Djokovic closing in on Federer's big titles record

thrust

Hall of Fame
No he shouldn’t. Never deserved to win one considering his level of play.
Nadal has won 17 slams and 33 Masters, therefore, his level must have been very high. He also has a winning H-H vs Federer who many consider the ATG. So whether one likes his game style or not, Nadal has been a consistent WINNER, for nearly 15 years.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Nadal has won 17 slams and 33 Masters, therefore, his level must have been very high. He also has a winning H-H vs Federer who many consider the ATG. So whether one likes his game style or not, Nadal has been a consistent WINNER, for nearly 15 years.
He was talking about solely level of play at the YEC, even there I think Nadal would have been good enough in a couple of years to win if not for Fed/Djok but he's not been consistently good at that event - often he's been quite poor by his lofty standards.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
Well considering Masters 1000 finals are no longer best-of-5 set encounters, coupled with the fact that top players get a bye in the 1st round, it's no longer as prestigious as it once was back in the early 2000's. For instance, Djokovic only had to win 4 matches to lift the trophy in Madrid, hardly comparable to say Nadal winning Rome2006, where he had to win 6 matches including a 5 hour marathon final.
The rules are the same for everyone. Novak did not change the rules, therefore, to say that today's Masters are not as important as before is just sour grapes.
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
He was talking about solely level of play at the YEC, even there I think Nadal would have been good enough in a couple of years to win if not for Fed/Djok but he's not been consistently good at that event - often he's been quite poor by his lofty standards.
I did not realize that, too early in the morning to concentrate for an old man? I always thought Nadal's main problem with YEC was exhaustion, in that he played so many clay court tournaments early in the season, then the HC circuit through the USO.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
Let's try to give a definition to Big Tournaments. The participation rate by UTS comes to help.

Open Era tournaments with 80+% participation rate won (ATGs only):

Federer 50
Djokovic 49
Nadal 35
Sampras 20
Agassi 18
Murray 16
Becker 11
Lendl 10
Borg 8
McEnroe 5
Laver / Connors / Edberg 4
Rosewall 3
Newcombe / Wilander 2
 

TheMaestro1990

Hall of Fame
Nadal has won 17 slams and 33 Masters, therefore, his level must have been very high. He also has a winning H-H vs Federer who many consider the ATG. So whether one likes his game style or not, Nadal has been a consistent WINNER, for nearly 15 years.
What does that have to do with WTF? He has been very poor in his showings there, except on two occasions. And on both those occasions, someone else was far superior. So how does he deserve a WTF title?
 

thrust

Hall of Fame
What does that have to do with WTF? He has been very poor in his showings there, except on two occasions. And on both those occasions, someone else was far superior. So how does he deserve a WTF title?
I never said he deserved a WTF title. If you read my pervious post you will see why I thought he did poorly at the WTF, exhaustion from playing too many clay court tennis early in the season.
 

TheMaestro1990

Hall of Fame
I never said he deserved a WTF title. If you read my pervious post you will see why I thought he did poorly at the WTF, exhaustion from playing too many clay court tennis early in the season.
So why did you even respond to my original post, where I said he shouldn’t have won a WTF considering his level of play there, if you agree with me that he doesn’t deserve a WTF title?
 

N01E

Semi-Pro
So Becker's and Edberg's slams before 1990 don't count, but Chang's 1989 RG does? Great work ATP Staff.
 

Hitman

Bionic Poster
How about ranking % slams or Masters won with number of those tournaments played?
Do you think the rest of the world will do that? Because all they know is the slam count since it has been shoved down everyone's throats these past few decades.
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
How about ranking % slams or Masters won with number of those tournaments played?
You can find these numbers (title per number of events) if you look link I provided. Djokovic is ~30%, Nadal ~28.5% and Federer ~23%.
 

canta_Brian

Rookie
You’re all so desperate to justify in numbers your favourite. If tennis is just numbers it becomes pretty boring. Come on, if you ask pretty much any tennis player who they would like to be able to play like, they are not choosing a grinder like Djokovic or Nadal. Maybe the kids might like Kyrgios, but let’s be realistic, playing like Fed is the dream.
 
Top