Big 3-Non Clay Major meetings

[Spencer Gore]

For those who seem to think that clay is not a legitimate slam surface and should be removed from any discussion (which is laughable), here are the FACTS about the non-clay meetings in majors between the big 3. They make interesting reading:

FEDERER 8 victories 12 defeats (40% win rate on his favourite surfaces)

NADAL 7 victories 6 defeats (54% win rate on his least favourite surfaces)

DJOKOVIC 11 victories 8 defeats (58% win rate on his favourite surfaces)

Considering these matches took place on Federer and Djokovic's favourite surfaces and exclude Nadal's favourite surface, they are highly, highly revealing.

 

[KINGROGER]

For those who seem to think that clay is not a legitimate slam surface and should be removed from any discussion (which is laughable), here are the FACTS about the non-clay meetings in majors between the big 3. They make interesting reading:

FEDERER 8 victories 12 defeats (40% win rate on his favourite surfaces)

NADAL 7 victories 6 defeats (54% win rate on his least favourite surfaces)

DJOKOVIC 11 victories 8 defeats (58% win rate on his favourite surfaces)

Considering these matches took place on Federer and Djokovic's favourite surfaces and exclude Nadal's favourite surface, they are highly, highly revealing.

This fails to take into account that 1. AO plexicushion isn't a surface that favours Federer (apart from 2017) and 2. A lot of these matches (majority) were played in Djokovic/Nadal's prime when Fed was past his own prime.

 

[Spencer Gore]

The

This fails to take into account that 1. AO plexicushion isn't a surface that favours Federer (apart from 2017) and 2. A lot of these matches (majority) were played in Djokovic/Nadal's prime when Fed was past his own prime.

There's always an excuse, isn't there. They get more and more convoluted and laughable.

Face it, Federer simply couldn't come up with the goods the majority of the time another ATG was across the net in a major. A 33% win rate doesn't lie.

 

[NatF]

hmmm interesting let's extend to against the top 10 in general;

Record in slams off clay against the top 10;

Nadal: 18-14 (56.3%)
Federer: 53-20 (72.6%)
Djokovic: 35-16 (68.6%)

Damn that's pretty interesting from Nadal, less than half the number of meetings when compared to Federer and a very average win/loss record. Guy is the ultimate opportunist no?

 

[KINGROGER]

The

There's always an excuse, isn't there. They get more and more convoluted and laughable.

Face it, Federer simply couldn't come up with the goods the majority of the time another ATG was across the net in a major. A 33% win rate doesn't lie.

AO plexicushion is a surface that favours Nadal over Federer. No idea why you're lumping it in with Wimbledon and USO.

Also, Federer led Djokovic 6-5 in majors up to the end of 2012, and more than competed well with him at his peak in 2011/2012 whilst being past his own prime.

 

[abmk]

There's always an excuse, isn't there. They get more and more convoluted and laughable.

Face it, Federer simply couldn't come up with the goods the majority of the time another ATG was across the net in a major. A 33% win rate doesn't lie.

ok, obviously you forgot the times federer met 2 other ATGs (Sampras : 1-0 and Agassi : 3-1)

so that makes it 12-13 (48%)

 

[merlinpinpin]

OP: getting desperate, aren't we?

 

[Sysyphus]

 

[Spencer Gore]

AO plexicushion is a surface that favours Nadal over Federer. No idea why you're lumping it in with Wimbledon and USO.

Also, Federer led Djokovic 6-5 in majors up to the end of 2012, and more than competed well with him at his peak in 2011/2012 whilst being past his own prime.

Is Federer so limited that you want to exclude everything but grass from his figures! LOL!!!

 

[Tiki-Taka]

Do you really need to bait with every single thread? It wasn't fun in the first place anyway, but this is taking it to a whole new level.

 

[Spencer Gore]

I'm not baiting anything. I'm discussing facts. Any neutral tennis fan, such as myself, would be interested in facts and stats relating to our top players. Laver is the GOAT in my book, and Borg is my all-time favourite player. I have no horse in this race. Only a love of the game.

 

[Krish872007]

60's Weed?

 

[Tiki-Taka]

I'm not baiting anything. I'm discussing facts. Any neutral tennis fan, such as myself, would be interested in facts and stats relating to our top players. Laver is the GOAT in my book, and Borg is my all-time favourite player. I have no horse in this race. Only a love of the game.

How come all of these so called facts are all used to make Federer look worse? So phony calling yourself neutral.

 

[KINGROGER]

Is Federer so limited that you want to exclude everything but grass from his figures! LOL!!!

I'm not excluding any figures. They all add up to 19 slams and GOAT title for Federer. I'm simply pointing out that most of their meetings have been on Nadal's favoured surfaces.

 

[ojo rojo]

OP hard at work

 

[Red Rick]

hmmm interesting let's extend to against the top 10 in general;

Record in slams off clay against the top 10;

Nadal: 18-14 (56.3%)
Federer: 53-20 (72.6%)
Djokovic: 35-16 (68.6%)

Damn that's pretty interesting from Nadal, less than half the number of meetings when compared to Federer and a very average win/loss record. Guy is the ultimate opportunist no?

It's just consistent that with the fact that Rafa is inconsistent off clay but has a super high peak level. Which is what everyone with half a brain knows. Fact is that Federer hasn't had the upper hand in matches with other ATGs.

 

[NatF]

It's just consistent that with the fact that Rafa is inconsistent off clay but has a super high peak level. Which is what everyone with half a brain knows. Fact is that Federer hasn't had the upper hand in matches with other ATGs.

Fact is it's irrelevant because the title ATG is subjective and says nothing about level of play on the day. Nadal's level of play is certainly not higher than Federer or Djokovic's off clay, he just loses to lesser players more often when he's not playing his best.

 

[Spencer Gore]

How come all of these so called facts are all used to make Federer look worse? So phony calling yourself neutral.

If the facts make Federer look worse, don't blame the messenger.

 

[Spencer Gore]

It's just consistent that with the fact that Rafa is inconsistent off clay but has a super high peak level. Which is what everyone with half a brain knows. Fact is that Federer hasn't had the upper hand in matches with other ATGs.

Spot on.

 

[Tiki-Taka]

If the facts make Federer look worse, don't blame the messenger.

I'll blame the messenger when he only picks the facts that make Federer look worse but decides to ignore all other facts that prove he is still better than all other competitors.

 

[Thorondor]

If the facts make Federer look worse, don't blame the messenger.

Good thing they don't make him look worse then.

 

[Sysyphus]

I'll blame the messenger when he only picks the facts that make Federer look worse but decides to ignore all other facts that prove he is still better than all other competitors.

Mister Bore's idea of #Facts:

 

[Spencer Gore]

I'll blame the messenger when he only picks the facts that make Federer look worse but decides to ignore all other facts that prove he is still better than all other competitors.

If you wish to focus on Fed's dominance in the pre-Nadal/Djokovic era then there are multiple threads where you can do so.

This thread is about their meetings against one another in the majors. Please try to stick to the topic.

 

[Shaolin]

Spencer Troll is always good for a laugh.

 

[Tiki-Taka]

If you wish to focus on Fed's dominance in the pre-Nadal/Djokovic era then there are multiple threads where you can do so.

This thread is about their meetings against one another in the majors. Please try to stick to the topic.

I focus on players' whole careers. After Nadal's first Major in 2005, he and Federer won the same number of them. It's 2017 and Federer is still relevant. And not just that, he is also still winning Majors. Think about how insane that is.

 

[NoleFam]

hmmm interesting let's extend to against the top 10 in general;

Record in slams off clay against the top 10;

Nadal: 18-14 (56.3%)
Federer: 53-20 (72.6%)
Djokovic: 35-16 (68.6%)

Damn that's pretty interesting from Nadal, less than half the number of meetings when compared to Federer and a very average win/loss record. Guy is the ultimate opportunist no?

Djokovic is actually 35-15 (70%).

 

[TheAssassin]

60's Weed?

TennisATP

Yuck

 

[NatF]

Djokovic is actually 35-15 (70%).

Thanks my bad. Will edit accordingly.

 

[Krish872007]

TennisATP

Yuck

Maybe not - I can't see TennisATP ever claiming that Novak is the best of the 3

 

[Sysyphus]

Djokovic is actually 35-15 (70%).

Thanks my bad. Will edit accordingly.

no? He's 28–12 on HC and 7–4 on grass against top tenners = 35–16 in total.

 

[Devin]

Spencer Bore back at it again.
Credit to @tennisaddict

 

[NoleFam]

Thanks my bad. Will edit accordingly.

Amazing that Nadal is 5-4 against the top 10 at the USO yet has 3 titles. I bet there is no one else who won the title there 3 times with that record.

 

[NoleFam]

no? He's 28–12 on HC and 7–4 on grass against top tenners = 35–16 in total.

He's 17-5 at the AO, 11-6 at the USO and 7-4 at Wimbledon. Now unless my math skills are off today, that is 35-15.

 

[NatF]

no? He's 28–12 on HC and 7–4 on grass against top tenners = 35–16 in total.

That's what I had originally but I trusted the Novak fan? Checked again and you're right. So editing...again.

 

[Sysyphus]

He's 17-5 at the AO, 11-6 at the USO and 7-4 at Wimbledon. Now unless my math skills are off today, that is 35-15.

lost 7 times at the Open, not 6.

1. Fed in 07
2. Fed in 08
3. Fed in 09
4. Nads in 10
5. Murray in 12
6. Nads in 13
7. Waws in 16

ta-da

 

[NatF]

He's 17-5 at the AO, 11-6 at the USO and 7-4 at Wimbledon. Now unless my math skills are off today, that is 35-15.

Those numbers check out too, but when grouped as a whole I get 35-16...

 

[NoleFam]

lost 7 times at the Open, not 6.

Which site are you using because according to tennis abstract, he has lost 6 times to a top 10 player there.

 

[NatF]

lost 7 times at the Open, not 6.

It's missing Wawrinka's win last year.

@NoleFam check out the list, it doesn't have 2016.

 

[TheFifthSet]

hmmm interesting let's extend to against the top 10 in general;

Record in slams off clay against the top 10;

Nadal: 18-14 (56.3%)
Federer: 53-20 (72.6%)
Djokovic: 35-15 (70%)

Damn that's pretty interesting from Nadal, less than half the number of meetings when compared to Federer and a very average win/loss record. Guy is the ultimate opportunist no?

/thread

 

[Sysyphus]

Which site are you using because according to tennis abstract, he has lost 6 times to a top 10 player there.

I edited in the specific matches in the previous poast

 

[NatF]

/thread

Normally I would try to ignore this stuff but the amount of BS coming from the VB is too damn high at the moment.

 

[NoleFam]

It's missing Wawrinka's win last year.

@NoleFam check out the list, it doesn't have 2016.

Yea it is. It doesn't have any matches from 2016 in fact which is strange. So it is 35-16 then.

 

[ojo rojo]

lost 7 times at the Open, not 6.

1. Fed in 07
2. Fed in 08
3. Fed in 09
4. Nads in 10
5. Murray in 12
6. Nads in 13
7. Waws in 16

ta-da

 

[Sysyphus]

absolutely

 

[Red Rick]

Fact is it's irrelevant because the title ATG is subjective and says nothing about level of play on the day. Nadal's level of play is certainly not higher than Federer or Djokovic's off clay, he just loses to lesser players more often when he's not playing his best.

Mister Bore's idea of #Facts:

Wat Er u doing?

 

[Deleted member 688153]

 

[NatF]

Wat Er u doing?

Feeding trolls.

 

[metsman]

Federer EXPOSED

 

[George Turner]

At least Federer has never lost twice to Muller and Brown on grass

You seem like an easy trolling target OP, so I'll stop there i prefer a challenge.

 

[Red Rick]

Feeding trolls.

Whoops, that was a total misquote, I only meant to quote @Sysyphus