Big-3's Top-5 Five-Year Spans

[abmk]

Nope, Nadal dominates the H2H over Federer at the AO 3-1 including a match peak vs. peak in 2009. Nadal higher peak at the AO.

and yet, Nadal has only 1 AO at prime to 4 for fed.
not to mention 2 wins when Nadal was at prime and fed not.
nadal won their prime to prime encounter in AO 09.
fed won their non prime to non prime encounter in AO 17
while AO 09 is more important, AO 17 comes second.

Like I said, AO 09 was nadal's best there. wasn't federer's. he was clearly better in AO 04/05/07.

nadal got utterly smashed by gonzo, tsonga, ferrer, murray, wawa at his AO prime (07-14) winning 1 set combined in those 5 matches
fed either won (4 times) or lost in 5 sets in AOs from 2004-10 (only loss to djoko at AO 08 was the exception)

At the USO Federer failed to win the title after turning 28, which shows he cannot have a higher peak than Nadal. If he stopped winning USO titles aged merely 28 it proves his peak level wasn't that impressive from the beginning. I don't know why you cite Federer's lost finals as an evidence of his incredible peak. If anything, Federer losing USO finals is an argument against him. Nadal is more clutch in USO finals (80% winning percentage) than Federer (71% winning percentage). Nadal has a superior longevity than Federer at the USO, that is a fact. Nadal won 2 USO titles in his 30s, Federer 0. Longevity is also a result of high peak. If a player stops winning aged merely 28 is because his peak was never that high. Nadal possesses a superior peak level at the USO.

peak has sh*t to do with longevity.
Also Like I said fed USO 09 > fed USO 11 > nadal USO 11 > nadal USO 17. > USO 19
only a hack can think losing 2 finals to peak delpo/djoko is a -ve. so player should lose before final than in final?
its 5-2 not close to even or -ve.

fed USO 15 >~ USO 17 level wise and > USO 19 nadal level wise
nadal got ultra lucky with inflation era in USO 17, USO 19 aka ultra weak competition
15 djoko aka peak djokovic aka 2nd best USO djoko would've easily beaten USO 17/19 nadal.

nadal couldn't even come close to defending his title. that's an actual indicator of peak.

he has 2 USOs at prime. fed has 5 (consecutive) and a 6th final in a row.
its not even remotely close
in response to your drivel I will say

{{

fed's peak level is light years better at USO because some BS needs to be counteracted with swinging things the other way around.

level wise --->

fed's USO 04/06 >>>> nadal's USO 10/13

}}

and of course nadal doesn't come even close to 100 miles in other years of fed's USO 05/07/08.
heck, he doesn't come close to even fed's USO 09.

fed has finals from 2004-15
nadal from 10-19
fed's longevity is clearly better.

Fed USO 09/11 easily higher level than anyone in all 4 of Nadal's winning draws (10/13/17/19).
USO 15 Fed easily higher level than anyone in Nadal's 17/19 draws for sure. vs 10/13 djoko its close.


Also aren't you utterly double standard-y to bring up 5-2 vs 4-1 as %s. at USO while ignoring that ->
fed is 6-1 in AO finals vs nadal being 2-4 at the AO in finals (an actual losing % there)

P.S.: as you mention the ATP finals, I will also say that Nadal showed a higher peak level at the Olympics than Federer.

Oly is not a yearly event and far less important. cannot judge peak properly there as very few chances and depends on circumstances.

 

[PUSB]

What's your conclusion about Djokovic's numbers?

Started to do better as Federer aged and Nadal got more injury prone.

 

[duaneeo]

Nadal and especially Djokovic evolved their games, having evenly distributed titles from their 20s and 30s.

Oh yes, especially Djokovic. His evolved 2018-2022 game is more dominant than all his earlier versions.

 

[juanparty]

Feddy is the GOAT over the GOATS, feddy is like zeous

 

[Kralingen]

Oh yes, especially Djokovic. His evolved 2018-2022 game is more dominant than all his earlier versions.

Meanwhile 2018-2022 Federer - 1 Slam, only 1 other Slam final, and hardly any titles during this time period.

It just goes to show that Djokovic and Nadal were better able to adjust to NextGen's level raise than Federer.

 

[initialize]

Nadal and especially Djokovic evolved their games, having evenly distributed titles from their 20s and 30s.

This reflects their ability to adapt and have 'multiple' prime periods, keeping up with the continuously rising standards of tennis.

Fed on the other hand, vultured a weak era and was unable to cope as the level of tennis increased.

… then why hasn’t Nadal been able to beat Fed after 2014?

 

[duaneeo]

Writing before i see the OP.
I'm guessing it's pro Fedal ,anti Novak thread.

Nothing written in untrue.

It's interesting that 2011-2015 isn't the top (or even the 2nd) 5-year span for Djokovic considering these are his peak years, and that 2018-2022 instead holds that spot.

 

[duaneeo]

… then why hasn’t Nadal been able to beat Fed after 2014?

Or hasn't won Wimbledon in 12 years? And has only won 1 AO title in 13 years?

 

[Kralingen]

… then why hasn’t Nadal been able to beat Fed after 2014?

Well, Rafa felt guilt over the dominant 23-10 H2H, and realized that their joint sponsorships and the 'Fedal rivalry' would suffer if he continued to embarrass the overmatched Federer.

If he ran it up to 30-10, would that even be a rivalry?

My view is, Federer bribed a slumping Rafa with cutting edge top of the line pharmaceuticals (PEDs) in 2016, promising him the drugs to get back to his best, in exchange for a couple 'losses' to keep up the myth that Fedal is actually a good rivalry. Win-Win.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Oh yes, especially Djokovic. His evolved 2018-2022 game is more dominant than all his earlier versions.

He is not at his best in 2018-2022 but he is better than Federer at that age.

Djokovic would never lose to Seppi in the past few years in a slam. Or to Gulbis. Or get smashed by Cilic.

Federer at his peak was the most dominant force ever, but he simply isn't as good at winning past his best as Djokovic is.

Even before turning 30, he was losing to Berdych and Tsonga consecutively at his pet slam. I don't count the Stakhovsky loss because he was in a slump like Djokovic was when he lost to Istomin/Chung. But Djokovic at his best slam on a "regular" year even if not at his absolute peak wouldn't lose back to back to those two even if they're top players.

 

[duaneeo]

He is not at his best in 2018-2022...

He's not at his best in 2018-2022, but his best 5-year span is 2018-2022.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

He's not at his best in 2018-2022, but his best 5-year span is 2018-2022.

Shared best. And because he managed to not drop his level that much, and compensate for that loss with his experience. And yeah, needless to say, he faced tougher competition back then than now, but he managed to have a 3-slam season back then with Federer, Nadal and Murray at a great level.

 

[mr tonyz]

Nope, Nadal dominates the H2H over Federer at the AO 3-1 including a match peak vs. peak in 2009. Nadal higher peak at the AO.

At the USO Federer failed to win the title after turning 28, which shows he cannot have a higher peak than Nadal. If he stopped winning USO titles aged merely 28 it proves his peak level wasn't that impressive from the beginning. I don't know why you cite Federer's lost finals as an evidence of his incredible peak. If anything, Federer losing USO finals is an argument against him. Nadal is more clutch in USO finals (80% winning percentage) than Federer (71% winning percentage). Nadal has a superior longevity than Federer at the USO, that is a fact. Nadal won 2 USO titles in his 30s, Federer 0. Longevity is also a result of high peak. If a player stops winning aged merely 28 is because his peak was never that high. Nadal possesses a superior peak level at the USO.

P.S.: as you mention the ATP finals, I will also say that Nadal showed a higher peak level at the Olympics than Federer.

So if you could choose between a 1-3 H2H deficit but a 6-2 tournament lead. You as a professional sportsman would rather have a better H2H vs a rival?

2 lost matches are worth more than 4 total tournament victories? 2 = better than 28??

 

[vex]

That second passage is so wrong ha.

How can any other conclusion be reached?

- if Rafa was definitively better than Fed, Fed would never have forced a 5th set, dug out from that break and won AO’17
- If Rafa was definitively better than Djoker, no way should he have 2 RG losses to him. No way should he have that ridiculous since-2013 losing streak off clay.
- If Djoker was definitively better than Rafa, no way Rafa should have pushed him to 5 at AO’12, no way Rafa should have nearly beat him at Wimby’18, no way Rafa should have beat him at USO’13.
- If Djokovic was definitively better than Fed, no way Fed should have beat him 3 times in 2015, no way Fed should have come so close to winning W’19, no way Fed should have upset him at RG’11.
- If Fed was definitively better than Rafa, no way Rafa should have ever beat him at Wimby. No way should Rafa have won much of anything off clay against him.
- If Fed was definitively better than Djokovic, no way should he have lost to him at 2010/11 USO. No way should AO’08 have happened. No way should W’14/15 have happened. No way should 2011 have happened at all.

They’re all really transcend talents. They’re so much better than anyone else. In some ways they have a weird Rafa beats Fed beats Djokovic beats Rafa cyclical relationship. Gotta give them thier respect.

 

[duaneeo]

Shared best.

No it's not a shared best. 2018-2022 Nole won 9 of 17 slams played, which is better than 2015-2019 Nole winning 9 of 19 slams played, and better than 2011-2015 Nole winning 9 of 20 slams played.

2018-2022 Nole would've won 11 of 19 slams if 2020 Wimbledon been held and he played 2022 Australian Open.

 

[abmk]

He is not at his best in 2018-2022 but he is better than Federer at that age.

Djokovic would never lose to Seppi in the past few years in a slam. Or to Gulbis. Or get smashed by Cilic.

Federer at his peak was the most dominant force ever, but he simply isn't as good at winning past his best as Djokovic is.

Even before turning 30, he was losing to Berdych and Tsonga consecutively at his pet slam. I don't count the Stakhovsky loss because he was in a slump like Djokovic was when he lost to Istomin/Chung. But Djokovic at his best slam on a "regular" year even if not at his absolute peak wouldn't lose back to back to those two even if they're top players.

Djokovic was one of the 2 favorites at AO 2017 having beaten Murray in a good quality Doha final. got upset by Istomin.
yes, he was hampered vs Chung in AO 18 (elbow issue). But given he was in an actual slump by then, might have lost anyways.
Djokovic lost to Querrey at Wim 16, not even Berdych/tsonga.
Fed was hampered in Wim 10 (leg issues) when he lost to berdych anyways.

Djokovic lost to PCB in USO 2020.
He got smashed by past prime Wawa in USO 2019. Wawa still hasn't beaten fed in any match on HC or grass.
got smashed by Med in USO 21. why wouldn't he get smashed by a red-hot CIlic?

Djokovic is no better than fed at 30+, similar ballpark., just luckier.
Wim 14/15 fed > AO 20/21 Djokovic for example.
USO 15 fed > any of Wim 19/21/22 Djokovic to give another example.

Fed USO 11 to Wim 12 (minus RG 12) ~ Djoko Wim 18-AO 19. Only fed won 1 due to stiffer competition, while Djoko won three thanks to weaker.
Djoko's AO 19 > fed's AO 12
but fed's Wim 12 > djoko's Wim 18
fed's USO 11 > djoko's USO 18
prime-ish level for both.

fed has the edge at 30+ if we take AO+Wim+USO combined. djoko balances that out with better RG performances.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

How can any other conclusion be reached?

- if Rafa was definitively better than Fed, Fed would never have forced a 5th set, dug out from that break and won AO’17
- If Rafa was definitively better than Djoker, no way should he have 2 RG losses to him. No way should he have that ridiculous since-2013 losing streak off clay.
- If Djoker was definitively better than Rafa, no way Rafa should have pushed him to 5 at AO’12, no way Rafa should have nearly beat him at Wimby’18, no way Rafa should have beat him at USO’13.
- If Djokovic was definitively better than Fed, no way Fed should have beat him 3 times in 2015, no way Fed should have come so close to winning W’19, no way Fed should have upset him at RG’11.
- If Fed was definitively better than Rafa, no way Rafa should have ever beat him at Wimby. No way should Rafa have won much of anything off clay against him.
- If Fed was definitively better than Djokovic, no way should he have lost to him at 2010/11 USO. No way should AO’08 have happened. No way should W’14/15 have happened. No way should 2011 have happened at all.

They’re all really transcend talents. They’re so much better than anyone else. In some ways they have a weird Rafa beats Fed beats Djokovic beats Rafa cyclical relationship. Gotta give them thier respect.

What is 'definitively better'? A lot better, no. A modest amount better, yes. But my main gripe was with declaring the eras being a wash... when Djokodal get to win a ton while playing at a historically mundane level these days.

 

[MichaelNadal]

What is 'definitively better'? A lot better, no. A modest amount better, yes. But my main gripe was with declaring the eras being a wash... when Djokodal get to win a ton while playing at a historically mundane level these days.

I think Nadal especially isn't getting enough credit for still playing amazing tennis. His game is pretty lethal if you aren't playing out of your mind for 3-5 hours. While I think Novak's level is definitely more "meh" he is still the best at playing the big points better than anyone on tour and is just entirely too clutch when he needs to be to not give him credit either.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I think Nadal especially isn't getting enough credit for still playing amazing tennis. His game is pretty lethal if you aren't playing out of your mind for 3-5 hours. While I think Novak's level is definitely more "meh" he is still the best at playing the big points better than anyone on tour and is just entirely too clutch when he needs to be to not give him credit either.

That's nothing but dullard talk.

 

[MichaelNadal]

That's nothing but dullard talk.

Ok, Nadal and Djokovic suck then

 

[aman92]

As a Federer and Nadal fan, I conclude that Wawrinka is the greatest

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Djokovic was one of the 2 favorites at AO 2017 having beaten Murray in a good quality Doha final. got upset by Istomin.
yes, he was hampered vs Chung in AO 18 (elbow issue). But given he was in an actual slump by then, might have lost anyways.
Djokovic lost to Querrey at Wim 16, not even Berdych/tsonga.
Fed was hampered in Wim 10 (leg issues) when he lost to berdych anyways.

Djokovic lost to PCB in USO 2020.
He got smashed by past prime Wawa in USO 2019. Wawa still hasn't beaten fed in any match on HC or grass.
got smashed by Med in USO 21. why wouldn't he get smashed by a red-hot CIlic?

Djokovic is no better than fed at 30+, similar ballpark., just luckier.
Wim 14/15 fed > AO 20/21 Djokovic for example.
USO 15 fed > any of Wim 19/21/22 Djokovic to give another example.

Fed USO 11 to Wim 12 (minus RG 12) ~ Djoko Wim 18-AO 19. Only fed won 1 due to stiffer competition, while Djoko won three thanks to weaker.
Djoko's AO 19 > fed's AO 12
but fed's Wim 12 > djoko's Wim 18
fed's USO 11 > djoko's USO 18
prime-ish level for both.

fed has the edge at 30+ if we take AO+Wim+USO combined. djoko balances that out with better RG performances.

2017 was Djokovic's worst year ever. If you count his losses there then Federer has losses to Robredo in straights at the US Open, Stakhvosky and Tsonga on clay at slams.

From mid 2016 to mid 2018 he was losing to all kind of players, like Nadal did in 2015/2016.

He is better than Federer in his early/mid 30s. Federer on one of his best years on that period lost to Seppi at a slam and on another good year lost to Gulbis and got destroyed by Cilic.

You bring up matches were he was DQed (PCB) or retired due to injury (Wawrinka). Then Federer also lost to Raonic at his best slam.

 

[abmk]

2017 was Djokovic's worst year ever. If you count his losses there then Federer has losses to Robredo in straights at the US Open, Stakhvosky and Tsonga on clay at slams.

From mid 2016 to mid 2018 he was losing to all kind of players, like Nadal did in 2015/2016.

He is better than Federer in his early/mid 30s. Federer on one of his best years on that period lost to Seppi at a slam and on another good year lost to Gulbis and got destroyed by Cilic.

You bring up matches were he was DQed (PCB) or retired due to injury (Wawrinka). Then Federer also lost to Raonic at his best slam.

I didn't count djoko loss to thiem in RG 17 or cecchinato one in RG 18 there either coz he was in a slump.

Not the case with AO 17

Similarly won't dismiss fed of AO 13 either. Wasn't in a big enough slump.

in 30s:

Fed Wim 12/14/15 a little better than Djoko AO 19/20/21

Fed USO 11/15 clearly better than Djoko USO 18/21

Fed AO 12/13/14/16 worse than djoko at Wim 18/19/21/22. Some gap.

Fed RG 12/15/19 clearly worse than Djoko 21/22/20.

I'd say about the same.

Oh and Djoko was losing to stan at USO 19 anyways.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

I didn't count djoko loss to thiem in RG 17 or cecchinato one in RG 18 there either coz he was in a slump.

Not the case with AO 17

Similarly won't dismiss fed of AO 13 either. Wasn't in a big enough slump.

in 30s:

Fed Wim 12/14/15 a little better than Djoko AO 19/20/21

Fed USO 11/15 clearly better than Djoko USO 18/21

Fed AO 12/13/14/16 worse than djoko at Wim 18/19/21/22. Some gap.

Fed RG 12/15/19 clearly worse than Djoko 21/22/20.

I'd say about the same.

Oh and Djoko was losing to stan at USO 19 anyways.

Even if Federer wins the slams he lost to a younger ATG like Wimbledon 2014, 2015, USO 2015 he doesn't match Djokovic's slam tally at the same age (I don't count Wimbledon 2019 or RG 2019 because Djokovic didn't reach that age yet and there's hardly a guarantee Federer would beat Thiem on clay Bo5 at that stage).

He was more prone to losing to lesser players in his 30's than Rafole (leaving aside slump periods where all had their bad losses).

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Number of complete matches lost in non-RG slams by Djovak
aged 23-28: 8 (Purrdick, Rafito, Fred, Mandy, Mandy, Rafito, Stan, Sushikori)
aged 31-35: 1 (madev)

What it tells us, one would wonder...

LOL.

 

[abmk]

Even if Federer wins the slams he lost to a younger ATG like Wimbledon 2014, 2015, USO 2015 he doesn't match Djokovic's slam tally at the same age (I don't count Wimbledon 2019 or RG 2019 because Djokovic didn't reach that age yet and there's hardly a guarantee Federer would beat Thiem on clay Bo5 at that stage).

lets see.
fed has 4 slams in 30s - Wim 12, AO 17, Wim 17, AO 18

USO 11, AO 12, WIm 14, Wim 15, USO 15, AO 16
leading to a total of hmm, 10 (Assuming Wawa stops fed at AO 14 and Tsonga stops Fed at RG 12)

even if we leave the last 3 (AO 17-AO 18) as Djoko hasn't reached that stage yet, we have a total of 7.

Djokovic has 8 slams from RG 17-RG 22 himself. (from time he turned 30 till he turned 35)

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Rather harshly stated, even if true in substance. But Roger still had to beat Roddick, Hewitt, Baghdatis etc. The period may have been exceptionally weak but winning slams is never easy -regardless if your opponents are Nadal, Djokovic, Murray etc or Gonzalez, Ljubičić, Davydenko etc. Easier, but not easy.

Damned with faint praise again; poor Fraud.