Fed Fans - Who would you rather overtake Federer's slam total?

Who would you rather overtake Federer's slam total?


  • Total voters
    196
For a moment forget who's fault it is the point remains 7 meetings at RG and 2 at AO or meeting after meeting in clay masters, RG but just the odd meeting in shanghai, WTF, cinci etc (which of course nadal normally loses he only has 1 win over fed indoors ever and that was in 2013 with fed injured which further proves the point - with the exception of 2017 for djokovic fedovic can almost always go deep in slams and masters in their beta mug form while nadal only goes deep when in red hot form. I'll excuse them now as they are all post prime bar djokovic e.g. I won't hold it against nadal if he goes out 2nd round Wimbledon this year as he is post prime and 32 but he has been doing this in slams and masters when world. No2 in his peak and prime

If he did what he did in 2011 more often and get to. Finals. Of everything he would be getting beaten far more (as he did in 2011 7-0)
On the 'going deep in slams' comment; review the stats I provided on who has exited slams earlier and I think you'll find it is not as one sided as one would assume. With regards to M1000 level, Rafa is the current record holder so that's enough said on that really.

On the 'getting beaten more often' comment, the slam H2H would suggest otherwise. Djokerer are probably lucky they didn't catch him more often:

Rafa 8-3 Federer
Rafa 9-6 Djokovic

Even if we look at it outside of RG in Djokerer's playground:
Rafa 4-3 Federer
Djoker 5-3 Rafa

So no, the stats would suggest that Rafa is still winning 57% of matches against Fed and 37% against Djoker - not a bad winning rate against two ATG's on their preferred surfaces. It certainly beats the miserable win rate stas that Djoker and Federer put up at RG against Rafa; Djoker 14% and Fed 0%
 

Zara

Hall of Fame
Djokovic is in such a good position though.

If the record must be broken then Feds would feel it should be Nole because he is the lesser of the two evils.

And Nads would love it too if he is unable to do it because of all the injustice that was done to Nads and the abuse they had to go through over the years.

It has a very dirty political vibe to it.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
You mean there are Federer fans who would like to see Federer keep the record rather than Djokovic or Nadal overtaking him? :eek:
Incorrect.

Who's ever leading in slam count isn't the reason. Fans want the NextGen to win slam rather than any of the big 3 because they have won too much.
This holds true for the WTA. Serena has won too much and it was refreshing to see the NextGen like the rising star Naomi Osaka became #1 in the world.
 
Djokovic's diversity at the slams isn't all that much better than Nadal's, and is nowhere near Federer's. Take away each player's best slam, and it's 6-5-1 vs 4-3-1 vs 3-2-1.
Let's face it though, Nadal got the raw end of the deal when it comes to surface distribution. His weakness is hard court, which is 75% of the year. Federer's is clay, which is only 2 months and 1 Slam, while Djokovic's is either clay or grass (he's the most balanced player of the three). So being weak on hard court while his rivals are HC GOATs does put him at a disadvantage.
 
Incorrect.

Who's ever leading in slam count isn't the reason. Fans want the NextGen to win slam rather than any of the big 3 because they have won too much.
This holds true for the WTA. Serena has won too much and it was refreshing to see the NextGen like the rising star Naomi Osaka became #1 in the world.
You're missing the whole point (and on purpose I am sure). The question was, if one of these two guys has to overtake Federer, which one would his fans prefer to do that. Two cases, pick one.

Regardless, why didn't you say that while Federer still looked like a huge contender for more Slams? :whistle: Why wasn't it too much back then? Rhetorical question of course, since such convenient timing of these posts and the reason behind them is so obvious. You don't give a crap about NextGen. The whole fangroup you're part of is now just being forced into supporting the guys that you declared mugs a while ago because there is no other option. And I couldn't have imagined a more hilarious turn of events than that.
 
From 2018 onwards, the only thing which can stop Nadal from surpassing Federer's GS record is Djokovic. Therefore, Federer fans should support Djokovic, since they can't stand the idea of Nadal surpassing Federer.
 
If you're that tribal. If you just want to root for good tennis you could support either depending on your preference
Look at the pool results. 71% of Fed fans voted that Djokovic surpassing Federer would be better than Nadal doing it. Which proves my point, most Fed fans can't stand the idea of Nadal surpassing his Slams total. They can accept better Djokovic surpassing Federer's Slams total.
 
Also whats your take on why tribal fed fans would prefer djokovic to take over instead of Nadal. I would have thought for a tribal fan it's better for it to be nadal
I have always noticed on the internet, forums and social media that Federer and Nadal fans are always discussing. It is the longest rivalry (starting in 2004), so that could be a factor.

On the other hand, note how Nadal and Djokovic fans generally have no problems or big discussions. And Federer fans are generally more tolerant with Djokovic.

It seems like the Fedal rival is more passionate among fans. That is the reason why I think most Federer fans always support Djokovic over Nadal in Grand Slam matches.
 
If Nadal does it will probably be clay heavy. If Djokovic doesn't it will be an even more well rounded resume than Fed's himself. If I was a Fed fan I would probably rather have Nadal do it


If Djokovic does it he probably have the "Golden double slam" at each of the events. Fed couldn't manage it.
 
If Nadal does it will probably be clay heavy. If Djokovic doesn't it will be an even more well rounded resume
No it won't. Nadal has his Grand Slam titles more evenly distributed by surface than Djokovic. Nadal has won at least 2 Grand Slams on each surface (hard, grass and clay). On the oher hand, Djokovic only has 1 Grand Slam on clay. 2 Grand Slams on each surface >>> 1 Grand Slams on each surface. Djokovic needs to win 2 extra Roland Garros to have his Grand Slam titles more evenly distributed by surface than Nadal.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
No it won't. Nadal has his Grand Slam titles more evenly distributed by surface than Djokovic. Nadal has won at least 2 Grand Slams on each surface (hard, grass and clay). On the oher hand, Djokovic only has 1 Grand Slam on clay. 2 Grand Slams on each surface >>> 1 Grand Slams on each surface. Djokovic needs to win 2 extra Roland Garros to have his Grand Slam titles more evenly distributed by surface than Nadal.
If HC is one surface, why does Nadal have zero WTFs, on top of one Cincy?

:cool:
 
No it won't. Nadal has his Grand Slam titles more evenly distributed by surface than Djokovic. Nadal has won at least 2 Grand Slams on each surface (hard, grass and clay). On the oher hand, Djokovic only has 1 Grand Slam on clay. 2 Grand Slams on each surface >>> 1 Grand Slams on each surface. Djokovic needs to win 2 extra Roland Garros to have his Grand Slam titles more evenly distributed by surface than Nadal.

Djokovic is probably good for another French Open. So that will give him 2 slams or more on each of the 4. Fed has no shot at another Clay Slam. Nadal would need to win another Australian and his chances are far lower than Djokovic winning a second French title at this point,

then you got those WTF titles of course. Then Nole can challenge Fed's time at #1 and the Year #1 record by Pete.

And who knows Nole has a realistic shot at winning a Calendar Slam this year. Its early but with Nadal's rapidly declining speed, and no up and comers, its a good shot
 

duaneeo

Hall of Fame
Let's face it though, Nadal got the raw end of the deal when it comes to surface distribution. His weakness is hard court, which is 75% of the year. Federer's is clay, which is only 2 months and 1 Slam, while Djokovic's is either clay or grass (he's the most balanced player of the three). So being weak on hard court while his rivals are HC GOATs does put him at a disadvantage.
It can also be said that Nadal got two chances a year to win on his least favored surface, while Federer and Djokovic only got one. And, not all HCs play the same. The slower the surface and (most important) higher the bounce, the less of a disadvantage it is for Rafa.
 
If he gets 1 RG title v nadal he's pretty much even with nadal on clay too. You could argue not. Peak nadal on clay but I don't buy into that nadal was epic in these years too I'm not knowledgeable enough to say when exactly he was peak
Nadal is way better on RG clay than any verison of peak Djokovic.

Djokovic couldnt hit through sunny clay on hot conditions. Even when he beat Nadal in 2015 it was moist.

Djoko is an aggressive pusher, requires another pusher with slightly more power to beat him consistently. I am confident new gen will fix his game.
 
From 2018 onwards, the only thing which can stop Nadal from surpassing Federer's GS record is Djokovic. Therefore, Federer fans should support Djokovic, since they can't stand the idea of Nadal surpassing Federer.
He will never surpass Fed as he will never have 6 AO 8 Wimbledon 5 US open's and 6 WTF.
 
Let's face it though, Nadal got the raw end of the deal when it comes to surface distribution. His weakness is hard court, which is 75% of the year. Federer's is clay, which is only 2 months and 1 Slam, while Djokovic's is either clay or grass (he's the most balanced player of the three). So being weak on hard court while his rivals are HC GOATs does put him at a disadvantage.
True but competition is much higher on HC's than clay.
 
Look at the pool results. 71% of Fed fans voted that Djokovic surpassing Federer would be better than Nadal doing it. Which proves my point, most Fed fans can't stand the idea of Nadal surpassing his Slams total. They can accept better Djokovic surpassing Federer's Slams total.
I am a Fed fan. I just prefer Djokovic game to Nadal's. That is the reason. I am not a fan of clay court style which consist mainly in getting back every balls with heavy top spin.

Saying that, i enjoy playing on clay.:):)
 
No it won't. Nadal has his Grand Slam titles more evenly distributed by surface than Djokovic. Nadal has won at least 2 Grand Slams on each surface (hard, grass and clay). On the oher hand, Djokovic only has 1 Grand Slam on clay. 2 Grand Slams on each surface >>> 1 Grand Slams on each surface. Djokovic needs to win 2 extra Roland Garros to have his Grand Slam titles more evenly distributed by surface than Nadal.
Oh come on.

AO and Us open are not exactly the same surface.

Nadal's GS titles are not evenly distributed. 65% of his titles have been won on clay.

Nadal can't play indoors compared to Fed and Novak.
 
It can also be said that Nadal got two chances a year to win on his least favored surface, while Federer and Djokovic only got one. And, not all HCs play the same. The slower the surface and (most important) higher the bounce, the less of a disadvantage it is for Rafa.
There's much more competition on HC's than on clay nowadays.
 

duaneeo

Hall of Fame
Nadal's GS titles are not evenly distributed. 65% of his titles have been won on clay.
Again, Nadal's slam distribution isn't much different than Djokovic's. The only difference is that Rafa has been more dominant at his favorite slam. If Nadal had won only 7 RG titles, the slam breakdown would be 7-3-2-1 vs 7-4-3-1. If Djokovic had won 11 AO titles, it would be 11-4-3-1 vs 11-3-2-1.
 
Again, Nadal's slam distribution isn't much different than Djokovic's. The only difference is that Rafa has been more dominant at his favorite slam. If Nadal had won only 7 RG titles, the slam breakdown would be 7-3-2-1 vs 7-4-3-1. If Djokovic had won 11 AO titles, it would be 11-4-3-1 vs 11-3-2-1.
If Nadal had only won 7 FO titles, his fans would not support him as being the Goat. In Nadal's case better distribution means being out of the discussion as being the goat.

Nadal is King of clay and an amazing player outside of clay because the surfaces have slow down. Not the GOAT of tennis.

65% of his GS titles have been on CLAY
65% of his MS 1000 titles have been on CLAY
He has lost early to random players on may occasions in slams outside the FO
He has never won YEC which is a massive tournament. Even Kuerten managed to pull one of beating Agassi and Sampras on that occasion.
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
You're lucky he didn't say both.
Further proof that some of Nole fans like you are self-absorbed about the slam race and have no sentiment toward the NextGen whom they have won NOTHING. The LostGen have suffered enough but you couldn't careless if the NextGen failed like the rest.

The WTA is making progress. The landscape of tennis has changed thanks to Osaka has become a superstar and gain popularity worldwide.
 
Further proof that some of Nole fans like you are self-absorbed about the slam race and have no sentiment toward the NextGen whom they have won NOTHING. The LostGen have suffered enough but you couldn't careless if the NextGen failed like the rest.

The WTA is making progress. The landscape of tennis has changed thanks to Osaka has become a superstar and gain popularity worldwide.
Please, everyones sentiment is towards their own favorites. Dont tell me what you dont want is Federer winning the next 5 slams in a row if it were possible.

LostGen deserve no compassion, they suck. If they cant stop Djokovic/Nadal/Federer way into their 30s they are useless and deserve no slams. If the next generations are good enough they will take them on their own, if they arent good enough to win slams even against aging stars, they clearly do not merit them.
 

duaneeo

Hall of Fame
Nadal is King of clay...Not the GOAT of tennis.
I agree, but that's not what my post is about. It's about the slam distribution. Nole's distribution is often praised while Rafa's is criticized. I was showing that other than Rafa being much more dominant at his favorite slam, their distributions are very similar.

It may change in the future, but right now Nole's distribution is more similar to Rafa's than it is to Federer's.
 
Why not H2H between the two players if the slam count is equal? Does that not fit your narrative? You also didn't mention YE # 1 is there a reason for that?
H2H is much further down the list than weeks #1 or M1000, because H2H is like double counting. You've already been credited for the victory with a title. Moreover H2H is too likely to be skewed based on uneven surface meetings and age differences.

YE#1 can be obtained based on winning even one slam or no slams for that matter. Weeks at #1 is what shows true dominance especially if they are consecutive.
 

Rago

Professional
Djokovic; he's Fed's natural successor. Novak is there at the business end of tournaments all the way from from the AO to the ATP Finals.

But Nadal winning more wouldn't bother me as much either (compared to a couple of years back).

A guy has got to be a giant to win 7 best of 5 matches in a row 20 times in his career (regardless of surface).
 
H2H is much further down the list than weeks #1 or M1000, because H2H is like double counting. You've already been credited for the victory with a title. Moreover H2H is too likely to be skewed based on uneven surface meetings and age differences.

YE#1 can be obtained based on winning even one slam or no slams for that matter. Weeks at #1 is what shows true dominance especially if they are consecutive.
Yes, I agree that H2H is further down the list that weeks at # 1 or M1000. But beating a player in a matchup doesn't guarantee a title unless it is a final so it is not really double counting. It is taking the two players record against each other into account when all other major factors are even.

Speaking of double counting. YE # 1 seems relevant in many other sports (i.e. who is the champion of that season). Are you happy that 6 - 8 weeks gets added to the tally of whoever is the YE # 1 even though no tennis is played?
 
Yes, I agree that H2H is further down the list that weeks at # 1 or M1000. But beating a player in a matchup doesn't guarantee a title unless it is a final so it is not really double counting. It is taking the two players record against each other into account when all other major factors are even.

Speaking of double counting. YE # 1 seems relevant in many other sports (i.e. who is the champion of that season). Are you happy that 6 - 8 weeks gets added to the tally of whoever is the YE # 1 even though no tennis is played?
Most of the top players' meetings are semis or finals. And if a nobody is waiting in the final (which is likely if 2/3 top players met in the semi, see Anderson at 2018 or Ferrer at FO13), it's pretty much a guaranteed title - so yes it really is double counting.

Other sports generally don't have rolling rankings, that's what distinguishes tennis. In other sports everyone starts at zero again in the new year.
 
Let's face it though, Nadal got the raw end of the deal when it comes to surface distribution. His weakness is hard court, which is 75% of the year. Federer's is clay, which is only 2 months and 1 Slam, while Djokovic's is either clay or grass (he's the most balanced player of the three). So being weak on hard court while his rivals are HC GOATs does put him at a disadvantage.
The current surface distributions for slams were extant when Nadal began playing. Clay and grass have always been seen as extremes whereas hardcourtd are somewhat neutral.
 
Djokovic for 22. I think he deserves it most, having beat Fed numerous times in their most important matches with basically zero support to earn his slams.

Nadal should get 21
Fed can be #3 (in slam count)
 
Most of the top players' meetings are semis or finals. And if a nobody is waiting in the final (which is likely if 2/3 top players met in the semi, see Anderson at 2018 or Ferrer at FO13), it's pretty much a guaranteed title - so yes it really is double counting.

Other sports generally don't have rolling rankings, that's what distinguishes tennis. In other sports everyone starts at zero again in the new year.
So head to head is is somehow double counting because of titles won, but you are ok with the off-season weeks going onto the weeks at # 1 total?
 
So head to head is is somehow double counting because of titles won, but you are ok with the off-season weeks going onto the weeks at # 1 total?
It's not a question of being okay with it, it's just how it is. Off season weeks at whatever ranking you are at applies to everyone equally, so it doesn't really matter. That's a fact. There is no comparison of that with double counting wins in H2H and titles, it's apples and oranges.
 
It's not a question of being okay with it, it's just how it is. Off season weeks at whatever ranking you are at applies to everyone equally, so it doesn't really matter. That's a fact. There is no comparison of that with double counting wins in H2H and titles, it's apples and oranges.
So H2H doesn't apply to everyone equally?

Djokovic beating Nadal at the 2015 RG didn't lead to a title
Nadal beating Federer at the AO in 2011 didn't lead to a title
Nadal beating Federer at the AO in 2014 didn't lead to a title
Nadal beating Djokovic at Wimby 2007 didn't lead to a title
Federer beating Djokovic at RG 2011 didn't lead to a title
Federer beating Djokovic at USO 2009 didn't lead to a title
Djokovic beating Federer at USO 2010 didn't lead to a title
Djokovic beating Federer at RG 2012 didn't lead to a title

H2H is certainly not double counting titles
 
So H2H doesn't apply to everyone equally?

Djokovic beating Nadal at the 2015 RG didn't lead to a title
Nadal beating Federer at the AO in 2011 didn't lead to a title
Nadal beating Federer at the AO in 2014 didn't lead to a title
Nadal beating Djokovic at Wimby 2007 didn't lead to a title
Federer beating Djokovic at RG 2011 didn't lead to a title
Federer beating Djokovic at USO 2009 didn't lead to a title
Djokovic beating Federer at USO 2010 didn't lead to a title
Djokovic beating Federer at RG 2012 didn't lead to a title

H2H is certainly not double counting titles
Now figure out how many of their wins did lead to titles. You've listed a few matches. The vast majority of their H2Hs led to titles, thus for the most part it is double counting more than it is not.
 
Now figure out how many of their wins did lead to titles. You've listed a few matches. The vast majority of their H2Hs led to titles, thus for the most part it is double counting more than it is not.
Of course some of the wins will lead to titles, but there is enough that don't to throw out your proposal that H2H and titles is double counting, that is about a smart as saying that Rafa won the non-existent 2005 Shanghai Masters
 
Top