FEDAL-Try to be Objective

[wangs78]

Roger is the GOAT with the simple reason being that he has not depended on a single surface for a majority of his titles/results. Don't get me wrong, Rafa's achievements on clay are out of this world. But a GOAT needs to be someone who is equally feared on all surfaces, and for most of his career, this was the case for Roger. I fully expect Rafa to keep narrowing the gap between them in the Slam count, and perhaps even surpassing Roger, but Roger's broader achievements, his style of play, the fact that he has been in 90% of all the big epic matches of the last 15 years and just what he has done for the sport by fighting an uphill battle against Rafa and Djokovic for 10 years, is something that Rafa cannot touch.

 

[AceSalvo]

Objectivity says:
Nadal has won 5 majors against those who never won a slam, a whopping 31%.
Federer has won 4 such majors at a lowly 21%.


Objectivity says:
Nadal won 10 majors at his favorite surface, a whopping 63%.
Federer has won 8 such majors at a lowly 42%.


Objectivity says:
Federer is the greatest and the most accomplished Grand Slam player.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Fed played a bunch of slamless no marks that couldn't challenge him and a slam winning guy capable of catching fire on his day. Nadal played a bunch of slamless no marks that couldn't challenge him and a slam winning guy capable of catching fire on his day. There's little to no difference. Man, Fed's damn opponent in the final was CRYING mid match, Lmao.

Where there is a difference is Fed's blatently easier competition throughout his career, especially 2004-2007. It's so damn obvious that Fed has had easier competition and the OP shouldn't have even needed to break it down like he did. People with common sense would just acknowledge it.

Little to no difference between Rublev/Anderson and Raonic/Berdych? You rate all Slamless players equally just so Nadal's US Open win wouldn't look like a cakewalk even compared to Federer's Wimbledon and all other past cakewalks in tennis. Can you be any more desperate?

I will be among the first ones to say that Federer's peers weren't so amazing, especially a certain American that was owned endlessly. But those years weren't so bad at all. 2010 was probably more crap than any of those during Fed's domination. This year is an utter nightmare. When you combine the fact that Fed and Rafa have had each other to deal with for for a huge part of their career, while the surfaces Federer prefers have more depth than Nadal's, it probably evens out in the end. Or at least it's close.

 

[The Green Mile]

You get a much better picture of a slam run if you watch the winners whole tournament (if you can find the matches of course). His level and his opponents level, tactics employed, execution, etc. Too many people looking at names and rankings on Wikipedia.

 

[jussumman]

If posters could try and put their tribal loyalty to one side and just try and discuss this just as tennis fans it would be great. What do we think is the more impressive record in slam finals, and why?

FEDERER
Philippoussis
Safin
Roddick
Hewitt
Roddick
Agassi (age 35)
Baghdatis
Nadal (age 20)
Roddick
Gonzalez
Nadal (age 21)
Djokovic (age 20)
Murray
Soderling
Roddick
Murray
Murray
Nadal (age30)
Cilic

NADAL
Puerta
Federer (age 25)
Federer (age 26)
Federer (age 27)
Federer (age27)
Federer (age 28)
Soderling
Berdych
Djokovic (age 23)
Federer (age 29)
Djokovic (age 25)
Ferrer
Djokovic (age 26)
Djokovic (age 26)
Wawrinka
Anderson

Umm most of these are on clay

 

[killerboi2]

Little to no difference between Rublev/Anderson and Raonic/Berdych? You rate all Slamless players equally just so Nadal's US Open win wouldn't look like a cakewalk even compared to Federer's Wimbledon and all other past cakewalks in tennis. Can you be any more desperate?

It might as well have been Rublev and Anderson... it wouldn't have made a difference. None of those guys played good enough to challenge Federer or any top player in form. He beat them all in straights, they didn't take anything out of him. And by the way, Del Potro has a superior head to head against all of the no marks that Fed faced at Wimbledon except Raonic (1-2 losing h2h), beat Federer on route to Nadal and has won a slam. So yeah he was a superior opponent to any of the guys that Fed faced.

 

[tennis_crazy]

This clearly shows that Nadal won most of his slams against prime Federer and prime Djokovic. Federer just accumulated a lot of slams before his 2 main rivals were in their prime and against weaker opposition. Federer may be more successful in terms of quantity but Nadal is clearly the goat in terms of quality and quantity combined.

What is the big deal in beating your pigeon at your backyard??
On the other end getting slaughtered by a ton of weak era journey man??
Either way you look at it Bull is full of Bull....
His latest slam is a testimony of this....
Never in history has anyone won a slam beating not a single top 25 ....Just pathetic MGOAT!!

 

[metsman]

Well I didn't say he was good in the 3rd set, it was the only dip from him in the match though. He made a few more errors, I think he lost concentration and decided to focus on the 4th where he went up a break.

Hewitt carried over his 2nd set play into the first game or two of the third and almost broke Fed, but he raised his game big time and then just steamrolled Hewitt the rest of the set.

 

[killerboi2]

Done some more research about the Nadal weak draw USO 2017. So 2 of Fed's supposedly stronger opponents (Dimitrov and Berdych) were directly wrecked by Nadals supposedly weaker opponents - Rublev and Dolgopolov. But the plot thickens... both actually shared the same mugs early on (Dolgopolov and Lajovic). What that all of this tell us? That these guys are all equally useless when it comes down to it. Any Fed fan seriously trying to claim that his Wimbledon draw was harder than Nadal's USO draw to a significant factor is out of his mind.

 

[ADuck]

Definitely an interesting idea these ratings of final opponents. But besides the obvious flaw of bias towards one's favourite player I see one major issue:

The level of your opponent is highly impacted by your own level of play, as well as strategies and match-ups. Both Roger and Rafa are experts at making their opponents play bad, and they win just as many matches that way as they do by purely outplaying them. So a player may appear to be playing at a poor level, when in fact it's actually the opponent that makes him look bad.

Very fair point and i'm sure i'm somewhat guilty in underrating Fed's opponents here, but it is a two way street as you pointed out.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Done some more research about the Nadal weak draw USO 2017. So 2 of Fed's supposedly stronger opponents (Dimitrov and Berdych) were directly wrecked by Nadals supposedly weaker opponents - Rublev and Dolgopolov. But the plot thickens... both actually shared the same mugs early on (Dolgopolov and Lajovic). What that all of this tell us? That these guys are all equally useless when it comes down to it. Any Fed fan seriously trying to claim that his Wimbledon draw was harder than Nadal's USO draw to a significant factor is out of his mind.

The brain thickens.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

It might as well have been Rublev and Anderson... it wouldn't have made a difference. None of those guys played good enough to challenge Federer or any top player in form. He beat them all in straights, they didn't take anything out of him. And by the way, Del Potro has a superior head to head against all of the no marks that Fed faced at Wimbledon except Raonic (1-2 losing h2h), beat Federer on route to Nadal and has won a slam. So yeah he was a superior opponent to any of the guys that Fed faced.

Who cares about Del Potro's H2H with guys in Fed's draw? Like seriously, how is that important at all? The other Nadal worshipper claimed Del Potro's achievements in the past year means he was a tough opponent for Nadal. LOL! While you guys will go into details to describe Cilic's performance in the Wimbledon final as well as bash Hewitt and Murray regularly, you use some very idiotic excuses for Nadal's opponents when they played poorly. Very hypocritical and desperate.

 

[killerboi2]

The brain thickens.

You're gonna have to come up with better than that. Fed fans have been saying how awful Nadal's draw was, saying it's the worst of all time, yet 2 of his opponents beat 2 of Federer's supposedly stronger opponents? How do you explain that?

Who cares about Del Potro's H2H with guys in Fed's draw? Like seriously, how is that important at all?

Because he is better than every single player Fed faced, yet Federer fans have been saying Nadal's draw is worst of all time. Doesn't quite add up.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

You're gonna have to come up with better than that. Fed fans have been saying how awful Nadal's draw was, saying it's the worst of all time, yet 2 of his opponents beat 2 of Federer's supposedly stronger opponents? How do you explain that?

I don't need to explain it.

If you take this approach then the talks about weak eras and H2Hs are meaningless.

It is the "you beat who is in front of you" approach which works for me.

Unfortunately some people want to have their cake and eat it too.

 

[NatF]

Done some more research about the Nadal weak draw USO 2017. So 2 of Fed's supposedly stronger opponents (Dimitrov and Berdych) were directly wrecked by Nadals supposedly weaker opponents - Rublev and Dolgopolov. But the plot thickens... both actually shared the same mugs early on (Dolgopolov and Lajovic). What that all of this tell us? That these guys are all equally useless when it comes down to it. Any Fed fan seriously trying to claim that his Wimbledon draw was harder than Nadal's USO draw to a significant factor is out of his mind.

You did some research...so I guess that means you didn't watch much tennis this year right?

I'm convinced that half of you guys don't watch tennis today let alone from years back.

 

[killerboi2]

I don't need to explain it.

If you take this approach then the talks about weak eras and H2Hs are meaningless.

This was 2 months after. And no this approach doesn't really contradict weak era or H2H. All these guys are equally useless against top players and i've shown you proof that Nadal's awful competition was more than capable of beating Federer's awful competition. They are all mugs... that's why it is a weak era.

You did some research...so I guess that means you didn't watch much tennis this year right?

I'm convinced that half of you guys don't watch tennis today let alone from years back.

Another Fed worshipper dodging the question and bringing up personal attacks... By the way weren't you one of the guys constantly repeating Hewitt was better than Murray even though he clearly wasn't? Yeah sounds like you really watch tennis, lmao.

 

[chut]

Nadal wins a slam through an extremely weak draw. Just when you think they would be celebrating, some of his fans start yet another "weak era" offensive.

That probably means they're still annoyed by something. Maybe the fact that Nadal is still #2 to Federer? Take it easy guys, your boy still has achieved quite a lot, you should be happy you did as much, no?

 

[NatF]

Another Fed worshipper dodging the question and bringing up personal attacks... By the way weren't you one of the guys constantly repeating Hewitt was better than Murray even though he clearly wasn't? Yeah sounds like you really watch tennis, lmao.

Hewitt is around Murray's level on grass and faster HC. He just didn't have the same long term consistency due to injuries. Murray is clearly greater.

You didn't even ask a proper question anyway

 

[Tennis_Hands]

This was 2 months after. And no this approach doesn't really contradict weak era or H2H. All these guys are equally useless against top players and i've shown you proof that Nadal's awful competition was more than capable of beating Federer's awful competition. They are all mugs... that's why it is a weak era.

What happens when Nadal loses to the same players you already announced to be rubbish?

Asking to set the record straight.

 

[killerboi2]

What happens when Nadal loses to the same players you already announced to be rubbish?

Asking to set the record straight.

Nadal has proven himself capable of beating both Federer and Djokovic, and not just once or twice either.9-3 over Federer in slams, 9-4 over Djokovic. Also there is a 16 slam difference between him and these mugs. How can the argument apply to him?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Nadal has proven himself capable of beating both Federer and Djokovic, and not just once or twice either.9-3 over Federer in slams, 9-4 over Djokovic. Also there is a 16 slam difference between him and these mugs. How can the argument apply to him?

If he loses then he wasn't able to survive the rubbish players that represent the weak era.

Same argument as yours just applied to Federer draws with Nadal in them.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Because he is better than every single player Fed faced, yet Federer fans have been saying Nadal's draw is worst of all time. Doesn't quite add up.

Del Potro is a better player than them but nobody in Nadal's draw played as well as Raonic and especially Berdych did against Federer. It's not rocket science.

 

[killerboi2]

Del Potro is a better player than them but nobody in Nadal's draw played as well as Raonic and especially Berdych did against Federer. It's not rocket science.

Neither of them could even win a set. If they did play better than it wasn't by much and definitely not to the extent that Federer fans can brag about how weak Nadal's draw was compared to his. At least some of Nadal's opponents actually managed to win sets.

 

[NatF]

Neither of them could even win a set. If they did play better than it wasn't by much and definitely not to the extent that Federer fans can brag about how weak Nadal's draw was compared to his. At least some of Nadal's opponents actually managed to win sets.

Nothing to do with the fact Federer was better at Wimbledon than Nadal was at the USO?

I guess Daniel and Mayer are better players than anyone Federer faced right...

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Neither of them could even win a set. If they did play better than it wasn't by much and definitely not to the extent that Federer fans can brag about how weak Nadal's draw was compared to his. At least some of Nadal's opponents actually managed to win sets.

Berdych clearly played better than anyone Nadal faced, giving Federer a good fight for 2.5 sets.

Everyone else is quite the same, though. Raonic giving a well-playing Federer one tough set = Delpo giving a well-playing Nadal one tough set (winning it probably had to do with a dead netcord return winner on BP; no such luck for Raonic). Zverev giving an average Federer one tough set = Mayer giving an average Nadal one tough set. Lajovic giving a rusty Federer one tough set = Lajovic giving a rusty Nadal one tough set. Daniel also gave Nadal one tough set, but Berdych beats that clearly.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Neither of them could even win a set. If they did play better than it wasn't by much and definitely not to the extent that Federer fans can brag about how weak Nadal's draw was compared to his. At least some of Nadal's opponents actually managed to win sets.

Because Federer at Wimbledon and Nadal at the US Open are challenges of similar difficulty.

 

[killerboi2]

Berdych clearly played better than anyone Nadal faced, giving Federer a good fight for 2.5 sets.

Everyone else is quite the same, though. Raonic giving a well-playing Federer one tough set = Delpo giving a well-playing Nadal one tough set (winning it probably had to do with a dead netcord return winner on BP; no such luck for Raonic). Zverev giving an average Federer one tough set = Mayer giving an average Nadal one tough set. Lajovic giving a rusty Federer one tough set = Lajovic giving a rusty Nadal one tough set. Daniel also gave Nadal one tough set, but Berdych beats that clearly.

Saying the Berdych match was close would be like saying Raonic vs Murray 2016 Wimbledon final was close (it wasn't). Murray still won pretty comfortably even though it looked close on paper. Did anyone really think that Berdych had a chance throughout the match? Lmao.

Nothing to do with the fact Federer was better at Wimbledon than Nadal was at the USO?

I guess Daniel and Mayer are better players than anyone Federer faced right...

Nadal would have beaten any player Federer played, convincly as well (in fact he did on two occasions). Nadal played amazing at the later stages and would have absolutely DESTROYED Mugdych, Cilic and Raonic if he had faced them at USO.

 

[NatF]

Nadal would have beaten any player Federer played, convincly as well (in fact he did on two occasions). Nadal played amazing at the later stages and would have absolutely DESTROYED Mugdych, Cilic and Raonic if he had faced them at USO.

Doubt he would have beaten them at Wimbledon though when they were in better form - Cilic's injury notwithstanding.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Roger is the GOAT with the simple reason being that he has not depended on a single surface for a majority of his titles/results. Don't get me wrong, Rafa's achievements on clay are out of this world. But a GOAT needs to be someone who is equally feared on all surfaces..

Good point. If you remove Federer's pet major, Wimbledon, he still has 11 left.

But if you do the same for Nadal, removing the French Open, he only has 6 left.

Nadal has never come close to matching Federer's season-long consistency and peak era dominance. Kudos to Djokovic though for being amazing in that regard.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Saying the Berdych match was close would be like saying Raonic vs Murray 2016 Wimbledon final was close (it wasn't). Murray still won pretty comfortably even though it looked close on paper. Did anyone really think that Berdych had a chance throughout the match? Lmao.

Berdych kept every set competitive until 4-2 in the 3rd (Federer going up a break), that's what 'close' means. Besides that, the tiebreaks were not 100% a foregone conclusion. I was a bit nervous at 4-3 in the first set TB. The second TB was NID after Federer went up 5-1, but he did so by playing some amazing stuff (which I remember clearly); the only area where Berdych choked was missing 1st serves (pretty big, yeah, but not immediately damning). Besides that, Berdych actually threatened to go up a break in sets 2 and 3 - Federer hit a superb passing shot to save a BP in the 2nd set, and four amazing serves in a row to hold from 15-40 down in the 3rd.

Point is, Berdych did not give up until the very end, so he was a quality opponent even if ultimately he lacked a higher gear to be a real danger. That cannot be said for anyone Nadal faced this USO...

 

[shankster]

Good point. If you remove Federer's pet major, Wimbledon, he still has 11 left.

But if you do the same for Nadal, removing the French Open, he only has 6 left.

Nadal has never come close to matching Federer's season-long consistency and peak era dominance. Kudos to Djokovic though for being amazing in that regard.

Djokovic has just 6 slams outside of his best slam too.

 

[Spencer Gore]

Thanks for all the replies guys. They were great to read, and I would agree with those who replied objectively -which I know is hard!- that Nadal's final victories are, by some measure, more impressive. But you can only beat who is in front of you, and Federer has done that 19 times. The record books won't show the standard of the opposition or the age of the all-time greats he defeated.

 

[abmk]

Doubt he would have beaten them at Wimbledon though when they were in better form - Cilic's injury notwithstanding.

killerboi2 is almost as bitter as 90s clay, only not remotely funny --- which really is not a good combo

 

[abmk]

Fed also had to face in form Kiefer and Ferrero at Wimby 05, think that makes it tougher than 2010.

I hadn't watched the ferrero match, just saw the highlights over here

damn , ferrero played some fine tennis, including quite a few great shots, this time on grass.

I checked the stats as well :

Federer had 95 winners+FEs to just 22 UEs
Ferrero had 76 W+FEs to just 19 UEs

those are really good stats.

https://web.archive.org/web/2005063...on.org:80/en_GB/scores/stats/day8/1113ms.html

Just another one of those under-rated matches from the 2004-07 time frame and another one of those in-form opponents that Federer took care of in straight sets.
This was probably Ferrero's best match on grass, yes ?

 

[metsman]

I hadn't watched the ferrero match, just saw the highlights over here

damn , ferrero played some fine tennis, including quite a few great shots, this time on grass.

I checked the stats as well :

Federer had 95 winners+FEs to just 22 UEs
Ferrero had 76 W+FEs to just 19 UEs

those are really good stats.

https://web.archive.org/web/2005063...on.org:80/en_GB/scores/stats/day8/1113ms.html

Just another one of those under-rated matches from the 2004-07 time frame and another one of those in-form opponents that Federer took care of in straight sets.
This was probably Ferrero's best match on grass, yes ?

Yeah Ferrero was a legit opponent in that match. Mediocre first set but played pretty much the best he could the last two sets and Federer had to clutch things out. Federer's DTL FH was seriously cooking and his first serve was excellent. Mixed in some nice all court play. Ferrero was very strong off the ground and really attacked Fed's 2nd serve. If Federer had given him some room to breath he could have easily taken either of the last 2 sets. Extremely strong match from Federer. Didn't really make any big mistakes besides getting broken serving for the third set, while also playing quite aggressively. Probably one of his 10 best on grass.

I remember this match well, 2nd set Federer broke on a marathon game hitting some great shots, then played very well on serve. Third set Federer played a great game to break but then got a little tight and gave it back. Tiebreak, Ferrero did nothing wrong, played quite well but Federer really dialed up the forehand at the end to take it.

Ferrero also played Federer very close the first two sets Wimby 07, although Fed was a little rusty from the rain, but then Ferrero capitulated the last 2 sets.

Ferrero took to the slower grass extremely well with his clean strokes, had 3 nice runs at Wimby 05/07/09. If the chicken pox and whatever else hadn't killed his stamina/quickness he would have been an all surface player 04-07. Ferrero was a damn good player at his best, I enjoyed watching him play. It's really a shame what happened to him. He could have really spiced things up on clay as Nadal entered the fray and would have been a solid HC contender as well.

 

[Roddick85]

Just another one of those under-rated matches from the 2004-07 time frame and another one of those in-form opponents that Federer took care of in straight sets.
This was probably Ferrero's best match on grass, yes ?

I love watching those 2004-07 Federer highlights. So many quality old school Fed stuff on YouTube these days. The way Fed was dismantling opposition and how hard he was hitting his groundstrokes is a beautiful thing to see. I still don't get why the "tennis analyst" community still tries to sell current Federer has better than ever when people have access to these videos, it's clear that Fed from these days was 2-3 level above anything Fed has been in the last 5+ years.

 

[Roddick85]

Done some more research about the Nadal weak draw USO 2017. So 2 of Fed's supposedly stronger opponents (Dimitrov and Berdych) were directly wrecked by Nadals supposedly weaker opponents - Rublev and Dolgopolov. But the plot thickens... both actually shared the same mugs early on (Dolgopolov and Lajovic). What that all of this tell us? That these guys are all equally useless when it comes down to it. Any Fed fan seriously trying to claim that his Wimbledon draw was harder than Nadal's USO draw to a significant factor is out of his mind.

I would say they both had very weak draws and rather "easy" road to the title. Players don't control the draw or who they play against so I think it'd be pretty dumb to blame them for facing weak oppositions or to try to devalue the title. Fact of the matter is, they won the 7 matches required to get to the title, so it is what is it. As time will pass by, I don't think anyone will really remember these slams as being memorable because not a single match really standouts from a quality stand point. Sure the hardcore fan base of either players may remember some matches here and there where they thought their player was playing amazing, but generally speaking, the tennis community will remember the epic 5 set battles that could go either way or keep you on the edge of your seat, especially when it happens in the later stages of tournaments (SF/F), not the straight set affairs/another day at the office type of matches which is what this year's Wimbledon & USO turned out to be.

 

[Roddick85]

If we're trying to be objective about Fedal here, then we have to mention that both players clearly benefited from the absence/injuries of Djokovic/Murray/Wawrinka and the lack of opposition from the "lost generation" which resulted in weak draws and an overall subpar playing field. This made both Federer & Nadal look a lot better than what they really are, boosting their confidence along the way. When a 36 years old can comeback from a 6 months break, after knee surgery and a questionable back, and then win a slam right away, it's both impressive and worrisome. If he can then take off for a couple of months right in the middle of the season and win another slam, what does that really say? Just how good or should I say bad is the current tour? Nadal has had a rough patch since his body broke down in 2014, tons of fans were willing to send him packing into retirement because he was losing early left and right for over 2 years, injuries were piling up, and then he suddenly starts making slam finals again, splits the slam victories with Federer? Did I mention both of these players are over 30 years old and have a ton of tennis mileage from going deep in every tournament they entered for the better part of the last 10+ years? Players may become wiser with age, but the inevitable physical decline doesn't magically improve overnight. Nadal is nowhere near the player he once was 10 years ago and neither is Federer. If the "lost generation" would've been strong enough, these 2 would've been pushed out the door and 2017 would be quite different.

Given their legendary status, with a Fedal dominance, you would think this would've been an exiting year for tennis, however it's been one of the most boring ones in recent years. As I said in a past post, tennis fans remember the epic matches, the long 5 setters with great shotmaking. Save for the AO 2017 final (which is a bit overrated IMO) and the FO SF (Wawrinka/Murray), 2017 really fail to deliver anything worth remembering, even if the 2 greatest players of all time won.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Given their legendary status, with a Fedal dominance, you would think this would've been an exiting year for tennis, however it's been one of the most boring ones in recent years. As I said in a past post, tennis fans remember the epic matches, the long 5 setters with great shotmaking. Save for the AO 2017 final (which is a bit overrated IMO) and the FO SF (Wawrinka/Murray), 2017 really fail to deliver anything worth remembering, even if the 2 greatest players of all time won.

There were actually a lot of nice matches in the first part of the year - exciting five-setters, epic upsets, tense BO3 3-setters. But since the clay season, the quality dropped somehow, besides Nadal's, then Federer's, then again Nadal's dominance, with few tight matches between good players on display.

 

[Roddick85]

There were actually a lot of nice matches in the first part of the year - exciting five-setters, epic upsets, tense BO3 3-setters. But since the clay season, the quality dropped somehow, besides Nadal's, then Federer's, then again Nadal's dominance, with few tight matches between good players on display.

Indeed. The beginning of the year until the end of the sunshine double was probably the most exciting period we had this year. In BO3 format, we had some good matches, with Federer & Wawrinka having interesting ones in IW, and the emergence of Kyrgios during IW and Miami, actually Federer/Kyrgios match in Miami was entertaining. But at the slam level, besides the SF/F match of the AO and that single match I pointed out at the FO, nothing entertaining. To me, the grass season was a huge letdown. I was actually hoping Federer/Dimitrov would deliver an exciting match but that failed to materialize.

 

[Rago]

Updated parts(cliffs and other "significant" wins) of my original post after reading through.

Not a bad thread actually; quite surprised to be honest.

 

[Sudacafan]

Indeed, the fact Del Potro was gassed after some tough matches and had the flue earlier in the week makes it all the more impressive.

Del Potro's natural state is gas(sed).

 

[abmk]

Just for the finals, on a 1-10 rating scale:

Taking into consideration the level of Fed/Nadal/Djokovic.
To be specific: This includes stuff like winning one of the 1st 2 sets is more imp than winning a set after being 2 sets to love down.
previous rating had: probability of winning had they been able to grab close sets based on Fed/Nadal/Djokovic level, am removing that factor here

Sticking to diff of 0.5 minimum for now, else could've gone with 0.25 to differentiate further. (Rounding up the 0.25 cases)

I'd go something like this.

First, the slam finals won:

Federer ->

Scud Wim 03: 6.5/10
Safin AO 04 : 5/10
Roddick Wim 04 : 9/10
Hewitt USO 04 : 4/10
Roddick Wim 05 : 5/10
Agassi USO 05 : 7/10
Baghdatis AO 06 : 6/10
Nadal Wim 06 : 7/10
Roddick USO 06 : 7/10
Gonzalez AO 07 : 7.5/10
Nadal Wim 07 : 9.5/10
Djokovic USO 07 : 7/10
Murray USO 08 : 4/10
Soderling RG 09 : 5.5/10
Roddick Wim 09 : 9.5/10
Murray AO 10 : 5.5/10
Murray Wim 12: 7.5/10
Nadal AO 17: 8/10
Cilic Wim 17 : 3.5/10
Cilic AO 18 : 7/10

Total = 131/200, Average = 6.55

Nadal ->

Puerta RG 05 : 7.5/10
Federer RG 06 : 7.5/10
Federer RG 07 : 7.5/10
Federer RG 08 : 3.5/10
Federer Wimbledon 08 : 9.5/10
Federer AO 09 : 9/10
Soderling RG 10 : 5/10
Berdych Wim 10 : 5/10
Djokovic USO 10 : 7/10
Federer RG 11 : 7.5/10
Djokovic RG 12 : 7.5/10
Ferrer RG 13 : 5/10
Djokovic USO 13 : 7/10
Djokovic RG 2014 : 6.5/10
Wawrinka RG 17 : 4/10
Anderson USO 17 : 4/10
Thiem RG 18: 5/10
Thiem RG 19: 6.5/10
Med USO 19: 7/10
Djoko RG 20: 4/10

Total = 125.5/200, Average = 6.275

Djokovic ->

AO 08 : tsonga - 7.5/10
AO 11 : murray - 4/10
Wim 11 : nadal - 6.5/10
USO 11 : nadal - 7/10
AO 12 : nadal - 9/10
AO 13 : murray - 6/10
Wim 14 : federer - 8/10
AO 15 : murray - 6.5/10
Wim 15 : federer - 7/10
USO 15 : federer - 7.5/10
AO 16 : murray - 4.5/10
RG 16 : murray - 4.5/10
Wim 18 : anderson - 4/10
USO 18 : delpo - 5.5/10
AO 19 : nadal - 4.5/10
Wim 19 : federer - 8/10
AO 20 : thiem - 7/10

Total = 107/170, Average = 6.294


Slam finals lost :

Federer ->

Nadal RG 06 : 9.5/10
Nadal RG 07 : 10/10
Nadal RG 08 : 10/10
Nadal Wim 08 : 9.5/10
Nadal AO 09 : 9.5/10
Delpo USO 09 : 8.5/10
Nadal RG 11 : 9/10
Djokovic Wim 14 : 9/10
Djokovic Wim 15 : 9.5/10
Djokovic USO 15 : 8/10
Djokovic Wim 19 : 7.5/10

Total in finals lost= 100/110 = 9.09 on an average

Nadal ->

Federer Wim 06 - 10/10
Federer Wim 07- 9.5/10
Djokovic Wim 11 - 9/10
Djokovic USO 11 - 9/10
Djokovic AO 12 - 9/10
Stan AO 14 - 8.5/10
Fed AO 17 - 8.5/10
Djokovic AO 19 - 10/10

Total in finals lost= 73.5/80 = 9.19 on an average

Djokovic->

USO 07 : federer - 8.5/10
USO 10 : nadal - 9/10
RG 12 : nadal - 10/10
USO 12 : murray - 7.5/10
Wim 13 : murray - 7.5/10
USO 13 : nadal - 8.5/10
RG 14 : nadal - 9/10
RG 15 : stan - 9/10
USO 16 : stan - 7/10
RG 20: nadal - 9.5/10

Total in finals lost= 85.5 /100 = 8.555 on an average

 

[Lew II]

Slams won without beating one of the 3 highest ranked opponents:

Federer 10
Nadal 4
Djokovic 0

 

[Lew II]

Just for the finals, on a 1-10 rating scale:

Taking into consideration the level of Fed/Nadal/Djokovic.
To be specific: This includes stuff like winning one of the 1st 2 sets is more imp than winning a set after being 2 sets to love down.
previous rating had: probability of winning had they been able to grab close sets based on Fed/Nadal/Djokovic level, am removing that factor here

Sticking to diff of 0.5 minimum for now, else could've gone with 0.25 to differentiate further. (Rounding up the 0.25 cases)

I'd go something like this.

First, the slam finals won:

Federer ->

Scud Wim 03: 6.5/10
Safin AO 04 : 5/10
Roddick Wim 04 : 9/10
Hewitt USO 04 : 4/10
Roddick Wim 05 : 5/10
Agassi USO 05 : 7/10
Baghdatis AO 06 : 6/10
Nadal Wim 06 : 7/10
Roddick USO 06 : 7/10
Gonzalez AO 07 : 7.5/10
Nadal Wim 07 : 9.5/10
Djokovic USO 07 : 7/10
Murray USO 08 : 4/10
Soderling RG 09 : 5.5/10
Roddick Wim 09 : 9.5/10
Murray AO 10 : 5.5/10
Murray Wim 12: 7.5/10
Nadal AO 17: 8/10
Cilic Wim 17 : 3.5/10
Cilic AO 18 : 7/10

Total = 131/200, Average = 6.55

Nadal ->

Puerta RG 05 : 7.5/10
Federer RG 06 : 7.5/10
Federer RG 07 : 7.5/10
Federer RG 08 : 3.5/10
Federer Wimbledon 08 : 9.5/10
Federer AO 09 : 9/10
Soderling RG 10 : 5/10
Berdych Wim 10 : 5/10
Djokovic USO 10 : 7/10
Federer RG 11 : 7.5/10
Djokovic RG 12 : 7.5/10
Ferrer RG 13 : 5/10
Djokovic USO 13 : 7/10
Djokovic RG 2014 : 6.5/10
Wawrinka RG 17 : 4/10
Anderson USO 17 : 4/10
Thiem RG 18: 5/10
Thiem RG 19: 6.5/10
Med USO 19: 7/10
Djoko RG 20: 4/10

Total = 125.5/200, Average = 6.275

Djokovic ->

AO 08 : tsonga - 7.5/10
AO 11 : murray - 4/10
Wim 11 : nadal - 6.5/10
USO 11 : nadal - 7/10
AO 12 : nadal - 9/10
AO 13 : murray - 6/10
Wim 14 : federer - 8/10
AO 15 : murray - 6.5/10
Wim 15 : federer - 7/10
USO 15 : federer - 7.5/10
AO 16 : murray - 4.5/10
RG 16 : murray - 4.5/10
Wim 18 : anderson - 4/10
USO 18 : delpo - 5.5/10
AO 19 : nadal - 4.5/10
Wim 19 : federer - 8/10
AO 20 : thiem - 7/10

Total = 107/170, Average = 6.294


Slam finals lost :

Federer ->

Nadal RG 06 : 9.5/10
Nadal RG 07 : 10/10
Nadal RG 08 : 10/10
Nadal Wim 08 : 9.5/10
Nadal AO 09 : 9.5/10
Delpo USO 09 : 8.5/10
Nadal RG 11 : 9/10
Djokovic Wim 14 : 9/10
Djokovic Wim 15 : 9.5/10
Djokovic USO 15 : 8/10
Djokovic Wim 19 : 7.5/10

Total in finals lost= 100/110 = 9.09 on an average

Nadal ->

Federer Wim 06 - 10/10
Federer Wim 07- 9.5/10
Djokovic Wim 11 - 9/10
Djokovic USO 11 - 9/10
Djokovic AO 12 - 9/10
Stan AO 14 - 8.5/10
Fed AO 17 - 8.5/10
Djokovic AO 19 - 10/10

Total in finals lost= 73.5/80 = 9.19 on an average

Djokovic->

USO 07 : federer - 8.5/10
USO 10 : nadal - 9/10
RG 12 : nadal - 10/10
USO 12 : murray - 7.5/10
Wim 13 : murray - 7.5/10
USO 13 : nadal - 8.5/10
RG 14 : nadal - 9/10
RG 15 : stan - 9/10
USO 16 : stan - 7/10
RG 20: nadal - 9.5/10

Total in finals lost= 85.5 /100 = 8.555 on an average

LOL you seriously gave Roddick a 9.5 and a 9 rating, and to Federer and Nadal a 3.5 and a 4.5 rating...

 

[abmk]

Slams won without beating one of the 3 highest ranked opponents:

Federer 10
Nadal 4
Djokovic 0

Goes to show diversity of the field in the 2000s.

OTOH, worst gen and new gen (so far) doing nothing much worth talking about -> (so miuch of weak era adv for Djoko&Nadal compared to Federer)

slams won by beating ATG level 4+ year younger players ->

Federer: 6 (Wim 06, Wim 07, USO 07, USO 08, Wim 12, AO 17)
Nadal: 0
Djokovic: 0

heck,

slams won by beating atleast Hewitt/Murray/Wawrinka level 4+ year younger players ->

Federer: 7 (Wim 06, Wim 07, USO 07, USO 08, AO 10, Wim 12, AO 17)
Nadal: 0
Djokovic: 0

 

[abmk]

LOL you seriously gave Roddick a 9.5 and a 9 rating, and to Federer and Nadal a 3.5 and a 4.5 rating...

given how they played in those respective matches, yeah.
I also gave Roddick 5/10 for Wim 05 final.
But then you wouldn't know sh* about evaluating level of play considering you don't watch much at all, would you?

 

[Lew II]

given how they played, yeah.
But then you wouldn't know sh* about evaluating level of play considering you don't watch much at all, would you?

So if I watch those matches in front of you, I will be entitled to give Roddick a 0 rating and Fedal a 10 rating?

 

[Fedinkum]

Well...variety can be tricky.

I mean I have to defend Fed...

 

[abmk]

So if I watch those matches in front of you, I will be entitled to give Roddick a 0 rating and Fedal a 10 rating?

I'm talking about sane people, people without a ****ty agenda like you.

Fed played cr*p in RG 08 final. And so did Nadal in AO 19 final.
Roddick played great in Wim 04 and Wim 09 final

I also put Thiem of RG 2019 as 6.5/10 - above Fed of RG 08 final and Nadal of AO 19 final
Similarly for Thiem of AO 2020 final - 7/10 - above Fed of RG 08 final and Nadal of AO 19 final

I also put Roddick of Wim 05 final as 5/10.

It has nothing specific to do with Roddick.