old to be competitive. I pointed out he was at least 29 years old for most of his meetings with the Big 4 when they were slam winners. If you don't think that's important information then you should stop pretending you're objective and just presenting facts - you're leaving out important information because it might shed some light on the facts of the numbers.

Looking at only the post slam win percentages is unfair, because it doesn't count Federer stopping these guys from winning the slams earlier and punishes him for playing them when they're peaking and he's not.

It also doesn't count 12 of Nadal's wins against the big 4 at RG because he's won the thing 9 of the 10 times he's played it. It's not perfect at all, but it's objective. You can point out whatever details you like, but it doesn't make facts subjective. I never said Federer stinks because of these facts, that would be subjective.

I think what I am doing is exactly what you are trying to do. Shed some light on some of the numbers. In my case, it is Federer's 17 slams. I think it's interesting to note that only 3 of those finals were won against established champions at that particular slam and that it only occurred at the US Open. Take from it what you want, but those are the facts.

Nadal has only done it one more time than Federer, but he has accomplished it at every slam and against all-time greats each time. Again, you can take it or leave it, but it is a fact.

 

[NatF]

It also doesn't count 12 of Nadal's wins against the big 4 at RG because he's won the thing 9 of the 10 times he's played it. It's not perfect at all, but it's objective. You can point out whatever details you like, but it doesn't make facts subjective. I never said Federer stinks because of these facts, that would be subjective.

I think what I am doing is exactly what you are trying to do. Shed some light on some of the numbers. In my case, it is Federer's 17 slams. I think it's interesting to note that only 3 of those finals were won against established champions at that particular slam and that it only occurred at the US Open. Take from it what you want, but those are the facts.

Nadal has only done it one more time than Federer, but he has accomplished it at every slam and against all-time greats each time. Again, you can take it or leave it, but it is a fact.

Following this sort of logic Nadal's 9 French Opens seem quite hollow because he barely beat any FO champions in the final. Which is foolish considering he beat Federer a future FO champion at his best there.

Likewise I don't see why Federer beating Murray in peak form at Wimbledon 2012 counts less than if he beats him in 2014 e.g. either side of his Wimbledon win in 2013. Why does beating Lleyton Hewitt and Djokovic count less in the SF than in the final either?

It's like Mcenroeartist at a certain points there's so much detail it's distracting and irrelevant. Are Nadal's achievements at the AO as impressive as his achievements at the FO because he beat one former champion at each? That's essentially what you're saying by 'pointing' out how impressive Nadal statistical achievements are over Federer.

Is the real slam tally 4-3 to Nadal?

 

[moonballs]

Nadal will end up 12-0 at the FO if Djokovic wins there. Monstrous.

Where are the weak era believers when you need one?

 

[sbengte]

Might be interesting to count the wins only when the player won the slam, that's a better way to see the strength of draws.

This. I was wondering how you arrived at those numbers, for eg : you said Nadal won 4 RGs without going through a RG slam champ. Which 4 RGs are these ? Are you counting all his wins against Fed prior to 2011 as "wins against RG champ" ? That is incorrect. Only his win against Fed in 2011 counts as "win against RG champ" because Fed wasn't an RG champ upto that point.

 

[Russeljones]

Most interesting.

Another example of how Nadal bests Federer again, except in the total of majors.

I wonder where Djoker will end up when all is said and done. Give it time.

Brilliant analysis. Nadal is so good he made sure he was born at a time where he had Federer to beat. Federer is a loser because he was born too early and had wins over people who weren't Slam champions. Yet again, the real GOAT volleyer of all time is shown to be better than the arrogant Swiss upstart. Amazing thread.

 

[kOaMaster]

hard to get any wins over grand slam champions if you (and your nemesis) hold every single title while former champions either retire, are injured or incapable of performing anything like it.

@OP: Please count how many of those wins by Nadal and Djokovic are against Federer and against each other. That'd be interesting.