Djokovic went 19-0 against seeded players in the NCYGS...

[Deleted member 307496]

Statistics say other things my man.

The "weak era" theory has been a a monkey on Federer's back for years. Nadal. Djokovic, and Murray have been part of a "golden generation". The only people saying that this is a weak era are Federer fanboys like you.

And stop using Nadal's career as if to say he belonged to Federer's era. he didn't. Age wise he is in the Djoko, Murray era. He was simply the first one of the three to take Federer to school. Djokovic followed suit. As I said, thank your lucky stars for Murray. Without him, Federer's career would have lost all credibility.

The only people who aren't denying today is a weak era are Novak fanboys like you. Contrary to popular belief, I like Andy Murray more than Federer -- I just had to constantly convince people who know nothing about tennis that 2004-2007 was perhaps even stronger than the vomit-ridden era we have today.

I honestly don't believe Novak would be dominating Murray had he kept his 2012/2013 form instead of bowing out to injury. For the longest time people believed Murray was a better player than Djokovic, it turns out Djokovic seemed better but Murray was dealing with surgeries/getting back to a decent level, in other words Novak proved himself against NOBODY.

35 year old Federer, injury riddled Murray 1.0, a Nadal who can't even make a GS QF. LOL. And you want to talk about freaking weak eras? When nobodies like Vinolas can make GS QF/SFs?

Honestly the only reason I am not carrying on about weak eras is because other Murray fans couldn't care less, they are just happy their boy is at #1. Something bat-sh1t insane Novak fans couldn't do.

 

[uliks]

Djokovic and Laver are probably the greatest players this game have ever seen. Kudos, OP...

 

[Deleted member 307496]

As I said earlier, it would be interesting to see the above statistics for Federer's first 12 slam titles. That would have to hurt.

How old were Novak's major opponents? I'd bet most were 30+, right?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

And finally, no. Nadal was barely even apart of Novak's era. He was Federer's main rival for much of his prime.

 

[uliks]

And finally, no. Nadal was barely even apart of Novak's era. He was Federer's main rival for much of his prime.

Nadal no part of the Novak era. They have played 50 matches against each other. Are you drunk or something!

 

[joekapa]

And finally, no. Nadal was barely even apart of Novak's era. He was Federer's main rival for much of his prime.

Oh G-d please spare me. Djokovic, Murray, and Nadal have a year apart in age. Nadal simply peaked earlier in his career.

How much do Federer fanboys want to claim Nadal as one of their own, just to guive them some level of credibility. Nadal's main rival has been DJOKOVIC. He is the player that put a break in his title count. Even Nadal said this a few months ago, when they asked him about Federer. To paraphrase he said that "much respect to Roger, but Djokovic was the hardest player I had to play in my career".


Federer's age group is with Hewitt.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Nadal no part of the Novak era. They have played 50 matches against each other. Are you drunk or something!

He was around for 2 years of the going on 6 years of Novak's "era". That's right though, you count Novak's beatings of broke-back Nadal as some sort of accomplishment.

 

[joekapa]

Nadal no part of the Novak era. They have played 50 matches against each other. Are you drunk or something!

He is high on Federal.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Oh G-d please spare me. Djokovic, Murray, and Nadal have a year apart in age. Nadal simply peaked earlier in his career.

Doesn't change the fact that Nadal was facing Federer's generation, whereas Murray and Djokovic DIDN'T for the most part. Nadal was around for YEARS before these guys showed up.

How much do Federer fanboys want to claim Nadal as one of their own, just to guive them some level of credibility. Nadal's main rival has been DJOKOVIC. He is the player that put a break in his title count. Even Nadal said this a few months ago, when they asked him about Federer. To paraphrase he said that "much respect to Roger, but Djokovic was the hardest player I had to play in my career".


Federer's age group is with Hewitt.

So, as I said, you're pumping up Novak's wins over broke-back, unable to reach a GS QF Nadal.

 

[joekapa]

He was around for 2 years of the going on 6 years of Novak's "era". That's right though, you count Novak's beatings of broke-back Nadal as some sort of accomplishment.

Nadal is a year older than Djokovic and Murray. Federer is 5 years older than Nadal. Your maths teacher should be shot.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Nadal is a year older than Djokovic and Murray. Federer is 5 years older than Nadal. Your maths teacher should be shot.

Typical logic from a Novak fan who also happens to double as a dolt.

You do realize mileage goes further than age, right? Otherwise how was Agassi still playing at a high level at an old age, or Connors so you can shut up with the dumb "weak era" argument?

 

[joekapa]

You do understand that even Nadal has said that Djokovic was his main rival in his career ? Yes ?

 

[tennis_pro]

Nadal is a year older than Djokovic and Murray. Federer is 5 years older than Nadal. Your maths teacher should be shot.

What was Djokovic doing in 2006-2010 then? He was 4-14 against Nadal at one point. I thought they were the same age?

But don't worry Djokovic will join Nadal in Declineland soon so that we'll enjoy more even battles from these pensioners.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

You do understand that even Nadal has said that Djokovic was his main rival in his career ? Yes ?

I don't care.

I am posting facts, and you're coming back with one-liners from interviews. This clearly shows you're slipping.

 

[uliks]

He was around for 2 years of the going on 6 years of Novak's "era". That's right though, you count Novak's beatings of broke-back Nadal as some sort of accomplishment.

Like I said, they have played almost 50 matches beetwen each other in a span of 10-11 years, peak, prime, decline, whatever. That has to be some sort of a record or something FGS. How they are not part of the same era is beyond me.

 

[tennis_pro]

You do understand that even Nadal has said that Djokovic was his main rival in his career ? Yes ?

Maybe because they were both at or close to their peak at the same time for a while? I don't know.

Nadal only started beating Federer when he got down off his high horse. Compare 2008-2009 Federer to 2005 Federer and it' night and day.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Like I said, they have played almost 50 matches beetwen each other in a span of 10-11 years, peak, prime, decline, whatever. That has to be some sort of a record or something FGS. How they are not part of the same era is beyond me.

And a lot of those matches came in the "Fedal" era. How many came after 2014, when the whole tour except one guy started to smoke weed and not care about tennis anymore?

 

[joekapa]

I don't care.

I am posting facts, and you're coming back with one-liners from interviews. This clearly shows you're slipping.

What facts have you exactly posted. The OP posted a series of statistics which showed the quality players that players had to beat, in order to obtain their slams. He used numbers and statistics. You use simple emotion.

 

[Krish872007]

Incredible amount of trolling going on here.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

What facts have you exactly posted. The OP posted a series of statistics which showed the quality players that players had to beat, in order to obtain their slams. He used numbers and statistics. You use simple emotion.

>Quality players.

>Nearly 40 year old Federer.
>Murray 1.0

Might as well say Roddick was quality competition.

 

[joekapa]

And a lot of those matches came in the "Fedal" era. How many came after 2014, when the whole tour except one guy started to smoke weed and not care about tennis anymore?

Why wasn't there a RodFed era (Roddick, Federer),seen that they were part of the same age group of players ? Ah because nadal gives Federer an ounce of credibility.

 

[joekapa]

>Quality players.

>Nearly 40 year old Federer.
>Murray 1.0

Might as well say Roddick was quality competition.

Do you actually understand what the statistics in the OP are saying ? Do you understand them ? We are more than willing to help, if you don't.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Why wasn't there a RodFed era (Roddick, Federer),seen that they were part of the same age group of players ? Ah because nadal gives Federer an ounce of credibility, even though he has NEVER beaten him in a slam final (or Djokovic for that matter).

You are aware Federer has beaten both Nadal and Djokovic in GS finals, right? And to top it off, he's beaten your boy MULTIPLE TIMES outside of finals.

The only guy peak Fed struggled with was Nadal. Your boy wouldn't have had a hope at defeating him in a Wimbledon final in 2008, given he barely did the job at his peak 6 years later.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Do you actually understand what the statistics in the OP are saying ? Do you understand them ? We are more than willing to help, if you don't.

Anybody can understand Novak defeated a bunch of mugs for his slams. All it takes to find that out is to actually read the "statistics" posted in the OP.

 

[uliks]

And a lot of those matches came in the "Fedal" era. How many came after 2014, when the whole tour except one guy started to smoke weed and not care about tennis anymore?

OK, for the sake of the argument let's not count 2015-2016. So that's still like 44 matches played beetwen them, and all that while playing in the different eras . Can you see the nonsenses you write here Sabratha..

 

[NatF]

Incredible amount of trolling going on here.

And funnily enough one of those trolls liked your post, the irony

 

[uliks]

And funnily enough one of those trolls liked your post, the irony

Oh, the self proclaimed YouTube tennis expert is also here. Just in time to help his drunk buddy here, with his insurmountable knowledge gathered from listing all those Wikipedia tennis articles over the past 2-3 years.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Oh, the self proclaimed YouTube tennis expert is also here. Just in time to help his drunk buddy here, with his insurmountable knowledge gathered from listing all those Wikipedia tennis articles over the past 2-3 years.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

OK, for the sake of the argument let's not count 2015-2016. So that's still like 44 matches played beetwen them, and all that while playing in the different eras . Can you see the nonsenses you write here Sabratha..

Well until 2011 Djokovic wasn't even in his prime according to you (doesn't count); and after 2014 the matches against Nadal don't count either. That leaves 2 years where the matches actually count; your logic, not mine.

 

[tennis_pro]

Oh, the self proclaimed YouTube tennis expert is also here. Just in time to help his drunk buddy here, with his insurmountable knowledge gathered from listing all those Wikipedia tennis articles over the past 2-3 years.

whats that

 

[NatF]

Oh, the self proclaimed YouTube tennis expert is also here. Just in time to help his drunk buddy here, with his insurmountable knowledge gathered from listing all those Wikipedia tennis articles over the past 2-3 years.

I have no comment on Djokovic's slams, he's had some tough ones and some weaker ones like everyone who gets to double digit majors.

Funny how reading and watching old matches is a putdown? I guess your aversion to it is why you talk so much crap

 

[S'in-net]

As I said earlier, it would be interesting to see the above statistics for Federer's first 12 slam titles. That would have to hurt.

Federer/Nadal/Djokovic : Winning Ratios v All Seeded Players up to their first 12 Grand Slam Titles

Federer :

WON 12 Grand Slams BEAT 44 seeds in the process
mean meridian average of playing 3.67 seeds per slam (out of a maximum 5)
Federer played seeds in allocated seeding rounds 73.33% of the time

Federer has 4 times beaten 5 seeds on the way to winning a slam :
USO 04/AELTC 05/MelB 07/AELTC 07

Federer won 6 Grand Slams : MelB 04/AELTC 04/MelB 06/AELTC 06/USO 06/USO 07, beating 3 seeds
(therefore playing 2 unseeded players each Grand Slam Win)
Federer won 1 Grand Slam, beating 2 seeds (played 3 unseeded players)

Nadal :

WON 12 Grand Slams BEAT 50 seeds in the process
mean meridian average of playing 4.17 seeds per slam (out of a maximum 5)
Nadal played seeds in allocated seeding rounds 83.33% of the time

Nadal has 3 times beaten 5 seeds on the way to winning a slam :
RG 08/RG 10/RG 13

Nadal won 1 Grand Slams : RG 11, beating 3 seeds (therefore playing 2 unseeded players on the way to the title)

Djokovic :

WON 12 Grand Slams BEAT 50 seeds in the process
mean meridian average of playing 4.17 seeds per slam (out of a maximum 5)
Djokovic played seeds in allocated seeding rounds 83.33% of the time

Djokovic has 5 times beaten 5 seeds on the way to winning a slam :
MelB 11/MelB 13/AELTC 15/USO 15/MelB 16

Djokovic won 3 Grand Slams : MelB 08/AELTC 11/MelB 12, beating 3 seeds
(therefore playing 2 unseeded players each Grand Slam Win)

Taking Federer and Nadal's respective figures back to 12 Grand Slam Wins each, respective periods, and :
Federer depreciates even more...And this from Wimbledon 03-USO 07, his so called Peak Period

Whilst Nadal aligns exactly with Djokovic...

The biggest stat difference is :
Federer Wins 6 Grand Slams, beating 3 seeds (therefore playing 2 unseeded players)...

Which is 50% more than Nadal/Djokovic put together...
Add to that, Federer winning 1 Grand Slam, beating 2 seeds (therefore playing 3 unseeded players)...

And you can see why Federer's stats are 10% down in comparison to Nadal/Djokovic

Federer is playing exactly ½ a seed less per Slam in the first 12 Slams compared to Nadal/Djokovic :
Federer is playing an average of 3.67 seeds per Slam compared to Nadal/Djokovic 4.17 seeds per slam (out of a maximum 5)

 

[joekapa]

Federer/Nadal/Djokovic : Winning Ratios v All Seeded Players up to their first 12 Grand Slam Titles

Federer :

WON 12 Grand Slams BEAT 44 seeds in the process
mean meridian average of playing 3.67 seeds per slam (out of a maximum 5)
Federer played seeds in allocated seeding rounds 73.33% of the time

Federer has 4 times beaten 5 seeds on the way to winning a slam :
USO 04/AELTC 05/MelB 07/AELTC 07

Federer won 6 Grand Slams : MelB 04/AELTC 04/MelB 06/AELTC 06/USO 06/USO 07, beating 3 seeds
(therefore playing 2 unseeded players each Grand Slam Win)
Federer won 1 Grand Slam, beating 2 seeds (played 3 unseeded players)

Nadal :

WON 12 Grand Slams BEAT 50 seeds in the process
mean meridian average of playing 4.17 seeds per slam (out of a maximum 5)
Nadal played seeds in allocated seeding rounds 83.33% of the time

Nadal has 3 times beaten 5 seeds on the way to winning a slam :
RG 08/RG 10/RG 13

Nadal won 1 Grand Slams : RG 11, beating 3 seeds (therefore playing 2 unseeded players on the way to the title)

Djokovic :

WON 12 Grand Slams BEAT 50 seeds in the process
mean meridian average of playing 4.17 seeds per slam (out of a maximum 5)
Djokovic played seeds in allocated seeding rounds 83.33% of the time

Djokovic has 5 times beaten 5 seeds on the way to winning a slam :
MelB 11/MelB 13/AELTC 15/USO 15/MelB 16

Djokovic won 3 Grand Slams : MelB 08/AELTC 11/MelB 12, beating 3 seeds
(therefore playing 2 unseeded players each Grand Slam Win)

Taking Federer and Nadal's respective figures back to 12 Grand Slam Wins each, respective periods, and :
Federer depreciates even more...And this from Wimbledon 03-USO 07, his so called Peak Period

Whilst Nadal aligns exactly with Djokovic...

The biggest stat difference is :
Federer Wins 6 Grand Slams, beating 3 seeds (therefore playing 2 unseeded players)...

Which is 50% more than Nadal/Djokovic put together...
Add to that, Federer winning 1 Grand Slam, beating 2 seeds (therefore playing 3 unseeded players)...

And you can see why Federer's stats are 10% down in comparison to Nadal/Djokovic

Federer is playing exactly ½ a seed less per Slam in the first 12 Slams compared to Nadal/Djokovic :
Federer is playing an average of 3.67 seeds per Slam compared to Nadal/Djokovic 4.17 seeds per slam (out of a maximum 5)

Thank you sir !!!!!

 

[S'in-net]

Why wasn't there a RodFed era (Roddick, Federer),seen that they were part of the same age group of players ? Ah because nadal gives Federer an ounce of credibility.

There was a RodFed era...Roddick is one of only 3 players who have surpassed Federer in the Year-end rankings over a ten year period

Since 2007, the only players who have surpassed Djokovic in the Year-end rankings are Federer and Nadal

Federer's best over a ten year period was to just have three players ranked above him in the Year-end rankings :
Roddick/Nadal/Djokovic

Djokovic will either equal or better that, at the the end of this year

 

[Urkezi]

Dear Lord, what is happening here? Has everybody gone completely bananas?

That little stat guy, who is busting his ass (congrats, you really have no life) to find any little obscure stat that "proves" Nole is better than Roger, is actually proving the exact same opposite or weak era with everything he posts. Here is just a quick taste.

Roger has apparently faced 1/2 a seed less per GS tournament in the first 12 GS. So what does that tell us? Well, aside from being a completely useless stat that was somehow meant to prove Nole/Nadal had tougher opponents, we can turn it around on its head with no problems whatsoever. The seeds that actually didn't get to play Roger lost their matches - that means they lost to a better player on that day. So that means that those player had a better temporary skill rating (yes, I've just made that up) than the respective seed. How high was it, we don't know, it could be temporary better than player ranked no. 2, but it surely wasn't worse than the ranking of that seed.

To put it into practice for the less apt individuals in this thread: Unseeded player def. Seed no. 24. The unseeded player is temporary better than Seed no. 24 --- he can be temporary better than seed no. 2 or even 1, but he can't be worse than seed no. 24. Note that this doesn't work the other way around ---- Seed no. 24 def. unseeded player, he is still temporary only as good as his ranking. So, that means that actually - brace for it - Roger had the most difficult draws out of all three! Well done, statguy!

 

[joekapa]

Dear Lord, what is happening here? Has everybody gone completely bananas?

That little stat guy, who is busting his ass (congrats, you really have no life) to find any little obscure stat that "proves" Nole is better than Roger, is actually proving the exact same opposite or weak era with everything he posts. Here is just a quick taste.

Roger has apparently faced 1/2 a seed less per GS tournament in the first 12 GS. So what does that tell us? Well, aside from being a completely useless stat that was somehow meant to prove Nole/Nadal had tougher opponents, we can turn it around on its head with no problems whatsoever. The seeds that actually didn't get to play Roger lost their matches - that means they lost to a better player on that day. So that means that those player had a better temporary skill rating (yes, I've just made that up) than the respective seed. How high was it, we don't know, it could be temporary better than player ranked no. 2, but it surely wasn't worse than the ranking of that seed.

To put it into practice for the less apt individuals in this thread: Unseeded player def. Seed no. 24. The unseeded player is temporary better than Seed no. 24 --- he can be temporary better than seed no. 2 or even 1, but he can't be worse than seed no. 24. Note that this doesn't work the other way around ---- Seed no. 24 def. unseeded player, he is still temporary only as good as his ranking. So, that means that actually - brace for it - Roger had the most difficult draws out of all three! Well done, statguy!

Hahahahahahaha...........hey guy, I got some magic beans, wanna buy them ?

 

[NatF]

Dear Lord, what is happening here? Has everybody gone completely bananas?

That little stat guy, who is busting his ass (congrats, you really have no life) to find any little obscure stat that "proves" Nole is better than Roger, is actually proving the exact same opposite or weak era with everything he posts. Here is just a quick taste.

Roger has apparently faced 1/2 a seed less per GS tournament in the first 12 GS. So what does that tell us? Well, aside from being a completely useless stat that was somehow meant to prove Nole/Nadal had tougher opponents, we can turn it around on its head with no problems whatsoever. The seeds that actually didn't get to play Roger lost their matches - that means they lost to a better player on that day. So that means that those player had a better temporary skill rating (yes, I've just made that up) than the respective seed. How high was it, we don't know, it could be temporary better than player ranked no. 2, but it surely wasn't worse than the ranking of that seed.

To put it into practice for the less apt individuals in this thread: Unseeded player def. Seed no. 24. The unseeded player is temporary better than Seed no. 24 --- he can be temporary better than seed no. 2 or even 1, but he can't be worse than seed no. 24. Note that this doesn't work the other way around ---- Seed no. 24 def. unseeded player, he is still temporary only as good as his ranking. So, that means that actually - brace for it - Roger had the most difficult draws out of all three! Well done, statguy!

Federer's draw would have been tougher if he faced #30 seed Nieminen in the final instead of Philippoussis according this sort of analysis...

 

[Noelan]

OP, stop with upseting fed fanboys with meaningles numbers will ya?.

 

[S'in-net]

Hahahahahahaha...........hey guy, I got some magic beans, wanna buy them ?

OP, stop with upseting fed fanboys with meaningles numbers will ya?.

That's right
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story...

 

[Urkezi]

Federer's draw would have been tougher if he faced #30 seed Nieminen in the final instead of Philippoussis according this sort of analysis...

Exactly. The OP claims every seed is tougher than any other player, even if that player defeats the seed. Which is why, for instance, Nole's draw at the OG this year was MEGA EASY with a poor Del Potro as he could be playing vs. say Benoit Paire, seeded 16th.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

On occasions the unseeded player can be more dangerous than the one that is seeded. Djokovic's 4 consecutive Slams is a tremendous achievement, it doesn't need any big analysis for that to be confirmed.

 

[joekapa]

On occasions the unseeded player can be more dangerous than the one that is seeded. Djokovic's 4 consecutive Slams is a tremendous achievement, it doesn't need any big analysis for that to be confirmed.

It is the BIGGEST achievement is tennis these past 30 years.

 

[Urkezi]

It is the BIGGEST achievement is tennis these past 30 years.

It's not even the 2nd biggest achievement of the past 5 years.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

It is the BIGGEST achievement is tennis these past 30 years.

Difficult to rank achievements, there are so many different ones. But it sure is the most dominant one year period anyone has ever had.

It's not even the 2nd biggest achievement of the past 5 years.

Go on...

 

[uliks]

Urkezi redefining the term retardation in this thread, big time.

 

[Urkezi]

Difficult to rank achievements, there are so many different ones. But it sure is the most dominant one year period anyone has ever had. Go on...

To start off, I agree with the most dominant one year period. But it's still not 17 or 14 in total, whichever way you look at it. Might be matter of preference though, but I've always preferred the long haul instead of a short sprint.

 

[Urkezi]

Urkezi redefining the term retardation in this thread, big time.

Please, elaborate - it should be interested to be analyzed by The King of Retards

 

[joekapa]

To start off, I agree with the most dominant one year period. But it's still not 17 or 14 in total, whichever way you look at it. Might be matter of preference though, but I've always preferred the long haul instead of a short sprint.

That's all you have, is the "17".

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

To start off, I agree with the most dominant one year period. But it's still not 17 or 14 in total, whichever way you look at it. Might be matter of preference though, but I've always preferred the long haul instead of a short sprint.

They did reach #17 and #14 in recent years but they didn't achieve all of that in the past 5. And Djokovic himself has 12 in total as well as other impressive stuff just like the other two, so it's not like he is a stranger to long hauls.

 

[Urkezi]

That's all you have, is the "17".

All? Do I need more? Because I got more, plenty, plenty more. But show me I need more, please do.

They did reach #17 and #14 in recent years but they didn't achieve all of that in the past 5. And Djokovic himself has 12 in total as well as other impressive stuff just like the other two, so it's not like he is a stranger to long hauls.

No, of course not. And I wasn't implying Nole is a once off guy, far from it. But all these achievements completed in the last 5 years, and I - and many others I am sure - simply value the other ones more. Now, if he had done it in the same season, there would be no debate what is the single best achievement in tennis. I mean, there probably would be a debate, after all this is TTW, but it would be sort of like these non-debates how Nadal and Nole are better than Roger --- very weak.