NatF
Bionic Poster
It's missing the USO 2017, same as with Djokovic on TA. He beat Nishikori and Djokovic so it should be 6-5 at the USO.
Big 3 - Records against the top 10 in slams
- Thread starter NatF
- Start date
It's missing the USO 2017, same as with Djokovic on TA. He beat Nishikori and Djokovic so it should be 6-5 at the USO.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
2016? Will update.
NatF
Bionic Poster
...yes. We're a mess today man.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Are we going to celebrate the wins Fed had over Roddick, Blake , Ljubicic and Gonzalez and penalize djokodal for losses to Murray and Stan , who would be ATG in an other era ?
NatF
Bionic Poster
My brain wants to go back to sleep today.
Yah, was going to play tennis this evening but work suddenly got mental this afternoon - so going to watch Stranger Things instead
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
In summary, Federer's numbers are amazing at 3/4 Slams and shows his dominance over most of the top 10 throughout his career.
Nadal's are not what you would expect even though he has only 3 less Slams than Federer. He completed annihilated the field at his pet Slam where he won 10 and at the rest of Slams, the hardcourt Slams in particular, he hasn't been that stellar. Pretty telling that he's played 15 less matches against the top 10 than Djokovic even though he has been on the tour longer.
Djokovic's numbers are pretty good but that USO ratio should be higher for someone of his caliber. That's the downside in that he failed to capitalize at that tournament. 61% is not bad but he should be around 70%.
(Odd that Djokovic and Federer's numbers at RG are virtually identical even though Federer played there at least 5 more times than he did.)
Nadal's are not what you would expect even though he has only 3 less Slams than Federer. He completed annihilated the field at his pet Slam where he won 10 and at the rest of Slams, the hardcourt Slams in particular, he hasn't been that stellar. Pretty telling that he's played 15 less matches against the top 10 than Djokovic even though he has been on the tour longer.
Djokovic's numbers are pretty good but that USO ratio should be higher for someone of his caliber. That's the downside in that he failed to capitalize at that tournament. 61% is not bad but he should be around 70%.
(Odd that Djokovic and Federer's numbers at RG are virtually identical even though Federer played there at least 5 more times than he did.)
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Yah, was going to play tennis this evening but work suddenly got mental this afternoon - so going to watch Stranger Things instead
No tennis for me today. My couch is calling me so that's where I'm going when I get home.
abmk
Bionic Poster
Federer has played RG 17 times, djokovic 13 times. (Federer skipped 16 and 17, remember ?)
Federer went out to #45 Arazi in 1R in 02, #88 Horna in 1R in 03 (horrible loss) and #30 kuerten in R3 in 2004 and #13 corretja in 2001 QF (no top 10 players faced before that)
Djokovic went out to #31 kohlscreiber in RG 09 3R and #27 melzer in RG 10 QF...
Assume 2 of those Djokovic/Federer losses even out, the 2 1R losses for pre-prime federer (02,03) account for quite a significant bit.
another one is post-prime federer going out to #17 Gulbis in RG 14 4R. (no top 10 players faced before that)
10 year span :
2004-13 for Federer : he's 8-8 vs top 10 at RG
2008 to 2017 for Djokovic : he's 7-7 vs top 10 at RG
(ditto for 2007-16)
Last edited:
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Nadal;
FO: 21-1 (95%)
@MichaelNadal
Djokovic is the one, in 21 and one. The REAL reignining!!!! Defending!!!!! Undisputed!!!! Heavyweight Champion of the world!!!!!! Novak Djjjooookkkooovvviiiccccc!!!!!
I sooooo wish I could be excited for him
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
So it's a 4 year difference but it's still odd. Even if you exclude this year's tournament it would have been 8-11 for Federer and 8-9 for Djokovic, and that would be a 5 year difference, even though Federer has been to an extra final. You would expect him to have played more top 10 matches there considering how much more he's played there. The negative ratios are not a surprise for either of them since they lost to Nadal so many times.
abmk
Bionic Poster
not considering federer being crappy pre-prime (see the 1R losses in 02, 03).
also loss to gulbis in 14 post-prime.
these 3 account for what you're looking at.
a difference of 3 times not facing top 10 .....Federer has played RG 4 more times...
1 match more from federer vs top 10 ...
it lines up correctly....
10 year span :
2004-13 for Federer : he's 8-8 vs top 10 at RG (http://www.tennisabstract.com/cgi-b...2006qq,2005qq,2004qqDRoland_GarrosqqITop_10qq)
2008 to 2017 for Djokovic : he's 7-7 vs top 10 at RG (http://www.tennisabstract.com/cgi-b...2010qq,2009qq,2008qqDRoland_GarrosqqITop_10qq)
(ditto for 2007-16)
Pheasant
Legend
I would agree with you that the USO has been better for Fed. But it's extremely close.
Consider this:
USO: 5 titles, 7 finals, 10 semis appearances, 16-6 vs top 10
AO: 5 titles, 6 finals, 13 semis appearances, includes 11 straight semis!
However, Fed ran off 5 straight USO titles and played in 6 straight finals. That to me allows the USO to squeak by his AO. But this is extremely close.
20 top-10 wins at the AO is absurd.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Pheasant
Legend
This thread had me look at which players accumulated the most points in the rankings during slams. The purpose of this was to measure how far various players went in slams. So if a player went to a bunch of semis in a row, he would accumulate a bunch of points in the rankings. A slam winner gets 2000 points, a finalist gets 1200, a semifinalist gets 760, etc. I realize that players like Borg get messed over due to the fact that they often missed slam events. The main purpose here was see how Djokovic stacked up to Nadal.
Here's what I came up with:
Slam points, slam record vs top 10, titles
Best 5 year span
Federer 31050 30-7 vs top 10 12 titles
Djokovic 28440 31-10 vs top 10 9 titles
Borg 23340 17-4 vs top 10 8 titles
Lendl 22840 18-9 vs top 10 6 titles
Nadal 22705 22-7 vs top 10 8 titles
Sampras 22270 15-4 vs top 10 9 titles
McEnroe 18030 13-5 vs top 10 6 titles
Connors 17960 10-6 vs top 10 5 titles
Agassi 16445 9-6 vs top 10 5 titles
Best 10 year span
Federer 50060 46-17 vs top 10 17 titles
Djokovic 44205 41-21 vs to 10 12 titles
Nadal 40730 36-11 vs top 10 14 titles
Lendl 36410 24-17 vs top 10 8 titles
Sampras 35345 24-8 vs top 10 13 titles
I've concluded that Djokovic goes far deeper in slams and has played far more opponents in the top 10(12 more top 10 opponents during their best 5 years spans and 15 more opponents during their best 10 year spans).
Djokovic also has 5 World Tour Finals trophies to Nadal's 0. I think these two players are quite close. These points directly translate into cash. Had the cash prizes been identical each year, then Djokovic would have won more money. Looking at the career prize money isn't fair because the prize money was under a million dollars when Fed started winning. Federer in actual dollars has a massive handicap. But these points balance it out.
Here's what I came up with:
Slam points, slam record vs top 10, titles
Best 5 year span
Federer 31050 30-7 vs top 10 12 titles
Djokovic 28440 31-10 vs top 10 9 titles
Borg 23340 17-4 vs top 10 8 titles
Lendl 22840 18-9 vs top 10 6 titles
Nadal 22705 22-7 vs top 10 8 titles
Sampras 22270 15-4 vs top 10 9 titles
McEnroe 18030 13-5 vs top 10 6 titles
Connors 17960 10-6 vs top 10 5 titles
Agassi 16445 9-6 vs top 10 5 titles
Best 10 year span
Federer 50060 46-17 vs top 10 17 titles
Djokovic 44205 41-21 vs to 10 12 titles
Nadal 40730 36-11 vs top 10 14 titles
Lendl 36410 24-17 vs top 10 8 titles
Sampras 35345 24-8 vs top 10 13 titles
I've concluded that Djokovic goes far deeper in slams and has played far more opponents in the top 10(12 more top 10 opponents during their best 5 years spans and 15 more opponents during their best 10 year spans).
Djokovic also has 5 World Tour Finals trophies to Nadal's 0. I think these two players are quite close. These points directly translate into cash. Had the cash prizes been identical each year, then Djokovic would have won more money. Looking at the career prize money isn't fair because the prize money was under a million dollars when Fed started winning. Federer in actual dollars has a massive handicap. But these points balance it out.
metsman
Talk Tennis Guru
The argument that Federer has multiple pet slams while poor Nadal and Djokovic have one each is beyond hilarious. As if someone flipped a coin as to who would get the 2nd pet slam. You want to bring down Federer by admitting he's better and can translate dominance to multiple surfaces?
The Green Mile
Bionic Poster
Booooooo....
NatF
Bionic Poster
For the bants here's how they stack up off clay;
Federer;
AO: 20-9 (69%)
Wim: 17-5 (77%)
USO: 16-6 (73%)
Non-clay: 53-20 (73%)
Djokovic;
AO: 17-5 (77%)
Wim: 7-4 (64%)
USO: 11-7 (61%)
Non-clay: 35-16 (69%)
Nadal;
AO: 7-7 (50%)
Wim: 6-3 (67%)
USO: 5-4 (56%)
Non-clay: 18-14 (56%)
Federer;
AO: 20-9 (69%)
Wim: 17-5 (77%)
USO: 16-6 (73%)
Non-clay: 53-20 (73%)
Djokovic;
AO: 17-5 (77%)
Wim: 7-4 (64%)
USO: 11-7 (61%)
Non-clay: 35-16 (69%)
Nadal;
AO: 7-7 (50%)
Wim: 6-3 (67%)
USO: 5-4 (56%)
Non-clay: 18-14 (56%)
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Clearly Nadal dominated weak era because Federer is a weak era phony.
btw they're below 50% because of Nadal owning them.
NatF
Bionic Poster
I don't remember a Nadal era, he's been the primary antagonist in a couple of other players era's though. Much respect.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Yeah I don't remember a Federer era since Nadal knocked him off his perch. Since then, he only reached #1 again when Nadal was out injured in 09 and 12. LOL.
Obviously its because when Nadal was at his best, Fed couldn't keep up with him. Then when Novak was at his best, Fed struggled against him big time too.
He only dominated before the arrival of Rafa and Novak.
Now that Novak is no longer around at top level and Nadal is running at half his speed compared to a decade ago, Fed can vulture more success again, but still can't recapture that #1 ranking with Nadal around...
NatF
Bionic Poster
I seem to remember Nadal playing a full 12 months schedule before Federer got to #1 in 2012. Nadal only missed one tournament in 2009 as well BTW. Is Nadal only number one right now because Federer can't handle a full schedule?
Federer is a vulture with nearly twice the number of top 10 meetings in slams when compared to Nadal?
Back in your box man.
MrFlip
Hall of Fame
Federer's poor FO percentage interpreted as losing to Djokovic more than once because people on this forum were born in 2012.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
I seem to remember Nadal playing a full 12 months schedule before Federer got to #1 in 2012. Nadal only missed one tournament in 2009 as well BTW. Is Nadal only number one right now because Federer can't handle a full schedule?
Federer is a vulture with nearly twice the number of top 10 meetings in slams when compared to Nadal?
Back in your box man.
Yeah I seem to remember Nadal was injured at Wimbledon in 2012, not to mention the fact that the only reason Fed got there was because he vultured 500 tourneys LMAO.
Federer has played many more majors than Nadal. He's also taken advantage of the weak era. The top 10 were a joke back then just not as bad as this year.
LOL back in my box? Ha that's a good one! Well done! Amazing!
And admit it, you keep responding because you want more likes from VolleyHelena
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Fed got to no.1 after winning Wimb and acumulated all his points while Rafa was playing. And vultured 500's? What? In Dubai for instance Murray, Djokovic and Delpo were in the field and Fed won it. That's not vulturing. Might as well say Nadal got to no.1 due to vulturing in Acapulco and Barcelona.
So Fed played in a weak era by facing many more top 10 players, while Rafa played in a strong era facing less...sound logic.
Of course the top 10 were a joke since Fed has beaten more than Rafa. How original...Nadal is the only one who has beaten quality players
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Fed got to no.1 after winning Wimb and acumulated all his points while Rafa was playing. And vultured 500's? What? In Dubai for instance Murray, Djokovic and Delpo were in the field and Fed won it. That's not vulturing. Might as well say Nadal got to no.1 due to vulturing in Acapulco and Barcelona.
So Fed played in a weak era by facing many more top 10 players, while Rafa played in a strong era facing less...sound logic.
Of course the top 10 were a joke since Fed has beaten more than Rafa. How original...Nadal is the only one who has beaten quality players
Don't forget that Nadal has made a career out of owning Fed in majors. Now, to get to Fed, he had to beat top 10 players along the way.
But let's also not forget for example, #14 Verdasco at AO09 was a much tougher opponent, playing at a far higher level than #8 Delpo and #7 Roddick that year, but we'll chalk up 2 more top 10 wins for Feddy there to Nadal's 0 won't we? LOL
I see you're after some Volleyhelena likes too...
NatF
Bionic Poster
Unless Nadal was stopping Federer at Wimbledon it doesn't matter. Nadal is only at #1 right now because he vultured an actual slam
Nadal has three USO's and has a 5-4 record against the top 10 there. You should forever hold your peace about vulturing man. Federer absolutely smashes Rafa in terms of matches against the top 10 at 3/4 slams.
And you must keep responding to me because you love those bitter pills I keep feeding you
Funny how above you want to talk about form over name but only when it suites you I guess?
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Nadal has made a career out of being imo the best big match player of his era. Federer or no Federer.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Interesting that you use this argument. Because when Fed beat guys who played at a very high level, that didn't matter to you guys. Because they weren't named Nadal or Novak. But when Nadal beats a sub par Novak, Nadal is a warrior who overcame the toughest opponents playing at their peaks.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
This is in response to a troll thread started by a Nadal troll.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
LOL wot? NatF is not a Nadal troll.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Who were these lower ranked guys playing at a higher level?
zagor
Bionic Poster
It's not lik Fed doesn't have a few of those as well, like beating Novak in 2007 AO or Safin in 2004 AO.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Unless Nadal was stopping Federer at Wimbledon it doesn't matter. Nadal is only at #1 right now because he vultured an actual slam
Nadal has three USO's and has a 5-4 record against the top 10 there. You should forever hold your peace about vulturing man. Federer absolutely smashes Rafa in terms of matches against the top 10 at 3/4 slams.
And you must keep responding to me because you love those bitter pills I keep feeding you
Funny how above you want to talk about form over name but only when it suites you I guess?
1. Ahh yes, because that's never happened before
2. Well we can thank Mr.Federer for that. He did lose 4 times directly before having to face Nadal there. Nadal would have beat any top 10 player in the 3 US Open victories he had. It wasn't a case of lucky he avoided, it was a case of lucky they avoided him.
3. Not really. Your comebacks are lame and predictable, nothing I haven't heard before.
4. Ok, who were the players in better form than Novak 2010 and 2013 that Fed had the unfortunate fate of facing on route to win his US Open titles? Cue the 35 year old broken spine Agassi card...
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
Ah, but Djokovic was a baby, and Safin was a weak-era chump anyway. Please don't put these nobodies on the same level as tennis giants like Rublev or Anderson.
Last edited:
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Safin in 04 AO was more because Safin ran out of steam.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Gonzo, Soderling and Scud all had a great run in tourneys Fed ended up beating them in the final. Even Bagdathis beat 3 top 10 players in a row on his route to 2006 AO F though it ended up costing him in the end.
On name only, Verdasco and Dimitrov aren't tough opponents in the slightest, they're both known as some of the weakest mentally players on tour.
zagor
Bionic Poster
And Nadal beat Zverev because the latter has poor fitness and is still utterly useless in slams.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
They weren't mentally weak in those semis though.
As for Soderling, he clearly didn't reach the level he did to beat Nadal, in fact not even close. Scud's only real notable win was against Agassi. Gonzo also dipped in level in the final. Having said that, in the matches they lost, they didn't play anywhere near Verdasco or Dimitrov's level.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
I agree, Zverev isn't a victory to pump up. He played well (for him at least) but was never at a consistent high level in that match. Nadal was still finding his form too.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Just going to respond to this bit. Djokovic went to five sets against both Federer and Wawrinka, one he saved multiple match points, the other he had to come from two sets down. Nadal beat Gasquet and Youzhny pretty easily in his semis. It would have been interesting to see their semi opponents swapped around to see how the final would have been. Djokovic was just happy to be in that US 2010 final, the shocked look on his face after he beat Federer, getting his first top 10 win if the season was enough to tell me just how good his form was that year.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Or Fed, being the far more aggressive player didn't allow them to.
Nadal gives you far more room to attack, you just have to execute at a very high level for the entire match to win. Fed rushes and takes time away from players.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Yeah what's Nadal's record at Wimbledon since 2012 again? You think he was going all the way to the final and stopping Federer as well?
But that same argument doesn't apply to Federer no? Despite him being a much more proven champion at 3/4 venues. In Federer's case it's lucky weak era benefactor, in Nadal's case the other players are lucky they didn't face him?
You're hilarious man I'm glad this thread attracted you.Novak in 2010 was in pretty good form, Novak in 2013 was subpar. It's not like Federer hasn't beaten Novak twice in his USO wins either...In every one of Federer's draw's he played someone in at least equivalent form to Djokovic 2010/2013;
2004: Agassi
2005: Agassi and Hewitt
2006: Black and Roddick
2007: Roddick and Djokovic
2008: Djokovic
metsman
Talk Tennis Guru
*best big match player of his era when conditions and circumstances suit him.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
metsman
Talk Tennis Guru
yeah and it also includes Gasquet and Verdasco in mug mode as top 10 wins at an event where Nadal has 5 of them total. I'd take it and run.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Well yeah, so he was in his best form all year heading into the final!
I do like how this keeps being brought up over and over and over and over and over though. Now remind me, how many top 10 victories did Andy Roddick have before reaching the 2006 US Open final? Because I never see this being mentioned unless I bring it up, oh and let's take it to the next level, how many top 10 victories did Roddick have in 2005 and 2006 combined before reaching the 2006 US Open final?
zagor
Bionic Poster
Yeah, but he still did a ridiculously good job defending his fort. Nadal doesn't have to be at his utmost best to handle Djokodal at FO while IMO they have to be to (or atleast closer to their best) do so on their surfaces like HC and grass (in Fed's case).
Have to give him credit for that.
The_Order
G.O.A.T.
Yeah Wimbledon really suited him more than Federer.
