Big 3 major meetings

[Spencer Gore]

We all agree that the majors are the true test of greatness.

The stats for major meetings between the big 3 are as follows:

NADAL 18 wins 7 losses
DJOKOVIC 13 wins 15 losses
FEDERER 9 wins 18 losses

So, Nadal has a 72% win rate against Fed and Djoko in majors.
Djokovic has a 46% win rate.
And Federer trails in last with a 33% win rate against his biggest rivals at the slams.

What does this tell us off their respective merits? Is Nadal the undisputed big match player? Is Djoko a 50/50 kind of player. Has Federer been found seriously wanting in slam matches when his rivals have been fellow ATGs?

I'm not interested in fan boy arguments. I'm only interested in serious replies from tennis lovers who wish to deal with the facts as posted above.

 

[ForumMember]

Some of the part of numbers have to do with the kind of grip Nadal kept on FO. That explains his better numbers as his clay court play is of undisputed GOAT level and Djokovic has suffered more because of that. Federer numbers are little difficuklt to explain. Age factor may be cited a reason but that would not survive a closer scrutiny.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Okay so I didn't read the OP post, but I'm going to guess what it is.

This thread is about a stat which a) Federer lags behind in, b) is provided with no context, and c) is largely due to the fact that Fed mostly lost to Nadal and Djokovic in slams post-2009, after his prime had ended.

How did I do?

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Could ya maybe make a thread that isn't about criticising Federer tho?
Like, is that within the realms of possibility? Just to mix it up a little?

 

[Spencer Gore]

Okay so I didn't read the OP post, but I'm going to guess what it is.

This thread is about a stat which a) Federer lags behind in, b) is provided with no context, and c) is largely due to the fact that Fed mostly lost to Nadal and Djokovic in slams post-2009, after his prime had ended.

How did I do?

Not very well.

Pre 2009 major meetings

Federer v Nadal - Federer 2 wins. Nadal 6 wins.

 

[TheAssassin]

Half of Nadal's big matches happened at one particular Major and he has the lowest total number of those meetings. Shocking. Can't lose to Big 3 if you get squashed during the first week.

 

[True Fanerer]

Not very well.

Pre 2009 major meetings

Federer v Nadal - Federer 2 wins. Nadal 6 wins.

19-16 stop making threads goodbye.

 

[NatF]

Half of Nadal's big matches happened at one particular Major and he has the lowest totalvnumber of those meetings. Shocking. Can't lose to Big 3 if you get squashed during the first week.

Nadal is the ultimate opportunist. Picks his spots very wisely.

 

[chut]

These very special stats tell me with strong certitude that you are a member of the infamous VB that created and still now continues to tell us that H2H is the ultimate tennis stat, although it's been proven to be stupid many, many times.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Not very well.

You sure?

Pre 2009 major meetings

Federer v Nadal - Federer 2 wins. Nadal 6 wins.

5/6 of those wins on clay lol, and the other one being one of the greatest matches ever played. And Nadal not even making the finals outside of those meetings.
Next

 

[Spencer Gore]

You sure?


5/6 of those wins on clay lol, and the other one being one of the greatest matches ever played. And Nadal not even making the finals outside of those meetings.
Next

Clay is one of the major surfaces. Why are you discounting it?

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Clay is one of the major surfaces. Why are you discounting it?

It's called putting it into perspective. It's only 1/4 of the majors. Meanwhile Nads trailed Fed at another major in the same period and couldn't even reach him at the remaining two.

Clay is fine, but Nadal's "dominance" of Fed is a story of clay. Roger is not only fine against Nadal everywhere else, but actually leads.
Myth busted.

 

[True Fanerer]

Nadal is the ONLY all-time great to never win a WTF. He has lost Federer 5 straight times. He did not win a major outside of clay until Federer's tenth year as a pro. Djokovic did not win his 2nd major out of 12 until Roger had been a pro for thirteen years. Do you see the pattern here?

 

[Spencer Gore]

It's called putting it into perspective. It's only 1/4 of the majors. Meanwhile Nads trailed Fed at another major in the same period and couldn't even reach him at the remaining two.

Clay is fine, but Nadal's "dominance" of Fed is a story of clay. Roger is not only fine against Nadal everywhere else, but actually leads.
Myth busted.

Unfortunately for you, the facts say otherwise. Federer trails 3-4 in major meetings between the two at the other slams.

 

[Red Rick]

Splitting by surface would me more interesting, but even then it looks bad for Federer

 

[Spencer Gore]

Nadal is the ONLY all-time great to never win a WTF. He has lost Federer 5 straight times. He did not win a major outside of clay until Federer's tenth year as a pro. Djokovic did not win his 2nd major out of 12 until Roger had been a pro for thirteen years. Do you see the pattern here?

Yeah, I see a pattern. Federer has lost 67% of his major meetings with his biggest rivals. Fed is the GOAT, only when other ATG's aren't on the other side of the net.

 

[Red Rick]

Half of Nadal's big matches happened at one particular Major and he has the lowest total number of those meetings. Shocking. Can't lose to Big 3 if you get squashed during the first week.

Federer has been dodging Nadal at the USO quite hardcore though.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Unfortunately for you, the facts say otherwise. Federer trails 3-4 in major meetings between the two at the other slams.

With 2/4 of the losses coming literally years after Fed's prime, and none of them being in his 2004-2007 peak years either.
Prime Federer is 2-2 against Nadal in majors off clay, and that's being generous including 2009. Next

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Federer has been dodging Nadal at the USO quite hardcore though.

I don't believe in the dodging thing. Fed just wasn't good enough to win those matches on the day. He's sucked at the US (compared to his prime) for ages.

Same goes for Nadal. He didn't duck Fed off clay during Fed's prime. He just sucked off clay.

 

[True Fanerer]

Yeah, I see a pattern. Federer has lost 67% of his major meetings with his biggest rivals. Fed is the GOAT, only when other ATG's aren't on the other side of the net.

All of his meetings with Nadal early in his career are on clay because Nadal sucked too much to make it anywhere else. Djokovic finally started and I do mean finally started winning majors after Fed was 13 years in. Just give up your stupid crusade.

 

[NatF]

Federer has been dodging Nadal at the USO quite hardcore though.

Hard not to dodge a guy who's as sporadic on HC as Nadal is.

 

[Spencer Gore]

With 2/4 of the losses coming literally years after Fed's prime, and none of them being in his 2004-2007 peak years either.
Prime Federer is 2-2 against Nadal in majors off clay, and that's being generous including 2009. Next

So, you're forced to twist the figures in the most laughable fashion to even get Federer to 2-2 not including clay!
Case closed.

 

[Red Rick]

This data is interesting, and can be intepreted in multiple ways, depending on which player you like, but I think they all play a part

I think the main conclusions are


- Nadal has the most wins, and the least of encounters. Nadal basically has the worst C game of the 3, but he rarely loses once he goes deep.
- Federer is the oldest, but Djokovic has the most meetings, Djokovic was the most consistent at the height of the big 3.
- Federer's record is bad, no matter which way you look at it, and I don't think he's got a winning record on any surface vs the rest of the big 3.

Would also be interesting to split by surface and year

 

[TheAssassin]

Federer has been dodging Nadal at the USO quite hardcore though.

Nadal did the same when Federer was dominating the USO.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

So, you're forced to twist the figures in the most laughable fashion to even get Federer to 2-2 not including clay!
Case closed.

He leads Nad off clay, including all years. Obviously Nadal with vastly more success on clay.
Rafa the greatest on clay, Federer the greatest otherwise.

Case actually closed. As it already was by about 2006.

 

[True Fanerer]

We all agree that the majors are the true test of greatness.

And Federer has 19 of them.

 

[Spencer Gore]

He leads Nad off clay, including all years. Obviously Nadal with vastly more success on clay.
Rafa the greatest on clay, Federer the greatest otherwise.

Case actually closed. As it already was by about 2006.

He trails Nadal off clay in major meetings. Including clay -which we always should as it is a major surface-Federer is miles behind.
You are entitled to your own biased, wrong opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

- Federer's record is bad, no matter which way you look at it, and I don't think he's got a winning record on any surface vs the rest of the big 3.

He does on grass. 2-1 vs Nadal, 1-2 vs Djok, 2-1 vs. Andy = 5-4

But he's not even in the same generation as the other three. It's amazing that he has as many wins over them as he does (especially since two of them are comparable greats to Rog himself).
If he had a winning record over them that would be astounding.

 

[Spencer Gore]

And Federer has 19 of them.

Of course. As I said, when there isn't another ATG on the other side of the net, Federer is the man.

 

[Spencer Gore]

He does on grass. 2-1 vs Nadal, 1-2 vs Djok, 2-1 vs. Andy = 5-4

But he's not even in the same generation as the other three. It's amazing that he has as many wins over them as he does (especially since two of them are comparable greats to Rog himself).
If he had a winning record over them that would be astounding.

So, he doesn't even have a winning record on grass against his two biggest rivals. Dear oh dear.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

You are entitled to your own biased, wrong opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

Good thing I've posted nothing except the facts, then.

Nadal leading Federer is due to a heavy surface bias and the fact that they are comparably great, but not in the same generation (so the younger guy has a big advantage).
This is plain for all to see.

Neither Nadal nor Djokovic have been good enough to actually win as many majors as Roger, despite them having a large advantage over him in age and beating him most of the time.
Explain that. I guess they must have lost to other, younger, worse players instead lol. You know this. Enough trolling.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

So, he doesn't even have a winning record on grass against his two biggest rivals. Dear oh dear.

When he's from the previous generation that's not too shabby.

 

[Spencer Gore]

Good thing I've posted nothing except the facts, then.

Nadal leading Federer is due to a heavy surface bias and the fact that they are comparably great, but not in the same generation (so the younger guy has a big advantage).
This is plain for all to see.

Neither Nadal nor Djokovic have been good enough to actually win as many majors as Roger, despite them having a large advantage over him in age and beating him most of the time.
Explain that. I guess they must have lost to other, younger, worse players instead lol. You know this. Enough trolling.

It is Federer's age advantage that allowed him to sweep up majors before the other two reached maturity. Once the other two reached maturity, Federer's major winning fell off a cliff.
Those are the facts.

 

[True Fanerer]

Of course. As I said, when there isn't another ATG on the other side of the net, Federer is the man.

I have a stat for you buddy.

Average rank of opponent in GS final losses:

Federer - 2.0
Djokovic - 2.77
Nadal - 4.42

 

[InsideOut900]

HC majors between 2004 and 2009:
Federer 8 and Nadal 1
H2H during that period: Nadal 1-0
**Nothing wrong over there**

Djokovic Nadal H2H 4-9
Times they have met at AO: once
Times they havemet at RG: 7
**Nothing wrong over there either**

 

[Spencer Gore]

HC majors between 2004 and 2009:
Federer 8 and Nadal 1
H2H during that period: Nadal 1-0
**Nothing wrong over there**

Djokovic Nadal H2H 4-9
Times they have met at AO: once
Times they havemet at RG: 7
**Nothing wrong over there either**

Why do you wish to remove clay from the slam record? Clay is one of the two original tennis surfaces. You may as well remove Federer's 8 grass majors from the record, as grass is played in so few tournaments throughout the year.

 

[NatF]

It is Federer's age advantage that allowed him to sweep up majors before the other two reached maturity. Once the other two reached maturity, Federer's major winning fell off a cliff.
Those are the facts.

OK so let me get this straight. Federer had an age advantage before the others peaked, but he wasn't at a disadvantage later on?

Nadal's slam wins fell off a cliff once Djokovic hit his peak and he's now pulling them back by taking advantage of his absence. During 2011-2016 Nadal won only 5 majors compared to Djokovic who won 11.

 

[Charlie]

Why do you wish to remove clay from the slam record? Clay is one of the two original tennis surfaces. You may as well remove Federer's 8 grass majors from the record, as grass is played in so few tournaments throughout the year.

People point out the clay meetings skew, VamosBrigade spin it into people wishing to remove clay from the Slam record. Repeat x infinity. You guys are either very insecure or mentally challenged...

 

[Spencer Gore]

OK so let me get this straight. Federer had an age advantage before the others peaked, but he wasn't at a disadvantage later on?

Nadal's slam wins fell off a cliff once Djokovic hit his peak and he's now pulling them back by taking advantage of his absence. During 2011-2016 Nadal won only 5 majors compared to Djokovic who won 11.

That's right. And I think Djokovic is, in reality, the best player of the 3.

 

[NatF]

That's right. And I think Djokovic is, in reality, the best player of the 3.

The hypocrisy is strong with you. I could just as easily say Nadal reached his prime at an early age but simply wasn't good enough to beat the players in front of him to reach Federer off clay. His very average record on HC against top 10 players would seem to support that no?

 

[MasterZeb]

I'm not interested in fan boy arguments. I'm only interested in serious replies from tennis lovers who wish to deal with the facts as posted above.

I was gonna reply, but then I read this. Luckily I didn't post my argument.

 

[Druss]

Yeah, I see a pattern. Federer has lost 67% of his major meetings with his biggest rivals. Fed is the GOAT, only when other ATG's aren't on the other side of the net.

 

[Red Rick]

He does on grass. 2-1 vs Nadal, 1-2 vs Djok, 2-1 vs. Andy = 5-4

But he's not even in the same generation as the other three. It's amazing that he has as many wins over them as he does (especially since two of them are comparable greats to Rog himself).
If he had a winning record over them that would be astounding.

I'm talking combined.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

I'm talking combined.

Not sure I follow. That is combined.

If you mean combined for a single player then he does again - Murray.

 

[InsideOut900]

Why do you wish to remove clay from the slam record? Clay is one of the two original tennis surfaces. You may as well remove Federer's 8 grass majors from the record, as grass is played in so few tournaments throughout the year.

I don't want to remove clay from discussion.
I am just pinpointing that unless there is some balance in terms of surface distribution and timing of the meetings, the H2H is gonna be biased in favour of one player or another(Nadal in this case), hence why it becomes not so important.

 

[maratha_warrior]

This tells us that Federer & Djokovic are amazing All Surface players and were never afraid to reach and Contest Slam Finals on 'King of Clay' ''s favourite Surface.
Wish Rafael Nadal was as consistent and played finals against Novak at Australian Open , and against Federer at US Open..

 

[metsman]

Federer has been dodging Nadal at the USO quite hardcore though.

Pray tell

 

[Sudacafan]

We all agree that the majors are the true test of greatness.

The stats for major meetings between the big 3 are as follows:

NADAL 18 wins 7 losses
DJOKOVIC 13 wins 15 losses
FEDERER 9 wins 18 losses

So, Nadal has a 72% win rate against Fed and Djoko in majors.
Djokovic has a 46% win rate.
And Federer trails in last with a 33% win rate against his biggest rivals at the slams.

What does this tell us off their respective merits? Is Nadal the undisputed big match player? Is Djoko a 50/50 kind of player. Has Federer been found seriously wanting in slam matches when his rivals have been fellow ATGs?

I'm not interested in fan boy arguments. I'm only interested in serious replies from tennis lovers who wish to deal with the facts as posted above.

Seems the day’s starting with a lethal weapons attack. This thread has it.

 

[smalahove]

Of course. As I said, when there isn't another ATG on the other side of the net, Federer is the man.

2017: Fed - Nadal 4 - 0

 

[fedtennisphan]

2017: Fed - Nadal 4 - 0

That’s the stat Nadal fans are the most bitter about hence the effort to discredit Federer.