Big 3 major meetings
- Thread starter Spencer Gore
- Start date
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Spencer Gore
Legend
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.
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.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Yes and Federer is 15-0 vs Nadal excluding losses. Seriously stop with the excuses. Clay is a surface aswell let's be honest here.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
Spencer Gore
Legend
Facts are never dishonest. Those are the FACTS about the meetings between the big 3 in majors.
2010, 2011, 2013, 2017 = 4 times
2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2015 = 7 times
Who's dodging who again?
metsman
G.O.A.T.
To be expected, after all Federer only reached his peak this year. Those 27 other meetings came when he was pre-peak.33%?
metsman
G.O.A.T.
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.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
Nobody is dodging anyone here, come on. These guys are professionals.
every7
Hall of Fame
@Spencer Gore what are some meaningful statistical areas in which Federer is superior to Nadal?
In the interest of objectivity you should include roundups of this type of data as well.
At the moment it looks too much like you are pushing a strictly anti-Federer agenda and your information will not carry weight until people are convinced of your bonafides.
In the interest of objectivity you should include roundups of this type of data as well.
At the moment it looks too much like you are pushing a strictly anti-Federer agenda and your information will not carry weight until people are convinced of your bonafides.
FrontHeadlock
Hall of Fame
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.
TheAssassin
Legend
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.
FrontHeadlock
Hall of Fame
It's not solely a matter of skipping events.
TheAssassin
Legend
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.
tennisfanboy
Rookie
So you make your HTH assessments of 6yr older Federer without having any kind of peak/prime/age distribution in all those meetings? In most of these meetings post 30 Federer had no business meeting them in the second week of slams by pure tennis logic. If anything it proves his greatness to be able to sweep the field at his age and meet them in the second weeks. Things will get clearer for you in the next few years when 30+ Nadal and Djoker get their asses handed to them not just by federer himself if he can keep his level up at 37 but by other journeymen.
Mazz Retic
Hall of Fame
10char
Last edited:
Pheasant
Legend
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.
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.
tennisfanboy
Rookie
metsman
G.O.A.T.
well by dodge it doesn't mean they actually tanked to avoid facing, just opportunities which would have influenced h2h but never happened.
gplracer
Hall of Fame
It shows nothing. Federer is much older. It shows that.
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.
NatF
Bionic Poster
You missed the point.
FiReFTW
Legend
Most realistic and best post ever.
I mean seriously, 25 year old fed against this year nadal lol, it would be like 29-9 h2h, and only because of clay.
Spencer Gore
Legend
To be fair, I have an undefeated record against Nadal on clay this season, also.
TheAssassin
Legend
And you also haven't lost to Federer on hard courts this season, unlike Nadal. Impressive.
Similar threads
