Big3 h2h Slam matches lost when dropping 0/1 sets in the tournament

Lew II

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
Finals/semifinals lost after dropping 0/1 sets in the tournament:

FEDERER-DJOKOVIC

Federer 6 (UO10, UO11, WI14, WI15, UO15, AO16)
Djokovic 2 (RG11, WI12)

FEDERER-NADAL

Federer 7 (RG05, RG07, WI08, RG11, AO12, AO14, RG19)
Nadal 1 (WI19)

NADAL-DJOKOVIC

Djokovic 2 (RG08, RG13)
Nadal 2 (UO11, AO19)


Total win-loss score:

Nadal 9-3
Djokovic 8-4
Federer 3-13
 
T

Tennis_Hands

Banned
How many matches with younger generation ATGs have Djoke and Nadal played in Majors after losing 0-1 sets in the whole tournament?

smiley_emoticons_santagrin.gif
 
B

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
Lew II said:
Do you think that not losing sets is a sign of good form?
Click to expand...

I think it is a sing of pro players wanting to get Rafael autograph straight on the court during the match instead of wanting to beat the crap out of him like some weak era mugs wanted when they faced their ATG opponents as a way to show their respect to the respective ATG
 
junior74

junior74

Talk Tennis Guru
Lew II said:
Do you think that not losing sets is a sign of good form?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. And also a sign of weak opponents.

But there's more to it. Novak is a player who gets better towards the end of a tournament, for instance.

Overall, I think you're a little too obsessed with everything else than the tennis itself. No offence. Point is, tennis is full of variables. Match-ups, day form, weather, what kind of food you ate, personal stuff, did you get a good crap upon the match, do you feel sharp or not etc etc...

Also:
There is no doubt a Wawrinka with Murray's consistency would win more slams, because he would reach more finals.
And a Murray with Wawrinka's mentality would win more slams, because he would win more big matches.
 
aldeayeah

aldeayeah

G.O.A.T.
To put this into perspective, how many times has each of them reached the semis of a slam dropping 0-1 sets?
 
Lew II

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
aldeayeah said:
To put this into perspective, how many times has each of them reached the semis of a slam dropping 0-1 sets?
Click to expand...
I don't know, but this is the percentage of sets they won when they reached the semifinal of a Slam:

Nadal 69.64%
Federer 62.99%
Djokovic 59.36%
 
abmk

abmk

Bionic Poster
aldeayeah said:
To put this into perspective, how many times has each of them reached the semis of a slam dropping 0-1 sets?
Click to expand...


Fed:

2019 RG
2018 AO
2017 Wim
2016 AO
2015 USO
2015 Wim
2014 Wim
2014 AO

2012 AO
2011 USO
2011 RG
2010 USO

2009 Wim
2008 Wim
2007 Wim
2007 RG
2007 AO
2006 USO
2006 Wim
2005 USO
2005 Wim
2005 RG
2005 AO
2004 Wim
2003 Wim

(25 total)
( 6 at AO, 4 at 10 at Wim, 5 at USO)

Fed won 11 out of these 25 = 44%

Overall : 15 SF at AO+8 SF at RG+13 SF at Wim+10 SF at USO = 46

So fed won 9 out 21 where he has lost 2 or more sets before the semi = 42.85%

So not that much of a difference in either

nadal:

2020 RG
2019 USO
2019 Wim
2019 RG
2019 AO
2018 RG
2017 RG
2014 RG
2014 AO
2013 USO
2012 RG
2012 AO
2011 USO
2010 USO
2010 RG
2009 AO
2008 Wim
2008 RG
2008 AO
2007 RG
2005 RG

(21 total)
(5 AO, 10 RG, 2 at Wim, 4 at USO)

Nadal won 15 of these 21 (71.43%)

Overall: 6 SF at AO, 13 at RG, 7 at Wim, 8 at USO = 34

So nadal won 5 of 13 where he lost 2 or more sets before the semi (38.46%)

Obviously clear difference for nadal when he loses more than a set

Djokovic:

2020 RG
2020 AO
2019 Wim
2019 RG
2018 Wim
2016 USO
2016 RG
2015 RG
2015 AO
2014 USO
2014 RG
2013 USO
2013 Wim
2013 RG
2012 USO
2012 Wim
2012 AO
2011 USO
2011 RG
2011 AO
2008 RG
2008 AO

(22 total)

( 5 at AO, 8 at RG, 4 at Wim, 5 at USO)

Djokovic won 9 out of these 22 (40.9%)

Overall: 6 SF at AO, 10 SF at RG, 9 SF at Wim, 11 SF at USO = 36

So Djokovic won 8 out of 14 where he lost 2 or more sets before the semi (57.14%)

Djokovic does clearly better when he loses more than a set before the semi
 
Sport

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Tennis_Hands said:
How many matches with younger generation ATGs have Djoke and Nadal played in Majors after losing 0-1 sets in the whole tournament?

smiley_emoticons_santagrin.gif
Click to expand...
Many, Thiem is a potencial ATG with potentially 6 Slams (RG 2017, RG 2018, USO 2018, RG 2019, AO 2020, USO 2020) but Nadal and Djokovic stopped him. That is a sign of greatness, Nadovic stopped the Next Gen. Nadal also defeated the 10 years younger Medveev in a Slam final, while Federer has never beaten any rival 10 years younger than him in a Slam final. The ability to stop the Next Gen is crucial in the GOAT resume of any sport.

Kasparov stopped the Next Gen Anand in chess. In basketball, Michael Jordan stopped the Next Gen by averaging 30 points per game and winning the NBA in 1996. In football, both Messi and Cristiano stopped the Next Gen by winning the Ballon d'Or aged 33 both of them.

Federer did not suceed in stopping the Next Gen and so it costed him the GOAT title.
 
B

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
Sport said:
Many, Thiem is a potencial ATG with potentially 6 Slams (RG 2017, RG 2018, USO 2018, RG 2019, AO 2020, USO 2020) but Nadal and Djokovic stopped him. That is a sign of greatness, Nadovic stopped the Next Gen. Nadal also defeated the 10 years younger Medveev in a Slam final, while Federer has never beaten any rival 10 years younger than him in a Slam final. The ability to stop the Next Gen is crucial in the GOAT resume of any sport.

Kasparov stopped the Next Gen Anand in chess. In basketball, Michael Jordan stopped the Next Gen by averaging 30 points per game and winning the NBA in 1996. In football, both Messi and Cristiano stopped the Next Gen by winning the Ballon d'Or aged 33 both of them.
Click to expand...

dude, as we discussed in another thread, by this logic Roddick is as good as Djokovic, with 16 fantazy GS vs Novak's 17
 
B

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
for the "last 12 years Djokodal kept competition from younger ATGs at bay" believers, here is a reality check we've done yesterday with @socallefty

can you please list ALL the players younger than Djokodal that have similar achievements?
and it is not about reaching #1 in ranking or winning GS
we talk here about reaching QF stage at the first 15 GS tournaments

Nadal = 7 times reached the QF or better
FO 2005 = winner
FO 2006 = winner
W 2006 = finalist
USO 2006 = QF
AO 2007 = QF
FO 2007 = winner
Wim 2007 = finalist

Djokovic = 6 times reached the QF or better
FO 2006 = QF
FO 2007 = SF
Wim 2007 = SF
USO 2007 = finalist
AO 2008 = winner
FO 2008 = SF

Safin = 5 times reached the QF or better
FO 2000 = QF
USO 2000 = winner
Wim 2001 = QF
USO 2001 = SF
AO 2002 = finalist

Roddick = 7 times reached the QF or better
USO 2001 = QF
USO 2002 = QF
AO 2003 = SF
Wim 2003 = SF
USO 2003 = winner
AO 2004 = QF
Wim 2004 = finalist

Sampras = 6 times reached the QF or better
USO 1990 = winner
USO 1991 = QF
FO 1992 = QF
Wim 1992 = SF
USO 1992 = finalist
AO 1993 = SF

Agassi = 9 times reached the QF or better
FO 1988 = SF
USO 1988 = SF
USO 1989 = SF
FO 1990 = finalist
USO 1990 = finalist
FO 1991 = finalist
Wim 1991 = QF
FO 1992 = SF
Wim 1992 = winner

Becker = 7 times reached the QF or better
AO 1984 = QF
Wim 1985 = winner
FO 1986 = QF
Wim 1986 = winner
USO 1986 = SF
FO 1987 = SF
Wim 1988 = finalist
 
B

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
RS said:
Well you created a world were Roddick has 16 slams and was near equal of a guy who has a case for being the GOAT so....
Click to expand...

no, no buddy
it's the people who cry that Roger is the champion of the woulda coulda shoulda tennis created a world where Djokodal younger opponents would be ATGs in any other era
I'm just playing their game by their rules: any loss starting with QF in GS counts as a hypothetical win ;)
 
RS

RS

Bionic Poster
blablavla said:
no, no buddy
it's the people who cry that Roger is the champion of the woulda coulda shoulda tennis created a world where Djokodal younger opponents would be ATGs in any other era
I'm just playing their game by their rules: any loss starting with QF in GS counts as a hypothetical win ;)
Click to expand...
True it’s not right to assume Thiem wins every slam without Nadal and Djokovic but your hypothetical was more questionable.
 
B

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
RS said:
True it’s not right to assume Thiem wins every slam without Nadal and Djokovic but your hypothetical was more questionable.
Click to expand...

again, I didn't invent the rules of this game
I just played it by the rules of "Thiem would be ATG with at least 10 slams" in any other era

instead of Thiem, I replaced with Roddick results
 
T

Tennis_Hands

Banned
Sport said:
Many, Thiem is a potencial ATG with potentially 6 Slams (RG 2017, RG 2018, USO 2018, RG 2019, AO 2020, USO 2020) but Nadal and Djokovic stopped him. That is a sign of greatness, Nadovic stopped the Next Gen. Nadal also defeated the 10 years younger Medveev in a Slam final, while Federer has never beaten any rival 10 years younger than him in a Slam final. The ability to stop the Next Gen is crucial in the GOAT resume of any sport.

Federer did not suceed in stopping the Next Gen and so it costed him the GOAT title.
Click to expand...

So, in the fantasy land of the VB and Djoke brigade hypothetical titles are as good as real ones?

Let me tell you something, there is only one way for a player to become an ATG and that is by beating the competition. Thiem didn't, so he isn't. Same for Murray, and literally any other, who had the chance, but didn't. If Lendl didn't start winning big his lost Finals in his early career wouldn't have made him an ATG, and so on.

It looks like you are making a case for Hewitt being an ATG too!

Let's see his SF/F tally:

USO 2000 SF L vs Pete Sampras (ATG)
USO 2001 F won
Wim 2002 F won
USO 2002 SF L vs Andre Agassi (ATG)
USO 2004 F L vs Roger Federer (ATG)
Wim 2005 SF L vs Roger Federer (ATG)
USO 2005 SF L vs Roger Federer (ATG)

So, it appears that, if we follow that logic, and award to Hewitt all the potential titles, or at least the majority of them, he is also an ATG, since all his losses are to other ATGs.

Am I understanding your argument right?

smiley_emoticons_santagrin.gif
 
RS

RS

Bionic Poster
blablavla said:
again, I didn't invent the rules of this game
I just played it by the rules of "Thiem would be ATG with at least 10 slams" in any other era

instead of Thiem, I replaced with Roddick results
Click to expand...
Roddick doesn’t get 16 without Federer but fine.
 
RS

RS

Bionic Poster
blablavla said:
again, I didn't invent the "Thiem would be ATG in any other era" game
I'm just playing it by the rules of those who invented it
Click to expand...
Well you would have to add the times he lost to Federer which only takes him up to 9 slamsBut fine he is a ATG if you use the logic Sport uses.
 
B

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
RS said:
Well you would have to add the times he lost to Federer which only takes him up to 9 slamsBut fine he is a ATG if you use the logic Sport uses.
Click to expand...

if I count all matches he lost to ATGs starting with QF, he'll be close to 16
 
D

Deleted member 775898

Guest
RS said:
I thought Sport was count realistic winning chances and not just any loss but fair enough.
Click to expand...
Thiem lacks the mental of an ATG, so he very likely loses most of these finals even without Djokodal around.
 
mehdimike

mehdimike

Hall of Fame
Lew II said:
Pattern is the usual:

RG --> Nadal 6-0, Djokovic 0-3
AO+WI+UO --> Djokovic 8-1, Nadal 2-4
Click to expand...
I guess it's a typo or I'm missing something.
The real pattern in this case is:
RG Nadal > Djokovic
AO Nadal = Djokovic
W +USO Djokovic > Nadal;)
 
aldeayeah

aldeayeah

G.O.A.T.
abmk said:
Fed:

2019 RG
2018 AO
2017 Wim
2016 AO
2015 USO
2015 Wim
2014 Wim
2014 AO

2012 AO
2011 USO
2011 RG
2010 USO

2009 Wim
2008 Wim
2007 Wim
2007 RG
2007 AO
2006 USO
2006 Wim
2005 USO
2005 Wim
2005 RG
2005 AO
2004 Wim
2003 Wim

(25 total)
( 6 at AO, 4 at 10 at Wim, 5 at USO)

Fed won 11 out of these 25 = 44%

Overall : 15 SF at AO+8 SF at RG+13 SF at Wim+10 SF at USO = 46

So fed won 9 out 21 where he has lost 2 or more sets before the semi = 42.85%

So not that much of a difference in either

nadal:

2020 RG
2019 USO
2019 Wim
2019 RG
2019 AO
2018 RG
2017 RG
2014 RG
2014 AO
2013 USO
2012 RG
2012 AO
2011 USO
2010 USO
2010 RG
2009 AO
2008 Wim
2008 RG
2008 AO
2007 RG
2005 RG

(21 total)
(5 AO, 10 RG, 2 at Wim, 4 at USO)

Nadal won 15 of these 21 (71.43%)

Overall: 6 SF at AO, 13 at RG, 7 at Wim, 8 at USO = 34

So nadal won 5 of 13 where he lost 2 or more sets before the semi (38.46%)

Obviously clear difference for nadal when he loses more than a set

Djokovic:

2020 RG
2020 AO
2019 Wim
2019 RG
2018 Wim
2016 USO
2016 RG
2015 RG
2015 AO
2014 USO
2014 RG
2013 USO
2013 Wim
2013 RG
2012 USO
2012 Wim
2012 AO
2011 USO
2011 RG
2011 AO
2008 RG
2008 AO

(22 total)

( 5 at AO, 8 at RG, 4 at Wim, 5 at USO)

Djokovic won 9 out of these 22 (40.9%)

Overall: 6 SF at AO, 10 SF at RG, 9 SF at Wim, 11 SF at USO = 36

So Djokovic won 8 out of 14 where he lost 2 or more sets before the semi (57.14%)

Djokovic does clearly better when he loses more than a set before the semi
Click to expand...
That's actually pretty interesting. In a nutshell:

Fed struggling in the early rounds says nothing about he will do in the late rounds.

While Nadal's form in the early rounds is a more accurate predictor of how he will do later on.

And Djokovic often takes it easy in the early rounds, then peaks in the late rounds.

It's kind of what I expected but it's nice to see the numbers align. Fed plays every match pretty much the same, while Nadal likes to get into a groove early on and ride it to the championship, and Djokovic is the most tactical one, prone to saving energy/dropping the odd set when he's confident.
 
B

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
RS said:
Obviously not it’s both too extreme really.
Click to expand...

I know, but since unfortunately too many forum members have an allergy to common sense, the only way to show how hilarious is their thinking is to apply this thinking against their favorite players or in favor of players they dislike so much
 
Lew II

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
Yugram said:
So Nadal is 1st, Djokovic 2nd and Federer 3rd?

As usual, as usual.
Click to expand...
Too clay-centred as usual though. Djokovic did better at 3 of the 4 Slams:

AO Djokovic 2-0 > Nadal 2-1
WI Djokovic 2-1 > Nadal 1-1
UO Djokovic 3-0 > Nadal 0-1
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lew II
Slams finals won vs opponents that had dropped 0/1/2 sets in the tournament
2
Replies
99
Views
3K
Bamoos
Bamoos
Lew II
Times Big3 were defending champions of 4/3 Slams
Replies
33
Views
1K
Deleted member 777746
D
Lew II
Federer is now 1-9 against #1 at Slams
2 3 4
Replies
194
Views
9K
Holmes
Holmes
N01E
Big 3 slams won vs champions of that event
Replies
12
Views
663
N01E
N01E
N01E
Big 3 against players in their GS SF/F debut:
Replies
6
Views
379
N01E
N01E
Top