Big 3 - Records against the top 10 in slams

[abmk]

Oh yeah, 8-4 is if we remove Djoko and Fed's favourite slams, because that's always what Fed and Djoko fans say we should do with Nadal. Still has winning head to head against them though, along with his general slam domination of them.

1. Firstly you said off clay, you never mentioned anything about removing fav slams for djoko and fed.
2. Secondly, if you remove wim for fed and AO for djok

you have :
3-1 vs fed
3-2 vs djoko

that's 6-3.

not 8-4.

nice try at cover up, though.

3. and no, you are woefully out of date. djokovic leads the h2h vs Nadal 26-24.
4. h2h vs federer is 23-15, but trails 1-2 on grass and 9-11 on HC.

 

[killerboi2]

1. Firstly you said off clay, you never mentioned anything about removing fav slams for djoko and fed.
2. Secondly, if you remove wim for fed and AO for djok

you have :
3-1 vs fed
3-2 vs djoko

that's 6-3.

7-4 actually, had it in my head that Djoko had been beaten twice at Wimbledon for some reason lol. Fed been owned at Wimbledon once and 3 times at AO, taking away his Wimbledon wins as it's his best slam = 4-1 to Nadal.

Djokovic been owned once at Wimbledon twice at USO, taking away his AO win as that's his best slam = 3-3

Combined ownage = 7-4. The whole point is that taking away Nadal's clay wins simply doesn't work. He's already got the upper hand over Djokovic and Federer whatever way you look at it. Even if you take away his FO wins and add in Fed's Wimbledon wins and Djoko's AO wins- he's still ahead. Would be absolutely embarassing for Fed and Djoko if you add in Nadal's FO wins and take away Fed and Djoko's favourite slam wins, lmao.

 

[abmk]

7-4 actually, had it in my head that Djoko had been beaten twice at Wimbledon for some reason lol. Fed been owned at Wimbledon once and 3 times at AO, taking away his Wimbledon wins as it's his best slam = 4-1 to Nadal.

Djokovic been owned once at Wimbledon twice at USO, taking away his AO win as that's his best slam = 3-3

Combined ownage = 7-4.

umm,the way it works is you remove all the matches at that slam to see the records at all slams except that slam. So its 3-1 for Nadal vs federer.
Makes no sense to include Nadal's win at Wimbledon.
Same for including Djoko's win at RG.

The whole point is that taking away Nadal's clay wins simply doesn't work. He's already got the upper hand over Djokovic and Federer whatever way you look at it. Even if you take away his FO wins and add in Fed's Wimbledon wins and Djoko's AO wins- he's still ahead. Would be absolutely embarassing for Fed and Djoko if you add in Nadal's FO wins and take away Fed and Djoko's favourite slam wins, lmao.

we're not taking away anything. just segregating b/w clay and other surfaces to show the difference among the surfaces/wins.
But that went above your head, didn't it ?

----

shocked to learn Nadal trails Djokovic 24-26 in the h2h now ?
Or it hasn't sunk in yet ?

---

what is embarassing is Nadal losing to 100+ ranked players at Wimbledon for 4 years in a row - 12/13/14/15.

also losing 7 matches in a row to Djokovic without winning a set. (15-16).

-----------

Djokovic has the overall h2h lead vs Nadal now.
And federer has the lead on grass and HC.

 

[killerboi2]

Makes no sense to include Nadal's win at Wimbledon.
Same for including Djoko's win at RG

Makes absolute sense to include those. Why would we not include defeats at their best slams?

 

[abmk]

Makes absolute sense to include those. Why would we not include defeats at their best slams?

I explained why :

umm,the way it works is you remove all the matches at that slam to see the records at all slams except that slam.
we're not taking away anything. just segregating b/w clay and other surfaces to show the difference among the surfaces/wins.

 

[killerboi2]

umm,the way it works is you remove all the matches at that slam to see the records at all slams except that slam.

Well that's not what i'm doing and it seems pretty pointless to do that in my opinion. The idea was to remove favourite slam wins for the player in slam head to head as it supposedly gives the person an unfair advantage.

 

[pame]

7-4 actually, had it in my head that Djoko had been beaten twice at Wimbledon for some reason lol. Fed been owned at Wimbledon once and 3 times at AO, taking away his Wimbledon wins as it's his best slam = 4-1 to Nadal.

Djokovic been owned once at Wimbledon twice at USO, taking away his AO win as that's his best slam = 3-3

Combined ownage = 7-4. The whole point is that taking away Nadal's clay wins simply doesn't work. He's already got the upper hand over Djokovic and Federer whatever way you look at it. Even if you take away his FO wins and add in Fed's Wimbledon wins and Djoko's AO wins- he's still ahead. Would be absolutely embarassing for Fed and Djoko if you add in Nadal's FO wins and take away Fed and Djoko's favourite slam wins, lmao.

I'm still trying to figure out what all this has to do with total number of slams won, total number of weeks at No. 1 and all the other data relative to the entire field against which players compete. Unless you envisage that someone else is going to end up at the very least with 19 slams and 302 weeks at no.1 to create the kind of tie which would require the application of an H2H to resolve

 

[abmk]

Well that's not what i'm doing and it seems pretty pointless to do that in my opinion. The idea was to remove favourite slam wins for the player in slam head to head as it supposedly gives the person an unfair advantage.

no, the idea is to segregate by removing all the matches at one slam to see the h2h at the other 3 slams combined.

 

[Pheasant]

The records vs the big 3 shouldn't have a bearing on the overall picture. It's a good tie-breaker. But to me, it's a miniscule percentage of the overall picture. Also, players at a 5-6 year age handicap never own a top 1-2 player. As I mentioned before, Connors was 9-1 vs Lendl until he turned 30. After he turned 30, he was 4-21 vs Lendl, which includes losing the last 14 straight matches.

Let's look at Wimbledon from 2012-2017. This is 6 years worth of data.

Wimbledon, 2012-2017

Nadal 8-5 overall, 0 titles, 0 semis, 0 quarters, 0-0 vs top 10, 0-0 vs top 20, 1-3 vs players ranked 101 or worse, 0-0 vs Fed/Djokovic,

Federer, 32-4 overall, 2 titles, 4 finals, 5 semis, 7-3 vs top 10, 1-2 vs Nadal/Djokovic

Djokovic, 31-4 overall, 2 titles, 3 finals, 4 semis, 5-2 vs top 10, 2-1 vs Nadal/Federer

If we use the record vs the Big 3 to determined greatness at Wimbledon during this time frame, then the rankings would be the following:
1. Djokovic 2-1 vs big 3
2. Nadal 0-0 vs big 3
3. Federer 1-2 vs the big 3.

To me, Federer has been the best at Wimbledon since 2012. He's played 3 more matches vs top 10 players than Djoker, due to doing deeper in the tourney more often. He went to 1 more final and 1 more semi than Djoker did. This is extremely close. But I give the edge to Federer.

Also, using the record vs the top 3 would have Nadal in 2015 as being WAY better than Federer. Nadal lost in the 2nd round to some scrub named Dustin Brown, who was ranked outside the top 100. Federer made it to the final, but lost to Djokovic during Djokovic's best season ever. Federer was 0-1 vs big 3. 0-1 is worse than 0-0. Ergo, was Nadal> Federer at Wimbledon in 2015? I hardly think so.

The next 5-6 years will really tell a story. We'll see if a 30 year old Dimitrov can beat a 35 year old Nadal or 34 year old Nadal. I can see Kyrgios giving Djokovic or Nadal some issues when they are 32-35.

Only time will tell.

 

[The_Order]

Had he brought his level from the first set of the 2013 final in 2007 he wouldn't have sniffed a tiebreak. Let's be real here. The 2013 final had higher highs from Djokovic but lower lows. I think the 2010 final was maybe a bit better from Djokovic overall but nothing crazy.

Yes but again that isn't the whole picture. It's just like people (Fed fans mostly) saying Nadal lost the 1st set in AO14 final so even if he wasn't injured he'd lose anyway. It doesn't work like that.

I agree his 2013 US final form he would've lost the 1st set, but he would've won the 2nd and 3rd set which is 2 sets more than he won in the 07 final.

 

[mike danny]

Yes but again that isn't the whole picture. It's just like people (Fed fans mostly) saying Nadal lost the 1st set in AO14 final so even if he wasn't injured he'd lose anyway. It doesn't work like that.

I agree his 2013 US final form he would've lost the 1st set, but he would've won the 2nd and 3rd set which is 2 sets more than he won in the 07 final.

How do you know he would have won the 3rd set?

 

[NatF]

Yes but again that isn't the whole picture. It's just like people (Fed fans mostly) saying Nadal lost the 1st set in AO14 final so even if he wasn't injured he'd lose anyway. It doesn't work like that.

I agree his 2013 US final form he would've lost the 1st set, but he would've won the 2nd and 3rd set which is 2 sets more than he won in the 07 final.

Of course you think he would have won the 3rd This is all hypothetical, none of us can claim the high road here.

 

[The_Order]

Of course you think he would have won the 3rd This is all hypothetical, none of us can claim the high road here.

Why roll your eyes? It's not a ridiculous claim like Nadal would've lost to Stan in AO14 final because of the first set.

Even if I play devil's advocate and say he only gets one set, that's still more than what he did in US07 final...

 

[merlinpinpin]

The records vs the big 3 shouldn't have a bearing on the overall picture. It's a good tie-breaker. But to me, it's a miniscule percentage of the overall picture. Also, players at a 5-6 year age handicap never own a top 1-2 player. As I mentioned before, Connors was 9-1 vs Lendl until he turned 30. After he turned 30, he was 4-21 vs Lendl, which includes losing the last 14 straight matches.

Let's look at Wimbledon from 2012-2017. This is 6 years worth of data.

Wimbledon, 2012-2017

Nadal 8-5 overall, 0 titles, 0 semis, 0 quarters, 0-0 vs top 10, 0-0 vs top 20, 1-3 vs players ranked 101 or worse, 0-0 vs Fed/Djokovic,

Federer, 32-4 overall, 2 titles, 4 finals, 5 semis, 7-3 vs top 10, 1-2 vs Nadal/Djokovic

Djokovic, 31-4 overall, 2 titles, 3 finals, 4 semis, 5-2 vs top 10, 2-1 vs Nadal/Federer

If we use the record vs the Big 3 to determined greatness at Wimbledon during this time frame, then the rankings would be the following:
1. Djokovic 2-1 vs big 3
2. Nadal 0-0 vs big 3
3. Federer 1-2 vs the big 3.

To me, Federer has been the best at Wimbledon since 2012. He's played 3 more matches vs top 10 players than Djoker, due to doing deeper in the tourney more often. He went to 1 more final and 1 more semi than Djoker did. This is extremely close. But I give the edge to Federer.

Also, using the record vs the top 3 would have Nadal in 2015 as being WAY better than Federer. Nadal lost in the 2nd round to some scrub named Dustin Brown, who was ranked outside the top 100. Federer made it to the final, but lost to Djokovic during Djokovic's best season ever. Federer was 0-1 vs big 3. 0-1 is worse than 0-0. Ergo, was Nadal> Federer at Wimbledon in 2015? I hardly think so.

The next 5-6 years will really tell a story. We'll see if a 30 year old Dimitrov can beat a 35 year old Nadal or 34 year old Nadal. I can see Kyrgios giving Djokovic or Nadal some issues when they are 32-35.

Only time will tell.

That's one of VB's basic tenets, actually: it's always better to avoid your main rivals (even if that means losing or tanking to 100+ ranked players) except if it's on your own terms. Because that's what real warriors do.

This way, you're ready to pounce when there's not a single top 25 in sight. Vamos!

(And using their logic, Del Potro was obviously the moral victor of USO 2017, as he was the only player with a positive H2H vs the big 3 at that tournament.)

 

[NatF]

Why roll your eyes? It's not a ridiculous claim like Nadal would've lost to Stan in AO14 final because of the first set.

Even if I play devil's advocate and say he only gets one set, that's still more than what he did in US07 final...

It's just typical of the way you overrate Djokovic's performance in that match. Djokovic played very aggressive but couldn't keep the ball in court enough to hold onto his advantage early in the set or win the big points later on - it was all or nothing play. I won't say he definitely doesn't win the set against Federer, if he had a do-over of that set he might have taken it from Nadal but I wouldn't expect it. Federer in the third set of the 2007 final was better than Nadal was in 2013's 3rd as well.

Saying he gets one set is playing devil's advocate in your world? Regardless the rest of Federer's draw in 2007 was tougher and Roddick played better than both Djokovic's anyway...*cue fake laughter* It more than evens out. I do think Djokovic in 2013 was a bit better but it's not substantially, they were on a similar level.

 

[TMF]

The records vs the big 3 shouldn't have a bearing on the overall picture. It's a good tie-breaker. But to me, it's a miniscule percentage of the overall picture. Also, players at a 5-6 year age handicap never own a top 1-2 player. As I mentioned before, Connors was 9-1 vs Lendl until he turned 30. After he turned 30, he was 4-21 vs Lendl, which includes losing the last 14 straight matches.

Let's look at Wimbledon from 2012-2017. This is 6 years worth of data.

Wimbledon, 2012-2017

Nadal 8-5 overall, 0 titles, 0 semis, 0 quarters, 0-0 vs top 10, 0-0 vs top 20, 1-3 vs players ranked 101 or worse, 0-0 vs Fed/Djokovic,

Federer, 32-4 overall, 2 titles, 4 finals, 5 semis, 7-3 vs top 10, 1-2 vs Nadal/Djokovic

Djokovic, 31-4 overall, 2 titles, 3 finals, 4 semis, 5-2 vs top 10, 2-1 vs Nadal/Federer

If we use the record vs the Big 3 to determined greatness at Wimbledon during this time frame, then the rankings would be the following:
1. Djokovic 2-1 vs big 3
2. Nadal 0-0 vs big 3
3. Federer 1-2 vs the big 3.

To me, Federer has been the best at Wimbledon since 2012. He's played 3 more matches vs top 10 players than Djoker, due to doing deeper in the tourney more often. He went to 1 more final and 1 more semi than Djoker did. This is extremely close. But I give the edge to Federer.

Also, using the record vs the top 3 would have Nadal in 2015 as being WAY better than Federer. Nadal lost in the 2nd round to some scrub named Dustin Brown, who was ranked outside the top 100. Federer made it to the final, but lost to Djokovic during Djokovic's best season ever. Federer was 0-1 vs big 3. 0-1 is worse than 0-0. Ergo, was Nadal> Federer at Wimbledon in 2015? I hardly think so.

The next 5-6 years will really tell a story. We'll see if a 30 year old Dimitrov can beat a 35 year old Nadal or 34 year old Nadal. I can see Kyrgios giving Djokovic or Nadal some issues when they are 32-35.

Only time will tell.

 

[The_Order]

It's just typical of the way you overrate Djokovic's performance in that match. Djokovic played very aggressive but couldn't keep the ball in court enough to hold onto his advantage early in the set or win the big points later on - it was all or nothing play. I won't say he definitely doesn't win the set against Federer, if he had a do-over of that set he might have taken it from Nadal but I wouldn't expect it. Federer in the third set of the 2007 final was better than Nadal was in 2013's 3rd as well.

Saying he gets one set is playing devil's advocate in your world? Regardless the rest of Federer's draw in 2007 was tougher and Roddick played better than both Djokovic's anyway...*cue fake laughter* It more than evens out. I do think Djokovic in 2013 was a bit better but it's not substantially, they were on a similar level.

You just don't get it.

Djokovic in 2007 final was inexperienced and played with mistakes when he got his chance to take authority in the match. His threat-to-win factor was lower because of this fact alone.

Djokovic in 2013 while he played flat in sets 1 and 4, there's a very big difference. In set 2 and 3 he played some high level tennis, higher than anything he produced in the 07 final. When he had Nadal at 0-40 at 4 all in the third, it was some daring play by Rafa that allowed him to take that game and then break in the next to take the set. 07 Novak may have put himself in good positions to take a couple of sets from 13 Rafa but ultimately he didn't have the experience, killer instinct and belief in 07 compared to 13. That counts for a hell of a lot and it's where it blows your argument out of the water. 07 Novak wouldn't have won a set against 13 Rafa. When you factor in 13 Novak had Nadal on the brink and had he taken one of those bps late in the third, he most likely would've carried momentum for the rest of the match and won, he certainly wouldn't have faded in the fourth like he did.

If 07 Novak had been 2013 Novak, he would've been a far greater threat to Fed's title and you know it.

 

[NatF]

You just don't get it.

Djokovic in 2007 final was inexperienced and played with mistakes when he got his chance to take authority in the match. His threat-to-win factor was lower because of this fact alone.

Djokovic in 2013 while he played flat in sets 1 and 4, there's a very big difference. In set 2 and 3 he played some high level tennis, higher than anything he produced in the 07 final. When he had Nadal at 0-40 at 4 all in the third, it was some daring play by Rafa that allowed him to take that game and then break in the next to take the set. 07 Novak may have put himself in good positions to take a couple of sets from 13 Rafa but ultimately he didn't have the experience, killer instinct and belief in 07 compared to 13. That counts for a hell of a lot and it's where it blows your argument out of the water. 07 Novak wouldn't have won a set against 13 Rafa. When you factor in 13 Novak had Nadal on the brink and had he taken one of those bps late in the third, he most likely would've carried momentum for the rest of the match and won, he certainly wouldn't have faded in the fourth like he did.

If 07 Novak had been 2013 Novak, he would've been a far greater threat to Fed's title and you know it.

Even after going two sets to love down Djokovic had more fight him than he did in the 2013 final, so much for experience...

It's not like Djokovic didn't make mistakes in 2013 when in strong positions, he made at least a couple of forehand errors in the game Nadal held from 0-40 down iirc. He also played a relatively poor game to get broken serving to stay in it.

What you're writing may sound like it has merit but in the end it all amounts to very little. I already said Djokovic was a bit better in 2013 anyway, but he was still not impressive tbh.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

7-4 actually, had it in my head that Djoko had been beaten twice at Wimbledon for some reason lol. Fed been owned at Wimbledon once and 3 times at AO, taking away his Wimbledon wins as it's his best slam = 4-1 to Nadal.

Djokovic been owned once at Wimbledon twice at USO, taking away his AO win as that's his best slam = 3-3

Combined ownage = 7-4. The whole point is that taking away Nadal's clay wins simply doesn't work. He's already got the upper hand over Djokovic and Federer whatever way you look at it. Even if you take away his FO wins and add in Fed's Wimbledon wins and Djoko's AO wins- he's still ahead. Would be absolutely embarassing for Fed and Djoko if you add in Nadal's FO wins and take away Fed and Djoko's favourite slam wins, lmao.

LOL at Djokovic being owned at Wimbledon by Nadal. If Djokovic was owned at Wimbledon by Nadal in 2007, then Nadal was comprehensively owned by Wawrinka at AO 2014. Djokovic was carrying an injury in that match, and had taken the first set, but by the time the third set had started, he had to stop due to crazy schedule. Nadal has never owned Djokovic at Wimbledon, lets get that straight right now.

 

[mike danny]

It's just typical of the way you overrate Djokovic's performance in that match. Djokovic played very aggressive but couldn't keep the ball in court enough to hold onto his advantage early in the set or win the big points later on - it was all or nothing play. I won't say he definitely doesn't win the set against Federer, if he had a do-over of that set he might have taken it from Nadal but I wouldn't expect it. Federer in the third set of the 2007 final was better than Nadal was in 2013's 3rd as well.

Saying he gets one set is playing devil's advocate in your world? Regardless the rest of Federer's draw in 2007 was tougher and Roddick played better than both Djokovic's anyway...*cue fake laughter* It more than evens out. I do think Djokovic in 2013 was a bit better but it's not substantially, they were on a similar level.

Djokovic in the 2013 final won less games than in the 2007 final. That already disqualifies any statement of him being much better in 2013.

 

[mike danny]

You just don't get it.

Djokovic in 2007 final was inexperienced and played with mistakes when he got his chance to take authority in the match. His threat-to-win factor was lower because of this fact alone.

Djokovic in 2013 while he played flat in sets 1 and 4, there's a very big difference. In set 2 and 3 he played some high level tennis, higher than anything he produced in the 07 final. When he had Nadal at 0-40 at 4 all in the third, it was some daring play by Rafa that allowed him to take that game and then break in the next to take the set. 07 Novak may have put himself in good positions to take a couple of sets from 13 Rafa but ultimately he didn't have the experience, killer instinct and belief in 07 compared to 13. That counts for a hell of a lot and it's where it blows your argument out of the water. 07 Novak wouldn't have won a set against 13 Rafa. When you factor in 13 Novak had Nadal on the brink and had he taken one of those bps late in the third, he most likely would've carried momentum for the rest of the match and won, he certainly wouldn't have faded in the fourth like he did.

If 07 Novak had been 2013 Novak, he would've been a far greater threat to Fed's title and you know it.

How do you explain Novak still fighting hard in the 2007 final, despite choking away the first set? Novak with more experience bent over against Nadal in the 4th set.

 

[mike danny]

You just don't get it.

Djokovic in 2007 final was inexperienced and played with mistakes when he got his chance to take authority in the match. His threat-to-win factor was lower because of this fact alone.

Djokovic in 2013 while he played flat in sets 1 and 4, there's a very big difference. In set 2 and 3 he played some high level tennis, higher than anything he produced in the 07 final. When he had Nadal at 0-40 at 4 all in the third, it was some daring play by Rafa that allowed him to take that game and then break in the next to take the set. 07 Novak may have put himself in good positions to take a couple of sets from 13 Rafa but ultimately he didn't have the experience, killer instinct and belief in 07 compared to 13. That counts for a hell of a lot and it's where it blows your argument out of the water. 07 Novak wouldn't have won a set against 13 Rafa. When you factor in 13 Novak had Nadal on the brink and had he taken one of those bps late in the third, he most likely would've carried momentum for the rest of the match and won, he certainly wouldn't have faded in the fourth like he did.

If 07 Novak had been 2013 Novak, he would've been a far greater threat to Fed's title and you know it.

2013 Novak may have been a bigger threat, but he wouldn't have won. Let's get real here. 2013 Novak wasn't playing at such a crazy level that Fed wouldn't have bee able to handle. At most he would have lost a set, but not more than that.

 

[ghostofMecir]

What is most surprising is the sheer number of fewer matches Nadal has played against the top 10. You can argue that Fed is 5 years older and so had more opportunities. But why has Djokovic who is younger than Nadal played so many more matches against the top 10 at slams????????

We all know thr answer to this. The answer here is also tied into why Nadal cannot einnthe WTF/YEC.

 

[NatF]

2013 Novak may have been a bigger threat, but he wouldn't have won. Let's get real here. 2013 Novak wasn't playing at such a crazy level that Fed wouldn't have bee able to handle. At most he would have lost a set, but not more than that.

Djokovic in 2007 had just won Montreal over Federer and was in a richer vein of form coming into the match IMO, Djokovic in 2013 was in a bit of a slump and in the middle of a run of not winning a major for about 18 months. Not to mention Djokovic had the much tougher SF having to go through the winner of the next slam Wawrinka - where as in 2007 Djokovic was in fact the winner of the next slam.

The number of points won for both finalists was pretty much identical in each match as well, Djokovic in 2007 won 103/222 (46.4%) of the points and in 2013 he won 45.7%. Also their aggressive margins were practically equal as well, it was 13.1% in 2007 and 13% in 2013. The aggressive margin measures what proportion of the total points in a match were won by a player with aggressive plays e.g. winners and inducing forced errors. I think the 2007 final is let down in the memory because of the more obvious choke. Just for comparison Nadal in 2013 had a slighty higher AM at 21.5%, Federer was at 20.3%.

Also Roddick in the QF of 2007 had an AM of 25.5%, which is why I'm certain he was playing at a significantly higher level than either Djokovic's.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Djokovic in 2007 had just won Montreal over Federer and was in a richer vein of form coming into the match IMO, Djokovic in 2013 was in a bit of a slump and in the middle of a run of not winning a major for about 18 months. Not to mention Djokovic had the much tougher SF having to go through the winner of the next slam Wawrinka - where as in 2007 Djokovic was in fact the winner of the next slam.

The number of points won for both finalists was pretty much identical in each match as well, Djokovic in 2007 won 103/222 (46.4%) of the points and in 2013 he won 45.7%. Also their aggressive margins were practically equal as well, it was 13.1% in 2007 and 13% in 2013. The aggressive margin measures what proportion of the total points in a match were won by a player with aggressive plays e.g. winners and inducing forced errors. I think the 2007 final is let down in the memory because of the more obvious choke. Just for comparison Nadal in 2013 had a slighty higher AM at 21.5%, Federer was at 20.3%.

Also Roddick in the QF of 2007 had an AM of 25.5%, which is why I'm certain he was playing at a significantly higher level than either Djokovic's.

Time for me to share my thoughts on this.

Going into USO, I was really excited by what I had seen from Djokovic. I always felt he had potential, but after IW that year I was fully behind him, and loved that he managed to beat peak Federer in a big final heading into NYC. Now, Federer losing big HC finals during his peak was a very rare thing. Djokovic was ultra aggressive at USO 2007 and I just felt we were going to get a match between Djokovic and Federer, they were the top two dogs on HC at that point, and that final was high quality. People here talking about Djokovic choking set points, so he could not have been good...right, lets take a look now at RG 2011 final.

Federer was the better player for the majority of that first set against Nadal, but when it came to the set point, he blinked, and allowed Nadal back in. Nadal effectively stealing that set from Federer, despite being outplayed at the start. Federer played Nadal tight in the second also, but could not win it, again, a set that Federer could have won, it went to a tie-break. These first two sets are almost identical to what we saw at USO 07, if you look closely, the player who was leading in the first set blinked at the key moment and that was all it took. Now Federer played hard for one more set at RG 2011, but was done, he only had enough in him for three sets...Djokovic played hard for the majority of his three set match in the USO 07 final also, but because he was dealing with peak Federer, he got shut out.

So, if you look at it, I don't see much difference, yet Nadal's slam gets awarded the strong slam status, while Federer's slam gets called weak...Now I saw a pattern that was familiar in both.

The point is, these things happen. The pressure is so intense at the top, that the slightest blink of the eye or hesitation and it is game over.

In regards to 2013, Djokovic imo played great for only two sets, the second and the third. Now, FULL credit to Nadal for wrestling away that third set, he was clutch and deserved it and was the better player on the day. But Djokovic book ended that match with some atrocious play.

 

[NatF]

Time for me to share my thoughts on this.

Going into USO, I was really excited by what I had seen from Djokovic. I always felt he had potential, but after IW that year I was fully behind him, and loved that he managed to beat peak Federer in a big final heading into NYC. Now, Federer losing big HC finals during his peak was a very rare thing. Djokovic was ultra aggressive at USO 2007 and I just felt we were going to get a match between Djokovic and Federer, they were the top two dogs on HC at that point, and that final was high quality. People here talking about Djokovic choking set points, so he could not have been good...right, lets take a look now at RG 2011 final.

Federer was the better player for the majority of that first set against Nadal, but when it came to the set point, he blinked, and allowed Nadal back in. Nadal effectively stealing that set from Federer, despite being outplayed at the start. Federer played Nadal tight in the second also, but could not win it, again, a set that Federer could have won, it went to a tie-break. These first two sets are almost identical to what we saw at USO 07, if you look closely, the player who was leading in the first set blinked at the key moment and that was all it took. Now Federer played hard for one more set at RG 2011, but was done, he only had enough in him for three sets...Djokovic played hard for the majority of his three set match in the USO 07 final also, but because he was dealing with peak Federer, he got shut out.

So, if you look at it, I don't see much difference, yet Nadal's slam gets awarded the strong slam status, while Federer's slam gets called weak...Now I saw a pattern that was familiar in both.

The point is, these things happen. The pressure is so intense at the top, that the slightest blink of the eye or hesitation and it is game over.

In regards to 2013, Djokovic imo played great for only two sets, the second and the third. Now, FULL credit to Nadal for wrestling away that third set, he was clutch and deserved it and was the better player on the day. But Djokovic book ended that match with some atrocious play.

Basically exactly how I feel. Both matches had Djokovic playing well in patches. In 2007 the errors were clustered together when he was in winning positions and in 2013 they were a bit more frequent but not as clustered in pressure moments.

Really those matches are not much difference from any of the other late stage losses Djokovic has had at the USO. Aside from his winning runs his level has been very consistent since 2007. The exception is that I think his 2012 level pre semi-final was one of his very best but he didn't handle the conditions.

Why do you think he's struggled to convert in NYC?

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Basically exactly how I feel. Both matches had Djokovic playing well in patches. In 2007 the errors were clustered together when he was in winning positions and in 2013 they were a bit more frequent but not as clustered in pressure moments.

Really those matches are not much difference from any of the other late stage losses Djokovic has had at the USO. Aside from his winning runs his level has been very consistent since 2007. The exception is that I think his 2012 level pre semi-final was one of his very best but he didn't handle the conditions.

Why do you think he's struggled to convert in NYC?

Yes, neither 2007 and 2013 was picture perfect from Djokovic, his issue was, when he had his opponent in a vulnerable position both times, he blinked, the pressure got to him, and that is all Federer and Nadal needed to get the job done.

In regards to why he struggled to convert in NYC. A few reasons, some are specific to each year, others reasons spread out over a couple of years.

2007 - He was cocky, full of perpetual belief, aggressive bold to stand before Federer. I think he just blink at the wrong moment and Federer with his much superior big match experience made him pay for not taking that first set.
2008 - I think a bit of the wind at left his sails actually thanks first to Nadal. Djokovic was flying very high up until Rome 2008, and was poised to take that number two spot. Nadal battled Djokovic hard in Hamburg and at the end, just out willed him...I think that hurt Djokovic. It was the first time his ascendancy had been stopped from progressing. Nadal then hurt him again in RG 08, but losing to Safin at Wimbledon was the heavy blow. That match was considered a shocker, by the time he got to USO to try to pick up some momentum, Federer had found a spring in his step by winning Olympic gold, so what we got at USO 2008 was Federer back in form, Djokovic coming off the back of multiple heartbreakers. Federer overall was just better.
2009 - Djokovic imo never fully recovered after that legendary clay court trilogy with Nadal. He looked like a different player after Madrid 09 semi, the gulf between him and a inform Federer that year was too high. I was not expecting anything but a straight set win for Federer.
2010 - I think he was happy just to make the final, the complete shock on his face after he beat Federer in the semi said it all, and while he matched up well against Nadal, his form that year was the worst of his career before RG 2016 happened.
2012 - Yeah, this is a bad loss. Not in the sense that Murray won, but in the sense that Djokovic faded in the fifth quite quickly despite fighting back to level the match.
2013 - we spoke about it
2104 - I think two things influenced him...one was he was drunk on victory, winning Wimbledon, imo most important slam win of his career and getting number one back after a series of heartbreaks and two getting married. I don't think his mind was fully in it.
2016 - Poor form, injury and a joke draw. He had no business getting to the final, the moment he faced a decent opponent, he lost.

 

[InsideOut900]

He has 16 slams. How can you be selevtive with that many slams. If he's always ducking Djokovic and Federer (complete nonsense imo) then he'd have maybe 8 slams or something.

No, we would still have 16 Slams, but a better record against the field and a worst record against Djokovic and Fed.

What is the point of Nadal beating Federer at AO 12 and 14 when he went on to lose the finals? Why would improving his H2H with those 2 wins have any relevance in the long run when Federer has a total of 6 titles there?

Point is that Nadal was either in excellent form, making finals and winning titles or in poor form, losing to randoms. No inbetween.

Federer can make Slam finals at any age and even when in average form, but then he loses. Nadal very rarely does that, hence why his record is so good.

No one denies that Nadal's best level is enough to beat both Djokovic and Federer on any surface, but then again Djoko/Fed have had some really good runs and we haven't seen how Nadal fares against them on those instances.

You can't make a claim that Nadal would own 2004-2007 Fed when he hasn't beat him once off clay in a Major (on clay Nadal clearly owns him). There is simply no way of knowing that, so we have to go by how many Slams both have won.

 

[killerboi2]

No, we would still have 16 Slams, but a better record against the field and a worst record against Djokovic and Fed.

The last person Federer or Djokovic are going to want to see in a slam final is Nadal. The ducking excuse just doesn't work when Nadal has 16 slams of his own and has beaten Federer and Djokovic on route to a lot of them. 16 slams and slam domination of Fed and Djokovic is amazing.

Yes, neither 2007 and 2013 was picture perfect from Djokovic, his issue was, when he had his opponent in a vulnerable position both times, he blinked, the pressure got to him, and that is all Federer and Nadal needed to get the job done.

In regards to why he struggled to convert in NYC. A few reasons, some are specific to each year, others reasons spread out over a couple of years.

2007 - He was cocky, full of perpetual belief, aggressive bold to stand before Federer. I think he just blink at the wrong moment and Federer with his much superior big match experience made him pay for not taking that first set.
2008 - I think a bit of the wind at left his sails actually thanks first to Nadal. Djokovic was flying very high up until Rome 2008, and was poised to take that number two spot. Nadal battled Djokovic hard in Hamburg and at the end, just out willed him...I think that hurt Djokovic. It was the first time his ascendancy had been stopped from progressing. Nadal then hurt him again in RG 08, but losing to Safin at Wimbledon was the heavy blow. That match was considered a shocker, by the time he got to USO to try to pick up some momentum, Federer had found a spring in his step by winning Olympic gold, so what we got at USO 2008 was Federer back in form, Djokovic coming off the back of multiple heartbreakers. Federer overall was just better.
2009 - Djokovic imo never fully recovered after that legendary clay court trilogy with Nadal. He looked like a different player after Madrid 09 semi, the gulf between him and a inform Federer that year was too high. I was not expecting anything but a straight set win for Federer.
2010 - I think he was happy just to make the final, the complete shock on his face after he beat Federer in the semi said it all, and while he matched up well against Nadal, his form that year was the worst of his career before RG 2016 happened.
2012 - Yeah, this is a bad loss. Not in the sense that Murray won, but in the sense that Djokovic faded in the fifth quite quickly despite fighting back to level the match.
2013 - we spoke about it
2104 - I think two things influenced him...one was he was drunk on victory, winning Wimbledon, imo most important slam win of his career and getting number one back after a series of heartbreaks and two getting married. I don't think his mind was fully in it.
2016 - Poor form, injury and a joke draw. He had no business getting to the final, the moment he faced a decent opponent, he lost.

Wow, you've managed to make an excuse for every single one of Djoko's US loses lmao. Only thing you need to speak about in 2013 is the better player outclassing him.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Wow, you've managed to make an excuse for every single one of Djoko's US loses lmao. Only thing you need to speak about in 2013 is the better player outclassing him.

I gave my thoughts when @NatF asked me what my opinion was. It doesn't matter whether you like it or not, these are MY thoughts.

At the end of the day, he lost all those matches because he was not the better player on the day. But then why don't we all just say that for every single match ever played by every single player, and get rid of 99.99% of the posts on this entire forum? You know what that will do, that will get rid of weak era crap talk also...but we can't do that right? riiiight?

 

[Deleted member 77403]

The last person Federer or Djokovic are going to want to see in a slam final is Nadal.

And the last person Nadal would want to see at Wimbledon is someone ranked outside of the top 100. Because all know what happens then.

So easy to crap on the top players, how about we respect them all? How about we all do that for a change? This is not just a proposal for you, but for all of us on TTW.

 

[abmk]

Djokovic in 2007 had just won Montreal over Federer and was in a richer vein of form coming into the match IMO, Djokovic in 2013 was in a bit of a slump and in the middle of a run of not winning a major for about 18 months. Not to mention Djokovic had the much tougher SF having to go through the winner of the next slam Wawrinka - where as in 2007 Djokovic was in fact the winner of the next slam.

The number of points won for both finalists was pretty much identical in each match as well, Djokovic in 2007 won 103/222 (46.4%) of the points and in 2013 he won 45.7%. Also their aggressive margins were practically equal as well, it was 13.1% in 2007 and 13% in 2013. The aggressive margin measures what proportion of the total points in a match were won by a player with aggressive plays e.g. winners and inducing forced errors. I think the 2007 final is let down in the memory because of the more obvious choke. Just for comparison Nadal in 2013 had a slighty higher AM at 21.5%, Federer was at 20.3%.

Also Roddick in the QF of 2007 had an AM of 25.5%, which is why I'm certain he was playing at a significantly higher level than either Djokovic's.

AM also has UEs in the mix.

AM= (winners+forced errors from opponent-unforced errors)/total points

 

[NatF]

AM also has UEs in the mix.

AM= (winners+forced errors from opponent-unforced errors)/total points

I know...that's the exact formula I used. I was trying to explain it in a simple way.

 

[Mainad]

And the last person Nadal would want to see at Wimbledon is someone ranked outside of the top 100. Because all know what happens then.

Cruel but funny.

So easy to crap on the top players, how about we respect them all? How about we all do that for a change? This is not just a proposal for you, but for all of us on TTW.

Ah, the welcome voice of sweet reason and sanity! Probably a tad optimistic to expect everybody to behave like this as there will always be a few mentally-disturbed troll haters lurking on internet forums like this one unfortunately. But I suspect the vast majority of us can just about manage it!!

 

[abmk]

I know...that's the exact formula I used. I was trying to explain it in a simple way.

you didn't mention UEs there. Problem if you don't mention UEs is that it gives the impression that its only checking how aggressive the player was, not how aggressive the player was with the margin (of UEs). Also people would think AM favours aggressive players hugely in that case.

 

[NatF]

you didn't mention UEs there. Problem if you don't mention UEs is that it gives the impression that its only checking how aggressive the player was, not how aggressive the player was with the margin (of UEs). Also people would think AM favours aggressive players hugely in that case.

Sure. Next time I'll mention the UE's