Both Federer and Nadal have finished as year-end #2 more often than as year-end #1

[helterskelter]

Odd stat this. Not meant as a criticism. It's just a curious fact.

Here are Federer's year-end top 10 finishes:

#1 = 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009 [5 times]
#2 = 2003, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2017 [6 times]
#3 = 2011, 2015 [2 times]
#4 or #5 = never
#6 = 2002, 2013 [2 times]

Here are Nadal's year-end top 10 finishes:

#1 = 2008, 2010, 2013, 2017 [4 times]
#2 = 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011 [5 times]
#3 = 2014 [1 time]
#4 = 2012 [1 time]
#5 = 2015 [1 time]
#6, #7, or #8 = never
#9 = 2016 [1 time]

 

[Zeref]

Just shows their consistency . . (yeah Nadal was consistent enough before 2014)

 

[JMR]

Jack Nicklaus has 18 majors but 19 second-place finishes.

 

[Spencer Gore]

Federer was the best player in the world till 2007. Once Nadal and Djokovic reached maturity he slipped down. It's not a surprising stat.

 

[helterskelter]

Jack Nicklaus has 18 majors but 19 second-place finishes.

Ivan Lendl has eight major titles and was 11 times runner-up.

 

[helterskelter]

Federer was the best player in the world till 2007. Once Nadal and Djokovic reached maturity he slipped down. It's not a surprising stat.

Can we please leave the Federer/Nadal wars out of this thread? This is a stat that applies to both of them. And even Djokovic has finished as #3 as often as he has finished #1.

 

[True Fanerer]

You won't find this consistency elsewhere. The one constant in every major tennis record is the name "Federer". Good luck leaving that name out unless its clay. Got a good argument for that top 5 tbh.

 

[Spencer Gore]

Can we please leave the Federer/Nadal wars out of this thread? This is a stat that applies to both of them. And even Djokovic has finished as #3 as often as he has finished #1.

The reason Nadal hasn't finished as #1 more often is Djokovic. He is the best player of the 3, but has been supremely unlucky that two other all-time top 10 players have been his direct rivals.

 

[True Fanerer]

The reason Nadal hasn't finished as #1 more often is Djokovic. He is the best player of the 3, but has been supremely unlucky that two other all-time top 10 players have been his direct rivals.

You really believe that

 

[Backspin1183]

The reason Nadal hasn't finished as #1 more often is Djokovic. He is the best player of the 3, but has been supremely unlucky that two other all-time top 10 players have been his direct rivals.

@helterskelter is right. We have had too many Federer vs Nadal or goat threads. It would be great if for once we don't turn this to another fedal goat thread.

 

[Spencer Gore]

You really believe that

Of course. He has had the beating of both of them for years.

 

[True Fanerer]

Of course. He has had the beating of both of them for years.

Djokovic was amazing for a while. He may return and win slams too. But, he is not in the GOAT conversation yet.

 

[Spencer Gore]

Djokovic was amazing for a while. He may return and win slams too. But, he is not in the GOAT conversation yet.

I didn't say he was. I said he' s the best player out of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.

 

[True Fanerer]

I didn't say he was. I said he' s the best player out of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.

 

[abmk]

The reason Nadal hasn't finished as #1 more often is Djokovic. He is the best player of the 3, but has been supremely unlucky that two other all-time top 10 players have been his direct rivals.

again, more ignorance from the phony Gore. (or should I say agenda to put down FEderer and prop up Nadal&Djokovic)

Nadal finished #2 to Federer in 05, 06, 07, 09

He finished #2 to Djokovic only in 11.

So wrong.

Federer finished #2 to DJokovic in both 12 and 14.

 

[abmk]

Federer was the best player in the world till 2007. Once Nadal and Djokovic reached maturity he slipped down. It's not a surprising stat.

Federer was the best player in the world in 2009 as well.
Best player in 2017 as well. (though not #1)

Yet another fail from you.

He also ovetook #1 position from peak Djokovic and peak Nadal at ~31 after Wimbledon 2012, which was hilarious to say the least and shut the mouth of many BSers like you at that time.

but you seem to live in some la la land where federer didn't decline significantly after AO 10 (well before djoko's 11) nor didn't lose to all of his former pigeons - roddick, blake, fish, karlovic etc, in 08 indicating a clear dip from his peak level to just prime level ....

 

[Deleted member 307496]

The reason Nadal hasn't finished as #1 more often is Djokovic. He is the best player of the 3, but has been supremely unlucky that two other all-time top 10 players have been his direct rivals.

Djokovic and Fed are quite even in the H2H you idiot.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

again, more ignorance from the phony Gore. (or should I say agenda to put down FEderer and prop up Nadal&Djokovic)

Nadal finished #2 to Federer in 05, 06, 07, 09

He finished #2 to Djokovic only in 11.

So wrong.

Federer finished #2 to DJokovic in both 12 and 14.

The reason slams were unwinnable for 3 years straight... Federer.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I didn't say he was. I said he' s the best player out of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.

And herp derp, he isn't.

Your whole argument rests on the dumb "weak era" argument when Djokovic won half his majors in an era with Andy Murray as his best competition... LMFAO.

 

[True Fanerer]

I didn't say he was. I said he' s the best player out of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.

 

[merlinpinpin]

The reason Nadal hasn't finished as #1 more often is Djokovic.

Exactly. As shown by abmk, Nadal lost a whopping *one* YE #1 to Djokovic, while Federer was lucky enough to only lose *two*. So Nadal was obviously much more impacted by Djokovic than Federer in that regard, as according to VB logic, one is more than two, 16 is more than 19, zero is more than four, etc.

 

[abmk]

The reason Nadal hasn't finished as #1 more often is Djokovic. He is the best player of the 3, but has been supremely unlucky that two other all-time top 10 players have been his direct rivals.

He was clearly dominated in the h2h overall by federer from 07-10.

only got the better of federer from 2011 onwards, when federer was 29.5-30.
still h2h in slams in 11 and 12 was 2-3 federer, with one match for djokovic saved by the thinnest of the margins.

Djokovic at that age is 0-3 vs Kyrgios and Zverev combined

He's barely an inch ahead in the h2h inspite of having a clearly bigger # of matches at his prime than in federer's prime.



-------

and Djokovic only dominated Nadal in 11-early 12 and from late 13 onwards to 16.
Nadal dominated him from 07-10 and even in 12 clay season-13 USO (after 12 AO, he went 6-1 vs Djokovic)

 

[Zeref]

Federer was the best player in the world till 2007. Once Nadal and Djokovic reached maturity he slipped down. It's not a surprising stat.

He was no. 1 in 2009..then turned 29 , so obviously he would slip down.
The only reason Djokovic didn't slip down at 29 was due to these weak Lost generation Mugs (Dimitrov , Raonic, Goffin), slipping down at rankings common once you reach late 20's. See Sampras,he slipped down as New Gen Safin took over #1 for few weeks when sampras was 28.

U tell everyone u have been watching tennis for decades , I expect u can atleast go through these stats and not let your hatred towards Fed make yourself delusional

 

[Gary Duane]

Odd stat this. Not meant as a criticism. It's just a curious fact.

Here are Federer's year-end top 10 finishes:

#1 = 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009 [5 times]
#2 = 2003, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2017 [6 times]
#3 = 2011, 2015 [2 times]
#4 or #5 = never
#6 = 2002, 2013 [2 times]

Here are Nadal's year-end top 10 finishes:

#1 = 2008, 2010, 2013, 2017 [4 times]
#2 = 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011 [5 times]
#3 = 2014 [1 time]
#4 = 2012 [1 time]
#5 = 2015 [1 time]
#6, #7, or #8 = never
#9 = 2016 [1 time]

That's interesting, but I think it also shows what happens with guys with very long careers who get to the top for a few years.

 

[Red Rick]

You won't find this consistency elsewhere. The one constant in every major tennis record is the name "Federer". Good luck leaving that name out unless its clay. Got a good argument for that top 5 tbh.

Nah. Only metric he's top 5 in is lost RG finals. There's 8 guys with multiple RG titles in the Open era, 5 of which have 3 or more.

 

[True Fanerer]

Nah. Only metric he's top 5 in is lost RG finals. There's 8 guys with multiple RG titles in the Open era, 5 of which have 3 or more.

Comparing eras yes but comparing Fed to anyone anywhere is dangerous ground unless its Rafa on clay. No one has had as much consistency on clay without the title. His competition was Rafa!! Minus Rafa, working on 25 slams.. Federer was much better on clay than anyone acknowledges.

 

[Wander]

Whether it's because he's in the throes of senility having followed tennis for 150 years or just a sad troll, Spencer Gore's tennis opinions are a joke.

 

[JMR]

Ivan Lendl has eight major titles and was 11 times runner-up.

That's true, but a golf major runner-up is more like a tennis ranking, in the sense that the player is competing against the entire field at once on a mathematical basis. That is why the greats can be so often near the top but not quite at the top. (Arnold Palmer had seven majors and 10 second places.) A tennis slam final is an actual on-court competition, so the greats usually win, with Lendl's being the hapless exception.

 

[JoshuaPim]

Quirky stat.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Wow, we have two 19th century winners of Wimbledon posting in this thread!

 

[helterskelter]

That's true, but a golf major runner-up is more like a tennis ranking, in the sense that the player is competing against the entire field at once on a mathematical basis. That is why the greats can be so often near the top but not quite at the top. (Arnold Palmer had seven majors and 10 second places.) A tennis slam final is an actual on-court competition, so the greats usually win, with Lendl's being the hapless exception.

Right, so it makes Lendl's stat more unusual than the golfer's, not less. I was meaning to say that this stat about Federer and Nadal is in stark contrast to most top players having heavy winning records in finals, because many finals are against lower-ranked players. Even Murray - who's record in major finals is so heavily negative - has a strongly winning record in finals overall. But lower-ranked players don't get to #2, so Federer and Nadal have been competing against each other and Djokovic, hence they end up #2 more often than #1.

 

[helterskelter]

That's interesting, but I think it also shows what happens with guys with very long careers who get to the top for a few years.

Yes, and as I just said in the previous post, there has been a three-way competition for #1, so it's inevitable that each contender will be not-#1 more often than they are #1. Factor in Djokovic as well, and all of the big three end up either #2 or #3 more often than they do #1. And that's to be expected statistically: for all the furor about who is greater, the truth is that they are fairly close, and so the two others combined will win more often than the one in question. Add in Murray sneaking out a year at #1 and you have a recipe for this. Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic have finished as #1 13 times in the last 14 years, but no one of them has been #1 more than five times.

 

[Towser83]

I think this speaks for how great they are. You're not going to finish number 1 the majority of years you play, so to finish at 2 most times when you've not means even falling short you're still up there. Both players in the timeframe presented have finished top 2

Federer - 11 times
Nadal 9

Top 3

Federer - 13 times
Nadal - 10

Top 4

Federer - 13 times
Nadal - 11

With Fed, Nadal and Djokovic around, imagine finishing top 3 in 13 separate years? Since become number 1 for the first time Federer has only finished below 4 twice time, in his injury hit year of 2013 and 2016. Nadal has only finished below 4 twice, in 2015 and 2016, both years in which he had struggles and the injury last year.

Add to that the amount of years in which they have been number one at some point

Federer in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012
Nadal in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2017 and 2018

8 years apiece, Federer narrowly missing out on 9 and 10

 

[Gary Duane]

Yes, and as I just said in the previous post, there has been a three-way competition for #1, so it's inevitable that each contender will be not-#1 more often than they are #1. Factor in Djokovic as well, and all of the big three end up either #2 or #3 more often than they do #1. And that's to be expected statistically: for all the furor about who is greater, the truth is that they are fairly close, and so the two others combined will win more often than the one in question. Add in Murray sneaking out a year at #1 and you have a recipe for this. Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic have finished as #1 13 times in the last 14 years, but no one of them has been #1 more than five times.

The big thing: They ARE close!!!