Biotic
Legend
Not really cuz I'm not the one with the urge to imagine things that actually happened irl.
Breakdown of Aggregate Slam Quality among the Big 3
- Thread starter USO2010
- Start date
Biotic
Legend
Yeah, you really got me there. Comparing Federer's best season to Djoko's worst is not something I can counter.
And Federer was 24, and Djokovic was just a babe, 18! 2005, was it?Yeah, you really got me there. Comparing Federer's best season to Djoko's worst is not something I can counter.
Notice Roger quit his finger pointing at Djokovic after the second meltdown at '11 US! And the fear was in his eyes!
I feel truly sorry for US2010, all that hard work, and for Djokfans to come and spoil it for him!
Last edited:
But why would you start from 2010AO , after Federer and Nadal fought each other at their peak killing each other for 5 years ?? Because it makes Djokovic look good than he is ?
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
This is the part Ultronians like to forget lol. Fedal were battling on Olympus for 5 years before Novak came to Vulture.
I mean, you are literally in a thread that is weighing Slams by "eras" or years. Go read OP, with their methodology USO 2017 had more weight than Wimbledon 2018.
Like Novak was just watching LOL. Matches played before 2011:
Nadal vs Federer: 22
Djokovic vs Nadal: 23
Djokovic vs Federer: 19
Didn't see the multiplier, sorry. But, still doesn't make any sense. A Slam like W2018, which had one of the greatest matches off all time receiving 3.8, which is below a "normal slam" is bonkers. I can also create a subjective number to satisfy an agenda, instead of 0.8, why not 0.95? Or 0.90? Or 0.99? It doesn't make sense to me.
USO2010
Professional
It’s one of the “greatest matches of all time” but that is also because both declined significantly from their primes. If it was prime Djokovic against 2018 Nadal it would be a 3 or 4 set match at best.
Do you really think this Djokovic can be compared to his 11/15 version? I think this Nadal was probably around his 06/11 version level. Better tactically but worse physically.
Yeah this isn’t a hard science, otherwise there would be no point to these debates. It’s more so a quantification of the eye test averages from historical threads.
I think post prime ATGs + the rest of the top end talent in 2017 (Murray, Berdych, Nishikori, Cilic, Dimitrov) in aggregate had roughly ~80% of the baseline level that they had in their primes. Seems reasonable. Only a 5% penalty seems too generous.
Yeah, I think they could hang with their prime versions, especially Nadal. Maybe not absolute peak like 2015 for Novak or 2007/2008 Nadal.
A 20% decrease is HUGE. Tennis matches are won by the thinnest margins. 20% is probably close to the difference of being an ATG and a great player in a tennis club.
Who says their peaks were before '10?
Nadal's peak was in '13. When he had his highest ELO rating, and defeated 24 top 10 opponents. In no other year, did he manage more than 17 t10 opponents.
Federer managed to defeat 19 t10 opponents in '06, during the WEAK era. He managed to set his max ELO rating in '07, that's true.
How come these guys faced so few t10 opponents? Djokovic defeated 31 t10 opponents in '15, and had 5 years in which he faced at least 20 opponents. Second on that list was Borg, who had 2. So far, neither A nor S made the list, in another weak era. Technically, Roger didn't make that list either.
USO2010
Professional
Nadal with half the defensive ability in 2018 couldnt hang with the prime versions of his rivals on grass.
And that’s not quite what the reduction is referring to. If for example 2005-14 Nadal prime is on average 10/10, then these post-prime versions, relatively, are on average an 8/10 level. It’s reasonable if this is roughly the case on average for the top end talent defining the eras. It’s not absolute 20% reduction in level, but in relative performance rating.
A .95 multiple doesn’t make any sense because it doesn’t lead to any measurable difference in the scoring framework. We have to be able to in some way capture the difference when most of the ATGs were in their primes versus when their baseline considerably declined.
The previous decade was so competitive that anyone in top 50 could make a push and beat top 10 players. The period from
2007-12 was evidence of this.
You don’t need to go round and round . All you have to ask yourself why Novak could not win 24 majors between 2006-17 when he could win 12 between 2018-23 ??
Just why ??
What happened what? They played almost the same number of matches. How is it possible that it affected Fedal's health so much more than Djokovic's?
You see, and I think it doesn't make sense because it is you who is trying to find a difference to fit an agenda. 0.95 wouldn't work for your thesis, so you had to drop it to a number where it would. 0.8 or lower it is.
It is completely biased, Federer at his peak winning a Slam against "mugs" = 4 points. Post-prime Djokovic winning a Slam against "mugs" = 2.something points.
USO2010
Professional
I think it’s reasonable.
Post prime Djokovic or Nadal beating up on mugs and their heavily declined post prime rivals isn’t equal in quality to any of the big 3 beating top end talent in their primes to win the title.
Sure there is probably bias, I’m no paragon of objectivity… but this downward bias is applied to Nadal’s case as well, who also won slams in the CIE.
And anyways, if we adjust the multiplier to begin at .95, which basically assumes the quality of the 2017 post prime era is the same as the quality of the prime big 3 era (Nahh), Nadal and Djokovic are still roughly even, same as currently.
Last edited:
4UTRMoutet
Hall of Fame
All this talk about the establishment when you have the wordplay of a sheep. No variation amongst bots.
Only up until 2009. So the difference is that playing few more sets before 2010 affected Roger's and Rafa's health more than Novak?
That's your prerogatory, I think there are some "post-prime" versions of the big 3 that were certainly better than some of their "prime" versions.
HAHAHA! Nice try, '04-07 was weak! It got a bit better after that. '11-15 was strong!
Cabeza del Demonio
Hall of Fame
I do agree with this but I hope that we're also in agreement about 2017 being one of the weakest seasons in that era.
BigThreeForever
Semi-Pro
I disagree to an extent but understand the premise of your point regarding the physicality. I agree that movement is a big area where the later versions declined, but I don't think you can always translate that directly into an equivalent decline in overall level as a whole. Like Nadal, even though he wasn't the cartoon blur chasing down and sending back every ball, he definitely made up for it in a more all-court game, more aggression, willingness to end points quicker, along with a serve that got better over the years.
2020 RG Nadal is a good example. He returned 95% of Djokovic's serves, won 66% of second-serve points, hit 27 winners with only 16 UEs, and forced 19 errors against a decent/alright Djokovic (Waspsting stats), beyond stats could see he hit pretty hard off both wings, a real meaty BH, and had solid defense against Djoko. Take Nadal's name away and that's still a pretty strong clay-court opponent. 2017 RG Nadal against Stan is another pretty brutal display he showed despite age. He wasn't moving like 07-08, but the rest of his game was developed enough that the decline in movement didn't totally erase his ability to play at an elite level. Maybe you can make the generalization about movement for entire seasons or even tournaments as a whole, but in individual samples where they really were peaking and all cylinders are firing, even at their older age, less so.
I think this point treats the loss of defensive range as though it happened in isolation, when Nadal's game also evolved to make up for it, like more aggressive and being able to end points faster, and generally just got better in some aspects as he progressed like serve. Not saying he would be the favorite against his earlier versions for everything, but he would certainly be a solid match-up even if the one aspect of movement wasn't 100%.
Anyways, I think it's fair to say movement makes the younger versions preferable overall, but it's harder to apply that as a blanket reduction to individual peak performances. An older ATG can lose something physically while gaining in other areas and still be an extremely difficult matchup for his younger self.
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Many of the matches were really close. He was 2-4 in slams against Fed, in one of the losses he had like set points in 2 sets. Against Nadal, yeah, Djokovic struggled in slams pre-2011. But then again, with Nadal, it doesn't make sense to split before and after 2011 (with Fed, at least was the year he turned 30).
Rosstour
Talk Tennis Guru
Rosstour
Talk Tennis Guru
What are you talking about bro. He gave Fed the lowest number
mike danny
Bionic Poster
It was
Yeh. he had the lowest H2H, by a mile, didn't he?
Nothing will compare to 2018-23 if we talking of weak era
You know as much as I do. If we are supposing, what about Djokovic having to play with basically no crowd support when facing Federer and Nadal? That to me seems like a greater burden.
gamelovergold
Hall of Fame
Federer was not a competitor of Nadal in clay.
In six matches in FO he was never in any type of winning position or pushing Nadal to 5 setter.
Media hype does not make him rival of Rafa on clay.
Novak did well enough to held his head high by beating him 2 times but it took 10 attempts to do so.
If Any Thomas muster like clay specialist was there to fight with Nadal then 14 was not possible.
Nadal whole 14 FO can be put under lens but that will be very unfair to Nadal.
He won every slam by hard work so no question asked. But difficulty level was not there.
Even his 1st Wimbledon was more difficult to win for Nadal than winning FO
gamelovergold
Hall of Fame
Federer and Rafa fought at their peak killing each other.
What a punch line.
Go back and check the federer rafa RIVALRY.
One sided and clay skew from the start till 2017.
Federer lost Wim AO to rafa but couldn't won FO by beating Rafa in FO.
RAFA was clear winner in that rivalry because of clay dominance.
wake up from your delusions and see the reality .
Rosstour
Talk Tennis Guru
Ok, so there is no need to correct him. I don’t think you even read his post
ductrung3993
Hall of Fame
ah ok i read it again. didnt deserve the low multiplier though, 2017AO was one of the hardest slam path this millenium easily
USO2010
Professional
It was hard draw but CIE era. Elite of the tour were aging and thus declining quite notably
messiahrobins
G.O.A.T.
Great post, and i did warn Djokovic fans years ago what was going to happen but was labelled a hater and troll etc when in fact i have always liked Novak and hugely respect him.
The reality is tennis is absolutely dead now, to the extent there was a big article in the Daily telegraph about it. No Alcaraz and Sinner has killed the game as they were so far ahead of everyone else tournaments just dont mean much. And beyond that the Sinner-Alcaraz rivalry hasnt captured the imagination as they are far too friendly which doesnt really engage fans to a rivalry, there needs to be a bit of distance personally between the players.
Federer Nadal and Djokovic, and Del Potro Murray and Wawrinka captured the public imagination because they all had alot of charisma in different ways, even say Murray who at his best was so fiesty on court at times it engaged the public as well as his meltdowns. The players now sadly are like robots bar Alcaraz and Djokovic and Djokovic is all but retired now in truth. Playing 4 events a season, even if slams, simply will not get the paying public buying into his story now.
Nowadays people have limited attention spans as there are so many forms of entertainment to engage in simply sitting at home and this season has been an unmitigated disaster for tennis that i am not sure it will recover from, i truly think things are that dire
Similar threads
- Poll
