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. Mind shut down.
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
A lot of hot air and obvious bias on this thread.
But FACTS are neutral.
The stats for major meetings between the big 3 are as follows:
NADAL 18 wins 7 losses (72% win rate)
DJOKOVIC 13 wins 15 losses (46% win rate)
FEDERER 9 wins 18 losses (33% win rate)
Everything else is just bias and denial.
2010, 2011, 2013, 2017 = 4 timesFederer has been dodging Nadal at the USO quite hardcore though.
To be expected, after all Federer only reached his peak this year. Those 27 other meetings came when he was pre-peak.33%?
Calling 2011 a dodge is nonsense too because they lost to the same guy and Federer was a million times closer to winning. 2004 is a bit harsh on Rafa. Either way it's a blowout considering 2013/2017 Federer was well past 30 with physical problems, all of nadal's dodges were when he was in his 20's, and we're not even counting the years Rafa skipped the USO due to his own physical problems.2010, 2011, 2013, 2017 = 4 times
2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2015 = 7 times
Who's dodging who again?
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.
Djokovic and Murray are going through a bigger slump than Federer and Nadal did in the previous year. They produced clearly worse results this season when they did play and are going through just as bad if not worse injury troubles since they already skipped more tennis this year alone then Federer or Nadal did during Djokovic's whole great 2014-16 run.Now that Djokovic and Murray have taken the same small step back as Fed and Nadal, Fed and Nadal are back leading the pack.
Djokovic and Murray are going through a bigger slump than Federer and Nadal did in the previous year. They produced clearly worse results this season when they did play and are going through just as bad if not worse injury troubles since they already skipped more tennis this year alone then Federer or Nadal did during Djokovic's whole great 2014-16 run.
True. It's just that Djokorray made a clearly bigger step back over the last 12 months both in terms of results and physical conditions, it wasn't a small one, while Fedal weren't dominating the Tour before 2014 Wimbledon either. And Fed was Djokovic's strongest competitor in 2014-15 when he was actually better compared to the year before so it's definitely not the same level of slump or benefit that these two "duos" have had recently. That was my point.It's not solely a matter of skipping events.
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.
I think that the biggest point is the age gap. Tennis players haven't done well past the age of 30. Federer turned 30 in 2011. Players lose a few steps of speed while the injuries keep piling up once they are in their 30s.
It is too tough to consistently beat the top 2-3 players in the world once you turn 30.
Here are some examples of great players that struggled after turning 30.
Sampras only played 59 matches past his 30th birthday while compiling a rather pedestrian 39-20 record. And Sampras only played until a month past his 31st birthday. His decline only would have gotten exponentially worse. Sampras threw in the towel at the right time, IMHO.
Andre Agassi was arguably the best old-player ever until Federer came along. After he turned 30, he went 28-28 vs the top 10. Of all of the records vs the top 10 that I have looked at, Agassi's is in the top 5 for post-30 players. Included in that 28-28 record was an 0-6 record vs Federer. As a matter of fact, Agassi lost the last 8 matches that he played against Fed. Agassi's .500 record vs the top 10 is absolutely amazing. But it's a far cry from playing guys ranked in the top 2.
And lastly, let's look at the case of Jimmy Connors vs Ivan Lendl. They both won a similar amount of majors. These two players to me had fairly equal careers.
Before he turned 30, Connors was 9-1 vs Lendl. After Connors turned 30, he went 4-21 vs Lendl, which includes losing the last 14 consecutive matches that they played. As a matter of fact, Connors went 25-59 vs the top 10 after turning 30. From 30-36, he was 21-45 vs the top 10.
The oldest guy of the group is going to get creamed against a younger top 1-2 guy. Federer has a massive 5 year age disadvantage vs Nadal and 6 vs Djokovic. It's only a matter of time before Federer falls off of a cliff in performance. That fact that he is still competitive at his age is amazing. I don't expect him to win much more against guys like Nadal and Djokovic. Nobody in his 30's has ever won the majority of his matches against a world #1 or world #2 ranking with a 5+ year age disadvantage.
Nadal, even during Fed's prime, was always a bad matchup for Fed. These things happen. It's no more shocking than Davydenko having a 6-5 edge vs Nadal. And during this their rivalry, Nadal was ranked #2 in the world or higher. Davydenko was ranked anywhere from #3 to #54. Bad matchups happen. Nadal didn't like playing Davydenko, unless it was on clay(Nadal was 4-0 vs Davydenko on clay, 1-6 away from clay). Djokovic was 4-5 vs Roddick, despite being ranked higher than Andy during 8 out of their 9 encounters.
Right now, their aren't any heavyweights. But I would bet my house that a prime Federer that was 5-6 years younger than these versions of Nadal and Djokovic would mop the floor with those guys. But Fed is 36, not 25.
well by dodge it doesn't mean they actually tanked to avoid facing, just opportunities which would have influenced h2h but never happened.Nobody is dodging anyone here, come on. These guys are professionals.
It shows nothing. Federer is much older. It shows that.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.
I know but considering Federer met prime Rafa 5 times at RG, 3 times at AO (on slow plexi) on the other hand Rafa met prime Fed 3 times at Wimbledon / USO combined.Calling 2011 a dodge is nonsense too because they lost to the same guy and Federer was a million times closer to winning. 2004 is a bit harsh on Rafa. Either way it's a blowout considering 2013/2017 Federer was well past 30 with physical problems, all of nadal's dodges were when he was in his 20's, and we're not even counting the years Rafa skipped the USO due to his own physical problems.
Very misleading point. Djokovic won 6 of those majors starting with Wimby 2014, which is coincidentally when Fed and Nadal both had some injury issues and also clearly lost a step from age, and Djokovic's strongest competition during that time was Murray. Also, Nadal missed the 2012 and 2014 US Opens due to injury, either of which he could have won if in good form (and maybe the 2013 AO). He also pretty clearly was injured in the 2014 AO final as well.
Between 2011 and 2013 Djokovic only leads 5-4 on the strength of his 2011 (but of course clearly you're leaving out Nadal's 2010).
Now that Djokovic and Murray have taken the same small step back as Fed and Nadal, Fed and Nadal are back leading the pack.
I think that the biggest point is the age gap. Tennis players haven't done well past the age of 30. Federer turned 30 in 2011. Players lose a few steps of speed while the injuries keep piling up once they are in their 30s.
It is too tough to consistently beat the top 2-3 players in the world once you turn 30.
Here are some examples of great players that struggled after turning 30.
Sampras only played 59 matches past his 30th birthday while compiling a rather pedestrian 39-20 record. And Sampras only played until a month past his 31st birthday. His decline only would have gotten exponentially worse. Sampras threw in the towel at the right time, IMHO.
Andre Agassi was arguably the best old-player ever until Federer came along. After he turned 30, he went 28-28 vs the top 10. Of all of the records vs the top 10 that I have looked at, Agassi's is in the top 5 for post-30 players. Included in that 28-28 record was an 0-6 record vs Federer. As a matter of fact, Agassi lost the last 8 matches that he played against Fed. Agassi's .500 record vs the top 10 is absolutely amazing. But it's a far cry from playing guys ranked in the top 2.
And lastly, let's look at the case of Jimmy Connors vs Ivan Lendl. They both won a similar amount of majors. These two players to me had fairly equal careers.
Before he turned 30, Connors was 9-1 vs Lendl. After Connors turned 30, he went 4-21 vs Lendl, which includes losing the last 14 consecutive matches that they played. As a matter of fact, Connors went 25-59 vs the top 10 after turning 30. From 30-36, he was 21-45 vs the top 10.
The oldest guy of the group is going to get creamed against a younger top 1-2 guy. Federer has a massive 5 year age disadvantage vs Nadal and 6 vs Djokovic. It's only a matter of time before Federer falls off of a cliff in performance. That fact that he is still competitive at his age is amazing. I don't expect him to win much more against guys like Nadal and Djokovic. Nobody in his 30's has ever won the majority of his matches against a world #1 or world #2 ranking with a 5+ year age disadvantage.
Nadal, even during Fed's prime, was always a bad matchup for Fed. These things happen. It's no more shocking than Davydenko having a 6-5 edge vs Nadal. And during this their rivalry, Nadal was ranked #2 in the world or higher. Davydenko was ranked anywhere from #3 to #54. Bad matchups happen. Nadal didn't like playing Davydenko, unless it was on clay(Nadal was 4-0 vs Davydenko on clay, 1-6 away from clay). Djokovic was 4-5 vs Roddick, despite being ranked higher than Andy during 8 out of their 9 encounters.
Right now, their aren't any heavyweights. But I would bet my house that a prime Federer that was 5-6 years younger than these versions of Nadal and Djokovic would mop the floor with those guys. But Fed is 36, not 25.
To be fair, I have an undefeated record against Nadal on clay this season, also.Federer best Nadal every time he played him this year. What does that show? Nothing really except Nadal was #2 this year.
And you also haven't lost to Federer on hard courts this season, unlike Nadal. Impressive.To be fair, I have an undefeated record against Nadal on clay this season, also.