Beating the best player in the world

[drm025]

Dont know if this stat has been discussed before, but how many times has each big 4 member beaten the best player in the world to win a slam title? (If they were number 1, that means beating number 2)

Federer - 5/17 or 29%

All 5 times at Wimbledon:
Wimby 2004 - def. #2 Roddick in final
Wimby 2005 - def. #2 Hewitt in semis
Wimby 2006 - def. #2 Nadal in final
Wimby 2007 - def. #2 Nadal in final
Wimby 2012 - def. #1 Djokovic in semis

Nadal - 10/14 or 71%

At least once at every major:
RG 2005 - def. #1 Federer in semis
RG 2006 - def. #1 Federer in final
RG 2007 - def. #1 Federer in final
RG 2008 - def. #1 Federer in final
Wimby 2008 - def. #1 Federer in final
AO 2009 - def. #2 Federer in final
RG 2012 - def. #1 Djokovic in final
RG 2013 - def. #1 Djokovic in semis
USO 2013 - def. #1 Djokovic in final
RG 2014 - def. #2 Djokovic in final

Djokovic - 4/6 or 67%

AO 2008 - def. #1 Federer in semis
Wimby 2011 - def. #1 Nadal in final
USO 2011 - def. #2 Nadal in final
AO 2012 - def. #2 Nadal in final

Murray - 1/2 or 50%

Wimby 2013 - def. #1 Djokovic in final

I know a lot of people will say it means nothing, but it is definitely interesting that Federer hasn't had to go through the best (or second best) player in the world in 12 of his 17 slam titles and has NEVER had to outside of wimbledon. Even worse, he has only done it 3 times in finals (the same number as Djokovic and only 1 more than Murray). I think it just speaks to the time period in which Fed was gathering most of his slams when the number 2 (Nadal) was not consistent off clay, yet continued to hold the number 2 position for 3 years.

Nadal, on the other hand, has done it at every slam (and in the final as well). Djokovic has done it at 3 of the slams. Federer has only done it at 1 and his 29% just does not compare to the other guys.

Do all of Fed's slams count? Of course. I'm not arguing that. Just speaking to the level of consistency from other players during his slam wins.

 

[sbengte]

Dont know if this stat has been discussed before, but how many times has each big 4 member beaten the best player in the world to win a slam title? (If they were number 1, that means beating number 2)

I know a lot of people will say it means nothing, but it is definitely interesting that Federer hasn't had to go through the best (or second best) player in the world in 12 of his 17 slam titles and has NEVER had to outside of wimbledon.

It was Federer's mistake that in his prime, he was always the best player (#1) and the second best player didn't show up against him in the slam finals. At the same time, Federer showed up in slam finals on surfaces not favoring his game or when he was not at his best , giving bonus points to the other finalist for beating the 'best player'.
Shoot him and take away all his slams.

 

[cronus]

OK i agree murray is greater then the clay boy.

 

[bjsnider]

Federer should have been required to play himself in those finals.

 

[drm025]

It was Federer's mistake that in his prime, he was always the best player (#1) and the second best player didn't show up against him in the slam finals. At the same time, he showed up in slam finals on surfaces not favoring his game or when he was not at his best , giving bonus points to the other finalist for beating the 'best player'.
Shoot him and take away all his slams.

Nowhere did I say it was his fault, but that doesn't change the fact that it happened.

Yet another poster believing that Fed just traipses into slam finals when not playing well, lol.

And, I said all of his slams count.

 

[Mainad]

Murray - 2/2 or 100%

USO 2012 - def. #1 Djokovic in final
Wimby 2013 - def. #1 Djokovic in final

Djokovic was actually ranked #2 in that final. Federer was then #1.

So I guess it's 1/2 or 50% for him.

 

[jg153040]

When you are nr.1 for 237 consecutive weeks of your peak, it's hard to beat nr.1 players, don't you think that OP?

Also rankings don't correlate to surfaces, so it doesn't mean much. I mean Sampras was nr.1 at the French open, does that mean that it was more impressive to beat him than Rafa who was nr.4 at RG 2013?

 

[drm025]

Djokovic was actually ranked #2 in that final. Federer was then #1.

So I guess it's 1/2 or 50% for him.

Thanks for the correction.

 

[drm025]

When you are nr.1 for 237 consecutive weeks of your peak, it's hard to beat nr.1 players, don't you think that OP?

Also rankings don't correlate to surfaces, so it doesn't mean much. I mean Sampras was nr.1 at the French open, does that mean that it was more impressive to beat him than Rafa who was nr.4 at RG 2013?

Read the post. If Fed was number 1, then I listed all the slams where he had to beat the #2.

Rankings correlate to consistency. My comment was about the overall consistency of the players.

 

[mike danny]

Read the post. If Fed was number 1, then I listed all the slams where he had to beat the #2.

Rankings correlate to consistency. My comment was about the overall consistency of the players.

Had Federer sucked on clay, Nadal would have had a worse record. See how it goes?

 

[drm025]

Had Federer sucked on clay, Nadal would have had a worse record. See how it goes?

But he didn't.....

He made 5 RG finals which has only been done by, I believe, 3 or 4 other players in the open era. This is a COMPLIMENT to Fed. Either way, he's a great clay player, but he couldn't bother Nadal.

 

[mike danny]

But he didn't.....

He made 5 RG finals which has only been done by, I believe, 3 or 4 other players in the open era. This is a COMPLIMENT to Fed. Either way, he's a great clay player, but he couldn't bother Nadal.

Nobody can bother Nadal on clay. Well, almost nobody.

 

[drm025]

Nobody can bother Nadal on clay. Well, almost nobody.

I dont see how that changes anything except for highlighting how great Nadal is on clay.

 

[jg153040]

Read the post. If Fed was number 1, then I listed all the slams where he had to beat the #2.

Rankings correlate to consistency. My comment was about the overall consistency of the players.

Well just because a guy is ranked nr.2 it doesn't mean he will play at that level on the day, so rankings don't really matter who you beat.

So, what is the difference if you beat nr.2 guy in a final, nr.10, nr.30 if all are playing the same top level of tennis? Doesn't really matter, because a finalist is playing the best tennis at this tournament.

It's the level of play that matters not rankings. So, a player who is ranked lower, but plays far above himself one tournament is tough competition for that tournament.

That goes both ways. Just because a guy is ranked nr.1, that doesn't mean he is tough competition. I mean Rafa was very weak competition this year on grass. Also Sampras was very weak competition on clay but still ranked nr.1.

Rafa was nr.4 at RG 2013, Sampras was nr.1 at RG.

So by your logic Rafa is weaker competition than Sampras on clay. I wish people would think before posting

 

[Russeljones]

Nowhere did I say it was his fault, but that doesn't change the fact that it happened.

Yet another poster believing that Fed just traipses into slam finals when not playing well, lol.

And, I said all of his slams count.

The man was extremely soft on you for this gigantic lapse in logic. You cannot beat the number 1 if you ARE the number one until you decline. Get it!?!

This thread needs to be smothered in facepalm gifs.

 

[drm025]

The man was extremely soft on you for this gigantic lapse in logic. You cannot beat the number 1 if you ARE the number one until you decline. Get it!?!

This thread needs to be smothered in facepalm gifs.

Improve your reading comprehension. If fed was ranked number 1, I listed the slams where he had to beat the next best player. I did the same for all of the Big 4. When he was number 1, he only had to go through the number 2 player in the world 4 times. The consistency of the top players during that time was just not there.

 

[drm025]

Well just because a guy is ranked nr.2 it doesn't mean he will play at that level on the day, so rankings don't really matter who you beat.

So, what is the difference if you beat nr.2 guy in a final, nr.10, nr.30 if all are playing the same top level of tennis? Doesn't really matter, because a finalist is playing the best tennis at this tournament.

It's the level of play that matters not rankings. So, a player who is ranked lower, but plays far above himself one tournament is tough competition for that tournament.

That goes both ways. Just because a guy is ranked nr.1, that doesn't mean he is tough competition. I mean Rafa was very weak competition this year on grass. Also Sampras was very weak competition on clay but still ranked nr.1.

Rafa was nr.4 at RG 2013, Sampras was nr.1 at RG.

So by your logic Rafa is weaker competition than Sampras on clay. I wish people would think before posting

While this is true, you can't use this metric to judge history, otherwise you would have to watch every single match ever played from start to finish. Nobody here has done that, yet everyone has an opinion. The best way to judge a player's level is by ranking and accomplishments. Everyone can have a good day or a bad day. The more consistent players have the highest sustained level. The highest ranked players are the most consistent. Therefore, the highest ranked players have the greatest chance of producing the highest level. This is my logic. You can say that so and so didn't play well one day, but you can never know whether it had to do with their opponent or not. That is subjective, ranking is objective.

 

[NatF]

Federer beat the best players of his day on grass and hard courts. These wins include Djokovic on hard courts as well as other great players. The fact they weren't ranked #1 or #2 at the time is irrelevant.

 

[drm025]

Federer beat the best players of his day on grass and hard courts. These wins include Djokovic on hard courts as well as other great players. The fact they weren't ranked #1 or #2 at the time is irrelevant.

Thank you for your opinion.

Djokovic since 2011 > Djokovic when Federer beat him on hard courts

 

[NatF]

Thank you for your opinion.

Djokovic since 2011 > Djokovic when Federer beat him on hard courts

Djokovic in 2013 wasn't better than Djokovic of 07-09 at the USO. Unless you think 6 winners and 14 UE's is a good set of tennis e.g. Djokovic's first set stats of the final last year at the USO. The 4th set was just as bad.

But keep talking like that's more impressive that Federer taking down the likes of Agassi and Hewitt back to back. Or Roddick who hit 40+ winners in a 3 set set match back in 2007.

 

[torpantennis]

This is just a further testament of the surface homogenization, nothing else. The later we go in history, more and more the same players have succeeded at all surfaces, i.e it's been more and more probable that a slam champion has to beat #1. During 90s, the players winning on clay were totally different than the players winning on grass, e.g. clay champions were not beating #1 Sampras.

Tennis nowadays is boring, with the same players winning on all surfaces. Surface homogenization sucks.

 

[drm025]

Djokovic in 2013 wasn't better than Djokovic of 07-09 at the USO. Unless you think 6 winners and 14 UE's is a good set of tennis e.g. Djokovic's first set stats of the final last year at the USO. The 4th set was just as bad.

But keep talking like that's more impressive that Federer taking down the likes of Agassi and Hewitt back to back. Or Roddick who hit 40+ winners in a 3 set set match back in 2007.

I watched the 2013 USO and the way people talk about djokovic's performance is absolutely ridiculous, imo. Most of those people look at the score only. The level of that match was very high. You can tell the 2 of them were at a different level than the rest of the players on the tour. Nadal was in danger of going down 2 sets to 1 and dug it out.

I wont change my opinion that djokovic and nadal are better than old agassi, hewitt, and roddick.

 

[NatF]

I watched the 2013 USO and the way people talk about djokovic's performance is absolutely ridiculous, imo. Most of those people look at the score only. The level of that match was very high. You can tell the 2 of them were at a different level than the rest of the players on the tour. Nadal was in danger of going down 2 sets to 1 and dug it out.

I wont change my opinion that djokovic and nadal are better than old agassi, hewitt, and roddick.

Djokovic was spraying errors all over the place, even the commentators noted that he was off his game and still reference his collapse in the 4th set. 14 UE's in one set. Many of Federer's opponents played matches at least that good. Going toe to toe with Federer at the USO > doing the same with Nadal or Djokovic.

They're better overall but not necessarily on a match by match basis. Djokovic has the same number of USO titles as Roddick and Hewitt and less than Agassi.

 

[KtM]

Sampras:
2/14 = 14.2%

 

[objectivity]

This is just a further testament of the surface homogenization, nothing else. The later we go in history, more and more the same players have succeeded at all surfaces, i.e it's been more and more probable that a slam champion has to beat #1. During 90s, the players winning on clay were totally different than the players winning on grass, e.g. clay champions were not beating #1 Sampras.

Tennis nowadays is boring, with the same players winning on all surfaces. Surface homogenization sucks.

its true that somehow, the top few players seem to be able to succeed across all surfaces, something the top 90s players don't seem to be able to do. but in the 80s, the top few players were also able to succeed across all surfaces, albeit to arguably a lesser extent that the players these days. Lendl for eg, was great across both fast and slow surfaces. he reached three wimbledon finals, but just wasn't able to win. but he was a beast on carpet AND clay. martina consistently won across both clay and grass. stefan edberg was excellent on clay too. we can't just say that lendl and stefan did not win wimbledon and FO respectively, so they must have sucked on grass and clay.

even if you look at the entire field today, ONLY the top few players seem to be able to play across all surfaces. roddick did not ever get out of the third round in FO. wawrinka's QF this year was his best ever performance on grass.

 

[torpantennis]

Sampras:
2/14 = 14.2%

90s: no surface homogenization

 

[cknobman]

Stupid thread.

Fed has absolutely no control on whether the other best players make it to the finals to face him.

They didnt make it more often than not which only diminishes their own greatness, not Feds.

 

[KtM]

Borg 4/11: 36.36%

Boris Becker: 5/6 (boris had to face a world no.1 player a few times in the semifinals) = 83.3%

 

[torpantennis]

its true that somehow, the top few players seem to be able to succeed across all surfaces, something the top 90s players don't seem to be able to do. but in the 80s, the top few players were also able to succeed across all surfaces, albeit to arguably a lesser extent that the players these days. Lendl for eg, was great across both fast and slow surfaces. he reached three wimbledon finals, but just wasn't able to win. but he was a beast on carpet AND clay. martina consistently won across both clay and grass. stefan edberg was excellent on clay too. we can't just say that lendl and stefan did not win wimbledon and FO respectively, so they must have sucked on grass and clay.

even if you look at the entire field today, ONLY the top few players seem to be able to play across all surfaces. roddick did not ever get out of the third round in FO. wawrinka's QF this year was his best ever performance on grass.

With the top players winning across all surfaces, it could be due to either: 1) GOAT top players, or 2) lack of great surface specialists, due to surface homogenization. Unfortunately, I tend to think it's nowadays that 2nd option.

It was really refreshing to see Feliciano Lopez and Dustin Brown playing so well on grass this season. Lopez clearly is a grass specialist, and he should be offered an equal chance to collect points as all those HC specialists. The tour would really be much more varied, and top players would be in bigger trouble on early rounds, if they had to handle more of these surface specialists.

So my proposal: Make claycourts slower, grasscourts faster, and clearly develop two categories of hardcourts, slow and fast. Then add tournaments to all these categories THROUGHOUT the year, so that players can really specialize on a single surface.

 

[tennisaddict]

OP, your stats are correct. However where you failed miserably is your conclusion.

Based on your stats, your conclusion should have been Federer was consistent he showed up in all major finals, won on everything except FO.

Nadal, on the other hand, won all clay majors and also against post prime Fed, but failed to show up in non clay majors during the initial years , even though he reached number 2 by 2005.


It is Nadal's lack of consistency that should have been exposed.

 

[drm025]

Djokovic was spraying errors all over the place, even the commentators noted that he was off his game and still reference his collapse in the 4th set. 14 UE's in one set. Many of Federer's opponents played matches at least that good. Going toe to toe with Federer at the USO > doing the same with Nadal or Djokovic.

They're better overall but not necessarily on a match by match basis. Djokovic has the same number of USO titles as Roddick and Hewitt and less than Agassi.

Djokovic has the same number of USO titles as roddick and hewitt because he had to deal with federer and nadal, come on now. He has 5 losses to just the 2 of them at the USO. Hewitt and roddick benefitted from the field and that was made clear when they won 0 slams after federer got to number 1.

 

[TMF]

Those stats doesn't prove anything.

 

[drm025]

Stupid thread.

Fed has absolutely no control on whether the other best players make it to the finals to face him.

They didnt make it more often than not which only diminishes their own greatness, not Feds.

Thats what I said.... it says something about the consistency of the field during that time. But at the same time, that is who fed had to beat to win the majority of his titles.

 

[drm025]

OP, your stats are correct. However where you failed miserably is your conclusion.

Based on your stats, your conclusion should have been Federer was consistent he showed up in all major finals, won on everything except FO.

Nadal, on the other hand, won all clay majors and also against post prime Fed, but failed to show up in non clay majors during the initial years , even though he reached number 2 by 2005.


It is Nadal's lack of consistency that should have been exposed.

Yes, nadal's lack of consistency off clay before 2008 is exposed, which only exposes the lack of consistency from the rest of the field from 2005-2007 with Nadal consistently at number 2.

 

[drm025]

Those stats doesn't prove anything.

Care to elaborate?

 

[tennisaddict]

Yes, nadal's lack of consistency off clay before 2008 is exposed, which only exposes the lack of consistency from the rest of the field from 2005-2007 with Nadal consistently at number 2.

How does it expose the lack of consistency of the field ? It is just Rafa. You are talking about beating the number 1 or number 2 player.

Fed and Rafa were number 1 and 2 all those years. Fed did his duty by being there at the business end. Rafa didnt. And you blame Fed for it ?

Safin and Hewitt are as accomplished as Murray, Nole has been there since 2007, Rafa since 2005, Davydenko was consistent then. Your memory is what that needs tweaking.

 

[tennisaddict]

Thats what I said.... it says something about the consistency of the field during that time. But at the same time, that is who fed had to beat to win the majority of his titles.

I remeber you creating similar thread few months back or at least posting these stats. Why didnt you just bump that ?

Guess you are hurting from the 32 year old making the final for the 9th time ?

 

[TMF]

Care to elaborate?

Ranking doesn't reflect quality play. For example, Gonzalez in 2007 AO was playing lights out tennis, but he was ranked #7. Nadal was #2 but got smoked by Gonzalez. Using your fallacy, Nadal(#2), Davydenko(#3), or Ljubicic(#4) would be a tougher opponent simply because they ranked higher than Gonzo. But the fact is Gonzo was the 2nd best player during 2007 AO, hands down!

 

[torpantennis]

Thats what I said.... it says something about the consistency of the field during that time. But at the same time, that is who fed had to beat to win the majority of his titles.

Consistency of the field is nowadays better than ever due to surface homogenization.

 

[drm025]

I remeber you creating similar thread few months back or at least posting these stats. Why didnt you just bump that ?

Guess you are hurting from the 32 year old making the final for the 9th time ?

Ive never posted these stats before or seen them before, just gathered them today, so you're thinking of someone else.

 

[drm025]

How does it expose the lack of consistency of the field ? It is just Rafa. You are talking about beating the number 1 or number 2 player.

Fed and Rafa were number 1 and 2 all those years. Fed did his duty by being there at the business end. Rafa didnt. And you blame Fed for it ?

Safin and Hewitt are as accomplished as Murray, Nole has been there since 2007, Rafa since 2005, Davydenko was consistent then. Your memory is what that needs tweaking.

If rafa from 2005-2007 is just a dirtballer and clay is such a small part of the season, then him being number 2 shows how inconsistent the other players are. Fed did not have to beat the most consistent player besides him(#2) in any slam outside of wimbledon ever. Whether it means something or not, don't you just find it peculiar?

 

[tennisaddict]

Ive never posted these stats before or seen them before, just gathered them today, so you're thinking of someone else.

I am quoting your post from Feb 2014.

Who was Federer's main opposition outside the French Open during his peak ?

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=8103544#post8103544

I agree with all of this, FOD. For me, the main thing is the competition at the top, not how many "good" players there are. For instance, say Nadal wins slam A beating Tsonga, Berdych, and Wawrinka along the way and wins slam B beating Djokovic in the final. Which slam would everyone say was more earned? I think everyone would say slam B.

Slam A is a basic example of the majority of slams that Federer won from 2004-2007. Beating 2 or 3 good players that will not go down as all-time greats. And a couple other slams catching an all-time great in his last ever GS final, and another top player in his first ever GS final.

 

[tennisaddict]

If rafa from 2005-2007 is just a dirtballer and clay is such a small part of the season, then him being number 2 shows how inconsistent the other players are. Fed did not have to beat the most consistent player besides him(#2) in any slam outside of wimbledon ever. Whether it means something or not, don't you just find it peculiar?

Rafa plays 65% of matches on clay and is unbeaten there. Why is it a mystery for you that he was a number 2 then ?

The problem is when it came to majors , he was not good enough on hard, On grass he was still very decent since he knew that to be an icon he needs to do well there.

 

[drm025]

I am quoting your post from Feb 2014.

Who was Federer's main opposition outside the French Open during his peak ?

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=8103544#post8103544

I agree with all of this, FOD. For me, the main thing is the competition at the top, not how many "good" players there are. For instance, say Nadal wins slam A beating Tsonga, Berdych, and Wawrinka along the way and wins slam B beating Djokovic in the final. Which slam would everyone say was more earned? I think everyone would say slam B.

Slam A is a basic example of the majority of slams that Federer won from 2004-2007. Beating 2 or 3 good players that will not go down as all-time greats. And a couple other slams catching an all-time great in his last ever GS final, and another top player in his first ever GS final.

I dont understand how this is me providing the same stats I did today? It's a related topic, but its not the same information at all. I was unaware that fed never beat the number 1 or the number 2 during his reign at the top at any slam outside of wimbledon.

 

[drm025]

Rafa plays 65% of matches on clay and is unbeaten there. Why is it a mystery for you that he was a number 2 then ?

The problem is when it came to majors , he was not good enough on hard, On grass he was still very decent since he knew that to be an icon he needs to do well there.

65% is grossly overexaggerating. Either way who cares how much he plays on clay when only a quarter of the slams are clay and a third of the masters are clay. The majority of points are available off of clay. If rafa is only consistent on clay, then roddick and hewitt should outperform him at every tournament off of clay. If they did, they should be ranked above him. They couldnt do that...

 

[tennisaddict]

I dont understand how this is me providing the same stats I did today? It's a related topic, but its not the same information at all. I was unaware that fed never beat the number 1 or the number 2 during his reign at the top at any slam outside of wimbledon.

Do you also not know Fed was number 1 for 237 weeks and so he cannot play the number 1 ?

 

[tennisaddict]

65% is grossly overexaggerating. Either way who cares how much he plays on clay when only a quarter of the slams are clay and a third of the masters are clay. The majority of points are available off of clay. If rafa is only consistent on clay, then roddick and hewitt should outperform him at every tournament off of clay. If they did, they should be ranked above him. They couldnt do that...

You dont understand that there was weak clay competition and there was high hard court competition ?

How does it matter how many hard court tournaments are there , when Rafa was mopping all the clay court points available in the calendar ?

 

[tennisaddict]

I dont understand how this is me providing the same stats I did today? It's a related topic, but its not the same information at all. I was unaware that fed never beat the number 1 or the number 2 during his reign at the top at any slam outside of wimbledon.

Only a fool cannot see that it is the same topic.

 

[drm025]

Do you also not know Fed was number 1 for 237 weeks and so he cannot play the number 1 ?

AGAIN, the statistic includes beating the number 1 OR the number 2 if the player in question was the number 1 player. It doesn't matter if fed was number one or not, the question is did he beat the best player available in the rest of the field.

 

[drm025]

You dont understand that there was weak clay competition and there was high hard court competition ?

How does it matter how many hard court tournaments are there , when Rafa was mopping all the clay court points available in the calendar ?

Exactly as I said, if hewitt and roddick outperform rafa at every tournament that is not clay, they should finish the year ahead of him. They could not and they did not.